Lance Armstrong's Oprah Interview May Have Included a Big Fat Lie??
Wow, just wow. As if it Lance Armstrong's confessions about doping weren't bad enough, now, investigators told ABC News today that the cyclist may have blatantly lied to Oprah during their super-hyped Thursday night interview. What the ...?!
As you probably heard or saw, he admitted to O for the first time that he was taking performance-enhancing drugs and oxygen-boosting blood transfusions throughout his decade-long career and to help him score seven wins in the Tour de France. To Oprah, Armstrong wanted to confess to everything he had done wrong, including his denial of reports that he had doped. But investigators say that during this big chance to come 100 percent clean, Armstrong was actually untruthful about when he stopped doping.
Armstrong said the last time he used was 2005, and he even noted how upset he was by the accusation that he was doping beyond that. To quote:
That's the only thing in this whole report that upset me. The accusation and alleged proof that they said I doped [in 2009] is not true. The last time I crossed the line, that line was 2005.
Oprah clarified, "You did not do a blood transfusion in 2009?" To which Armstrong responded, "No, 2009 and 2010 absolutely not." Okay, then. But investigators said today that the cyclist's blood values in the 2009 race showed clear blood manipulation consistent with two transfusions -- of mature red blood cells.
It's kinda befuddling, right? If you're going to go to the extent of going on TV and sitting down with Oprah to admit you totally screwed up, why only come 80 percent clean? Why undermine all of your confessions and apologies by not telling the whole truth?
Well, investigators say that Armstrong's lying about the 2009 race may be an effort to protect himself criminally. If federal authorities are goign to prosecute criminal cases, they look back at the "last overt act" in which the crime was committed. And if Armstrong last doped in '05, not '09, the statute of limitations may have expired on potential criminal activity. Oh. Boy.
For now, there's no whisper of any sort of criminal investigation being reopened (although he still faces at least three civil suits). But who knows ... Seems to me that if he really was blatantly lying to Oprah, even if there are expired statutues of limitation, investigators will find a way to nail him on this. If he really did sit there on national TV and lie AGAIN, then just ... wow ... it's straight-up cringe-worthy to think that he could get away with it.
Can you believe this?! Do you think he lied?