Well, I'm not sure that was worth getting up for. By which I mean that by the end we knew more, but none of it was really worth knowing. We learnt that Armstrong doped to win races, but we all pretty much knew that already. Even the deniers knew it in their hearts. We learnt that he denies doping since 2005 which is, conveniently, the point at which the US Statute of Limitations on perjury kicks in to cover his his denials. I doubt even he believes that, but that's a matter for the courts. And nastiest, we had learnt what we also already knew: that Armstrong's a sociopathic, narcissistic bully with the morals of the gutter. It's not about the bike: it's about him. He dismissed his vile abuse of Betsy Andreu (someone I would want in my corner in a fight) and Emma O'Reily (who did nothing wrong other than be honest and true). In the latter case, he pretended to not even remember what he'd done. In each case, his self-obsession meant that he believed that his mere apology made things right, and he implied that they were unreasonable for not accepting that at face value. It was like some hideous 12-step nonsense (he'd talked about "process" at the outset); under the guise of "making amends" narcissists make hollow apologies, and then blame their victims for not accepting them. It's a manipulative technique at the heart of 12 steps: it's not my fault that they hate me for what I've done, haven't I apologised? He also tried to blame it on his "flaws". He was flawed, and therefore lacked moral agency, so didn't have any choice. Sophocles unpicks that in his plays, and Shakespeare gives it no credence, so it's as though Armstrong hasn't read a play written in the past two and a half thousand years. Yes, he was flawed, but that doesn't mean he didn't make choices. It's as though his desire to "win" excused, and excuses, any excess, any abuse, any assault on others. Winfrey has the journalistic credibility of Hello magazine, and the whole thing was obviously staged. Armstrong had clearly been given the questions in advance, and given the way in which some topics weren't followed up had presumably had final cut on the interview. Confused, self-contradictory stories (especially about Betsy Andreu's testimony but also whatever happened in Switzerland) weren't followed up, and the contradictions weren't challenged. This was Frost-Nixon as Nixon envisaged it, not as Frost managed it: soft questions, poor followup, heavy editing, final cut. But what came over, unintentionally, was what an appalling man Armstrong is, and how he clearly lives in a house with no mirrors. In his mind, all he did was what he had to do. We should move on, shouldn't we? ian