A Plea For Integrity In Cycling Journalism in 2010

[Moose McKnuckles]

Hi everyone. This is Claire, writer of the Examiner article. First of all, I would like to thank everyone who's been spreading the link around and posting on the comments. Many of the commenters have said what I think needs to be said, and what I felt that I did not have enough concrete evidence to publish. My personal beliefs about Mr. Armstrong are much like many of yours, but I can't PROVE the guy's a rat. I wish that I had some news that I could break that *proved* that Armstrong is doping. However, the reason that I don't take him to the cleaners as many of you have, is that I have never seen any evidence that has stood up in a WADA hearing or a court of law. If you look closely at the wording of the article, I was very careful only to put any defense of Armstrong in indirect quotes from "Le Boss" himself. None of my own. That doesn't mean I agree with him, it just means I can't prove he's lying. Just like the investigators haven't been able to prove anything, (or Walsh or any of the others) despite all their trying. The point I was trying to make in the article was that for all their hard work, testing him a million times a year, "going through his trash" (getting injunctions to collect his medical supplies), and they STILL can't nail him. I mean, IF he's guilty (which he sure looks that way), then why can't they nail the guy??? You point me to the person who can definitively PROVE that he's lying, and I'd love to help get the word out that he's a rat. Until then, it's just personal opinion.

As far as me writing for LiveStrong... well it's true. Good sleuthing for all those who caught the connection. My articles have been published on LiveStrong, but I am not *employed* by LiveStrong and none of my articles are directly related to Mr. Armstrong himself. My paychecks don't even come from LiveStrong. I am a freelance writer for a company called Demand Studios, and one of their contracts is for LiveStrong. In the spirit of total transparency, I make about $50 per month directly through LiveStrong. If buying me off were that cheap, I really would be as bad as you all say I am.

I would like to put out there that if any of you hear of a definitive positive test by Lance Armstrong, I would love to let loose with a scathing article about him. In the meantime, however, an unfounded slandering article based on the works of others would display no more integrity than what commenters are accusing me of right now.

Finally, thanks for all the traffic. I'm laughing my way all the way to the bank.

Your response is weak on several points. First, as a journalist, you should have immediately noted your conflict of interest. Failing to do so just undermines your credibility as a writer. Second, Armstrong's doping allegations have been the target of tremendous research by people far more qualified than you to render an opinion on the matter. At the very least, before you write on a subject, you should at least inform yourself on the issues. The questions you ask regarding "Why can't they nail the guy??" have been explained ad nauseam, and the immaturity of this question shows how little research you've done and what superficial knowledge you have of the sport.

Furthermore, it's unlikely that you're going to break any news. The only thing you seem to be breaking are the rules of journalistic integrity.

But by all means, laugh all the way to the bank while you're cashing that LiveStrong check. Prostituting oneself as a journalist is legal in all 50 states, so congrats on taking full advantage of that fact.

 

[L29205]

Hi everyone. This is Claire, writer of the Examiner article. First of all, I would like to thank everyone who's been spreading the link around and posting on the comments. Many of the commenters have said what I think needs to be said, and what I felt that I did not have enough concrete evidence to publish. My personal beliefs about Mr. Armstrong are much like many of yours, but I can't PROVE the guy's a rat. I wish that I had some news that I could break that *proved* that Armstrong is doping. However, the reason that I don't take him to the cleaners as many of you have, is that I have never seen any evidence that has stood up in a WADA hearing or a court of law. If you look closely at the wording of the article, I was very careful only to put any defense of Armstrong in indirect quotes from "Le Boss" himself. None of my own. That doesn't mean I agree with him, it just means I can't prove he's lying. Just like the investigators haven't been able to prove anything, (or Walsh or any of the others) despite all their trying. The point I was trying to make in the article was that for all their hard work, testing him a million times a year, "going through his trash" (getting injunctions to collect his medical supplies), and they STILL can't nail him. I mean, IF he's guilty (which he sure looks that way), then why can't they nail the guy??? You point me to the person who can definitively PROVE that he's lying, and I'd love to help get the word out that he's a rat. Until then, it's just personal opinion.

