Official lance armstrong thread, part 2 (from september 2012)

[Ninety5rpm]

The BBC interviewer asks Tyler why Lance should be suspected of doping since "he's passed hundreds of doping tests throughout his career". Tyler's response was clever - and should be used more often to counter perhaps the most-used Armstrong propaganda line:

"I have also passed hundreds of doping tests that I clearly should have failed since I was doping all along."

+100

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

A great interview with David Walsh and he goes to the point of why journalists (who he points out appeared to recognise Lance was doping in 1999) decide to ignore it. He then goes on to say that there was no place for himself in the press car in 2004....

I have been really frustrated by the depth of coverage of Australian cycling journalists. Can't understand it really, as a cycling journalist this is the story of the century, surely?

In the last few days Rupert Guinness (who was apparently in that car with David Walsh for years before Lance put an end to it) has done an article in the Sydney Morning Herald saying he won't make up his mind (FFS) until he sees the USADA evidence.

Then there is Anthony Tan saying that he thinks that they doped because they weren't paid enough (what?) (SBS Cycling Central opinion)

Finally a guy called Les Clarke is saying today (SBS Cycling Central website) that Hamiltons book indicates that there has been a generational change!

Well with all the white washing going on in the Australian cycling press thats a pretty good indication that thats a load of ********.

Sorry all for the rant - but the lack of any focused investigative journalism here really makes you realise how scared these guys are to speak out. Of what? Of whom?

Why isn't Rupert Guinness for example, interviewing Travis Tygart, Daniel Coyle, Tyler Hamilton, Betsy Andreu, He is the cycling journalist for the Sydney Morning Herald! So depressing (end rant)

Cycling journalists (and everyone else working in the cycling industry) depend on the popularity of cycling. They are inherently biased against stories that turn people off from cycling. An isolated doping case here or there does not do that. A story about how infested the sport is with doping does do that. The Armstrong story is of course ultimately in the latter category. There should be no surprise in the reluctance to cover it. It's professional suicide.

 

[LauraLyn]

Cycling journalists (and everyone else working in the cycling industry) depend on the popularity of cycling. They are inherently biased against stories that turn people off from cycling. An isolated doping case here or there does not do that. A story about how infested the sport is with doping does do that. The Armstrong story is of course ultimately in the latter category. There should be no surprise in the reluctance to cover it. It's professional suicide.

Who owns Team Sky?

 

[Benotti69]

Now that's something I could easily imagine happening.

It would appear others think it is good to have a disgraced unrepentant doper in their race.

RaceRadio tweets

@LTRaceSeries is going unsanctioned this year so disgraced former cyclist @lancearmstrong can ride

http://singletrack.competitor.com/2...g-to-race-in-crested-butte-this-weekend_35152

 

[reginagold]

Others who have been banned have tried this trick - entering "independent" events. This time, as in the past, warnings will go out to all licensed riders in good standing that to participate in such events puts their status at risk.

Riders fade away from event, promoter finally gets the idea that running an event for convicted dopers isn't the way to success. Then the PR machine for the CD says he can't really ride the event due to scheduling/family/smoke and mirrors.

 

[Benotti69]

Others who have been banned have tried this trick - entering "independent" events. This time, as in the past, warnings will go out to all licensed riders in good standing that to participate in such events puts their status at risk.

Riders fade away from event, promoter finally gets the idea that running an event for convicted dopers isn't the way to success. Then the PR machine for the CD says he can't really ride the event due to scheduling/family/smoke and mirrors.

We will see. I hope so.

Went through a few noike shops recently. Nothing on display that relates to Armstrong.

 

[ThisFrenchGuy]

Others who have been banned have tried this trick - entering "independent" events. This time, as in the past, warnings will go out to all licensed riders in good standing that to participate in such events puts their status at risk.

Riders fade away from event, promoter finally gets the idea that running an event for convicted dopers isn't the way to success. Then the PR machine for the CD says he can't really ride the event due to scheduling/family/smoke and mirrors.

Warning from? The UCI?

Maybe i'm missing something but on its face i'm not sure that i am sympathetic on efforts to coerce events outside of the scope of federations... Wasn't there some outcry here by some when Ullrich's participation to what amounts to an amateur sunday race was put into jeopardy because of his federation?

 

[LauraLyn]

Others who have been banned have tried this trick - entering "independent" events. This time, as in the past, warnings will go out to all licensed riders in good standing that to participate in such events puts their status at risk.

