Scepticism surrounds news that Lance Armstrong will appear on Oprah Winfrey on January 17th for an 'exclusive no-holds-barred' interview. Perhaps she should look at what happens if a question is not deemed appropriate Youtube Kimmage/Armstrong link
Whilst there have been so many blogs, tweets and editorials condemning him to the point some people simply don't want Armstrong the privilege of oxygen of publicity, especially where there is no guarantee of confession and contrition for the damage done to the sport of cycling, there have been internet tails of the bigger donors of the cancer charity 'Livestrong' pressurising him for some form of statement.
David Millar, caught 'with his hand in the cookie jar' (quoting Armstrong himself regarding Millar's drugs bust) is now a fervent anti-drugs campaigner, and a member of the athletes commission for the World Anti-Doping Agency WADA) and fears it will be completely stage-mananged. "Only Lance would get to have his moment of truth, if that's what it will be, in front of Oprah Winfrey" he tells the Telegraph Millar fears for Interview.
Will there be an immediate fallout with The Lawmen waiting outside should Armstrong reveal that there had actually been cases of perjury in the past when he is alleged to have lied under oath-rather than deciding to tell 'the truth' like he may be about to confess to 'Live on television'?
 |
| Paul Kimmage questions Armstrong at Tour of California, 2009 |
It will take place on his home turf in Austin, Texas.
It will not be 'Live' says Nicole Nichols of Winfrey's OWN cable TV network, and Armstrong is not getting paid.
He will have no editorial control we hear, with no question off-limits (including blood doping, EPO and doping possibly?).
Whilst there have been so many blogs, tweets and editorials condemning him to the point some people simply don't want Armstrong the privilege of oxygen of publicity, especially where there is no guarantee of confession and contrition for the damage done to the sport of cycling, there have been internet tails of the bigger donors of the cancer charity 'Livestrong' pressurising him for some form of statement.
Armstrong has spoken with Oprah previously, in November 2005 with then-fiancee Sheryl Crow Armstrong interview content on Oprah 2005, and she herself signalled the deal this time around on twitter with a comment about looking forward to conversing with Lance Armstrong which he then retweeted, even if his longtime lawyer Tim Herman denied any knowledge of imminent confessions just last week.
Is it important?
Have a read of three of our previous blog items, two of which have come in the wake of the detailed revelations in the 'Reasoned Decision' from USA Drugs Agency and the excellent David Walsh book 'Seven Deadly Sins'.
Walsh himself, Chief Sports Writer of the Sunday Times, is quoted in a BBC piece as saying "Maybe conditions will be set, but if there's going to be a confession worthy of the name it should be a complete confession. I don't believe he can do this interview and offer nothing, I believe he will make an admission to doping." BBC What will be the fallout of Interview?
Will there be an immediate fallout with The Lawmen waiting outside should Armstrong reveal that there had actually been cases of perjury in the past when he is alleged to have lied under oath-rather than deciding to tell 'the truth' like he may be about to confess to 'Live on television'?
In the meantime, here's what happens if an interview turns bad...
Ex-disullusioned professional cyclist turned journalist & author speaks to Lance Armstrong at a Press Conference in February 2009 on Armstrong's return to the sport. He has fellow cyclists and admitted dopers George Hincapie and Levi Leipheimer at his side.
"You're not worth the chair you're sitting on..."
The interview airs worldwide on www.oprah.com as well as on her tv channel, January 17th.
Anyone watching?
No comments:
Post a Comment