The Article: WSJ - reopened!

Page 17 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Cal_Joe

Cal_Joe

Aug 9, 2009
640
0
0
BroDeal said:
Rolling Stone has a history of carrying really good pieces of journalism.
Click to expand...

In the earlier days of RS they had Joe Eszterhas, some guy named Hunter Thompson, Ben Fong Torres, photos by rookie photographer Annie Liebovitz, etc.

The golden age of counter culture journalism.

I used to read everything by Ezsterhas in RS - (he is more well known now as a screenwriter, Basic Instinct for example); now I am off on a quest to see if his articles for RS are available in a book compilation.
 
E

eleven

Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
oldschoolnik said:
Any time you get that just Google the title of the article and you can view it in Google News.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, you can also copy the original link into a google search. For some reason the results of that search bring up the whole article.

I sure hope no one smart enough to read WSJ is dumb enough to pay for it;)
 
MacRoadie

MacRoadie

Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
13,485
Master plan said:
Your post is funny because you weren't supposed to point that out.

The truth is, Frankie committed perjury. Betsy has basically admitted to this several times on this forum. It's ironic because I got banned for politely suggesting that she might have weighed up the moral considerations and done the same.

But sadly I don't think we'll be seeing any humble pie from our honest friends Race Radio and Dr Maserati. Dr Maserati's reputation has already taken a blow in recent days after he tried to protect his buddy thehog who defied a banning to start this thread. Consistency, huh?

It's quite clear the only reason Frankie admitted to the hospital conversation is because Betsy was involved and was insistent. It's sad that big stars have to deal with people like this that leach off them by association.

She is quite clearly deluded as she seems to think EPO was not prohibited when Frankie took it, and somehow it's only fraud when USPS give federal money to Armstrong and not her husband.

The sad thing is people around here know better but encourage her and egg her on because it suits their agenda.
Click to expand...

You got banned (again) because you're a low-life scum-bag and a flaming idiot.
 
Dr. Maserati

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Master plan said:
......
Click to expand...

Actually Arbiter/BPC I was not 'protecting' 'The Hog' - I made an observation that I did not think it was his style - he isn't as easy to read as your obvious lies.

I have no problem admitting that it (appears) to be 'the Hog' - unlike yourself I have no problem admitting mistakes.
 
MacRoadie

MacRoadie

Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
13,485
Master plan said:
The thing is, it would easier to ban me if I was that was the case. They wouldn't have to remove the evidence either. The problem is I make too many good points that spoil people's fun.

Armstrong trolling is not just a full time hobby but a lifestyle for a lot of these guys. They really resent the fact that I interfer with that and thus mess with their lifestyle.
Click to expand...

No, you're an incredibly ignorant and offensive piece of human defecation.

That is my very personal opinion of you, not a basis for banning you. Banning you is pointless, you keep coming back like a genital sore on a wh@re..

And now I'm done with you.
 
S

stephens

May 9, 2009
583
0
0
I'm not exactly sure what the point of deleting posts is. Surely the mods realize that all of us who have posted in this thread, and anyone else who is subscribed to it, likely get email notifications when new posts are added and therefore likely saw the content that was so objectionable (in this case the suggestion that a certain ex-teammate of the hated one was less than truthful as a witness: this actually seemed like a legitimate topic of conversation even if posted by an illegal member).

Wouldn't it be better to just let the content stand, challenge it out in the open, and then we can move on?
 
joe_papp

joe_papp

May 13, 2009
1,872
367
11,180
Bicicleta said:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...5339220475386984.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines

Oh come on, finally a WSJ article on Lance and its on... drum roll: Armstrong and Advertising. Lame. Lame. Lame.

I don't subscribe so I can't read the whole thing. Anyone have a subscription?
Click to expand...

I'm starting to wonder when/if the article is going to run. I'd also like to publicly disavow having leaked any information on this article in a public forum. I took a few unpleasant phone calls on Monday from someone with a vested interest in the piece who had been erroneously advised that I provided a detailed summary of what was slated to run.
 
N

Nearly

Oct 25, 2009
344
0
0
oldschoolnik said:
Any time you get that just Google the title of the article and you can view it in Google News.
Click to expand...

Good tip! Lame is a mild term. All about LA's drawing power and no hint of doping or scandal! Clearly the planets and moons are not aligned.
 
N

Nearly

Oct 25, 2009
344
0
0
joe_papp said:
I'm starting to wonder when/if the article is going to run. I'd also like to publicly disavow having leaked any information on this article in a public forum. I took a few unpleasant phone calls on Monday from someone with a vested interest in the piece who had been erroneously advised that I provided a detailed summary of what was slated to run.
Click to expand...

