Riding the storm - The ProCycling Article

[bianchigirl]

I mentioned the article on the Rasmussen team as an example of what journalism can achieve if you ask a few questions and look beyond the surface - always the shades of grey - rather than as evidence that Stokes was pro/anti Armstrong.

But if you want a journalist who was prepared to discover the truth and not run from it then Walsh is your man - read 'Inside the Tour de France: the Neophyte's Tale' and then think about what happened next. Walsh admired the Texan - what changed his mind? Asking questions and looking beyond the surface to the shades of grey and not accepting press releases and puff pieces at face value.

 

[Digger]

I mentioned the article on the Rasmussen team as an example of what journalism can achieve if you ask a few questions and look beyond the surface - always the shades of grey - rather than as evidence that Stokes was pro/anti Armstrong.

But if you want a journalist who was prepared to discover the truth and not run from it then Walsh is your man - read 'Inside the Tour de France: the Neophyte's Tale' and then think about what happened next. Walsh admired the Texan - what changed his mind? Asking questions and looking beyond the surface to the shades of grey and not accepting press releases and puff pieces at face value.

Kimmage's children got bullied here in Ireland post 96 when he questioned Michelle Smith de Brun. One of three journos who did it. That's journalism and not the populist rubbish.

 

[Siriuscat]

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.

Based on the way the article was pitched, yes I'm disappointed, I hoped for more, there's a shift in attitude but not enough from that mag that labels itself as the best. If it wants to lead the printed media for me there needed to be more.

The by line is "Can the sport handle the truth?" the media needs to handle it too.

I'll go back and read it again but I'm not sure I'll see any more in it that what I've read so far.

 

[lean mean &green]

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.

i think this is a hindsight bias. it was difficult to know how much anyone was doping in 99 following the festina affair in 98. the reset button had been pressed. no ulrich or pantani in that tour as a measuring stick either. i don't think what was really happening became obvious until a few years later, at least it didn't to me.

you're correct that most sportswriters lack courage to go against someone of armstrong's status. i'm not defending armstrong or journo's but information is exchanged much differently in Jan '11 than it was in July '99. the internet was in it's infancy then as compared to now when it's in my pocket on a smartphone. big difference. suspiscion, rumour, and sometimes even the truth are spread very differently nowadays. by 2005 there were a few excuses left for journos but by 2011 there are absolutely none.

 

[bianchigirl]

Digger, I agree re: Kimmage but have always been intrigued as to why Walsh did such a volte face on Armstrong...

lean, mean it's pretty widely known that many of the European journalists knew exactly what Armstrong was about in 99 - Equipe were already raising questions and cracking out the 'Extraterreste' headlines during the race. They nailed Armstrong on the TUE lie in the last week of the race, I recall. That Armstrong doped throughout his TdF winning career was like the worst kept secret in the Euro press room - it was, I'm afraid, the gung ho Anglo Saxons who created the myth and have refused to relinquish it - the old world types knew, shrugged, said 'plus ca change' and openly sniped about it. As you point out, however, the internet in all its glory has helped to change that by disseminating that Euro info

 

[Digger]

Digger, I agree re: Kimmage but have always been intrigued as to why Walsh did such a volte face on Armstrong...
lean, mean it's pretty widely known that many of the European journalists knew exactly what Armstrong was about in 99 - Equipe were already raising questions and cracking out the 'Extraterreste' headlines during the race. They nailed Armstrong on the TUE lie in the last week of the race, I recall. That Armstrong doped throughout his TdF winning career was like the worst kept secret in the Euro press room - it was, I'm afraid, the gung ho Anglo Saxons who created the myth and have refused to relinquish it - the old world types knew, shrugged, said 'plus ca change' and openly sniped about it. As you point out, however, the internet in all its glory has helped to change that by disseminating that Euro info

I have an opinion that after his son died (Walsh) he has been on a crusade for truth. His courage shines through in his writings on Lance, as i think he is doing it in memory.

 

[AnythingButKestrel]

The problem with the media is the message they're sending about Armstrong's behavior: Doping and winning was just dandy, but doping and losing offends their sensibilities.

 

[Race Radio]

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.

Stokes is under no illusion about the reality of Wonderboy. I am pretty sure he is on the black list....which these days should be a mark of pride.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

If that is the case then watch out. You will see the same thing happening,,, that is happening now with this article. Not to bang on you “theHog” but you and a couple of other members have everyone worked up anticipating something much larger for the SI article. If that does not materialize then ……look out for the forum barrage. Not from me,,,,, because I do not expect much. I think if SI does have something new then both the Fed’s and LA are going to try and stop the story.

 

[pmcg76]

Digger, I agree re: Kimmage but have always been intrigued as to why Walsh did such a volte face on Armstrong...

lean, mean it's pretty widely known that many of the European journalists knew exactly what Armstrong was about in 99 - Equipe were already raising questions and cracking out the 'Extraterreste' headlines during the race. They nailed Armstrong on the TUE lie in the last week of the race, I recall. That Armstrong doped throughout his TdF winning career was like the worst kept secret in the Euro press room - it was, I'm afraid, the gung ho Anglo Saxons who created the myth and have refused to relinquish it - the old world types knew, shrugged, said 'plus ca change' and openly sniped about it. As you point out, however, the internet in all its glory has helped to change that by disseminating that Euro info

+1 The French knew the truth from the start, that is why they went with the ET headline after Sestriere. That is why there has always been a rocky relationship between Lance & Le Tour, post 9/11 anti-French paranoia in the US played perfectly into the hands of the Lance myth machine.

I know Paul Kimmage was reserving judgemement on Lance in 99 .i.e. he knew what was happening, and named Bassons as his hero of the 99 Tour.

I know following the 99 Tour personally, I could just about believe Lance winning the Prologue, TT and holding the yellow jersey but fully expected him to be nowhere in the mountains so when he won on Sestriere, it was like a WTF moment but I admit to buying into the BS for a few years as it was such a good story.

 

[thehog]

+1 The French knew the truth from the start, that is why they went with the ET headline after Sestriere. That is why there has always been a rocky relationship between Lance & Le Tour, post 9/11 anti-French paranoia in the US played perfectly into the hands of the Lance myth machine.

I know Paul Kimmage was reserving judgemement on Lance in 99 .i.e. he knew what was happening, and named Bassons as his hero of the 99 Tour.

I know following the 99 Tour personally, I could just about believe Lance winning the Prologue, TT and holding the yellow jersey but fully expected him to be nowhere in the mountains so when he won on Sestriere, it was like a WTF moment but I admit to buying into the BS for a few years as it was such a good story.

Everyone that day on Sestriere knew he was doping. The entire press room just looked at each other and shrugged their shoulders. In fact most were laughing at just how ridiculous it looked. But it was LeBlanc that day who told the press to be fair on Armstrong.... he knew as well but they just didn't know how to manage something just so totally out of this world.... they couldn't deal with another Festina so they tried to pretend it didn't happen....

 

[Siriuscat]

I'm afraid to say I was taken in by the brave new world of 99, post Festina would anyone have been that stupid....why was I so stupid. When you look back on it now, on video, he was taking the mickey and so so many people fell for it, Sestriere was incredible in every way you look at it. It took me a while to see the light but when you look back afterwards, does make one feel rather silly!!

BG I have read somewhere in print that the death of David Walsh's son was a trigger to a lot of changes in his style and voracity. Kimmage, well he's what I call a proper journalist, he attacks the subject and doesn't stop, we need that honesty rather than the hypocrasy that we see from most just hoping to secure a byline!!

The media is fantastic as long as they continue to have the courage of their convictions to take things all the way.

 

[lean mean &green]

I know following the 99 Tour personally, I could just about believe Lance winning the Prologue, TT and holding the yellow jersey but fully expected him to be nowhere in the mountains so when he won on Sestriere, it was like a WTF moment but I admit to buying into the BS for a few years as it was such a good story.

i appreciate your honesty. most are unwilling to admit this - they recogninzed the fraud immediately and weren't fooled for even one moment. no offense to the all-knowing countless unnamed journo's in the european press room.

the passage du gois time gains were a real confounding effect for me. there were huge time gains there that weren't much improved upon throughout the rest of the race - really just maintained. even on sestriere, zulle wasn't too far down the road. it's not likely he was flying away from pantani................yet. at the time, i really didn't think armstrong was a legitimate contender for the following year.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

+1 The French knew the truth from the start, that is why they went with the ET headline after Sestriere. That is why there has always been a rocky relationship between Lance & Le Tour, post 9/11 anti-French paranoia in the US played perfectly into the hands of the Lance myth machine.
I know Paul Kimmage was reserving judgemement on Lance in 99 .i.e. he knew what was happening, and named Bassons as his hero of the 99 Tour.

I know following the 99 Tour personally, I could just about believe Lance winning the Prologue, TT and holding the yellow jersey but fully expected him to be nowhere in the mountains so when he won on Sestriere, it was like a WTF moment but I admit to buying into the BS for a few years as it was such a good story.

It did not help that in 2003 that communist carnie midget from the Grande Roue de Paris tried to end the tour for Armstrong on the climb up Luz Ardiden!

 

[BotanyBay]

i appreciate your honesty. most are unwilling to admit this - they recogninzed the fraud immediately and weren't fooled for even one moment. no offense to the all-knowing countless unnamed journo's in the european press room.

the passage du gois time gains were a real confounding effect for me. there were huge time gains there that weren't much improved upon throughout the rest of the race - really just maintained. even on sestriere, zulle wasn't too far down the road. it's not likely he was flying away from pantani................yet. at the time, i really didn't think armstrong was a legitimate contender for the following year.

I'll admit, I was fooled too. Bought his book, hired his coach, etc. I just wanted to believe, I guess. The turning point for me was Simeoni's chase-down. Having raced for so many years myself, and knowing Tour tactics, that single act caused me to start investigating exactly why he did that. It did not take long to deduce that this was the new "Boss" meeting-out a punishment.

And now, in hindsight, I can tell why and how he was able to do it. Festina in 1998 created his opportunity. When other teams and riders in 1999 were "scared straight", Lance decided to bet on black.

He decided to just go for it. Worked the multi-million $ TDF win bonus into his contract and he executed his plan. And he pulled it off. His rivals were likely too afraid to dope during the tour, and he knew how to mask it. So he just crushed them.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Dose of Reality

The problem with the media is the message they're sending about Armstrong's behavior: Doping and winning was just dandy, but doping and losing offends their sensibilities.

That qualifies as the statement of the decade, and holds true across most sports in the U.S. I cannot speak about other localities.

You guys are asking for too much from ProCycling and the media in general. The goal is to make money selling content surrounded by advertisements while complying with all manner of regulation. The consequences are as follows:

-Sell ads/magazines based on building a myth.
-Sell ads/magazines based on tearing down a myth.
-Comply with regulations and avoid follow-on liability from any content.

The quotes are a good start. Don't worry, most publications will eventually punch holes in the Armstrong myth they created. It's what the media does. I don't think it will have the desired effect some of you are hoping.

I want to see multiple Federal felony counts and a trial. I'm not saying it's going to happen. But this media stuff is small potatoes.

 

[The Hitch]

: "That the guy who's winning all those Tours isn't doping, when everybody else is, doesn't even pass the straight-face test""

I totaly agree with this quote. I also think it reflects badly on other athletes. In our thing its difficult to measure one generation against the next because the stages are never the same, we dont time them on world records or anything, wind and drafting come into account etc. The Alpe time comes into mind but the variables are always different.

But in other individual sports you can measure very easily some athletes against others.

So say you have an athlete has the world record, when the past 10 record holders didnt get anywhere near his time, and half of them have been caught doping, with the others strongly linked.

That too doesnt pass the straight face test.