Why is Solon's letter to Zomegnan about CERA cover up not being reported?

[Mrs John Murphy]

Why has CN ignored Paul Solon's letter to Zomegnan about the failure to re-test the CERA samples from the 2008 Giro and the accusations of a deliberate cover-up?

A PDF of the letter can be found here:

Why the silence? These are very serious accusations? Anyone would think that CN is complicit in sweeping things under the carpet.

 

[Michielveedeebee]

because they hate cancer

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

It's not just the riders who uphold omerta.

 

[JPM London]

Sorry Mrs JM, but if that was the case wouldn't CN make sure to delete your revelation that they're part of conspiratory cover-up from the website?

Or am I missing something?

 

[roundabout]

Why has CN ignored Paul Solon's letter to Zomegnan about the failure to re-test the CERA samples from the 2008 Giro and the accusations of a deliberate cover-up?

A PDF of the letter can be found here:

Why the silence? These are very serious accusations? Anyone would think that CN is complicit in sweeping things under the carpet.

And Mr. Water pistol mod,

itchy trigger finger, but no go ahead from the HQ to delete the thread so you decided to play dumb (snide?) instead?

I certainly don't see what your post or the situation proposed in it has to do with CN sitting on their behinds for such a long period of time.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

The letter was sent around last weekend to various media outlets (I'm assuming CN), it sets out some fairly serious accusations against the Giro regarding to CERA samples. But it's not even reported, now given that it involves i) the Giro, ii) Contador iii) Padova, iv) doping. You would think that someone at CN might think 'people might be interested in this letter' or 'Shall we contact the Giro to get their response to this' but instead it gets ignored.

It was originally discussed here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=13552

I appreciate that this is cycling and incompetence is often mistaken for conspiracy. But as the Armstrong case shows, journalists have sat on their hands deliberately for years for fear of upsetting the UCI, powerful riders and races - and so journalists are as much defenders of omerta as Pozzato, Ekimov, Armstrong, Wiggins and Millar.

If CN hasn't touched it for legal reasons then fair enough, or because they missed it then fair enough. But is it so hard say?

The thread is here because last time a thread was made about journalistic standards in cycling, the mods got arsey about it 'not being in the right place' so its in the right place but where no one looks.

 

[JPM London]

And Mr. Water pistol mod,

itchy trigger finger, but no go ahead from the HQ to delete the thread so you decided to play dumb (snide?) instead?

I certainly don't see what your post or the situation proposed in it has to do with CN sitting on their behinds for such a long period of time.

Ok, your "HQ remark really beat anything remotely silly in my post by miles.
Ok, maybe my post came a little bit from silly land - but I guess it takes one to know one. Did you notice my post was followed by a smiley? If you've read any of my other posts you'd prob see much of the same.

Mrs John was speculating that CN was complicit in sweeping under carpets - how is my post irrelevant to that?

The letter was sent around last weekend to various media outlets (I'm assuming CN), it sets out some fairly serious accusations against the Giro regarding to CERA samples.

...

If CN hasn't touched it for legal reasons then fair enough, or because they missed it then fair enough. But is it so hard say?

I followed the link to the letter when it was posted in another thread a few days ago, have skimmed it for now but found it interesting and will read it some point. Apart from that I've seen no mention of it anywhere else - so it seems that if it's been sent to different media, then none of them found it interesting enough to run a story - maybe it's till sitting in the "to read someday when I have time" piles on all the desks. If somebody does in the end run a story on it, it's prob more likely that a lot of others follow suit - that's unfortunately how much of reporting works these days; repeating what others have written before. On that note I think CN is actually far above the norm - I often find the CN articles either being far more in depth than others and when they do quote/link it's to interesting pieces.

I wouldn't think there are any legal issues - couldn't see what.
However, what I do know, is that it's so easy for stories - even very interesting and important stories - to drown in the immense sea of media flux (or something). Sometimes it takes a bit longer for a story to develop and pick up speed, in the end a week isn't necessarily that long. Maybe even your thread here might create attention about the letter and then all of a sudden you'll see stories about "leaked letters on cycling fora". Think about how little general attention the Michael Ashenden interview ever got outside the discussion forums...

