LauraLyn said:
In general the Dutch media has been very pro-Armstrong.
There is money tied into this as well as the media. This is similar to the Sky team and its links to Rupert Murdock.
Sky Team is the UCI's new US Postal Team. But how all this is connected . . . more needs to come out. If it comes out at all.
And this is the problem here. This is what is wrong with the sport of cycling at the moment.
It doesn't take much to see the UCI/US Cycling vs. WADA/USADA and see something more than simple anti-doping going on.
"The winner of the 1988 Tour, Pedro Delgado, now a commentator on Spanish television, described Armstrong as “a strong-willed character who has done a lot for cycling” but who nevertheless had many enemies.
He questioned the wisdom of returning to the issue so many years later, saying it made “no sense.”
“You talk about cheating but rather than trying to get justice, I think it’s more about a power struggle between institutions. You can’t now take away podium wins from a rider who’s given his all,” he added.
“It’s bad news for cycling and we know that the victims are always cyclists.”
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/08/news/cycling-world-reacts-to-lance-armstrong-decision_235762
So, what happens when a Dutch newspaper story, having previously been put in the middle of this fracticical fued with the Vrijman Report, apts ... not to agree or disagree, but to simply aboid the imbruglio?
Well, NOW there is a vast conspiracy about, one tied to money, and apparently inexhustable source of money that bribes, Swiss officials, drug testers, the UCI (and apparently WADA but not) and murderously hunts down critics?
Well, does anyone know what the best criteria is for dismissing the fake moon landing conspiracy? Fiscal reality. It costs more to fake the moon landing than it does to actually go to the moon.
If there were a conspiracy large enough to intimidate the National Press of an entire country? Well, then I think you would fairly difficult to hide sums of money that would quickly drain Lance's bank account.
I am sure that Brad Wiggins also appreciates the implication that Sky News is not just a sponsor ... but an enabling of doping and conspiracy.
These are the kinds of antics that have to stop. This kind of creative writing has no place in a profession. Processes must be linked to evidence. Speculation, particularly the kind done with massive implications, must be done under the clear guise of speculation, not coupled to demands for more evidence to follow.
At some point, institutions that govern cycling can be forgiven for turning a deaf ear to such criticism, rather than attempting to deal with it like its rational.
Evidence much drive processes, noty speculation and innuendo, and certainly not speculation and innuendo whose sole basis rests in anonimity to those not towing a particular view. These antics are destroying out sport far more than the reality of doping ever did.