You are the editor/boss/interviewer?

[sniper]

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.

i see what you mean. but be aware that it is implicit in your statement that, if tennis and football players screw with their bodies and take the fans for fools, you want cyclists to do the same.

you're also forgetting that there is a reason (in fact multiple reasons) why the press focuses more on cycling then on e.g. football when it comes to doping.

 

[andy1234]

i see what you mean. but be aware that it is implicit in your statement that, if tennis and football players screw with their bodies and take the fans for fools, you want cyclists to do the same.

you're also forgetting that there is a reason (in fact multiple reasons) why the press focuses more on cycling then on e.g. football when it comes to doping.

It isn't implicit that I want cyclists to do the same, because doping is neither encouraged or discouraged by media coverage of it.
If that were true, cycling would have few worries.
Doping is an issue in cycling, but it is doesn't have to be THE issue.

And I agree, there are multiple reasons why the media focuses more on cycling than say football. The main one is that there isn't a subplot created by previous scandal, but only because of the lack of scrutiny in other sports by testers and media alike.

 

[sniper]

It isn't implicit that I want cyclists to do the same, because doping is neither encouraged or discouraged by media coverage of it.
If that were true, cycling would have few worries.
Doping is an issue in cycling, but it is doesn't have to be THE issue.

And I agree, there are multiple reasons why the media focuses more on cycling than say football. The main one is that there isn't a subplot created by previous scandal, but only because of the lack of scrutiny in other sports by testers and media alike.

there is truth in the latter part.
but why is doping not discouraged by media coverage?
I believe it is.
e.g. the bloodpassport and other measures are really owing to the many years of bad publicity forcing the UCI to undertake action.

 

[Benotti69]

there is truth in the latter part.
but why is doping not discouraged by media coverage?
I believe it is.
e.g. the bloodpassport and other measures are really owing to the many years of bad publicity forcing the UCI to undertake action.

it really is as you say, the under carpet sweeping has created a mountain of hidden dope abuse and now journalists cant but trip over it.

 

[VeloCity]

A lot of people have suggested the media should be more focused on the subject of doping in an effort to change the sport.

So here we go, you work for Cycle Sport, ProCycling, Eurosport etc. You are in charge of how their cycling coverage develops.

For example, in the magazines your interview sujects are Brad Wiggins, Mark Cavendish, Dan Martin &TJ VanGarderen. Guys very likely to feature in English speaking magazines. How would the interviews develop? What questions would you ask etc?

Like wise you are managing director of Eurosport, what would you be telling your cycling commentators to talk about during coverage and what approach should they take.

But it's not in Cycle Sport or Eurosport's interest to expose doping, anymore than it is in the UCI's. They're trying to "sell" a "product" - ie cycling - so why would they print negative stories about that product? Be a bit self-defeating if you are Cycle Sport and you have a big needle full of EPO on your cover and a headline saying, hey, our sport is full of dopers. Not going to attract new customer bases or sell a whole lot of magazines that way.

I don't blame the cycling industry at all for focusing on the positive and avoiding the negative, it's just not in their best interests - they're trying to sell magazines and gain viewers, it's not their responsibility to clean up the sport.

 

[rhubroma]

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.

When I have listened to at my university a so called journalist from the NYT as Rome correspondent talk to a group of American students about what's going on in Berlusconi's Italy, I am left with little doubts about the abject state of journalism these days. Things well know seemed to be hidden, the dismal state of affairs was painted in bright colors of pink and orange, at worst a grotesque comedy of corruption to be admired for its more bizarre and "picturesque" aspects. The imbecility was appalling.

But I digress. I think the concentration of corporate and hence private power in the universe of information has meant that what often is told is misinforming, is opaque but not transparent. That's because of the business interests.

At the same time, when the volcano’s pressure exceeds all means to contain it, explosion and eruption is inevitable. Perhaps the cyber-world will give back to democracy what the conventional media has taken from it: objectivity and an unbiased approach. And so it is with the cycling reports, such as on this forum.

 

[andy1234]

it really is as you say, the under carpet sweeping has created a mountain of hidden dope abuse and now journalists cant but trip over it.

Those same journalists seem to be able to walk just fine through the carpeted halls of football and tennis though.

Dope problem in other sports?..... nah... Just sit down and enjoy the spectacle.

 

[rhubroma]

Those same journalists seem to be able to walk just fine through the carpeted halls of football and tennis though.

Dope problem in other sports?..... nah... Just sit down and enjoy the spectacle.

They're a cash cow. That's the real and only difference.

 

[Mambo95]

Perhaps the cyber-world will give back to democracy what the conventional media has taken from it: objectivity and an unbiased approach. And so it is with the cycling reports, such as on this forum.

Objectivity and unbiased reporting are the last things you will find on any internet forum (on any subject).

 

[Benotti69]

Those same journalists seem to be able to walk just fine through the carpeted halls of football and tennis though.

Dope problem in other sports?..... nah... Just sit down and enjoy the spectacle.

that's because those federations have better carpet cleaners unlike the UCI.

Anyone who believe's the transition of 18 year old skinny footballers into 20 year old gladiators is stupid as well as blind. But no accounting for football fans is there. As for Tennis well their fans are still getting over the shock of players not having to wear white.

 

[sniper]

that's because those federations have better carpet cleaners unlike the UCI.

Anyone who believe's the transition of 18 year old skinny footballers into 20 year old gladiators is stupid as well as blind. But no accounting for football fans is there. As for Tennis well their fans are still getting over the shock of players not having to wear white.

and they don't shave themselves anymore either

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-69718-4.html

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Interview:

Blabla, let´s say it´s 10 questions, i´d ask only one for doping. And that one not even directly.

Reason: I am from germany, i know how this discussion destroyed one sport. People are not clever as posters in the forum may think. Honestly, most believe only cycling is dirty. And that is because talking about doping only. The average naive citizen isn´t born with a functionating brain. So all this endless discussions led to is this: "Ah, you follow cycling. You´re an idiot. It´s dirty. I watch soccer. All brave and honest men".
Yep, it´s true, i´ve read such posts in german forums.
Now consider this: Jan Ullrich was left out for vote of athlete of century (or decade, can´t remember the exact phrase), but "greats" like Astrid Kumbernuss from Track&Field (DIRTY), swimmers (DIRTY), formula 1 (MEGA-DIRTY), soccer (MEGA-DIRTY) were voted for.

Commentating live event:
+ 90% about sport, news, landscape etc.
- 10% about doping; only if some NEW scandals errupted, or some NEW details.

Reasons: See above.

Cheers.

 

[rhubroma]

Objectivity and unbiased are the last things you will find on any internet forum (on any subject).

Yet it is democratic.

 

[Mambo95]

Yet it is democratic.

It may appear that way, but it's really not the case. On any internet forum, the tone of that forum is generally set by the most prolific posters in its early days. This tone will then attract the like minded and repel others. Minority views tend to get shouted down. What you end up with is a narrow subsection of a wider democraphic? If moderators are present, they are appointed from within.

If forums were truely democratic then the various cycling forums (limiting it to English language ones) would have a certain uniformity - but they clearly don't. They each have quite distinct characters. One forum's 'legendary poster' is another 'clueless troll'.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It may appear that way, but it's really not the case. On any internet forum, the tone of that forum is generally set by the most prolific posters in its early days. This tone will then attract the like minded and repel others. Minority views tend to get shouted down. What you end up with is a narrow subsection of a wider democraphic? If moderators are present, they are appointed from within.

If forums were truely democratic then the various cycling forums (limiting it to English language ones) would have a certain uniformity - but they clearly don't. They each have quite distinct characters. One forum's 'legendary poster' is another 'clueless troll'.

To the highlighted - that would surely back up 'Rhubromas' view.

What forums do is allow all points of view or opinions to be aired. It is not a Court of Law, nor is there a majority view.
Opinion, conjecture, information is presented and it is then left up to the individual reader to form their opinion.

 

[East Sycamore]

Here's an idea: if you're putting together a preview show for this year's Tour, you could mention at least once that the rider you've picked as a top favorite tested positive for a banned substance in last year's Tour and may not be able to keep his title. In fact, if he wins this year, it may not count depending on the outcome of the appeals from last year's positive test.

Seems important to mention, doesn't it? Just the facts, no need to question if he should even be able to ride in the Tour this year, etc.

Apparently even that is asking too much of Versus.

 

[rhubroma]

It may appear that way, but it's really not the case. On any internet forum, the tone of that forum is generally set by the most prolific posters in its early days. This tone will then attract the like minded and repel others. Minority views tend to get shouted down. What you end up with is a narrow subsection of a wider democraphic? If moderators are present, they are appointed from within.

If forums were truely democratic then the various cycling forums (limiting it to English language ones) would have a certain uniformity - but they clearly don't. They each have quite distinct characters. One forum's 'legendary poster' is another 'clueless troll'.

Well it's rather undemocratic that a minority and inside elite tells the reporters who then "inform" the public about what is actually taking place, as in the instance of cycling. For ten years we were sold the happy story about Armstrong, but not the real one, the one he and the UCI liked to tell, however false and manipulative, the one they wanted us to hear and believe. But also that they were doing a fine job against doping, with the so called testing procedures and thus that the results we saw were real.

Forums such as this tell the story they didn't want to be told, as has been going on for about the last 5, 6 years. How many revelations have come out here years before the so called journalist found out on programs like 60 Minutes?

Of course it's not infallible and one must be discerning in what one reads in terms of what is good and bad, but the story gets told much quicker than among the official channels.

This is novel and much welcome in an age of ever concentrated powers. The next step will be to try and control it, then we're all cooked. Clueless trolls and all.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

An internet forum in no way equals democracy.

If you need that phrase explained to you, go back to drinking cheap beer and hitting yourself in the head with a hammer.

 

[rhubroma]

An internet forum in no way equals democracy.

If you need that phrase explained to you, go back to drinking cheap beer and hitting yourself in the head with a hammer.

So where do you go to get democracy? To the town meeting? The dailies? The Arab Spring is certainly demonstrating otherwize.

That anyone can post their views, thoughts and ideas, may not always lead to the right answers and conclusions, though it is very democratic. Unless you might explain what democracy means better. I'm all ears.

Wiskey sour anyone?