French newspaper L'Equipe.

[JohnO]

That was my impression as well. I've read translations of L'Equipe's coverage of the 05 Tour, and it did seem like bitter grapes throughout their coverage. The 'welcomed retirement' article was just a continuation of this, not a sudden change of direction.

So it's not the end of the world - a sports rag slants it's coverage, I'm shocked and surprised. However, that same sports rag is making provocative charges, based on incomplete and unverifiable assertions obtained by dubious means, with apparent intent to damage the reputation of a legend. At that point, the 'wink and a nod' that governs ethics in the typical sports reporting is no longer adequate. A publication that habitually prejudices it's stories shouldn't go tossing serious accusations around without meeting a substantially higher burden of proof.

 

[Turenne]

The thing I dont understand is how you ignore L'Equipes negativity towards LA, not just on the "good riddance" column in which there were several negative editorialized comments about LA but their coverage for the whole tour in which their coverage smacked of sour grapes. How you cant acknowledge this is beyond me. Believe their coverage if you like but at least acknowledge they have always reported to an extent with a bias towards LA. To fail to recognize said bias undermines your opinion about their credibility.

Nugsfan, I read L'Equipe almost daily! There's no such thing as a general anti-Armstrong stance. Some journalists are bored with LA, true. You must also understand that LA is not very open to journalists, to spectators, he usually has bodygards (!), he's pretty arrogant while riding (stretching in the Courchevel climb this year; terrible eyes thrown at other cyclists...). You have to admit that LA doesn't do anything to be popular.
This, alongside LA's domination, may have provoked a bit "fed-up feeling" about LA. But this sentiment is more among the public (especially german or italian fans) than in L'Equipe, which have some journalists very favourable to LA. Some journalists are critical towards LA, but absolutely not at the point to invent a scandal.
I really urge you to open and read this serious newspaper.

 

[MJtje]

Dude the beauty of this sport is that LA will always be called an hero or legend.......look at merckx, hinault.....all doped all are gods in there country!

Vandenbroecke is still riding in the peloton....WTF one of the biggest PROVEN dopers.....people don't mind......!! Can you imagine seeing a TDF with 35 km/hour taking hours and hours to finish.........

The public loves those (not normal) crazy speeds.....we love it!! Riding the alpe like Pantani did with 24 km/hour after 220 km's is not normal....yet we love it!! He's a legend in cycling.......

So LA's image might be destroyed a bit..........but in 20 years we will tell people around us remember el americano who kicked ass in the TDF like everyone was standing still.......

NO one will care in 20 years....everything is forgotten and LA has his money....wrong or right!! That is also part of the history of cycling.....

However that doesn't mean you can't publish negatively about LA and other riders, cause the problem is and will always be there.......

That was my impression as well. I've read translations of L'Equipe's coverage of the 05 Tour, and it did seem like bitter grapes throughout their coverage. The 'welcomed retirement' article was just a continuation of this, not a sudden change of direction.

So it's not the end of the world - a sports rag slants it's coverage, I'm shocked and surprised. However, that same sports rag is making provocative charges, based on incomplete and unverifiable assertions obtained by dubious means, with apparent intent to damage the reputation of a legend. At that point, the 'wink and a nod' that governs ethics in the typical sports reporting is no longer adequate. A publication that habitually prejudices it's stories shouldn't go tossing serious accusations around without meeting a substantially higher burden of proof.

 

[Turenne]

That was my impression as well. I've read translations of L'Equipe's coverage of the 05 Tour, and it did seem like bitter grapes throughout their coverage. The 'welcomed retirement' article was just a continuation of this, not a sudden change of direction.

Don't forget that this scandal began in 2004 (tests by the lab) and that L'Equipe journalists covering the 05 Tour had already huge presomptions that LA cheated in 1999...
My guess is they somehow waited for LA to win his Tour before publishing the whole story. Pretty fair from L'Equipe. An english tabloid wouldn't have hesitated to publish a dubious stroy in the middle of the competition!

