The world waits for Lance Armstrong’s interview with Oprah to be aired, no doubt with some guarded admission that something was done wrong, no doubt with wording carefully designed to keep him out of jail for perjury. I’m expecting explanations from Armstrong as tortured as “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is….”
But what I’m not expecting is one of his lawyers to apologize for their role in all this. Besides being paid to take their client’s interests to heart, lawyers are usually more circumspect in how they word things than the criminals and dopers they represent.
Once there is an admission of guilt by their client, of any kind, however guarded, how do we ever again take seriously those who so went on the offensive for Armstrong?
Take a moment and read this gem from October, when denials were still the order of the day:
I’ll try to come back and pull out a few quotes, and compare them to Armstrong’s confessional, as I have time.
Update 1: Cool, the Lance Armstrong story ranks a mention in one of my favorite blogs, Retraction Watch: http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/lance-armstrong-in-the-scientific-literature-questions-abound/#more-11889