I'll keep this brief and expound a little more on my podcast, coming soon.
As a coach I used Lance Armstrong's success as an example of what can be achieved by being disciplined and utilizing sport science.
I'd tell my athletes, "this guy is the best in the world and look how much time he spends in the exercise lab. His training is managed via sport science. He tests lactate, VO2, heart rate wattage, and does strength training. This is why he's so good."
Indeed there was a steady supply of lab reports extolling Armstrong's extraordinary lactate tolerance via his livers capacity to recycle lactate, and his lung capacity. His training sessions intensity were guided by lactate, heart rate, and wattage, even internal body temperature via a high tech thermometer in a pill he swallowed.
Of course, these measures are legitimate, sport science works, but it now appears Armstrong may have been using the public release of this level of detail of his training methods as part of his deception.
Distract people from the doping charges by citing his above average attention to detail to sport science and nutrition as an explanation for beating the dopers.
The image projected was that Lance was far more prodigious in his use of sport science than any other athlete. No doubt good training made him a better performer, but the 'little' detail that was missing is that he was also cheating with drugs, and that in reality, this is where he gained an advantage, an unfair, unscrupulous advantage.
He acted like he was the super human the sports science stories reported him to be, and as it turns out he treated others like garbage if they didn't do his bidding to back his phoney character. So he's a cheater, a fake, and a bully.
The cancer story was heart felt and compelling. I was personally inspired by this. So was my breast cancer surviving mother, so were millions world wide. Personal improvement that people made for themselves through being inspired by Armstrong are still good, It's too bad though that in the end he was shown to be a mere demagogue.
What I'm saying is that if someone made their life better via the Armstrong affect, then their life is still better, Armstrong's personal disintegration should not diminish any good that John Q and Susie Q public made for themselves, they simply were inspired to do better, they didn't know the guy was a phoney. Armstrong bad; inspired people good.
However, all the products that Armstrong endorsed were sold on a phoney pretence. He sucked in a lot of people who were willing to spend their money on his namesake.
Lance Armstrong acted like a pimp in how aggressively he threatened and went after his drug using prostitutes (teammates) for not performing their duties, and for making them work for him during the tour. He pimped out himself, selling his likeness wherever he could to make a buck, all based on a manipulative scam.
I'm not shedding any tears and don't feel emotionally devastated.
I am disappointed though, not only in Armstrong, but in the management of pro cycling and how dirty the sport is, and how there is so much pressure and desire to cheat amongst athletes, coaches, and managers.
Lance seemed like his usual non-contrite self during part one of the interview.
I'm not sure if he gets the humanity side of things, but I'm positive he gets how he needs to play his doping admission the way he's played and controlled everything else in his life to benefit him.