Cyclingnews position on drugs in cycling

[shavermac]

I think cyclingnews.com should take a far stronger stance against drugs in cycling, and support the teams and individuals who are working to make the sport better. The sites journo's always downplay the drugs issue and under report it in relation to how big of a problem it actually is.

Take the Floyd Landis case reporting. The conslusion the reader is lead to after reading cyclingnews' main report is that Landis can't be trusted and has no evidence. Other popular media have reported the case in far more detail and with better balance than cyclingnews. It should be the other way around.
The weight of evidence out there actually says that Armstrong has probably been a drugs cheat, when you look at the number of busts in his past teams and the history of the figures he's had around him (isn't it just he and Hincapie that have so far not tested positive from Postal, Discovery and Astana teams?).

Has Lance got even you journo's running scared, or is it a case of everyone wanting to believe so much he was clean, that they refuse to see the evidence before them.

If you want my continued support I'd like to see much more in-depth analysis and bit more guts frankly.

 

[RhodriM]

Re: under-reporting it, I can count about 20 odd stories on the front page about drugs/Landis/UCI donation etc?

But yeah there are more outspoken critics. To me CN often seems a bit more on the 'reporting' side rather than 'commenting'. Not always a bad thing.

 

[bianchigirl]

The biggest cycling website in the world wouldn't want to lose access to the sport's biggest name, now would they? Wouldn't do for CN to be on the blacklist

 

[Ferminal]

The biggest cycling website in the world wouldn't want to lose access to the sport's biggest name, now would they? Wouldn't do for CN to be on the blacklist

It's not just Lance Armstrong though.

If CN is seen to be too aggressive in its anti-doping stance there will be a lot more riders who would rather decline interviews.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

To be honest I am reasonably impressed with CN's attitude. Compared to the total muppetry of the likes of Good Old Phil and Paul they are at least trying to balance the need to keep the "new" fans happy with Armstrong stories and the need for objective reporting.

They're also doing very nicely out of Lance commercials all over the site. Even in the Clinic FFS!

 

[buckwheat]

I think cyclingnews.com should take a far stronger stance against drugs in cycling, and support the teams and individuals who are working to make the sport better. The sites journo's always downplay the drugs issue and under report it in relation to how big of a problem it actually is.

Take the Floyd Landis case reporting. The conslusion the reader is lead to after reading cyclingnews' main report is that Landis can't be trusted and has no evidence. Other popular media have reported the case in far more detail and with better balance than cyclingnews. It should be the other way around.
The weight of evidence out there actually says that Armstrong has probably been a drugs cheat, when you look at the number of busts in his past teams and the history of the figures he's had around him (isn't it just he and Hincapie that have so far not tested positive from Postal, Discovery and Astana teams?).

Has Lance got even you journo's running scared, or is it a case of everyone wanting to believe so much he was clean, that they refuse to see the evidence before them.

If you want my continued support I'd like to see much more in-depth analysis and bit more guts frankly.

They seem to report the news pretty objectively and they let the readers hash it out in the forums with very little interference.

Contrast that with the Alice in Wonderland, Coolhand policed, Roadbikereview.com farce and I'd say the site is doing a good job.

 

[_Zipp0_]

To be honest I am reasonably impressed with CN's attitude. Compared to the total muppetry of the likes of Good Old Phil and Paul they are at least trying to balance the need to keep the "new" fans happy with Armstrong stories and the need for objective reporting.

I thought Phil and Paul were just going to say "Landis is a complete psycho and Lance is 100% innocent - case closed!" when I saw them on the Versus show discussing the case. Really, that is pretty much what they said.

Seemed pretty ludicrous.

 

[JPM London]

I thought Phil and Paul were just going to say "Landis is a complete psycho and Lance is 100% innocent - case closed!" when I saw them on the Versus show discussing the case. Really, that is pretty much what they said.

Seemed pretty ludicrous.

Yeah, Phil's comments are basically ridiculous.

I can understand that a commentator so into the whole scene might prefer to protect his own interests and not support Landis, but he doesn't have to go completely opposite - LA can do that for himself if he wants to...

It's funny that all those insiders seem to think that it's the doping stories popping up that's hurting the sport's image when it's more the constant burying that's doing it. I don't even feel like listening to him for the whole of the tour this summer when he's such an [insert foul word here]

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

Either Liggett is part of this fraud, knows the truth and is in it for the money, or else he is helplessly naive, ignorant, and seduced by the Armstrong agenda.

 

[L'arriviste]

They seem to report the news pretty objectively and they let the readers hash it out in the forums with very little interference.

Exactly. Whilst I think that the website itself is quite deficient and doesn't really do justice to the content, we should all remember that there's a big difference between reporting and editorialising and I respect CN's firmness on that.

 

[Terminal Cyclist]

I don't think that's cycling news' job.

 

[Anonymous]

*** edited by mod ****

 

[mr.biggles]

It could be much worse: it could be Velonews.

