i've always had to keep my eye on her... but, i didn't always watch out for myself. with so much noise about health care... i tuned it all out. with unitedhealthcare, i get information that matters... my individual health profile. not random statistics. they even reward me for addressing my health risks. so i'm doing fine... but she's still going to give me a heart attack. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare.

good evening. i'm erin burnett. "outfront" breaking news for you. lance armstrong comes clean. after more than a decade of denials, lies and cheating, seven-time tour de france winner, olympic bronze medalist and cancer survivor lance armstrong told oprah winfrey the truth. >> did you ever take banned substances to enhance your cycling performance? >> yes. >> yes or no. was one of those banned substances epo? >> yes. >> did you ever blood dope or use blood transfusions to enhance your cycling performance? >> yes. >> did you ever use any other banned substances like testosterone, cortisone or human growth hormone? >> yes. >> yes or no, in all seven of

your tour de france victories, did you ever take banned substances or blood dope? >> yes. >> in your opinion, was it humanly possible to win the tour de france without doping? seven times in a row. >> not in my opinion. >> for months, even longer, armstrong has been feeling the effects of the latest and biggest u.s. anti-doping investigation. this one found him guilty of using illicit drugs throughout his cycling career. now his tour de france titles were stripped by the international cycling union back in october and was banned for life from competition. he lost his olympic bronze medal. all of this combined to make it feel what it appeared from this interview was the moment where lance armstrong felt he no longer had a choice. and tonight, winfrey asked him why he brazenly denied the truth for 13 years and finally decided at this moment to come forth.

>> that's the best question. it's the most logical question. i don't know that i have a great answer. i will start my answer my saying that this is too late. it's too late for probably most people. and that's my fault. i view this situation as one big lie. >> one big lie. one big lie that's finally being brought to light. armstrong said the last time he used banned drugs was in 2005 which was when he last won the tour de france. later he came back and placed third and 23rd. winfrey asked him something that all of you know has been central to this. there are accusations that lance

armstrong pressured them, forced them, coerced them to also use performance-enhancing drugs. here's what he said. >> the idea that anybody was forced or pressured or encouraged is not true. i am out of the business of calling somebody a liar, but if you ask me if it's true or not, i'm going to say if it's true or not. that is not true. >> the fallout from lance armstrong's admission is going to continue. no question about that. i want to bring in our first panel. they have had many years of experience covering lance armstrong. covering the biking industry. david epstein is a senior writer for "sports illustrated." dana jacobson interviewed armstrong and is with cbs sports and paul callan is our legal contributor. you all have different views of this. you've covered him. you've covered this sport. you have covered this story. what did you make of the interview? >> he is still as arrogant as he always was. i still don't understand why

he's doing it now if it isn't to try to get back in the good graces of usada in some way and eventually start competing again in triathlons is what's been discussed. in some ways, he didn't give me anything. he didn't even show contrition. if you aren't even going to show contrition, why apologize. what are you apologizing for? >> what did you think? were there moments when you said, look, i was a prick or it was a big lie. he said all those things but it didn't come, to dana's point, with this -- i don't know what we were looking for. whether it was tears or some window into someone's soul. >> sort of a piece of theater for lance. i don't think it's going to come off well for him. i don't think he's capable of giving the kind of apology people would need in that way. he didn't confess to having doped in the hospital. he said he didn't dope after his comeback. there's pretty strong evidence that he did dope. even following up on twitter.

>> one of the reasons, whether he did or didn't, but he may not have come out with that tonight, would be because the timing would coincide with the statute of limitation problem, right? >> it was amazing. he made all these specific admissions but he said, well, you know, i stopped doping and drugging in 2005. conveniently, the statute of limitations is gone. and he can't be charged with perjury for things or crimes from that date on. my reaction, when i was looking at this graphic example of why lawyers beg their clients frequently issue don't take the witness stand. you know, you are supposed to -- when you seek redemption, you are supposed to demonstrate why you are sorry. when jean valjean stole the loaf of bread he explained he did for his sister's seven starving children. why did he lie and destroy these people? without an explanation there's no redemption. >> she asked him that and he

said, because i thought i could just get my way and control every outcome. which in a sense, you know, for a moment, i said, all right. i mean, i can understand how a human being would want to do that. but it didn't go any further. >> if you think you can control every outcome then clearly you young can control this outcome. so you are going to organize this story, you are going to be the one in charge and you haven't accepted -- he said for his entire life that's how he's been. when you read about him you know that. when you talk to him you cab see it in his calculated way that he speaks. and, yet, i'm suddenly going to believe that you've given up and said, okay. i'm putting it all out there and i'm just going to let whatever happens happen. i can't see that. >> let me just play something he said when -- we've all heard about the accusations. this was the biggest and most sophisticated doping program in history of sports. big words and a big accusation. oprah asked him how it worked. something i've been curious about. i want to play that and get your reaction. here's lance armstrong. >> i know the truth.

