Media amnesia and reactions

[blackcat]

The media hasnt forgotten all the dopers they continue to promote them. On the Cycling News front page today a story about retirement of Vino, second only to Armstrong in lack on contrition. Interview with Nibali about how great it is to be on a team run by Vino, just 2 weeks ago an article on Rebellin moving from one miniscule team to another and so on and so on.

Surely CN is guilty of promoting proven dopers and the teams which hire them. A team may well hire an ex doper of Rebellin's 'stature' just because any news is good news and they know itll get picked up. Wasnt that the Rock Racing model?

Unfortunately it may not be possible to ban proven dopers from returning to the sport or even worse running a team however the media could at least not give them the flames of publicity and decide to boycott their PR?

I vividly recall Liggett and the Australian Mike Toma Tomalaris babbling on about Vino's lack of contrition.

stupid...

...muppets



get them a chaff bag, then get them to the rocks. stat

 

[blackcat]

MJM I think I understand your cynicism and past scar tissue. But you are underestimating the power of social media, and the continuing fall out still to come for cycling. The fat lady hasn't sung yet. The breadth and depth of doping in cycling, and sport, is now being exposed in such a way that there is no stopping the story anymore. It's as inevitable as the Berlin wall was.

And maybe you are just ahead of editorial policy at CN. Maybe the contributing "journo's" who write this stuff are just not as deep as you, maybe slightly naive even. And maybe there isn't any substantial editorial policy at all...

One of my favorite quotes is from Clive James, who said that when he was younger he got routinely frustrated that people in his environment didn't meet his level of expectations for themselves. Now that he is older he is routinely pleasantly surprised with people, but only because he has reset HIS expectations from those around him...

pity Clive James was sleeping with an Australian Wheel of Fortune hostess who liked to have her cherry ripened, when he had a Prof at Camridge in the home boudoir. what a spanker

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Dear Wiggo, the Paul Foot awards are given out in the UK for investigative journalism each year.

The Paul Foot awards tend to blow out of the water the idea that because CN is a 'small' website it can't do 'investigative journalism'.

Looking at the awards you see that yes, the big newspapers do lead the charge, but time and time again, you see that local newspapers, or specialist magazines have led the way on investigating the breaking stories.

It is entirely possible for small circulation websites/magazines to 'do' investigation.

The reason why CN doesn't is threefold and all of them basically fall at the feet of Dan Benson.

CN relies upon churnalism for its materials and hits. It doesn't matter about the quality of a story - it is about volume. Stories with a short turn around time (ie a quick translation of a story from Germany) and getting out it out first is central to the CN model. It relies on rehashing PR releases from the teams - and milking the teams for material.

With whole website model based on this they can and won't run the risk of getting themselves ostracised by the teams that they depend upon for material.

Could you imagine how ****ed CN would be if the teams actually cut them off and stopped feeding them stories.

This model means that you don't need to bother with hiring skilled journalists. You can go for people who are cheap and low skilled. You don't need a skilled staff who are adept at going out and getting a story.

CN can't do investigative work because frankly the people employed here don't have the skills to do it. While you can take peds and turn a donkey into a race horse in cycling, nothing is going to make Friebe etc good journalists.

Time and time again Benson and others miss chances. I think that Benson's attitude and failure is best summed up when it comes to how he deals with Armstrong. He can be a big man twitter trolling him, but when it came to interviewing him, Benson crumbled and gave a piece that tossed softball question after softball question at the Uniballer. Where was big man anti-doping Benson there? No where to be seen. Instead like a willing poodle, Benson rolled over in return for Armstrong tickling his tummy.

I don't actually think that Benson or his colleagues actually really care about doping in cycling. Omertists? Yes, without a doubt, (see the Ulrich comments) and Ketmanists too when it comes to wanting clean racing. Anti-doping, only because they 'have to be'. A little bit of lipservice to anti-doping but certainly nothing like a concerted push. Benson no doubt loves the good life, the freebies and travelling the world to various inconsequential races. Trip to Argentina in the middle of a minging UK winter - oh if I must. Its pretty clear that the personal relationship with the teams and riders prevents Benson and others from having an objective relationship with their subject.

