I agree/concede they should've gone for a reaction from Lotto to make the story stronger, but "unbelievable" is a word you should reserve for journalism of the Mart Smeets/David Walsh (the 2nd)/Fotheringham/Moore/Wilcockson kind, i.e. journos who only take stuff from the horse's mouth and then print it as fact.Hawkwood said:...
No it was not `sloppy journalism' it was exceptionally sloppy journalism. Unbelievable that the accusation wasn't put to Lotto, if only to get a `no comment' which Stade could then have used to make their story stronger.
sniper said:If you wanna celebrate yes-man journalism whilst criticizing investigative journalism, so be it.
Did Walsh ever interview Lance?
sniper said:I agree/concede they should've gone for a reaction from Lotto to make the story stronger, but "unbelievable" is a word you should reserve for journalism of the Mart Smeets/David Walsh (the 2nd)/Fotheringham/Moore/Wilcockson kind, i.e. journos who only take stuff from the horse's mouth and then print it as fact.Hawkwood said:...
No it was not `sloppy journalism' it was exceptionally sloppy journalism. Unbelievable that the accusation wasn't put to Lotto, if only to get a `no comment' which Stade could then have used to make their story stronger.
Hawkwood said:sniper said:If you wanna celebrate yes-man journalism whilst criticizing investigative journalism, so be it.
Did Walsh ever interview Lance?
I'm talking about real journalism, where you put hard questions to the other party, and if the answers don't stack up you nail them. I'm also talking about a basic journalistic technique, where you seek to protect your media outlet and yourself from printing something that might be completely wrong. I worked in the media for three years in the 1980s, I remember on one occasion sitting in a room with a fleet street editor being asked "can you stand this story up?", I couldn't, the story didn't run.
Why you should bring Walsh and Lance into this heaven only knows?
what they did still was so much more interesting than the vast majority cycling journalism.GJB123 said:...
Nobody is claiming the likes of Mart Smeets even deserve the titel of journalist, because he doesn't. However this investigative journalism by Stade 2 was sloppy at best. The fact that you seem to like their conclusions doesn't make it better journalism. Not a single attempt to get a reaction from Lotto-Jumbo and not a single way of confirming their suspicions (because that is all it is for now). One source is no source. They should have done better and if they had we probably we wouldn't be having this discussion either way.
I know.Hawkwood said:sniper said:If you wanna celebrate yes-man journalism whilst criticizing investigative journalism, so be it.
Did Walsh ever interview Lance?
I'm talking about real journalism, where you put hard questions to the other party, and if the answers don't stack up you nail them. I'm also talking about a basic journalistic technique, where you seek to protect your media outlet and yourself from printing something that might be completely wrong. I worked in the media for three years in the 1980s, I remember on one occasion sitting in a room with a fleet street editor being asked "can you stand this story up?", I couldn't, the story didn't run.
Most journalists are just fanboys with a typewriter. They don't want to upset their heroes and lose their access.sniper said:I know.Hawkwood said:sniper said:If you wanna celebrate yes-man journalism whilst criticizing investigative journalism, so be it.
Did Walsh ever interview Lance?
I'm talking about real journalism, where you put hard questions to the other party, and if the answers don't stack up you nail them. I'm also talking about a basic journalistic technique, where you seek to protect your media outlet and yourself from printing something that might be completely wrong. I worked in the media for three years in the 1980s, I remember on one occasion sitting in a room with a fleet street editor being asked "can you stand this story up?", I couldn't, the story didn't run.
The vast majority of sports journalism works this way and adheres to these 'etiquettes'.
It's why sports journalism is so terribly lame, and it's one reason why sports cheating and sports fraud continues to flourish unabated, unchallenged, and unquestioned.
I'm glad Stade 2 showed some balls, even though I agree they c/should've gone further in corroborating certain parts of their story.
sniper said:I know.Hawkwood said:sniper said:If you wanna celebrate yes-man journalism whilst criticizing investigative journalism, so be it.
Did Walsh ever interview Lance?
I'm talking about real journalism, where you put hard questions to the other party, and if the answers don't stack up you nail them. I'm also talking about a basic journalistic technique, where you seek to protect your media outlet and yourself from printing something that might be completely wrong. I worked in the media for three years in the 1980s, I remember on one occasion sitting in a room with a fleet street editor being asked "can you stand this story up?", I couldn't, the story didn't run.
The vast majority of sports journalism works this way and adheres to these 'etiquettes'.
It's why sports journalism is so terribly lame, and it's one reason why sports cheating and sports fraud continues to flourish unabated, unchallenged, and unquestioned.
I'm glad Stade 2 showed some balls, even though I agree they c/should've gone further in corroborating certain parts of their story.
sniper said:I know.Hawkwood said:sniper said:If you wanna celebrate yes-man journalism whilst criticizing investigative journalism, so be it.
Did Walsh ever interview Lance?
