The Article: WSJ - reopened!

[alberto.legstrong]

Are we still waiting for Godot?

Please put the link in the links to articles thread if and when it exists.

 

[Barrus]

Are we still waiting for Godot?

Please put the link in the links to articles thread if and when it exists.

It wasn't in today's WSJ, but there was an interesting article in the NYT, which was mainly what everyone is discussing in this thread

 

[alberto.legstrong]

It wasn't in today's WSJ, but there was an interesting article in the NYT, which was mainly what everyone is discussing in this thread

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

 

[buckwheat]

If one of the riders who talked was Hincapie, imagine the fallout.

He was with Armstrong throughout his seven Tour wins.

He would know everything there is to know, and his integrity seems to be of a higher calibre than that of Landis.

And Zabriskie rode with Armstrong from 2001-2004.

If it's these two, there will be no gaps-all seven Tours will be covered.

I just asked him on Twitter if he was one of the riders. I'll let you know.

 

[Publicus]

I just asked him on Twitter if he was one of the riders. I'll let you know.

I hope you aren't holding your breath while waiting on his response.

 

[Trousers O'bongo]

What if it is LA who has been talking to the Feds?

Hmmm...???

What are your opinions regarding those apples, then?

 

[Roland Rat]

Can't see one of them being Hincapie, think he'll be one of the last to squeal. My money's on DZ and Barry, with Barry to retire after the Tour.

 

[python]

la would be the worst choice for novizky to interview at this stage because he is the biggest fish and one needs a lot of corroborating evidence b4 la is confronted and forced to tell the truth or face a perjury charge.

imo, it's not too difficult to calculate who are the two riders.

i'l let you do it....

the article said:
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.

so we got 4 criteria

they are:

-fear of retribution, the 2 are rider not staff because staff shouldn’t be concerned with retribution
-americans, because they easier to convince with a plea bargain
-at the 2010 tour
-implicated by landis


implicated total 19 people:

1. armstrong
2. hincapie
3. leipheimer
4. zabriskie
5. lim
6. michael barry, rider with Sky- canadian
7. matt white garmin directeurr - australian

= dz, george and may be ll

 

[Roland Rat]

la would be the worst choice for novizky to interview at this stage because he is the biggest fish and one needs a lot of corroborating evidence b4 la is confronted and forced to tell the truth or face a perjury charge.

imo, it's not too difficult to calculate who are the two riders.

i'l let you do it....

the article said:
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.

so we got

I'd love the long followers to be Hincapie and Levi, mind. Both "friends" and to see LA try to portray them as bitter and jealous would be hilarious.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

What if it is LA who has been talking to the Feds?

Hmmm...???

What are your opinions regarding those apples, then?

Wait your theory is that Lance implicated himself? Really? That's what you just brought to the table? Come on, Polish, you can do better than that.

 

[mastersracer]

This might be a hint re who the NYT was referring to. From Hincapie's twitter acct:

"Just finished interview with NY Times. Everyone is getting excited about the TDF!!"

 

[Barrus]

la would be the worst choice for novizky to interview at this stage because he is the biggest fish and one needs a lot of corroborating evidence b4 la is confronted and forced to tell the truth or face a perjury charge.

imo, it's not too difficult to calculate who are the two riders.

i'l let you do it....

the article said:
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.

so we got 4 criteria

they are:

-fear of retribution, the 2 are rider not staff because staff shouldn’t be concerned with retribution
-americans, because they easier to convince with a plea bargain
-at the 2010 tour
-implicated by landis


implicated total 19 people:

1. armstrong
2. hincapie
3. leipheimer
4. zabriskie
5. lim
6. michael barry, rider with Sky- canadian
7. matt white garmin directeurr - australian

= dz, george and may be ll

NIce write up, however I myself am not of the idea that the riders need to be American, this mainly from the fact that it need not be that the statements were made on the basis of a plea bargain, perhaps someone genuinely wanted to come clean in the investigation

@ mastersracer, if that is the case, that Hincapie was interviewed and said this, he is a stupid tw@t for posting it on his twitter, if he wanted to remain anonimous. Also is it sure that the NYT got the information that two riders made statements concerning doping from the riders and not from another source?

 

[MacRoadie]

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

Um, yes I do. My point was that, as the resident cycling journalist (and obvious selection to travel to France), and given the obvious tone of the mini-article, it would appear that the angle the Times will be taking over the next month will be a rather critical one.

 

[Barrus]

Um, yes I do. My point was that, as the resident cycling journalist (and obvious selection to travel to France), and given the obvious tone of the mini-article, it would appear that the angle the Times will be taking over the next month will be a rather critical one.

Ah, allright, misunderstood your post than

 

[Kennf1]

Um, yes I do. My point was that, as the resident cycling journalist (and obvious selection to travel to France), and given the obvious tone of the mini-article, it would appear that the angle the Times will be taking over the next month will be a rather critical one.

I think Macur is a straight shooter, an attribute that previously got her sideways with Armstrong, like when she wrote about Armstrong's personal drug testing program ending before it started.

 

[MacRoadie]

I think Macur is a straight shooter, an attribute that previously got her sideways with Armstrong, like when she wrote about Armstrong's personal drug testing program ending before it started.

Quite true. She has, however, also been a bit of an apologist too. I'm hoping that is the result of her open-mindedness and that she is moving in the same direction as other cycling journalists ala Joe Lindsey at Bicycling (The Boulder Report).

 

[Polish]

What if it is LA who has been talking to the Feds?

Hmmm...???

What are your opinions regarding those apples, then?

I think Novitsky is still a bit too intimidated to talk to Lance.
Afraid he might catch him in a lie. Not to mention "The Look".

"F-You novitsky, I already answered that question"


Lance has hobnobbed with world leaders and earned hundreds of millions of dollars. The first ten million is the hardest. That is where novitsky is now, but he has bigger aspirations. He has to be careful with this Lance thing. He might be working for Lance someday who knows.

 

[131313]

This might be a hint re who the NYT was referring to. From Hincapie's twitter acct:

"Just finished interview with NY Times. Everyone is getting excited about the TDF!!"

He wanted to remain anonymous about talking to the NY Times, then tweeted about it??

Let me translate Big George's tweet for you:

"I wasn't one of the guys who narc'd on you, Lancy Poo--honest. Please let me have another shot at wearing the jersey for a day, pretty-please??"

 

[python]

@kennf1

i dont think nyt macur's writing at this point about armstrong and the landisgate has anything to do with her personal objectivity or bias.

she's on record to twaddle a 'middle line' as well as producing downright misinformation as long as several months ago.

i think her coverage is and will increasingly be a matter of the changing editorial position on armstrong as reflected by the sobering general american tide. fawning over him is changing even in texas.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Rumor has it that that Lance told George that "snitches get stitches."

 

[oldschoolnik]

I think Macur is a straight shooter, an attribute that previously got her sideways with Armstrong, like when she wrote about Armstrong's personal drug testing program ending before it started.

I think Macur is one of the good ones as I have posted on these forums before:
She was the only mainstream journalist to take LA to task over the Walsh "you are a cancer" press conference at the Tour Of California. At the Press conference where Lance and Macur got into it like few journo's besides Walsh ever do.

After LA makes a snide remark about Macur's article and how she ostensibly left out very important things in her Catlin/lance article to which she took offense and said aloud "I tried calling you but you wouldn't take my call." He then said he was busy on a ride to which juliet responded, "That must be one realllly loooong ride because I called you for a comment and 16 hours passed before I heard back from anyone." She followed up her qusetion with if CAtlin was the most comprehensive, how will DAmsgaard compare/be better. LA couldn't answer and was uncharacteristically not smooth.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cyclin...e_d&id=3904480

She also broke news of LA cancelling his personal testing program with Don Caitlin.

Further, she broke the news that Frankie Andreau, confessed (to her personally) to using EPO in the TDF. I believe but am not certain that she also broke the "anonymous rider" that (from the same NYT's piece) also used EPO in the same article she broke Andreau's confession.

I agree that at one point she did a few articles that made me question whether the Times told her to chill.

Nik

 

[Anonymous]

la would be the worst choice for novizky to interview at this stage because he is the biggest fish and one needs a lot of corroborating evidence b4 la is confronted and forced to tell the truth or face a perjury charge.

imo, it's not too difficult to calculate who are the two riders.

i'l let you do it....

the article said:
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.

so we got 4 criteria

they are:

-fear of retribution, the 2 are rider not staff because staff shouldn’t be concerned with retribution
-americans, because they easier to convince with a plea bargain
-at the 2010 tour
-implicated by landis


implicated total 19 people:

1. armstrong
2. hincapie
3. leipheimer
4. zabriskie
5. lim
6. michael barry, rider with Sky- canadian
7. matt white garmin directeurr - australian

= dz, george and may be ll

Thats one way of viewing it, although Im more of the idea that they will be non-americans as they are not under federal juristriction and cannot be charged by the feds, and it would mean for instance in the case of Barry the canadian authorities opening up an investigation (would they bother?)

Im pretty convinced Barry is one. If there was any incling it was george Lance would not be sending him birthday wishes. So many things make me think its Barry, comments by brailsford, just something tells me he's one.

THe other one, I think we are all pretty much of a consensus that its a garmin rider. JV has dropped too many hints recently. DZ is the obvious option, hes been very quiet on the whole affair. My other option is Hesjedal, another canadian, maybe the canadian authorities have had a quiet word with him and barry, and said if you help the investigation we wont open an investigation ourselves.

The two riders involved have asked for their names to be kept quiet, but dont mind the fact two riders are helping being mentioned. George and DZ both know they will be the first ones everyone looks at, if its them they might as well just say. Thats what makes me think it isnt them.

 

[Parrot23]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/sports/cycling/23cycling.html?ref=floyd_landis

"Floyd Landis, the cyclist who recently admitted to doping after four years of vehemently denying it, showed up at the Tour of California on Saturday, looking like an important man"....

Pardon me....?

The consensus in the forum last year was that she was a friend, or friendly toward, Lance. May have changed, but the above comment was still eye-opening.

Maybe she's shifting with the wind. New York Daily News so far seems to have had good coverage.

 

[buckwheat]

I think Macur is one of the good ones as I have posted on these forums before:
She was the only mainstream journalist to take LA to task over the Walsh "you are a cancer" press conference at the Tour Of California. At the Press conference where Lance and Macur got into it like few journo's besides Walsh ever do.

After LA makes a snide remark about Macur's article and how she ostensibly left out very important things in her Catlin/lance article to which she took offense and said aloud "I tried calling you but you wouldn't take my call." He then said he was busy on a ride to which juliet responded, "That must be one realllly loooong ride because I called you for a comment and 16 hours passed before I heard back from anyone." She followed up her qusetion with if CAtlin was the most comprehensive, how will DAmsgaard compare/be better. LA couldn't answer and was uncharacteristically not smooth.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cyclin...e_d&id=3904480

She also broke news of LA cancelling his personal testing program with Don Caitlin.

Further, she broke the news that Frankie Andreau, confessed (to her personally) to using EPO in the TDF. I believe but am not certain that she also broke the "anonymous rider" that (from the same NYT's piece) also used EPO in the same article she broke Andreau's confession.

I agree that at one point she did a few articles that made me question whether the Times told her to chill.

Nik

I get that impression about the Times.

Chris Hedges has ripped them before.

 

[oncearunner]

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.

Hincapies twitter account currently appears to be suspended.