The United States of Omerta but what about CN during the Armstrong years?

[pedaling squares]

Good thread. There was a line or two about LA in a recent Barry Ryan article that I thought was a more openly critical take on him, can't remember what it said exactly. I was pleased to see it but at the same time thought, where the hell were you (CN, not Ryan specifically) when it wasn't safe and somewhat in vogue to lash out at Armstrong, where were you when we needed you? I thought that Benson's omerta article was a refreshing approach but had the same questions, again about CN more than the journalist. But at least he put the concept of omerta into print, one of the few that has. I think CN has played a role in 'outing' dopers over the years by at least giving coverage to controversial topics, but I'd like to see them step it up. Push the story, shape the story, instead of re-broadcasting outcomes shaped by others. And yes, Team Sky's retreat from openness is a good opportunity to do just that.

 

[Benotti69]

"The big test is really the next big scandal - what happens if someone blows the whistle on Garmin, or BMC? Will the whistleblower be taken seriously by CN or will David Millar be allowed to call him an alcoholic loser again?"

Just on this...but we were at the Tour and we did ask questions of Sky and we reported the fact that they blocked journalists from asking questions about doping at the their press con. We reported Cav's missed test while a reporter from another publication turned around and said 'well it's just a CN type story'... and we reported Landis/UCI/Hamilton/Betsy/ .... . Ask Betsy or Floyd what they think of our coverage now.. please...

with BMC we reported the Ballan/BMC issues to the point of me being blacklisted (and carried on beyond that) and we've done the same with numerous other doping/related stories. I'm not apologising for previous CN treatment of LA, I actually wasnt' around then and haven't read every article.... I'll read up some more.

and on Future, there's never been a time when someone has said to me, or even implied 'you cant print that because of ad $$$' Never.

Sorry not able to reply to everything at once, will reply more after today's vuelta stage.

When are you gonna take the UCI to task and write aboutt McQuaid twisting and turning and giving a timeline to where he constantly says one thing and then the opposite and call them out. Like Kimmage said " Why are the UCI go after the whistleblowers" and not the dopers?

Keislo asked him 1 decent question. There has to be lots more. These people have destroyed to sport and are probably still involved in corruption of the sport and riders careers.

 

[Benotti69]

I want an in depth interview with a team doctor.

I want to know why, after Bassons said there was no need, do teams have a doctor and more than 1.

I want to hear waht a doctor does for the team. I dont expect to hear doping, but i want to hear why they are needed, cuts, bruises, colds, saddle sores, stomach bugs etc dont cut the mustard.

 

[Daniel Benson]

I've not put together a time line, but read the site. We've carried interviews with Ashenden, Kimmage, Walsh, Landis, etc, etc, all about this and several times. Last time I interviewed the UCI at the Games, I wrote about their inefficiencies as well.

 

[Benotti69]

I've not put together a time line, but read the site. We've carried interviews with Ashenden, Kimmage, Walsh, Landis, etc, etc, all about this and several times. Last time I interviewed the UCI at the Games, I wrote about their inefficiencies as well.

I want to see it compiled by a journalist into an editorial. Not bits and pieces. Where the reader has to go back and check that he said the opposite last week.

I want to hear UCI answer the question of why they are suing people who are anti-doping.

 

[sniper]

I want to see it compiled by a journalist into an editorial. Not bits and pieces. Where the reader has to go back and check that he said the opposite last week.

I want to hear UCI answer the question of why they are suing people who are anti-doping.

In the recent past, Pat frequently got away with BS answers like "we're sueing because they're discrediting the sport and its governing body with false insinuations about events that never happened". If you're reporter, crucial is: what do you do/say now in the (not unthinkable) event that Pat once more comes up with such a BS answer? What to do when Pat gives you a "no comment"? Perhaps make a statement by simply walking away?

 

[sniper]

I want to see it compiled by a journalist into an editorial. Not bits and pieces. Where the reader has to go back and check that he said the opposite last week.

I want to hear UCI answer the question of why they are suing people who are anti-doping.

Pat has been asked such questions, and he's been getting away with BS answers. I remember one time on Irish radio, where he was invited to reply to Kimmage's insinuations, and Pat just spinned his way out of it. Not convincing, but still there was very little the radio reporter could do about it. Of course, Pat would now look even more laughable because all of Landis' story has been corroborated by USADA, but then Pat can always pull the "no comment" card.

