Doping -The Role of The Media

[Aapjes]

Re: Re:

I never said anything of the sort about Hajo.

You just going to make stuff up and put in my mouth.

As if your previous posts weren't bad enough.

Seppelt is a sports journalist....and you said that all sports journalists are the same and do not care about doping,...

If you say that everyone in a certain group is X, you will be confronted with people from that group that are not X. That's what happens when you make blanket statements.

 

[Aapjes]

The media has figured out what sells, and that the masses are ignorant.

I think the latter part needs more attention, though. I was not just journalists who wanted to believe Armstrong, there was wide-spread support for him in society. Although I do think that journalists have an obligation to be less ignorant than the average person, I find it unreasonable to expect them to be activists. If they report on something and people are not receptive, you can't expect them to be super-aggressive.

Furthermore,the clinic is a bit of an anomaly, where we line up all the evidence. We are in our bubble. Journalists tend to be in a different bubble. I think a lot of journalists lack clarity of distance, spending their days talking to sports people who also have a product to sell. You get infected by the people you spend time with.

In my country we have a government organisation that was supposed to check heavy industry for rule violations, but they became increasingly lenient. They only saw the interests of the businesses they spend all their time at, but forgot about the citizens whose lives they were supposed to help protect.

 

[Afrank]

Good thread, too much animosity going on, though.

As I see it, if you're a journalist, you need access to the athletes, so you don't sir the pot. Otherwise, you get black-balled. Look at the line of Lance arse kissers back in the day. Do you think that Hinault would give you an interview if you constantly talked about doping in cycling? Omerta. True in every sport.

If you're a TV, you want to sell stories. That's what the masses want. The Rocky Balboa story. Best one to date: the cancer survivor who wins 7 Tours. Watch the Olympics, or just about any broadcast these days: it always begins with a story, a fairy tale. Doping is dangerous for ratings. Unless there's a villain, like the mean Ben Johnson who gets popped. Or a Russian. The media has figured out what sells, and that the masses are ignorant. Add to that the need for credibility, hiring consultants who when they fart produce a cloud of chemicals.

Integrity sacrificed in exchange for ratings or a pay check. With 100 guys or media outlets in line to take your job, the easy choice is to go with the flow.

Tonton pretty much hits the nail on the head. The second a journalist starts to investigate some type of wrongdoing by a rider they risk losing access to all riders. Their left with the choice between keep your job and stay silent or speak up and lose your job. We all remember the Armstrong lip zip.

It doesn't help matters either that there isn't any real investigative journalism in cycling either. It means we are left with the standard sports reporting and left without the journalism that takes an in-depth look at the darker sides to a sport. That in turn makes it all to easy for corruption in the sports governing body to spread.

 

[HelmutRoole]

You have to stratify the media. You can’t expect a top strata news organization like the New York Times – and it is print journalists who mostly do this work – to give a rat’s ass about someone like, for example, a Tom Danielson. Armstrong: clearly a different beast in terms of coverage since he has celebrity outside of cycling.

(Sidebar: In defense of the media reference Armstrong, you have to balance that coverage in perspective with 9-11, Afghanistan and the Iraq rematch, all going down during this timeframe. Comparatively, an Armstrong doping piece is uninteresting, unimportant and not even on an editor’s radar. Although, there was SI. They probably should’ve looked at it a little closer. )

For something like the Danielson story, that work has to be done by Velonews, Cyclingnews, Pez... In other words, a news organization on the lower rungs of the media strata that cover that specific sport, this case cycling. Problem with this is, those reporters are cozy with the athletes. This is true with sports reporting in general. It’s like that everywhere, every sport. The only way around it is to have a dedicated doping reporter on staff who doesn’t interact with the athletes in any other way. I’ll bet that any reporter covering cycling in North American has at some point sat down for a beer with an athlete whom they were reporting on or had reported on. I’ve done it myself. It probably happens everywhere.

Look, I’m a fan of professional cycling not despite the doping but in large part because of it. The doping makes it real. Not the performances. The performances are unreal. But when an athlete gets caught up in an investigation or pisses hot, that’s when things get real. That’s when all parties involved go into crisis mode, spinning truthiness, marginal gains, special diets and high cadence. People’s livelihoods and reputations hang in the balance. Millions of dollars at stake. And it’s all based on a lie.

