This will, no doubt, amuse the hate brigade, but any publication calling itself "The world centre of cycling" should at least pretend to be objective, unbiased and professional - should it not?
How on earth can you explain or justify the following then?
"Sure, he won his first race since 2005 this month, but can tag-teaming poor Ben-Jacques Maynes in the Nevada City Classic really simulate a mountain top battle in the Tour de France against the likes of Carlos Sastre?
Brace yourselves, we're going to say it: Armstrong will likely find himself in the role as support rider for Contador, much to the extreme disappointment of his legion of rabid fans."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/final-2009-tour-de-france-ladder
The word "rabid" should never have got past the first sub! How many alternative words could you think of in no time? Shame on you!
The only explanation that I can come up with is that you people simply have no sub-editors (as also witnessed by the countless mistakes and typos in your news items) and no one who exercises any final editorial control over what is published in your name. Or, do the emotive, biased, unprofessional terms highlighted above represent CN's official editorial policy on Lance Armstrong's 'supporters'?
If so, why not come out of the closet and openly nail your colours to the mast?
How on earth can you explain or justify the following then?
"Sure, he won his first race since 2005 this month, but can tag-teaming poor Ben-Jacques Maynes in the Nevada City Classic really simulate a mountain top battle in the Tour de France against the likes of Carlos Sastre?
Brace yourselves, we're going to say it: Armstrong will likely find himself in the role as support rider for Contador, much to the extreme disappointment of his legion of rabid fans."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/final-2009-tour-de-france-ladder
The word "rabid" should never have got past the first sub! How many alternative words could you think of in no time? Shame on you!
The only explanation that I can come up with is that you people simply have no sub-editors (as also witnessed by the countless mistakes and typos in your news items) and no one who exercises any final editorial control over what is published in your name. Or, do the emotive, biased, unprofessional terms highlighted above represent CN's official editorial policy on Lance Armstrong's 'supporters'?
If so, why not come out of the closet and openly nail your colours to the mast?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram