Lance Armstrong: Is he being honest?
I absolutely love this video of Lance Armstrong.
Do you think he is being honest?
I mean he has crossed arm, which people say means he is closed off or defensive, and he gives us a contempt micro-expression, too!
He is actually being honest.
Dead honest.
He would dope again if it were 1995 (under the same circumstances), and he doesn’t believe that today he would need to.
I don’t think there is any reason to doubt his statement because by saying it, he isn’t gaining anything. He actually has a lot to lose–he is showing defiance, a lack of remorse, and more. He is doing the exact opposite of what he needs to if he wants people to give him a second chance. His arrogance is blinding him.
While Lance crosses his arms, he does not show any defensive behavior or signs that he is closed off to this conversation at all. The exact opposite is true. He is showing by his words that he is very open to say “his truth”.
I suspect the reason why Lance is sitting this way with his arms crossed is simple. It is a comfortable way for him to sit. Sitting with your arms crossed actually does provide comfort for people. It can make you feel more confident, warmer, and safe. Try it and see! And there are times when people cross their arms when they are defensive and closed off, too, but it’s not black or white by any means, and never indicates by itself someone is lying.
I watched a slightly longer version of Lance’s interview and what I get out of it is how he is still very self-centered. That’s shocking considering his situation, but it says a lot about who he is as a person.
Even though I knew it was coming, that felt like a BIG micro-expression of disgust to me. I don’t think I could miss it if I tried! Yeah, I think he’s telling the truth about then and now, but I’d bet he’d come around to cheating again. He’s not defensive, but I feel he’s guarded, and I get that feeling specifically from his posture with his arms.
A question for you–are there any other elements that make you feel he is guarded besides his crossed arms? His words, to me, don’t seem guarded at all. They are quite flowing and open which is not congruent with guarded.
All right–This is the thing (and it’s been bothering me). After
a lot of thinking, this is how I feel about arms crossed. And, I’m open to
being completely wrong and learning why.
I feel that for whatever reasons one closes his arms, he/she
can’t get away from many of the other things that come with it. Just like when
you wear sunglasses. There’s plenty of reasons people wear sunglasses—a primary
function being to protect the eyes from the sun, but to also see clearer, hide
the eyes (maybe a black-eye), create a “wall”, feel safe, as a disguise, and
more. But regardless, if you only wear them because you are a celebrity, who’s trying
to hide under a baseball cap and dark glasses in a crowded train station, you
are still going to receive the other effects of the glasses. They’ll still let
less sun through, maybe give you a tan line, maybe make you feel more secure,
make it more difficult for people to connect with you, look stylish, whatever. They
are functions of sunglasses.
Pulling your arms in close—bringing them in—is a physical
block. Just as if you put a desk or a wall or a Kevlar vest there. You’re
putting your arms in that space. Now whether you did it because it makes you
feel confident or warm or safe or comfortable, you’re putting something in between
yourself and the rest of the world (a wall) to make that happen. You’re still
reaping certain effects of being shielded/protected/blocked, and that says
something. I don’t think you can separate it.
I agree with everything you’ve said on it, but I think just
at a slightly different angle. I also don’t think any analysis of his arms is
pertinent to understanding that he was truthful. Lance Armstrong spoke honestly
and fluidly while having his arms crossed. It may have helped him feel relaxed
enough to be honest. We don’t know. We just know he did it.
I see what you are saying, Paul. You are sharing your interpretation, but there is a huge leap between interpretation and intent.
I have no reason to attribute blocking by anything I see, so to me it has no basis. I prefer to use other elements in a situation to identify cues and nothing supports closed-off, blocking, etc. He’s actually amazingly open to his detriment here. I am a stickler for using other elements about a person to discern meaning of things, but that’s just me. I don’t believe there is a right or wrong answer here, I just disagree 🙂
Eyes, just had an idea for the myths. Instead of the myth of arms crossed meaning closed off, what would be a better replacement indicator?
Arms closed off CAN be a sign of being closed off, but it is not that 100% of the time — maybe 20-30%? It’s circumstantial. I don’t know of a “replacement”. Good thought though!
I think his arms crossed says something, just not anything ‘significant’ to do with blocking here.