Riders fade away from event, promoter finally gets the idea that running an event for convicted dopers isn't the way to success. Then the PR machine for the CD says he can't really ride the event due to scheduling/family/smoke and mirrors.

Warning from? The UCI?

Maybe i'm missing something but on its face i'm not sure that i am sympathetic on efforts to coerce events outside of the scope of federations... Wasn't there some outcry here by some when Ullrich's participation to what amounts to an amateur sunday race was put into jeopardy because of his federation?

I like reginagold's suggestion. I think it is the important one. Riders should boycott any event that Armstrong participates in or supports through any one of his organizations. And athletes generally. For example, whether or not Armstrong goes to the Hoorn marathon, all athletes should boycott it just because of the invitation from the organizers to Armstrong. (Of course, if they withdraw the invitation publicly and explain why, we should reconsider.)

From what we have seen, federations and event organizers are closing ranks around Armstrong and against doping controls. So until this changes, and changes drastically, relying on the federations is a bit silly.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Warning from? The UCI?

Maybe i'm missing something but on its face i'm not sure that i am sympathetic on efforts to coerce events outside of the scope of federations... Wasn't there some outcry here by some when Ullrich's participation to what amounts to an amateur sunday race was put into jeopardy because of his federation?

Yes. Here is the all important antitrust clause in the UCI constitution.

Article 11 part 4:
Except in the case of prior consent of the Management Committee, ferederations and their members shall take part only in cycling activities organized by one of them or by the UCI or a continental confederation. Moreover, they shall not take part in activities organized by a suspended federation, except as provided in art. 18.2.

I'm unsympathetic in the extreme.

 

[sairyder]

Cycling journalists (and everyone else working in the cycling industry) depend on the popularity of cycling. They are inherently biased against stories that turn people off from cycling. An isolated doping case here or there does not do that. A story about how infested the sport is with doping does do that. The Armstrong story is of course ultimately in the latter category. There should be no surprise in the reluctance to cover it. It's professional suicide.

Wide ranging article from Selena Roberts drawing attention to the important issues - i will see if i can get the link right

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/38243308

Great to see some journalists not too afraid to do their job!

 

[Pazuzu]

Wide ranging article from Selena Roberts drawing attention to the important issues - i will see if i can get the link right

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/38243308

Great to see some journalists not too afraid to do their job!

I like her too. She wrote a story about Lance's doping that appeared in Sports Illustrated about a year and a half ago: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1180944/index.htm

We definitely need more journalists like Roberts.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Thanks for the link..

theHog also posted this earlier...I
This thread or another -Tyler's Book- cant keep up..

It is a good piece...Selena does good reporting and is fair but honest.


edit : Come on Down Floyd Landis thread...
There are to d@mn many threads here about Floyd and Armstrong!

 

[Mr.DNA]

I like her too. She wrote a story about Lance's doping that appeared in Sports Illustrated about a year and a half ago: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1180944/index.htm

We definitely need more journalists like Roberts.

IIRC she was the reporter who outed A-Rod on his PED use. Then the dirtbag tried to smear her by labeling her a "stalker."

 

[DirtyWorks]

Yes. Here is the all important antitrust clause in the UCI constitution.

Article 11 part 4:
Except in the case of prior consent of the Management Committee, ferederations and their members shall take part only in cycling activities organized by one of them or by the UCI or a continental confederation. Moreover, they shall not take part in activities organized by a suspended federation, except as provided in art. 18.2.

I'm unsympathetic in the extreme.

They've threatened riders that they will be enforcing this clause in the last two years or so. This brings up a side issue as some non-UCI mountain bike events have had proper UCI Pro elites racing. Either the infraction goes unenforced, or the UCI "sells" the rider to the event like they do teams for premier events, or the rider just eats the penalty. Typical of the UCI, we just don't know.

 

[Tinman]

I have been really frustrated by the depth of coverage of Australian cycling journalists. Can't understand it really, as a cycling journalist this is the story of the century, surely?

Why isn't Rupert Guinness for example, interviewing Travis Tygart, Daniel Coyle, Tyler Hamilton, Betsy Andreu, He is the cycling journalist for the Sydney Morning Herald! So depressing (end rant)

Agreed entirely. Bizarre, and with the rapid increase in cycling popularity the main stream media need to adress this via better cycling journos.

Rupert seems mostly interested in branding himself - every article has his annoying mugshot and name on top. These publications ought to have restrictions on their journos self promotions. And the SMH chief editor clearly doesn't understand cycling (and has a greater financial interest and focus in Rugby League).

A critical investigative approach probably wont help Rupert advance his personal brand.

 

[mewmewmew13]

IIRC she was the reporter who outed A-Rod on his PED use. Then the dirtbag tried to smear her by labeling her a "stalker."

I'll bet that A-rod and L-roid share many 'personality' traits.

 

[LauraLyn]

Wide ranging article from Selena Roberts . . .

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/38243308 . . . .

Thanks, great blog:

"Did he double-dare cancer by surviving it only to drug his body to win, and put the health of his teammates at risk by coercing them into doping up, too? Did Armstrong leverage his access to cancer research as a means of obtaining experimental drugs that were sitting in lab refrigerators? For federal officials, will new evidence spur a second criminal investigation -- you can hear the groans from the dope-weary public -- that would result in a re-opening of drug-trafficking, money-laundering and wire-fraud pursuits surrounding Armstrong and his Tailwind team?"

 

[LauraLyn]

Yes. Here is the all important antitrust clause in the UCI constitution.

Article 11 part 4:
Except in the case of prior consent of the Management Committee, federations and their members shall take part only in cycling activities organized by one of them or by the UCI or a continental confederation. Moreover, they shall not take part in activities organized by a suspended federation, except as provided in art. 18.2.

I'm unsympathetic in the extreme.

Interesting. But this seems only to ban riders from participating in events organized by "banned federations." Do you have any examples of a current or past "banned federation?"

It does not seem to exclude members from riding in non-UCI or non-UCI federation organized events. For example, the upcoming Alpine Odyssey this weekend which "un-sanctioned" its event so Lance could ride.

 

[Cavalier]

I'm going to quote split this because I think it deals with some things a little unfairly:

A great interview with David Walsh and he goes to the point of why journalists (who he points out appeared to recognise Lance was doping in 1999) decide to ignore it. He then goes on to say that there was no place for himself in the press car in 2004....

I have been really frustrated by the depth of coverage of Australian cycling journalists. Can't understand it really, as a cycling journalist this is the story of the century, surely?

In the last few days Rupert Guinness (who was apparently in that car with David Walsh for years before Lance put an end to it) has done an article in the Sydney Morning Herald saying he won't make up his mind (FFS) until he sees the USADA evidence.

That's not remotely what Rupert said. You're being pretty unfair there. What he said was that he wanted to be impartial until the evidence was presented. That's a good position for most journalists to take - to report on facts rather than speculate. Ultimately it's the job of a journalist to report on findings of fact. Not quite sure what you're expecting him to do otherwise.

Then there is Anthony Tan saying that he thinks that they doped because they weren't paid enough (what?) (SBS Cycling Central opinion)

Tan is an idiot. There's little else I can add to him other than that description. He's shown little to no willingness to actually engage what's available, and relied on terrible sound-bites that sound firmly like he's in Lance's camp, including the "passed all tests" and "jealous ex-teammates" lines.

Sorry all for the rant - but the lack of any focused investigative journalism here really makes you realise how scared these guys are to speak out. Of what? Of whom?

Why isn't Rupert Guinness for example, interviewing Travis Tygart, Daniel Coyle, Tyler Hamilton, Betsy Andreu, He is the cycling journalist for the Sydney Morning Herald! So depressing (end rant)

The short answer to that is that he's been on a holiday that was planned for a long time - long before Armstrong's case came to light. In truth, he's deserved it. But he also interrupted that holiday deliberately to post what was a pretty damn good article, and for that alone you should probably cut him some slack. Unlike most journalists, it explains very well what his relationship with Armstrong was like (rocky doesn't do it justice), and was a great insight.

He's back in Sydney shortly - he's been willing to engage people both on twitter and via email - and he took the time to send me a message unsolicited offering to catch up once he got back, which was completely out of the blue, and a sign to me that he's more than willing to address USADA-Armstrong once he's returned from holiday. My suggestion would be to try and contact him - I'm absolutely certain he'll be happy to respond to you. Net result has simply been bad timing - Armstrong verdict was expected earlier and delays just happened to coincide with a family holiday.

 

[Berzin]

Does anyone know when the USADA will send their report on the Armstrong suspension/Tour stripping?

I thought it was supposed to be sometime this week?

 

[sairyder]

I'm going to quote split this because I think it deals with some things a little unfairly:



That's not remotely what Rupert said. You're being pretty unfair there. What he said was that he wanted to be impartial until the evidence was presented. That's a good position for most journalists to take - to report on facts rather than speculate. Ultimately it's the job of a journalist to report on findings of fact. Not quite sure what you're expecting him to do otherwise.



Tan is an idiot. There's little else I can add to him other than that description. He's shown little to no willingness to actually engage what's available, and relied on terrible sound-bites that sound firmly like he's in Lance's camp, including the "passed all tests" and "jealous ex-teammates" lines.



The short answer to that is that he's been on a holiday that was planned for a long time - long before Armstrong's case came to light. In truth, he's deserved it. But he also interrupted that holiday deliberately to post what was a pretty damn good article, and for that alone you should probably cut him some slack. Unlike most journalists, it explains very well what his relationship with Armstrong was like (rocky doesn't do it justice), and was a great insight.

He's back in Sydney shortly - he's been willing to engage people both on twitter and via email - and he took the time to send me a message unsolicited offering to catch up once he got back, which was completely out of the blue, and a sign to me that he's more than willing to address USADA-Armstrong once he's returned from holiday. My suggestion would be to try and contact him - I'm absolutely certain he'll be happy to respond to you. Net result has simply been bad timing - Armstrong verdict was expected earlier and delays just happened to coincide with a family holiday.

I just reread his article and yes perhaps i was a little harsh on Rupert. I take your points on board.

However i have to say again that you just get the feeling that he is being dragged kicking and screaming to write about this - to admit the truth of the coverup and the depth of the complicity. He does not mention the UCI at all.

I think as cycling fans we do have a right to express our disappointment at this complicity between the rider and our serious cycling journalists.

 

[Cavalier]

You're still going a bit too far - he has genuinely been on holiday. I know it's coincidental timing, but that's really all it is. Rupert doesn't screw over his mates - that was why he was on Armstrong's blacklist in the first place, because he travelled with Walsh, and that lasted years, so there's no complicity between him and Armstrong at all.

Remember that first and foremost, to be able to report, a journalist needs to be able to report. I genuinely think Rupert has some stuff to tell, and I think we'll see some good pieces come from him in the weeks after he's back from o/s - which is in the next week or so.

 

[the big ring]

However i have to say again that you just get the feeling that he is being dragged kicking and screaming to write about this - to admit the truth of the coverup and the depth of the complicity. He does not mention the UCI at all.

I sound like I'm kicking and screaming when being asked to work on holidays too

 

[Sandy Chamois]

Additional USADA Sanctions against Lance Armstrong announced

In addition to the USADA sanctions:

Mr. Armstong may never shave his legs again.
All yellow articles of clothing, including the mustard colored "Kiss the Cook" apron, must be surrendered.
Must fly commercially in coach class, with only ONE carry on.
Surrender all KOMs on Strava.
May never spray a magnum of champagne.
All archival footage of cycling events will be edited, removing all images and references of Armstrong. Including the ESPY's. (except for the Will Ferrell bit)
The name Armstrong will be removed from the English language, any others with the same surname will be assigned a new name.

 

[sairyder]

"But it was not so easy to take on Armstrong. Since refusing to answer USADA's charges, Armstrong has been stripped of his seven Tour victories. When he claimed the first of those wins in 1999, the success story that unravelled spawned an explosion of business: media, advertisers, sponsors and race organisers all jumped aboard.
Me, too, having known Armstrong since late 1992 when he turned professional after the Barcelona Olympic Games and having followed his career leading up to his 1996 diagnosis for cancer.
Walsh recently wrote of Armstrong being a puppeteer of a media reliant on access to him. There was also media reliant on the advertising gains from sponsors linked to Armstrong and his team. Cross him at your peril."

Above quote from the article just starts to scratch the surface.

I noticed on the Betsy Andreu interview (link upthread) that the two journalists interviewing her also specifically made mention of the fact that they could not write about it due to the advertising dollars paying for their publications and their financial links to Armstrong.

I am simply saying why does one have to wait for the USADA evidence to be published to follow the multiple leads available. This forum has continued to provide links for evidence.

And i have no issue with Rupert being on holiday.. I don't want to make it that personal in anyway - just disappointed with the depth of the Australian coverage, and he is one of the better guys as you say Cavalier.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling...r-armstrong-20120907-25jp5.html#ixzz26Lde0aKY