the truth isn't what was out there. the truth isn't what i said. and now it's gone -- this story was so perfect for so long. and i mean that, as i try to take myself out of the situation and i look at it, you overcome the disease. you win the tour de france seven times. you have a happy marriage. you have children. i mean, it's just this mythic, perfect story. >> yes. >> and it wasn't true. >> and that wasn't true? >> and that was not true. on a lot of levels. >> i'm going to play in a moment the sound bite to which i was referring but what was your take from that? did you hear the contrition? he was trying to say he was sorry. >> no, i heard he felt like he bought into his myth the same way a lot of journalists did. that's what's made it compelling. it's been a precipitous fall. it's like a greek tragedy and sound like he bought into it like everybody else. >> he created that myth. he created this myth.

he said i have to live up to it. you created it when you started doping so you could win and then you win seven because you're still doping. >> you go through experts. do you believe him when he said he couldn't have won. he did yes, yes, yes, and that was, not my opinion. could you have won without doping? >> the -- i think the four tours he was in before the sophistication of the program ramped up and he was a nonfactor in those tours. so i think he's -- he was accurate. >> there was a lot of twitter traffic where people were saying, well, it's not cheating. he's right because everybody was doing it. well, just because everybody is doing it doesn't mean that it's not cheating and against the rules. but, clearly he would have won. >> the other thing also in that clip, he's almost prideful about crafting the lie. he's talking about the myth as if it's this wonderful thing that he created. it's pride in the lie as opposed to sorrow for the lie. and i think that's ultimately what the problem with this interview is going to be for him.

>> i think we've got anderson cooper still with us. i just wanted to ask you one question. you had a chance to talk to betsy andreu, the wife of one of the cyclists. one of the amazing moments was when he talked about when she had said, look, i overheard him saying that he used all of these different things. and he tried to make a joke about how, yes, i called her a bitch and nasty, but i never called her fat. what did she say to you about her reaction to the interview? >> she feels it was a huge disappointment. she feels lance is not telling the truth. and that the fact that in that interview with oprah winfrey, she point blank asked if betsy andreu had told the truth. if lance armstrong if that hospital room back in 1995 or whenever it was, told doctors about all the drugs he was using, and he refused to answer the question twice to oprah. and for betsy, that was a huge issue. and a huge disappointment that this was an opportunity for him to come clean, to actually tell the truth. and she feels he certainly failed.

and i think everyone on our panel feels the same way. >> it was interesting. in so many of the moments that we saw, i mean, whether people obviously don't -- people didn't like his tone but he answered. he said i'm just going to let that lie. i'm not going to talk about that one moment. it sort of stood out from other parts of the interview. did she feel that way, too? >> well, yeah, but, i mean, i think there were many inconsistencies she points to and that our entire panel point to. let me play some of the exchange i had with betsy a few moments ago. >> i'm really disappointed. he owed it to me. you owed it to me, lance, and you dropped the ball. after what you've done to me, what you've done to my family and you couldn't own up to it. and now we're supposed to believe you? you have one chance at the truth. this is it. if he's not going to tell the truth, if he can't say, yes, the hospital room happened, then how are we to believe everything

else he's saying? we're already questioning him. >> and there's a lot of questions. i'm joined by bill strickland, editor in large of "bicycling" magazine and daniel coyle, author of "the secret race" and jeff toobin. there's a lot of things that you just think he wasn't owning up to that he wasn't telling the truth. he wasn't a kingpin. this wasn't a sophisticated operation or incredibly sophisticated. the idea he was only doing what everyone else was doing, he had access to the same drugs everyone else had. these are all lies, not true. >> we thought -- we went in thinking it would be a limited admission. this is an incredibly limited admission. and almost so limited that there's no good legal reason to limit it this way. it turns into a psychological profile of where he's at. so much resistance and stubbornness. clearly a long way to go before he delivers what we can trust and think. >> why do you think he gave this interview? >> because he likes risk. he likes taking a big chance and feels he's big enough to pull it off.

he's done this -- early in his career, a world championship race. he took off by himself figuring he could crush everybody. he didn't. he got caught. same thing happened tonight. >> bill, why do you he think did it? >> with lance, a lot of times it's several things. there's a calculation to it. also a grain of sincerity here. i've been talking to him over the past few weeks. he told me he's having a really hard time with his kids. his oldest son is 12 or 13. his girls are a few years younger than that. they are aware now of what's going on, and i think there's a genuine spark there. how deep it is, we don't know. that's what we need to find out. >> do you think he came fully clean? >> no, not tonight. >> no doubt in your mind? >> no. >> the whole idea he wasn't doping 2009, 2010, do you buy that? >> a lot of evidence seems to show he has. he also told me previously he'd never doped in his career. >> has he opened himself -- if you were his lawyer, i assume you'd have counseled him not do this.