It's not just the riders who have failed the fans, its not just the UCI that is morally compromised and corrupt from top to bottom, it isn't just national feds that are unaccountable, irresponsible and unwilling to take their share of blame and responsibility its the media too.

Cycling can't move on, for as long as the the old guard on the bikes and off the bikes remain in place. Having failed to act with any integrity in the Armstrong years, we are some how expected to believe that they'll act with integrity now. We complain about McQuaid staying in position because he is so morally compromised, we complain about Riis staying around because he is so old skool, and yet, somehow, Dan Benson and CN (the same people who fawned over Armstrong for years) are the same people to give us credible post-Armstrong cycling coverage.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Dear Wiggo, the Paul Foot awards are given out in the UK for investigative journalism each year.

The Paul Foot awards tend to blow out of the water the idea that because CN is a 'small' website it can't do 'investigative journalism'.

Looking at the awards you see that yes, the big newspapers do lead the charge, but time and time again, you see that local newspapers, or specialist magazines have led the way on investigating the breaking stories.

It is entirely possible for small circulation websites/magazines to 'do' investigation.

The reason why CN doesn't is threefold and all of them basically fall at the feet of Dan Benson.

CN relies upon churnalism for its materials and hits. It doesn't matter about the quality of a story - it is about volume. Stories with a short turn around time (ie a quick translation of a story from Germany) and getting out it out first is central to the CN model. It relies on rehashing PR releases from the teams - and milking the teams for material.

With whole website model based on this they can and won't run the risk of getting themselves ostracised by the teams that they depend upon for material.

Could you imagine how ****ed CN would be if the teams actually cut them off and stopped feeding them stories.

This model means that you don't need to bother with hiring skilled journalists. You can go for people who are cheap and low skilled. You don't need a skilled staff who are adept at going out and getting a story.

CN can't do investigative work because frankly the people employed here don't have the skills to do it. While you can take peds and turn a donkey into a race horse in cycling, nothing is going to make Friebe etc good journalists.

Time and time again Benson and others miss chances. I think that Benson's attitude and failure is best summed up when it comes to how he deals with Armstrong. He can be a big man twitter trolling him, but when it came to interviewing him, Benson crumbled and gave a piece that tossed softball question after softball question at the Uniballer. Where was big man anti-doping Benson there? No where to be seen. Instead like a willing poodle, Benson rolled over in return for Armstrong tickling his tummy.

I don't actually think that Benson or his colleagues actually really care about doping in cycling. Omertists? Yes, without a doubt, (see the Ulrich comments) and Ketmanists too when it comes to wanting clean racing. Anti-doping, only because they 'have to be'. A little bit of lipservice to anti-doping but certainly nothing like a concerted push. Benson no doubt loves the good life, the freebies and travelling the world to various inconsequential races. Trip to Argentina in the middle of a minging UK winter - oh if I must. Its pretty clear that the personal relationship with the teams and riders prevents Benson and others from having an objective relationship with their subject.

It's not just the riders who have failed the fans, its not just the UCI that is morally compromised and corrupt from top to bottom, it isn't just national feds that are unaccountable, irresponsible and unwilling to take their share of blame and responsibility its the media too.

Cycling can't move on, for as long as the the old guard on the bikes and off the bikes remain in place. Having failed to act with any integrity in the Armstrong years, we are some how expected to believe that they'll act with integrity now. We complain about McQuaid staying in position because he is so morally compromised, we complain about Riis staying around because he is so old skool, and yet, somehow, Dan Benson and CN (the same people who fawned over Armstrong for years) are the same people to give us credible post-Armstrong cycling coverage.

So you want investigative journalism which is time consuming, expensive and usually fruitless - from a free online site with the name Cyclingnews.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

So you want investigative journalism which is time consuming, expensive and usually fruitless - from a free online site with the name Cyclingnews.

Yes. As I've told you before it isn't either or. You can do both - except CN can't and won't because it has a model based on churnalism that won't let it and staff that don't have the ability and are too compromised.

Change the model, loosen the ties that bind to the teams and you can have news and serious investigation.

If you are just going to be a new aggregator then just change your name to 'google news feeds and press releases on cycling collected and translated.com'

Less catchy but more accurate.

 

[coinneach]

Over the past month/s I have been getting gradually bored by the posting on the Clinic forum......rehashing old stuff ad naseum.

