Graham Watson: Keeper of Omerta

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Nov 27, 2012
327
0
0
Isn't Watson the official photographer of the UCI? This just adds another layer of bias to his blog piece. Watson profits from the UCI and Armstrong. And then he writes a blog which, IMO, basically champions the UCI, attacks USADA and props up Armstrong.

Oh and Armstrong agrees with Watson. Two days ago he tweeted:

@lancearmstrong It took a photographer to 'write' the most balanced piece we've seen yet

There is nothing balanced about GW's piece and it's just more propaganda from the Armstrong gang of idiots and doping apologists.

Sally Jenkins must be devastated that GW got a shout out and she didn't :)
 
May 9, 2009
638
0
0
Ha! What a bloated piece of.....

I stopped going to his site during the Dopestrong era when he posted a pic of Liestrong on the Paris loop. Within hours he had photoshopped out/erased all the other riders appearing in the frame, leaving just the stained yellow jersey.

This one act goes to show how much respect Bloatson has for the cyclists who don't "escalate his earnings".

Lowlife indeed.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
BillytheKid said:
Watson raises some interesting questions about what it takes to get to the top. From someone who's most likely be with earshot of all of Armstrong's contemporaries it is interesting that he sees the guy as not much different than the rest. Cycling is a typical human endeavor after all. Pretty honest statement about the "ruthless." A common characteristic of a most "champions." Ever been around the Big Dance and on inside? You can smell it in the air.

Like I posted before; these guys are all cut from the same clothe. You can accept that or deny it, but I see most here have the ankle braclet ready thinking the human nature of codes of silence will ever change.

I see one guy sorta down from this, but most people are already making him some kind of myrtar. Some will win. Some will loose. Whatever.

I hope the the sport's cleaner, but how far is USADA's reach?
Bullshort

Indurain, Sastre, Lemond. None are cut from that cloth

Not much different? How many paid off the UCI? Smeared anyone who told the truth? Called staff *****s? paid $1,000,000 to a doping doctor?
 
Race Radio said:
Bullshort

Indurain, Sastre, Lemond. None are cut from that cloth

Not much different? How many paid off the UCI? Smeared anyone who told the truth? Called staff *****s? paid $1,000,000 to a doping doctor?
I'd add Ulle to this list, too. Maybe as the first one, since he was Armstrong's nearest rival and (doping aside) is so completely different.

As for Watson, I don't understand why this is good:

[Armstrong] was ambitious, ruthless, highly talented, tough, he knew how to lead his teammates and intimidate his rivals to make sure he won. [...] Lance did what he had to do to win, and he clearly did it very well.
And this is bad:

Never mind that USADA has plunged a blunt knife through the heart of the sport – they got their man, after a ruthless hunt, and that’s all they care about.
By his own reasoning, shouldn't Watson be in love with USADA, too? Or is there just not enough money involved in it for him?
 
Mar 26, 2009
342
0
0
Not sure what you're on about, Ferminal. The media prints stories people want to read, they don't choose their stories based on the character or intelligence of the subject of the stories. That's why we get bombarded by endless stories about the guy who shot all those kids in the school, a dad that raped his own daughter, serial killers that even acquire nifty nicknames from the press (Jack the Ripper, Zodiac Killer).

Of course CN will print a story about the idiot comments made by a prominent member of the cycling community, and of course we will all read it. Then we will all rush to the Forum to discuss it. Circle of life.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
The guy is pathetic. It's just sad. He and Liggett need to head to an island, one that's a landfill, where all Lance memorabilia is dumped. There, they can live in bliss.
I agree with your sentiments, but I do think Watson is expressing the opinion of the vast majority of the pro peloton.
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
MarkvW said:
I agree with your sentiments, but I do think Watson is expressing the opinion of the vast majority of the pro peloton.
My guess is you are probably correct. At least we know he agrees with Chris Horner, probably many others. This does not speak very highly of pro cyclists.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
MarkvW said:
I agree with your sentiments, but I do think Watson is expressing the opinion of the vast majority of the pro peloton.
Yea, but you are the one with the theory that only the dumbest of the dumb ride in the pro peloton, so aren't you just self-confirming your data? :D
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Yea, but you are the one with the theory that only the dumbest of the dumb ride in the pro peloton, so aren't you just self-confirming your data? :D
Dumb . . . and vulnerable. Don't forget the vulnerable part. And if the day ever comes when the riders meaningfully organize I'll gladly reconsider the dumb part.
 