Anyway, what about we discuss what's in the letter instead?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I linked to the thread in the clinic which Dirty Works started about it which is in the clinic. http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=13552 Although to be fair, the title in the original thread doesn't make it very explicit.

 

[roundabout]

Ok, your "HQ remark really beat anything remotely silly in my post by miles.
Ok, maybe my post came a little bit from silly land - but I guess it takes one to know one. Did you notice my post was followed by a smiley? If you've read any of my other posts you'd prob see much of the same.

Mrs John was speculating that CN was complicit in sweeping under carpets - how is my post irrelevant to that?

Strange how you were unable to get to the point (even if you don't represent CN in any capacity other than being a forum moderator) from the first go.

And can you explain to me how having this thread still open disproves that CN didn't do anything.

Or am I missing something?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Why has CN ignored Paul Solon's letter to Zomegnan about the failure to re-test the CERA samples from the 2008 Giro and the accusations of a deliberate cover-up?

A PDF of the letter can be found here:

Why the silence? These are very serious accusations? Anyone would think that CN is complicit in sweeping things under the carpet.

Well one good reason is that despite citing some articles Solon is actually wrong to accuse Zomergen or RCS, it is the UCI who do the testing and the labs who hold the samples (they only have to do so for 3 months).

McQuaid was the one to say that they were not going to retest the samples (as already covered by CN) although he did change his mind when he found out that NAS were requesting the samples for an investigation.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

That isn't what he says though.

He is asking why haven't the samples been tested (he doesn't say that it is RCS's responsibility) and why having said various things regarding the samples, testing and CERA are you not making good on your claims in the media?

His accusation is that RCS has been complicit with the UCI in ensuring that the samples are not re-tested.

The question remains (it was also addressed to the UCI) - why have the 2008 samples not been re-tested for CERA?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That isn't what he says though.

He is asking why haven't the samples been tested (he doesn't say that it is RCS's responsibility) and why having said various things regarding the samples, testing and CERA are you not making good on your claims in the media?

His accusation is that RCS has been complicit with the UCI in ensuring that the samples are not re-tested.

The question remains (it was also addressed to the UCI) - why have the 2008 samples not been re-tested for CERA?

As I pointed out earlier - the Italian Drug police (NAS) have the samples.

From a CN article in August 2009:

"The Italian police have the samples. We tried to get them but can’t do so," said UCI President Pat McQuaid on Wednesday. "We would be interested in testing them but haven’t been able to access them. If we get them back, we will carry out the examinations."

While I have little doubt that is the usual BS from Pat the reality is the NAS have the samples.

 

[red_flanders]

Sorry Mrs JM, but if that was the case wouldn't CN make sure to delete your revelation that they're part of conspiratory cover-up from the website?

Or am I missing something?

Clearly allowing a thread on an obscure, unreported topic is not the same as posting that article in the hero section of the front page of CN.com.

Suggesting allowing the post means they're not burying the story makes no logical sense. Let's be clear, allowing it doesn't mean they are intentionally burying the story for unethical reasons, but it sure as hell doesn't mean they're not burying it.

EDIT: I see now the smiley meant you were joking. Got it.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

As I pointed out earlier - the Italian Drug police (NAS) have the samples.

From a CN article in August 2009:

While I have little doubt that is the usual BS from Pat the reality is the NAS have the samples.

Even so, that does not alter the point that no effort has been made to get the samples back and to have them re-tested, that RCS and UCI have through their inactivity ensured that the sample have remained untested with the NAS.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Even so, that does not alter the point that no effort has been made to get the samples back and to have them re-tested, that RCS and UCI have through their inactivity ensured that the sample have remained untested with the NAS.

Well no - your point was obvious from the OP and indeed why you opened the thread in the About the website section.

You were querying why CN had 'ignored' Solons letter and even suggested they may be complicit in some sort of cover-up.