As far as me writing for LiveStrong... well it's true. Good sleuthing for all those who caught the connection. My articles have been published on LiveStrong, but I am not *employed* by LiveStrong and none of my articles are directly related to Mr. Armstrong himself. My paychecks don't even come from LiveStrong. I am a freelance writer for a company called Demand Studios, and one of their contracts is for LiveStrong. In the spirit of total transparency, I make about $50 per month directly through LiveStrong. If buying me off were that cheap, I really would be as bad as you all say I am.

I would like to put out there that if any of you hear of a definitive positive test by Lance Armstrong, I would love to let loose with a scathing article about him. In the meantime, however, an unfounded slandering article based on the works of others would display no more integrity than what commenters are accusing me of right now.

Finally, thanks for all the traffic. I'm laughing my way all the way to the bank.

Just a quick question, If you believe what you say and are an objective free lance sports writer. Why are you adding in an opinion piece in your first paragraph?

"In 2009 Lance Armstrong came back to France with a new team and new tactics, but French anti-doping officials are up to their old tricks. The French police have been sniffing around Astana's trash like a suspicious bloodhound, desperate to find evidence for a doping case that will stick."

 

[Race Radio]

Hi everyone. This is Claire, writer of the Examiner article. First of all, I would like to thank everyone who's been spreading the link around and posting on the comments. Many of the commenters have said what I think needs to be said, and what I felt that I did not have enough concrete evidence to publish. My personal beliefs about Mr. Armstrong are much like many of yours, but I can't PROVE the guy's a rat. I wish that I had some news that I could break that *proved* that Armstrong is doping. However, the reason that I don't take him to the cleaners as many of you have, is that I have never seen any evidence that has stood up in a WADA hearing or a court of law. If you look closely at the wording of the article, I was very careful only to put any defense of Armstrong in indirect quotes from "Le Boss" himself. None of my own. That doesn't mean I agree with him, it just means I can't prove he's lying. Just like the investigators haven't been able to prove anything, (or Walsh or any of the others) despite all their trying. The point I was trying to make in the article was that for all their hard work, testing him a million times a year, "going through his trash" (getting injunctions to collect his medical supplies), and they STILL can't nail him. I mean, IF he's guilty (which he sure looks that way), then why can't they nail the guy??? You point me to the person who can definitively PROVE that he's lying, and I'd love to help get the word out that he's a rat. Until then, it's just personal opinion.

As far as me writing for LiveStrong... well it's true. Good sleuthing for all those who caught the connection. My articles have been published on LiveStrong, but I am not *employed* by LiveStrong and none of my articles are directly related to Mr. Armstrong himself. My paychecks don't even come from LiveStrong. I am a freelance writer for a company called Demand Studios, and one of their contracts is for LiveStrong. In the spirit of total transparency, I make about $50 per month directly through LiveStrong. If buying me off were that cheap, I really would be as bad as you all say I am.

I would like to put out there that if any of you hear of a definitive positive test by Lance Armstrong, I would love to let loose with a scathing article about him. In the meantime, however, an unfounded slandering article based on the works of others would display no more integrity than what commenters are accusing me of right now.

Finally, thanks for all the traffic. I'm laughing my way all the way to the bank.

Claire.

I would like to thank you for taking time out to post here. Many would choose not to engage their critics and that you have goes a long way with me.

It appears that the story has now been taken down so I will have give my thoughts from memory (Not easy after all the Egg Nog)

A large part of the Armstrong myth is that the French are always trying to develop various conspiracies in order to bring him down. Your article played into this "Us vs. Them" garbage that Armstrong has used to cover his actions for years. The French Police are doing their job. Armstrong has tested positive multiple times and his team has been caught dumping PED's so it would be natural for them to do their job and search their trash. Doping is a criminal offense in France, this is much more then just a suspension. You also forget that it was not just Astana's trash that was search but every team in the Tour.

There is a huge amount of evidence that Armstrong doped. I could repeat it but much of it is on this forum and I don't want to waste time. The best place to start is this interview with Michael Ashenden, developer of the EPO test and the Biopassport. Please read it and get back to us with your thoughts.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Hi everyone. This is Claire, writer of the Examiner article.....
<sniped for brevity>

I would like to put out there that if any of you hear of a definitive positive test by Lance Armstrong, I would love to let loose with a scathing article about him. In the meantime, however, an unfounded slandering article based on the works of others would display no more integrity than what commenters are accusing me of right now.