But this thread is brilliant.....posting by lots of folk I normally try to press ignore to, yet here they are full of insight and questioning. And in touch with the dilemmas that shape people in the real world.

Chapeau!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes. As I've told you before it isn't either or. You can do both -

I'll stop here.

Sure, you can do both.
Now can you explain how it can be done? We will even leave aside the large expense in doing so - what brilliant investigations can CN (or any other news organisation) pursue.

Sit outside Sky HQ or their hotel? To record what?
Bring in informants and get them to start admitting stuff?
And then even if you get a juicy story being obliged to be very careful so as not to be sued.

How does it work?

except CN can't and won't because it has a model based on churnalism that won't let it and staff that don't have the ability and are too compromised.

Change the model, loosen the ties that bind to the teams and you can have news and serious investigation.

If you are just going to be a new aggregator then just change your name to 'google news feeds and press releases on cycling collected and translated.com'

Less catchy but more accurate.

Thats fine.
You do realize that this is exactly what most people who use Cyclingnews want?
A one stop English language place where they can get all the information on the current events in cycling.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Is it that hard to set up a google news feed to do the same thing?

Did I ever say CN should only ever be an investigation site? Not that I recall. I am not quite sure why you seem to think the two are mutually incompatible. Anyone you would think you were trolling and trying to derail the debate with a red herring argument.

If that is all that CN purports to be then Benson shouldn't claim that CN is going to be tougher when it comes to doping related topics.

Don't give us bull**** about how CN won't let the wool be pulled over the eyes of fans again if all they are going to help build up new myths and legends about riders.

If you're just into churnalism and you don't give a **** about cleaning up the sport then fine. At least be honest about it.

I don't see how Benson can with a straight-face say

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/the-united-states-of-omerta

In the discussion which has since been deleted Benson talked about being tougher and being more credible and not being soft and then give us this

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-exclusive-interview

Plus ca change

As the Paul Foot awards show there are plenty of ways of doing investigative journalism - and yes it takes time, but most importantly it takes a skilled investigator - the one thing that CN doesn't have (except perhaps Barry Ryan).

Your belief that CN can only be a news aggregator is misplaced. Plenty of others do both collection of stories and also investigate.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Is it that hard to set up a google news feed to do the same thing?

I have no idea, but I would doubt its difficult.
However it is far easier to bookmark a news site and read the news in one place.

Did I ever say CN should only ever be an investigation site? Not that I recall. I am not quite sure why you seem to think the two are mutually incompatible. Anyone you would think you were trolling and trying to derail the debate with a red herring argument.

Funny you accuse me of trolling and you completely ignore where I said both could be done to suggest I think they are not mutually exclusive.

Also, I asked relatively easy questions - why did you avoid them?

And I do not read anything resembling a debate - you are back on your high horse and appear to have a personal problem with certain journalists.

If that is all that CN purports to be then Benson shouldn't claim that CN is going to be tougher when it comes to doping related topics.

Don't give us bull**** about how CN won't let the wool be pulled over the eyes of fans again if all they are going to help build up new myths and legends about riders.

If you're just into churnalism and you don't give a **** about cleaning up the sport then fine. At least be honest about it.

I don't see how Benson can with a straight-face say

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/the-united-states-of-omerta

In the discussion which has since been deleted Benson talked about being tougher and being more credible and not being soft and then give us this

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-exclusive-interview

Plus ca change

As the Paul Foot awards show there are plenty of ways of doing investigative journalism - and yes it takes time, but most importantly it takes a skilled investigator - the one thing that CN doesn't have (except perhaps Barry Ryan).

Benson interviewed Armstrong - nice coup actually.
It was done by email - and you can be assured LA would avoid/ignore certain subjects. But what was DB supposed to ask LA? And when offered answers what do you expect him to do, not publish them because they do not fit your view??

Your belief that CN can only be a news aggregator is misplaced. Plenty of others do both collection of stories and also investigate.

Great - name them and link to what you consider investigative journalism.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

OK you are in full troll mode I see. If I 'ignored' your question its because they are i) irrelevant to the topic, ii) pointless diversions, iii) specious, iv) already answered elsewhere.

