I think if he did use he should. And has he ever denied it or did he always say "I never tested positive"? (except that one time he did and they claimed it was too old a sample and could have been tampered with)

anyway: i am thinking he did. I do not want him to have... his story is so cool that he needs to be an icon. (most know he had cancer but may not know he was told that it was not treatable but lucky for him he had the money to get treatments that did work.

Now I would say if I was him "the longer you deny it the harder it gets to admit it. The more it 'hurts' those that believed in me...." (like I have said for ages: the cover up is wost than the crime)

The reason they are saying he WILL admit to it is so he can compete in events. (a lifetime ban is way harsh.)

Fury said:

Why would he even feel the need to still compete? He's older now and if he needed to cheat to be competitive back then, these new cyclists will make him look pathetic. Look at how the baseball players perform when they don't juice anymore-- Admit you did it, apologize to all the people you said were lying on you when you were lying and keep it moving

you know they have age groups for these events? and you know that the scoop of his ban is very comprehensive. And despite his guilt he will still draw interest and thus money for his foundation. And I suspect that 'juicing' is very wide spread. his mistake was going for more than 2 wins. By 4 it was oh right...

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I think if he did use he should. And has he ever denied it or did he always say "I never tested positive"? (except that one time he did and they claimed it was too old a sample and could have been tampered with)

anyway: i am thinking he did. I do not want him to have... his story is so cool that he needs to be an icon. (most know he had cancer but may not know he was told that it was not treatable but lucky for him he had the money to get treatments that did work.

Now I would say if I was him "the longer you deny it the harder it gets to admit it. The more it 'hurts' those that believed in me...." (like I have said for ages: the cover up is wost than the crime)

The reason they are saying he WILL admit to it is so he can compete in events. (a lifetime ban is way harsh.)

He's too old to compete, so I don't think it's the ban. Doubt he needs the money either.

If he did use, why should he admit it? The evidence speaks for itself, no admission required.

Telling the world doesn't undo it or make him a better person. At least not for me.

You may not be cheating now, but you cheated and profited from it. Human behavior.

Fury said:

Why would he even feel the need to still compete? He's older now and if he needed to cheat to be competitive back then, these new cyclists will make him look pathetic. Look at how the baseball players perform when they don't juice anymore-- Admit you did it, apologize to all the people you said were lying on you when you were lying and keep it moving

Exactly. Don't need to go on Oprah to do that.

SUPRMAN said:

He's too old to compete, so I don't think it's the ban.

no offence: but you do not seem to know what you are talking about, he can still compete... so yeah it is the ban (maybe not all about the ban but that is a big part of it)

Doubt he needs the money either.

maybe not but his foundation does.

If he did use, why should he admit it?

to get unbanned so he can compete.

The evidence speaks for itself, no admission required.

what evidence? there is NONE. Again no offence but I am not sure you know what you are talking about.

Telling the world doesn't undo it or make him a better person. At least not for me.

You may not be cheating now, but you cheated and profited from it. Human behavior.

I think coming clean is better than not. And again he wants to compete again. I think he may have worked out a deal to get unbanned if he admits to it.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

He's too old to compete, so I don't think it's the ban.

no offence: but you do not seem to know what you are talking about, he can still compete... so yeah it is the ban (maybe not all about the ban but that is a big part of it)

Yo. Read what I said. I said he is too old to compete, not that he can't. He can get out there but he's not winning a race.

Doubt he needs the money either.

maybe not but his foundation does.

I doubt he donated all his winnings to his foundation. I'm sure they have other ways of raising money without him racing. If not, they go defunct and someone else continues the work, or not.

If he did use, why should he admit it?

to get unbanned so he can compete.

So all it takes to race again is a confession? I don't think he has any plans to competitively race again. Maybe charity events, but he's not doing the Tour de France, Tour de Spain, Tour de Italy or Tour de America etc again.

The evidence speaks for itself, no admission required.

what evidence? there is NONE. Again no offence but I am not sure you know what you are talking about.

Come again? Really? See below

U.S. antidoping authorities issued a blistering report Wednesday accusing seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong of being at the center of "a massive team doping scheme, more extensive than any previously revealed in professional sports history."