High drama. You can’t make this stuff up.

 

[the delgados]

Pro sports and sports media enjoy a symbiotic relationship. One would not exist without the other.
No way a sports beat reporter will upset the apple cart; it's not their job.
Then you have to take into account certain biases.
I recently emailed a sports columnist who equates pro cycling with pro wrestling. Then he wrote a column saying the 100 metre dash is his favourite sport. His response to my question asking the difference between the two was surprising. He said he didn't care about doping in track and field; the spectacle is what he enjoys.

 

[wendybnt]

Re:

Pro sports and sports media enjoy a symbiotic relationship. One would not exist without the other.
No way a sports beat reporter will upset the apple cart; it's not their job.
Then you have to take into account certain biases.
I recently emailed a sports columnist who equates pro cycling with pro wrestling. Then he wrote a column saying the 100 metre dash is his favourite sport. His response to my question asking the difference between the two was surprising. He said he didn't care about doping in track and field; the spectacle is what he enjoys.

And that is fair enough point of view to hold.

I agree with you, and I'm a little perplexed that a few others don't see it, and think that any journalist must constantly challenge sportsmen about doping. Maybe it is of the utmost importance to those people, but perhaps they should recognise that it isn't the be all and end all for everybody else. Most people don't really give a ***, and the journalism reflects this. It's a bit like this bizarre tv wrestling thing that existed in New Zealand when I was a kid. Totally fixed and with a load of theatricals. Everybody knew it, but it was ignored as it was all part of the spectacle.

Rampaging up a mountain up a mountain is also a spectacle. Maybe the veins full of epo was just a detail.

 

[The Carrot]

Walsh's comment about sports journalists being 'fans with type writers' was spot on. For example,most cycling mags are just fanzines. There's very little investigative journalism going on and as people here have mentioned, rock the boat in the small incestuous world of sport and your hard-earned journalistic gig is scuppered. Therefore, nobody's going to 'press the flesh' with regards doping. Imagine someone like Jeremy Paxman 'going to town' on Dave Brailsford about doping? Sir Dave wouldn't last 5 seconds, so he will only ever let himself be interviewed by a sports journalist who ain't gonna ask any tricky questions. Paxman's job is (was?) to tear apart politicians, but that's OK because they're not popular whereas successful sports people are worshipped by many. The fans want to believe in their heroes and the media is the means through which the fans can satisfy their emotional neediness while concurrently, the media makes money. Expose (too much) doping and the media potentially looses that money from disaffected fans. The media facilitate doping by ignoring it as best they can and without condoning this, I can understand how and why it happens this way.

However, things are getting weird here in the UK. I can understand journos not asking awkward questions or accusing people without proof for fear of liable, but the media here are now effectively 'cheer-leading' some of the most obvious dopers in the history of sport. The recent 'commentary' by the BBC at the World athletic champs being a good example. I get the impression that they're rather scared of the hole thing unravelling and Joe Public seeing pro sport for what it is and switching off. Or is it that the 'powers that be' in the UK are worried about their 'panem et circenses' means of distracting the public might get compromised. The BBC is the perfect means to shove the 'show' down our throats at every opportunity, now we are probably the best pound for pound sporting nation in the world and nobody's gonna be allowed to question just how that transformation occurred. The media are underwriting doping big time.

Incidently, did you know that George Orwell based 1984's 'Ministry of Truth' on his experiences while working at the BBC?

 

[Texeng]

Re:

Walsh's comment about sports journalists being 'fans with type writers' was spot on. For example,most cycling mags are just fanzines. There's very little investigative journalism going on and as people here have mentioned, rock the boat in the small incestuous world of sport and your hard-earned journalistic gig is scuppered. Therefore, nobody's going to 'press the flesh' with regards doping. Imagine someone like Jeremy Paxman 'going to town' on Dave Brailsford about doping? Sir Dave wouldn't last 5 seconds, so he will only ever let himself be interviewed by a sports journalist who ain't gonna ask any tricky questions. Paxman's job is (was?) to tear apart politicians, but that's OK because they're not popular whereas successful sports people are worshipped by many. The fans want to believe in their heroes and the media is the means through which the fans can satisfy their emotional neediness while concurrently, the media makes money. Expose (too much) doping and the media potentially looses that money from disaffected fans. The media facilitate doping by ignoring it as best they can and without condoning this, I can understand how and why it happens this way.

