In an ironically appropriate twist, Lance Armstrong’s presumed PED confession will be a stimulant for OWN, Oprah Winfrey’s network. In the last two years, since she stepped away from her uber-popular talkshow, OWN has struggled to find an audience, in part because she is not part of the basic cable package and her visage on television requires people to pay extra each month to watch her. At the same time, the network’s earnings have steadily increased in the last two years – though nothing near to the astronomical profits generated by her original talk show. [source]
As The Guardian suggests, “he level of anticipation suggests that Winfrey-Armstrong may join Frost-Nixon on a list of key television confrontations, one that also includes Michael Parkinson and Muhammad Ali (BBC1, 1971), Princess Diana and Martin Bashir (BBC1, 1995), Melvyn Bragg and the dying playwright Dennis Potter (Channel 4, 1994) and Governor Sarah Palin and Katie Couric (CBS, 2008).” [source] Winfrey certainly expects this interview to match those in viewership, given her network’s announcement that the interview will be spread out over two nights.
However, how much should we anticipate this interview? The phonebook-sized tome of evidence that was ultimately delivered into Armstrong’s lap did not appear out of the blue. Rather, there have been accusations of his PED use since his first Tour de France win after coming back from cancer. And how much sympathy or understanding should we have for someone who — after years of acccusations — is finally cornered so deeply that he must confess? Should we treat him like Steve Rogers in Captain America and look at his virtual physical engineering as a means to a greater end. For Rogers, it was getting the Fuhrer. For Armstrong, ostensibly, it was to battle cancer and give hope to those going through a similar fight. Should this be whitewashed? Or, should we see this as a facade that covers a man bent on his own narcissism?
Truthfully, I’m not sure this interview will answer many of these questions. In effect, it might just make the situation more convoluted. Sure, it’ll appease those who might have doubts, but it most likely won’t dissuade those in the anti-Armstrong camp, much like it won’t turn those in the pro-Lance army.
So, why are we watching? On the one hand, it might be about our culture of Schadenfreude. On the other, it offers some wacky keywords on which to center drinking games.
Word One: PED / Performance Enhancing Drugs
Perhaps this interview will be less a confessional and more of a defense. Certainly, he will admit to “doping,” but I’m sure that the rampant drug use throughout the sport will be cited. (Fun fact: no winners could be awarded Armstrong’s vacated titles because the second- and third-place finishers were also indicted in the doping scandal.) This may be less of an exoneration and more of a justification for how he needed to level the playing field.
Word Two: Playing field
This leads us directly in to why he might feel the need to keep things wonkily “fair.” Having battled through chemotherapy and cancer, there is no denying that Armstrong is a survivor regardless of his current plight with the Anti-Doping Agency. That said, it’s likely this interview will also be used to remind folks of his philanthropic money-raising that resulted in billions of dollars in cancer support.
Word Three: Cancer
This word, above all else, will keep Armstrong’s reputation from being completely shattered. Like I said before, it’s hard to believe that any decent-sized majority (or minority for that matter) believed that Armstrong was completely clean. Those people would probably believe that Bonds, Sosa, and Clemens legitimately extended the primes of their careers into their late thirties.
Word Four: USPS / United States Postal Service / Nike
This interview needs to heal some wounds and extinguish some smoldering bridges, so it’s likely that he will be – in his own egotistical way – trying to make amends with his sponsors. Like Nike did in the Tiger Woods scandal, they took a hit for turning a blind eye. This might even tarnish them a touch more because it was obvious Armstrong was doping; it wasn’t obvious that Woods was an adulterer. Nike’s choice to be in league with both Armstrong and Woods in the last few years could be detrimental to their pathos. (Look no further for a reason as to why they have just signed the clean-looking, boyish Rory McIlroy to a gigantic contract.)
Bonus round:
Take a shot at the end of the interview if Armstrong doesn’t say “I’m sorry that…,” a wonderfully sympathetic sounding phrase that qualifies itself by shifting the blame to someone else.