has he opened himself up to lawsuits? >> yes, to lawsuits. i don't think he has a criminal problem. he admitted lying under oath in the texas deposition, but that was in 2005. the statute of limitations has long since run. so i don't think it's a criminal problem, but civilly there could be any number of lawsuits. the "london times" will presumably get the money back in the settlement of the libel case. the tour de france will get back the prize money. but the biggest risk he faces is this federal whistleblower suit that was filed by floyd landis, one of the fellow riders, possibly joined by the federal government later. $30 million that went to the postal service team. that's federal money. potentially triple damages. so he is looking at as much as $90 million -- >> does he have that much money? >> i've seen estimates of over $100 million in his account. now i don't know if he's going to have a judgment of $90 million against him, but you are

still talking about an enormous amount of money. no lawyer in the world would have advised him to do this. there is -- this was some psychological thing. this was not a legal justification. >> erin it was an incredibly gripping interview. there's going to be more tomorrow night and no doubt a lot more to talk about. >> you say no lawyer in the world. hearing jeff say that, would have advised him to do that. what's going to come next in terms of whether he's going to testify under oath. that's a statement we have now from the usada which has come out and given a statement. travis tygart said tonight, lance armstrong has finally acknowledged his cycling career was built on a powerful combination of doping and deceit. but this is a small step in the right direction. they continue to say if he's sincere in his desire to correct his past mistakes he'll testify under oath about the full extent of his doping activities. a pretty important statement there under oath. paul callan if he is sincere in his desire to correct his past mistakes, he'll testify under oath. what's the significance of that?

>> well, the significance is that he is going to be subpoenaed in all of these civil cases. and if he refuses to testify, it can be held against him. and he will lose the case automatically. so he must testify. and it gets back to when people are saying, well, why did he do this? why did he come forward? one of the reasons he would do it is because he knows he's going to be forced to testify in all of these cases, and he's going to have to build on this elaborate lie system when he's being asked detailed questions by lawyers. what better way to say, hey, i've already come out and said i lied. i revealed it all on oprah and hopefully he can make the whole thing go away much more quickly. he won't be tortured question by question by lawyers during the many, many lawsuits to follow. >> that's got to be the hope. ed lavandera is with us. he's been covering this story. you've been talking to a lot of the people who were frustrated and angry and felt crossed by lance over the years as well. so what is the reaction?

obviously, we just heard betsy andreu say that she does not feel he was honest or address any of the issues out there. >> i think those individual stories of the people who were wronged and maligned by lance armstrong over the years, those will be the most interesting reactions. we're still waiting to hear from people like floyd landis and emma o'reilly, the masseuse that you have talked about as well. and we've talked about earlier tonight. but one quick mention on that statement from the united states anti-doping agency. remember lance armstrong is under a lifetime ban. if he wants to reduce that in any way, and there are people who say that lance still has dreams of competing and running in triathlons and other various races, that to reduce that lifetime ban he would have to cooperate with investigators. and that's why he's being called to testify under oath. in the hopes of reducing that, as little as eight years. so, obviously, that will be something we want to play out as well. also we've had a chance to reach out, erin, to the texas-based insurance company that paid lance armstrong more than $12

million for winning tour de france races. i think it was '02, '03 and '04. we spoke with the attorney representing that company. and that attorney tells us that in, quote in plain english, we want our money back. more than $12.5 million. according to the contract that lance armstrong was supposed to have raced cleanly and have won the tour de frances. and he says lance armstrong admitted he did not race cleanly and he is no longer the winner of those tour de france races. if we don't have our money by next week, we will file a lawsuit. >> next week. jeff toobin, what is your reaction to that, and also to what the usada -- okay. sorry. doesn't sound like we have jeff right now. what's your -- let me get your reaction then, paul, to what ed just reported about that lawsuit next week. how many more lawsuits are we going to start to see from here? >> we'll see a large number. he had large numbers of sponsors, even prior to 2005 where he's admitted doping and

using these drugs. any of those sponsors now can say there was a fraud and where there's a fraud, you can bring an action when you find out about the fraud, even if the statute of limitations would have nominally expired. so he's going to face a lot of those lawsuits. and it gets back to that point. the reason he's doing this is because if he refused to answer questions in those civil suits, he would automatic lose those civil suits. he knows he's going to have to go in and testify under oath. so this is the easy way out. he says, listen. i admitted everything. you really don't have to question me for, you know, three days. it's something he's going to have to face and he's going to have huge judgments against him based on those sponsors suing him. >> daniel coyle is back, co-author along with tyler hamilton of "secret race: inside the hidden world of the tour de france." along with bill strickland, the editor at large for "bicycling" magazine. so, bill, what happens from here?

