Jenkins Speaks

[Race Radio]

Jenkin's babble: I’ve long believed that what athletes put in their bodies should be a matter of personal conscience, not police actions

Since when has USADA had police powers? Tygat was going to put Wonderboy in Jail?

Sally spewing the talking points to the end. LauraLynn to the end

 

[trailrunner]

Wonder how the post feel about their journalists getting shed loads o money to write biased articles with F all fact in them. I suppose it mirrors the real world,we have people with integrity and then those with no morals whatsoever.

The WP doesn't care. If anything, it's consistent with their business plan, which favors dollars over journalism or ethics. Now it's all about page hits. I've lived in the immediate delivery area of the WP for 20 years. Lately they've slid into irrelevancy, and I hope they keep sliding towards complete extinction.

 

[trailrunner]

Here's a column she wrote back in August:

http://tinyurl.com/c3ugzsu

titled "Lance Armstrong doping campaign exposes USADA’s hypocrisy."

The first two sentences set the stage:

First of all, Lance Armstrong is a good man. There’s nothing that I can learn about him short of murder that would alter my opinion on that.

 

[howsteepisit]

To quote Sally "it seems the height of hypocrisy"

Maybe the difference is that Tiger said he wouldn't sleep with prostitutes anymore, whereas with the one balled wonder she still has a chance.

So whats the difference between this and what Lance said about Emma and Betsy?

 

[Velodude]

Sally Jenkins born in Fort Worth, Texas has to be factored in when attempting to understand her unwavering bias.

Or is she being calculating as an opinion columnist?

http://jerrybarca.com/interviews/sally-jenkins-on-pat-summit-lance-armstrong-nonconformity

SJ: The danger is flexing too much muscle. As an opinion writer, you’re given this platform where you can turn a bazooka on a person or an event. Especially when the mob is in full cry, especially in the Penn State thing. Sometimes it’s important to go against the grain even though you know you’re going to be out there all by yourself. The best asset you can have as a columnist is not minding being unpopular for a couple of weeks. There may be some people who swear never to read you again. And guess what? You pick up the shattered pieces of your life and you move on without them.

Sometimes it is a real compliment to be out there on your own. My dad (longtime Sports Illustrated writer Dan Jenkins) taught me this – you take the prevailing attitude, you turn it upside down and you ask yourself if the opposite point of view is smarter. And, a lot of times it is. This does mean being out there on your own.

 

[trailrunner]

From Jenkins wikipedia page:

Jenkins in a long Washington Post column started her submission with the statement that "Joe Paterno was a liar, there's no doubt about that now," and concluded that the only explanation for Paterno's lack of empathy in Sandusky’s victims was that he fell prey to “the belief that winning on the field makes you better and more important than other people.”[2]

Her attitude to Joe Paterno contrasts with her ongoing defense of Lance Armstrong since the release of the USADA report which has seen Armstrong stripped of the 7 Tour de France titles that he won.

 

[howsteepisit]

"Hey Sally, what about those who have DIED from PED use. Don't we have some sort of moral obligation to doing what is right to avoid that young athletes DIE. Oh right, I forgot that you have no morals and you are happy like that."

I agree 100%. We should also ban all downhills in road races as many cyclist have been died in accidents over the years. Is the value of sport so great that we must tolerate death as a possible outcome of the competitive drive to win?

 

[Briant_Gumble]

Since when has USADA had police powers? Tygat was going to put Wonderboy in Jail?

Sally spewing the talking points to the end. LauraLynn to the end

Funny, reading that article did remind me of some of the BS Laura Lyn used to post.

 

[DarkWarrior]

What annoys me most about the article is this line



the whole thing about Armstrong is he was on the best program, not that he worked any harder.

And IF he did work harder, it was because his best program allowed him the power of recovery to do so.

 

[sniper]

What annoys me most about the article is this line

the whole thing about Armstrong is he was on the best program, not that he worked any harder.

an important footnote to this is that he had bought himself a dope-all-you-want ticket at UCI headquarters, giving him the edge over other dopers who had to be more precautious.

 

[thehog]

Walsh in the Sunday Times on Jenkins: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/sport/cycling/article1178356.ece

It's pay per view so you'll need a subscription.

 

[Velodude]

Walsh in the Sunday Times on Jenkins: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/sport/cycling/article1178356.ece

It's pay per view so you'll need a subscription.

That was an anti-climax. How about giving the Clinic your log-in/pwd details?

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Is the timing relevant? Horner with positive LA review. Jenkins (but essentially the Washington Post) with positive LA spin. Ferrari with negative LA doping.

Court documents unsealed but then successfully resealed.

Is it just all random noise, or is something cooking?

If this is the core part of the LA/JB/Ferrari fightback I will be disappointed.
Xmas will be dull. Wtf is this. Weak trivial stuff.

 

[hfer07]

And I’m confused as to why using cortisone as an anti-inflammatory in a 2,000-mile race is cheating, and I wonder why putting your own blood back into your body is the crime of the century.

speechless....

 

[sniper]

speechless....

please somebody update Sally on Zierke's bright future perspectives.

Frederik Zierke was one of the best German amateur mountainbikers. He died on September 10th 2011 after taking EPO.

http://www.spiegel.de/sport/sonst/radsportler-im-allgaeu-tot-aufgefunden-a-873104.html

 

[Scott SoCal]

Jeebus! Don't be so naive.

Jenkins was not suckered by Armstrong. She is not in love with him. She knowingly promoted the fraud and milked it for everything she could. Armstrong relied on amoral scum like Jenkins and Liggett to lie for him. They knew exactly what they were doing.

Naive is to think this is about money for Sally. If it was she could easily have said how "shocked" she was to at the USADA findings. Pull a Pat McQuaid and just roll along with her career.

Maybe I’m not angry at Lance because I believe the athlete in him is a situational personality — a facet, not the whole

The affidavits taken by USADA make it clear that while Lance refused to use HGH,

Maybe I’m not angry at Lance because I don’t understand those people who are bitterly angry to discover that he is not Santa Claus

And who put his money and incalculable amounts of time where his mouth was, raising $500 million for research and donating $7 million of his own fortune.

A few quotes from her article. She will lie for and about him, praise him, justify him and his actions and ignore the obvious.

She is in love with him, no doubt about it.

 

[howsteepisit]

My read on the Jenkins piece is that 1) She in no way cares about nor is a fan of cycling.

She is a totally a libertarian on drug use.

She likes Lance, and will always defend her friends.

Hell, I would love to have so loyal a friend as Jenkins. But I have to wonder if the loyalty goes both directions. My read on Lance is that if you play his way, he's al for you,and if not, you are the the worst scum on the face of the earth. I wonder how Jenkins wold feel if Lance turned on her like he has so many others? Still doesn't make her a ***** though.

 

[Race Radio]

Some highlights of the Walsh piece

she merely showed herself to be the Queen of Gullibility and, for a journalist, pretty adept at avoiding obvious questions.

In a Q&A on the Washington Post website last year, she recalled a conversation with Armstrong. “He told me point blank, ‘I didn’t use performance enhancers,’ and I accept his answer because he’s my friend and that’s what you do with friends

Armstrong was lying through his teeth to his friend, giving her the lies that she would use to create a story of heroism and nobility and courage and defiance

When it became obvious that Armstrong had duped her into writing fiction as fact, sordidness as heroism, Jenkins had a dilemma. She could have apologised for allowing herself to be part of the Armstrong propaganda machine, but she didn’t. As for Armstrong, she was entitled to feel disgust at the cynical way he used her reputation and her talent to fool so many people, especially those afflicted by cancer.

But Sally Jenkins expresses no criticism of Armstrong, no sense of feeling let down by his lies.

This is patently absurd. And it’s hard to believe an intelligent human being could utter it. Nothing short of murder, Sally? Do you give all your friends this latitude or just the one with whom you had a seriously profitable business relationship?

It doesn’t matter that he lied to her, compromised her journalistic integrity, made her newspaper look foolish. More damningly, it doesn’t seem to matter that he duped the cancer community, told them one fairytale while living out another.

As for the poor fools who competed clean and had their careers stolen, forget them. They absolutely don’t matter.

Does Jenkins have any feelings of sympathy for those whose characters were assassinated by Armstrong because they dared to tell the truth about what went on in the Motorola and US Postal teams? Did she ever consider checking on the reports of the news conference given in Maryland in June 2004 by Armstrong and his cohorts when announcing their lucrative sponsorship deal with Discovery Channel and hear what he had to say about Emma O’Reilly?

