The Article: WSJ - reopened!

[Barrus]

I merged the threads. To be honest as has been pointed out there isn't actaully any article yet - this really is just more specualtion about what may or may not be in the article. Which is fine but doesn't seem to require another thread.

Happy to open a new thread if/when an article appears.

And thanks for the feeback.

Terry

If that happens, can this thread be closed then? just to ensure that people do not mix the two threads up, so that commenting on the article only happens in one thread

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Is there a source for this injunction story?

Susan

 

[Cobblestones]

this is beyond hilarious.

Is.... the ...... article....... published ......... ????

DIDN'T THINK SO ! The wsj is the gift that keeps on giving. They have driven traffic to their site by NOT publishing an article. GENIUS!!!! That really is Gold, Jerry, GOLD!

Well, the WSJ itself has a half-page ad on the forthcoming article. But I guess that's just more baseless speculation whether there is going to be an article or not.

 

[Anonymous]

This is not the U.K. Trying to prevent a major publication from printing something is a very tall order. Libel laws are completely different here, and they are stacked against public figures, which Armstrong most definitely is.

With a public figure, you have to PROVE that the person making the statement knew that what they said or wrote at the time was a complete fabrication. It is an almost impossible standard to prove.

 

[Anonymous]

Is there a source for this injunction story?

Susan

trying to find something. But almost every cycling internet forum reports an inunction being put in between 3 and 4 cet.

 

[180mmCrank]

If that happens, can this thread be closed then? just to ensure that people do not mix the two threads up, so that commenting on the article only happens in one thread

Yes it can

 

[Anonymous]

trying to find something. But almost every cycling internet forum reports an inunction being put in between 3 and 4 cet.

Wait, I thought they had "nothing to hide." That is the mantra of The Uniballer and The Hog, right? Nothing to hide. I think they have said it on many an occasion.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Well thats good news.

CAn i just point out though merging this thread with the old one was a bit silly. |This is finally the story and readers of the thread will have a bloody hard time finding the start of the proper discussion, the photo of the article etc.

Completely agree. The old thread was a mess, and should have remained closed.

Edit - Thanks 180mmCrank. Just saw your post above.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

Well, the WSJ itself has a half-page ad on the forthcoming article. But I guess that's just more baseless speculation whether there is going to be an article or not.

I hereby insist that an entire thread be opened to discuss the speculation and the ad. FORTHWITH!!! Free shots of your own blood for the 1st 25 posters.....

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Wait, I thought they had "nothing to hide." That is the mantra of The Uniballer and The Hog, right? Nothing to hide. I think they have said it on many an occasion.

That's right. Classic DoubleThink: holding two (or more) contradictory propositions at the same time.

"We have nothing to hide" vs "You can't print that"

"I always tick the allow retroactive testing box on my samples" vs "I'm not allowing my 99 samples being retested"

"I'm now free and open with journalists" vs "You can't interview me/listen to my tape"

"Here is my blood profile for public analysis" vs "Because experts question my blood profile I'm taking it down"

 

[alberto.legstrong]

Completely agree. The old thread was a mess, and should have remained closed.

Edit - Thanks 180mmCrank. Just saw your post above.

The old thread was pure awesomeness garnished with a brulee of brilliance.

I take offense! BAN BEECH MTN NOW. BAN PRO CYCLING!

 

[python]

i am looking at the wsj page a9 as i type. it says:

blood brothers

pro cyclist floyd landis saw his carreer and personal life all but destroyed after a failed drug test cost him his 2006 tour de france crown. now mr. landis gives the wall street journal an exclusive tour through what he and others say was a culture of systematic doping in the sport.

note ..'he and others'. this sounds like the new corroboration confirming the nyt article or adding to it.

will be very extensive because the size of the pre-announcement photo (½ a page) dwarfs the other 6 feature stories for tomorrow.

 

[Cobblestones]

I hereby insist that an entire thread be opened to discuss the speculation and the ad. FORTHWITH!!! Free shots of your own blood for the 1st 25 posters.....

