Confessions of a Brute

Published in L'Express
(France) on 18 January 2013
by Philippe Coste (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Lindsey Cambridge. Edited by Natalie Clager.
The show lasted a good hour and a half, peppered with syrupy commercials which paid full price for super primetime. The spectacle was troublesome. Whether Lance Armstrong admits from the beginning that his amazing story was a “big lie,” a deception nourished by the explosive cocktail of mega cheaters, the reveal won’t herald the grand theater of American redemptions but another more common show. It is a show in which the accused in a “docudrama” is in search of a deal with his accusers, or an almost criminally insignificant bargain, organized for his own immediate profit and that of the Oprah Winfrey Network.

Armstrong knows that at any moment his confessions could earn him a lawsuit as well as a damaging puncture to a fortune estimated at $100 million. Here’s the dilemma: By admitting his lies question after question and not without reticence, (“I don't even [know]. I'm sure we did.") the fallen champion hopes to wipe the slate clean and get another chance to leave a mark on the sports world. But he has wronged, bashed and dragged through the mud too many of the less famous and wealthy forced to testify against him. The resentment of his former devotees, their ongoing vengeance and their pack of lawyers are like a lead weight on the interview.

When Oprah asked him if he forced his teammates and his subordinates to take drugs, as several witnesses have affirmed, his responses alternated between outright denial and flimsy concessions. "No. I guess I could have but I never did. I was the leader of the team and the leader leads by example.”* Doping was the team’s agreement and Armstrong in fact seems to revisit onscreen, without soul-searching or excessive remorse, a bill of specifications that far exceeded the sport in order to “win-at-all-costs.” “I went in and just looked up the definition of cheat and the definition of cheat is to gain an advantage on a rival or foe that they don't have. I didn't view it that way. I viewed it as a level playing field.” And now?

"I don't feel good. I was just on the attack. The territory was being threatened. The team was being threatened. I was on the attack," he acknowledges concerning the horrible treatment, the lawsuits, the insults and the defamation campaigns inflicted on the team masseuse as well as Betsy Andreu, the wife of his former teammate Frankie Andreu, who, in 1996, had heard Armstrong admit to the usage of EPO in front of the doctors treating his cancer. He called both of them in order to present his apologies and, since civil suits are in progress, try to mitigate the damage. But his eyes still shine with shame when the name Floyd Landis is mentioned. The disloyal snitch? The unforgiveable squealer? “Do I have remorse? Absolutely. Will it grow? Absolutely. This is the first step and these are my actions. I am paying the price, but I deserve it,” he concedes. Oprah’s show incorporated extracts from interviews with cold denials under oath. His code of honor escapes us.

*Editor’s note: This quote is actually in response to the question “If someone was not doing something to your satisfaction, could you get them fired?”


Confessions d’une brute

Le spectacle a duré une bonne heure et demi, lardée de pubs sirupeuses payées au prix fort du super prime time. Et le spectacle était pénible. Si Lance Armstrong admet d’entrée que sa formidable histoire était un « grand mensonge »,  une illusion nourrie par le cocktail détonant des méga tricheurs, ce levé de rideau n’annonce même pas le grand théâtre des rédemptions à l’Américaine ; mais un autre show plus courant, celui des inculpés de « docu-dramas » en quête d’un deal avec les accusateurs, un marchandage quasi pénal sans envergure, organisé à son seul profit immédiat, et celui de l’ Oprah Winfrey Network.

Armstrong, à chaque seconde, sait que ses aveux peuvent lui valoir un procès civil de plus, une ponction infamante dans une fortune estimée à 100 millions de dollars. D’où le dilemme : en admettant ses fraudes, question après question et non sans réticences (« là, non, je ne me souviens pas très bien… ») le champion déchu espère effacer l’ardoise, obtenir à un moment ou un autre le droit de reprendre un strapontin dans le monde du sport, de saisir une aspérité propice à une ascension ultérieure. Mais il a trop fait de mal, trop cogné pendant une décennie, trop traîné dans la boue les malheureux moins connus et moins nantis contraints de témoigner contre lui. La rancoeur de ses anciens inconditionnels, leur vengeance en cours, leurs meutes de lawyers, pèsent comme une chape de plomb sur l’interview.

Lorsque Oprah lui demande si ses coéquipiers, et ses subordonnés, de l’équipe étaient contraints, par lui, de se doper comme lui,  comme l’affirment plusieurs témoignages, ses réponses alternent entre les dénégations outrées et les concessions filandreuses, « Je n’étais ni le président, ni mais Il est vrai que j’étais le leader et dirigeais par l’exemple. C’était un milieu compétitif… ». Le dopage était le pacte de l’équipe, et Armstrong semble en fait revisiter à l’écran, sans états d’âmes ni remords excessifs, un cahier des charges qui dépassait de loin le sport pour viser « la victoire à tout prix. Le plus effrayant, c’est que je n’avais pas l’impression de tricher à l’époque ». Et maintenant ?

« Vous entrez sur mon territoire ? J’attaque » reconnaît-il, pour justifier le traitement ignoble, les procès, les insultes et les campagnes de diffamation infligées à la pitoyable masseuse de l’équipe, autant qu’à Betsy Andreu, l’épouse de son coéquipier Frankie Andreu, qui l’avait entendu, en 1996, reconnaître l’usage d’EPO devant les médecins traitant son cancer.  Il les a appelées, toutes deux, pour présenter ses excuses, et, puisque des procédures civiles sont en cours, tenter de limiter la casse.
Mais ses yeux brillent toujours de haine lorsque résonne le nom de Floyd Landis. Le mouchard déloyal ? La balance impardonnable ?   « J’ai pris mes décisions et ce sont mes erreurs » concède t-il. Oprah a truffé son show d’extraits de ses interviews, de ses froides dénégations sous serment. Son code de l’honneur nous échappe.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Mexico: The Kirk Paradox

Turkey: Dismembering Syria, Bombing Gaza: Can Trump Finally Veto Neocons?

Austria: The Showdown in Washington Is about More Than the Budget

Germany: It’s Not Only Money That’s at Stake: It’s American Democracy

Mexico: Trump’s Climate Denialism vs. Reality

Topics

Russia: Trump Essentially Begins a ‘Purge’ of Leftist Regimes in Latin America*

Mexico: Trump’s Climate Denialism vs. Reality

Turkey: Dismembering Syria, Bombing Gaza: Can Trump Finally Veto Neocons?

Sri Lanka: Israel-Hamas Truce: Trump’s Peace Push-Dividends or Deception?

Germany: Cooly Calculated: Trump Constructs Authoritarian Realities

Germany: The Main Thing Is That the War Stops

Germany: It’s Not Only Money That’s at Stake: It’s American Democracy

South Korea: Trump: ‘I’ve Never Walked into a Room So Silent Before’

Related Articles

France: Donald Trump’s Dangerous Game with the Federal Reserve

France: Trump Yet To Make Progress on Ukraine

France: Tariffs: The Risk of Uncontrollable Escalation

France: Donald Trump’s Laborious Diplomatic Debut

France: Trump’s Greenland Obsession