The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency issued a blistering report accusing seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong of being at the center of "a massive team doping scheme, more extensive than any previously revealed in professional sports history." Photo: Joel Sagat/AFP/Getty Images.

The 202-page report, which includes new testimony from 11 former teammates of Mr. Armstrong, is the culmination of a yearslong and highly contentious investigation into professional cycling and the methods behind the success of one its greatest teams.

Live: The Armstrong Report

Lance Armstrong's lawyer asserted Wednesday that his client has passed 500 to 600 drug tests over the course of his career.

Lance Armstrong's lawyer asserted Wednesday that his client has passed 500 to 600 drug tests over the course of his career.

USADA released its evidence against Lance Armstrong on Wednesday. Follow live updates from WSJ reporters analyzing the documents, and the response from within the cycling world. Armstrong has denied using performance-enhancers. Click here.

USADA Report

View Interactive

Cyclists' Affidavits

Read affidavits from George Hincapie, Levi Leipheimer, Christian Vande Velde, Jonathan Vaughters and David Zabriskie.

View Interactive

• USADA Reveals Details of Investigation

The organization that polices performance-enhancing drug use in American sports will release later Wednesday new details about doping on Lance Armstrong's former cycling team. Reed Albergotti has details on Lunch Break. Photo: Getty Images.

The report was issued by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency in support of its decision in August to ban Mr. Armstrong from competition for life and strip him of his titles. It cited testimony from former teammates of Mr. Armstrong on the U.S. Postal Service cycling team, including George Hincapie, Floyd Landis, Levi Leipheimer, Christian Vande Velde, Jonathan Vaughters and David Zabriskie. All of those riders have now admitted taking banned substances.

Mr. Hincapie, Mr. Armstrong's close friend and teammate during all of his Tour de France wins, broke his silence on the matter Wednesday, issuing a statement in which he confessed to doping and acknowledged providing testimony to investigators.

Fellow Armstrong teammate Mr. Leipheimer, in a letter to The Wall Street Journal, also admitted doping for the first time.

He said that the culture of doping was so ingrained in cycling during his time that he believed it to be "a sport where doping was so accepted that riders from different teams—who were competitors on the road—coordinated their doping to keep up with other riders doing the same thing."

Mr. Armstrong, who couldn't be reached for comment on Wednesday, has steadfastly denied doping during his career. His lawyer, Tim Herman criticized the report, saying, "USADA has continued its government funded witch hunt of only Mr. Armstrong, a retired cyclist, in violation of its own rules and due process."

The report laid out evidence for what USADA said was a vast network of organized doping orchestrated by Mr. Armstrong and a handful of associates. It said that Mr. Armstrong "acted with the help of a small army of enablers, including doping doctors, drug smugglers, and others within and outside the sport and on his team.

However, the evidence is also clear that Mr. Armstrong had ultimate control over not only his own personal drug use, which was extensive, but also over the doping culture of his team."

"It was not enough that his teammates give maximum effort on the bike, he also required that they adhere to the doping program outlined for them or be replaced," the report said.

After Mr. Armstrong was banned from the sport in August, cycling's international governing body, the Union Cycliste Internationale, asked USADA for an explanation of the charges against him.

The resulting report, said USADA Chief Executive Travis Tygart, is meant to shed light on doping and, ultimately, to change the sport's culture. "We have heard from many athletes who have faced an unfair dilemma—dope, or don't compete at the highest levels of the sport," he said.

The report and accompanying affidavits are filled with stories about alleged interactions between Mr. Armstrong, his teammates, team doctors and former team director Johan Bruyneel about using banned methods for boosting performance. Mr. Bruyneel, who was formally charged by USADA in June for allegedly facilitating doping, didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment. His lawyer has previously declined to comment.

The report describes an alleged encounter between Mr. Vaughters, a teammate of Mr. Armstrong, one evening in Mr. Armstrong's hotel room in Spain during the 1998 season. According to the report, which cites Mr. Vaughters's affidavit, Mr. Vaughters watched as Mr. Armstrong "injected himself in front of Vaughters with a syringe used for EPO injections, saying 'Now that you are doing EPO too, you can't go write a book about it.' From that point forward, Armstrong was open with Vaughters about his use of EPO." The use of EPO, which boosts the number of red-blood cells, is banned in cycling and most other sports.