I cross my arms often. Too often to be blocking anything or anyone. Especially when there are no arm rests on a chair, it’s a matter of comfort. I am aware of other’s perceptions about it, and if I feel my conversation partner is pulling back due to perceiving me as defensive, I make myself uncross my arms in an effort to seem more open. The trouble then is finding another spot for my arms that is comfortable enough that I can be present in the conversation, not distracted by my own awkward and an (to me) un-natural arm position.
Omg …. Yes. These ste the awkward adjutsments when interacting that I cannot stand beoming aware of as they happen.
He definitely shows the contempt, but I wonder what, exactly, he feels contempt for. I can’t help but wonder if it is for the other competitors, or the complete dishonesty of the sport. I suspect, however, that he feels contempt for anyone who dares to judge him for what he did.
>I wonder what, exactly, he feels contempt for…
That’s easy once you see it (like so many things in life!). For Lance Armstrong (and others of his type), cheating is not the goal, It’s only a means to an end. There are other people whose goal is to cheat the system (such as some serial criminals), but Lance is not like that. The real goal, the only one that matters to him, is winning. Being the champion. He will do anything – literally – to win. That includes using performance enhancing drugs, destroying the lives of those who help him, breaking any and all rules necessary, lying, hurting his family, and all the rest – all so he can be the champion. The reason he would cheat again if he was back in 1996 is not because everyone else did it – that’s actually not quite his reality – he would cheat again because he would have to do it in order to win. Now the sport is under better monitors and controls (ironically thanks to his actions) so I suspect cheating is way down, and he would not need to do it to win.
But none of that directly answers the question – who does he feel contempt for – the answer to that question based on the video clip is he feels contempt for everyone who judged him for using drugs. In his eyes those people don’t like to hear that he would use PEDs (performance enhancing drugs) again. He feels it’s correct for him to use PEDs in that circumstance. “Everyone else was doing it”, and that’s what it took to for him win in that situation. In his eyes he has to be the very best. Since using PEDs was the price of him winning, he looks down on people like me that think that’s wrong. The indicator is when he says, “people don’t like to hear that” he would use drugs again if he was in the same situation. Remember, for his type, the goal is to win. At any cost. One consequence of that is this personality type looks down on everyone else who gets in the way of their winning. But back in the day he didn’t just look down on people – he literally hurt every single person who got in his way of winning. Think about that. And he would do it again in the same situation. He’s absolutely right – I don’t like to hear that, and Lance totally thinks he’s above those people. That’s the contempt we see in this video.
This is the “win at any cost” personality type. After you see it once, you’ll see it all over the place.
I agree. I think he thinks that most people are not informed enough about what he was up against. Most of us are not, however, most of us would not want to be in such a sport that required us to live a life of cheating and deception. I can’t even imagine having a sense of any accomplishments or satisfaction in such a sport. A person would have to live their life totally centered around such a sport, and they would live this dishonesty and ruthlessness every day. I can’t see how anyone would survive such a life, and we can see what it has done to Lance. The picture isn’t a pretty picture.
> I think he thinks that most people are not informed enough about what he was up against.
I certainly have virtually no idea what it’s like to compete at that level, so that’s definitely true of me. Don’t get me wrong – I would LOVE to be a champion athlete. So would millions of other people. But in real life I have no idea what he was up against, that’s very true.
>A person would have to live their life totally centered around such a sport, and they would live this dishonesty and ruthlessness every day.
Here’s an interviewer’s secret – a way to get people to open up – Virtually everyone (including Lance Armstrong) who crosses the line does so for reasons they believe are good. There might be some deception in there, but in their mind the good outweighs the bad. So where you and I see dishonesty and ruthlessness, he sees trophies and accolades and yellow jerseys.
So one way to get someone to open up about an issue like this is to frame it in the positive. For example, if a person was trying to find out why a person stole some money, it might go like this: “I’ll bet you needed the money to help your girlfriend, right? She’s probably in a pretty tight spot right now, and she needs to pay rent, and she doesn’t have it so she’s at risk for getting thrown out, so you want to help her out so she’ll have a place to stay. You did this to help someone out, I bet – is that true?” In other words, appeal to their higher nature, not their lower nature. That’s the secret.
Lance Armstrong is the same. He did all of this for reasons that he feels are good. Defensible. World class. Admirable. Positive. And he looks down on all of us (including me) who very strongly disagree. That’s why he can live his life, and you and I can not live the way he lives.