Back with the old Armstrong - 'anyone who is critical is motivated by personal issues'. That's ok, by that argument you're on your own high horse and your responses are motivated by your own very deep personal issues and problems with people who disagree with you. Therefore your posts and opinions can and should be discounted as the bitter rantings of someone with an axe to grind, and therefore, your criticisms are invalid and not worth dealing with or taking seriously. No?

Google feeds are not hard to set up. I am pretty sure CN already has one for most of its stories. RSS feeds are not hard to set up either.

Benson could very easily have emailed tough questions and reported that they were ignored. Not hard, instead he fawned and rolled over. Another example why Benson doesn't have the ability to carry through the things he says he was going to do.

Plenty of examples of investigative journalism from interviews to forensic work to commitment to stories on the Paul Foot awards site.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

OK you are in full troll mode I see. If I 'ignored' your question its because they are i) irrelevant to the topic, ii) pointless diversions, iii) specious, iv) already answered elsewhere.

Why not just answer them?
You want others to ask hard questions and then you waste our time coming up with answers to avoid it.

Back with the old Armstrong - 'anyone who is critical is motivated by personal issues'. That's ok, by that argument you're on your own high horse and your responses are motivated by your own very deep personal issues and problems with people who disagree with you.

No idea what the above means.

So - again, what questions should have been asked that were not?

Google feeds are not hard to set up. I am pretty sure CN already has one for most of its stories. RSS feeds are not hard to set up either.

Benson could very easily have emailed tough questions and reported that they were ignored. Not hard, instead he fawned and rolled over. Another example why Benson doesn't have the ability to carry through the things he says he was going to do.

Or perhaps he could email questions, write the responses and let the reader decide for themselves what to make of it - shocking i know.

Plenty of examples of investigative journalism from interviews to forensic work to commitment to stories on the Paul Foot awards site.

All the winners were in Print and write for large publications, like The Guardian and the Times.

Have you any investigative journalism piece related to cycling - or even something from sport in general that is not main stream media?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

You obviously didn't read the awards very well, bloggers, online writers and regional newspaper writers and specialist magazine journalists have all won awards or been nominated for the prize since its conception.

When you ask relevant questions I'll answer them.

Benson had a chance with the Armstrong interview - he dropped the ball. Benson promised tougher more critical reportage from CN - the proof is in the pudding. The pudding shows that CN is the same uncritical churnalistic omerta upholding website that it ever was and that Benson's promises were empty and he has failed to deliver that he said he would.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You obviously didn't read the awards very well, bloggers, online writers and regional newspaper writers and specialist magazine journalists have all won awards or been nominated for the prize since its conception.

I did.
2012 Winner Andrew Norfolk The Times
Runner up Rob Waugh Yorkshire Post
Special Campaign Award Stephen Wright Daily Mail

In fact now that i look at it, it appears to be exclusively a UK prize.

Regardless, can you show another cycling related investigative piece - or even sports that is not done by the MSM?

When you ask relevant questions I'll answer them.

Now you are deciding whats relevant?
You're a funny guy.

Benson had a chance with the Armstrong interview - he dropped the ball. Benson promised tougher more critical reportage from CN - the proof is in the pudding. His words thus far have been empty and not backed up by the practice.

Again - what question did he not ask that makes him drop the ball?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

What does it matter if they are UK based - again another irrelevant point that has nothing to do with the topic. Back to the issue if you look at the awards over the years they have gone to a range of investigations using a range of different methods from different forms of media. Some mainstream, some regional, some specialised, some blogs. That is the significant part.

The argument that CN somehow 'can't' do investigation because it is a small online site and that only the likes of the Times can do investigative work is a bogus excuse.

The only things that limit CN's ability to do investigative reporting are: the basic model that CN uses which compromises its independence and the skills of its staff.

It's not rocket science, it's not impossible - you just need the desire, the interest and the skills to do the research and not being beholden to the teams, riders or sponsors. At the moment CN is beholden to the teams, riders and sponsors which is why is can't and won't take a more independent critical line on doping.

Does CN have the skills to break the apron-strings? It claimed it was going to, but we've yet to see the evidence. When the evidence does come forward I'll be first in line to give a round of applause.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What does it matter if they are UK based - again another irrelevant point that has nothing to do with the topic. Back to the issue if you look at the awards over the years they have gone to a range of investigations using a range of different methods from different forms of media. Some mainstream, some regional, some specialised, some blogs. That is the significant part.

