The Article: WSJ - reopened!

[MacRoadie]

Possibly why he announced it to be his last?
I am wondering, if fraud is the angle the gov. is going for, can LA argue it was not fraud if everyone was doing it. And will he name names to back that up.

Ah yes, the old "Well, Jefferson owned slaves." argument.

 

[goober]

You are entitled to your own opinion, but I think the plain meaning of the below paragraph is clear:

If you have nothing to say (i.e, no past doping involvement), you have no reason to fear retribution for saying so. At least in the reality based world.

EDIT: Just read the subsequent posts after the response I replied to.... You are either being wilfully ignorant of the plain meaning of words, or you have a serious reading comprehension deficiency. In either event, let's just agree to disagree about the meaning of the above-referenced paragraph and we can go about our collective business.

Here is my problem with media sensationalism:

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.

The first two sentences tell you nothing as to what was revealed by the two riders. The last sentence leads the reader to believe something was revealed by these two riders (media sensationalism). The author expects readers to follow this path - I am not a media puppet and will not. If this was anything more than sensationalism then the article would not have moved on from here. Also, if the "long followers of cycling's code of silence that kept doping a secret" was not just one of the author's opinions then they would have given reference as to one of the riders revealing this. The riders also probably said do not publish my name because I do not want to deal with it during the TDF - the autho probably sensationalized this also.

Either way we will agree to disagree. No one knows - which actually is my point - it is not apparent,

 

[MacRoadie]

Here is my problem with media sensationalism:



The first two sentences tell you nothing as to what was revealed by the two riders. The last sentence leads the reader to believe something was revealed by these two riders (media sensationalism). The author expects readers to follow this path - I am not a media puppet and will not. If this was anything more than sensationalism then the article would not have moved on from here. Also, if the "long followers of cycling's code of silence that kept doping a secret" was not just one of the author's opinions then they would have given reference as to one of the riders revealing this. The riders also probably said do not publish my name because I do not want to deal with it during the TDF - the autho probably sensationalized this also.

Either that, or it's the New York Times and not VeloNews and it simply says what it says...

I'm sure you apply the same level of criticism and scepticism to everything on the RadioShack web page and Armstrong's tweets. Yes?

 

[issoisso]

Here is my problem with media sensationalism:



The first two sentences tell you nothing as to what was revealed by the two riders. The last sentence leads the reader to believe something was revealed by these two riders (media sensationalism). The author expects readers to follow this path - I am not a media puppet and will not. If this was anything more than sensationalism then the article would not have moved on from here. Also, if the "long followers of cycling's code of silence that kept doping a secret" was not just one of the author's opinions then they would have given reference as to one of the riders revealing this. The riders also probably said do not publish my name because I do not want to deal with it during the TDF - the autho probably sensationalized this also.

Either way we will agree to disagree. No one knows - which actually is my point - it is not apparent,

"For some reason" I just thought of the japanese soldiers lost in random islands in the pacific, refusing to come out when told the war was over.

They refused to believe it. They refused to accept the obvious facts. They just kept fighting a fight that had long been over and lost.

I wonder why I thought of that.

 

[MacRoadie]

In case no one noticed in the Juliet Macur (co-auther of the NYT article) twitter stream cited earlier, she is the reporter the Times is sending to cover the Tour.

If anyone thought this story would drop off the radar once the Tour started, the fact that the Old Grey Lady is sending Macur and the obvious angle she is following may change your mind...

"Packing for the Tour de France today. Lots of motivation to travel light. 4 weeks on the road. Changing hotels nearly every night."

 

[goober]

Either that, or it's the New York Times and not VeloNews and it simply says what it says...

I'm sure you apply the same level of criticism and scepticism to everything on the RadioShack web page and Armstrong's tweets. Yes?

Never seen the RadioShack webpage. My level of criticism and skepticism depend on what I am reading. I was just trying to show that the article provides little in that paragraph. The interpretations are speculation and not apparent.

 

[Barrus]

In case no one noticed in the Juliet Macur (co-auther of the NYT article) twitter stream cited earlier, she is the reporter the Times is sending to cover the Tour.

If anyone thought this story would drop off the radar once the Tour started, the fact that the Old Grey Lady is sending Macur and the obvious angle she is following may change your mind...

"Packing for the Tour de France today. Lots of motivation to travel light. 4 weeks on the road. Changing hotels nearly every night."

Uhm, you do realize that Juliet Macur is one of the resident cycling journalist for the NYT, so it probably was always the intention of her to go to France during the tour

 

[goober]

"For some reason" I just thought of the japanese soldiers lost in random islands in the pacific, refusing to come out when told the war was over.

They refused to believe it. They refused to accept the obvious facts. They just kept fighting a fight that had long been over and lost.

I wonder why I thought of that.

Not sure why you think that was an obvious fact to those soldiers? The obvious is it wasn't obvious or they would have come out. Why do you believe it was obvious to them? Obviously it wasn't.

For some reason I just thought of Orson Wells "The War of the Worlds"...

 

[goober]

George was one of the riders indicated in the article.

 

[FKLance]

George was one of the riders indicated in the article.

Really? do you have a link?

 

[euanli]

How do you know "Mr Hincapie" said he didn't ask to be anonymous?

 

[Runitout]

Not sure why you think that was an obvious fact to those soldiers? The obvious is it wasn't obvious or they would have come out. Why do you believe it was obvious to them? Obviously it wasn't.

For some reason I just thought of Orson Wells "The War of the Worlds"...

Maybe this might explain why it was obvious:

"Onoda first saw a leaflet that claimed the war was over in October 1945. When another cell had killed a cow, they found a leaflet left behind by the islanders which read: "The war ended on August 15. Come down from the mountains!"2 But as they sat in the jungle, the leaflet just didn't seem to make sense, for another cell had just been fired upon a few days ago. If the war were over, why would they still be under attack? No, they decided, the leaflet must be a clever ruse by the Allied propagandists.