Finally, thanks for all the traffic. I'm laughing my way all the way to the bank.

Hi Claire....

"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour." - this was said by Dr. Michael Ashenden.
Neither Dr. Ashenden nor NYVelocity have been sued.

Also - Demand Studios?! Who are part of Demand Media?

Guess which 7 times Tour de France winner has "substantial" equity in Demand Media - small world.

 

[Boston Triathlon Examiner]

Just a quick question, If you believe what you say and are an objective free lance sports writer. Why are you adding in an opinion piece in your first paragraph?

"In 2009 Lance Armstrong came back to France with a new team and new tactics, but French anti-doping officials are up to their old tricks. The French police have been sniffing around Astana's trash like a suspicious bloodhound, desperate to find evidence for a doping case that will stick."

Hello again, folks. First, you will all notice that the article has been taken down. I have done so because although I know that I did not write the article with any pro-Lance agenda in mind, refuting a conflict of interest is futile. I will heretofore refrain from making any comment on Mr. Armstrong's innocence or guilt in Examiner columns.

In response to the above comment, I'm not sure which first paragraph you're referring to here: the article or my forum post? In a forum, I can express personal opinions, so I was able to express opinions that I am not qualified to report on in my articles. In the article, I actually wasn't trying to express an opinion at all. Fact: Doping officials have gone through Armstrongs' team's trash in the past. The wording was simply chosen to play on the idea of a fresh start and new beginnings, but with a repeat of past circumstances. It actually came as a surprise to me when people started interpreting it as a condemnation of the investigators. I am not the first news source to suggest that French anti-doping officials have a vendetta against Armstrong (blog.taragana.com/sports/2009/10/20/troubling-questions-about-french-probe-into-syringes-linked-to-lance-armstrongs-former-team-39134/ this page was referenced in my original article). Obviously the French are not the only one who would like to see Armstrong exposed for a cheat. The evidence just isn't conclusive enough to nail the guy legally or in an 800-word news blurb. A hurried after-the-fact cortisone scrip for saddle sores, lots of he-said-she-said, but nothing that Armstrong's legal dream team hasn't been able to knock down.

As far as the speculation about what I know and what I don't about the case... well I *have* followed the case very closely. I have not tracked down a copy of LA Confidential, but I have heard and read many interviews with Walsh, the Andreus, LeMond, and several people associated with Landis as well. I am familiar with the conspiracy theories (which is not to say there isn't truth in them), but until Armstrong has been ruled a cheater by the World Anti-Doping Administration, the only individuals who should be publishing opinion pieces slandering Armstrong in reputable news sources are O'Reilly, Anderson, the Andreus, lab officials, prosecutors, and other eye witnesses to the alleged doping. While these folks have compelling stories, Armstrong has still managed to dodge or bully his way out of several tight spots, and I would much rather take all your spleen than a libel suit.

I want to thank the vigilantes out there for keeping people's eyes open, but I stick to my guns that you and I don't have the intel to convict the guy. As far as the attacks on my personal intellect and integrity, shoot away. I will not be back on this thread to read them. Thank you for your opinions and happy new year.

 

[Nalgas Hombre]

Hello again, folks. First, you will all notice that the article has been taken down. I have done so because although I know that I did not write the article with any pro-Lance agenda in mind, refuting a conflict of interest is futile. I will heretofore refrain from making any comment on Mr. Armstrong's innocence or guilt in Examiner columns.

In response to the above comment, I'm not sure which first paragraph you're referring to here: the article or my forum post? In a forum, I can express personal opinions, so I was able to express opinions that I am not qualified to report on in my articles. In the article, I actually wasn't trying to express an opinion at all. Fact: Doping officials have gone through Armstrongs' team's trash in the past. The wording was simply chosen to play on the idea of a fresh start and new beginnings, but with a repeat of past circumstances. It actually came as a surprise to me when people started interpreting it as a condemnation of the investigators. I am not the first news source to suggest that French anti-doping officials have a vendetta against Armstrong (blog.taragana.com/sports/2009/10/20/troubling-questions-about-french-probe-into-syringes-linked-to-lance-armstrongs-former-team-39134/ this page was referenced in my original article). Obviously the French are not the only one who would like to see Armstrong exposed for a cheat. The evidence just isn't conclusive enough to nail the guy legally or in an 800-word news blurb. A hurried after-the-fact cortisone scrip for saddle sores, lots of he-said-she-said, but nothing that Armstrong's legal dream team hasn't been able to knock down.

