Here's an excerpt from the WSJ's Speakeasy blog that has a crisis communications flavored approach to reviewing Mr. Armstrong's apology.

1. The Opening Bell: The Five Dimensions of
Apology – Crisis Communications
It has been an interesting week for PR practitioners with Lance Armstrong’s confession
and the Manti Te’o saga. These two stories have captured everyone’s attention given
our universal desire to believe in the success and abilities of our idols – in these
cases, athletes. Thousands of stories have been and will continue to be written on
both athletes and how they will resolve their respective situations. One perspective that
stood out to us was the Wall Street Journal’s Speakeasy blog’s take on the dimensions
of apology as applied to Mr. Armstrong’s confession. The author’s take could be easily
applied as necessary initial steps in deploying effective crisis communications. Provided
below is an excerpt from the article that speaks to the various dimensions. A link to
the full article is provided here.
Recognition requires that the offender articulate in a specific way the offenses for
which he or she is apologizing. “I’m sorry for my mistakes” or the pathetic “mistakes
were made” won’t do. A quality apology is very specific.
Armstrong’s apology is only sporadically specific. He admits that he is an arrogant
bully. He acknowledges that he has hurt innocent people by name and that deserves
all the animosity that he has created. He accepts that he has been a poor role model.
But for the most part, his offenses are unspecified. For recognizing and naming his
behavior, Armstrong’s apology earns a B.

2. Responsibility calls for the offender to accept unalloyed responsibility for the offenses.
This is the part where most apologies fail because it’s so easy for defensiveness to
creep in.
Armstrong falls into this trap. “I didn’t invent the culture [of doping], but I didn’t try to
stop the culture,” he tells Oprah. That kind of distancing of responsibility appears
throughout the confession. Elsewhere, however, he acknowledges that “all the fault falls
on me.” For accepting responsibility for his offenses, Armstrong’s apology earns a C.
Remorse is the part of the apology where the offender actually uses the words “I
apologize” or “I’m sorry.” A statement without the use of one or both of these phrases
is not an apology.
Given all his offenses and the number of victims, I would have expected that the words
would appear in virtually every other sentence. That he said it only once is damning.
Armstrong hinted at his remorse but victims can’t heal with hints. They need to hear
the actual words of apology. For his failure to express full-throated remorse,
Armstrong’s apology gets a D.
Restitution is the most difficult part of most apologies. This is the part where the
offender answers the question, how am I to be held accountable? Offenders cannot
talk their way out of difficulties they acted their way into.
An effective apology requires Armstrong to identify concrete steps he will take to
reverse some of the damage he has inflicted. He indicated he is ready to cooperate
with sports authorities. That’s a start. But I was looking for what he specifically intends
to do to atone for his behavior to all the former teammates and friends he has
betrayed. Maybe some of this will be in Part II, but from what I heard, on the measure
of restitution, Armstrong’s apology gets a D.
Repetition, the last step, calls for the apologizer to reassure victims that he will not
repeat the offending behavior.
Nowhere in the interview did Armstrong specifically promise that he will no longer take
illegal performance enhancing drugs or abuse people who get in his way. I fault Oprah
for not pinning Armstrong down on this point, but the grade doesn’t change. On the
dimension of promising not to repeat the offending behavior, Armstrong’s apology is
silent so he gets an F.