A Plea For Integrity In Cycling Journalism in 2010

[Mrs John Murphy]

With McQuaid so unwilling to investigate these claims - where does that leave his credibility? The sound of whitewash being applied and things being swept under the carpet is deafening. To refuse to even investigate the allegations is a dereliction of duty by McQuaid and the UCI.

 

[kurtinsc]

With McQuaid so unwilling to investigate these claims - where does that leave his credibility? The sound of whitewash being applied and things being swept under the carpet is deafening. To refuse to even investigate the allegations is a dereliction of duty by McQuaid and the UCI.

The problem with this particular case is that Landis is so tarnished and fought against his own guilt for so long.

I kind of liken it to the steroid accusations Jose Conseco made when no teams would sign him. Yes, much of what he said was in fact true... but Conseco was such a damaged source that it's very difficult to use his words alone to investigate someone else.

He's said he's got no proof or documentation... he just called out a dozen or so names and said they doped (including Levi Leipheimer, George Hincapie and Dave Zabriskie). Is that enough to open an investigation on anyone?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

There is a certain flawed logic.

If Landis is lying now, then he must have been telling the truth at the time. If Landis lied in the past, then must be telling the truth about the past now.

It seems to me that the party line from the UCI downwards is to attack Landis's character rather than to investigate the claims.

If he has no evidence to support his claims then fine - but it needs to be investigated to show whether his claims have any truth in them or not.

This is where journalistic integrity is so important. It is important that the claims be fully investigated - because if they aren't there will always be a cloud of suspicion of a cover-up.

It is important that the media - especially CN doesn't sit on their hands and act as a mouth-piece for those attacking Landis' personality.

If Armstrong/LL/Hog etc can prove that the claims are untrue then fine - let them air their defense.

 

[theswordsman]

Wow. Today is like an election day in the cycling media with everyone choosing a side. It's a great day to play Who Do You Trust? As the OP on this thread, I won't try to impose my own opinions, but suggest you look at all your regular sources and check for a reaction. Was it fair and unbiased? I was surprised at some of the people who showed their true colors. If I remember correctly from last night, the Reuters story didn't mention other riders besides Landis. The writer for AP went so far as to name former Armstrong teammates who were later busted for doping.

Since Pat McQuaid has been mentioned here, I'll just point out that he seems to have made his pronouncement without knowing the facts. Here are some things that Landis explained today, including that he wanted to keep this quiet until he could negotiate amnesty for everyone, and that Armstrong knew it in advance. Pro cycling is at a crossroads whether it wants to be or not. They can choose to appear clean, or to attempt to be clean.

According to Landis, the original purpose of the leaked e-mail was to admit to doping and to demonstrate to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) how drug doping was accomplished without detection. Landis claims he included others because he was trying to negotiate amnesty for himself and the riders named before supplying the dopers' regimen to USADA.

Talking about the leaked e-mail, Landis said, "I would have preferred that it had stayed private and the result of me coming clean (with this information) would be for the purpose of better doping controls so future generations of riders would not have to make the same decisions I had to make."

Landis went on to say that Armstrong had heard about previous e-mail exchanges between Landis and USA Cycling officials regarding his claims of doping. In an attempt to silence Landis after the Tour of Gila, Landis claims Armstrong called Dr. Kay, Landis' good friend and title sponsor of his current team, and made veiled threats about revoking Dr. Kay's doctor's license for misdiagnosing Landis' mental health.Landis' response was to say he should take aim at Landis himself and not his friends.

Landis replied to Armstrong via e-mail requesting that he not involve his friends but instead attempt to resolve the matter in court

http://www.versus.com/blogs/2010-cycling-events/cycling-landis-advance/

 

[saganftw]

There is a certain flawed logic.

If Landis is lying now, then he must have been telling the truth at the time. If Landis lied in the past, then must be telling the truth about the past now.

It seems to me that the party line from the UCI downwards is to attack Landis's character rather than to investigate the claims.

If he has no evidence to support his claims then fine - but it needs to be investigated to show whether his claims have any truth in them or not.

This is where journalistic integrity is so important. It is important that the claims be fully investigated - because if they aren't there will always be a cloud of suspicion of a cover-up.

It is important that the media - especially CN doesn't sit on their hands and act as a mouth-piece for those attacking Landis' personality.

