Riding the storm - The ProCycling Article

[thehog]

This months ProCycling magazine runs an excellent article on the Armstrong myth. The front cover looks suspiciously like its a pro Armstrong article but maybe thats just to draw the punters in.

Some passages that are impressive:

"...some would have pondered the intellectual challenge highlighted by a lawyer involved in the case (London Sunday Times) earlier this year: "That the guy who's winning all those Tours isn't doping, when everybody else is, doesn't even pass the straight-face test""

In 2003.... Armstrong leans forward on his chair and instructs the journalist to turn off his recorder.....: "There are three evil people in this world... "Osama Bin Laden..." He pauses for maximum dramatic effect "Saddam Hussein..." Pauses a bit longer, looks up, takes a breath, "...and David Walsh."

"As Filippo Simeoni, the victim of Armstrong's callous bullying in the 2004 Tour de France told me, "If he sent out a strong signal about doping, it could change everything in cycling". Instead If Floyd Landis is to be believed, he was paying off even more culpable UCI to cover up positive tests. And all impulse for change was lost.

....."Dr. Craig Nichols, the oncologist ...once spoke to him about 'the obligation of the cured'. Armstrong didn't forget this message. Curiously, though, he seemed to feel no such obligation to cycling, his peers or his fans.

"What Armstrong should have known was that he couldn't have it both ways - he couldn't propel cycling into the mainstream, enjoy the starburst of riches and influence, and not expect the previously uninitiated to start spotting holes in the Gospel. Never mind the straight-face test; that mistaken belief was just an insult to the publics intelligence - or plain arrogant.

___

Reprinted without permission ProCycling Magazine February 2011 p. 44-48.
Less than 4% non-copyright rule applies.

 

[Mambo95]

This months ProCycling magazine runs an excellent article on the Armstrong myth. The front cover looks suspiciously like its a pro Armstrong article but maybe thats just to draw the punters in.

How does the front cover headline: "LANCE: Can the sport handle the truth" appear in any slight way pro-Armstrong?

I fear the article may be a little too heavy on the measured presentation of facts and a little to low on bile dribbling for the taste of most on here though.

 

[Monte Zoncolon]

What they should of quoted " Lance Armstrong had a burning desire to be the best at what he does. He soon learned in his early career that this was not possible. His Ego kicked in to first gear after this SOBERING realisation. He told his teamates " we need to step up to the plate " And so it was. In late 1995 Lance Armstrong paid his first visit to Dr. Michele Ferrari. And this is where he laid the foundation's to what would become the greatest transparent deception in the entire History of Sport ".

 

[Adamastor]

What they should of quoted " Lance Armstrong had a burning desire to be the best at what he does. He soon learned in his early career that this was not possible. His Ego kicked in to first gear after this SOBERING realisation. He told his teamates " we need to step up to the plate " And so it was. In late 1995 Lance Armstrong paid his first visit to Dr. Michele Ferrari. And this is where he laid the foundation's to what would become the greatest transparent deception in the entire History of Sport ".

That is almost word to word what David Walsh and Ballester wrote in LA Confidential...;o)

 

[Polish]

Seems to be the same stuff, but a different day.
I want some new stuff. Be patient.

 

[Roland Rat]

This months ProCycling magazine runs an excellent article on the Armstrong myth. The front cover looks suspiciously like its a pro Armstrong article but maybe thats just to draw the punters in.

Some passages that are impressive:

"...some would have pondered the intellectual challenge highlighted by a lawyer involved in the case (London Sunday Times) earlier this year: "That the guy who's winning all those Tours isn't doping, when everybody else is, doesn't even pass the straight-face test""

In 2003.... Armstrong leans forward on his chair and instructs the journalist to turn off his recorder.....: "There are three evil people in this world... "Osama Bin Laden..." He pauses for maximum dramatic effect "Saddam Hussein..." Pauses a bit longer, looks up, takes a breath, "...and David Walsh."

"As Filippo Simeoni, the victim of Armstrong's callous bullying in the 2004 Tour de France told me, "If he sent out a strong signal about doping, it could change everything in cycling". Instead If Floyd Landis is to be believed, he was paying off even more culpable UCI to cover up positive tests. And all impulse for change was lost.

....."Dr. Craig Nichols, the oncologist ...once spoke to him about 'the obligation of the cured'. Armstrong didn't forget this message. Curiously, though, he seemed to feel no such obligation to cycling, his peers or his fans.

"What Armstrong should have known was that he couldn't have it both ways - he couldn't propel cycling into the mainstream, enjoy the starburst of riches and influence, and not expect the previously uninitiated to start spotting holes in the Gospel. Never mind the straight-face test; that mistaken belief was just an insult to the publics intelligence - or plain arrogant.

___

Reprinted without permission ProCycling Magazine February 2011 p. 44-48.
Less than 4% non-copyright rule applies.

That side of the article was good but I wasn't impressed at all with the side of it saying about all the good he has done with Livestrong, and using the old cheat v philanthropist argument. That was lazy journalism, and I would have hoped they would check the facts now instead of again believing the LA spin machine.

 

[Monte Zoncolon]

That is almost word to word what David Walsh and Ballester wrote in LA Confidential...;o)

Is it really. I've never even read the book or seen any transcript's from it.

 

[Digger]

This is such a pile of absolute bulls***. The content ok yes. The timing though. They didn't have the balls to print this when Lance was still a contender last year. Pete Cousins the Editor and I had words about this foure years ago and I said to him at the time, and will say it again, that they didn't have the balls to print this stuff earlier, merely due to not wanting to risk an interview. Same as Sports Illustrated now. The same journos who villified Walsh and Kimmage in public are now writing articles agreeing with their sentiments and I am sick of that hypocrisy. Lance the hero was the selling point so they ran wiht that. Now Lance the doper is the profit maker, so they go with that. How long before they have the balls to print an anti UCI piece?
'You got alot of nerve to say you are my friend, you just want to be on the side that's winning.'

 

[BotanyBay]

 

[skidmark]

Seems to be the same stuff, but a different day.
I want some new stuff. Be patient.

I know you're just paraphrasing LA's 'ssdd' comments, but really, why would you expect any 'new stuff' from a career that is history (million dollar show-up-and-pedal obligations in Australia aside)? The old stuff seems compelling enough for me.

 

[BotanyBay]

The same journos who villified Walsh and Kimmage in public are now writing articles agreeing with their sentiments and I am sick of that hypocrisy.

Grow up. Journos are like lawyers. They distance themselves from their personal feelings about a situation. If the editor says "Write it from this angle" they usually do.

As for the publication, perhaps after more than a decade of piling-up evidence, they've finally noticed the stench?

 

[Oldman]

Seems to be the same stuff, but a different day.
I want some new stuff. Be patient.

The "old stuff" has finally decayed enough to smell real bad. That's the new stuff.

 

[Digger]

Grow up. Journos are like lawyers. They distance themselves from their personal feelings about a situation. If the editor says "Write it from this angle" they usually do.

As for the publication, perhaps after more than a decade of piling-up evidence, they've finally noticed the stench?

Well that's not journalism. They may as well be still in school and have been given an essay to write by their teacher. And you know full well that all these journalists within cycling knew about this stuff so don't give me this crap that it's only now they are piecing it together. You not think it would have been easier for Ballester, Ressiot et al to keep their mouth shut like their editors wanted? No they did not. Because they have conviction.

 

[Siriuscat]

I bought it in the hope that there would be some element of the story that was new, a different angle, a cycling magazine attacking the BS we've had to listen to, YES I was hugely disappointed.

I suspect that every part of the cycling media is hedging their bets a little just in case he manages to get off scot free, attack him now they have to interviews or storys later. Smack of cowardice, I'm afraid, unless the cycling media starts attacking him then they will be left hanging anyway.

Disappointing

 

[thehog]

I bought it in the hope that there would be some element of the story that was new, a different angle, a cycling magazine attacking the BS we've had to listen to, YES I was hugely disappointed.

I suspect that every part of the cycling media is hedging their bets a little just in case he manages to get off scot free, attack him now they have to interviews or storys later. Smack of cowardice, I'm afraid, unless the cycling media starts attacking him then they will be left hanging anyway.

Disappointing

You serious? What more do you want?

You guys amaze me sometimes. Here for the first time we have a major cycling publication publishing a story stating that not only the man doped but he doped his head off and lied about it for several years.

A lot of you want more and more dirt but there's been a major shift. A shift like no other in the way that cycling is reported.

It was unthinkable an article like this to come out even 6 months ago.

Look a Bugno and Pellozotti now. They smell blood and are no longer afraid to go after the UCI.

When the SI article comes out I can see you all doing the same..... there's not a lot more to tell. You guys know the story. Stop looking for more and more dirt and look at the positive aspect that has been spun from this monumental shift.

I'd also suggest you read the article again. As there was a lovely little nugget in there that no one has picked up.

 

[JPM London]

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I felt the editorial was weirdly pro-LA saying something along the lines of "He should remembered for being great - and that's all"...

Haven't got to the real stuff yet, but looking forward to the Ullrich bits in there as well.

I don't feel the timing is bad at all - it's basically now that Armstrong is doing his (yet again) final (international) race. It's the end of an era, for better or worse.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

You serious? What more do you want?

You guys amaze me sometimes. Here for the first time we have a major cycling publication publishing a story stating that not only the man doped but he doped his head off and lied about it for several years.

A lot of you want more and more dirt but there's been a major shift. A shift like no other in the way that cycling is reported.

It was unthinkable an article like this to come out even 6 months ago.

Look a Bugno and Pellozotti now. They smell blood and are no longer afraid to go after the UCI.

When the SI article comes out I can see you all doing the same..... there's not a lot more to tell. You guys know the story. Stop looking for more and more dirt and look at the positive aspect that has been spun from this monumental shift.

I'd also suggest you read the article again. As there was a lovely little nugget in there that no one has picked up.

Darn it! Now I have to go out and buy the mag.

 

[bianchigirl]

Think I'm somewhere between the Hog & Digger...

Yes, this constitutes a major shift in tone, especially from a publication that has previously been a real Lance Licker. And, yes, there is only so much to print, only so much to be rehashed and only so many ways to do it.

But there is something cynical about putting your head above the parapet only when the tide has turned and jumping on the new bandwagon.

For a bit of proper journalism you could do worse than read the Shane Stokes piece on the new Rasmussen team - for once someone has bothered to dig beneath the lazy cliches and the story is all the more compelling for it. I can't help feeling that the new 'cynical' attitude to Armstrong is just as lazy in its way as the old one.

 

[goggalor]

Grow up. Journos are like lawyers. They distance themselves from their personal feelings about a situation. If the editor says "Write it from this angle" they usually do.

That's not journalism. That's prostitution.

When Bill Strickland actually tells us that he's sitting on "some serious revelations", and then goes on to write 500 pages of blah, that's not journalism.

...Or maybe that's exactly what journalism is, what do I know?

 

[thehog]

Well you could always have journalism like Rupert Guinness if you like?

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/why-lance-had-the-tour-jumping-for-joy-20110106-19hlq.html

 

[pmcg76]

Think I'm somewhere between the Hog & Digger...

Yes, this constitutes a major shift in tone, especially from a publication that has previously been a real Lance Licker. And, yes, there is only so much to print, only so much to be rehashed and only so many ways to do it.

But there is something cynical about putting your head above the parapet only when the tide has turned and jumping on the new bandwagon.

For a bit of proper journalism you could do worse than read the Shane Stokes piece on the new Rasmussen team - for once someone has bothered to dig beneath the lazy cliches and the story is all the more compelling for it. I can't help feeling that the new 'cynical' attitude to Armstrong is just as lazy in its way as the old one.

Stokes is a good journalist but I dont think I have seen too many articles from him raising doubts about Lance. Criticising Rasmussen is one thing, taking a pop at Lance is something else altogether.

When ProCycling started out, Cycle Sport was already established for 5-6 years and there didnt seem a need for another English Language cycling mag. The ProCycling mantra was they wanted to take a different direction on the subject of doping post Festina, they felt Cycle Sport were trying to sweep it under the carpet again and they wanted to keep it in the news.

How times have changed with ProCycling giving little attention to the subject of doping.

 

[Ferminal]

Well you could always have journalism like Rupert Guinness if you like?

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/why-lance-had-the-tour-jumping-for-joy-20110106-19hlq.html

Nice article about nothing..?

Super journalism.

I don't get it, apparently there isn't a big investigation going on - the only interesting news about Lance is actually not news about Lance but news about the ASO?

 

[fatandfast]

This is such a pile of absolute bulls***. The content ok yes. The timing though. They didn't have the balls to print this when Lance was still a contender last year. Pete Cousins the Editor and I had words about this foure years ago and I said to him at the time, and will say it again, that they didn't have the balls to print this stuff earlier, merely due to not wanting to risk an interview. Same as Sports Illustrated now. The same journos who villified Walsh and Kimmage in public are now writing articles agreeing with their sentiments and I am sick of that hypocrisy. Lance the hero was the selling point so they ran wiht that. Now Lance the doper is the profit maker, so they go with that. How long before they have the balls to print an anti UCI piece?
'You got alot of nerve to say you are my friend, you just want to be on the side that's winning.'

with point of sale systems every magazine publisher can tell how fast the title sells out of the pocket. Are they ball-less to hold back on Armstrong? Not if thier business is selling copy. The advertisers in the magazines pay a premium to be in issues w grabbing cover photos..as many have seen Armstrong sells things from bicycles,magazines,apple pectin water products,training products for cyclists and non cyclists alike. Why is there no outrage at bike companies...why not show the after effects of head injuries or bone crushing car to car sanwiching? While I think Procycling should go deep into the sport and subjects realted..a skim over mag like SI,Outside or Men's health should not go crazy concluding that Armstrong is a criminal why kill the goose when golden eggs are still coming out? More confusing why would an editor convict and punish Armstrong for something that half a dozen organizations tasked w that have been unable to do? The winning side is the side making money all around.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

Stokes is a good journalist but I dont think I have seen too many articles from him raising doubts about Lance. Criticising Rasmussen is one thing, taking a pop at Lance is something else altogether.

When ProCycling started out, Cycle Sport was already established for 5-6 years and there didnt seem a need for another English Language cycling mag. The ProCycling mantra was they wanted to take a different direction on the subject of doping post Festina, they felt Cycle Sport were trying to sweep it under the carpet again and they wanted to keep it in the news.

How times have changed with ProCycling giving little attention to the subject of doping.

I met Stokes once in Belgium with a group and had a few beers. Nice chap.

I mentioned Wonderboy to him in a way that indicated I knew that it's all a fraud, and he really seemed to believe that it was all genuine, and there wasn't any evidence against him.

This was pre Landisgate mind....

amongst the journalists i spoke to at that time Cancellara was the guy most were suspicious of.

 

[Digger]

with point of sale systems every magazine publisher can tell how fast the title sells out of the pocket. Are they ball-less to hold back on Armstrong? Not if thier business is selling copy. The advertisers in the magazines pay a premium to be in issues w grabbing cover photos..as many have seen Armstrong sells things from bicycles,magazines,apple pectin water products,training products for cyclists and non cyclists alike. Why is there no outrage at bike companies...why not show the after effects of head injuries or bone crushing car to car sanwiching? While I think Procycling should go deep into the sport and subjects realted..a skim over mag like SI,Outside or Men's health should not go crazy concluding that Armstrong is a criminal why kill the goose when golden eggs are still coming out? More confusing why would an editor convict and punish Armstrong for something that half a dozen organizations tasked w that have been unable to do? The winning side is the side making money all around.

Exactly.......Look I can't help but think of that Bill Hicks' sketch where he says you are free to do what we tell you. Much the same with journalists. They tell us what they think we want to hear. That's fairytale, not news. What about investigative journalism? What about why many of these writers got into the profession in the first place? I keep referring to this quote, but to me if speaks volumes. When Kimmage was starting out in journalism, Walsh told him to 'never run from the truth.' How many can realistically say this? How many held the Omerata intact? I can excuse Men's Health and the like no problem, but the journalists who sat in the press room in Sestriere '99 and laughed at the nonsense they were watching.