 

[wineandkeyz]

Don't forget that this scandal began in 2004 (tests by the lab) and that L'Equipe journalists covering the 05 Tour had already huge presomptions that LA cheated in 1999...
My guess is they somehow waited for LA to win his Tour before publishing the whole story. Pretty fair from L'Equipe. An english tabloid wouldn't have hesitated to publish a dubious stroy in the middle of the competition!

Your "guess" would be incorrect. The guy who wrote the article claims he got the last bit of information he needed a few days before the article came out. Since you read L'Equipe daily, you should read a bit closer.

By the way, I find it interesting that you admit that L'Equipe's "journalists" had "presomptions" (sic) that Armstrong cheated. A truly objective journalist might have suspicions, but not presumptions.

 

[Turenne]

Your "guess" would be incorrect. The guy who wrote the article claims he got the last bit of information he needed a few days before the article came out. Since you read L'Equipe daily, you should read a bit closer.

By the way, I find it interesting that you admit that L'Equipe's "journalists" had "presomptions" (sic) that Armstrong cheated. A truly objective journalist might have suspicions, but not presumptions.

The last bit of information means healready knew the most part.

As for suspicions/presomptions/presumptions, excuse my english. If you're able to read french or polish, I'll write you in these languages and use proper terms.
It's not very fair for you to use my mistakes to make a point...

 

[wineandkeyz]

The last bit of information means healready knew the most part.

As for suspicions/presomptions/presumptions, excuse my english. If you're able to read french or polish, I'll write you in these languages and use proper terms.
It's not very fair for you to use my mistakes to make a point...

Actually, I think your use of "presumptions" was correct. From the follow-on article you posted recently, it was obvious that the reporter already presumed that Armstrong was doping and would do anything he possibly could to prove it.

And that's where you and I differ -- I think the reporter would do anything (including doctoring the samples if he could get his hands on them, falsifying documents, etc.) to salvage his story. You accept his story as gospel.

If you truly didn't understand the distinction between presumption and suspicion, it wasn't fair of me to use that to make a point. I was parsing words just as you have every time someone here accuses L'Equipe of "tabloid journalism."

 

[limerickman]

It seems that some Stateside fans still insist that L'Equipe is the
culprit in the Armstrong saga.

L'Equipe reported the results of the tests carried out by WADA.
L'Equipe of itself didn't derive the result of the 6 separate positive
tests - WADA derived the results.
I would have thought that if the Armstrong fans had an issue, it would
be WADA.

Instead, we have Stateside fans muttering darkly about "conspiracies"
and "biased reporting" and "Armstrong bashing".
If a stick is being used to beat Armstrong - WADA (and indeed Armstrong
by doping) gave that stick to L'Equipe.

What would any news journalism agency do if they were briefed about a
doping scandal by the UCI ?
Are L'Equipe supposed to stay quiet ?

Seems to me that Stateside folk don't understand the role of responsible
journalism.
Perhaps, our Stateside friends are too used to the embedded variety of
journalism that seems to have permeated every aspect of US journalism and public opinion ie. we don't report fact, we report what we consider to be facts.

 

[Turenne]

Actually, I think your use of "presumptions" was correct. From the follow-on article you posted recently, it was obvious that the reporter already presumed that Armstrong was doping and would do anything he possibly could to prove it.

And that's where you and I differ -- I think the reporter would do anything (including doctoring the samples if he could get his hands on them, falsifying documents, etc.) to salvage his story. You accept his story as gospel.

If you truly didn't understand the distinction between presumption and suspicion, it wasn't fair of me to use that to make a point. I was parsing words just as you have every time someone here accuses L'Equipe of "tabloid journalism."

Wine, at 2005 TdF time, the reporter (so his collegues, I guess) presumed LA was doping because the reporter already studied the case for months! Ressiot was at that case for four months. At July, he just waited some confirmations to what he already knew.

Again, you are wrong if you think L'Equipe is a tabloid and L'Equipe journalists liars. L'Equipe is very good at investigating and everybody is happy when they make revelations; only when Armstrong is caught, everybody become crazy. They trashed the cheater Richard Virenque in 1998 and, believe me, I was very happy journalists did their jobs. Why should Armstrong be above other? Because he is Armstrong? Because he is American? I don't understand...

Yes, I didn't understand the distinction because I'm not an english native-speaker.

 

[limerickman]

And you make a good point.

Re-reading some of the pro-LA fans here, you'd think that they supported cheating.
Regardless of ones feelings in the matter, all sportsfans must welcome the exposure of cheating ? No ?

Yes, I am sure that it is difficult for fans when their heroe has been found to have cheated.
And I am sure those same fans will fight the case for their particular favourite.
After all it's only natural.

But the fact remains that EPO was found in 6 separate samples.
The 1999 test gave false negatives to several riders.
As fans we should welcome the advance in the war against cheating.

 

[nugsfan]

You both go to the extreme in believing that this has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and any call to question how a paper like L'Equipe which had been none too kind to LA (a point you go around completely and flatly deny)had access to documents proving those samples where LA's when they should not have thus proving their story and then not understanding how anyone can question this is beyond me. This has nothing to do with the difference between the bias of American Journalism vs the Bias of French journalism and to have a superiority complex that one is less bias than the other is insane. It is human nature to slant your reporting towards your own convictions/beliefs. The simple fact you can not acknowledge this principle yet take on face value every word of that story as the gospel truth taints your argument to an extreme. Did he cheat in 1999? Who can say for sure, what has been presented thus far certainly hasnt proven it, all it has done is sling mud. some people believe what the enquirer writes too and who knows maybe all those rednecks are being abducted by aliens but I tend to take everything I read/see reported with a grain of salt and draw my own conclusions.

 

[wineandkeyz]

Again, you are wrong if you think L'Equipe is a tabloid and L'Equipe journalists liars. L'Equipe is very good at investigating and everybody is happy when they make revelations...

I don't assume the folks at L'Equipe are liars, but I'm not naive enough to buy their story hook, line, and sinker the way you and limerickman have.

Here in the U.S., we've experienced a number of athletes being caught doping or using steroids. But we've also had a lot of experience with supposedly reputable journalists (is "reputable journalist" an oxymoron?) doing anything they can -- including falsifying documents -- to slam a major figure.

 

[limerickman]

I don't assume the folks at L'Equipe are liars, but I'm not naive enough to buy their story hook, line, and sinker the way you and limerickman have.

Here in the U.S., we've experienced a number of athletes being caught doping or using steroids. But we've also had a lot of experience with supposedly reputable journalists (is "reputable journalist" an oxymoron?) doing anything they can -- including falsifying documents -- to slam a major figure.

Here's why I think L'Equipe isn't telling lies.

1. The libel laws here in Europe - but especially in Britain and Ireland - are draconian.
If the reputation of a person is defamed in writing, the person who has been defamed has recourse in law to sue and to win sizable damages against the
publication which committed the libel.
All media org are required to exercise strict editorial guidelines in relation to libel BEFORE an article is even considered for publication.
Note cases like Archer V Daily Star, Hamilton V The Guardian.
Even when the Guardian published what transpired to be the truth, they were sued by the defendants who claimed that they had been defamed.
L'Equipe would be ver very aware that anything that they publish about Armstrong has to be as watertight as possible - given Armstrong's litigious nature and given the bias in law toward the party defamed.

2.The theory put forward by some that the 6 samples were not compliant with the proper "chain of custody" at Chatanay Malabry, appears to question the professionalism of competent expert staff at that laboratory.
Further the notion that a "nationalistic technician" would deliberately and willfully manipulate 6 separate samples, put forward by the LA supporters here, is an attempt to put in to question the professional and ethical duty of the staff at C-M.
There is no evidence for such charges.