If Armstrong/LL/Hog etc can prove that the claims are untrue then fine - let them air their defense.

i disagree LA/LL/hog dont have to prove the claims are untrue...landis has to prove his claims are true and as you pointed out he has no evidence...so now its just one cyclist accusing others with no evidence,its very easy to say i did doping and armstrong too...but w/o evidence nothing will happen ,it will end up as tabloid story

i agree that journalist have to act responsibly but they want to sell their story,i wouldnt trust them at all

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

In a court of law that may be true but in the court of public opinion it is another matter.

Now, LA/Hog have accused Landis of harrassment etc and threatening emails - so they must surely be able to provide the emails to prove that landis has been sending these things... proof cuts both ways.

 

[theswordsman]

Edit: Deleted after I was informed by someone I trust that the follow-up e-mail I deleted without reading contained an apology.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Thursday I posted a comment at VeloNation in response to an article that said this doping investigation shouldn't go on. I copied and pasted my comment here somewhere, in amongst the hundred posts that day.

Thursday night, something attacked & killed my computer. I just now got a hand-me-down up and running. I went straight to my Gmail, and there was one from Steve Jones, the writer of the article, telling me off. He deleted the comment, which was strong but hardly controversial.

Then he insulted me for using the name theswordsman for "something so important". I forget the word he used, but essentially he told me I have no cajones for not using my real name. I don't know how many zillion Steve Jones's there are in the world, but I believe I'm the only one in the United States with my name, possibly the world. I've received threats before over posting pro Contador, truth about Armstrong links here and on twitter.

Things are getting serious out there, folks. I commented on an article at a cycling website. This is the first time I've ever had a writer not only censor me, but make accusations along with it.

The sad thing is, Velonation and a couple of their writers used to follow my old ContadorFTW account, because I posted lots of links to fresh, non-English cycling articles.

It may not be possible - but could you post a copy of the comment you made and the reply from Jones?

Might be appropriate to open a seperate thread in the Clinic.

 

[Cobblestones]

Thursday I posted a comment at VeloNation in response to an article that said this doping investigation shouldn't go on. I copied and pasted my comment here somewhere, in amongst the hundred posts that day.

Thursday night, something attacked & killed my computer. I just now got a hand-me-down up and running. I went straight to my Gmail, and there was one from Steve Jones, the writer of the article, telling me off. He deleted the comment, which was strong but hardly controversial.

Then he insulted me for using the name theswordsman for "something so important". I forget the word he used, but essentially he told me I have no cajones for not using my real name. I don't know how many zillion Steve Jones's there are in the world, but I believe I'm the only one in the United States with my name, possibly the world. I've received threats before over posting pro Contador, truth about Armstrong links here and on twitter.

Things are getting serious out there, folks. I commented on an article at a cycling website. This is the first time I've ever had a writer not only censor me, but make accusations along with it.

The sad thing is, Velonation and a couple of their writers used to follow my old ContadorFTW account, because I posted lots of links to fresh, non-English cycling articles.

The combined staff of VeloNation has fewer balls than LA. I haven't been to their website in ages. If you look for journalistic integrity, VeloNation can only serve as the bad example of 'what to avoid at all costs'.

 

[python]

Thursday I posted a comment at VeloNation in response to an article that said this doping investigation shouldn't go on. I copied and pasted my comment here somewhere, in amongst the hundred posts that day.

Thursday night, something attacked & killed my computer. I just now got a hand-me-down up and running. I went straight to my Gmail, and there was one from Steve Jones, the writer of the article, telling me off. He deleted the comment, which was strong but hardly controversial.

Then he insulted me for using the name theswordsman for "something so important". I forget the word he used, but essentially he told me I have no cajones for not using my real name. I don't know how many zillion Steve Jones's there are in the world, but I believe I'm the only one in the United States with my name, possibly the world. I've received threats before over posting pro Contador, truth about Armstrong links here and on twitter.

Things are getting serious out there, folks. I commented on an article at a cycling website. This is the first time I've ever had a writer not only censor me, but make accusations along with it.

The sad thing is, Velonation and a couple of their writers used to follow my old ContadorFTW account, because I posted lots of links to fresh, non-English cycling articles.

your know that your content-adding contributions here are appreciated by many and misunderstood by some. i guess it's the same elsewhere.

what im trying to say is that you shouldn't pay attention to threats and intimidation (i know my advise is easy and unsolicited) but instead beef up your internet and computer security. you clearly are an intelligent person who will master it easily. internet is is filled with people who will stop at nothing to hurt someone. multiple trolls here is a child's play.

steve jones is a bad example of what most journalism is but hardly dangerous.

indeed things are getting interesting for armstrong since his ex allegedly is being asked questions by the fed.

 

[theswordsman]

I won't re-hash things like the Humo article that were cited everywhere and lots of the other nonsense that followed Contador for months, because those battles are being fought elsewhere. But I think what I'll share is a sign of the type of journalism I hoped would improve this year.

Below is a quote from a fresh Velonation article.

Alberto Contador's lawyers will need to re-think their Tour de France doping defence. A WADA official reminded them that an athlete with any amount of the drug Clenbuterol is considered positive.

"Just because it's small doesn't mean it's not doping," WADA's Christiane Ayotte told the New York Times. "This is just the dopers adjusting or mis-adjusting to the testing."

The author saw the quote in the Juliet Macur story, assumed that the quote was new, assumed without it being stated anywhere that the author had actually spoken to Professor Ayotte. His whole story was based on the premise that WADA had fired a fresh shot across the bow and that Contador's lawyers should be scurrying. In real life, the quotes are identical to the ones Bonnie Ford got on October 14th while attending a WADA meeting in Montreal. I don't know if Ms. Macur also attended the meeting. I imagine there's a tiny chance that the Professor gives identical quotes word for word eight weeks apart. But since the Times article doesn't state that the Professor gave the statement to them, I don't believe it's a fresh interview. For some reason 8 week old quotes made it into the article without it being mentioned that they were old quotes. I was fine with that, although I found the story was a bit biased, but then Velonation quoted it as if she had just said it yesterday, after the Andy Ramos statement. And fans are expected to believe whatever.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/6655/Contador-Any-amount-of-Clenbuterol-is-doping-says-WADA.aspx

“Just because it’s small doesn’t mean it’s not doping,” Ayotte said, adding that her lab often discovers amounts of clenbuterol as small as the one found in Contador’s sample. Of those trace amounts found in athletes’ samples, she said, “This is just the dopers adjusting or misadjusting to the testing.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/sports/cycling/09cycling.html?_r=1

"Just because it's small doesn't mean it's not doping. ... This is just the dopers adjusting, or misadjusting, to the testing."

http://espn.go.com/olympics/blog/_/name/olympics/id/5685675

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I won't re-hash things like the Humo article that were cited everywhere and lots of the other nonsense that followed Contador for months, because those battles are being fought elsewhere. But I think what I'll share is a sign of the type of journalism I hoped would improve this year.

Below is a quote from a fresh Velonation article.




The author saw the quote in the Juliet Macur story, assumed that the quote was new, assumed without it being stated anywhere that the author had actually spoken to Professor Ayotte. His whole story was based on the premise that WADA had fired a fresh shot across the bow and that Contador's lawyers should be scurrying. In real life, the quotes are identical to the ones Bonnie Ford got on October 14th while attending a WADA meeting in Montreal. I don't know if Ms. Macur also attended the meeting. I imagine there's a tiny chance that the Professor gives identical quotes word for word eight weeks apart. But since the Times article doesn't state that the Professor gave the statement to them, I don't believe it's a fresh interview. For some reason 8 week old quotes made it into the article without it being mentioned that they were old quotes. I was fine with that, although I found the story was a bit biased, but then Velonation quoted it as if she had just said it yesterday, after the Andy Ramos statement. And fans are expected to believe whatever.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/6655/Contador-Any-amount-of-Clenbuterol-is-doping-says-WADA.aspx



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/sports/cycling/09cycling.html?_r=1


http://espn.go.com/olympics/blog/_/name/olympics/id/5685675

While Velonation have rehashed it incorrectly, Macur and the NYT were correct to highlight Ayottes quote- as it is still relevant and in particular to Ramos new comments.

"Just because it's small doesn't mean it's not doping, this is just the dopers adjusting or mis-adjusting to the testing",
Professor Ayottes opinion is as valid as it was 8 weeks ago.

Also - on your twitter you made a comment that Macur should fact check the statistics Ayotte mentioned in the NYT piece when it is reported “...” Ayotte said, adding that her lab often discovers amounts of clenbuterol as small as the one found in Contador’s sample.

In the ESPN piece it states "Ayotte said the miniscule volume found in Contador's sample is typical of any clenbuterol case -- and there are 50 to 70 reported annually by WADA-accredited labs."

This is correct as WADA statistics for 2009 show 67 cases of Clenbuterol.