Because if you have an awards ceremony that has limited entrants it is not surprising that you have nominees like Jon Austin (Basildon Echo) -on the Dale Farm evictions.

More to the point - I did suggest it was irrelevant by writing this (which again, you have not answered!)
Regardless, can you show another cycling related investigative piece - or even sports that is not done by the MSM?

The argument that CN somehow 'can't' do investigation because it is a small online site and that only the likes of the Times can do investigative work is a bogus excuse.

Good, as I didn't make that excuse.

I said they could - but I pointed out its is costly with little ral chance of uncovering anything.

The only things that limit CN's ability to do investigative reporting are: the basic model that CN uses which compromises its independence and the skills of its staff.

The basic model they have is to gather news on cycling.
And because that is the basic model they will end up hiring reporters or journalists - not FBI agents.

 

[hiero2]

MJM - I found this linked in another thread.

If you haven't read it, you probably will want to.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=22692


Btw - I went and read that LA/ Benson interview you keep going on about - and I don't see why you are saying it was softball. What questions would you have asked to make it hardball??

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You did a pretty big edit there - so just to address the new pieces.

What does it matter if they are UK based - again another irrelevant point that has nothing to do with the topic. Back to the issue if you look at the awards over the years they have gone to a range of investigations using a range of different methods from different forms of media. Some mainstream, some regional, some specialised, some blogs. That is the significant part.

The argument that CN somehow 'can't' do investigation because it is a small online site and that only the likes of the Times can do investigative work is a bogus excuse.

Answered already.

The only things that limit CN's ability to do investigative reporting are: the basic model that CN uses which compromises its independence and the skills of its staff.

It's not rocket science, it's not impossible - you just need the desire, the interest and the skills to do the research and not being beholden to the teams, riders or sponsors. At the moment CN is beholden to the teams, riders and sponsors which is why is can't and won't take a more independent critical line on doping.

Does CN have the skills to break the apron-strings? It claimed it was going to, but we've yet to see the evidence. When the evidence does come forward I'll be first in line to give a round of applause.

To the blue first - what exactly did CN say they were going to do?
And in the meantime do you expect the to not cover the actual news?

To the highlighted - well, whats stopping you doing that?
Serious question. If this interests you and you feel there is a market, why not exploit it?

 

[Benotti69]

<snip>
The basic model they have is to gather news on cycling.
And because that is the basic model they will end up hiring reporters or journalists - not FBI agents.

Since when did Kimmage and Walsh become FBI agents.

Given the current climate where there is talk of a cleanER peloton and sport there should be lots willing to talk about doping prior to 2006 when it suddenly stopped Talk to guys willing to talk about doping prior to 2006 will lead to people being named who are still in the sport which by asking questions to join the dots makes it investigative journalism. Walsh did not sit outside Ferarri's office for months. Talk to people, ask the right questions and based on those answers ask more questions.

As Kimmage said on twtter lately. It is not hard to ask questions, well he obviously was not talking about CN when he tweeted that.

Why is Benson not asking Sky about Leinders? Why is Benson not going to speak to Lefevere about Ibarguren? why not talk to Gilbert about Ibarguren and his amazing 2011 season? They will deny of course, but then go speak to riders who rode for teams in the past with Ibarguren.......see not science, nor is it difficult. But CN wont bite the omerta hand that feeds it so deserves all the criticism it gets.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Since when did Kimmage and Walsh become FBI agents.

They aren't.
But some important points. What investigative piece has Paul written? Has it produced anything?
Both also wrote for probably the biggest publication in Britain and even then they had to do most of their research on their own time.

Given the current climate where there is talk of a cleanER peloton and sport there should be lots willing to talk about doping prior to 2006 when it suddenly stopped Talk to guys willing to talk about doping prior to 2006 will lead to people being named who are still in the sport which by asking questions to join the dots makes it investigative journalism. Walsh did not sit outside Ferarri's office for months. Talk to people, ask the right questions and based on those answers ask more questions.

As Kimmage said on twtter lately. It is not hard to ask questions, well he obviously was not talking about CN when he tweeted that.

It is not hard to ask questions.
But do you expect full confessions from those you ask?

