Lance Armstrong's legacy: what people are talking about on the web

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/15/lance-armstrong-legacy-four-topics-smarttakes

Version 0 of 1.

As soon as Lance Armstrong announced that he would be going on Oprah to talk about his fall from grace, we began to ponder. We imagined the questions Oprah Winfrey probably asked -- the Guardian's Barney Ronay gave his not-so-tongue-in-cheek guesses here -- and what she should've asked.

Though we caught glimpses of forgiveness on Twitter from people willing to overlook Armstrong's doping because of his charity work, the overarching belief seems to be that Armstrong got what he deserved. Below, we've grouped what we think are the four main themes being explored about Armstrong ahead of his chat with Oprah, which airs on Thursday.

Yes, that big chat with Oprah

Among the most-read stories by Guardian readers Tuesday morning was Oprah Winfrey's debriefing of her chat with Armstrong. Here's a snippet of what she had to say to CBS This Morning:

A couple times he was emotional but emotional doesn't begin to describe the intensity and the difficulty he had talking about these issues.

Also check out Matt Seaton's piece on Armstrong's apparent cost-benefit analysis of confession.

Does his charity work endear him at all?

This piece by John Crace examines Armstrong's address to his Livestrong charity staff. Whether or not Armstrong uttered the word "sorry," Crase writes that he now takes his place among a pantheon of infamous non-apologists, including Diego Maradona.

The word "sorry" – even if said insincerely – carries a sense of personal responsibility. The word "apologise" is much more ambivalent, as it suggests the possibility of some confusion over culpability. As for "regret" ... well that's something even more arm's length.

Outside magazine has published this long read examining what, exactly, the millions of Livestrong dollars funded during Armstrong's reign.

How did it take Armstrong so long to get caught?

CNN's John Sinnott and Tom McGowan published this long read on Armstrong's legacy, focusing on the long-held suspicions the cycling industry had of Armstrong, even as he won Tour de France titles and raised nearly $500 million through his cancer charity Livestrong:

Armstrong is expected to face up to the extraordinary body of evidence the United States Anti-Doping Agency put together before releasing more than 1,000 pages of evidence in October 2012.

A positive test for a banned substance during his first Tour de France win in 1999 was explained away by a prescription for a cream to treat saddle sores, but the doubts and rumors surrounding Armstrong refused to go away.

What did he do that was worse than doping?

Forbes writer Patrick Rishe says Armstrong's bullying of team members was worse than the act of doping itself:

I don't begrudge Mr. Armstrong the millions he earned in a sport where most of his competitors were also getting a synthetic enhancement to their performance.

I do, however, agree with Mr. Wetzel that he owes considerably more apologies to the people he tried to intimidate and bully while trying to maintain his lucrative sponsorships and his perch atop the cycling world.

Michael Wolff, for his part, thinks the real crime was media manipulation:

Armstrong has been meticulously investigated, found guilty, and stripped of all his awards, standing, and reputation. He's now pretty much the last word in steroids. And, to boot, we've discovered that he really isn't very nice: he's sports' nastiest guy. But he is taping with Oprah for a much anticipated show on which he will admit that he's a doper. And everybody, at least everybody in the media, is on the edge of their seats.

Add to our reading list by sharing your favorite news and commentary on Lance Armstrong on Twitter using #SmartTakes