Mar 20, 2009
249
0
9,030
Based on Lance's tweet, i must surmise that he agrees with Watson saying that he did what needed to be done. Indirect admission, we got here?
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
MarkvW said:
I agree with your sentiments, but I do think Watson is expressing the opinion of the vast majority of the pro peloton.
No way. I have it on good authority that there was a massive change of heart in 2006.
 
Aug 7, 2010
1,247
0
0
ExRower said:
Based on Lance's tweet, i must surmise that he agrees with Watson saying that he did what needed to be done. Indirect admission, we got here?
Many believe that to be the case.

This means that there is a communication strategy afoot: Get the sock puppets to soft sell the admission, publicly endorse the sock-puppets and voila....the coming out party has been completed without any direct admission, self-incrimination, or utterance of a single word.

With all of his legal hassles right now, I do not think he could afford to say anything publicly anyway, except what an awesome swim partner he has: Doc Phelan ( pronounced 'fellon' ) .....how ironic.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
Fortyninefourteen said:
Many believe that to be the case.

This means that there is a communication strategy afoot: Get the sock puppets to soft sell the admission, publicly endorse the sock-puppets and voila....the coming out party has been completed without any direct admission, self-incrimination, or utterance of a single word.

With all of his legal hassles right now, I do not think he could afford to say anything publicly anyway, except what an awesome swim partner he has: Doc Phelan ( pronounced 'fellon' ) .....how ironic.
On various social sites where this sort of thing pops up, people need to communicate the non-doping stuff that Armstrong did. Let him come up with an excuse for spreading lies that Emma O'Reilly was a team prostitute. In the modern ethos, that should be like Mel Gibson trying to excuse his drunken, racist tirades.
 
Mar 26, 2009
342
0
0
Mellow Velo said:
Clearly Watson is determined to flush his credibility and status down Armstrong's toilet.
What credibility? He takes good photographs of professional cycling, and did not make his name with anything he thinks or says.

On the other hand, I prefer photographs of cycling that present an unbiased perspective of the sport, and Watson can no longer be counted on for this. Photographers should be on the outside looking in at their subjects and subject matter, but Watson is firmly on the inside.
 
Dec 13, 2010
69
0
0
jamiephillips said:
Why would anyone who makes a good living from professional cycling spit in the soup? David Harmon, Sean Kelly and Brian Smith arn't much better. They make the odd bleat about doping but mainly skirt around the subject. Much like Cyclesport and Procycling. Watson, although stupid, can't be singled out for keeping the omerta!
+ 1 just what I was thinking
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
hondated said:
+ 1 just what I was thinking
If you're already part of the very small "good old boy's network," then there is no incentive for you to improve the sport. You're much more incentivized to maintain the status quo.

Something has to rock cycling to get it to change. Either sponsor money draining away or competition from a competing league.
 
Dec 13, 2010
69
0
0
MarkvW said:
If you're already part of the very small "good old boy's network," then there is no incentive for you to improve the sport. You're much more incentivized to maintain the status quo.

Something has to rock cycling to get it to change. Either sponsor money draining away or competition from a competing league.
Mark sadly I have subscribed to Procycling for some years now because I think it is a good magazine and I buy Cycle Sport when it appeals to me and I enjoy the banter of the commentators but for some time now I have been irritated that none of these have really addressed the LA issue properly.
This is such a big issue that not only concerns the riders but those of us that love cycle racing that I feel sponsored possibly by mags and cycling teams there should be a national forum to which all of us can contribute to the debate.
Sadly until anything like this happens us cynics will never be able support any of the praise being given to BW an Sky which they may or may not deserve to receive.
 
Jan 20, 2013
897
0
0
Fatclimber said:
Compare that one to this one from a couple years ago:

http://hub.velocentric.com/the-hypocrisy-of-graham-watson

Every aspect of this sport is rife with idiots of the highest degree. FU Watson! Even the guy taking pictures is a ******* moron.
OMG talk about pampering the hand that feeds you.

I think his bias lacks all integrity...he should be concentrating on his art and craft
...taking and recording truthfull images in cycling. I do think he is a good photographer.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY