• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Mens Journal article

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Berzin said:
With all due respect, it's a little late in the game for these cats to find religion. This and many other US-based magazines have over the years put Armstrong on their covers to sell magazines, have always taken his side when it came to doping allegations and have aided and abetted in generating the hype and have propagated his mythical status as the most astounding, genetically gifted racer that ever lived.

Men's Journal, Sports Illustrated, Outside Magazine and a whole host of others have all been collectively guilty of this. While the story was good they fed into it without a shred of journalistic integrity. NONE. They never questioned the mythology, they never once doubted this man's feats or questioned his contrived and insincere ploys at playing the cancer-surviving martyr-for-dollars.

It's nice that this magazine is attempting to right some of those wrongs, but they have been part and parcel of the problem with the media coverage Armstrong has garnered over the years.

I will gladly read the article, but I'm not thrilled that they've turned on one of their media cash cows when they should have been a bit less sycophantic from the very beginning. Then again, if they had taken this course they would not have gotten those interviews with Armstrong.

In all of your points you are correct.

I said this some time ago - one of the big benefits of having the WSJ and NYC questioning and reporting on Lances doping was that other publications could no longer rehash unproven articles.

As much as MJ are late to the party, I still welcome them.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
I said this some time ago - one of the big benefits of having the WSJ and NYC questioning and reporting on Lances doping was that other publications could no longer rehash unproven articles.

As much as MJ are late to the party, I still welcome them.

Yes, I feel the same way.

It is important for people, the average sports enthusiast who is probably taking all this in and crying "witch hunt", that the French are annoyed that Armstrong dominated their race with his All-American Awesomeness, that the Feds are just looking for a big name to go after, to come to terms with the absurdity of winning such an event 7 times in a row.

Not just that someone, anyone won the Tour 7 times, but someone who was physiologically incapable of mustering such a feat. Along with all those US Postal riders who day in and day out drilled themselves into the ground to set such scorching paces up those mountains only to come back the next day and do it again, and again and again.

By the way, I just finished reading the article and I found one quote very cryptic indeed. Bono, the lead singer for U2, sent Lance a tweet two days after the Landis accusations were made public-"Sometimes my friend, the lie is ugly but the truth is unbearable".
 
Jul 12, 2010
117
0
0
Visit site
Beech Mtn said:
Hope the feds were wiretapping all these calls - surely Lance's very impressive legal team would have warned him against anything that could look like witness tampering . . . .

I would of thought you would have to be a witness before you could claim witness tampering. It did say he is calling "possible" witnesses.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
In all of your points you are correct.

I said this some time ago - one of the big benefits of having the WSJ and NYC questioning and reporting on Lances doping was that other publications could no longer rehash unproven articles.

As much as MJ are late to the party, I still welcome them.

It will be easy for me to dis-prove all this mis-information by all of these anti-american muchrakers. Mj has taken a check mark in my black book ot haters.
 
Jun 15, 2009
353
0
0
Visit site
Lajeretta4Ever said:
I would of thought you would have to be a witness before you could claim witness tampering. It did say he is calling "possible" witnesses.

Tampering now + witness a year from now still = witness tampering.

Hence the comment that LA's lawyers should warn him "against anything that could look like witness tampering . . . ."
 
Jun 15, 2009
353
0
0
Visit site
flicker said:
It will be easy for me to dis-prove all this mis-information by all of these anti-american muchrakers. Mj has taken a check mark in my black book ot haters.

Well that's certainly an important step number one in disproving all their misinformation. I'm sure your check mark's got them hunkering down in preparation for your pro-American, anti-muckraking campaign of information.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
powerste said:
Well that's certainly an important step number one in disproving all their misinformation. I'm sure your check mark's got them hunkering down in preparation for your pro-American, anti-muckraking campaign of information.

It is OK Mj has their anti-drug spokesman Micheal Douglass, hasn't touched a straw in oh at least the last 5 minutes. How ironic!
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
Visit site
Lajeretta4Ever said:
I would of thought you would have to be a witness before you could claim witness tampering. It did say he is calling "possible" witnesses.
Maybe interfering with a Federal investigation.

But if wiretaps were in place, investigators would know who he feared, and what they might have to say. Could be a fresh name or two popped up. Also, what methods would he have tried to use to get them to keep schtum? Offers of bribes, intimidation or blackmail would be good.

Just checked, and the news of Tyler's subpoena hit on the last Friday of the Tour, so who knows how many guys he might have tracked down there.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
theswordsman said:
I've only seen the sneak preview, and I'm commenting on it.

I will buy the magazine. I imagine they are painting an ugly picture of Armstrong. I will read the article. I do not take glee in hating, to much of that in the world. I will make a sober evaluation of the article.
give up the hate guys. If Lance is half as bad as you folks say he will get his just deserts in spades. Just don't hate. To much of that in the world.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
flicker said:
I will buy the magazine. I imagine they are painting an ugly picture of Armstrong. I will read the article. I do not take glee in hating, to much of that in the world. I will make a sober evaluation of the article.
give up the hate guys. If Lance is half as bad as you folks say he will get his just deserts in spades. Just don't hate. To much of that in the world.

Who is hating??

What you fail to grasp is that for many MJ was there source of information - they believed all the BS about LA having a heart the size of Africa and how he beat those lazy Euros on Apple Pie.

These same people are now informed of what really happened - there's no hate there, in fact there is a lot to love.
 
May 15, 2010
833
0
0
Visit site
flicker said:
Super. The people on the forum get their info from mens journal. What next, info on cycling from GQ?