3. It is in WADA's interests to ensure that all results communicated to the UCI must be above scrutiny.
Remember WADA has only been granted autonomy to test on a worldwide basis in the last couple of years.
Would WADA really jepordise their professional and ethical duties by trying to bring down a cyclist, already in retirement by lying or sabotaging 6 separate
samples ?

4 It is in the interest of everyone that the media do pursue facts.
L'Equipe know that Armstrong will continually attempt to deny cheating.
L'Equipe know that if they print an allegation that Armstrong will attempt to obfuscate the issue.
L'Equipe, inless they're completely incompetent, must be aware that they have to have the i's dotted and t's crossed on every allegation that they print

 

[Turenne]

And you make a good point.

Re-reading some of the pro-LA fans here, you'd think that they supported cheating.
Regardless of ones feelings in the matter, all sportsfans must welcome the exposure of cheating ? No ?

Yes, I am sure that it is difficult for fans when their heroe has been found to have cheated.
And I am sure those same fans will fight the case for their particular favourite.
After all it's only natural.

But the fact remains that EPO was found in 6 separate samples.
The 1999 test gave false negatives to several riders.
As fans we should welcome the advance in the war against cheating.

Lim, I remember when I was younger and liked very much the french football team Olympique Marseille. The then president of the club - the sulfurous Bernard Tapie - has been caught in 1993 in a corruption which eventually led to Marseille being retrograded. I was a fan at that time and denied L'Equipe charges, calling them names, believing they were anti-Marseille journalists participating in a parisian plot against the province...
You see? Nothing new about people calling names L'Equipe... Fortunately, I matured a little bit since

 

[Turenne]

You both go to the extreme in believing that this has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and any call to question how a paper like L'Equipe which had been none too kind to LA (a point you go around completely and flatly deny) had access to documents proving those samples where LA's when they should not have thus proving their story and then not understanding how anyone can question this is beyond me. .

Nug, L'Equipe never invented a scandal to discredit somebody. Believe me, I read it for more than 15 years and it is a centenary newspaper. They never lied about a doping/corruption scandal, N.E.V.E.R. They always told the truth:doping in cyclism (Festina affair and Virenque's lies, LA now), corruption in football, doping in athletism and rugby etc... Maybe you're not aware that many french sportives hate L'Equipe because the paper revealed their scandals.
I dont know why you're persuaded they began to lie with LA.

 

[Turenne]

Here in the U.S., we've experienced a number of athletes being caught doping or using steroids. But we've also had a lot of experience with supposedly reputable journalists (is "reputable journalist" an oxymoron?) doing anything they can -- including falsifying documents -- to slam a major figure.

I don't know US medias, but l'Equipe is not like that, wine. Just make me the pleasure to open this paper and make your own opinion, OK?

 

[Turenne]

2.The theory put forward by some that the 6 samples were not compliant with the proper "chain of custody" at Chatanay Malabry, appears to question the professionalism of competent expert staff at that laboratory.
Further the notion that a "nationalistic technician" would deliberately and willfully manipulate 6 separate samples, put forward by the LA supporters here, is an attempt to put in to question the professional and ethical duty of the staff at C-M.
There is no evidence for such charges.

Actually, the samples were anonymous when checked by the lab. Only identified by a number. This identifiant is known by the french Ministry of Sports; the ministry knows sportives' number (not the lab). It's in the ministry that Ressiot discovered that the number of the six samples were LA's identifiant.

 

[Turenne]

By the way, have you seen that the three other names were published by an another french newspaper... Since L'Equipe wasn't 100% sure, we have to take this cautiously. Le Journal du Dimanche isn't a tabloid, however it isn't as serious as L'Equipe either.

French newspaper Journal du Dimanche (JDD) has now done what L'Equipe dared not to do, publishing the names of the three other riders that tested 'positive' to EPO at the prologue of the 1999 Tour de France, and linked their names to the three other positive samples allegedly taken after the prologue.