I agree it’s not a pretty picture – but I’m very sure he would say the same to you and me.
I don’t think he considers using drugs ‘cheating’.
How can there be ‘cheating’ when you’re competing against an opponent or to be your best. The drugs would be just another tool, only useful alongside hard training. And why would you concede the drug advantage to an opponent, especially if you thought they were or could be using them.
Of course sport is all about making it as fair as possible but to a competitor the rules are not set by you. The competition isn’t to be fair but to win and if you can get away with bending or breaking rules, that just accentuates your skill. I mean that’s if you see the game as being all about winning.
I honestly think most spectators don’t mind either if the athletes cheat, as long as they don’t get caught. Then that’s bad and they obviously must be punished. But if you can cheat and get away with it then most people are happy to accept the image of greatness. I think the same goes for people with wealth.
Russ, amazing analysis, truly impressed, so enlightening.
Thanks! Hopefully you learn to recognize this type from a blog and not from real life. Not a pretty picture if it happens to anyone you know. If you run across one of these types in real life then get out so fast you leave skid marks.
I believe his contempt is for the situation. He shows it in reference to 1995, talking about doping being pervasive, but who is the one being questioned? He is. No one else. It’s contempt for the entire situation.
I would caution you to guess at why people are feeling what they are. While it is speculation, I think Russ nailed it below.
I think there’s too much speculation in his answer. Sorry. I’ve learned that could be that more to a situation than what is being presented. That’s why judging a person’s character, I think, should be left to people that can do more than judge from a video.
He’s starting to look like Tony Blair
haha, yes at least in the still photo.
I may be off the topic of myth busting here but I watched the longer video http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cycling/30993315
His attitude is shocking, he doesn’t answer some questions, he minimizes his disgrace by calling it a ‘time-out’ etc…
He makes a specious argument about how much good was done by his cheating.
He doesn’t seem to consider that maybe a lot more good would have been done by someone not cheating, and not being disgraced. But hey, let’s just support cheating and give him another go! Why look around for something better!
I guess he’s trying to serve his own interests here as Eyes said he’s self-centred.
Even in the shorter video when asked a question about the past he re-phrases it to apply to the present in 2015. Of course he wants to be racing now, even if not competitively, so it appears to be manipulation of the media for himself to me.
I think Lance shows us his attitude and his personality type by giving these interviews that he knows most people don’t like. Not only did he do wrong, he wants to keep rubbing our noses in it. He seems to get some kind of kick out of defying society’s rules. He may be the kind of person, who wants attention, whether that attention is positive or negative.
Yes I think he’s being honest this time and telling us how he viewed sports. Performance enhancing drugs were just a way to help him win. I think a lot of top athletes think along similar lines. Also they consider that they are the experts on their body and their body being their property and their instrument will accept the health risk because the rewards are high.
A few years back I had read another body language analysis of him that said he is a sociopath. It totally made sense and I cannot now NOT see LA as a sociopath.
I cannot believe this guy.
In one of his televised doping denials, he said something like, If I’m lying then all of this goes away. Livestrong, everything I’ve done for the cancer community … all of it. And I know that. I would never do that. (Not a direct quote; it was something like that.)
Now, in the longer version of this video, he says <>
In other words, He USED to say I have to be telling the truth because CANCER FLAG. NOW he says Yeah okay I cheated and lied but it’s okay because CANCER FLAG.
This is so repulsive. How can he not see what he’s doing?
I think the inability to feel shame might be some kind of internet-fed 21st century superpower.
He was a little scared with the initial question being asked. I’m sure he was expecting it to be asked – he just got a little alerted to it and I’m sure his heart rate increase a little…confrontation can be; if there is something he feels he needs to protect (and it’s making him a little uncomfortable so he is soothing himself a bit). The dialogue is right…he would dope again in the past (he even enjoys the idea)…my personal take is he has something else so he wouldn’t have to use “that” again – just my take on it. He also actively tries to play down his discomfort…and he had so much to hide he had to come out with something for people to focus on…pull the attention away from what he’s really concealing. (what I began to do was not just read…but work to understand the whys to the behavior…the motivation for the behavior…the purpose behind the response).
I watched the long video and all I can say is wow…poor poor victim Lance Armstrong he just haaaad to do it ….ugh face palm.