there is a broader question here which is, it was -- this entire sport was all about lance armstrong. and nobody seemed to in the general public, care about the tour de france or anything until lance armstrong. now there's a whole channel where everybody can watch biking live during the tour de france and they cared because of lance armstrong. is that over forever? >> it's true in the u.s. it's been all about lance. worldwide it's an incredibly popular sport. what we've seen here in the united states is that when an american wins the tour, americans are interested. when an american is not winning the tour, they're not interested. and i think it will follow that. i think the cycling public especially is a pretty short memory when it's going to come to lance. >> i want to play another piece of the interview. this was, as i indicated, a piece i found pretty powerful. just talking about the cocktail of what exactly it was that lance armstrong would do. we've all wanted to hear that. how did it actually work. here's how he explained it. >> how did it work?

>> we'd need a long time. >> how did it all work? >> i viewed it as very simple. i mean, you had things that were oxygen-boosting drugs, for lack of a better word, or way to describe it. that were incredibly beneficial for endurance sports where it's cycling or running or whatever. and that's all you needed. my cocktail, so to speak. transfusions and testosterone which in a weird way, i almost justified because of -- because of my history, obviously, with having testicular cancer and losing -- surely, i'm running low. >> daniel, what was your take on that. when he said my cocktail, so to

speak was only epo, not a lot, transfusions and testosterone. if you are going to go that far and admit that, do you think that's true or do you think like so many tonight that that's not the full story. >> the devil is really in the details here. as we say in the book "the secret race" that i wrote with his lieutenant tyler hamilton. when you have a small medical refrigerator in the closet of your home that he was sharing with sheryl crow, when you are dealing with a really sophisticated italian doctor and depositing millions in secret swiss bank accounts, that counts as pretty sophisticated in most people's books. this sophistication wasn't so much in the precise substance they were using, although they were using, clearly, some pretty advanced stuff. it was in the way in which they wielded it. and it was the way in which they used their power. their economic power. but most of their political connections to the people and power in the sport. to maximize their use.

and that was -- that was really where they excelled. incredibly sophisticated. when he said it would take you a long time -- it would take him a long time to explain it, that's true. it was like this james bond program. >> where is it that you feel that he was not fully honest? was it this part or something else? it could have been a bunch, but where was the moment you felt that way? >> i think more than anything, it was the detail -- he wasn't giving on the details. to simply say, yes, i used epo. yes, i used hgh. then it -- you know, he won't admit when he was talking about betsy. she said the same thing. and yet you won't -- then you won't say yes, that was an accurate conversation or even talking about emma o'reilly. i guess his level of arrogance. well, you sued her. oh, well, we sued a lot of people. i'm sure she was -- i don't recall if she was right. really? because you don't know if you sued her? don't tell me you sat down for

this interview and you weren't aware of everyone you sued. sort of leaving those details out. some of it was legal. some of it must have been in his mind, i shouldn't say this, but if you are going to sit down for this interview, give all of it to me because i don't think the general public looks at it and says oh, it was just a little epo. you said you used epo. i don't know how much you need. that's what i need to know. >> david, did you feel at all any connection with him? i'm just -- i know you all sort of agree on this. i'm going to be the one that tries to find these moments perhaps where he did come forth. when he continued in the piece we just played to say in a weird way i almost justified the cocktail because of my history. he's talking about the testosterone. obviously with testicular cancer. and surely i'm running low. and we try to talk about that is how he justified that. did that connect with you at all? >> i mean, no. that didn't connect with me personally. a lot of athletes and cyclists have had problems. it's amazing what he went through, but that's just, i think, one piece of a massive, massive self-justification.

and i think he is still not coming clean on a lot of things. i still think he's not coming clean about doping after his comeback. that's something that fit the story he wanted to tell. >> i want to play one other sound bite about whether he was ever afraid of getting caught. play that and then get your reaction, daniel, to that and this whole point about why he is saying after 2005, there was nothing. here he is on whether he was going to get caught. >> were you afraid of getting caught? >> no. drug testing has changed. it's evolved. in the old days, they tested at the races. they didn't come to your house. they didn't come to your training camps. they tested you at the race. that's shifted a lot. so now the emphasis of the testing, which is right -- >> right. >> -- is in out of competition testing. >> there wasn't a test for epo. >> there was no testing out of competition. they may have theoretically there may have been, but they never came.