What article have you not leaked? Will have to re-check the thread if your harrasser thinks you disclosed anything?
 
Roland Rat

Roland Rat

Apr 28, 2010
1,593
5
10,495
joe_papp said:
I'm starting to wonder when/if the article is going to run. I'd also like to publicly disavow having leaked any information on this article in a public forum. I took a few unpleasant phone calls on Monday from someone with a vested interest in the piece who had been erroneously advised that I provided a detailed summary of what was slated to run.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I wonder if His Lieness got Livestrong's lawyers onto it then. It'll be a damn shame if it's been pulled.
 
S

SpeedWay

Mar 25, 2009
352
11
9,310
Moose McKnuckles said:
So, there are 392 posts about a nonexistent article?
Click to expand...

Better late(than never). Thanks to all those contributing for making this thread about an article that only exists in fantasy land accessible to those of us in the real world. The fact that its in the Clinic nominates it for comedy gold. Emotions running high over a whole lot of nothing - priceless.

Can't wait for next weeks wacko thread and the entertainment it provides.
 
K

kurtinsc

Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
It would seem to me that this WSJ article makes a future one in the next couple of weeks very unlikely.

If they were going to print a "Lance is a doping cheater" article in the next week, it seems very unlikely they'd print a "Look at how good Lance is for advertising" article today.

Perhaps people with "inside sources" should really keep their mouths closed until the news actually comes out. It seems very rare that an internet poster with "inside info" is proven correct. I'm not talking about Lance here... I'm saying someone on a message board posting about an inside source on ANYTHING.

I post on college football message boards too... and it's the same thing. Everyone posts about how they have inside info about where a recruit will sign... and they're wrong 3/4ths of the time.
 
J

janus1969

Jul 10, 2009
69
0
0
kurtinsc said:
... and they're wrong 3/4ths of the time.
Click to expand...
God, can you imagine how many fewer Clinic posts there would be with a 25% accuracy rate? I'm guessing that the rate here is less than 10% and trending downward...just look here for the trend.
 
B

Beech Mtn

Oct 6, 2009
5,270
2
0
TeamSkyFans said:
Frankie Andreu will be commentating for versus? :eek:
Click to expand...

I was surprised by that too. But good for Frankie - he is one of the better ones on that channel.

I also noticed that, according to the USA Today article, LA's goons are still claiming a shakedown by Floyd, and they singled out Dr. Kay specifically.
 
scribe

scribe

Jul 22, 2009
3,355
5
0
Beech Mtn said:
I was surprised by that too. But good for Frankie - he is one of the better ones on that channel.

I also noticed that, according to the USA Today article, LA's goons are still claiming a shakedown by Floyd, and they singled out Dr. Kay specifically.
Click to expand...
Why surprised? LA interviewed with FA last year, and will likely do so this year.
 
MacRoadie

MacRoadie

Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
13,485
From the "Chicago Now" article referenced in the Floyd Sticky:

floyd-landis-rarticle-thumb-250x189-146342-thumb-275x207-146343.jpg


Another not-so-subtle poke at LA?
 
E

eleven

Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
TeamSkyFans said:
Frankie Andreu will be commentating for versus? :eek:
Click to expand...

Unless I'm confusing him with someone else, he's done so for years - including post-stage interviews with LA etc...
 
marinoni

marinoni

Mar 12, 2009
349
0
0
It just boggles the mind!

Wallace said:
Hi Elizabeth,

Since you're here, and since, unlike the most of the posters here, you actually have first-hand knowledge of what goes on in the world of pro cycling, I'd like to ask you a question:

Why on earth does Taylor Phinney ride for RadioShack? His dad has to know the truth about Armstrong and Bruyneel--there's no way Davis can in any way pretend that his son isn't riding for the king of the dopers. If my son was super talented and Armstrong and Co. wanted to hire him, I'd say hell no, and obviously I don't know one tenth of what DP knows. What's going on here?
Click to expand...

You could put the same question to virtually every parent of every pro cyclist who's ever existed, particularly in Europe where widespread doping has been common knowledge for pretty much a century now.
 
joe_papp

joe_papp

May 13, 2009
1,872
367
11,180
Nearly said:
What article have you not leaked? Will have to re-check the thread if your harrasser thinks you disclosed anything?
Click to expand...

Is that a sarcastic "What article haven't you leaked?" or a grammatically-strange, "What is the article that you claim not to have leaked?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom