It seems everyone has had an opinion about Lance Armstrong’s big “coming out” on Oprah. According to a number of his fellow cyclists, not to mention USADA, he was still lying in the interview about the timelines of his doping. According to Betsy Andreu, he was still lying about the famous bedside confession. According to me, he was still lying when he said he was sorry.

No, I have no special qualifications to say that. I just don’t believe him. Why would I?

A couple of issues ago I used this page to have a crack at American sportswriter Rick Reilly, who was sticking to his guns in defending Armstrong even after the USADA findings.

To be fair: Reilly published a piece in the week of Armstrong’s interview in which he manfully redressed his hoodwinking. He took his medicine. I’m just going to quote him:

“I guess I should let it go, but I keep thinking how hard he used me. Made me look like a sap. Made me carry his dirty water and I didn’t even know it.

“I let myself admire him. Let myself admire what he’d done with his life, admire the way he’d not only beaten his own cancer, but was trying to help others beat it. When my sister was diagnosed, she read his book and got inspired. And I felt some pride in that. I let it get personal. And now I know he was living a lie and I was helping him live it ...

“I guess I should forgive him. I guess I should give him credit for putting himself through worldwide shame. I guess I should thank him for finally admitting his whole magnificent castle was built on sand and syringes and suckers like me. But I’m not quite ready. Give me 14 years, maybe.

“You’re sorry, Lance? No, I’m the one who’s sorry.”

You can find Reilly’s entire column via espn.go.com

At the time of writing, the world was still waiting for Sally Jenkins to even vaguely address her complicity in constructing the Armstrong myth, through her authorship of Armstrong’s two autobiographies (including It’s Not About The Bike). She has produced just one column on the subject since Armstrong’s fakery was finally revealed. In it she explains why she can’t bring herself to be angry at Lance Armstrong even despite the weight of evidence USADA stacked up against him (you can find it at her home on washingtonpost.com). She makes no connection between her lack of anger and the money she made out of his books.

Jenkins does NOT take her medicine. But her column may have some medicinal value – should you ever find yourself in need of an emetic ...

Play on.