spalco said:
I don't know why you're so critical of cyclingnews all the time. I agree that Eurosport has a questionable history with it's Armstrong specials and all that, but cyclingnews has been pretty good about the doping stuff at least since I've begun reading the site a couple years ago. ARD, ZDF and practically the entire German media also were on the Omerta-hype train for many years until Ullrich destroyed their illusions, you know?...
CN has long been the UCI's semi-official mouth piece, they've spent years on the Armstrong bandwagon, they were very uncritical when Landis was popped, but as soon as Landis broke omerta they put the boot in on him. Landis upholding omerta - good guy, Landis blowing the whistle - disgraced drunken waster.
They provide a mouthpiece for McQuaid, Millar etc to put the boot into anyone critical, while at the same time steadfastly refusing to ask tough questions. Then the hacks whine on Twitter when they get accused of being complicit in omerta.
Anyone thought of asking Vaughters about a Lim, Matt White etc?
Seriously, how anyone could post that last Millar interview with a straight face I have no idea.
The stitching up of Landis was one of the most disgraceful pieces of hatchet journalism ever.
Daniel Freibe is a **** of the highest order.
I know that ARD was on the bandwagon till Ullrich, just like other media was before Festina etc, the point is that while Ullrich was the turning point for ARD and resulted in more critical coverage, for CN etc, their response has been more of the same and more toeing the UCI party line. Afterall, don't want to post anything critical or question that might interrupt those exclusive interviews.
CN, is as much an upholder of omerta as Pozzato, Millar, Armstrong and McQuaid.
Paul Kimmage said:
There is only one thing worse than reading Cyclingnews…]