I think the time has come for damning opinion pieces to appear in CN (and other outlets), consistently demanding Pat to step down. Best would be some pieces by prominent personalities, e.g. representatives of the IOC (unlikely to happen), the WADA, or even a guy like Preudhomme.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Is new 'tough' journalism merely going what its been in the past - namely piling onto the whipping boys like Ricco and now Armstrong, or is it actually going to put its head above the parapet and go for Brailsford, Cavendish, Wiggins, Phinney and all the latest golden boys of cycling?

Great post. Perhaps the most important here. Just highlighting the key question.

Journalism is failing us in many areas. I hope at least in cycling it will improve.

 

[Race Radio]

Before everyone piles on Dan remember he did write one of the all time great comebacks to Wonderboy

Lance was complaining about spelling errors on a CN article, something that is especially comical now after reading his legal filings, Dan replied

“Apparently our spelling isn't up to scratch. So I organised a spelling bee at work. The word we all aced was corticosteroid.”

He was promptly blocked by lance

it is possible some readers views on CN may have been poisoned by this fool, who used to be their European editor
http://roadbikeaction.com/Most-Popu...uage-One-Mans-Opinion-On-Lance-Armstrong.html

 

[LauraLyn]

. . . .
Is new 'tough' journalism merely going what its been in the past - namely piling onto the whipping boys like Ricco and now Armstrong, or is it actually going to put its head above the parapet and go for Brailsford, Cavendish, Wiggins, Phinney and all the latest golden boys of cycling?

Will Benson's new 'tough' journalism survive when Sky or Saxo threaten to cut access to Wiggins or Contador? When the invites to . . . .

Great post and great thread.

Keep in mind "the media" is not (entirely) a single entity. Those "golden boys" were indeed intended for gold, Olympic gold. The UK needed to sell the Olympics to its general public (which was not altogether thrilled in the run ip to it).

If you follow the British media on Team Sky you will find it very difficult to see anything critical of the team or its riders. And then ask yourself, Who owns Team Sky?

Access to media is already highly controlled: see The Golden Boy getting saved on doping questions here by his team: http://www.sporza.be/cm/sporza/videozone/MG_Tour/MG_vive_le_velo/Tour2012_dag_1/1.1374958

My favorite:

Wiggins in The Guardian on Friday morning, 13 July : "I don't care what people say, the attitude to doping in the UK is different to in Italy or France maybe, where a rider like Richard Virenque can dope, be caught, be banned, come back and be a national hero." http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs

Wiggins to a news conference on Friday afternoon, 13 July, after David Millar wins the 12th stage of the TdF: "David Millar is a national hero."

Read the Wiggins blog in The Guardian of 13 July. He does not say a word against doping. He only says what would happen if he was caught. Reads just like Floyd Landis or Lance Armstrong before being caught.

Of course, we all know and love this (the British media surely did): [caution, bad language]: http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...or-those-who-doubt-racing-can-be-clean_228247

I think that speaks volumes, not just about Wiggins, but also about Team Sky.

 

[silverrocket]

I agree that in general the world of cycling journalism has largely turned a blind eye, but think the opening post was far to harsh and critical of CN. Yes, endless articles on Armstrong's doings, like his latest girlfriend, speaking engagement, political comments, whatever, but this is only because they were giving the fans what they wanted. This was the supply to the demand of the fans, and for validation of the cycling fans' interest in Armstrong, we need look no further than the 8 million Lance Armstrong threads on this forum.

Secondly, the site is "Cycling News", so the principle role of the site is supposed to be giving us news about the cycling world. It has never been a site filled with editorials and investigative journalism slanted towards the pre-conceptions of the article writer. Here in the forum, and also back pre-forum when all we had was a weekly "letters" page, CN fans have been quick to criticize CN when they strayed from the impartial delivery of actual news. I think CN has done very well with their delivery of Armstrong news, in that they not only never avoid bringing us the "bad" news, like the retrospective testing of the 1999 samples for EPO, critical Kimmage articles, chronicles of every legal battle Armstrong ever faced, and so on. The last thing I want to read on CN is a bunch of speculative articles questioning cycling performances as being doped or not (the Forum has enough of that).

 

[sniper]

Great post and great thread.(...)
I think that speaks volumes, not just about Wiggins, but also about Team Sky.