As far as the speculation about what I know and what I don't about the case... well I *have* followed the case very closely. I have not tracked down a copy of LA Confidential, but I have heard and read many interviews with Walsh, the Andreus, LeMond, and several people associated with Landis as well. I am familiar with the conspiracy theories (which is not to say there isn't truth in them), but until Armstrong has been ruled a cheater by the World Anti-Doping Administration, the only individuals who should be publishing opinion pieces slandering Armstrong in reputable news sources are O'Reilly, Anderson, the Andreus, lab officials, prosecutors, and other eye witnesses to the alleged doping. While these folks have compelling stories, Armstrong has still managed to dodge or bully his way out of several tight spots, and I would much rather take all your spleen than a libel suit.

I want to thank the vigilantes out there for keeping people's eyes open, but I stick to my guns that you and I don't have the intel to convict the guy. As far as the attacks on my personal intellect and integrity, shoot away. I will not be back on this thread to read them. Thank you for your opinions and happy new year.

I wouldn't worry about all the paranoid conspiracy folk on the forum. On a subject like LA, you'll always get flak.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Hello again, folks. First, you will all notice that the article has been taken down. I have done so because although I know that I did not write the article with any pro-Lance agenda in mind, refuting a conflict of interest is futile. I will heretofore refrain from making any comment on Mr. Armstrong's innocence or guilt in Examiner columns.

In response to the above comment, I'm not sure which first paragraph you're referring to here: the article or my forum post? In a forum, I can express personal opinions, so I was able to express opinions that I am not qualified to report on in my articles. In the article, I actually wasn't trying to express an opinion at all. Fact: Doping officials have gone through Armstrongs' team's trash in the past. The wording was simply chosen to play on the idea of a fresh start and new beginnings, but with a repeat of past circumstances. It actually came as a surprise to me when people started interpreting it as a condemnation of the investigators. I am not the first news source to suggest that French anti-doping officials have a vendetta against Armstrong (blog.taragana.com/sports/2009/10/20/troubling-questions-about-french-probe-into-syringes-linked-to-lance-armstrongs-former-team-39134/ this page was referenced in my original article). Obviously the French are not the only one who would like to see Armstrong exposed for a cheat. The evidence just isn't conclusive enough to nail the guy legally or in an 800-word news blurb. A hurried after-the-fact cortisone scrip for saddle sores, lots of he-said-she-said, but nothing that Armstrong's legal dream team hasn't been able to knock down.

As far as the speculation about what I know and what I don't about the case... well I *have* followed the case very closely. I have not tracked down a copy of LA Confidential, but I have heard and read many interviews with Walsh, the Andreus, LeMond, and several people associated with Landis as well. I am familiar with the conspiracy theories (which is not to say there isn't truth in them), but until Armstrong has been ruled a cheater by the World Anti-Doping Administration, the only individuals who should be publishing opinion pieces slandering Armstrong in reputable news sources are O'Reilly, Anderson, the Andreus, lab officials, prosecutors, and other eye witnesses to the alleged doping. While these folks have compelling stories, Armstrong has still managed to dodge or bully his way out of several tight spots, and I would much rather take all your spleen than a libel suit.

I want to thank the vigilantes out there for keeping people's eyes open, but I stick to my guns that you and I don't have the intel to convict the guy. As far as the attacks on my personal intellect and integrity, shoot away. I will not be back on this thread to read them. Thank you for your opinions and happy new year.

Hi Claire.

It was not French anti-doping that went through the trash - either this time or with USPS back in 2000.
This yearit was the Central Office against Environmental Damage and Public Health (OCLAESP) who found suspicious materials which has now passed on to the Public Prosecutor.

