Lance-a-Lot Chat Raises Questions

By now, most people are likely at least somewhat aware of former champion cyclist Lance Armstrong’s recent ‘confessions’ to Queen Oprah. The details of his cycling sins and sanctions against him are well-known and don’t bear repeating here.

Yes, he told Oprah, he used performing enhancing steroids, other drugs and blood transfusions to help him race better than if he hadn't been a dope on dope. 

No, he would not have been the champion that he was, without the drugs. 

Yes, he was a bully and not very nice.

When asked by Oprah if he cheated, Armstrong waffled. He said he has looked up the definition of cheating in a dictionary and suggested he didn't really fit that particular definition--so he doesn't think he cheated in his dope-filled racing years. 

Purging for Profit?

When I first learned Armstrong was supposedly going to ‘tell all’ and bare his soul on national television, I wondered if this would all seem somehow anticlimactic since there already seems to be a mountain of evidence against him from his cheating cycling days; evidence that has already led to him losing all of his cycling awards.

What was there was going to be in all of this for him? Surely, I thought, he won’t publicly admit to the drugging allegations just out of the goodness of his heart; just to be a good guy. After all, he’s had a long time to do the ‘right thing’ and tell the truth if that, in fact, was his priority in talking with Oprah. So, why now?

Possibilities

Considering the confessional mode Armstrong seems in now, it helps to keep in mind that most celebrities—singers, actors, athletes, and other notables in the public eye—usually don’t ‘come clean’ about anything personal unless they have an agenda, hidden or otherwise.

They usually have something to gain, such as trying to enhance their reputation for some intangible reason, or to enhance their image because they have something tangible to sell—a book, movie, record, concert tour, or the like. Normally, the release of those kinds of products is typically timed to coincide with the person’s public confession, or at least sometime soon afterwards.

Penance or Propaganda?

With these things in mind, we can wonder about Armstrong’s recent cozy chat with Oprah. I imagined there surely would be something self-serving about whatever he said during the ‘O’ sessions. Then, shortly before the first segment of the interview aired, more than one online news site reported he wants to compete again, and apparently was hoping his public self-flogging would open the door for that to happen.

Ah ha, I thought, there it is: Armstrong might be hoping the authorities and public will sympathize with him for being so brave and honest about his cheating while cycling; which most other people suspected anyway. If so, he could be banking on the public and the authorities thinking he just made a few innocent mistakes and deserves another chance, so everyone will be on his side again, not against him anymore.

And all Armstrong had to do with Oprah was swallow his ego and pride a little and ‘open up,’ to use the current nauseating media lexicon for celebrity interviews-confessionals. I say ‘nauseating’ because when these folks ‘open up’ it’s almost always contrived when they have something to gain; like they’re pimping themselves out for profit.

Paying the Price

Shortly after reading about Armstrong’s apparent goal of competing professionally again, I also learned that a biographical movie about him is in the works. If so, will he benefit financially from the alleged proposed film? 

In confessing to Oprah was he laying the groundwork for upcoming publicity for the alleged film, to soften his image? If such a film is pending, Armstrong’s mea culpa via Oprah could be considered self-serving. 

Is the supposed film being produced by independent filmmakers who have no other connection to Armstrong? Is he involved in the production—and therefore potentially well-served by his act of contrition with Oprah?

Helping Hands

We also might wonder if Oprah actually sympathizes with Armstrong and was purposely trying to help him restore his tattered reputation—while knowing his appearance would also boost the supposed sagging image of her own OWN network—tit for tat? 

Oprah is known as a great sympathizer and recognizes a good T.V. moment when she smells one. She’s also an entertainer, not a hard-nosed journalist. So, her approach in speaking ‘candidly’ with Armstrong on national television might be different from that of an experienced journalist trying to get to the bottom of a story.   

More or Less

Regardless of the eventual merits or disadvantages of the recent Lance-a-Lot-Oprah session, we can wonder if Armstrong will or can stop there. Will he button his lip except perhaps to speak with authorities about his now-admitted drug use while cycling—to demonstrate he really wants to do the right thing by openly discussing that ugly part of his professional past during those years?

Or will he continue demonstrating that his actions seem designed to portray him as the victim—as when he previously sued and verbally attacked those who, we now know, correctly claimed he took performance enhancing drugs while cycling?

Turning a Page

Ultimately, will Lance Armstrong be so enthralled by the attention and publicity from his recent verbal dance with Oprah that he’ll want or need more of the same? 

Can we expect to see his ‘candid’ memoir—which might already be printed, under a blanket of secrecy--in bookstores soon, essentially timed in tandem with the ‘Oprah effect’? 

In this sense the last chapter of Armstrong’s time in the limelight likely hasn't been written yet.