I'm talking about real journalism, where you put hard questions to the other party, and if the answers don't stack up you nail them. I'm also talking about a basic journalistic technique, where you seek to protect your media outlet and yourself from printing something that might be completely wrong. I worked in the media for three years in the 1980s, I remember on one occasion sitting in a room with a fleet street editor being asked "can you stand this story up?", I couldn't, the story didn't run.
The vast majority of sports journalism works this way and adheres to these 'etiquettes'.
It's why sports journalism is so terribly lame, and it's one reason why sports cheating and sports fraud continues to flourish unabated, unchallenged, and unquestioned.
I'm glad Stade 2 showed some balls, even though I agree they c/should've gone further in corroborating certain parts of their story.
In any case, their thermal camera footage is evidence.
Lotto's denial means absolutely zilch.
But since procycling doesn't have a proper body to investigate this, we might as well move along.
sniper said:I know.Hawkwood said:sniper said:If you wanna celebrate yes-man journalism whilst criticizing investigative journalism, so be it.
Did Walsh ever interview Lance?
I'm talking about real journalism, where you put hard questions to the other party, and if the answers don't stack up you nail them. I'm also talking about a basic journalistic technique, where you seek to protect your media outlet and yourself from printing something that might be completely wrong. I worked in the media for three years in the 1980s, I remember on one occasion sitting in a room with a fleet street editor being asked "can you stand this story up?", I couldn't, the story didn't run.
The vast majority of sports journalism works this way and adheres to these 'etiquettes'.
It's why sports journalism is so terribly lame, and it's one reason why sports cheating and sports fraud continues to flourish unabated, unchallenged, and unquestioned.
I'm glad Stade 2 showed some balls, even though I agree they c/should've gone further in corroborating certain parts of their story.
I'm not sure if/how Stade 2 could've proven that.Then they should have shown and proven that.
sniper said:I'm not sure if/how Stade 2 could've proven that.Then they should have shown and proven that.
They would've had to anticipate Lotto's wheel-change story.
Alternatively, if UCI meant business, they could pressure Lotto to prove that the wheel they claim Primoz was using is capable of creating such a nice full moon on a thermal scanner.
Hawkwood said:sniper said:I'm not sure if/how Stade 2 could've proven that.Then they should have shown and proven that.
They would've had to anticipate Lotto's wheel-change story.
Alternatively, if UCI meant business, they could pressure Lotto to prove that the wheel they claim Primoz was using is capable of creating such a nice full moon on a thermal scanner.
You'd sit down with your producer, and also preferably someone with some cycling experience, and then go through the scenarios, for example, `what excuses might a team come out with?'. I guess that they didn't have the resources to put in place a big enough team to cover the Lotto part of the documentary effectively. I understand that Stade `stretched' the colour palette for the footage for dramatic effect, so the glow from the hub didn't indicate that much difference in temperature, 5 degrees warmer than the tires which were also glowing. There are various theories as to why the hub was warmer than the tires. I'm almost tempted to get a thermometer to check the temperature of my hub/cassette on a ride.
sniper said:I'm not sure if/how Stade 2 could've proven that.Then they should have shown and proven that.
They would've had to anticipate Lotto's wheel-change story.
Alternatively, if UCI meant business, they could pressure Lotto to prove that the wheel they claim Primoz was using is capable of creating such a nice full moon on a thermal scanner.
Tienus said:Just tuned in for the tour and within five minutes I see a Kawasaki motorcycle live checking bikes with a thermal heat camera. One minute later there is a replay of the UCI checking bikes before the departure. At least now all the viewers know that nobody will cheat with mechanical dopping this tour.
thehog said:Tienus said:Just tuned in for the tour and within five minutes I see a Kawasaki motorcycle live checking bikes with a thermal heat camera. One minute later there is a replay of the UCI checking bikes before the departure. At least now all the viewers know that nobody will cheat with mechanical dopping this tour.
So Froome won't attack today? :surprised:
Rollthedice said:thehog said:Tienus said:Just tuned in for the tour and within five minutes I see a Kawasaki motorcycle live checking bikes with a thermal heat camera. One minute later there is a replay of the UCI checking bikes before the departure. At least now all the viewers know that nobody will cheat with mechanical dopping this tour.
So Froome won't attack today? :surprised:
The announced mechano doping and micro-dosing tests have a remarkable effect on all the peloton, nobody attacks, nothing really happens and all the GC guys come to the line together. Could this be it?
Rollthedice said:thehog said:Tienus said:Just tuned in for the tour and within five minutes I see a Kawasaki motorcycle live checking bikes with a thermal heat camera. One minute later there is a replay of the UCI checking bikes before the departure. At least now all the viewers know that nobody will cheat with mechanical dopping this tour.
So Froome won't attack today? :surprised:
The announced mechano doping and micro-dosing tests have a remarkable effect on all the peloton, nobody attacks, nothing really happens and all the GC guys come to the line together. Could this be it?