In 2000it was a television station France TV 3 that followed and recorded the suspicious activities of the USPS team.

Ultimately I am disappointed that you took down your article - perhaps it would have been better to acknowledge that you write for Demand and do some issues for Livestrong.

Also - From Lance to Landis is essentially the English version of LA Confidential - a worthwhile and informative read.

 

[Ferminal]

The first paragraph says it all. Disgusting.

"In 2009 Lance Armstrong came back to France with a new team and new tactics, but French anti-doping officials are up to their old tricks. The French police have been sniffing around Astana's trash like a suspicious bloodhound, desperate to find evidence for a doping case that will stick."

Glad I get a 404 from that link, because that's atrocious.

Edits: Maybe it gets better, but would like to know why Claire used that language if she was trying to write an objective article. I don't care if it was written to elevate public opinion of Lance, but is that language entirely necessary? Did the article go on to elaborate as to why exactly "The French Police" were suspicious. Did the article elaborate on the "new tactics" of which most involved sabotaging the efforts of the supposed team leader in Alberto Contador.

That's no different from saying "Contador returned to the TdF in 2009, storming up Verbier like charged men before him". Then proceeding to write an "objective" article of his supposed link to Fuentes and other anecdotes which more or less describe him as a cheat but he isn't because no "court of law" has found him to be one.

As a side note, are the USADA etc often described as evil in the US press, or is it only the AFLD? In Aus I think anti-doping is frowned upon because everyone is so naive to think that sport is fair, of course we hate the French anti-dopers the most though. Yet another one of those Anglo things?

 

[Anonymous]

I wish I would have read here first before posting on the thread in The Clinic. Wow, she comes here to set the record straight and be open, says incredibly stupid things like "In the article, I actually wasn't trying to express an opinion at all." and "laughing all the way to the bank" (hope the change will buy you some integrity), and then says she will not be back. Not trying to express an opinion? Either she is the most introspectively clueless individual I have seen in quite some time (okay, maybe a day or two. None of the fanboys here have ever shown an ability to do so) or she is just a lying sack of donkey vomit. I will opt for the latter as the overall tone in her posts is equally disingenuous. "Oh I think he probably did it, but I can't prove it, and it has never been proven, and you guys can't prove it, and I am so above it, and you guys are funny, and I took down my article because I didn't want to appear as though I had chamois cream on my nose and throughout my olfactory system, but because I don't want to have to defend my having prostituted my integrity because I didn't actually prostitute it, I just told them to put some money on the dresser before we started as a present because it was Christmas and all, and if you guys dig up anything like 7 samples with synthetic EPO or something, then I will gladly resign from the company of my employ and write an article in the small corner of the internet which I inhabit, but you guys are funny and nothing you wrote about my article phases me one bit which is why I needed to come here and tell you that you don't matter, have a nice day."

Hey Claire, good luck with that integrity thing!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Have we not seen this before?

Publish something - then when the errors are highlighted it is taken down.

While I don't think Claire is part of a grand conspiracy it is regretful that she has chosen not to stay around as there are some questions that her article has raised.

Claire writes for Demand Studios - a partner of Demand Media which LA has equity in - from their website:
Demand Studios commissions vetted content assignments for our network of professional creators, who then put their passion, experience and skills into producing each assignment.

So - who 'commissioned' the article? What was the objective of the article?
If there were inaccuracies in the article (as I highlighted earlier) and a conflict of interest why was that not added to the article - instead of removing the article altogether?

 

[Race Radio]

Hello again, folks. First, you will all notice that the article has been taken down. I have done so because although I know that I did not write the article with any pro-Lance agenda in mind, refuting a conflict of interest is futile. I will heretofore refrain from making any comment on Mr. Armstrong's innocence or guilt in Examiner columns.

