The Article: WSJ - reopened!

[Anonymous]

I just went to twitter and it said:

Its the dutch, twitter went down about a minute before they beat brazil.

 

[red_flanders]

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.

...if they knowingly print false material. Neither fact (that it's false or that they knew it) would be in evidence at this point. Nor is the article. Or anything about hookers and blow, but don't let that get in the way of your defense.

 

[scribe]

...if they knowingly print false material. Neither fact (that it's false or that they knew it) would be in evidence at this point. Nor is the article. Or anything about hookers and blow, but don't let that get in the way of your defense.

huh? You might have to type it a bit slower, but what defense was I constructing?

jes talking about the purported article as it pertains to this thread.....and building on some other's discussion of what is going on behind the scenes to slow the release of the article.

 

[MacRoadie]

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.

Do you honestly think, even for a second, that the WSJ, probably the most respected print publication in the US today (regardless of it's owner), would confuse it's self with the The Globe or The Enquirer?

 

[kurtinsc]

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.

Does the ad mention Armstrong, or just what you wrote here?

It will be interesting to see if it's an article aimed toward Lance in particular, or if it's a general "this was the state of doping in 2006" while shying away from Lance. If Armstrong is mentioned in the add... that would be a big clue.

 

[scribe]

Do you honestly think, even for a second, that the WSJ, probably the most respected print publication in the US today (regardless of it's owner), would confuse it's self with the The Globe or The Enquirer?

What do you get when you combine faux news & The NY Post with The Wall Street Journal?

 

[red_flanders]

huh? You might have to type it a bit slower, but what defense was I constructing?

jes talking about the purported article as it pertains to this thread.....and building on some other's discussion of what is going on behind the scenes to slow the release of the article.

Hmmm...

...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.

You're stating he has "a good case" when there is at this point, no article, no accusation, no evidence that anything in the article is false. You post assumes that "if" they post something about hookers and blow, it must be false. Sorry, but since you don't have any idea if it's false (and you don't) it's a defense. A pre-emptive defense at that. Nothing wrong with that other than being a bit silly and transparent, so forgive me my chuckle.

 

[Anonymous]

Does the ad mention Armstrong, or just what you wrote here?

It will be interesting to see if it's an article aimed toward Lance in particular, or if it's a general "this was the state of doping in 2006" while shying away from Lance. If Armstrong is mentioned in the add... that would be a big clue.

i think a picture of lance and landis riding together along with the title "blood brothers" might just give it away. And bear in mind they didnt ride together in 2006, its clearly not all about 2006.

Interesting link is that John Landis (no relation) wrote the Blues Brothers of course. (blood brothers is also a crappy musical)

 

[red_flanders]

Does the ad mention Armstrong, or just what you wrote here?

It will be interesting to see if it's an article aimed toward Lance in particular, or if it's a general "this was the state of doping in 2006" while shying away from Lance. If Armstrong is mentioned in the add... that would be a big clue.

You missed the big giant photo of Armstrong and Landis and the title, "Blood Brothers"? I think it's safe to assume the article mentions Armstrong.

 

[MacRoadie]

What do you get when you combine faux news & The NY Post with The Wall Street Journal?

A trite, non-answer to my question?

 

[Barrus]

For those wondering if the ad mentions Armstrong, here is the ad again

@ scribe

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.

Wouldn't it be necessary for LA to prove that the WSJ knows this to be untrue, something that is almost impossible to prove

 

[kurtinsc]

i think a picture of lance and landis riding together along with the title "blood brothers" might just give it away.

Interesting link is that John Landis (no relation) wrote the Blues Brothers of course. (blood brothers is also a crappy musical)

Well... that would be a pretty big clue.

This will be interesting. I wonder if it will just be a repeat of what Landis has already released... or if we'll get something new. Hopefully the latter, and not much ado about old news or meaningless additions... I hate when news outlets do that.

I'm still confused about the release of a fairly complementary Lance article earlier in the week that something like this comes out. Seems like an odd editorial decision to me. Maybe the point was to lead up to this by saying "Lance is important"... underscoring the significance of the allegations.