 

[LeakyLens]

I'm rather new to the whole internet world of cycling, but it is not the case that Velonation and Cycling News both just steal quotes from foreign-based websites, assume the english-speaking cycling fans won't have read them already because they assume we're all monolingual, and rehash the quotes with all the same filler around the quotes and fob them off as a new story?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm rather new to the whole internet world of cycling, but it is not the case that Velonation and Cycling News both just steal quotes from foreign-based websites, assume the english-speaking cycling fans won't have read them already because they assume we're all monolingual, and rehash the quotes with all the same filler around the quotes and fob them off as a new story?

In a word, yes.
Although to be fair to both CN & VN they do publish new articles but also do a lot of rehashing. (VN was awful when it started often rehashing a story 3 or 4 days after it originally happened, but it has improved quite a bit since then.)

But it has always been like this - what has changed somewhat is that the original source of the quote or story is not published, which IMO is bad practice.

It is part of the problem of modern reporting. The first priority is to get a story out fast (and first)- so a story from a foreign language may get published with errors in translation and this is then repeated. Yesterday and Luis Leon Sanchez being a good example.

I wouldn't criticize an online publication too much for not being the source of a major story - but it would add to their integrity and bottom line if they did follow up stories, or new quotes to bring more depth to a story.

 

[LeakyLens]

The first priority is to get a story out fast (and first)

This is perhaps the most annoying aspect of these websites and their delivery of 'news'. They both pilfer the quotes from the same places and write pretty much the same articles about the same things rendering visiting both websites fairly pointless as they are almost identical in content.

There are the odd articles where the site itself has conducted an interview with a rider, but in general the 'news' is the same on both Cycling News and Velonation. It seems, to me, like a rather seedy excuse for journalism.

Edit: Thanks for the reply BTW

 

[LeakyLens]

So, can I steal quotes from VeloNation and CyclingNews and start my own cycling 'news' website and gain revenue from advertising?

 

[LeakyLens]

Sorry to keep bumping this thread, but the more I think about it, the more it annoys me. Anthony Tan (now freelance journalist, formerly of cyclingnews) has provided some rather appropriate comments on the topic in an interview with nyvelocity.com:

nyvelocity:
These days, there seems to be a very weird game of "internet telephone" going on, where in order to seem like they are covering every story, some bike sites will rewrite the same story from another source just enough to claim it as their own story and not have to give attribution. Is this dangerous or is it just the way things are done nowadays?

Anthony Tan:
I couldn't agree more. Right now, there's at least ten cycling sites who all publish very similar news, which, surprise surprise, often comes from very similar (read: THE SAME) sources. Depending on their professionalism and editorial policy, some will attribute their sources and others will not. Also, the general rule of attribution is that you choose no more than a few sentences from the original story and in online journalism, ideally a link to the article—but what I see now is cycling sites quoting whole slabs and simply rewording a par or two. Last time I checked, that's called plagiarism. Now I've just brought up an existential demon within the world wide web: due to lack of physical borders, policing this kind of thing is very time consuming, expensive, and does not always return a favorable result. Many smaller sites are running off the smell of an oily rag, so even if you sue successfully, extracting your reward is like robbing the homeless.

The 'game' therefore becomes one of "Ha ha, we beat you on the news about Rasmussen not joining Saxo by 1.5 hours!"—then "Right back attya bro', we got you by 20 minutes on Contador's hearing date!"—and so on and so on. Okay, it goes on within mainstream journalism between the papers and their associated websites in, for example, political reporting, but it seems to be taken to an almost feral level within cycling. I'm not sure what the answer is, but this sort of oneupmanship doesn't really bode well for the future of sports journalism. One answer is to hire good writers who know how to write longer, magazine-style stories or get some good columnists (Bonnie Ford at ESPN.com is a fav' of mine), but they're expensive and the web is often driven by austerity.

 

[rxgqgxnyfz]

How many times we had scandals artificially blown up out of proportion due to quick blind idiot translation (specifically from Spanish and Russian) that some irresponsible rat felt was WOW- and LOL-worthy?
________
Anime sex

 

[Ferminal]

Sorry to keep bumping this thread, but the more I think about it, the more it annoys me. Anthony Tan (now freelance journalist, formerly of cyclingnews) has provided some rather appropriate comments on the topic in an interview with nyvelocity.com:

nyvelocity:
These days, there seems to be a very weird game of "internet telephone" going on, where in order to seem like they are covering every story, some bike sites will rewrite the same story from another source just enough to claim it as their own story and not have to give attribution. Is this dangerous or is it just the way things are done nowadays?