and for most of my career, there wasn't that much of that. so two things changed. >> that much of what? >> there wasn't that much out of competition testing. so you're not going to get caught, you know? because you are clean at the races. >> so, paul, how much -- when you look here at that excuse, what does that mean for him legally? does he there get himself out of any potential problems? >> no, he doesn't. i think ultimately why a jury, if these cases wind up in front of juries, will be unlikely to forgive him is that he admits to these lies, but he really doesn't -- the thing he can never get around is he not only told the lies but then he aggressively tried to destroy the people who were telling the truth about him. and if i could use an analogy, it would be like a cop arresting a bank robber and the bank robber not only saying i didn't rob the bank but suing the cop

for false arrest. that's exactly what lance armstrong did. when he was caught, most people, they tell a lie and when they -- they hope they don't get caught but when they do get caught, then they face up and take responsibility. he didn't take responsibility. he went after the people who accused him and accused them of being liars and destroyed their reputations. so that's why i think in the end, for him to find redemption from the public, or from a jury, this story just doesn't resonate. there's no explanation as to why this vengeful approach was taken when he was caught in these lies. and i think that's the fundamental problem that he's facing. >> all right. thanks very much to all three of you. we appreciate it. we're going to be back. we're going to be talking to jeffrey tillotson, the only person that's interviewed lance armstrong under oath. we'll get his reaction to tonight's interview. plus the strong-arm tactics that lance armstrong used to hide his doping. we'll play what he said and talk to the people he hurt to

succeed. plus, the reporters that lance armstrong fooled. there were so many of them. and so many of us out there, americans, people around the world, who believed in him. buzz believed lance's lies right up until the end. he talks about how he feels now. he's "outfront." ♪ [ male announcer ] this is karen and jeremiah. they don't know it yet, but they're gonna fall in love, get married, have a couple of kids, [ children laughing ] move to the country, and live a long, happy life together

where they almost never fight about money. [ dog barks ] because right after they get married, they'll find some retirement people who are paid on salary, not commission. they'll get straightforward guidance and be able to focus on other things, like each other, which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade. it's just common sense. i've always had to keep my eye on her... but, i didn't always watch out for myself. with so much noise about health care... i tuned it all out. with unitedhealthcare, i get information that matters... my individual health profile. not random statistics.

they even reward me for addressing my health risks. so i'm doing fine... but she's still going to give me a heart attack. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare.

joining me on the phone is jeffrey tillotson. the only person that's interviewed lance armstrong under oath. he represents a company called sca promotions. it's a sports insurance company. they were forced to pay lance armstrong $12.5 million in bonuses for winning the tour de france in 2002, 2003 and 2004. thanks very much. i appreciate your calling in and

talking to us so late in the evening. you watched this interview. you have interviewed lance armstrong under oath. what did you think about tonight? all right. looks like we just lost that. but i promise, everyone, we'll get it back. i want to go back here to dana and david who are with me. obviously, very excited to talk to him because $12.5 million basically had to bet that he would not win and then when he won would actually have to pay him out for that money. this is something that is a big part of the story, though. that he admitted that day in the day when he lost the nike contract, it was like the world fell apart. this guy might not have any money. >> well, and everybody is coming after him. and he were talking in the break. it's not just money. you look at the livestrong organization. look at all the people that bought into this idea and then he hid behind that organization a lot of times. look at the good i'm doing. i'm out there. i'm out front. i automatic it's a good cause. and, of course it is. but now these other things that you are doing with the publicity, it's not so good for

lance armstrong. it's an interesting sort of idea of, who else comes out after him, even for them if it's not for money. for them it's simply the idea of giving a black eye to the organization even. >> right. and let me just hit pause on that. i think we have jeff tillotson with us. thanks. glad we have you back. sorry about that. >> no problem. >> let me ask you. so you've interviewed lance armstrong under oath. you watched him tonight with oprah winfrey. what did you think? >> it was stunning. and jaw-dropping. everything i asked him about doping, using performance-enhancing drugs, doing dope with michele ferrari, he answered no to under oath with sworn testimony. he turned around tonight and said it was all a big lie. it was absolutely amazing to watch. >> now you knew he was going to do this, right? you knew he was going to admit it. did you expect it would be different in did you expect, i don't know, did you expect tears, more contrition, or is this what you expected from the lance armstrong that you knew?