To the above point - at this stage RCS have nothing to do with the testing, and UCI are incompetent and talking out their ass again is hardly breaking news.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

And that doesn't really change anything. While it may not be the second coming, the question remains why is it being ignored?

It is hardly that things 'not being news' has stopped CN in the past - didn't we have a very breathless report from someone who went and saw a Garmin training camp? And you are telling me that somehow that is more important and interesting than highlighting accusations of corruption and doping - ie the two biggest issues in the sport at the moment?

CN is so hand in glove with the UCI to the point where it might as well rename itself UCI Pravda.

 

[JPM London]

I've read the letter now and frankly - it's neither very interesting nor revealing. He's basically bringing forth media excerpts - which in itself isn't newsworthy at all and so not enough to form the basis of an article (well, a proper one at least).

He then tries to use that to discredit Z for having said something a long time ago that can be interpreted one way and said something a couple of weeks ago that can be interpreted in a different way - and in different contexts as well. Not ranking high on my list of newsworthy items either.

In his letter he's also asking Z to account for decisions and actions of others (Pat, Roberti) and even also asking him to account for the value of something intangible and doing it in a very disgusting tone by implying Z got "personal benefits" from doing so...

I've got no idea if he's right or wrong, but the clear agenda of throwing derogatory accusations without much documentation other than a few cuts of interviews and a lot of numbering/lettering makes me get off the train pretty darn quickly...

If I were a journalist I wouldn't write up a story on this, sorry. To me this looks like hateful, hot air and nothing more.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Without being rude but that sounds exactly like the sort of thing that we used here about why things into Armstrong were not worth following up.

Just because something sounds hateful etc doesn't mean it isn't true, nor does it mean that it is not worth following up.

It's certainly a hell of a lot more newsworthy than the majority of non-stories that get produced.

CN seems to be more into churnalism than journalism.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Without being rude but that sounds exactly like the sort of thing that we used here about why things into Armstrong were not worth following up.

Just because something sounds hateful etc doesn't mean it isn't true, nor does it mean that it is not worth following up.

It's certainly a hell of a lot more newsworthy than the majority of non-stories that get produced.

CN seems to be more into churnalism than journalism.

As I pointed out earlier- Solon letter is not true, so no it is not worth following up.

As to your petty snipe about going to the Garmin training camp - the website is called Cycling News, not allthingsdopingnews.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

No you didn't. You made the comment about the samples being in the hands of NAS which had nothing to do with Solon's accusations about RCS.

I know you love Garmin and Vaughters, but puffing up how wonderful their training camp was not news. And it was embarrassing to see it passed off as such. Why not just call it what it was 'product placement in return for future favours'.

If CN is only into re-heating press releases and sucking up to the teams and the authorities then fine, but stop pretending to be a news site.

Kimmage keeps on being proved right.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No you didn't. You made the comment about the samples being in the hands of NAS which had nothing to do with Solon's accusations about RCS.

I know you love Garmin and Vaughters, but puffing up how wonderful their training camp was not news. And it was embarrassing to see it passed off as such. Why not just call it what it was 'product placement in return for future favours'.

If CN is only into re-heating press releases and sucking up to the teams and the authorities then fine, but stop pretending to be a news site.

Kimmage keeps on being proved right.

To the highlighted - well it just goes to show what you know, doesn't it?

I have made plenty of comments against Garmin and Vaughters - I even started a thread that had moderate Garmin fans asking what I had against him. (The answer is nothing, he should tell the truth about his doping)

Being honest I have no idea about the Garmin training article - (I must be a bad fan) because I didn't read it, however it is News about a Cycling team.

Again - Solons accusations about RCS are wrong - they have nothing to do with the samples once the rider has been controlled, nothing.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Well that's funny because you have no problem in accusing me of having a vendetta against Vaughters, so I see no problem in posting by your own standards in accusing you of having a Vaughters fetish. If you don't like it then you should think more before accusing people of things.

Furthermore, you completely miss the point.

So let me explain it to you using an example.

Lets say there are lots of accusations that posters are being paid to post in favour of certain teams.

Lets say an accusations against you comes my way - now what do I do? Do I sit on it and sweep it under the carpet and pretend I never heard it? Do I investigate and give you the right to reply, rebuttal etc? Do I just post that you are in the pay of Garmin?

Well, personally, I would investigate and I would post and even more so if the accusations could be easily refuted. Why because clearly refuting allegations with more than 'my word vs his word' would actually be a useful thing to do.

Lets say you are right and Solon is wrong. Do you not think that in the current climate of accusations of cover-ups, corruption and collusion between the authorities over doping, that if a rumour of a cover-up could be easily disproved that this is not worth reporting? I think so, and more to the point it would actually help to restore a lot more credibility to cycling than a verbatim report on a Hein Verdruggan press conference.

As was mentioned in the Tondo thread - actually talking about things helps prevent conspiracy theories - sweeping things under the carpet and not discussing them merely causes them.

Dog bites man is news
Dog not biting man in this case is more significant news.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well that's funny because you have no problem in accusing me of having a vendetta against Vaughters, so I see no problem in posting by your own standards in accusing you of having a Vaughters fetish. If you don't like it then you should think more before accusing people of things.

Furthermore, you completely miss the point.

So let me explain it to you using an example.

Lets say there are lots of accusations that posters are being paid to post in favour of certain teams.

Lets say an accusations against you comes my way - now what do I do? Do I sit on it and sweep it under the carpet and pretend I never heard it? Do I investigate and give you the right to reply, rebuttal etc? Do I just post that you are in the pay of Garmin?

Well, personally, I would investigate and I would post and even more so if the accusations could be easily refuted. Why because clearly refuting allegations with more than 'my word vs his word' would actually be a useful thing to do.

Lets say you are right and Solon is wrong. Do you not think that in the current climate of accusations of cover-ups, corruption and collusion between the authorities over doping, that if a rumour of a cover-up could be easily disproved that this is not worth reporting? I think so, and more to the point it would actually help to restore a lot more credibility to cycling than a verbatim report on a Hein Verdruggan press conference.

As was mentioned in the Tondo thread - actually talking about things helps prevent conspiracy theories - sweeping things under the carpet and not discussing them merely causes them.

Dog bites man is news
Dog not biting man in this case is more significant news.

So tomorrows headlines should be:
No spaceship over Giro TT.
Icelandic volcano will not reroute Tour.
Tyler Hamilton is not Arnies mistress.

And your point appears to have changed since your original point when you opened the thread.

Why has CN ignored Paul Solon's letter to Zomegnan about the failure to re-test the CERA samples from the 2008 Giro and the accusations of a deliberate cover-up?

A PDF of the letter can be found here:

Why the silence? These are very serious accusations? Anyone would think that CN is complicit in sweeping things under the carpet.

Also - I don't use the word vendetta which makes it hard to accused you of that.
I did say that you didn't like JV, and you didn't deny it and your posting history on him confirms it.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Please, do stop lying - you accused me of having something against Vaughters so what comes around goes around. Does he pay you to be his forum house boy or do you do it for the love?

Let me explain things to you simply - because it seems complex arguments are not really doing anything other causing you to have Frodo-esque temper tantrums.

i) Solon's letter contains serious accusations and as a result are worth investigating/reporting/following up. Even more so given the accusations of corruption within the sport.

ii) In doing so - RCS can have the opportunity respond - and to demonstrate why the accusations are wrong.

iii) We get some quality journalism rather than puff pieces about how great Garmin/RS are.

iv) Rumour of corruption either gets shown to have some substance, or it gets shown to be false. A win-win for cycling and cycling fans.

v) It is hardly as if CN is rushed off its feet with other stories. And the final line of my original post holds. It is perfectly reasonable to ask the question - why is there nothing on this story at all, and to ask if it is being swept under the carpet.

vi) Likewise, it is perfectly reasonable to ask just what is CN's relationship with the teams and UCI and is this why it is so uncritical of things like the UCI etc to the extent where it is little more than a mouthpiece for the authorities.

The reality is that CN is being left behind by blogs like NYVelocity, etc who are not hand-in-glove and dependent on the teams and UCI for their stories.

If you are so against the accusations then maybe you ought to take it up with the Flammecast blog where the arguments I've posted here were originally raised.

Anyway, if you are going to be sensible for once then fine, if you are going to go for one of your ****-waving replies then don't bother.

Oh and by the way - it is perfectly reasonable for people to change their minds and shift their positions - it is called being open minded - you should try it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Please, do stop lying - you accused me of having something against Vaughters so what comes around goes around. Does he pay you to be his forum house boy or do you do it for the love?

I didn't lie - I said you don't like JV, which is accurate.

I didn't take your earlier accusation seriously - but as you insist.
No - I do not work for Garmin, JV the wine industry or anyone associated with him or his team etc.
Nor do I work for CyclingNews, RCS, UCI the NAS nor do I make my living from responding to your posts.

In wishing to make a full and honest disclosure to you because you asked in such a nice way, I will admit that I do own 2 Garmin products. Both are Sat Navs for cars, one is for the US, the other is for Europe - I paid for both myself.

Let me explain things to you simply - because it seems complex arguments are not really doing anything other causing you to have Frodo-esque temper tantrums.

My simple answer is - I am not the one who is angry.

i) Solon's letter contains serious accusations and as a result are worth investigating/reporting/following up. Even more so given the accusations of corruption within the sport.

2 minutes spent googling what Solon wrote shows it contains serious errors.

ii) In doing so - RCS can have the opportunity respond - and to demonstrate why the accusations are wrong.

Why would RCS give oxygen to a non story?

iii) We get some quality journalism rather than puff pieces about how great Garmin/RS are.

Quality journalism - this is an online cycling site. Your expectations exceed reality.

iv) Rumour of corruption either gets shown to have some substance, or it gets shown to be false. A win-win for cycling and cycling fans.

On one hand you look for 'quality journalism' and now you want an investigation in to someones false claims.... to show that they are indeed false?

v) It is hardly as if CN is rushed off its feet with other stories. And the final line of my original post holds. It is perfectly reasonable to ask the question - why is there nothing on this story at all, and to ask if it is being swept under the carpet.

As there is no story - then there is no story to be swept under the carpet.

vi) Likewise, it is perfectly reasonable to ask just what is CN's relationship with the teams and UCI and is this why it is so uncritical of things like the UCI etc to the extent where it is little more than a mouthpiece for the authorities.

It is reasonable to ask.
But yet again this does not stand up to the claims that you then go on to make - one of the best pieces on doping was covered by CN and was highly critical of the UCI and in particular HV.
From Festina t the Biological Passport, a retrospective.

The reality is that CN is being left behind by blogs like NYVelocity, etc who are not hand-in-glove and dependent on the teams and UCI for their stories.

NYVC is excellent - but how often do they release 'news' and isn't it often a rehash from other sources? Which is one of your main accusations of CN?

If you are so against the accusations then maybe you ought to take it up with the Flammecast blog where the arguments I've posted here were originally raised.

I didn't read Flammecast blog, kindof hard to highlight that its wrong when I did not see it.
And no I am not "so against the accusations" - they are wrong, thats all.

Anyway, if you are going to be sensible for once then fine, if you are going to go for one of your ****-waving replies then don't bother.

Thank you for the right to reply - I hope I have complied with your request but as its **** I am not sure what it was.

BTW - you can answer me any way you wish - I will not tell how you should reply to me. You can be even be rude and continually wrong if you wish.

Oh and by the way - it is perfectly reasonable for people to change their minds and shift their positions - it is called being open minded - you should try it.

Thanks - would open minded be like my position on JV or Garmin? Where I can appreciate some of the things he does, for example compliment his tactics at Paris Roubaix.
Yet then I can be critical and query his continued refusal to admit his own doping on another thread?

Quite simply - you swallowed the Solon letter without checking it out and went on a CN bashing trip.
Now there is a lot to be critical of CN for but you backed the wrong horse, it is time to admit that and tear up your betting slip.