Floyd Landis Vindicated!

Originally Posted by BullGod

That's why the Landis affair hit so hard - it was supposed to be the Tour of redemption to redeem the sport of cycling after Operation Puerto....and then things got even worse.

I think we can draw two conclusions -

1) Riders who want to win the hardest races probably dope, Americans too.

2) The "red blooded", SUV driving, Bible bashing, war hungry, ultra-patriotic God Bless America attitude has nothing to do with cycling and doesn't belong in a rational debate about whether or not a man took drugs to win a bike race. Go and cheer at a lethal execution or something...

Originally Posted by fauxpas

You're a git. If this is true, then don't show up... Pull all yanks out of euro cycle sport... Having yanks and yank brands in international cycling, truely makes it international...

In the '80s, USA track cycling team at the olympics had million dollar bikes made by nasa and a blood swapping caravan... The team would sit in the van with their blood being constantly run through a machine till the very last second before the race. This was legal at the time, and shows yanks don't mind being inovators...

ppl don't want yanks not to win, they just hate the over-patriotic denial inherent in yanks that automatically says landis musta been framed and setup...

Originally Posted by BullGod

The idea that the French would deliberately sabotage their own national sporting showpiece just to stop an American winning is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by helmutRoole2

Oh I do love a media conspiracist. Here's my standard reply to media conspiracist besides, "you're being ignorant."

...Anyway, back to the issue, which is, how people perceive the inner workings of the media, particularly mainstream newspapers and magazines. I've worked as a reporter and editor for daily newspapers and weekly/monthly magazines around the USA and I've sat through hours of editorial meetings (called budgets) and I've never heard anyone say, "okay people, let's figure out how we can spin the news today." It doesn't happen.

Newspaper reporters and editors, once they rise to the level of LA Times -- and even before that -- are not biased. You're going to have to take my word on this. If they're biased, they get fired. It's a matter of ethics, which starts in J101 and in every college journalism class there after. If they're biased, and secretly grinding an ax in their reporting, it'll be obvious and the editor or publisher will give them the boot.

Don't get the news pages confused with op/ed pages where anything goes. That's why, on bigger newspapers, reporters and section editors don't write op/ed pieces. (side note: on NY Times newspapers, the op/ed office is separated from the rest of the newsroom). It's an obvious conflict of interest. Small town weekly newspapers, you'll see reporters and section editors writing op/ed pieces due to labor shortages, but it's still wrong. Bigger newspapers, it doesn't happen. Reporters report. They don't spin. If they have opinions, which they do, those opinions should not be perceivable to the reader. If they are, they're fired.

Now, do reporters and editors make mistakes? All the time. And why? Because they're thinking about punching out, or they get bad information, or because they don't have a firm handle on the information or a grasp of the situation, like the case with LA Times. The newsroom is like any other work place. People make mistakes for a variety of reasons. When someone down at the Ford plant installs a part wrong, is that a conspiracy? Mistakes happen. People start thinking about punching out or they just get sloppy. There's no Rush Limbaugh or Air America media conspiracy going on. That's just a bunch of crap to sell radio advertising.

It's over simplification to believe that the reporters and editors for the LA Times have it in for Lance and that they're willing to prostitute their ethics so they can make money for their newspaper or work a book deal. Same thing with the French press. It's obvious jingoism to say that, just because Lance, an American, won the Tour, a French race, that the French media is out to get him (side note: they never went after LeMond). It makes me cringe when Lance alludes to that nonsense like he did` repeatedly at the ESPY awards last night. He's playing to jingoistic, none-thinking Americans because, really, aside from those in the cycling community, that's his fan base.

Now, about TV news. Look, if you get all your news-related information from the boob tube, you get what you get. TV news, by in large, caters to people of average intelligence, and in America, that means average folks encumbered with buying power. These people aren't thinking about the intricacies of world or sporting politics. They're thinking about what kind of golf clubs to buy or the color of their new kitchen cabinets or how much horsepower that new riding lawnmower has. They don't have time to get mired in details about two big fat messy wars much less whether LA doped.

Come on. Drop the media conspiracy crap.

Originally Posted by limerickman

Landis didn't challenge the B sample.

If the sample identity numbers were askew, why didn't he challenge the B sample result?
By not challenging he has let two months go by - with his reputation lying in tatters.
That's of course if this "new information" is true.

if it's true now - it must have been true back then.

Also it's my recollection that the opening and testing of the B sample was done in the presence of Landis lawyer too.

Originally Posted by Minnaert

One more addition to this...If you are below the L.A. times and aren't selling anything either, then you get fired. Its called revenue! You need it to pay the bills. Everything in a capitalistic society is designed and needs to make a profit! So, the media wouldn't even carry this story if it wasn't going to get ratings, sell papers, or create an advantagous market some how.

Originally Posted by helmutRoole2

Okay, give me an example.

It's an overly simplistic explanation for hearing news you don't want to hear.

Look, if you've ever spent any time inside a newsroom you'd drop this, "it's all about selling newspapers" crap. It doesn't happen. No one in the newsroom cares about how many newspapers are being sold. It doesn't enter into the equation.

Media-conspiracy is a cop out. It just doesn't exist.

Here's where people get confused. Many believe that, since the LATimes has no interest in running cycling results and stories about the classics or the Vuelta or anything less than the Tour, but they will run a story about Armstrong doping, then the paper is trying to make money off Armstrong's good name.

The fact is, the general public at large doesn't care about cycling. They have an interest in Armstrong. Knowing their audience, why would the LAT run stories about things their audience could care less about. They're not catering to a niche market. That's for Velonews and the like. The LAT and all other newspapers, big or small, identify their audience and deliver what they believe their audience wants and sometimes needs to know. Sports is entertainment, so that last bit doesn't apply.

Believe me, no one sits down in any editorial meeting and decides to run a story -- any story -- because they think it's going to sell newspapers or because they think it's going to further a political agenda. The reason is, morally ethical people would get up and walk out. In most the newsrooms I've worked at, that would be just about everyone. Every journalist knows that it's wrong to have those types of discussion and do those types of things.

Media conspiracy bias: it does not happen.

Originally Posted by helmutRoole2

Oh I do love a media conspiracist. Here's my standard reply to media conspiracist besides, "you're being ignorant."

...Anyway, back to the issue, which is, how people perceive the inner workings of the media, particularly mainstream newspapers and magazines. I've worked as a reporter and editor for daily newspapers and weekly/monthly magazines around the USA and I've sat through hours of editorial meetings (called budgets) and I've never heard anyone say, "okay people, let's figure out how we can spin the news today." It doesn't happen.

Newspaper reporters and editors, once they rise to the level of LA Times -- and even before that -- are not biased. You're going to have to take my word on this. If they're biased, they get fired. It's a matter of ethics, which starts in J101 and in every college journalism class there after. If they're biased, and secretly grinding an ax in their reporting, it'll be obvious and the editor or publisher will give them the boot.

Don't get the news pages confused with op/ed pages where anything goes. That's why, on bigger newspapers, reporters and section editors don't write op/ed pieces. (side note: on NY Times newspapers, the op/ed office is separated from the rest of the newsroom). It's an obvious conflict of interest. Small town weekly newspapers, you'll see reporters and section editors writing op/ed pieces due to labor shortages, but it's still wrong. Bigger newspapers, it doesn't happen. Reporters report. They don't spin. If they have opinions, which they do, those opinions should not be perceivable to the reader. If they are, they're fired.

Now, do reporters and editors make mistakes? All the time. And why? Because they're thinking about punching out, or they get bad information, or because they don't have a firm handle on the information or a grasp of the situation, like the case with LA Times. The newsroom is like any other work place. People make mistakes for a variety of reasons. When someone down at the Ford plant installs a part wrong, is that a conspiracy? Mistakes happen. People start thinking about punching out or they just get sloppy. There's no Rush Limbaugh or Air America media conspiracy going on. That's just a bunch of crap to sell radio advertising.

It's over simplification to believe that the reporters and editors for the LA Times have it in for Lance and that they're willing to prostitute their ethics so they can make money for their newspaper or work a book deal. Same thing with the French press. It's obvious jingoism to say that, just because Lance, an American, won the Tour, a French race, that the French media is out to get him (side note: they never went after LeMond). It makes me cringe when Lance alludes to that nonsense like he did` repeatedly at the ESPY awards last night. He's playing to jingoistic, none-thinking Americans because, really, aside from those in the cycling community, that's his fan base.

Now, about TV news. Look, if you get all your news-related information from the boob tube, you get what you get. TV news, by in large, caters to people of average intelligence, and in America, that means average folks encumbered with buying power. These people aren't thinking about the intricacies of world or sporting politics. They're thinking about what kind of golf clubs to buy or the color of their new kitchen cabinets or how much horsepower that new riding lawnmower has. They don't have time to get mired in details about two big fat messy wars much less whether LA doped.

Come on. Drop the media conspiracy crap.

Originally Posted by Jacob24

one of the largest and most influencial newspapers in america, the new york times, is 100% biased against conservatives, and totally misreports the war, wake up

Originally Posted by helmutRoole2

Yeah, I used to work for them.

And your examples of this 100 percent bias would be?

Would it be, "It's just common knowledge, dude. Come on!"

And the war? What a mess. And this coming from a someone who actually served on the ground in the middle east (82nd AB, 3rd Ranger Bat., 46Q attached -- JTF Somalia) I'm sure my boys are enjoying themselves over there, sleeping on the ground, eating MREs, watching their buddys get their arms and legs blown off and killed, rotating in for up to 18 months and then rotating back out for six then back for 12. It's great watching your kids grow up via video tape.

Boys who never had the balls to go down to the recruiter station and sign up are always the biggest hawks. Our veep is the perfect example. I signed up because I needed a fucking job, not because I was a hero or patriotic. There were a few whack jobs who were the exception, but most everyone I served with fit into that category.

I don't suppose you served in the military, but you probably wish you had. Guys like you don't even make it past basic, much less jump school, air assult school, AIT... Never met a rich kid in the military. Not enlisted anyway.

Don't get me started on that goddamn war.

Originally Posted by fauxpas

It does speed up the body's ability to repair itself... hence stage 16/17 results...

2 + 2 = 4