>> given my history in deposing him and what he said, i expected him to say things like, he had made mistakes. i never expected him to outright admit that everything he told me in his deposition was a lie. so i was surprised how candid he was with the doping that he did. he essentially admit heed doped during all seven tour de france wins. so it was pretty stunning. >> so he went a lot further than you thought he would. >> he did. although i was disappointed. i don't think he was truthful or completely candid with regard to emma o'reilly and betsy andreu who are two people he lied about in my deposition and then was very mean to and almost abusive to in calling them liars and cheats thereafter. and i had hoped he would have been more candid that they had told the truth and he had lied about them. >> so what your going to do from here? obviously you represent a company that had to pay $12.5 million to lance armstrong. your going to try now to get that money back? you said the other day your

client will decide. what are you going to do? >> well, my client watched the program with me, and the decision was made. if mr. armstrong doesn't return the money, my client is going to sue him for return of those funds. we paid him $12 million because he won three tour de france races and told us under oath he was a clean rider. he's now told us that was a lie, and he's lost those titles. so he neither deserves nor is entitled to that money. he needs to give it back. and while i appreciate, like i'm sure many americans, mr. armstrong's apology tonight, when he sends us his apology, he needs to include a check for the return of our money because he's not entitled to it. >> and what if he doesn't have it? i know you watched the moment, dana and i were just talking about, about how the day when he lost the nike endorsement. that appeared, at least to me watching the interview, that that was a sort of sea change moment for him. what if he doesn't have enough money to pay everybody off, including you?

>> well, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. he's made a substantial amount of money over the last 15 years based on his fame and endorsements. he got $12 million from us. so i'm going to assume he's got enough to repay us. and if he doesn't, we'll just deal with it when we get to it. but that's not really a defense, to i shouldn't have to pay you back. >> do you think -- i guess i'm trying to understand. the livestrong part of this, and we have a statement from them that's just coming in. i'm going to share it with everyone in just a moment. the one thing people say is, look. no matter all the bad or the evil certain people can do, and in this case he hurt a lot of people. he did a lot of bad things. but the livestrong foundation also helped a lot of people. and did a lot of good things. does that in any way absolve him? >> no, it doesn't, although i've maintained, and we maintained in our lawsuit that there's a difference between mr. armstrong the cyclist and the individual who cheated and doped.

and mr. armstrong the humanitarian who ran his foundation. and just because he did good works through his foundation doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable for what he did on the racing track and with his sponsors in prize money with people like us. so, you know, he did some good things but on the other hand it certainly doesn't absolve him of having to face the music with people like us. >> jeffrey, when you deposed him and asked him each of the questions that oprah winfrey asked him tonight, did you use performance-enhancing drugs, epo? she went through the entire list. you did something very similar to that in your deposition, right? >> he was under oath and we weren't sitting in comfortable chairs, but, yes, i did. >> when he spoke to you and he denied, looking you straight in the eye. did he look you straight in the eye when he did it? >> he did, although, if you watch the videotape and you look at it now, i think it's fairly

clear he was fidgeting and was perhaps too passionate in his denials. >> now you say that. but at the time, did you say to yourself, i mean, you are an expert at this. you look at everybody doing it. and, you know, coming in front of you and you are deposing them. did you believe him? >> i didn't believe him, but i was -- i will be honest with you. i was surprised how easy and persuasive he made those denials. and he didn't just say i didn't dope. he offered compelling, heart-wrenching reasons. how could i possibly have doped and lied about it with all the people i support through my foundation. how could i possibly have doped and lied about it knowing that i had cancer. and he said things that made you wonder, gosh, just maybe for some reason he's telling the truth. but the evidence we had was so overwhelming at the time that he was lying, i left really wondering if he just was that

good of a liar or there was just so remorse whatsoever in him. >> so i know this may be a bizarre question. but i have to ask it of you because you are an attorney. and you depose people and put people under oath who are lying all the time for a living. where does he rank? is he one of the best liars you've ever seen? >> well, he certainly -- he certainly is among one of the more accomplished because he did it persuasively without hesitation and offered numerous, compelling reasons that no sane person would offer to justify a lie. i mean, trying to convince me in a deposition that he was telling the truth because he would never hurt the millions of cancer victims out there is -- ranks in the top five of things i've seen in a deposition. telling me how could i possibly think that he would dope given he had had testicular cancer and why would he ever put something in his body like that? you know, that's pretty accomplished. and that's someone who, if isn't pathological is certainly without remorse.

>> thank you very much, jeffrey. we appreciate your taking the time to share this with us. jeffrey there at the end of our conversation referred to what lance had to say would never dope. look at all the millions of cancer victims out there who rely on me. i want to share with you the statement that we just have received from his cancer foundation livestrong. i'll quote them here in part. we at the livestrong foundation are disappointed by the news that lance armstrong misled people during and after his cycling career, including us. earlier this week, lance apologized to our staff and we accepted his apology in order to move on and chart a strong, independent course. we look forward to devoting our full energy to our mission of helping people, not only fight and survive cancer but also thrive in life after cancer. lance is no longer on the foundation's board, but he is our founder. and we will always be grateful to him for creating and helping to build a foundation that has served millions struggling with cancer. it is one other sentence i wanted to share with you.

