You are the editor/boss/interviewer?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
Mambo95 said:
But Walsh and Kimmage don't often write about cycling. Walsh, for example, writes mostly about rugby, but I've yet to see him stand up in a six nations press conference and ask how the players got so big. Why not? Perhaps because he'd lose access and rugby's important to his income?

Really? Sounds like you are playing fast and loose with the facts to suit your agenda.

He talked about doping and rugby in the NYVelocity interview. The interview sums it up nicely, shame that L'Equipe didn't stay the course but thank god for Walsh, Kimmage and others with some guts and integrity.

http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/david-walsh

AS: Part of this blog post also says that Pierre's favorite sport is rugby, and it says that in rugby dope testing is virtually non-existent. Is it hypocritical for you guys to follow rugby yet tear down cycling?

DW: [...] I would have no hesitation in addressing that...I've written loads of doping stuff about rugby, I've written loads of doping stuff about athletics, I've written loads of doping stuff about swimming. Cycling is just one other sport, although you'd have to say one that has a very particular and very hard to eradicate problem.

AS: Ok, I'm going to stop being devil's advocate and go back to being myself.

DW: I'm sorry if I sound antagonistic, I'm not. But I'm just defending myself, I believe in what I do.

AS: I just thought this posting was a good crystallization of a lot of what I see on forums when people complain about you guys.

DW: Sure. People genuinely believe this. But this argument, to say that rugby is Pierre's favorite sport, is ridiculous. This guy started out in life as the best cycling writer in l'Equipe. In 1999 when Lance won his first Tour, Pierre was The Man. When l'Equipe was sending someone to interview Lance in Texas, I think it was 1997 during his year out in cancer rehab, l'Equipe sent Pierre, because he was their best cycling guy. He was the guy who would write the most engaging piece. He loved the sport.

He then saw how corrupt it was in 1998, and he said to his bosses at l'Equipe "I will only cover this sport now if you allow me to cover doping in this sport. Because until I believe these guys are riding in some way that's fair, starting from the same line, all of them, there's no point in writing about the results. Because they mean NOTHING."

And l'Equipe says, "Yeah, Pierre, we think that's right, because doping is a scourge in the sport. Do it." Of course, Pierre, being Pierre, did it so well that a lot of the riders were refusing to talk to him. And to put pressure on the newspaper, a lot of the riders said they wouldn't speak to Pierre's colleagues who didn't give a damn about doping. Those guys went to Pierre's bosses and said, "Look, we can't do our job because this guy is always writing about doping."

And l'Equipe found itself in a very difficult position, because most of their cycling coverage wasn't doping. All of Pierre's writing was on doping, but they write 40 pages about cycling, there might be one piece about doping. So they had a problem. They felt that their coverage was being undermined by Pierre's reputation as the guy who always asked about doping, so they tried to silence Pierre. Pierre went to l'Equipe, and said, "The guys who complained about me asking about doping, have engaged in pot belge parties WITH RIDERS. And you listen to their complaints."

And of course l'Equipe freaked when Pierre talked about their journalists who were engaged in pot belge parties. But it was true. And in the end Pierre was in a situation where they basically wanted to get rid of him on this basis, he had the usual responsibilites of mortgage, having to get a job, and basically l'Equipe came to a good financial settlement with Pierre, to ease him out provided Pierre wouldn't talk too freely about his colleagues. Pierre needed to live, so that's how Pierre ended his time with l'Equipe.

It was a story that told you that ultimately, people whose guiding principle is the bottom line will always do what's best for the bottom line. The ASO have reacted in the same way. My view is that when the chips are down, and we're talking about the big stakes, the UCI will always act the same. It will protect the interests of cycling. What I mean when I say that is they'll protect the commercial interests of cycling.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,394
0
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
Really? Sounds like you are playing fast and loose with the facts to suit your agenda.

He talked about doping and rugby in the NYVelocity interview.

http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/david-walsh
So he said a single line to a cycling website. That's hard asking the big questions to the big players in the sport.

Find me one of these so called articles. Find me an example of Walsh tackling a 'name' in rugby. Find me an article where he says pro rugby players are using steroids.

As a bonus, find me a non-cycling interview by Kimmage where he asks about doping (other than already busted dopers).
 
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
The Times is behind a paywall ****nut.

You were wrong. Accept it, take your lumps and move on.

This isn't a discussion about what Walsh has or hasn't done, so stop ****ing whining about how other sports are treated.

The interview i) responds to your accusations ii) illustrates the problems for writers who do take a stand on doping in cycling which is interesting in the context of the discussion about what would you do if you were the editor/interviewer.
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,845
0
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
The Times is behind a paywall ****nut.

You were wrong. Accept it, take your lumps and move on.
No he wasn't.
Post some evidence other than Walsh defending himself, and you might have a point.
Good luck.
 
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
No, because ****face I have more important things to do than spend my time trying to disprove trolls trying to disrupt a topic with whining about how unfairly treated the sport is.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,394
0
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
No, because ****face I have more important things to do than spend my time trying to disprove a troll who is trying to disrupt a topic with his whining about how unfairly treated the sport is.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
OK, I'll make it easier for you. Here's the search for david walsh rugby drugs: http://www.timesplus.co.uk/tto/public/sitesearch.do?querystring=david+walsh+rugby+drugs&x=0&y=0&p=tto&pf=all&bl=on

23 articles, two pertinant: One about Bath and one about a junior - both who had already tested positive. Soft easy targets, just like picking on Ricco.

I don't blame him. It's his livelihood and he's not stupid. But by your standards he's just another bought mouthpiece for the IRB.
 
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
Well done on proving yourself wrong.

Really all this is you and Andy1234 trolling to take the topic off what it is about - ie how would you approach asking difficult questions and to move it back onto your pet hobby horse of how unfairly cycling is treated and blah, ****ing, blah. You made some claims, you were wrong and you ****ed up. Rather than accept it you keep on digging and trolling more. None of which has anything to do with the original topic.

You keep on keeping on.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,394
0
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
Well done on proving yourself wrong.
But I haven't.

I said he's never asked the hard questions to rugby or written similar articles (or books) to those he has on cycling (rugby is his bread and butter not cycling).

He's written two measly articles in eight years - both about people already busted. Your average CN hack writes two or three a month.

Rugby genuinely has a problem (and it's a problem which gets people hurt), but here's a chief rugby writer from a major paper basically ignoring the subject.
 
I can't help but note that everyone is doing a pretty good job of being the editor/boss/interviewer.

Kudos to CN for providing the forum for everyone to be heard. I know nothing about libel laws, but I'm always amazed by what takes place here. It's a lot of fun to read.
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Mambo95 said:
But I haven't.

I said he's never asked the hard questions to rugby or written similar articles (or books) to those he has on cycling (rugby is his bread and butter not cycling).

He's written two measly articles in eight years - both about people already busted. Your average CN hack writes two or three a month.

Rugby genuinely has a problem (and it's a problem which gets people hurt), but here's a chief rugby writer from a major paper basically ignoring the subject.
You need to do a bit more digging.
Walsh is not as you say reliant on Rugby as his bread and butter. He is the Chief Sports writer and writes about all sports.

When you enter 'David Walsh drugs' in to the search it comes back with 198 results on different sports like athletics, swimming, American football, rugby, soccer etc.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,394
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
You need to do a bit more digging.
Walsh is not as you say reliant on Rugby as his bread and butter. He is the Chief Sports writer and writes about all sports.

When you enter 'David Walsh drugs' in to the search it comes back with 198 results on different sports like athletics, swimming, American football, rugby, soccer etc.
And most of those articles are from 2003 & 2004. He seems to have been a lot more quiet since he moved up the ladder. They all seem to be reacting to doping positives, not accusatory, not investagative.

My original challenge stands. Find me evidence of Walsh asking anyone in rugby a hard question about drugs. (I realise he writes about many sports but he writes about rugby the most and I know that has a big problem - at least at amateur level).

Similarly, find me any evidence of Kimmage asking an interviewee a question about doping (other than convicted dopers).

I don't want to single these two out as I think they're fine journalists (Walsh better than Kimmage though). But they're seen by some as great crusaders, but they're really not. They compromise just like everyone else who has a mortgage to pay - picking on the easy target which they rarely cover while toeing the line of other sports.

I wonder what would happen if a cyclist were to sue one of the idealistic, 'crusading' posters on here for libel. Would that poster stick to their guns fighting for the 'truth' with their every last penny? Or would they immediately grovel an apology when they realise what's at stake? Could some cyclist please test this out.
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Mambo95 said:
And most of those articles are from 2003 & 2004. He seems to have been a lot more quiet since he moved up the ladder. They all seem to be reacting to doping positives, not accusatory, not investagative.

My original challenge stands. Find me evidence of Walsh asking anyone in rugby a hard question about drugs. (I realise he writes about many sports but he writes about rugby the most and I know that has a big problem - at least at amateur level).