Mr. Armstrong's lawyer asserted Wednesday that his client has passed 500 to 600 drug tests over the course of his career.

Who's Who in the Armstrong Report

View Interactive

The report, however, cited what it said was an array of tactics used by the riders to foil the French police and drug testers, such as burying drugs in the woods to hide them from police, dumping drugs off a ferry and texting one another to warn of surprise visits from drug testers.

The report also said that the riders injected EPO into their veins instead of their skin, so that the drug would leave their bodies faster, reducing the likelihood of a positive test. Some EPO users, it said, diluted their blood with saline injections to mask the effects of EPO from testers drawing blood samples.

It alleged that riders were advised by the team director, Mr. Bruyneel, to not answer the door if a tester showed up after they had used EPO.

The report contained new allegations about the relationship between Mr. Armstrong and Michele Ferrari, an Italian doctor whose name had surfaced in some of cycling's most notorious doping cases but who remained a fixture around Armstrong-led teams for years.

Dr. Ferrari was formally accused by USADA in June of engaging in an a doping conspiracy aimed at ensuring the Postal team would win the Tour de France.

The report cites bank records that it says show that Mr. Armstrong was still connected with Dr. Ferrari after he said publicly in October 2004 that he had severed the relationship.

The report said that bank records show that payments from Mr. Armstrong to Dr. Ferrari's Swiss company, starting in 1996 and most recently in 2006, exceed $1 million. Dario Bolognesi, Dr. Ferrari's lawyer, declined to comment, saying he needed time to review the report.

Mr. Vande Velde, another teammate, said in an affidavit that Mr. Armstrong criticized him for not following Dr. Ferrari's program. Mr. Vande Velde said the conversation left him certain that the only way to escape Armstrong's doghouse was to get fully on board the doping program.

The USADA report said Mr. Armstrong attempted to intimidate former teammates and potential witnesses in the related federal criminal investigation, which was dropped earlier this year.

In an affidavit, Mr. Hincapie, now retired, said that in July 2010, during the Tour de France, Mr. Armstrong suggested to him that he stay in Europe "a little longer" and to "avoid testifying as long as I could."

Former U.S. Postal rider Michael Barry said in his affidavit that Mr. Armstrong emailed him to ask him if he would testify that there was no systematic doping on the U.S. Postal Team. Mr. Barry, who said in his affidavit that there was systematic doping on the team, said he told Mr. Armstrong to contact his lawyer.

Mr. Leipheimer said in his affidavit that he learned from his agent that his contract wouldn't be renewed on Mr. Armstrong's Radio Shack team because Mr. Leipheimer had testified in the federal investigation.

—Ashby Jones, Jared Diamond, Kevin Clark, Scott Cacciola and Stacy Meichtry contributed to this article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444799904578048352672452328.html

Telling the world doesn't undo it or make him a better person. At least not for me.

You may not be cheating now, but you cheated and profited from it. Human behavior.

I think coming clean is better than not. And again he wants to compete again. I think he may have worked out a deal to get unbanned if he admits to it.

How does he "work out a deal" to get unbanned? With who? So if he'd confessed from the start he'd still be racing?!!!!!!

oh when i say he wants to compete I do NOT mean the Tour... but the 1000s of others. Keep in mind they have different categories. Based on age and other factors. The ban includes all kinds of events. Even many of the smaller local ones.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

oh when i say he wants to compete I do NOT mean the Tour... but the 1000s of others. Keep in mind they have different categories. Based on age and other factors. The ban includes all kinds of events. Even many of the smaller local ones.

Feel free to address your point that there is no evidence he cheated. That was in the same post was it not?

You also overlooked how his foundation is funded.

SUPRMAN said:

On]]\s.

Feel free to address your point that there is no evidence he cheated.

as far as I know there was only 1 time when a test came up positive but that was not accepted as evidence was tossed out. So what evidence is there? * I tested postive for a opioid narcotic in the Army! I was yanked from duty and oh they thought they had me on something big! I pointed to the NOTES: where it said "RX for Tylox" They said that would not show that kind of levels. And then I said "did you look at the records of my recent surgery?" I was sent home (they made me walk) for a few days... then all i got told was "you are cleared but let this be a lesson..." A lesson to NOT do what a Major told me to do? So was I a drug abuser too?