Anthony Tan:
I couldn't agree more. Right now, there's at least ten cycling sites who all publish very similar news, which, surprise surprise, often comes from very similar (read: THE SAME) sources. Depending on their professionalism and editorial policy, some will attribute their sources and others will not. Also, the general rule of attribution is that you choose no more than a few sentences from the original story and in online journalism, ideally a link to the article—but what I see now is cycling sites quoting whole slabs and simply rewording a par or two. Last time I checked, that's called plagiarism. Now I've just brought up an existential demon within the world wide web: due to lack of physical borders, policing this kind of thing is very time consuming, expensive, and does not always return a favorable result. Many smaller sites are running off the smell of an oily rag, so even if you sue successfully, extracting your reward is like robbing the homeless.

I thought you may have liked that bit!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sorry to keep bumping this thread, but the more I think about it, the more it annoys me. Anthony Tan (now freelance journalist, formerly of cyclingnews) has provided some rather appropriate comments on the topic in an interview with nyvelocity.com:

nyvelocity:
These days, there seems to be a very weird game of "internet telephone" going on, where in order to seem like they are covering every story, some bike sites will rewrite the same story from another source just enough to claim it as their own story and not have to give attribution. Is this dangerous or is it just the way things are done nowadays?

Anthony Tan:
I couldn't agree more. Right now, there's at least ten cycling sites who all publish very similar news, which, surprise surprise, often comes from very similar (read: THE SAME) sources. Depending on their professionalism and editorial policy, some will attribute their sources and others will not. Also, the general rule of attribution is that you choose no more than a few sentences from the original story and in online journalism, ideally a link to the article—but what I see now is cycling sites quoting whole slabs and simply rewording a par or two. Last time I checked, that's called plagiarism. Now I've just brought up an existential demon within the world wide web: due to lack of physical borders, policing this kind of thing is very time consuming, expensive, and does not always return a favorable result. Many smaller sites are running off the smell of an oily rag, so even if you sue successfully, extracting your reward is like robbing the homeless.

The 'game' therefore becomes one of "Ha ha, we beat you on the news about Rasmussen not joining Saxo by 1.5 hours!"—then "Right back attya bro', we got you by 20 minutes on Contador's hearing date!"—and so on and so on. Okay, it goes on within mainstream journalism between the papers and their associated websites in, for example, political reporting, but it seems to be taken to an almost feral level within cycling. I'm not sure what the answer is, but this sort of oneupmanship doesn't really bode well for the future of sports journalism. One answer is to hire good writers who know how to write longer, magazine-style stories or get some good columnists (Bonnie Ford at ESPN.com is a fav' of mine), but they're expensive and the web is often driven by austerity.

Tan pretty much confirms what we have been saying in the last few posts - the motivation by news sources id to get a story out fast and be first.

He also offers the solution - while recognizing that it is not viable for online publications.

One answer is to hire good writers who know how to write longer, magazine-style stories or get some good columnists (Bonnie Ford at ESPN.com is a fav' of mine), but they're expensive and the web is often driven by austerity.

The way we receive news has evolved.
When I first started following the sport there was little reporting in newspapers or tv so I was reliant on magazines, which meant that articles could be checked and op pieces written.
Even the way news is reported online has changed over the last 2/3 years, CN used to update the news twice a day with the odd dreaded 'newsflash' to report a new big story.

Now, I get updates through twitter straight to my phone in the instant that they are posted. Normally competition is good but as more publications go online it is becoming a race to the bottom.

 

[LeakyLens]

The following is indicative of what goes on these days:

AFAIK, this is a word for word press release from the An Post-Sean Kelly team.

http://www.thebike.ie/an-post-readys-for-the-season-openers.html

Then, hours later, these 'stories' appear on various websites.

An Post Sean Kelly team ambitious heading into new season - Velonation

An Post all set for stand out year - IrishProCycling

Sean Kelly An Post team get in the saddle - thescore.thejournal.ie

On top of all the repetitiveness, the articles are littered with mistakes. The Velonation article says Niko Eeckhout is 41. He's not. He's 40. This is just lazy journalism. The writer just looked at the year the rider was born (1970) and decided that because it's 2011, he must be 41. Well he doesn't turn 41 until December 2011.

Also, the original press release contained mistakes, the dates of some of the races were incorrectly listed, but instead of noticing the mistakes the VeloNation and Irishprocycling articles just copied and pasted. The Etoile Besseges doesn't run from the 3rd-7th February, its from the 2nd-6th.

The last article hasn't even gotten the name of the team right in the headline.

Churnalism at its worst.

 

[Tuarts]

The world now is almost inured to the power of journalism. The best journalism would manage to outrage people. And people are less and less inclined to outrage.

... I've become increasingly cynical about the ability of daily journalism to effect any kind of meaningful change. I was pretty dubious about it when I was a journalist, but now I think it's remarkably ineffectual

Someone I have great respect for said that.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I would just say that most of the problems with the print media can also be levelled at TV - ES (Harmon, Kirby) or Phil and Paul, are also very uncritical when it comes to dealing with teams, riders and the authorities.

Last was, it has to be said, not a good week for CN.

There is a very strong argument for less is more and basically focusing on quality stories and using resources to follow up the big stories than trying to cover everything badly..

Take this for example: An interview with a photographer who went to the Garmin camp. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/procycling-visits-garmin-cervelo-in-girona

As I've said elsewhere, the thing is CN, VN etc represent the old media which is all part of the old boys club. They are being outflanked by the likes of NYVC, and blogs.

The snobbish attitude of 'professional' journalists to bloggers means that they are missing story after story.

While they'll report a story from their mates they'll ignore NYVC, or this or here.

The real work on uncovering corruption and doping is being done by fans, bloggers and forumites. The cycling media lost its credibility a long time ago.

The thing is that it doesn't have to be this way - listen to non-english feeds and commentators - you hear people be openly critical of riders, officials and teams. You hear people who are not prepared to go down the mealy-mouthed route of saying that a performance is 'unbelievable' with a nod and a wink to those who know the coded language.

So is there any hope for the likes of CN, VN, CW etc? Probably not, their style of journalism is on the way out, they have been out-flanked alternatively by smaller sites like NYVC who aren't interested in exclusive interviews with McQuaid but who are interested in interviews with Michael Ashenden, Sylvia Schenk and the Landis/Kimmage transcript, and on the other hand by larger media organizations which are not tied to the apron strings of the teams, nor forced to kowtow to the UCI, such as SI, ESPN, the Times and the WSJ.

http://justcycling.myfastforum.org/about4293.html

 

[Siriuscat]

I would just say that most of the problems with the print media can also be levelled at TV - ES (Harmon, Kirby) or Phil and Paul, are also very uncritical when it comes to dealing with teams, riders and the authorities.

Last was, it has to be said, not a good week for CN.

There is a very strong argument for less is more and basically focusing on quality stories and using resources to follow up the big stories than trying to cover everything badly..

Take this for example: An interview with a photographer who went to the Garmin camp. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/procycling-visits-garmin-cervelo-in-girona

As I've said elsewhere, the thing is CN, VN etc represent the old media which is all part of the old boys club. They are being outflanked by the likes of NYVC, and blogs.

The snobbish attitude of 'professional' journalists to bloggers means that they are missing story after story.

While they'll report a story from their mates they'll ignore NYVC, or this or here.

The real work on uncovering corruption and doping is being done by fans, bloggers and forumites. The cycling media lost its credibility a long time ago.

The thing is that it doesn't have to be this way - listen to non-english feeds and commentators - you hear people be openly critical of riders, officials and teams. You hear people who are not prepared to go down the mealy-mouthed route of saying that a performance is 'unbelievable' with a nod and a wink to those who know the coded language.

So is there any hope for the likes of CN, VN, CW etc? Probably not, their style of journalism is on the way out, they have been out-flanked alternatively by smaller sites like NYVC who aren't interested in exclusive interviews with McQuaid but who are interested in interviews with Michael Ashenden, Sylvia Schenk and the Landis/Kimmage transcript, and on the other hand by larger media organizations which are not tied to the apron strings of the teams, nor forced to kowtow to the UCI, such as SI, ESPN, the Times and the WSJ.

http://justcycling.myfastforum.org/about4293.html

Following on from the above it continues to amaze me that the general cross section of the cycling media, the TV mob in Qatar, Harmon on ES especially, have rapidly jumped on the Ricco situation and have immediatley labelled him as the pariah of the peloton because of this transfusion thing but still refuse point blank to question others.

Seems it's okay to go after the easy targets like an idiot like Ricco but don't dare discuss the issues surrounding Armstrong or the UCI, the double standards are making the cycling media across the board look stupid.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

This is the same Harmon who was cheering on Piti Valverde to catch the nasty evil Vino in LBL last year?

Harmon and the other TV guys are perhaps the biggest problem because they are the people the casual fans have the most contact with. Harmon is just repeating the party line of 'throw Ricco under the bus'.

I see Henderson is getting his hypocritical homophobic knickers in a twist after someone asked him why he was slagging off Ricco but silent on the likes Armstrong.