Similarly, find me any evidence of Kimmage asking an interviewee a question about doping (other than convicted dopers).

I don't want to single these two out as I think they're fine journalists (Walsh better than Kimmage though). But they're seen by some as great crusaders, but they're really not. They compromise just like everyone else who has a mortgage to pay - picking on the easy target which they rarely cover while toeing the line of other sports.

I wonder what would happen if a cyclist were to sue one of the idealistic, 'crusading' posters on here for libel. Would that poster stick to their guns fighting for the 'truth' with their every last penny? Or would they immediately grovel an apology when they realise what's at stake? Could some cyclist please test this out.
Both Walsh and Kimmage earned their reputations by questioning the astonishing rise of Irish swimmer Michele de Bruin (Smith) in 1996 after she won 3 gold medals in swimming.
Their stance was almost regarded as treason for doubting her - of course she tested positive some time later and the Golden Girl myth ended.

Here Paul Kimmage interviews Rafa Nadal:
My acclaimed cross-court volley: “How did it feel when those drug allegations surfaced at Wimbledon last year?”

He doesn’t blink an eye. “I was never accused,” he says. “There were no real allegations. It was a nonserious newspaper [Le Journal du Dimanche] in France. The person who wrote that article did not even put his name to it. That proves two things: that he is a coward and that he is not serious.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,394
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Both Walsh and Kimmage earned their reputations by questioning the astonishing rise of Irish swimmer Michele de Bruin (Smith) in 1996 after she won 3 gold medals in swimming.
Their stance was almost regarded as treason for doubting her - of course she tested positive some time later and the Golden Girl myth ended.

Here Paul Kimmage interviews Rafa Nadal:
They both had earned a reputation before that, I think.

Notice that Rafa question was a soft 'How did it feel...' question, not specifically referring to Puerto or Fuentes. No follow up. If CN asked, for example, Denis Menchov, 'how did it feel to be rated 9 on the UCI scale' and he'd given the same answer, posters would have said how bad they were for not pushing the point.

Journalists have to tread a fine line. The adage goes that a journalist is only as good as his contacts. Behave like a loose cannon and any contacts disappear.

The irony is that Mrs John Murphy calls for opinions and statements to be challenged, but when I challenged his/hers, then the response is "****nut", "****face", "trolling". If a cyclist behaved the same way they would be seen as a fraud with something to hide.
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Mambo95 said:
They both had earned a reputation before that, I think.

Notice that Rafa question was a soft 'How did it feel...' question, not specifically referring to Puerto or Fuentes. No follow up. If CN asked, for example, Denis Menchov, 'how did it feel to be rated 9 on the UCI scale' and he'd given the same answer, posters would have said how bad they were for not pushing the point.

Journalists have to tread a fine line. The adage goes that a journalist is only as good as his contacts. Behave like a loose cannon and any contacts disappear.

The irony is that Mrs John Murphy calls for opinions and statements to be challenged, but when I challenged his/hers, then the response is "****nut", "****face", "trolling". If a cyclist behaved the same way they would be seen as a fraud with something to hide.
As I said - you need to do some more digging, Kimmage explains that here:
I interviewed [Spanish tennis player] Rafael Nadal two weeks ago in Hamburg. Before I went to meet him I looked into who his trainer was and I tried to get some sort of conclusive evidence that he was in the Operation Puerto files but I couldn’t get my hands on it. All I could do was ask him the question and all he did was give me a not very satisfactory response. It’s not only cycling with me. Whenever there are grounds to ask the question, I do so.
If you have a problem with other posters opinions, then take it up with them and not me.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
The journos' job is to report on the sport in a general manner, and flush the story out with their insight.

The governing bodies' job is to ensure everyone is sticking to the rules, and to enforce them.

No one is going to willfully gnaw off the hand that feeds.

Hold the federations and governing bodies to account. Expecting more than that - eg: grilling riders and DSs ad nauseum - will do nothing for the sport. And you're going to end up looking like a whiny d*uche.

Forget trying to get a rabid expose from the cycling press by hard-interviewing riders. How about a hard interview of the guys who allow it to happen? How about Mrs. Murphy's line of questioning re the UCI? Pick on those sorry sacks. Grilling riders, while they're still racing, is going to go nowhere and make the whole sport look bad.

I expect nothing from the cycling press, apart from race reporting.

The other stuff should be left to the investigative crowd.
 
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
The journos' job is to report on the sport in a general manner, and flush the story out with their insight.

The governing bodies' job is to ensure everyone is sticking to the rules, and to enforce them.