That was in the same post was it not?

yeah why? Like I said as far as I know he never failed a test. I did hear he missed a few tests. But keep in mind he was tested all the time, they could call him or show up at anytime and ask for a sample. I think ONE time he was told to give a sample and then they kept him waiting and he left to take a shower or something. I think he won that one at a hearing,

You also overlooked how his foundation is funded.

no i did not. I stated the fact that Lance's participation in events will help generate funds.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

Feel free to address your point that there is no evidence he cheated.

as far as I know there was only 1 time when a test came up positive but that was not accepted as evidence was tossed out. So what evidence is there? * I tested postive for a opioid narcotic in the Army! I was yanked from duty and oh they thought they had me on something big! I pointed to the NOTES: where it said "RX for Tylox" They said that would not show that kind of levels. And then I said "did you look at the records of my recent surgery?" I was sent home (they made me walk) for a few days... then all i got told was "you are cleared but let this be a lesson..." A lesson to NOT do what a Major told me to do? So was I a drug abuser too?

That was in the same post was it not?

yeah why? Like I said as far as I know he never failed a test. I did hear he missed a few tests. But keep in mind he was tested all the time, they could call him or show up at anytime and ask for a sample. I think ONE time he was told to give a sample and then they kept him waiting and he left to take a shower or something. I think he won that one at a hearing,

You also overlooked how his foundation is funded.

no i did not. I stated the fact that Lance's participation in events will help generate funds.

Are you really standing on the fact that he didn't fail a drug test as evidence he didn't cheat?!!!

(Because we have no evidence anyone ever tried to fool or foil a drug test in sports right?!!)

So why was he banned then? That should be wrong, right?

"The 202-page report, which includes new testimony from 11 former teammates of Mr. Armstrong, is the culmination of a yearslong and highly contentious investigation into professional cycling and the methods behind the success of one its greatest teams."

[Edited 1/12/13 10:24am]

SUPRMAN said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Are you really standing on the fact that he didn't fail a drug test as evidence he didn't cheat?!!!

(Because we have no evidence anyone ever tried to fool or foil a drug test in sports right?!!)

So why was he banned then? That should be wrong, right?

huh No. not at all. He was banned because he stopped contesting the accusations.

"The 202-page report, which includes new testimony from 11 former teammates of Mr. Armstrong, is the culmination of a yearslong and highly contentious investigation into professional cycling and the methods behind the success of one its greatest teams."

Yeah I forgot about that. accusations are not evidence until they are cross examined in a hearing. But yeah that is pretty compelling.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

Are you really standing on the fact that he didn't fail a drug test as evidence he didn't cheat?!!!

(Because we have no evidence anyone ever tried to fool or foil a drug test in sports right?!!)

So why was he banned then? That should be wrong, right?

huh No. not at all. He was banned because he stopped contesting the accusations.

"The 202-page report, which includes new testimony from 11 former teammates of Mr. Armstrong, is the culmination of a yearslong and highly contentious investigation into professional cycling and the methods behind the success of one its greatest teams."

Yeah I forgot about that. accusations are not evidence until they are cross examined in a hearing. But yeah that is pretty compelling.

So testimony from his teammates counts for nothing?

That report details more than accusations.

So he didn't care to fight for his good name? Just accepted being banned from his livelihood (although he has a foundation to fund) being called and liar and a cheat, and goes on Oprah to confess to what he never did?

Only you could see that as a logical course of action.

SUPRMAN said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

So testimony from his teammates counts for nothing?

That report details more than accusations.

Not what I said: and I admitted that had slipped my mind, I was more focused on the tests. Sure it means something, sure it is compelling (didn't i say it was???) but it is not enough to convict. and this has been going for years! he was fed up. And didn't I say he likely did use drugs? I though I did?

So he didn't care to fight for his good name? Just accepted being banned from his livelihood (although he has a foundation to fund) being called and liar and a cheat, and goes on Oprah to confess to what he never did?