 

[kurtinsc]

You missed the big giant photo of Armstrong and Landis and the title, "Blood Brothers"? I think it's safe to assume the article mentions Armstrong.

I didn't miss it... I didn't see a link and was asking what was on it. The text I quoted was the only think I'd seen. If someone has a link I'd like to take a look.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You missed the big giant photo of Armstrong and Landis and the title, "Blood Brothers"? I think it's safe to assume the article mentions Armstrong.

Unless of course the WSJ has found that Edward Gunderson is in fact Lances & Floyd's Dad and it is just a nice piece about that?? ....... ya, I think thats definitely it.

 

[Barrus]

I didn't miss it... I didn't see a link and was asking what was on it. The text I quoted was the only think I'd seen. If someone has a link I'd like to take a look.

look on the previous page, I quoted the ad again, with courtesy of Roland Rat

 

[MacRoadie]

Well... that would be a pretty big clue.

This will be interesting. I wonder if it will just be a repeat of what Landis has already released... or if we'll get something new. Hopefully the latter, and not much ado about old news or meaningless additions... I hate when news outlets do that.

Well, it does say Landis gives the paper an "exclusive tour"...

 

[scribe]

A trite, non-answer to my question?

It aint your dad's WSJ. Why the hell else are they posting this stuff as feature? WTF does this have to do with what once was a well-respected financial institution?

 

[alberto.legstrong]

Reporting For Beast-Feeding Duty, Sir!

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/07/wsj_to_spoil_lance_armstrongs.php

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Well... that would be a pretty big clue.

This will be interesting. I wonder if it will just be a repeat of what Landis has already released... or if we'll get something new. Hopefully the latter, and not much ado about old news or meaningless additions... I hate when news outlets do that.

I'm still confused about the release of a fairly complementary Lance article earlier in the week that something like this comes out. Seems like an odd editorial decision to me. Maybe the point was to lead up to this by saying "Lance is important"... underscoring the significance of the allegations.

Good observation. I was wondering at the juxtaposition of Good Lance and Sinister Lance too. It points to the sorry state cycling finds itself in - beholden to ratings and revenue and how that inevitably leads to corruption. Next they need to expose the UCI.

 

[MacRoadie]

It aint your dad's WSJ. Why the hell else are they posting this stuff as feature? WTF does this have to do with what once was a well-respected financial institution?

I'll take that as another non-answer. And when was the WSJ a "financial institution", well-respected or otherwise?

 

[kurtinsc]

look on the previous page, I quoted the ad again, with courtesy of Roland Rat

I'm getting a red X... which explains why people are reacting like I'm an idiot because they think it should be blatantly obvious. Ah well.

I'll have to look after work when I'm not behind the old firewall I guess.

 

[Cobblestones]

It aint your dad's WSJ. Why the hell else are they posting this stuff as feature? WTF does this have to do with what once was a well-respected financial institution?

I don't know but maybe it's because the stock exchange is closed on a Saturday? So they have to write about other stuff?

 

[scribe]

For those wondering if the ad mentions Armstrong, here is the ad again

@ scribe

Wouldn't it be necessary for LA to prove that the WSJ knows this to be untrue, something that is almost impossible to prove

You can't just print anything with hopes someone can't prove you willing printed false material. Plus, it isn't gonna take much for the LA team to draw a line from Murdoch and his professional cycling sponsorship back to the WSJ to demonstrate cause for injury.

 

[kurtinsc]

Well, it does say Landis gives the paper an "exclusive tour"...

Has Landis been interviewed by anyone since the e-mails came out?

An exclusive interview doesn't necessarily indicate new information will be provided. News outlets do that often. I hate Larry King's "exclusive interviews" where he doesn't ask any questions that provide any new information. Great... you just interviewed someone interesting and got him to say the same thing he's said all along... WAY TO GO LARRY!

Hopefully, this will not be one of those. I hate teases.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You can't just print anything with hopes someone can't prove you willing printed false material. Plus, it isn't gonna take much for the LA team to draw a line from Murdoch and his professional cycling sponsorship back to the WSJ to demonstrate cause for injury.

Have you actually read the article or are you (OMG) speculating on its content?