A good example is Kimmage and the JV interview from 2008. PK asked JV directly, JV refused to answer. Paul gave his assessment and JV did not deny it, that is what Paul had to work with and that is what he wrote.

Why is Benson not asking Sky about Leinders? Why is Benson not going to speak to Lefevere about Ibarguren? why not talk to Gilbert about Ibarguren and his amazing 2011 season? They will deny of course, but then go speak to riders who rode for teams in the past with Ibarguren.......see not science, nor is it difficult. But CN wont bite the omerta hand that feeds it so deserves all the criticism it gets.

CN have asked about Leinders. Why ignore that? Oh, I know you want them to write that Leinders did stuff even though they have no information to make any claim.

As for Gilbert - so he denys, but then ask some magical people who will tell all, who are these people.

 

[Benotti69]

They aren't.
But some important points. What investigative piece has Paul written? Has it produced anything?
Both also wrote for probably the biggest publication in Britain and even then they had to do most of their research on their own time.

They didn't have to the research on their own time. What gives you that idea?

No one is expecting CN to spend time and money investigating, but it would be nice if they wrote 'critical journalism'. Not copy and pasted their whole content.

It is not hard to ask questions.
But do you expect full confessions from those you ask?

If you ask the right questions and people deny they end looking like liars.

A good example is Kimmage and the JV interview from 2008. PK asked JV directly, JV refused to answer. Paul gave his assessment and JV did not deny it, that is what Paul had to work with and that is what he wrote.

But we knew the answer from reading the piece, at least i did.

CN have asked about Leinders. Why ignore that? Oh, I know you want them to write that Leinders did stuff even though they have no information to make any claim.

They asked Sky, that is the start and not the end. Go ask retired rabo riders. Go ask Dekker for example. Go talk to Rasmussen. Not hard.

As for Gilbert - so he denys, but then ask some magical people who will tell all, who are these people.

I bet Gilbert would not sit very comfortable answering questions about his 2011 and working with Ibarguren. People find it hard to lie, unless they are like Armstrong. Gilbert is no sociopath.

Again to defend CN after Benson stated they will be asking hard questions of the sport then to roll over back to omerta is pathetic.

It has never been easier to talk about doping in the sport. It is all around. Rasmussen just confessed. We had USPS outed finally for what it was. JV finally admitted in full. We have Rabo all admitting apart from Boogard, but no doubt he will. We have Mantova, Fuentes in court etc etc etc.....

Jeez now is the time to write about the doping and ask the questions that need asking.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

They didn't have to the research on their own time. What gives you that idea?

David Walshs new book.

Also, please be clear on what you consider investigative journalism.

No one is expecting CN to spend time and money investigating, but it would be nice if they wrote 'critical journalism'. Not copy and pasted their whole content.

Ah, that is exactly what MrsJm wants.

As for critical journalism - what is that? Because they have written plenty of op Ed pieces. I posted a piece by that damn awful Benson where he writes about Verbruggen. Just one example.

If you ask the right questions and people deny they end looking like liars.


But we knew the answer from reading the piece, at least i did.

They will only look like liars if you can show the lie.

JV didn't lie - he would not deny it, and still Kimmage could not go further than print the exact quotes used.
That is proper journalism, as it lets the reader decide what is correct.

They asked Sky, that is the start and not the end. Go ask retired rabo riders. Go ask Dekker for example. Go talk to Rasmussen. Not hard.




I bet Gilbert would not sit very comfortable answering questions about his 2011 and working with Ibarguren. People find it hard to lie, unless they are like Armstrong. Gilbert is no sociopath.

Again to defend CN after Benson stated they will be asking hard questions of the sport then to roll over back to omerta is pathetic.

It has never been easier to talk about doping in the sport. It is all around. Rasmussen just confessed. We had USPS outed finally for what it was. JV finally admitted in full. We have Rabo all admitting apart from Boogard, but no doubt he will. We have Mantova, Fuentes in court etc etc etc.....

Jeez now is the time to write about the doping and ask the questions that need asking.

Again, so Gilbert denies (what exactly) and then what?
Call around and ask him the same questions again?

Also who is going to talk? Rasmussen denied for years, only now with the Rabobank case has he finally admitted and he is keeping the best stuff for himself.

