The boy doth protest too much, methinks

[Steelman]

Armstrong Angry at Frankie. Go figure. By the way, Frankie never tested postive either. :rolleyes:

Armstrong reacts angrily to Andreu confession (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/sep06/sep13news) Can't believe Lance would get mad at anyone. :rolleyes:


http://www.larsonsworld.com/tdf/04tdf/photos/images/stg18%20-%20Lance%20Armstrong,%20Fillipo%20Simeoni%20-%20AFP.jpg

[Zard]

This stuff justs gets more and more interesting or sick not sure which one yet.

This is the follow up article in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/13/sports/othersports/13cycling.html

The most interesting part of the article for me was this:
Steve Johnson, the chief executive of USA Cycling, the sport’s national governing body, commended Andreu for speaking out. Andreu is a member of the USA Cycling board.

“The truth is the best policy,” Johnson said. “That’s what my mother always said.”

O.K. that's sounds like a reasonable response. Then we get this:

Jim Ochowicz, the president of the USA Cycling board, said the organization did not condone the use of performance-enhancing drugs. He said that he did not agree with Andreu’s characterization that professional cycling had secrets and that doping was a widespread problem.“It’s not our position that people are hiding the facts,” he said. “But Frankie certainly is entitled to his opinion.”

It's really assuring that the president of the USA Cycling board doesn't believe there is a problem with drugs in cycling. I wonder who he is friends with??? How deep does this all go?

[BBB]

And this is coming from the guy who was a consultant to Phonak.

[jeffg]

Armstrong Angry at Frankie. Go figure. By the way, Frankie never tested postive either. :rolleyes:



In Lance's view the newspaper article is heavy on the Lance teammate angle and only mentions the statement of both riders that they witnessed no wrongdoing on Lance's part towards the end of the article.

He might be mad at Frankie too, but I am sure not more so than when he testified against him in court.

[weiwentg]

Armstrong Angry at Frankie. Go figure. By the way, Frankie never tested postive either. :rolleyes:

Armstrong reacts angrily to Andreu confession (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/sep06/sep13news) Can't believe Lance would get mad at anyone. :rolleyes:



I have to ask, though, what choice does Lance really have? if he did win clean, he has every right to be angry, more so considering the sheer number of allegations he's faced. I don't think he's protesting too much.

of course, if he didn't win clean, he probably figures that his best choice to protest, and protest loudly...

the above incident with Simeoni really spoiled it for me. at best it was an incident of pettiness and poor sportsmanship. at worst it was an endorsement of the code of silence that Andreu was trying to get out of - the one Ochowiz says doesn't exist. I'm not treating that as proof that Lance doped, but it does mean that I won't be donating to his foundation. ever.

[stevep]

shakespeare was no fool imho.
well put.
anyone ever notice that he had a great affinity for the english language?

[manet]

tho?

[Big Dan]

Lance is all class , all the time...............

:rolleyes:

[pale scotsman]

Frankie did an NPR interview this morning and the reporter tried and tried to get "it" to be about Lance. Frankie was pretty smooth in that he said; it's about him (Frankie) and trying to clean up cycling. The way he said it, and observing how Lance "is" made me kind of feel Frankie is not too happy with his former team mate.

[goonster]

Anybody else see "The Illusionist"* yet?

The Jessica Biel and Rufus Sewell characters have a bit of a falling out.

JB: "It's not about you at all"

RS: (screaming, trembling with rage) "Everything is about me!"

http://www.aboutrufus.com/TheIllusionist1.jpg

That would be Lance, consumed by the advanced stages of narcissism. :rolleyes:

(* = mediocre screenplay, gorgeous photography, some juicy acting by Sewell and Giamatti.)

[Keith A]

Here's the link (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6066570) to the NPR story.

Q: Do you have any information about Lance Armstrong's drug use?
A: You talk to Lance about that, I'm not talking about Lance Armstrong. This has to do with me.
Q: Only about you?
A: This is only about me.

It seems (to me) that the interviewer was really more interested in how this related to LA, rather then what Frankie has admitted to doing.

By the way, Frankie never tested postive either. :rolleyes:
True, but his EPO usage was prior to the better testing that they now have available.

[Archibald]

Lance is all class , all the time.........Now we wait for Archi to deliver his venom....

:rolleyes:
LOL!

You're STILL pouting?!

Get over me already!

Here, this might help you. (http://www.rejectionline.com/mp3/male.mp3)

:banana:

[harlond]

I'm not a believer in LA's innocence (nor do I care one way or the other), but I thought he had a very good point. Except for the association with LA, the NYT never puts this story on the front page or devotes more than a few column inches to it. The entire point of the story is guilt by association, and if that's the story, in fairness the NYT ought to give more prominence to the evidence, detailed in LA's press release, that Frankie himself says he was never a witness to LA doping and has no significant evidence to give on that point. I neither despise nor idolize LA, and I think that insofar as this story concerns LA, it's a hatchet job.

[swoop]

oy.

[Steelman]

In Lance's view the newspaper article is heavy on the Lance teammate angle and only mentions the statement of both riders that they witnessed no wrongdoing on Lance's part towards the end of the article.

He might be mad at Frankie too, but I am sure not more so than when he testified against him in court.

I'm sure Lance never witnessed Frankie taking drugs either.

[BumbleBeeDave]

I'm not a believer in LA's innocence (nor do I care one way or the other), but I thought he had a very good point. Except for the association with LA, the NYT never puts this story on the front page or devotes more than a few column inches to it. The entire point of the story is guilt by association, and if that's the story, in fairness the NYT ought to give more prominence to the evidence, detailed in LA's press release, that Frankie himself says he was never a witness to LA doping and has no significant evidence to give on that point. I neither despise nor idolize LA, and I think that insofar as this story concerns LA, it's a hatchet job.

. . . on that score.

Admittedly, the main reason it's on the front page would seem to be because Andreu was on Lance's team in '99. As a journalist myself, I feel the more appropriate place for the story would have been on the sports front. But I also have no idea what else ended up on the front page that day or what their own available local/national/world story mix was. I go to a news meeting each afternoon myself where each editor pitches what they feel are their best stories for the front page. There are days where the decision of what 5-6 stories to put out there is REALLY hard--there are many stories available that represent important developments in major continuing stories. But there are also other days where we look at what's happened that day and roll our eyes. You may have heard the old joke about the historical marker that proudly proclaims, "On this date in 1776, nothing happened on this spot." Well, that the spot we feel like we're in occasionally.

So the mere fact that the story WAS on the front page may not necessarily indicate a hatchet job. It may just indicate that the editor felt it was the most interesting of a (relatively) boring lot for that day. We've had to do that ourselves, uh, several times over the years . . . :rolleyes:

As for the actual content of the story, there's an absolute journalistic obligation to reference Andreu's connection to Lance in the story because that's really the ONLY reason the story is significant--Frankie was on the team when Lance pulled off his miracle comeback-from-cancer win. If someone on that team with Lance admits to doping, then that's NEWS in every sense of the word, whether Lance likes it or not. In fact, I'm very surprised they didn't have it much higher in the story. To leave it out would have made it a non-story. But to not mention it at all would have left them open to complaints they were bieng too easy on Lance and would have have left readers asking themselves, "Huh? Who the H*ll is Frankie Andreu? Why are they telling us about this? Who cares?"

So no matter WHAT they do, somebody is going to complain that they are either being too hard or too easy, or doing a "hatchet job" . . . I don't think it necessarily belonged on the news front, but it IS a legit story and it SHOULD reference Lance in relation to the whole thing. When it comes to claiming the spoils of being team leader he seems all too ready to accept the trophy, but when it comes to the possibility that his style of leadership may have created an atmosphere in which team members felt they had to cheat to maintain the standards he expected, then he's running the other way, or so it seems to me.

BBD

[SPOKE]

a book deal for Frankie. :beer:

[harlond]

. . . on that score.

Admittedly, the main reason it's on the front page would seem to be because Andreu was on Lance's team in '99. As a journalist myself, I feel the more appropriate place for the story would have been on the sports front. But I also have no idea what else ended up on the front page that day or what their own available local/national/world story mix was. I go to a news meeting each afternoon myself where each editor pitches what they feel are their best stories for the front page. There are days where the decision of what 5-6 stories to put out there is REALLY hard--there are many stories available that represent important developments in major continuing stories. But there are also other days where we look at what's happened that day and roll our eyes. You may have heard the old joke about the historical marker that proudly proclaims, "On this date in 1776, nothing happened on this spot." Well, that the spot we feel like we're in occasionally.

So the mere fact that the story WAS on the front page may not necessarily indicate a hatchet job. It may just indicate that the editor felt it was the most interesting of a (relatively) boring lot for that day. We've had to do that ourselves, uh, several times over the years . . . :rolleyes:

As for the actual content of the story, there's an absolute journalistic obligation to reference Andreu's connection to Lance in the story because that's really the ONLY reason the story is significant--Frankie was on the team when Lance pulled off his miracle comeback-from-cancer win. If someone on that team with Lance admits to doping, then that's NEWS in every sense of the word, whether Lance likes it or not. In fact, I'm very surprised they didn't have it much higher in the story. To leave it out would have made it a non-story. But to not mention it at all would have left them open to complaints they were bieng too easy on Lance and would have have left readers asking themselves, "Huh? Who the H*ll is Frankie Andreu? Why are they telling us about this? Who cares?"

So no matter WHAT they do, somebody is going to complain that they are either being too hard or too easy, or doing a "hatchet job" . . . I don't think it necessarily belonged on the news front, but it IS a legit story and it SHOULD reference Lance in relation to the whole thing.

BBDIt's one thing to report that a former teammate of LA admitted doping and it's another thing entirely to reserve to halfway thru the story--and off the front page--the information that the former teammate has little or no significant evidence to give about whether LA doped. All they had to do was move the information up to the second paragraph. But then you have no story, since all but the hardcore fans don't care or know about the former teammates. That's why it's a hatchet job in spite of your points--the NYT chose to present the story in the way that maximized the damage to LA's reputation. Indeed, the real news I've learned from this is not that Frankie did some EPO, but that Frankie does NOT corroborate Swart's story that LA led a team meeting where the decision to dope was made. I don't think that fact made it into the story. Again, I'm not a believer in LA's innocence, but this is not a fair story.

[97CSI]

Was entertaining to listen to Frankie on an early morning live interview on NPR. All questions were about LA and LA's doping, until the end of the interview, where, finally, the interviewer ask why Frankie 'came clean'. So it isn't all LA. The interviewers are very guilty, which was obviously pissing Frankie off this a.m. But, LA does own several railcars of printing ink and doesn't mind using it. :D