Yesterday’s announcement that Lance Armstrong will break his media silence with a 90 minute interview, undertaken by Oprah, brought a reaction that could be characterised as significantly underwhelmed and perhaps more cynical.
Many see the interview as little more than a PR move, aimed to get Lance on the road back into the hearts of "Middle America". There is no vehicle more suited, or desired, for that journey than an appearance on Oprah’s couch. Tears in the eyes are optional, but recommended.
The reaction from journalists on this side of the Atlantic was more “prove me wrong” than “wait and see” and a similar vein of low key contempt for the whole affair coursed through much of the commentary in the US. The creeping, and barely concealed, undercurrent appears to be a fear that Armstrong might be about to undertake his most public deception yet. An emotional appearance on Oprah’s couch, a finely phrased litany of justifying and unavoidable personal factors for his doping (but no mention of the additional offences to those around him) and an apology a la Marion Jones in 2008 and Armstrong could be on the fast track back to hero status in the eyes of millions.Some would find that hard to accept.
Below are a sample of the reactions and the video of Oprah’s 2008 video with US athlete, and convicted doper, Marion Jones. The Jones interview is Exhibit A in the case against Oprah Winfrey being able, or willing, to satisfactorily undertake an exclusive, in depth interview with a figure such as Armstrong.
Daily Telegraph
“On any sensible reading of next week’s 90-minute Oprah Winfrey sit-down, tears will roll, victim status will be staked out and personal damage limitation will outweigh cycling’s need to know how far up the scale corruption spread.
The most pressing need now is to see whether any of the sport’s rulers were involved, through complicity or cover-up.
For that reason Oprah is hardly the right priest for Armstrong to be 'confessing’ to.
The interview panel should start with police and state attorneys.”
Wall Street Journal
“Oprah time is not harshly-lit, painful awkwardness. Oprah envelops you in Oprah-ness. She asks. You talk, because it's Oprah Winfrey. And Oprah listens. This is comforting…So Lance Armstrong is going to talk to Oprah. Next Thursday, Jan. 17, on Winfrey's channel, OWN. This should not surprise anyone. Armstrong is a public figure amid a consuming scandal and Winfrey offers a chance to reboot. Lance Armstrong wasn't going to sit for "60 Minutes" or "Dateline" or "E! True Hollywood" or "Wheel of Fortune" or any of the many legitimate cycling publications that have covered his career since he was a Speedo-wearing triathlete sprite. Those opportunities were there and plentiful but they could not deliver what Oprah Winfrey delivers, which is Oprah Winfrey herself. Winfrey's camp has said there are no conditions or prohibited questions on the Lance time—and this is very good—but what surely matters most to Armstrong is that he'll be sitting with Oprah, and not just Oprah, but Oprah's audience. It was always going to be Oprah. It just made the most sense.”
The Times
The news that Lance Armstrong has agreed to a 90-minute interview with Oprah Winfrey is fascinating in itself. But until he answers the questions – next week, Friday morning, 2am GMT – the very fact that he has made this commitment itself raises numerous other questions. Will he confess? That is what this is all about.”
The Guardian
“Armstrong's appearance on Oprah follows a pattern that is pretty clear to those who have followed cycling's seemingly interminable run of drug scandals since Virenque and Festina. There is a well-established sequence: denial for a lengthy period as confrontation with the evidence intensifies, followed by eventual confession, or, more accurately, a mitigated acceptance of reality. Usually, the final phase is redemption of a kind.
That is what he will be hoping for, with hints from the US of pressure being applied over the damage being done to the Livestrong charity in particular.
It would be better to describe the process as being one of concession rather than confession and it is almost always done on terms that fit the agenda of the individual in question, be it a book deal (Willy Voet, Tyler Hamilton) or a rapid return to the sport (Ivan Basso). Armstrong's agenda is the same: damage limitation, so what we should expect is pretty much what we have seen in the past.”
Washington Post
“A few baleful looks of regret in his steely blue eyes, a drip or two of remorse, a flash of anger directed at those who exposed him or a give-me-a-hug speech about how recent months have been tough on his family would be compelling television, because watching once powerful people squirm always is. But talking to Winfrey won’t be of considerable help to the fight against doping, for his sport or even to any hopes Armstrong may have of perhaps one day being freed of his lifetime ban from competition.”
Vanity Fair
“He will most likely have to reveal some kind of trauma or insecurity that explains the “years of accusations and cheating” and “charges of lying” that Oprah promises will be covered. He will have to appear sincere and regretful. And he will have to play defense to Oprah’s lachrymal-gland- focused offense—which may be especially aggressive considering the pair’s past sharing family guacamole recipes and spandex color themes.”