 

[Benotti69]

David Walshs new book.

Which was a amalgamation of a lot of stuff he had already written and he added some stuff to update it and is an exception. IIRC the profits are going to charity.This book is a one off.

Also, please be clear on what you consider investigative journalism.

Journalism that asks questions of a subject that warrants questioning, ie doping in cycling, Leinders time at Sky, Gilbert's amazing 2011 and ****poor 2012 and go deeper than 1 person and question many sources.

Ah, that is exactly what MrsJm wants.

What is wrong with asking for some other than copy and paste. Benson considers himself a journalist? What is wrong with asking for something that the sport needs from one of the biggest cycling websites? they dont half love to promote themselves as the 'the world centre of cycling'. Tiem to live up to it warts and all.

Vroomen has just launched a free magazine, Kimmage did an interview for it. CN is well established and already Vroomen has made a mockery of them.

As for critical journalism - what is that? Because they have written plenty of op Ed pieces. I posted a piece by that damn awful Benson where he writes about Verbruggen. Just one example.

Benson should be doing that at least once a week. His questions of Armstrong were weak and obvious. If he had lots that Armstrong didn't answer publish the questions which Armstrong wouldn't answer as that in itself tells us lots about Armstrong and what he is hiding.

They will only look like liars if you can show the lie.

Kimmage talked to LeMond for Vroomen's mag and a race came up that involved Kelly, LeMond and money. Kelly denied but we were left in no doubt.

JV didn't lie - he would not deny it, and still Kimmage could not go further than print the exact quotes used.
That is proper journalism, as it lets the reader decide what is correct.

Kimmage pushed JV with more than 1 question. He asked many times and JV told him he would not answer. That left the reader knowing what the answer was. If he asked once and didn't push it, the reader might decide there was nothing in the question but Kimmage pushed.

Again, so Gilbert denies (what exactly) and then what?
Call around and ask him the same questions again?

Dont play dumb, any idiot, even Benson can knock on a door and get a no comment. The Kimmage's and Walsh's dont accept that. Benson should be well connected enought to know who to go talk too if he is not to busy bowing down when he gets the goodie bags.

Also who is going to talk? Rasmussen denied for years, only now with the Rabobank case has he finally admitted and he is keeping the best stuff for himself.

Well Rasmussen is talking now. Start there while he is talking. I am sure there are a few more Emily O'Reilly's who would talk who are no longer in the sport. Just no one is looking. Benson is the 'journalist' he has to expect to do a bit of leg work if he wants to get these stories. That he doesn't is obvious.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Which was a amalgamation of a lot of stuff he had already written and he added some stuff to update it and is an exception. IIRC the profits are going to charity.This book is a one off.

No, I am saying that its in his new book that he points out that much of his investigative stuff was done on his own time.

Journalism that asks questions of a subject that warrants questioning, ie doping in cycling, Leinders time at Sky, Gilbert's amazing 2011 and ****poor 2012 and go deeper than 1 person and question many sources.

But again, you have conclusions here that there is a story (and that someone will talk) - you have no idea what Leinders has done at Sky.
Seriously, how would a journalist uncover that?

What is wrong with asking for some other than copy and paste. Benson considers himself a journalist? What is wrong with asking for something that the sport needs from one of the biggest cycling websites? they dont half love to promote themselves as the 'the world centre of cycling'. Tiem to live up to it warts and all.

This is made up.
You are ignoring plenty of articles that are not cut and paste - there is a new piece looking at blood doping in cycling currently running.

And often journalists get information but no-one will go on the record.
What would happen if Benson actually got someone to tell something and then published without their approval.

Vroomen has just launched a free magazine, Kimmage did an interview for it. CN is well established and already Vroomen has made a mockery of them.


Benson should be doing that at least once a week. His questions of Armstrong were weak and obvious. If he had lots that Armstrong didn't answer publish the questions which Armstrong wouldn't answer as that in itself tells us lots about Armstrong and what he is hiding.

It was a great interview.
But again you have lost perspective. That 'mag' comes out once a month. CN is a full time news site. Thats CNs core business and even then they do interviews with people (Armstrong would be an example, but it didnt reach your standard)

Again, that does not mean CN cannot do more.

