The Article: WSJ - reopened!

[filipo]

Most journalists (of any stripe) are more than willing to compromise their integrity to get access to a major celebrity.

Name four.

 

[SpeedWay]

Yeah, read the times article. Lance fans should enjoy this tour. I think it is all very slowly coming apart.

When they have over 200 posts in a thread about an article in the WSJ that doesn't exist its going to be hard for the tour to top(entertainment value) that. This place is wacko factory.

 

[Anonymous]

Name four.

Strickland, Ligget, Sherwen, and Will Fotheringham has gone right down in my opinion recently as well.. There are lots more I just cant be bothered to turn my brain on.

 

[progressor]

This thread has just got less and less readable. Wait and see, if there is anything to see, pointless speculation all mixed up with obsessive and fairly warped desire to see LA destroyed mixed with fantasy and of course the usual unwarranted flaming and abuse to those who won't tow the party line I suspect it's pointless to observe that someone who disagrees with you on in internet forum is not the definition of a troll, nor is it the definition of mentally ill or deficient.

And all this for an article that has yet to make an appearance - and may not do.

:bangs head on keyboard:

 

[goober]

He's a knucklehead regardless of whether or not you follow my logic.
Everything here is speculation at this point, but it is much more likely that what they said hurts Lance if they are trying to keep it under cover. To argue it otherwise one would really have to want it to be otherwise.

I don't mind being called names as I dish it out also. You also just confirmed what my whole point was on this thread - that these are speculations. If you go back to my earlier posts here I am schooling someone on the use of "apparently" -vs- "speculation". I am not arguing to want anything other than to be clear it is speculation and not apparent. Thanks for the confirmation. Now, I am sure you will flame away at me because the scenario I use to show it is speculation (as you confirmed) does not match your scenario.

 

[Cal_Joe]

This thread has just got less and less readable. Wait and see, if there is anything to see, pointless speculation all mixed up with obsessive and fairly warped desire to see LA destroyed mixed with fantasy and of course the usual unwarranted flaming and abuse to those who won't tow the party line I suspect it's pointless to observe that someone who disagrees with you on in internet forum is not the definition of a troll, nor is it the definition of mentally ill or deficient.

And all this for an article that has yet to make an appearance - and may not do.

:bangs head on keyboard:

You have just insulted the CN Forum code of "Doh! merta".

 

[Beech Mtn]

Honestly I have very little time for most journalists at the moment. Strickland just drives me insane trying to sell his book. 90% of them just fawn to the editorial policy of the newspaper or magazine they work for, or for whoever will sort out their press passes, invite them to a couple of functions. For me, a lot of them are as corrupt as certain riders, the UCI, race organisers etc. Liggett and Sherwen are probably the most obvious examples of complete omerta backers. There are exceptions, David Walsh of course being a notable one. For me, there are far more respectable bloggers that are informed and worth listening to.

AS for CN, i get more and more dissapointed by their reporting. I didnt visit the site for a long time, but recently have and have been pretty dissapointed. They did an awful job of reporting the recent WADA decision which had some really major points in it and they glossed over it completely. The latest NYT article they have failed completely to report that 2 riders are co-operating. Some of the race reports are excellent, but the news reporting is appaling at times. Im sure they just read other news sites and re-report it in their own words. The writer of the wada article clearly hadnt read the report.

+1 Both of those "stories" were terrible fluff, lacked any depth or insight and can only barely be called reporting.

 

[goober]

This thread has just got less and less readable. Wait and f***ing see, if there is anything to see, pointless speculation all mixed up with obsessive and fairly warped desire to see LA destroyed mixed with fantasy and of course the usual unwarranted flaming and abuse to those who won't tow the party line I suspect it's pointless to observe that someone who disagrees with you on in internet forum is not the definition of a troll, nor is it the definition of mentally ill or deficient.

And all this for an article that has yet to make an appearance - and may not do.

:bangs head on keyboard:

I would agree on most forums but not here - the clinic is the armpit of cycling forums - no holds barred. It is a playground for self proclaimed Lance haters who will say they are speculating but will not allow speculation that conflicts with their speculative views. Many who have crossed into this abyss have run and not come back - they do not have the tenacity to stay. I am not going - for this I am classified as a troll. Note: there are some people that dislike Lance that also have both views on here and are waiting and providing civil speculation also...

 

[Publicus]

I would agree on most forums but not here - the clinic is the armpit of cycling forums - no holds barred. It is a playground for self proclaimed Lance haters who will say they are speculating but will not allow speculation that conflicts with their speculative views. Many who have crossed into this abyss have run and not come back - they do not have the tenacity to stay. I am not going - for this I am classified as a troll. Note: there are some people that dislike Lance that also have both views on here and are waiting and providing civil speculation also...

[rant] I really don't get you guys. No one is suggesting that you aren't permitted to speculate about what was or was not said, or what the sentences or words in those sentences mean. So if you think that the following paragraph is meaningless, then that's your prerogative. Most of us just happen to disagree with your reading of the paragraph. Are we not allowed to disagree with you? So you can continue to attempt to advance your opinion all you like, you'll get no complaints from me. But could you stop with the sob story about how you are being wronged because folks are challenging the logic underlining your opinion? It's not personal. It's a feature of a discussion forum.

At least two of the people Landis implicated said they had met with investigators to tell of their past involvement with doping. They did not provide details of those meetings, but both said they were honest in responding to the investigators’ questions. Those men, long followers of cycling’s code of silence that kept doping a secret, did not want their names published for fear of retribution during racing at the Tour.

And Cal Joe, if you don't like speculating about things, that's your prerogative as well. Doesn't make you or your unwillingness to engage in such speculation superior--though that is the way your posts come off. It just means you are exercising your right to refrain from speculating/discussing on that particular topic. Others should be free to make a decision to exercise (or refrain from exercising) their right as well. Jumping in on every post to belittle folks for doing so is adding nothing to this forum, and in fact, is going a long way to making you an irritant. If that's your goal, well you've succeeded in my opinion. If you only want to discuss racing, then I suggest you exercise your right to not respond at all to posts that don't deal with racing (I know plenty of forum participants who, smartly, only do so). It will make your life easier, and free these discussion threads from needless posts upbraiding forum participants for having the audacity to discuss the relevant topic of a particular thread. [/rant]

 

[Mambo95]

When they have over 200 posts in a thread about an article in the WSJ that doesn't exist its going to be hard for the tour to top(entertainment value) that. This place is wacko factory.

Almost every poster on here reminds me of England football fans before a World Cup. Full of excitement and unrealistic expectations of what is going to happen, only to be later utterly underwhelmed and disappointed (and probably angry too).

 

[Anonymous]

Almost every poster on here reminds me of England football fans before a World Cup. Full of excitement and unrealistic expectations of what is going to happen, only to be later utterly underwhelmed and disappointed (and probably angry too).

if you are so good at telling the future could you tell me this weekends lottery numbers please.

 

[Mambo95]

if you are so good at telling the future could you tell me this weekends lottery numbers please.

2 6 23 24 35 48

I'm not saying what the future is going to be. But most people on here are hoping the article is going to full of sensations - riders speaking out, charity fraud, hookers, coke, incontravertable proof of doping, the whole pack of cards crumbling to the ground.

This might happen. But if you read the article and then moan 'Is That It?' then don't come crying to me.

PS My cousin writes for the WSJ Not this story though.

 

[Race Radio]

I would agree on most forums but not here - the clinic is the armpit of cycling forums - no holds barred. It is a playground for self proclaimed Lance haters who will say they are speculating but will not allow speculation that conflicts with their speculative views. Many who have crossed into this abyss have run and not come back - they do not have the tenacity to stay. I am not going - for this I am classified as a troll. Note: there are some people that dislike Lance that also have both views on here and are waiting and providing civil speculation also...

Your posts mostly are excuse to call others illogical media puppets and to bemoan that others do not share your love of the myth. As long as you continue to add little in the way of rational discourse or information about the sport do not be surprised when others react negativity to you.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Let me try one more time... There is no indication that two team-mates corroborated Landis' accusations. You are reading far too much into the words of the Times article. Remember the two riders provided no details so how can these authors know the story was corroborated. As I keep saying this is media spin 101. If they knew anything they would have included it and made this a more powerful story.

I don't mind being called names as I dish it out also. You also just confirmed what my whole point was on this thread - that these are speculations. If you go back to my earlier posts here I am schooling someone on the use of "apparently" -vs- "speculation". I am not arguing to want anything other than to be clear it is speculation and not apparent. Thanks for the confirmation. Now, I am sure you will flame away at me because the scenario I use to show it is speculation (as you confirmed) does not match your scenario.

Of course it is all speculation, but your statement is just wrong in the part I highlighted. The simple fact that the mystery riders seem to have gone to great lengths to keep their names out is indeed an indication of how their testimony would have gone. How strong an indication could be argued, but the indication is there.
As far as the calling names part goes I would say if being called a knucklehead hurts your feelings maybe you should stick to the Miley Cyrus fanclub forum.

 

[Nearly]

As to who the two riders are, Zabriskie and Hincapie are just my educated guesses. They are the only two people still riding who are yet to publicly react to Landis' accusations......

Matt White is implicated (and being investigated by the ASAA), has yet to 'react', works for/with JV and DZ and whilst no longer a rider is active at this year's TdF as a DS. Ticks all the (speculative) boxes as far as I can see (unless you rule out non Americans albeit working for American teams) but has not been mentioned on this thread (other than by me).

Just one problem -- in my view he is as equally unlikely to have done what the article seems to imply as Hincapie ..... short of a team Garmin decision that is?

 

[MacRoadie]

The simple fact that the mystery riders seem to have gone to great lengths to keep their names out is indeed an indication of how their testimony would have gone. How strong an indication could be argued, but the indication is there.

The part that I found at least compelling (however minor it may be), was this:

Those men, long followers of cycling’s code of silence that kept doping a secret, did not want their names published for fear of retribution during racing at the Tour.

The specific addition of "long followers of cycling's code of silence" suggests that the two deviated from this code. Likewise, the following phrase "fear of retribution" in reference to their names gives the very strong implied suggestion that they had broken the code.

If you're a long follower of a code and are now in fear of some punishment or "retribution" under that same code, then you must feel you have broken that code. Yes?

 

[joe_papp]

great stuff

also love his quote in the times from back in february (“In 2009, the tactics worked in his favour and Astana were soft-pedalling a bit to not embarrass Lance.")

which joe papp brought up not many hours ago
and btw is what brought on the news that vaughters has been blocked by armstrong

Oops, I'll have to apologize to JV for getting him in trouble by bringing all that up again.

Gotta love L.A. and his wonderfully-effed-up world.

 

[Cal_Joe]

And Cal Joe, if you don't like speculating about things, that's your prerogative as well. Doesn't make you or your unwillingness to engage in such speculation superior--though that is the way your posts come off.

Would never consider it superior. Just different.

Jumping in on every post to belittle folks....

124 posts in 10 months? = "every post"?? Call me confused (most people do).

Progessor's post accurately described the thread. I do not see anyone who disagreed.

 

[Race Radio]

I can understand an occasional post whining about not getting a fair shake, haters, and handbags.....but when this type of content makes of the majority of a users posts do not be surprised if others question your value.

 

[smaryka]

Wake me up when this thread actually gets interesting again...

 

[buckwheat]

Diaphramatic breath

I would agree on most forums but not here - the clinic is the armpit of cycling forums - no holds barred. It is a playground for self proclaimed Lance haters who will say they are speculating but will not allow speculation that conflicts with their speculative views. Many who have crossed into this abyss have run and not come back - they do not have the tenacity to stay. I am not going - for this I am classified as a troll. Note: there are some people that dislike Lance that also have both views on here and are waiting and providing civil speculation also...

Take a deep breath brother.

 

[Cal_Joe]

I can understand an occasional post whining about not getting a fair shake, haters, and handbags.....but when this type of content makes of the majority of a users posts do not be surprised if others question your value.

I think you must have been looking at someone else's posts.

"whining about getting a fair shake, haters"- I dislike it when posts are based on fabrications. I can't seem to find such a post made by myself.

"Handbags" - guilty as charged, and I am not the only one who has commented about this.

As far as my "value" goes, of course everyone is free to form their own opinion. If it is a negative opinion, feel free to put me on ignore.

If you feel that a post of mine that is critical of a thread or post is deficient in logic, please point out why I am wrong.

 

[Anonymous]

The part that I found at least compelling (however minor it may be), was this:



The specific addition of "long followers of cycling's code of silence" suggests that the two deviated from this code. Likewise, the following phrase "fear of retribution" in reference to their names gives the very strong implied suggestion that they had broken the code.

If you're a long follower of a code and are now in fear of some punishment or "retribution" under that same code, then you must feel you have broken that code. Yes?

what is sad, is that the omerta is still so strong in the peloton (and therefore you have to assume that doping is still rife) that they fear retribution.. that very much implies to me that a great majority of riders still support the omerta.

 

[Anonymous]

is twitter playing up or am i blocked by, of all people, taylor effing phinney?

Taylor tends to block everyone lance blocks. I think lance feeds back to him daily. He is grooming him to be a clone.

Im currrently on 3, lance, johan, and taylor, working on a fourth but i cant tell you who in case you all try and copy

Armstrong to intern: "Hey intern, take every name that follows BikePure, CyclingFansAnonymous, or NYVelocity, and block them from my tweets! That'll show them."

and pretty much anyone that follows me. Ive got freinds of mine who have never even mentioned lance who have been blocked. It seems if you follow any two of myself, festinagirl, maserati, or joepapp and you get blocked.

 

[filipo]

Strickland, Ligget, Sherwen, and Will Fotheringham has gone right down in my opinion recently as well.. There are lots more I just cant be bothered to turn my brain on.

OK, you've named two. Liggett and Sherwen are TV commentators, not journalists -- any more than Bob Roll Al Trautwig are journalists.

Strickland, I have to say I don't know about. Has he done anything other than write for Bicycling? But I'll give you him.

Now name two more.