Again, the outside world tried to contact the survivors living on the island by dropping leaflets out of a Boeing B-17 near the end of 1945. Printed on these leaflets was the surrender order from General Yama****a of the Fourteenth Area Army. Having already hidden on the island for a year and with the only proof of the end of the war being this leaflet, Onoda and the others scrutinized every letter and every word on this piece of paper. One sentence in particular seemed suspicious, it said that those who surrendered would receive "hygienic succor" and be "hauled" to Japan. Again, they believed this must be an Allied hoax.

Leaflet after leaflet was dropped. Newspapers were left. Photographs and letters from relatives were dropped. Friends and relatives spoke out over loudspeakers."
...

On March 9, 1974, Suzuki and Taniguchi met Onoda at a preappointed place and Major Taniguchi read the orders that stated all combat activity was to be ceased. Onoda was shocked and, at first, disbelieving. It took some time for the news to sink in.

"We really lost the war! How could they have been so sloppy?
Suddenly everything went black. A storm raged inside me. I felt like a fool for having been so tense and cautious on the way here. Worse than that, what had I been doing for all these years?"


http://history1900s.about.com/od/worldwarii/a/soldiersurr.htm

An apt analogy, Issoisso.

 

[goober]

Really? do you have a link?

I have an email. It also indicates he did not want his name published as it pertains to doping but nothing to do with afraid of other riders at TDF. The interview supposedly happened earlier today.

 

[firestorm]

In case no one noticed in the Juliet Macur (co-auther of the NYT article) twitter stream cited earlier, she is the reporter the Times is sending to cover the Tour.

If anyone thought this story would drop off the radar once the Tour started, the fact that the Old Grey Lady is sending Macur and the obvious angle she is following may change your mind...

"Packing for the Tour de France today. Lots of motivation to travel light. 4 weeks on the road. Changing hotels nearly every night."

Juliet Macur covers the Tour every year for the NYT and covers cycling a lot. She was even in LA during the Time Trial for the Floyd scandal.

 

[Barrus]

I have an email. It also indicates he did not want his name published as it pertains to doping but nothing to do with afraid of other riders at TDF. The interview supposedly happened earlier today.

Any indication what he might have said and from who this e-mail is?

 

[FKLance]

I have an email. It also indicates he did not want his name published as it pertains to doping but nothing to do with afraid of other riders at TDF. The interview supposedly happened earlier today.

He tweeted this too, lol

Just finished interview with NY Times. Everyone is getting excited about the TDF!! about 17 hours ago via web

 

[goober]

Any indication what he might have said and from who this e-mail is?

I am not sure what to believe - again a source to me that I felt was solid. He just said check George's twitter if I don't believe him. Hmmmm.

 

[Barrus]

I am not sure what to believe - again a source to me that I felt was solid. He just said check George's twitter if I don't believe him. Hmmmm.

But still the other question remained any indication as to what mister Hincapie has said? Also his twitter could indicate a different type of interview, if he would have not liked his name to become public, why post on his twitter

 

[FKLance]

But still the other question remained any indication as to what mister Hincapie has said? Also his twitter could indicate a different type of interview, if he would have not liked his name to become public, why post on his twitter

Exactly. Seems odd. Maybe he did want to remain anonymous and only gave a normal interview on NYT and something else to WSJ..

 

[Berzin]

I'm sure you (Goober) apply the same level of criticism and skepticism to everything on the RadioShack web page and Armstrong's tweets. Yes?

Of course not. He slurps up the putrid Radio Shack/Armstrong sludge like a cannibal feasting on human flesh.

But a report from one of the most venerable newspaper institutions on the planet he disregards as being "sensationalist".

But let's get back to topic-he is winning this battle here, because he is turning this thread into what HE wants us to talk about.

If the editors of the NYT decided it was worthy to run this piece, let little Goober rant about it's authenticity by himself and to himself, hopefully in a padded room in some basement on Shutter Island.

 

[goober]

But still the other question remained any indication as to what mister Hincapie has said? Also his twitter could indicate a different type of interview, if he would have not liked his name to become public, why post on his twitter

I heard he did not want his name used in any articles pertaining to the doping scandal - nothing more than that.

 

[Barrus]

I heard he did not want his name used in any articles pertaining to the doping scandal - nothing more than that.

If this is true, than he is an idiot for writing it on his twitter, the tw@tter

Really can't people think when they are online, or are they just plain stupid all the time?

 

[goober]

Of course not. He slurps up theat putrid Radio Shack/Armstrong sludge like a cannibal feasting on human flesh.

But a report from one of the most venerable newspaper institutions on the planet he disregards as being "sensationalist".

But let's get back to topic-he is winning this battle here, because he is turning this thread into what HE wants us to talk about.

If the editors of the NYT decided it was worthy to run this piece, let little Goober rant about it's authenticity by himself.

I never said the article itself was not worthy. The history of me commenting in the first place was the comment indicating that two riders confirmed Landis claims by someone here. I totally disagreed the article stated that - only possibly eluded to that fact via media spin. Truly, nothing against the article - just one of the interpretations here.

 

[python]

very enlightening how a discussion of the 'warm-up' nyt article gets derailed by a single armstrong apologist.

what will happen after public strategies meeting is over ?

on the substance: agree with publicus interpretation.

 

[FKLance]

very enlightening how a discussion of the 'warm-up' nyt article gets derailed by a single armstrong apologist.

what will happen after public strategies meeting is over ?

on the substance: agree with publicus interpretation.

You can not expect journalists to read their own words as carefully as you do!

You should not have interpretations of words written by a journalist.