In response to the above comment, I'm not sure which first paragraph you're referring to here: the article or my forum post? In a forum, I can express personal opinions, so I was able to express opinions that I am not qualified to report on in my articles. In the article, I actually wasn't trying to express an opinion at all. Fact: Doping officials have gone through Armstrongs' team's trash in the past. The wording was simply chosen to play on the idea of a fresh start and new beginnings, but with a repeat of past circumstances. It actually came as a surprise to me when people started interpreting it as a condemnation of the investigators. I am not the first news source to suggest that French anti-doping officials have a vendetta against Armstrong (blog.taragana.com/sports/2009/10/20/troubling-questions-about-french-probe-into-syringes-linked-to-lance-armstrongs-former-team-39134/ this page was referenced in my original article). Obviously the French are not the only one who would like to see Armstrong exposed for a cheat. The evidence just isn't conclusive enough to nail the guy legally or in an 800-word news blurb. A hurried after-the-fact cortisone scrip for saddle sores, lots of he-said-she-said, but nothing that Armstrong's legal dream team hasn't been able to knock down.

As far as the speculation about what I know and what I don't about the case... well I *have* followed the case very closely. I have not tracked down a copy of LA Confidential, but I have heard and read many interviews with Walsh, the Andreus, LeMond, and several people associated with Landis as well. I am familiar with the conspiracy theories (which is not to say there isn't truth in them), but until Armstrong has been ruled a cheater by the World Anti-Doping Administration, the only individuals who should be publishing opinion pieces slandering Armstrong in reputable news sources are O'Reilly, Anderson, the Andreus, lab officials, prosecutors, and other eye witnesses to the alleged doping. While these folks have compelling stories, Armstrong has still managed to dodge or bully his way out of several tight spots, and I would much rather take all your spleen than a libel suit.

I want to thank the vigilantes out there for keeping people's eyes open, but I stick to my guns that you and I don't have the intel to convict the guy. As far as the attacks on my personal intellect and integrity, shoot away. I will not be back on this thread to read them. Thank you for your opinions and happy new year.

Claire

not to be rude but you are showing your ignorance of the sport if you are still believing the myth because of lack of "official sanction".

WADA only had jurisdiction over two years of Armstrong 17 year career. The rest of that time the UCI was in charge. You may want to do a little research as the UCI is one of the most ineffectual, corrupt organizations in professional sport. Even Ulrich, who blood bags were found in Fuentes refrigerator, is still eligible to race.

It is precisely because of the ineptitude of the governing bodies that some countries like France, Germany and Italy started taking things into their own hands and criminalize doping.

 

[tifosa]

Claire, like any other forum member you are entitled to your opinions. But do not pass off those opinions under the guise of journalist or possessing journalistic integrity - because you aren't one nor do you have any.

It's probably better to keep the public relations 8ullsh*t to sound bites and twitter feeds. Anything more than 30 words or 124 characters is going to demand examination and explanation -- something Armstrong et al find difficult to do when when their ways and means are deflection and defense.

Stick to your strong suit, Claire.

If you still insist on being a journalist, learn how to ask hard questions and demand answers.

 

[Señor_Contador]

[...]but I don't understand acting like a typical fan (aka Liggett and Sherwin).

Those two have lowered their standards significantly and are now full-fledged Lance fans.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were in Armstrong's payroll.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Claire, like any other forum member you are entitled to your opinions. But do not pass off those opinions under the guise of journalist or possessing journalistic integrity - because you aren't one nor do you have any.

It's probably better to keep the public relations 8ullsh*t to sound bites and twitter feeds. Anything more than 30 words or 124 characters is going to demand examination and explanation -- something Armstrong et al find difficult to do when when their ways and means are deflection and defense.

Stick to your strong suit, Claire.

If you still insist on being a journalist, learn how to ask hard questions and demand answers.

I wonder if Claire's handlers at Demand An Alibi know about her alleged doubts about Armstrongs innocence that she articulated to us on this forum. Maybe we should warn them?

 

[L29205]

Hello again, folks. First, you will all notice that the article has been taken down. I have done so because although I know that I did not write the article with any pro-Lance agenda in mind, refuting a conflict of interest is futile. I will heretofore refrain from making any comment on Mr. Armstrong's innocence or guilt in Examiner columns.