we don't have it on screen. it's important as so many of us struggle to decide what sort of human being was it there talking to oprah winfrey. they continue to say even in the wake of our disappointment, we express our gratitude to lance for the drive, devotion and spirit he brought to serving cancer patients and the entire cancer community. that is the part of lance armstrong that he is reaching out to and those who support him to redeem him or absolve him of so much of the pain that he has caused through his lying. still to come, the people lance armstrong hurt to succeed. we are going to hear from them after this.il tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 investors want. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 like no atm fees, worldwide. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and no nuisance fees. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 plus deposit checks with mobile deposit. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and manage your cash and investments tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 with schwab's mobile app. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 no wonder schwab bank has grown to over 70 billion in assets. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 so if you're looking for a bank that's in your corner, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 not just on the corner... tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 call, click or visit to start banking with schwab bank today. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550

it's lots of things. all waking up. ♪ becoming part of the global phenomenon we call the internet of everything. ♪ trees will talk to networks will talk to scientists about climate change. cars will talk to road sensors will talk to stoplights about traffic efficiency. the ambulance will talk to patient records will talk to doctors about saving lives. it's going to be amazing. and exciting. and maybe, most remarkably, not that far away.

the next big thing? we're going to wake the world up. ♪ and watch, with eyes wide, as it gets to work. ♪ cisco. tomorrow starts here.

breaking news tonight. lance armstrong coming clean in an extensive interview with oprah winfrey. armstrong admitted using testosterone and human growth hormone. he also admitted he took blood transfusions. now he apologized to the people he said he hurt through more than a decade of denials, including the former masseuse for his team.

ed lavandera is back for us. ed you have spoken to that masseuse, emma o'reilly. >> well, her story is fascinating. it's detailed quite extensively in the u.s. anti-doping agency report where she gave a 21-page affidavit to investigators there last year. and in that story, put yourself in this woman's shoes. she was in her late 20s, back in the late '90s. she joined the u.s. postal service cycling team. she joined the team as a masseuse. and it wasn't too much longer after that that she realized part of her job began entailing making runs to picking up the various drugs that the cyclers were using on this team. and this isn't just like going down the street to a walgreens or cvs. this was driving from france to spain, 18-hour round-trips to deliver -- pick up pills in one case that was detailed. another story she told investigators was she had driven

a bag to nice, france, where lance armstrong and his first wife had a home and delivered a brown paper bag of drugs in the parking lot of a mcdonald's. so this is something lance armstrong tonight, who criticized as being a, quote, prostitute and a drunk over the years. so one of these people that lance armstrong had gone and criticized heavily. lance armstrong acknowledged that emma o'reilly was someone that got run over and got bullied. listen to oprah winfrey's exchange on the topic of emma o'reilly. >> you sued her? >> to be honest, oprah, we sued so many people. i don't even -- i'm sure we did. >> lance armstrong says, you know, i've, quote, reached out to her to make amends, but it's exactly that tone and the way that lance armstrong was talking in that portion of the interview which has been distressing, i think, to a lot of people who have been commenting and watching the interview.

this was a young woman vilified, sued by lance armstrong. they eventually had to settle out of court, but it took its toll on that woman. and lance armstrong talking tonight couldn't even remember if he had sued her. said, oh, yeah. i think we sued her. we sued a lot of people. that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. >> it was a very awkward moment. ed, let me hit pause for a moment. i want to bring david epstein back in from "sports illustrated." you have also interviewed, you know emma o'reilly. what was your reaction to that moment tonight? >> i thought it was laughable that he didn't acknowledge he sued emma o'reilly. not only did he sue her, but over the years, she's come up, whether in books or articles. she's been a thorn in his side a number of ways because she refuses to be bullied. she was a masseuse in cycling that was particularly close to him. the idea he doesn't know if he sued her was one of the most disingenuous moments. >> certainly called things into question. >> i think people really want to

forgive and believe we're that kind of society. but when you see a moment like that, it's hard for you to accept that you can forgive this man when he seems so flippant about a woman whose life in some ways he destroyed. >> another thing that has been such a central part of this whole case, of course, has been the accusations that -- by so many former teammates that lance armstrong forced them and coerced them. you dope or else. threats. and physical threats in some cases. oprah winfrey had a chance to ask him about that. that was a really interesting moment and one i know i was at least honing in on the answer to that because that sort of would give a feeling for, again, this question of, what kind of a human being is he, really? >> i think it spoke to the culture and the mind-set of lance armstrong in those years that he was racing in the tour de france. he talked a lot tonight about his desire to win and how intense that was. and that sort of thing. but lance armstrong was pressed several times by oprah winfrey.

she came back to it several times. but lance denies that he forced anyone or directed anyone on the team to use the performance-enhancing drugs, although i think a lot of teammates would disagree. >> the idea that anybody was forced or pressured or encouraged is not true. i'm -- i'm out of the business of calling somebody a liar, but if you ask me if it's true or not, i'm going to say it's true or not. that is not true. >> you know, erin, i thought it was interesting. toward the end of that exchange as it was going on several times, the quote that really stood out from lance armstrong where he said, i'm not the most believable person in the world right now. and you could kind of hear a lot of people around the world saying, uh, yeah, duh. >> i was looking for a moment, i don't know, maybe something about, what do you -- what would you tell your children right now or how are you going to tell them about that? maybe that would have been more cathartic. when we come back, i'm going to ask everyone on our panel

whether they think lance helped or hurt himself. different question than whether you believe him or think he did a good job. did he help or hurt himself tonight? we'll be back.but en you wake up in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal. intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities

while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪

lance armstrong was powerful, he was larger than life, and people were terrified to cross him. that's a fact. but was he a bully? oprah asked. >> were you the one in charge? >> uh, well, i was the top rider. i was the leader of the team. i wasn't the manager, the general manager, the director, the -- >> but if someone was not doing something to your satisfaction, could you get them fired? >> it depends what they are doing. if you are asking me, somebody on the team says i'm not going to dope -- >> yeah. >> and i say you're fired? >> yes. >> absolutely not. >> could you -- >> i guess i could have. i never did. >> pretty interesting moment there.

i want to go around our panel and say, bottom line. forget whether you believe him or not. did this interview help him or hurt him? let's start with bill strickland. what's the bottom line for you? help or hurt? >> well, both. he hurt himself with some of the inconsistencies, some of the things he disputed. but you know, i'm rooting for him. i rooted for tyler hamilton. i rooted for floyd landis. i think he has a shot at redemption. he couldn't win it tonight. he could lose it. you know, maybe he hung on to that chance here. i think in the end, it will be a help, if he does the work. >> paul callan you have the legal perspective. help or hurt? >> hurt. it was a confession without remorse. it was a performance that showed he abused the legal system, filing baseless lawsuits. and i think it's going to haunt him. hurt in a big way. >> and to our ed lavandera. you've been covering all the people that have been so personally hurt by lance armstrong. do you think this helped or hurt him? >> well, i look at this through the prism of the city of austin,

where we are tonight, where lance lives part time. this is where livestrong foundation is not too far from where i'm standing. there's the lance armstrong bikeway which the mayor of the city of austin, a good friend of lance's says they have no intentio to change that. i've talked to a great many of people in this town. many people are simply fed up with lance armstrong and are tired of hearing about him. >> maybe that's the moment where people, instead of rooting for your failure start to root for your success. it's like an addiction. you have to reach the bottom. do you think this helped or hurt him? >> i think it hurt him right now. may help in the long run. i think people weren't ready yet. he lied for so long. they just weren't ready. i don't think he could have helped himself tonight. >> that's a really interesting point. nothing would have done it as opposed to there was something wrong with this particular expression. what about you, david? >> i think it hurt. just think of myself as a print reporter. there are two things i'm going to go and write about. he denied doping after his comeback and he didn't confess to his hospital room confession.

and betsy andreu is going to continue to say that. and so i've got two headlines in my head for tomorrow already. >> well, and, obviously, neither one of them are good. you think it's going to become a very big issue, this issue of the fact he said he didn't dope after 2005, which happens to also be the line of statute of limitations? >> absolutely. and also if he -- we know he wants to get back to triathlon. if he got his lifetime ban changed to eight years. that would change the start time for that. there's substantial evidence he doped after his comeback. >> thanks very much to all of you. we appreciate your taking the time and staying with us. and to all of you, our viewers as well. piers morgan continues our coverage on lance armstrong. here's piers. cook what you love, and save your money. joe doesn't know it yet, but he'll work his way up from busser to waiter to chef before opening a restaurant specializing in fish and game from the great northwest. he'll start investing early,

he'll find some good people to help guide him, and he'll set money aside from his first day of work to his last, which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade. because vitamin d3 helps bones absorb calcium, caltrate's double the d. it now has more than any other brand to help maximize calcium absorption. so caltrate women can move the world. trying to find a better job can likbe frustrating.gs, so at university of phoenix we're working with a growing list of almost two thousand corporate partners - companies like microsoft, american red cross and adobe - to create options for you. not only that, we're using what we learn from these partners to shape our curriculum, so that when you find the job you want you'll be a perfect fit. let's get to work.

i took theraflu, but i still have this cough. [ male announcer ] truth is theraflu doesn't treat your cough. what? [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus severe cold and flu fights your worst flu symptoms, plus that cough. [ sighs ] thanks!... [ male announcer ] you're welcome. that's the cold truth!