No love lost for Lance - media reacts

[AussieEdge]

Bigger. More victims. More money fraudulently solicited.

Dave.

Still looks bad if you go after a cancer charity...

Need the Feds or if there's anyone higher to ride that horse...

 

[LaPlagne87]

Pretty sure Kimmage had won journalism awards while there. His interviews with other sports people were superb. Problem was he was submitting Tour/Armstrong stories which would leave the ST open to more libel. Also, they edited the Landis interview to hell and he was livid.

He was never laid off for not being "good enough".

http://www.independent.ie/sport/reserving-the-right-to-applaud-403806.html

A helluva writer and an absolute hero.

 

[D-Queued]

Still looks bad if you go after a cancer charity...

Need the Feds or if there's anyone higher to ride that horse...

Not a cancer charity, a charity with cancer.

Awareness?

Who the duck doesn't know about cancer?

Dave.

 

[Cloxxki]

Not a cancer charity, a charity with cancer.

Awareness?

Who the duck doesn't know about cancer?

Dave.

If only those proverbial 500 millions had actually gone to actual cancer research, to alternative treatments to be exact. Outside the chemo/radiation game which already gets many billions.

 

[gregod]

i think this headline says it all.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Sports Illustrated has piled on as well. Bluntly stating that without doping, Lance is nobody. Had it not been for doping he just be another ex-racer working at a bike shop in Texas.

 

[The Hitch]

Sports Illustrated has piled on as well. Bluntly stating that without doping, Lance is nobody. Had it not been for doping he just be another ex-racer working at a bike shop in Texas.

Since the narrative is that lance started doping somewhere in the mid 90's im a little upset they don't recognise that he was a world.road racing champion. For the sake of.the sport as something more than 3 weeks in July.

 

[Big Doopie]

Since the narrative is that lance started doping somewhere in the mid 90's...

um...that's armstrong's narrative.

you know... the one he is always trying to control.

it's not the truth.

he was doped for the 1993 WC without a doubt.

 

[The Hitch]

um...that's armstrong's narrative.

you know... the one he is always trying to control.

it's not the truth.

he was doped for the 1993 WC without a doubt.

I know he was doped for the 1993 wc. But no one in the media ever mentioned it. All they ever cared about is whether he doped for his 7 tours.

Besides he still oficially has that victory no?

 

[Benotti69]

I know he was doped for the 1993 wc. But no one in the media ever mentioned it. All they ever cared about is whether he doped for his 7 tours.

Besides he still oficially has that victory no?

Lets hope the new president of the UCI will strip his 93 Worlds.

 

[hrotha]

Lets hope the new president of the UCI will strip his 93 Worlds.

I don't think they can (or should) do that. There are reasons why the SOL was waived for the 1999-2010 period, which don't seem to apply to 1993.

 

[Benotti69]

I don't think they can (or should) do that. There are reasons why the SOL was waived for the 1999-2010 period, which don't seem to apply to 1993.

Maybe they cant but they should. I think time to get rid of SOL in sport.

 

[Big Doopie]

I know he was doped for the 1993 wc. But no one in the media ever mentioned it. All they ever cared about is whether he doped for his 7 tours.

Besides he still oficially has that victory no?

sorry, misunderstood.

i think hrotha has answered why that won't happen.

 

[MarkvW]

I don't think that "we were bamboozled" serves as a sufficient explanation of the media's hostility to Lance.

I think that we also need to consider the fact that Lance bullied and cowed reporters and their editors into submission for many years. They knew the truth, but they were afraid to report it, because they didn't have good enough proof, and they were afraid of getting sued by Lance. Now the reporters are getting even with the bully.

I think the reporters know that Lance, like Nixon, never forgets. That's another reason why I don't think the media will be inclined to cut Lance any slack. If the jerk ever comes back, he will do his best to extract revenge.

 

[131313]

I don't think that "we were bamboozled" serves as a sufficient explanation of the media's hostility to Lance.

I think that we also need to consider the fact that Lance bullied and cowed reporters and their editors into submission for many years. They knew the truth, but they were afraid to report it, because they didn't have good enough proof, and they were afraid of getting sued by Lance. Now the reporters are getting even with the bully.

I think the reporters know that Lance, like Nixon, never forgets. That's another reason why I don't think the media will be inclined to cut Lance any slack. If the jerk ever comes back, he will do his best to extract revenge.

Agree with all of that, and I think the bolded part explains the critical mass of universal hate from the press cascading down on him now . No one want to see him rise from the ashes.

 

[ElChingon]

I'm just dumbfounded at the masses (which includes the media) that are until now waking up, its as if they have all been living in a dream state till now. Does anyone know what was/is happening in cycling? Anyone reading the history of cycling knows whats up but no everyone ignores it as if it was a fairy tale. The worse part is the reporters or supposed reporters on this site haven't a clue why the originator of CN sold it, they have no utter clue and have no utter reproductive glands to write what is real.

Bill some of us know and think you deserve better.