Until now, sports newspaper L'Equipe has not revealed these names because it lacked sufficient evidence to verify that the samples tested by the doping laboratory in Châtenay-Malabry were indeed those of the three riders named by Le Journal du Dimanche. According to the paper, the three other riders that tested positive after the prologue in Puy-du-Fou on July 3, 1999, are: Manuel Beltran (currently Discovery Channel), José Joachim Castelblanco (formerly Kelme, now suspended for two years under another doping charge) and Bo Hamburger (currently Acqua & Sapone), the latter rider also testing positive for cortisone that day, but later proving he was allowed to take the drug according to his medical certificate.

Manuel Beltran has already issued a statement denying the allegations, saying that "neither the laboratory of Châtenay-Malabry, nor the French state (through its Council for fight against doping and its prevention), nor WADA, nor the UCI should allow this situation to happen. It is very regrettable that some people and institutions betray all the legal and ethical principles that should govern their actions, while at the same time they ask me for an irreproachable behaviour - which I have shown in the hundreds of controls that I've passed without problems."

 

[Don Quijote]

Interesting point of view...So, why print an article that is so controversial, when they can not legally pursuit their claims, and without the support of the UCI and a vast majority of Lance supporters. DQ

Here's why I think L'Equipe isn't telling lies.

1. The libel laws here in Europe - but especially in Britain and Ireland - are draconian.
If the reputation of a person is defamed in writing, the person who has been defamed has recourse in law to sue and to win sizable damages against the
publication which committed the libel.
All media org are required to exercise strict editorial guidelines in relation to libel BEFORE an article is even considered for publication.
Note cases like Archer V Daily Star, Hamilton V The Guardian.
Even when the Guardian published what transpired to be the truth, they were sued by the defendants who claimed that they had been defamed.
L'Equipe would be ver very aware that anything that they publish about Armstrong has to be as watertight as possible - given Armstrong's litigious nature and given the bias in law toward the party defamed.

2.The theory put forward by some that the 6 samples were not compliant with the proper "chain of custody" at Chatanay Malabry, appears to question the professionalism of competent expert staff at that laboratory.
Further the notion that a "nationalistic technician" would deliberately and willfully manipulate 6 separate samples, put forward by the LA supporters here, is an attempt to put in to question the professional and ethical duty of the staff at C-M.
There is no evidence for such charges.

3. It is in WADA's interests to ensure that all results communicated to the UCI must be above scrutiny.
Remember WADA has only been granted autonomy to test on a worldwide basis in the last couple of years.
Would WADA really jepordise their professional and ethical duties by trying to bring down a cyclist, already in retirement by lying or sabotaging 6 separate
samples ?

4 It is in the interest of everyone that the media do pursue facts.
L'Equipe know that Armstrong will continually attempt to deny cheating.
L'Equipe know that if they print an allegation that Armstrong will attempt to obfuscate the issue.
L'Equipe, inless they're completely incompetent, must be aware that they have to have the i's dotted and t's crossed on every allegation that they print

 

[Turenne]

Interesting point of view...So, why print an article that is so controversial, when they can not legally pursuit their claims, and without the support of the UCI and a vast majority of Lance supporters. DQ

This is investigative journalism, mate!
You believe they should have asked LA and his supporters...

-Hello, Mister Armstrong
-Hello
-Well... We have a bad new for you. We investigated and found out that six of your 1999 TdF samples are positive
-So?
-We would like very much you and your fans allow us to publish it. Maybe you can make a referendum among your supporters
-Hmmm... Good idea! I re-call you next week.

One week later:
-Hello Ressiot, LA speaking
-Hello Mister Lance
-I've the results of the referendum: my fans said no! It's niet
-What a pity! Of course, we'll respect the democratic vote of your fans and won't publish the scandal.
-Thanks! See you...
-Bye

The mentality of some people is surrealist...