No one is going to willfully gnaw off the hand that feeds.

Hold the federations and governing bodies to account. Expecting more than that - eg: grilling riders and DSs ad nauseum - will do nothing for the sport. And you're going to end up looking like a whiny d*uche.

Forget trying to get a rabid expose from the cycling press by hard-interviewing riders. How about a hard interview of the guys who allow it to happen? How about Mrs. Murphy's line of questioning re the UCI? Pick on those sorry sacks. Grilling riders, while they're still racing, is going to go nowhere and make the whole sport look bad.

I expect nothing from the cycling press, apart from race reporting.

The other stuff should be left to the investigative crowd.
I don't think you need to be entirely revolutionary, I think it means being a bit more critical, it's a shift in position and attitude rather than a revolution. When David Millar tells us to 'believe in Contador' I'd tell him that he told us to believe in Piepoli and Vino among others so why exactly should we 'believe' in Contador, or Millar given how wrong he's been in the past. What exactly does he base his argument that only dopers are inconsistent - how does that work?

Or for example the claim that only 2% of the peloton is doping from the UCI.

There is scope I think for more critical op ed - if not about specific teams or riders - but certainly a more generalised critical questioning position ie a critical look at the biopassport - ask the question - is it effective? Are there any signs of doping being reduced because of it ie lower speeds, lower power output etc etc, what are the problems with it according to its critics, is it just for PR?

I do think that if CN etc don't want to do that kind of coverage then they should just be a results/newsfeed service.

I think Kimmage made a very good point about how the sites like Velonews, CN etc tend to be in competition to be the first with a piece of news. As a result there is an emphasis on quantity not quality. Personally if I were editor I would reverse that - less material but of better quality.

One of my bugbears is to listen to say Harmon, or to read articles that one day will sing the praises of rider X, how amazing they are etc etc, and then the next day when rider X fails a test those same journalists are there giving rider X a kicking and telling us that they knew all along that rider X was an evil doper. My response is 'that's funny because you've never mentioned your concerns before and yesterday you were falling over yourself in praise of him'. That kind of attitude from the media seriously insults the intelligence of the audience. If you have suspicions then voice them.
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,845
0
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
Well done on proving yourself wrong.

Really all this is you and Andy1234 trolling to take the topic off what it is about - ie how would you approach asking difficult questions and to move it back onto your pet hobby horse of how unfairly cycling is treated and blah, ****ing, blah. You made some claims, you were wrong and you ****ed up. Rather than accept it you keep on digging and trolling more. None of which has anything to do with the original topic.

You keep on keeping on.
The question is about what we would do if we were the journalist etc reporting cycling.
I said that most journalists would act in a certain way, given where their paychecks are coming from.

You seem to think that reporting the truth should transcend anything, including placing your career in jeopardy.

Walsh and Kimmage choose their battles, just like anyone living in the real world. As both of them have nothing to lose in the cycling press, they are considerably braver in their questioning of cycling than in other sports.

Nothing that has been shown here, as yet, proves otherwise.

Put the trolling card away, It's pathetic. You made the statement that journalists should be like you are every day, and be driven by their integrity. Im arguing that Integrity always has its limits, and integrity is easier to show when its not an all or nothing game.

So, If I was the journalist asking the questions? I would pick my battles and make sure I didn't bite the hand that feeds me. Don't worry though, I'll bring some scraps up to that lofty tower you live in, because lets face it, you might need them.

Mrs John Murphy said:
One of my bugbears is to listen to say Harmon, or to read articles that one day will sing the praises of rider X, how amazing they are etc etc, and then the next day when rider X fails a test those same journalists are there giving rider X a kicking and telling us that they knew all along that rider X was an evil doper. My response is 'that's funny because you've never mentioned your concerns before and yesterday you were falling over yourself in praise of him'. That kind of attitude from the media seriously insults the intelligence of the audience. If you have suspicions then voice them.
Again, back to the real world.

Last time I looked, it was a journalists job to report on the facts. Anything other than that is simply suspicion.
That opinion may prove to be correct, but until it is proven so, the commentary must be about the actual events, not what the likes of Harmon feel might be going on.
Its called journalistic INTEGRITY.

Pretty much like the rest of the human race. you are able to overlook that integrity when it's at odds with your agenda.
 
As has already been suggested, the problem is that there are too many interests to be independent.

The media is, unfortunately, a business too. And the business mentality is what reigns, not individual integrity. Worse still when the people who are covering the sport have a vested interest in having that sport thrive and become more popular. Doping stories sell in the short-run, though in the long-run will turn people and sponsors away from the sport.