In response to the above comment, I'm not sure which first paragraph you're referring to here: the article or my forum post? In a forum, I can express personal opinions, so I was able to express opinions that I am not qualified to report on in my articles. In the article, I actually wasn't trying to express an opinion at all. Fact: Doping officials have gone through Armstrongs' team's trash in the past. The wording was simply chosen to play on the idea of a fresh start and new beginnings, but with a repeat of past circumstances. It actually came as a surprise to me when people started interpreting it as a condemnation of the investigators. I am not the first news source to suggest that French anti-doping officials have a vendetta against Armstrong (blog.taragana.com/sports/2009/10/20/troubling-questions-about-french-probe-into-syringes-linked-to-lance-armstrongs-former-team-39134/ this page was referenced in my original article). Obviously the French are not the only one who would like to see Armstrong exposed for a cheat. The evidence just isn't conclusive enough to nail the guy legally or in an 800-word news blurb. A hurried after-the-fact cortisone scrip for saddle sores, lots of he-said-she-said, but nothing that Armstrong's legal dream team hasn't been able to knock down.

As far as the speculation about what I know and what I don't about the case... well I *have* followed the case very closely. I have not tracked down a copy of LA Confidential, but I have heard and read many interviews with Walsh, the Andreus, LeMond, and several people associated with Landis as well. I am familiar with the conspiracy theories (which is not to say there isn't truth in them), but until Armstrong has been ruled a cheater by the World Anti-Doping Administration, the only individuals who should be publishing opinion pieces slandering Armstrong in reputable news sources are O'Reilly, Anderson, the Andreus, lab officials, prosecutors, and other eye witnesses to the alleged doping. While these folks have compelling stories, Armstrong has still managed to dodge or bully his way out of several tight spots, and I would much rather take all your spleen than a libel suit.

I want to thank the vigilantes out there for keeping people's eyes open, but I stick to my guns that you and I don't have the intel to convict the guy. As far as the attacks on my personal intellect and integrity, shoot away. I will not be back on this thread to read them. Thank you for your opinions and happy new year.

A couple of things, while I know you will not be back but thought I should comment on. I do appreciate the fact you have chosen to respond to comments made concerning your article. It says a lot about some ones character to come into what could be considered a hostile environment and stand up for what they have said.

I will agree that there is not enough intel to convict LA on an doping charge. The 99 EPO samples cannot be taken into account as it is retro-active, 2000 Actovegin usage based on the garbage found by a reporter, ect.. The evidence collected is not enough to convict.

Getting back to my original statement concerning why did you make an opinion as part of your first paragraph. The quote I was referencing was in my post. I believe that was in your original article, however I could be mistaken and since I can not go back and review. Feel free to correct me. The overall comment was based on if you have been following the medical waste trail, you would know that multiple teams medical waste had been seized. From the criminal standpoint, it appears that the French only have enough evidence to continue against the Astana medical waste. However from the quote I posted, you made it seem like it is a personal vendetta against Lance. I cannot speculate if there enough evidence to move forward against the other teams or not.

I feel I am not a vigilante, I am overall pretty open to both side of the story. I still have a hard time believing in the fact the Lance did not dope. On parting note just because Al Capone got sent to jail on income tax invasion it didn't make him any less of a gangster.

 

[Rex Hunter]

Boston Triathlon Examiner,

I didn't read your article, but it's unfortunate that you've been bullied into taking it down by a small band of anti Armstrong fanatics. Some of them are very coy about revealing their own relationships to people who have had dealings with Armstrong in the past. Indeed, one of them doesn't like to reveal they were badly beaten by Armstrong in triathlons years ago and have held a grudge against Armstrong because of this, so don't fall for this conflict of interest tactic. It's completely hypocritical.

I know from my own experience that unless you accept their speculation as fact, you are hounded and termed a troll. Don't be intimidated.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Boston Triathlon Examiner,

I didn't read your article, but it's unfortunate that you've been bullied into taking it down by a small band of anti Armstrong fanatics. Some of them are very coy about revealing their own relationships to people who have had dealings with Armstrong in the past. Indeed, one of them doesn't like to reveal they were badly beaten by Armstrong in triathlons years ago and have held a grudge against Armstrong because of this, so don't fall for this conflict of interest tactic. It's completely hypocritical.

I know from my own experience that unless you accept their speculation as fact, you are hounded and termed a troll. Don't be intimidated.

As usual Wreaks is not going to let the fact that he hasn't read the article and doesn't know anything about the discussion keep him from weighing in with his expert opinion, straight from the Lance playbook.

 

[Rex Hunter]

As usual Wreaks is not going to let the fact that he hasn't read the article and doesn't know anything about the discussion keep him from weighing in with his expert opinion, straight from the Lance playbook.

Unfortunately I have no way of reading the article since it was taken down, but it's fairly easy to get the general gist of it from the complaints, and I feel my take on the critics is relevent to the Boston Triathlon Examiner.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Unfortunately I have no way of reading the article since it was taken down, but it's fairly easy to get the general gist of it from the complaints, and I feel my take on the critics is relevent to the Boston Triathlon Examiner.

You mean since you both have the same employer?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Christmas is over. I'm tired of some of the negative banter here, and on other threads, especially related to this topic.

Rex - Get your facts straight and be direct, or don't bother posting.

TFF - Tone it down a little.

So - who 'commissioned' the article? What was the objective of the article?

If there were inaccuracies in the article (as I highlighted earlier) and a conflict of interest why was that not added to the article - instead of removing the article altogether?

I would agree with that completely. Claire didn't need to take the article down. All she had to do was state at the end she had been a freelance writer for Livestrong.com, and for Demand Media.

The other question I have is not so much who commissioned the article, but how big is the Examiner? This may be an example of a staff of ten part time, freelance people, with no active editor. It looks like anyone can "join" and "contribute".

Props to her for showing up here.

 

[red_flanders]

Hi everyone. This is Claire, writer of the Examiner article...

...As far as me writing for LiveStrong... well it's true. Good sleuthing for all those who caught the connection. My articles have been published on LiveStrong, but I am not *employed* by LiveStrong and none of my articles are directly related to Mr. Armstrong himself. My paychecks don't even come from LiveStrong. I am a freelance writer for a company called Demand Studios, and one of their contracts is for LiveStrong. In the spirit of total transparency, I make about $50 per month directly through LiveStrong. If buying me off were that cheap, I really would be as bad as you all say I am.

Is Demand Studios a part of Demand Media? It appears to be. http://www.demandmedia.com/studios/

 

[red_flanders]

Hello again, folks. First, you will all notice that the article has been taken down. I have done so because although I know that I did not write the article with any pro-Lance agenda in mind, refuting a conflict of interest is futile. I will heretofore refrain from making any comment on Mr. Armstrong's innocence or guilt in Examiner columns.

"Futile" is an interesting word. A conflict of interest exists in this case, so yes, of course "refuting it" would be futile. You state the obvious.

The question is why did you seek to hide the obvious conflict of interest in the "article" and then claim the only link was that you get some small amount of money from livestrong.com? It would seem that in fact you receive your paycheck from a company partly (a significant part by all accounts) owned by Mr. Armstrong. That is two times attempting to hide a conflict of interest. The second time you actually appear to pointedly misdirect your audience about the nature of the conflict interest when explaining it.

If Lance is not a part owner in the company which pays you, please explain how, because it seems patently obvious he is.

 

[red_flanders]

...I would much rather take all your spleen than a libel suit.

I certainly believe that, and it's a telling statement.

However, it does nothing to explain why you use the "article" to attack the french Anti-doping officials and Police.

You wrote a decidedly pro-Armstrong "article" attacking those who are investigating him. You work for a company he owns.

Trash. An ad buy disguised as content.

 

[Rex Hunter]

Christmas is over.

We have a two day holiday for Christmas where I am, so Christmas is still on. (in fact because boxing day fell on a Saturday this year, the holiday is transfered to Monday, so technically Christmas won't be over until Tuesday.)

 

[Anonymous]

Christmas is over. I'm tired of some of the negative banter here, and on other threads, especially related to this topic.

Rex - Get your facts straight and be direct, or don't bother posting.

TFF - Tone it down a little.



I would agree with that completely. Claire didn't need to take the article down. All she had to do was state at the end she had been a freelance writer for Livestrong.com, and for Demand Media.

The other question I have is not so much who commissioned the article, but how big is the Examiner? This may be an example of a staff of ten part time, freelance people, with no active editor. It looks like anyone can "join" and "contribute".

Props to her for showing up here.

"journalistic prostitute" a little too harsh?