That's nothing compared to the derision heaped on the National Enquirer for the vicious lie that presidential candidate and VP Nominee in '04 John Edwards had a fathered a child with Rielle Hunter while his wife was battling cancer.

The truth can be found in much uglier places than Mens' Urinal.
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
powerste said:
Tampering now + witness a year from now still = witness tampering.

Hence the comment that LA's lawyers should warn him "against anything that could look like witness tampering . . . ."

"Obstruction of justice".
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
Berzin said:
With all due respect, it's a little late in the game for these cats to find religion. This and many other US-based magazines have over the years put Armstrong on their covers to sell magazines, have always taken his side when it came to doping allegations and have aided and abetted in generating the hype and have propagated his mythical status as the most astounding, genetically gifted racer that ever lived.

Men's Journal, Sports Illustrated, Outside Magazine and a whole host of others have all been collectively guilty of this. While the story was good they fed into it without a shred of journalistic integrity. NONE. They never questioned the mythology, they never once doubted this man's feats or questioned his contrived and insincere ploys at playing the cancer-surviving martyr-for-dollars.

It's nice that this magazine is attempting to right some of those wrongs, but they have been part and parcel of the problem with the media coverage Armstrong has garnered over the years.

I will gladly read the article, but I'm not thrilled that they've turned on one of their media cash cows when they should have been a bit less sycophantic from the very beginning. Then again, if they had taken this course they would not have gotten those interviews with Armstrong.

It's a bit unfair to blame the reporters or the magazines for not having done more to uncover the Armstrong lies earlier. After all, they don't make the news, the report it. Armstrong's legal tactics to sue without hestitation was an effective tool to make any publication, especially in the US, think twice whether it's worth going against the mainstream happy picture of American cycling. They had zero support from any official doping tests. People who had first hand knowledge of the doping were either afraid to speak up or would only comment anonymously. Look how long it took American book publishers to dare to bring out Walsh's revealing book ("From Lance to Landis...") to this continent. Armstong's championship status, charity work and political connections made him a sensitive target of any criticism.

It required the biggest news outlets in the business - WSJ and NYT - to break the Landis news and test Armstrong's reaction. After the smaller magazines saw that there is no legal downside of reporting negatively about Armstrong, the PR floodgates opened. That in turn encouraged more people to speak on record. There has also been "official" support - not from UCI, but from official sources connected to the FDA investigation. There was news to report, with corraboration.

The Landis emails were significant, but they need to be put in the context of having simply been the straw that broke this Texan camel's back. Many reporters were probably itching to tell this side of the story earlier but were told to hold off by their editors or publishers. It was a fortuitous conincidence that there was an existing FDA investigation going on at the same time - which helped connect the dots and fuel the firestorm we're witnessing.
 
May 15, 2010
833
0
0
Visit site
Berzin said:
With all due respect, it's a little late in the game for these cats to find religion. This and many other US-based magazines have over the years put Armstrong on their covers to sell magazines, have always taken his side when it came to doping allegations and have aided and abetted in generating the hype and have propagated his mythical status as the most astounding, genetically gifted racer that ever lived.

Men's Journal, Sports Illustrated, Outside Magazine and a whole host of others have all been collectively guilty of this. While the story was good they fed into it without a shred of journalistic integrity. NONE. They never questioned the mythology, they never once doubted this man's feats or questioned his contrived and insincere ploys at playing the cancer-surviving martyr-for-dollars.

It's nice that this magazine is attempting to right some of those wrongs, but they have been part and parcel of the problem with the media coverage Armstrong has garnered over the years.

I will gladly read the article, but I'm not thrilled that they've turned on one of their media cash cows when they should have been a bit less sycophantic from the very beginning. Then again, if they had taken this course they would not have gotten those interviews with Armstrong.

I think the days of Lance puff pieces being used to sell magazines are done. Now Lance the Fraud is used to sell magazines. We build 'em up....and then....we knockemdown. Lance is finding out that fame and celebrity can be a two way street.

The media paints in very broad and 1 dimensional strokes as consumers only have time for small bits of details about many many issues while devoting detailed knowledge and investing their time in MAYBE 1 or 2 avocations. We don't absorb peripheral news in gray. It's either black or it's white. Lance was white. Now....not so much...as the expression goes.

He used them (various puff piece writers - rhymes with Strickland - and outlets like MJ which seemed to have LA on their cover literally every other month) to advance the iconic image he was peddling. The media ACTS naive. But really, as I said above, they pump these messianic characters up knowing the time will come to trash them and move on. They win both ways in terms of selling their magazine. And media like MJ or Vanuty Fair or Bicycling are more than happy to hide behind the 'we didn't know any better' line when the curtain collapses on the Wizard du Jour. No one ever seems to hold them to account for their journalistic laziness.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
I was talking to a friend and he mentioned that subliminally we know who the cyclists are who are doping. I have no doubt that the media knows too, and goes along with the ruse to sell paper or product. When it is time to pull the plug on the winging cheat they do so mercellesly. Time to cash in again. Bonds gets smeared every other day in the media.

Was it not William Randolph Hearst who made one of his fortunes reporting the Lindburgh babies' kidnapping?
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,316
2
0
Visit site
flicker said:
Super. The people on the forum get their info from mens journal. What next, info on cycling from GQ?

talk about a hasty generalization. I suppose you prefer USA Today and Readers Digest
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,316
2
0
Visit site
Hugh Januss said:
When it comes to accurately reporting malfeasance in the world of pro cycling I think the more trustworthy outlets would be the ones that are the least tied to bike industry advertising dollars, wouldn't you?

You summed up my thoughts better than I could. good point