Kimmage talked to LeMond for Vroomen's mag and a race came up that involved Kelly, LeMond and money. Kelly denied but we were left in no doubt.


Kimmage pushed JV with more than 1 question. He asked many times and JV told him he would not answer. That left the reader knowing what the answer was. If he asked once and didn't push it, the reader might decide there was nothing in the question but Kimmage pushed.


Dont play dumb, any idiot, even Benson can knock on a door and get a no comment. The Kimmage's and Walsh's dont accept that. Benson should be well connected enought to know who to go talk too if he is not to busy bowing down when he gets the goodie bags.

Thats untrue. They have often had to accept just that. It is part of the job.

Well Rasmussen is talking now. Start there while he is talking. I am sure there are a few more Emily O'Reilly's who would talk who are no longer in the sport. Just no one is looking. Benson is the 'journalist' he has to expect to do a bit of leg work if he wants to get these stories. That he doesn't is obvious.

Again - you are wrong, Rasmussen is not talking:
"I've informed the anti-doping authorities of what I specifically used, when and how. My agreement with them is confidential, which means I can't disclose further details at this time. That time may come later."

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

MJM - I found this linked in another thread.

If you haven't read it, you probably will want to.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=22692


Btw - I went and read that LA/ Benson interview you keep going on about - and I don't see why you are saying it was softball. What questions would you have asked to make it hardball??

Interesting article.

Questions Benson didn't ask or where he failed. His ignorance of TRC and allowing Armstrong to call for a complete Amnesty which went unchallenged. His attack on Tygart went unchallenged. His attempt to argue that he was no different to any other rider from any other era, went unchallenged,

Do you really think questions like:

CN: How much is the current level of hypocrisy a frustration for you?

Armstrong: Of course it's frustrating but it's cycling so it's not surprising

.

or

Cyclingnews: What was your family's reaction to your confession?

Lance Armstrong: They were well aware of what I was doing and going to say. They loved the interview. I was in Hawaii when it aired but my older kids and Kristin watched both nights live. We spoke immediately after both shows. What was said then I'll keep to myself.

Are 'tough' questions?

Why was there no follow up to this question and answer:

CN: Did you protect Dr. Ferrari during your confession?

Armstrong: I wasn't 'protecting' anyone. I was there to speak about myself, my experiences, and my mistakes. No one else. I know that goes against what we have grown used to in the last few years in cycling but I'm only interested in owning up to my mistakes. I'm a big boy and I'm not in the blame game.

For example - you want 'TRC' and amnesty but you won't implicate anyone else involved - this seems to be a contradiction. TRC requires you to confess and to implicate, not to uphold omerta.

or this line:

Armstrong: Which is a real shame for the current crop of young pros the sport has.

The obvious follow up - many people would struggle to take seriously your concern for young riders given the accusations made in the USADA report about the pressure that you and your team put upon riders to dope. Are you really concerned about their future or more about the future of yourself?

The interview did not challenge Armstrong's two pillars - that he is upholding omerta and the level playing field/no different to Bartali.

The obvious follow up question. By refusing to speak about others involved in your doping you are upholding omerta. How can the sport move on, or can we even take your expressed desire to help the sport move on if you refuse to speak out? How does speaking only about yourself and not shining a light on the others involved help clean up the sport?

You claim that you are no different to riders from previous eras, why do you think that your doping and those of your contemporaries is in anyway similar to the doping of the pre-EPO era?

The cynical would suggest that by putting forward this idea that you are no different to riders from previous eras you are trying to minimise your doping and to frame as being normal rather than exceptional, to rehabilitate yourself and justify what happened as being 'just cycling being cycling'.

Why no questions about Hog? Why no questions about the 2009 'comeback'.

Instead the interview was:

Lance tell me how you feel

Lance tell me how you want TRC to be

Lance tell me how you hate McQuaid (but won't actually really drop the hammer)

Lance tell everyone why you are still omerta.

Lance here's a freebie for you to try to wheel out the level playing field no different to anyone else chestnut.

And you think it wasn't a softball interview? Larry King was spinning in his grave at how toothless it was.

 

[blackcat]

young riders... hehheh

young triathletes that dope in their teenage years by their own volition.

hypocrisy? the illustrated comic book dictionary has Armie's photo next to hypocrisy