The old thread was closed. Where should it be discussed but in a new thread?

 

[Barrus]

The old thread was closed. Where should it be discussed but in a new thread?

This is the old thread

 

[alberto.legstrong]

The old thread was closed. Where should it be discussed but in a new thread?

What? These mods can't unlock a thread? I think the awesomeness had to be contained before it spread like an infection.

 

[Race Radio]

False alarm on the injuction. Sorry.

Expect a Twitter press release along the lines of "old news" "SSDD"

 

[Cobblestones]

This is the old thread

re-opened. It was closed when the ad came out.

 

[Beech Mtn]

The old thread was pure awesomeness garnished with a brulee of brilliance.

I take offense! BAN BEECH MTN NOW. BAN PRO CYCLING!

OK, just for that I'm going to quit being such a huge Astana fan and join ACF in Cadel worship. There will be two of us defending the honor of the Rainbow Worrier!

On topic - seriously, is there a source for the injunction? That seems like a misstep by LA's camp on a couple levels.

1- As an American, it angers me to think that some rich dude is interfering with freedom of the press.
2- It makes the WSJ article anticipation even higher. Sure us "haters" have been looking forward to seeing what's in it, but news of an injunction could just spread the anticipation to other audiences.
3- What the heck is in this article anyway? It must be pretty huge and affect something like Tour participation or Livestrong income, or else why go after it? Has he gone after the E!Online celebrity gossip stories?

The whole affair just gets curiouser and curiouser.

 

[krebs303]

This is the old thread

Don't throw the pa-ast away
You might need it some rainy day
Dreams can come true again
When everything old is new again

 

[Beech Mtn]

False alarm on the injuction. Sorry.

Expect a Twitter press release along the lines of "old news" "SSDD"

Thanks for letting us know. Looking forward to seeing the article tomorrow. Lots of rumors and oddness surrounding the LA camp at this year's Tour. Can't be good for the concentration and race prep.

 

[Cobblestones]

Thanks for letting us know. Looking forward to seeing the article tomorrow. Lots of rumors and oddness surrounding the LA camp at this year's Tour. Can't be good for the concentration and race prep.

Ok, I thought the Armstrong legal & PR team had lost it. An injunction would probably be the worst option to react to this. Kind of like pleading the fifth.

The spin will be: Landis is bitter, he lied before, you can't trust him now, nothing to see here.

I still wonder who 'the others' are which are mentioned in the ad. Anyone wants to make a guess? Are those the two mentioned in the NYT article?

 

[buckwheat]

False alarm on the injuction. Sorry.

Expect a Twitter press release along the lines of "old news" "SSDD"

I'd ask him about it but he's blocked me.

Maybe I'll question members of his constellation of parasites!

I think I'll rag taylor phinney. He's easy to get a rise out of.

 

[stephens]

Well, it doesn't say "other cyclists," so they could be anyone or just a reference to the general suspicion of the public or people who follow cycling.

 

[scribe]

Ok, I thought the Armstrong legal & PR team had lost it. An injunction would probably be the worst option to react to this. Kind of like pleading the fifth.

The spin will be: Landis is bitter, he lied before, you can't trust him now, nothing to see here.

I still wonder who 'the others' are which are mentioned in the ad. Anyone wants to make a guess? Are those the two mentioned in the NYT article?

If it is a story about Landis accusations and history of doping in the sport, there is nothing LA can do nor should do. If it includes these accusations of hookers and blow as has been discussed here, he has a good case for lawsuit with a pretty solid payday being it the Wall Street Journal.

 

[Cobblestones]

I'd ask him about it but he's blocked me.

Maybe I'll question members of his constellation of parasites!

I think I'll rag taylor phinney. He's easy to get a rise out of.

I just went to twitter and it said:

Twitter is over capacity.
Please wait a moment and try again. For more information, check out Twitter Status