She told the truth about her five years in the team and her two as Armstrong’s personal masseuse. Her story clearly showed he and his teammates doped. He was asked about it that day in Maryland and after opening remarks about not wanting to speak badly of Emma he talked of she being involved in “inappropriate issues within the team management and within the riders,” after which Emma “left the team.”

The inference was clear as daylight. Emma O’Reilly believed Armstrong was calling her a *****. Surely Jenkins can understand how this might feel to a young and talented masseuse? It was so untrue, so wrong, so despicable, but in Jenkins’ value system, it isn’t murder and therefore nothing to be angry about.

O’Reilly and Betsy Andreu told the truth from the first day and Armstrong tried to take away their good names. Christophe Bassons tried to tell the truth about the 1999 Tour de France and Armstrong bullied him and helped to make it impossible for the French rider to stay in the race. Filippo Simeoni told the truth about Armstrong’s doping doctor, Michele Ferrari, in an Italian court and he too was bullied by Big Tex.

But nothing to be angry about, right?

Sally, he used the cancer community as a shield, lined them up in their “hundreds of millions” and took cover behind them. It makes perjury seem like a trivial offence.

And you still don’t see there’s anything to be angry about.

 

[Oldman]

Naive is to think this is about money for Sally. If it was should could easily have said how "shocked" she was to at the USADA findings. Pull a Pat McQuaid and just roll along with her career.

A few quotes from her article. She will lie for and about him, praise him, justify him and his actions and ignore the obvious.

She is in love with him, no doubt about it.

It isn't naive to think it's about money...the more she keeps his name in the press with a relation to her book the more she'll sell. We're talking about a journalist that wrote a spoon-fed biography. This diatribe from Sally is consistent with her prior "convictions" and a clear indication of her version of journalistic integrity, although using journalist and integrity in the same sentence is a tough thing to do these days.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Some highlights of the Walsh piece

Quote:

And you still don’t see there’s anything to be angry about.

If my theory is correct, everything Walsh points out makes perfect sense.

Why would Sally take the heat and damage her career if it was just about money?

She wouldn't. This is way beyond friendship.

 

[Scott SoCal]

It isn't naive to think it's about money...the more she keeps his name in the press with a relation to her book the more she'll sell. We're talking about a journalist that wrote a spoon-fed biography. This diatribe from Sally is consistent with her prior "convictions" and a clear indication of her version of journalistic integrity, although using journalist and integrity in the same sentence is a tough thing to do these days.

If it was just about money she would not be taking this tact.

She would go the route of, "like so many others, I wanted to believe he wasn't lying to me..."

But she defends him still. Why?

 

[Oldman]

If it was just about money she would not be taking this tact.

She would go the route of, "like so many others, I wanted to believe he wasn't lying to me..."

But she defends him still. Why?

She might be misguided but perhaps I'm more cynical than you.
I think she's posturing to be the writer of choice for The Mea Culpa of Lance (according to Lance). That book could surely sell better than the back stock of her previous works.

 

[Michael Callahan]

Some highlights of the Walsh piece

You paid the subscription just to get that article? Wow, you're keen.

I don't really agree with Walsh. I think he leaves out a lot of context when he condemns Armstrong. Take Emma Oreilly. She and Armstrong had a good relationship and he was only ever kind to her. Yet she ended up selling her story to a book. In that context, it's not really surprising that Armstrong wasn't happy about someone betraying his trust and friendship for cash. Wouldn't we be? Just look at how you felt about Joe Papp. It didn't feel good, did it?

That LA went on to imply something nasty about her really isn't that evil in the context. Some would say it was justifiable payback in the circumstances. And if you look at most of Armstrongs grudges, there is more context to them than many like to let on.

 

[Michael Callahan]

Jenkins does make a number of good points. One of them being on the USADA investigation's hypocrisy. Landis is clearly named as pushing growth hormone to younger riders in affidavits, completely seperate to Armstrong who did not use the substance according to witnesses. How can a dealer and pusher be given such different treatment?

 

[thehog]

That was an anti-climax. How about giving the Clinic your log-in/pwd details?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/117045089/Walsh-on-Jenkins