However, things are getting weird here in the UK. I can understand journos not asking awkward questions or accusing people without proof for fear of liable, but the media here are now effectively 'cheer-leading' some of the most obvious dopers in the history of sport. The recent 'commentary' by the BBC at the World athletic champs being a good example. I get the impression that they're rather scared of the hole thing unravelling and Joe Public seeing pro sport for what it is and switching off. Or is it that the 'powers that be' in the UK are worried about their 'panem et circenses' means of distracting the public might get compromised. The BBC is the perfect means to shove the 'show' down our throats at every opportunity, now we are probably the best pound for pound sporting nation in the world and nobody's gonna be allowed to question just how that transformation occurred. The media are underwriting doping big time.

Incidently, did you know that George Orwell based 1984's 'Ministry of Truth' on his experiences while working at the BBC?

I agree with a lot of your comments but I'm not sure that the BBC is a single organism trying to pump out a single message about drugs. It does have an influence and for sure some of the commentary over the Athletics was ridiculous. If they are a propaganda machine for everyone being clean, they are shooting themselves in the foot with documentaries such as Catch Me If You Can. A well versed 1984 organ would not make fundamental errors like this.

Also, anyone with half a brain and access to the internet is surrounded by alternative sources of news these days, making the dear old Beeb's hold on our mindshare weaker than it was

 

[Freddythefrog]

With Paula doing such sterling work during the recent IAAF championships try this little sequence.

First of all an analysis of by sports journalist at teh 2011 World Champs
http://www.sportsjournalists.co.uk/sports-broadcasting/athletics-batty-mel-was-a-catcher-of-the-eye/
"The BBC uses an Australian, Maurie Plant, who was banned for life from being involved in his country’s athletics teams because he had deliberately taken urine from one competitor in order to pass it off as the sample of another who would have had a problem if they had been properly drug tested. This at a meet staged in the UK. The BBC apparently sees no problem with continuing to use this piss-taker."

OK so who is Maurie Plant ? See the Black inquiry 1989
typically - https://indymedia.org.au/2013/04/27/maurie-plant-dodges-question-on-drug-test-corruption

Now read the whole of this. You will need a cup of coffee and some time. It is worth it. This is the era from where all your Crams, Gunnels and the rest come from
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/bad-sport-for-the-best-part-of-two-decades-andy-norman-has-been-one-of-the-most-powerful-figures-in-international-sport-now-however-following-a-series-of-damaging-allegations-against-him-his-extraordinary-career-in-british-athletics-appears-to-be-approaching-a-spectacularly-sticky-end-1427309.html

So who in their right minds, nearly 20 years after that was written, decides to employ Plant ?

But that piece in the Independent was a great piece of journalism.

 

[blackcat]

You have to stratify the media. You can’t expect a top strata news organization like the New York Times – and it is print journalists who mostly do this work – to give a rat’s ass about someone like, for example, a Tom Danielson. Armstrong: clearly a different beast in terms of coverage since he has celebrity outside of cycling.

(Sidebar: In defense of the media reference Armstrong, you have to balance that coverage in perspective with 9-11, Afghanistan and the Iraq rematch, all going down during this timeframe. Comparatively, an Armstrong doping piece is uninteresting, unimportant and not even on an editor’s radar. Although, there was SI. They probably should’ve looked at it a little closer. )

For something like the Danielson story, that work has to be done by Velonews, Cyclingnews, Pez... In other words, a news organization on the lower rungs of the media strata that cover that specific sport, this case cycling. Problem with this is, those reporters are cozy with the athletes. This is true with sports reporting in general. It’s like that everywhere, every sport. The only way around it is to have a dedicated doping reporter on staff who doesn’t interact with the athletes in any other way. I’ll bet that any reporter covering cycling in North American has at some point sat down for a beer with an athlete whom they were reporting on or had reported on. I’ve done it myself. It probably happens everywhere.

Look, I’m a fan of professional cycling not despite the doping but in large part because of it. The doping makes it real. Not the performances. The performances are unreal. But when an athlete gets caught up in an investigation or pisses hot, that’s when things get real. That’s when all parties involved go into crisis mode, spinning truthiness, marginal gains, special diets and high cadence. People’s livelihoods and reputations hang in the balance. Millions of dollars at stake. And it’s all based on a lie.

High drama. You can’t make this stuff up.

without doubt, the best post by a mile that i have read on this forum, and this includes reading my own posts in the third person, so that is a high-water mark to surpass. chapeau HR.

does everyone like my new avatar?

 

[The Carrot]

Re:

With Paula doing such sterling work during the recent IAAF championships try this little sequence.

First of all an analysis of by sports journalist at teh 2011 World Champs
http://www.sportsjournalists.co.uk/sports-broadcasting/athletics-batty-mel-was-a-catcher-of-the-eye/
"The BBC uses an Australian, Maurie Plant, who was banned for life from being involved in his country’s athletics teams because he had deliberately taken urine from one competitor in order to pass it off as the sample of another who would have had a problem if they had been properly drug tested. This at a meet staged in the UK. The BBC apparently sees no problem with continuing to use this piss-taker."

OK so who is Maurie Plant ? See the Black inquiry 1989
typically - https://indymedia.org.au/2013/04/27/maurie-plant-dodges-question-on-drug-test-corruption

Now read the whole of this. You will need a cup of coffee and some time. It is worth it. This is the era from where all your Crams, Gunnels and the rest come from
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/bad-sport-for-the-best-part-of-two-decades-andy-norman-has-been-one-of-the-most-powerful-figures-in-international-sport-now-however-following-a-series-of-damaging-allegations-against-him-his-extraordinary-career-in-british-athletics-appears-to-be-approaching-a-spectacularly-sticky-end-1427309.html

So who in their right minds, nearly 20 years after that was written, decides to employ Plant ?

But that piece in the Independent was a great piece of journalism.

Good article from the independent. It's a good job there are no nasty individuals like that around today

 

[doperhopper]

FWIW:

Let's not forget that the media, including this website, are beholden to advertising to stay in business. That's why the Clinic exists...and we can't post this stuff on any old article. We are corralled and marginalized.

These same businesses often sponsor races, provide bikes for teams, and generally want to sell stuff to the public at large.

If the true pervasiveness of doping were to be revealed, if people were to just say "screw it, they can all dope and everyone is guilty" then there WOULD BE NO MORE SPONSORS. The big money sponsors would not want their reputations destroyed by a bunch of nitwit, anorexic bikers. And the professional sport we love would die.

Soooo, you mean... it would be more appropriate for the Clinicians to move elsewhere, preferably to an independent web dedicated to all sorts of discussions, whose business model is not related to cycling at all (and definitely does not depend on the image of good clean cycling that attracts sponsors)?

 

[the sceptic]

FWIW:

Let's not forget that the media, including this website, are beholden to advertising to stay in business. That's why the Clinic exists...and we can't post this stuff on any old article. We are corralled and marginalized.

These same businesses often sponsor races, provide bikes for teams, and generally want to sell stuff to the public at large.

If the true pervasiveness of doping were to be revealed, if people were to just say "screw it, they can all dope and everyone is guilty" then there WOULD BE NO MORE SPONSORS. The big money sponsors would not want their reputations destroyed by a bunch of nitwit, anorexic bikers. And the professional sport we love would die.

Didn't read the entire thread, but this post is obviously correct.

It would be stupid to expect to find truth or honest journalism in medias who are owned by corporations with an agenda to pretend the sport is clean.

 

[blackcat]

yo mods, any chance you can sticky this post at the top of the forum? irondan?

cheers

Look, I’m a fan of professional cycling not despite the doping but in large part because of it. The doping makes it real. Not the performances. The performances are unreal. But when an athlete gets caught up in an investigation or pisses hot, that’s when things get real. That’s when all parties involved go into crisis mode, spinning truthiness, marginal gains, special diets and high cadence. People’s livelihoods and reputations hang in the balance. Millions of dollars at stake. And it’s all based on a lie.