+1. the scam is rubbed into our faces and there's little we can do about it.

My favorite:

Wiggins in The Guardian on Friday morning, 13 July : "I don't care what people say, the attitude to doping in the UK is different to in Italy or France maybe, where a rider like Richard Virenque can dope, be caught, be banned, come back and be a national hero." http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs

Wiggins to a news conference on Friday afternoon, 13 July, after David Millar wins the 12 stage of the TdF: "David Millar is a national hero."

excellent spot. my goodness what a fool.

 

[LugHugger]

Good to hear that CN is feeling more empowered. I would love to see CN keep up the pressure on Sky and keep asking why 99% of the peloton have no comment on Armstrong.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Is new 'tough' journalism merely going what its been in the past - namely piling onto the whipping boys like Ricco and now Armstrong, or is it actually going to put its head above the parapet and go for Brailsford, Cavendish, Wiggins, Phinney and all the latest golden boys of cycling?

Great post. Perhaps the most important here. Just highlighting the key question.

Journalism is failing us in many areas. I hope at least in cycling it will improve.

 

[L'arriviste]

I would agree that cycling journalists have been largely unquestioning of doping culture, but within a broader context of poor journalism. I could confidently label it laziness or toothlessness but complicity is a tougher proposition: I'm not sure cycling journalism is sophisticated enough for that.

Dopeology refers to almost 2,400 source media on doping-related activities and 917 of them currently originate from Cyclingnews.com. The majority of them simply report the facts, pre-Benson and post-Benson.

In that broader context, even the character of CN output is, perhaps surprisingly, the exception rather than the rule. Most outlets - television, print and online - can hardly stand to talk about doping or else find talking about it as excruciatingly uncomfortable as dental work.

In a sport as out-of-the-closet as pro road cycling, this is frankly ridiculous. The elephant in the room has long since broken down the door and it's running scared in the neighbourhood.

So against this tide of failure I think CN deserves some credit as a strong swimmer, for that is currently as good as it gets. As suggested above, a proper editorial backbone has never been CN's thing anyway. Reporting the news ensures a regular flow of readers, but for enthusiasts it is no more than a (rather anodyne) point of departure. This is where sites like Inner Ring and NY Velocity have filled the yawning gap, to the extent that they have become the go-to outlets for guys like Ashenden.

 

[BigBoat]

Really its the fans of sports that dont give a damn about doping. I talk to lay people; friends of mine now and they all know Lance and the other TDF riders doped, and they dont care. They still view Lance as a great athlete & many of them agree that Lance was probably a better responder to drug therapy than his competitors, ditto because of doping with Ferrari he wins 7 Tours.

The big elephant in the room is that the top riders obviously doped, its what people view of it (right or wrong) that's the issue. Its one of those things like speeding down the highway or not wearing a helmet on the bike where some people half care, but statistically it should be a HUGE issue.

People view doping as a privacy issue rather than a crime or a moral insignificance even though it completely turns results upside down! Its fascinating to me how Lance has always cried "with hunt" because it makes guys like me step back and think for a minute about how people in the 3rd world are often brutally punished, tortured, killed for petty crimes. Its very good defense, but of course Lance is not exactly facing a mob of torches either.

 

[LauraLyn]

. . . .

People view doping as a privacy issue rather than a crime or a moral insignificance even though it completely turns results upside down! Its fascinating to me how Lance has always cried "witch hunt" because it makes guys like me step back and think for a minute about how people in the 3rd world are often brutally punished, tortured, killed for petty crimes. Its very good defense, but of course Lance is not exactly facing a mob of torches either.

Wow, I think you put your finger on it, at least in Europe. There it really is something like a "privacy" issue. If a journalist asks a rider about doping, even if it is not their own doping, you get the feeling as if the journalist is asking to see the rider's underwear. Like hey, you just don't do that. It's nobody's business but the rider's.

Thanks. That hit the mark for me.

 

[Epicycle]

Cyclingnews has in general done a decent job over the years, but of course it depended on who was writing the stories. The worst examples of Lance fluffery had to come from Tim Maloney. His account of the appeal of Ferrari's sporting fraud conviction did the most damage. His report made it seem like Ferrari was found innocent on appeal, when Michele actually escaped punishment because of a statute of limitations issue. For many years that report was the go-to source for English speaking fanboys defending Lance.

Maloney also did a Ferrari interview with a very sympathetic slant, surely in hopes of buffing Lance's image (but props to CN for adding the actual Ferrari OJ interview in the sidebar). He has interviewed Lance as well for CN.

 

[tofino]

Omerta - the ongoing TV special

I'd say you can't blame Daniel for anything that happened before he came on board.

Obviously with any current coverage he needs to and has stated that when he's covering certain topics it can lead to be shut out by teams.

But all that aside he's really just preaching to the converted. Most people on cyclingnews know what really happened.

Its the TV coverage that could help change the overall Omerta. TV coverage can influence more people plus they have more power to flex in regard to ongoing access.

Stating the obvious but the Phil and Paul show need to go. Those two muppets still are having their strings pulled by the Omerta. In no uncertain terms they should never use the word "reporter" to describe themselves.

Eurosport English coverage (from what I've seen) has talked among themselves about the past but really they could do so much more.

Overall cycling is pretty much *&^#ed as long as the UCI is run by its current regime. Don't expect any real miracles in coverage and clean ups.

 

[JPM London]

A couple of interesting posts on here now - and a big thank you to Dan for taking the time to address the issue while clearly being tied up on other work at the same time... Much appreciated...

The lines about what's been the line since Daniel became the editor and the line at some prior to that coupled with Pedals comment on Barry Ryan (always a laugh reading his thinly veiled digs at The Myth) makes me think that cycling journalism has had a "change of generation" much like the one the peloton has allegedly had? Maybe some of the old farts in the press who were around aeons ago when drugs were just as rife but not nearly as effective seeped through and survived into the nineties noughties. They didn't care about the drugs suddenly changing the landscape because they were already living with and accepting the open secret for decades. Even if there's been a few inquisitive people who wouldn't stop asking the tough questions, maybe the truth is that it's taking a new generation of journos to change the media landscape as well as a new generation of riders changing the peloton... Now all that's needed is a new generation of UCI'ers, one of doctors, one of DS'es and one of sponsors... Almost there...

 

[mewmewmew13]

I agree that in general the world of cycling journalism has largely turned a blind eye, but think the opening post was far to harsh and critical of CN. Yes, endless articles on Armstrong's doings, like his latest girlfriend, speaking engagement, political comments, whatever, but this is only because they were giving the fans what they wanted. This was the supply to the demand of the fans, and for validation of the cycling fans' interest in Armstrong, we need look no further than the 8 million Lance Armstrong threads on this forum.

Secondly, the site is "Cycling News", so the principle role of the site is supposed to be giving us news about the cycling world. It has never been a site filled with editorials and investigative journalism slanted towards the pre-conceptions of the article writer. Here in the forum, and also back pre-forum when all we had was a weekly "letters" page, CN fans have been quick to criticize CN when they strayed from the impartial delivery of actual news. I think CN has done very well with their delivery of Armstrong news, in that they not only never avoid bringing us the "bad" news, like the retrospective testing of the 1999 samples for EPO, critical Kimmage articles, chronicles of every legal battle Armstrong ever faced, and so on. The last thing I want to read on CN is a bunch of speculative articles questioning cycling performances as being doped or not (the Forum has enough of that).

Maybe tilting at the wrong thing here but it sure smelled to me that around the time Armstrong started up his triathlon cr@p all of a sudden we were plastered with an ugly TRIATHLON header right over the forum small heading.

Sorry, not true cycling news and still ticked that it was added.
I do realize that this was higher up from FP supposedly, so not trying to take a dig at @dnlbenson

btw welcome back to the fold MJM

 

[pedaling squares]

When are you gonna take the UCI to task and write aboutt McQuaid twisting and turning and giving a timeline to where he constantly says one thing and then the opposite and call them out.

Impeccable timing by one or both of you. Dan, it was good to read an articleunafraid to call Pat McQuaid on his flip-flops and backtracks. I don't expect every article to be about doping, always good to have balance, but it's nice to see the inconsistencies in the words and behaviours of some of cycling's most powerful figures shown for what they are. Keep it up, it's a good start.

And yeah, that corticosteroid comeback was gold.

 

[Benotti69]

Impeccable timing by one or both of you.

 

[Velodude]

Consider CN's History before being Critical

CyclingNews was commenced by Bill Mitchell in Newcastle, Australia in 1995 as a part time cycling news service.