The facts are the facts: he did stop fighting the case. That lead to his ban. He wants to compete but under the ban he can not. If he confesses it is possible that the ban will be lifted and he will be able to compete. Why he chose (if he in fact does/did confess...was the interview held yet??) who cares.. could have just as well been on the Daily Show or Rush! Who cares.

Only you could see that as a logical course of action.

so when it turns of that IF he confesses that the ban will be lifted and he then starts to compete in races (running, biking, swimming... ect.) will you still say that?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Stymie said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

no you never lie. Your answers just change with every point you get called on.

my opinion my evolve but it is not a lie when posted. I do not often accept some other yahoo's contrary opinion. It is funny how so many people think that if they have a link written by some other person on the internet that seems to contradict something I said that is proof positive that I am wrong, and that if I choose not to agree that makes me a liar?

And I never said I never lie. just that I do not make a habbit of it.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Stymie said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

my opinion my evolve but it is not a lie when posted. I do not often accept some other yahoo's contrary opinion. It is funny how so many people think that if they have a link written by some other person on the internet that seems to contradict something I said that is proof positive that I am wrong, and that if I choose not to agree that makes me a liar?

And I never said I never lie. just that I do not make a habbit of it.

you did say you don't lie. Want me to quote the post? The problem with liars is they have to lie to over the other lie.

post anything you think is a lie. but first define what a lie is please.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Stymie said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

post anything you think is a lie. but first define what a lie is please.

if you don't know what a lie is, how o you know your aren't doing it? And, I'm not going to play your game with you. Responding to anything you said was an exercise in futility anyway. [Edited 1/12/13 11:33am]

I asked because we need to agree what one is before we can debate what is or is not one. It is basic logic that many disagreements are illusions based on different points of view. Sometimes bases on using words differently.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

So testimony from his teammates counts for nothing?

That report details more than accusations.

Not what I said: and I admitted that had slipped my mind, I was more focused on the tests. Sure it means something, sure it is compelling (didn't i say it was???) but it is not enough to convict. and this has been going for years! he was fed up. And didn't I say he likely did use drugs? I though I did?

So he didn't care to fight for his good name? Just accepted being banned from his livelihood (although he has a foundation to fund) being called and liar and a cheat, and goes on Oprah to confess to what he never did?

The facts are the facts: he did stop fighting the case. That lead to his ban. He wants to compete but under the ban he can not. If he confesses it is possible that the ban will be lifted and he will be able to compete. Why he chose (if he in fact does/did confess...was the interview held yet??) who cares.. could have just as well been on the Daily Show or Rush! Who cares.

So if he confesses to doping, that's irrelevant?

He stopped fighting the case, leads to banning, now he confesses to the accusations to what end? To make it go away? He'll accept being a liar and a cheat so he can ride again professionally?

Yeah, that make SO much sense.

The interview isn't necessarily going to be live. It could have been taped already.

Only you could see that as a logical course of action.

so when it turns of that IF he confesses that the ban will be lifted and he then starts to compete in races (running, biking, swimming... ect.) will you still say that?

Sure will. He can compete in amateur events now. Nothing is stopping him from. He can compete in any area other than professional cycling. How can cycling ban participation in other sports?

If he feels the need to compete, he doesn't have to be paid to do so.

SUPRMAN said:

So if he confesses to doping, that's irrelevant?

He stopped fighting the case, leads to banning, now he confesses to the accusations to what end? To make it go away? He'll accept being a liar and a cheat so he can ride again professionally?

Yeah, that make SO much sense.

I am going to assume he did not think that the US body would ban him as well.

Sure will. He can compete in amateur events now. Nothing is stopping him from. He can compete in any area other than professional cycling. How can cycling ban participation in other sports?

If he feels the need to compete, he doesn't have to be paid to do so.

I think he is banned from ALL sanctioned events. Such as the Boston marathon.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

So if he confesses to doping, that's irrelevant?

He stopped fighting the case, leads to banning, now he confesses to the accusations to what end? To make it go away? He'll accept being a liar and a cheat so he can ride again professionally?

Yeah, that make SO much sense.

I am going to assume he did not think that the US body would ban him as well.

Sure will. He can compete in amateur events now. Nothing is stopping him from. He can compete in any area other than professional cycling. How can cycling ban participation in other sports?

If he feels the need to compete, he doesn't have to be paid to do so.

I think he is banned from ALL sanctioned events. Such as the Boston marathon.

How can you ban someone from the Boston Marathon? Who banned him from ALL sanctioned events? I don't know any atheletic body with that authority.

Because cycling bans him it doesn't follow that he can't run either. Cycling has no control over say, the Boston Marathon.

He may not be eligible for a prize but if he ran the Boston Marathon, no one could stop him.

I think the ban only applies to professional cycling. Care to look it up and advise?

This will be a very interesting test of Oprah's power to heal anyone's reputation.

I doubt she's had a bigger POS on her couch than Lance Armstrong.

RodeoSchro said:

This will be a very interesting test of Oprah's power to heal anyone's reputation.

I doubt she's had a bigger POS on her couch than Lance Armstrong.

she never interviewd obama? how does cheating on a sport worst than all the child rapist and killers and tom cruse?

Fury said:

So now Lance Armstrong is gonna confess to being a steroid user to Oprah -- How does she get everybody to just talk about everything from books, cheating husbands, politics ... [Edited 1/12/13 8:01am]

We should wait and listen to what Mr. Armstrong has to say; he could spend an hour talking in circles saying much of nothing.

Hugh Grant showed up on the Tonight Show, Tiger Woods visited Jimmy Fallon's show, and years ago Barbara Walters was the go to journalist to ask for public forgiveness or clean up an image. I find these mea culpa interviews to be self-serving. Until a couple of months ago Mr. Armstrong was the toast of the town and he had been for a very long time. A lot of people slapped his back, hung on every word he uttered, pussy was thrown at him left and right and his palms were greased with millions. I would be surprised if Armstrong has picked up a check for drinks, dinners, stuff or invites to some exotic place to hang out with the very wealth and famous in years. I'm certain some of those people whispered in his ear on more than one occasions, "If you need anything, if I can do anything for you just give me a call." That's all gone, done, finished, over. Mr. Armstrong is in lonely place, that lifestyle, those people and the potential to make more millions are gone -not to speak of being exposed as a fraud. Bobby Womack sings, "Nobody wants you when you are down and out."

Armstrong picked Winfrey because she' has the power and popularity to reach millions to tell his tale. Winfrey gets her ratings the rich or the infamous get their 15 minutes to tell their side of the story. Its not in Winfrey's interest to grill or conduct an ambush like Mike Wallace interview because those people would go tell their stories somewhere else, to more empathic ears.

==========================

[Edited 1/14/13 13:17pm]

TD3 said:

Fury said:

So now Lance Armstrong is gonna confess to being a steroid user to Oprah -- How does she get everybody to just talk about everything from books, cheating husbands, politics ... [Edited 1/12/13 8:01am]

We should wait and listen to what Mr. Armstrong has to say; he could spend an hour talking in circles saying much of nothing.

Hugh Grant showed up on the Tonight Show, Tiger Woods visited Jimmy Fallon's show, and years ago Barbara Walters was the go to journalist to ask for public forgiveness or clean up an image. I find these mea culpa interviews to be self-serving. Until a couple of months ago Mr. Armstrong was the toast of the town and he had been for a very long time. A lot of people slapped his back, hung on every word he uttered, pussy was thrown at him left and right and his palms were greased with millions. I would be surprised if Armstrong has picked up a check for drinks, dinners, stuff or invites to some exotic place to hang out with the very wealth and famous in years. I'm certain some of those people whispered in his ear on more than one occasions, "If you need anything, if I can do anything for you just give me a call." That's all gone, done, finished, over. Mr. Armstrong is in lonely place, that lifestyle, those people and the potential to make more millions are gone -not to speak of being exposed as a fraud. Bobby Walmack sings, "Nobody wants you when you are down and out."

Armstrong picked Winfrey because she' has the power and popularity to reach millions to tell his tale. Winfrey gets her ratings the rich or the infamous get their 15 minutes to tell their side of the story. Its not in Winfrey's interest to grill or conduct an ambush like Mike Wallace interview because those people would go tell their stories somewhere else, to more empathic ears.

==========================

[Edited 1/12/13 21:37pm]

...and there it is; clear, cut, and dry.

Oprah is the new Virgin Mary, mother of God, that's why.