High drama. You can’t make this stuff up.

 

[vedrafjord]

Re: Re:

I agree with a lot of your comments but I'm not sure that the BBC is a single organism trying to pump out a single message about drugs. It does have an influence and for sure some of the commentary over the Athletics was ridiculous. If they are a propaganda machine for everyone being clean, they are shooting themselves in the foot with documentaries such as Catch Me If You Can. A well versed 1984 organ would not make fundamental errors like this.

Also, anyone with half a brain and access to the internet is surrounded by alternative sources of news these days, making the dear old Beeb's hold on our mindshare weaker than it was

Agreed - people have a tendency to view organisations as monolithic but they're made up of people who have different views and agendas and trying to make a name for themselves etc. The BBC is no different and even if the athletics department of BBC Sport are fanboys, documentaries like Panorama are in a completely different department. Also the BBC is nowadays split between two cities - London and Manchester.

 

[blackcat]

Texemg BBC doco is like a limited hangout, you need to have some ammunition for the dirty foreigner like Ben Johnson

 

[Freddythefrog]

Froome about to become the greatest ever ! Well third equal greatest.

You read it here first, ......
.........well ok second .........or at least a very close second.

Richard Moore at the Mail distorting the story by extracting factual comparison.

Chris Froome bidding to become the third man to win three post-war Tour de France titles with Nairo Quintana out to derail him

Only two men have won three Tours de France in the post-war period and on Saturday Britain’s Chris Froome’s will begin his bid to become the third.

The first was Louison Bobet, the French hero of the 1950s, and the other was Greg LeMond, the American winner in 1986, '89 and '90 who does not see Froome joining him in the triple club, tipping instead his chief rival, Nairo Quintana, who was just over a minute from beating the Briton last year.
In each of Froome’s previous wins, in 2013 and last year, the pattern was the same, the Team Sky leader establishing a big early lead with Quintana chipping away at it all the way to Paris.
On both occasions the little Colombian climber claimed back great chunks of time in the final few stages, and last year came within just over a minute of unseating Froome.
Froome has altered his approach this year, starting his season slowly, building gradually and arriving in Normandy for the Grand Départ a little ‘under- cooked.’ The idea, he explained, is ‘to be stronger in the third week than I’ve been in the past.’

Another reason is the Rio Olympics, which come immediately after the Tour and where Froome hopes to win a gold medal in the time trial. ‘I’ve been delaying reaching peak form,’ Froome said. ‘In previous seasons I’ve been in that shape a lot earlier in the spring and then trying to hang on to it. I feel as if I’ve only got there now.

'Hopefully because we’ve delayed everything I’ll be able to hang on for a bit longer this time, into Rio as well.
‘My wife and I have just had our first son,’ he continued, ‘so it’s been good for me to spend a bit more time at home.
'It has been good for me to change it a bit, to trust in the training that I’ve been doing closely with [coach] Tim Kerrison, and believe that I would get to this point even if I wasn’t winning races in February. I’m ready.’
Few can see beyond Froome or Quintana though Alberto Contador is resurgent and, as the champion in 2007 and 2009, could even beat Froome to membership of the three-time winners’ club.

In Froome’s favour is the strongest squad in Team Sky’s seven years.
British riders Ian Stannard and Luke Rowe will provide support on the flat roads, particularly if the wind forces splits on the early stages, while in the mountains the defending champion can count on some of the best climbers in the world, including Sergio Henao and Mikel Landa.
The wild card is Geraint Thomas, the Welshman who emerged as an overall challenger last year, who will be Sky’s second protected rider.
While the overall battle will play out in the Massif Central, Pyrenees, Alps and on Mont Ventoux, Saturday’s first stage in Normandy represents another chance for Mark Cavendish to finally claim a career-first yellow jersey.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-3670265/Chris-Froome-bidding-man-win-three-post-war-Tour-France-titles-Nairo-Quintana-derail-him.html#ixzz4DG9MMu00

Loving the comments section. Even Daily Mail readers have worked out the capability of "fan with typewriter" Moore.

"Eddy Merckx and Indurain won FIVE, what is this garbage?"

What indeed is this garbage ?

More from Moore
No evidence Chris Froome is a dirty rider - journalist Richard Moore
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/35004361

"Now Chris, who should we chose for getting the story out there about the fax that has been lost for 9 years that I have just found in your sock drawer, out into the media ?"

"I don't know Michele; we need someone with gravitas and a long term track record of independent and intellectually sound writing. I can't think of anyone just at the moment."

"No neither can I. Oh well how about..........."

"Do you think 16.9% is too much ? Wont somebody look back at the pictures of me ?

 

[blackcat]

Re:

Froome about to become the greatest ever ! Well third equal greatest.

You read it here first, ......
.........well ok second .........or at least a very close second.

Richard Moore at the Mail distorting the story by extracting factual comparison.

Chris Froome bidding to become the third man to win three post-war Tour de France titles with Nairo Quintana out to derail him

Only two men have won three Tours de France in the post-war period and on Saturday Britain’s Chris Froome’s will begin his bid to become the third.

The first was Louison Bobet, the French hero of the 1950s, and the other was Greg LeMond, the American winner in 1986, '89 and '90 who does not see Froome joining him in the triple club, tipping instead his chief rival, Nairo Quintana, who was just over a minute from beating the Briton last year.
In each of Froome’s previous wins, in 2013 and last year, the pattern was the same, the Team Sky leader establishing a big early lead with Quintana chipping away at it all the way to Paris.
On both occasions the little Colombian climber claimed back great chunks of time in the final few stages, and last year came within just over a minute of unseating Froome.
Froome has altered his approach this year, starting his season slowly, building gradually and arriving in Normandy for the Grand Départ a little ‘under- cooked.’ The idea, he explained, is ‘to be stronger in the third week than I’ve been in the past.’

Another reason is the Rio Olympics, which come immediately after the Tour and where Froome hopes to win a gold medal in the time trial. ‘I’ve been delaying reaching peak form,’ Froome said. ‘In previous seasons I’ve been in that shape a lot earlier in the spring and then trying to hang on to it. I feel as if I’ve only got there now.

'Hopefully because we’ve delayed everything I’ll be able to hang on for a bit longer this time, into Rio as well.
‘My wife and I have just had our first son,’ he continued, ‘so it’s been good for me to spend a bit more time at home.
'It has been good for me to change it a bit, to trust in the training that I’ve been doing closely with [coach] Tim Kerrison, and believe that I would get to this point even if I wasn’t winning races in February. I’m ready.’
Few can see beyond Froome or Quintana though Alberto Contador is resurgent and, as the champion in 2007 and 2009, could even beat Froome to membership of the three-time winners’ club.

In Froome’s favour is the strongest squad in Team Sky’s seven years.
British riders Ian Stannard and Luke Rowe will provide support on the flat roads, particularly if the wind forces splits on the early stages, while in the mountains the defending champion can count on some of the best climbers in the world, including Sergio Henao and Mikel Landa.
The wild card is Geraint Thomas, the Welshman who emerged as an overall challenger last year, who will be Sky’s second protected rider.
While the overall battle will play out in the Massif Central, Pyrenees, Alps and on Mont Ventoux, Saturday’s first stage in Normandy represents another chance for Mark Cavendish to finally claim a career-first yellow jersey.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-3670265/Chris-Froome-bidding-man-win-three-post-war-Tour-France-titles-Nairo-Quintana-derail-him.html#ixzz4DG9MMu00

Loving the comments section. Even Daily Mail readers have worked out the capability of "fan with typewriter" Moore.

"Eddy Merckx and Indurain won FIVE, what is this garbage?"

What indeed is this garbage ?

More from Moore
No evidence Chris Froome is a dirty rider - journalist Richard Moore
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/35004361

"Now Chris, who should we chose for getting the story out there about the fax that has been lost for 9 years that I have just found in your sock drawer, out into the media ?"

"I don't know Michele; we need someone with gravitas and a long term track record of independent and intellectually sound writing. I can't think of anyone just at the moment."

"No neither can I. Oh well how about..........."

"Do you think 16.9% is too much ? Wont somebody look back at the pictures of me ?

stenographer into cyclinh fandom and stenography