In July 1999 he ran foul of Lance Armstrong and his goons by factually reporting the European disbelief of Armstrong's crushing mountain stage win at Sestries when it was universally expected Armstrong would lose the yellow jersey.

The Armstrong camp did not just threaten to close CN down but initiated a campaign of intimidation against CN's advertisers and Bill Mitchell's full time employer to close CN down and force Bill out of his university job.

Bill immediately sold CN to a local publisher in Australia in August 1999.

In 2008 (?) the UK organization of Future Publishing nestled in historic and beautiful Bath purchased CN moving headquarters from Australia from where it had operated since its humble beginnings 1995.

Not only has CN's editorial staff been not seamless over the last 17 years but there have been two ownership changes and an international re-location.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Quickly on this because I've just been pointed to it, and I'm in the middle of live coverage...

That tweet related to the omerta story. I took some quotes out because a source backed down. I then went and talked to a few more people, who would be quoted, and ran the story. I wasn't going to run the original story with the quotes from the first story. That's poor form, and shows a lack of trust that I dont expect everyone to understand, but that's just how I feel.

On my coverage.... I was in school in 1999 and didnt take up a job on CN until 2008 so I can't really be blamed directly or even indirectly for work I had nothing to do with. The coverage CN and I have been providing has been balanced and fair. You called me an Armstrong apologist before but I dont know where that's come from. If you've read any of my work on the subject .....

As for reporters before I started, and Armstrong coverage... I make a general reference to that in the story with regards to the media as a whole. The piece isn't about CN or any one publication. That could possibly be a future piece sure.


Dan

Some questions come out of this - although you may have only been on board since 2008 there is obviously going to be some overlap of staff, so it was hardly tabula rasa in 2008. What would you do differently if you could do your editorship over? Given the USP is not an isolated case - do you believe that you would be tougher on future teams than you were on USP/Disco/Astana?

Do you think that CN has been too close to teams which has prevent objective and critical coverage? Do you think it is possible to write critically about teams upon whose good graces you also depend upon for material - I am thinking here about teams such as Garmin?

When you look back on the last 4 years which maps onto Armstrong's comeback and Landis' accusations do you feel happy with the way in which you dealt with it? Do you feel that you could have been more critical regarding: his relationship with Caitlin? the numbers that were published during the Giro?

Are you happy with how CN handled the Landis accusations and the way in which Landis was attacked via CN by the likes of Millar?

Are you happy with the way in which CN reported the investigation into Armstrong?

Moving away from Armstrong and onto the wider issue of doping/corruption in the sport.

Are you happy with the coverage of HTC/Columbia given the number of ex-T-Mob riders etc involved? Do you think that the coverage was sufficiently tough of a team employing so many people convicted or linked to doping? This is surely a test case for 'tougher' journalism.

Do you think you should have made more of BMC threatening CN over Ballan? Do you think that you made enough of Landis' accusations against BMC management when they were in charge at Phonak - especially given how his accusations against Armstrong made at the same time have since been vindicated? Do you think that Och etc should be called to task (I am assuming that Hamilton must also talk about his time at Phonak as well in his book).

Do you think CN did a good job in covering Contador's positive test? Do you think that CN was too sympathetic and too willing to report Contador's arguments without any critical analysis? Do you think CN should have been tougher in its coverage?

Sticking with CSC - other than reporting the support for Riis by the teams sponsors - do you not think that here is another test case for 'tougher' coverage? We have a man who not only is a self-confessed doper but who has also seen a number of his riders test positive. Everytime, Riis claims 'he had no idea' and yet there is never any questioning of how it could be that Riis at team manager would have no idea what his riders were doing, or how it can be that he can be so unlucky to have so many riders implicated/banned.

How do you feel about the handling of Ricco and in particular the piling in by riders onto Ricco as an easy target? Do you think you could and should have been more critical of rider hypocrisy?

Are you happy with how CN has dealt with the UCI and Pat McQuaid in the light of both the Armstrong affair and in general? Do you think that CN has not been critical enough of McQuaid and the obvious contradictions within his statements? Going back before your time - do you think that more should have been made of Schenk's accusations against McQuaid and the UCI?

Finally (for now) will CN be tougher with riders and other figures with whom it currently has a close relationship with - for example Millar, Vaughters etc who have in the past been given a free pass by CN.