 

[pedaling squares]

I agree that they could take a stronger stance, but I understand why they might want to play it they way they do. This way they seem objective, more reporting than editorializing or investigating. And they can also focus on the more beautiful aspects of cycling. Plus, they don't lose the rider blogs via boycott.

 

[santacruz]

I think Cyclingnews does an awesome job, especially in a time when you see Journo's working for the bad guys, like VN.

 

[Anonymous]

the problem for cycling news is that all the editorial staff and reporters will have different ideas. They would have to have a global policy that would be impossible to enforce on their writers, and cause problems..

they also have advertisers to think about (including mellow johnys )

I do think however, they should show a bit of discretion when quoting and paying attention to ligget/sherwen etc who are clearly a long way up lances ***.

 

[patricknd]

They seem to report the news pretty objectively and they let the readers hash it out in the forums with very little interference.

Contrast that with the Alice in Wonderland, Coolhand policed, Roadbikereview.com farce and I'd say the site is doing a good job.

i agree. the forums definitely aren't censored, and for me are something akin to an op/ed section.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Either Liggett is part of this fraud, knows the truth and is in it for the money, or else he is helplessly naive, ignorant, and seduced by the Armstrong agenda.

Liggett exemplifies the position of almost all insiders. The insiders are comprised of everyone who makes a living from the business of pro cycling.

There is real cycling known mostly only by the insiders, which is rampant with doping, and there is facade cycling as presented by the insiders to the fans, and thus perceived by most of them.

The facade is that there is some doping, but it used to be much worse and it's getting much better.

This was the facade created and marketed by the insiders after the Festina affair, and repeated after every significant doping milestone ever since.

Who is still falling for it?

 

[Greyhound Velo]

Frankly, I'd rather CN under report than take the Fox News tack and make stuff up with the intent of causing controversy with little to no direct evidence. I think that US readers are becoming too used to tabloid style "reporting", to the point that we're forgetting that the news media is supposed to be neutral. "Just the facts, ma'am", at least that's how it used to be.

That said, the stuff about Floyd is entertaining, and even if he turns out to really be a psycho and a liar, at least he's getting the anti-doping hounds riled up and back on the case. If it results in some big names going down (legitimately) then I wouldn't care if FLandis made his whole story up in a beer induced haze. The end would justify the means.

 

[Vonn Brinkman]

Frankly, I'd rather CN under report than take the Fox News tack and make stuff up with the intent of causing controversy with little to no direct evidence. I think that US readers are becoming too used to tabloid style "reporting", to the point that we're forgetting that the news media is supposed to be neutral. "Just the facts, ma'am", at least that's how it used to be.

Completely agree. CN's stance is perfect to my opinion. A news agency should not be biased, even if the whole world thinks doping is morally wrong, they should not condemn every single doper and wish they hadn't been born.
Good job CN!

 

[scribe]

i agree. the forums definitely aren't censored, and for me are something akin to an op/ed section.

I don't agree with this. I've seen selective favoritism to sides of an issue. Hang around long enough, and you will can see this in which trolls are sanctioned and which people become moderators out of the general population.

 

[BroDeal]

I don't agree with this. I've seen selective favoritism to sides of an issue. Hang around long enough, and you will can see this in which trolls are sanctioned and which people become moderators out of the general population.

Sorry, but this is BS. The moderators here are very--dare I say it--moderate. Alpe has an opinion, but he is level headed and fair. It is not like they made someone like me a moderator. Go to a joke of a forum like DPF or RBR to see truly biased moderation.

 

[scribe]

Sorry, but this is BS. The moderators here are very--dare I say it--moderate. Alpe has an opinion, but he is level headed and fair. It is not like they made someone like me a moderator. Go to a joke of a forum like DPF or RBR to see truly biased moderation.

I can understand what biased administration would look like. I've no interest in visiting those forums that you mention, because I am sure that I would be just as uncomfortable with that as you suggest. I have enumerated why I think this forum also has a slant, and I don't think that is even close to bull****.

 

[shavermac]

as examples, look at the article on Fischer being drug tested twice in one day. It takes a sympathetic tone towards the rider becaused he missed his sleep-in, and had to suffer the indiganation of a drug test. yet the sport has brought this upon itself. Landis said just the other day that everyone knows when the testers come by, so they hod off on shooting up until after they've been. so sending testing in twice in a morning is actually a good way to catch these cheats out. as another take the reporting on Basso's win up Zoncolan. Not even a question about whether he's clean on not. instead CN celebrates this past cheat, even while his teamate Pellitzoti sits on the sidelines for "biological passport irregulaties". And while we're at it, what does that expression mean anyway??! Probably cheating, probably breaking the law.

 

[BroDeal]

I wish the cycling media would ask McQuaid the hard questions. How about asking him whether he will facilitate the Astana infusion kit investigation.