The delicate balance is, from the business perspective, in exploiting the one while establishing a bulwark against the other.

That's what those guys get paid to do, unless you have built your career in playing the spoiler a là Kimmage, but his is a unique case.

Worse is that everything has become so corporate these days. I mean can anyone really see another Woodward and Bernstein scenario under this media corporate regime of today?

The days of an even modicum of independent so called investigative journalism are over.
 
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
rhubroma said:
As has already been suggested, the problem is that there are too many interests to be independent.

The media is, unfortunately, a business too. And the business mentality is what reigns, not individual integrity. Worse still when the people who are covering the sport have a vested interest in having that sport thrive and become more popular. Doping stories sell in the short-run, though in the long-run will turn people and sponsors away from the sport.

The delicate balance is, from the business perspective, in exploiting the one while establishing a bulwark against the other.

That's what those guys get paid to do, unless you have built your career in playing the spoiler a là Kimmage, but his is a unique case.

Worse is that everything has become so corporate these days. I mean can anyone really see another Woodward and Bernstein scenario under this media corporate regime of today?

The days of an even modicum of independent so called investigative journalism are over.
Here I disagree slightly. There are who are just collecting the pay cheque, journalists who are completely starstruck by the people they have to cover and seem to lose any critical faculties when dealing with them. There are some who are very very vain and think that it is all about them, but there are some, even if they are few and far between who do believe in what they do. Not all journalists are ****s but the majority are.

I think you are right that short termism does dominate. The UCI, media etc were happy to cover for Armstrong because in 1999 it made sense financially to protect him. It put bums on seats, brought in viewers etc the problem is long term a lot of problems were stored up for the sport as we can see with the fallout of the investigation and the bad publicity, the perception of the sport as corrupt and drug fuelled and the loss of credibility of the authorities and the media. Ultimately, this is a rod that they've made for themselves by not being critical.

Ultimately it comes down to whether you think that talking about doping is more financially damaging to the sport than doping itself. I'd argue that the sport can't grow or even sustain itself not because of the stories about doping but because of the doping.

Stories about doping and corruption only exist because doping and corruption is endemic in the sport.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
rhubroma said:
As has already been suggested, the problem is that there are too many interests to be independent.

The media is, unfortunately, a business too. And the business mentality is what reigns, not individual integrity. Worse still when the people who are covering the sport have a vested interest in having that sport thrive and become more popular. Doping stories sell in the short-run, though in the long-run will turn people and sponsors away from the sport.

The delicate balance is, from the business perspective, in exploiting the one while establishing a bulwark against the other.

That's what those guys get paid to do, unless you have built your career in playing the spoiler a là Kimmage, but his is a unique case.

Worse is that everything has become so corporate these days. I mean can anyone really see another Woodward and Bernstein scenario under this media corporate regime of today?

The days of an even modicum of independent so called investigative journalism are over.
Not necessarily, but when you have so called sports fans, as seen on here, who would rather sweep it under the carpet or knocking those who have been very forthright in writing about doping, what can one expect?
 
I've been reading these forums for a long time and feel I have a fairly good grasp on where most frequent contributors stand, but I don't recall anyone saying things should be swept under the carpet.

I think an open an honest dialogue is paramount, but it's not so easy as some seem to think.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
the delgados said:
I've been reading these forums for a long time and feel I have a fairly good grasp on where most frequent contributors stand, but I don't recall anyone saying things should be swept under the carpet.

I think an open an honest dialogue is paramount, but it's not so easy as some seem to think.
you must have missed this then ;)

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=570165#post570165

06-22-11, 18:29
andy1234
Senior Member


Professional SPORT is awash with doping.
When other sports are subjected to the same level of scrutiny that pro cycling is, I will support full and frank discussion of it's problems in the media.

Untill cycling is competing on a level playing field with Football, Tennis and Swimming in terms of transparency, I'm happy to sweep the problems under the carpet the same way they do.
:)
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,845
0
0
Benotti69 said:
the delgados said:
I've been reading these forums for a long time and feel I have a fairly good grasp on where most frequent contributors stand, but I don't recall anyone saying things should be swept under the carpet.

I think an open an honest dialogue is paramount, but it's not so easy as some seem to think.
And to put this into the context it was written in....

This is purely a statement about how the press cover cycling, not doping in general.
The fight against doping is absolutely necessary and doping should NOT be swept inder the carpet.

However, as long as the media reports on other, equally dirty sports, without reference to doping, I would be happy for cycling to be treated the same.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS