Tumbleweed Posted May 23, 2011 Share Fair enough, but then you should also report accurately on the number of tests he has undergone since the start of his career, as well as the number of positives/negatives he's had, to me that's fair and ethical, it presents both sides of the story. The accused also has the right not too reply, which could harm his reputation to some degree as well, in which case I would argue the journalist has an even deeper responsibility to present both sides fairly. In this case, that was done by Fabiani. I think the (mainstream) reportage on this story - even the latest bit - has been balanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted May 23, 2011 Share At least the dude in the chicken suit, or g-string, or whatever will be able to stay with them up the hills..... Good point - Walking up the hills would also stop the idjits from running next to the cyclists, they could all walk up and have a nice chat.... "eh... so how you feeling today Mr Contador"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldron Posted May 23, 2011 Share 1. That's like the death penalty argument. I don't buy it.2. There is so much racing in the year, the pro tour level guys cannot. On this very forum, there is a thread lambasting some for pulling out of tours early and stuff. The pressure to perform from Jan to Dec year after year is immense. Years ago, most pro's didn't even get on a bike till April, and the season was over by September.3. I'm not talking about the average speed, I'm talking about 70000 spectators on Monte Zoncolan. No drugs means half the peleton would have gotten off and walked up the hill, no one wants to watch that. I don't pay my dstv to watch the okes coming in in 10023 place at the argus, or watch the guy doing a 11hour comrades. 1) The death penalty is more a socio economic discussion..let's try a practical example - would you speed less, more or the same if the standard fine was R8,000?2) Riders are not forced to ride - look at Cadel Evans - he only rides 2 or 3 selected races before July. Conty riding the Giro is the exception not the norm - most top GC riders only do 1 or 2 of the Grand Tours. In rugby and cricket top players are rested and fans don't complain (too much).3) If memory serves only 6 riders didn't finish Zoncolan - most of the riders would not be on the top flight drugs of the riders at the front and they managed to finish... Plus - the belgian fans love the Muur - riders walk up there all the time... You do realise that your point 3 effectively causes point 2 right? I just don't buy this "they have to take the drugs" line... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luke. Posted May 23, 2011 Share I really like Tyler Hamilton and like many was disapointed with the way things turned out. I am glad he has confessed and am also left wondering about the allegations about LA. It seems like virtually every member of his ex Postal Team is accusing him of cheating. There seems to be a common misreading of the recent news re: Hamilton and Hincapie (I'm not specifically directing this at you Nick) George and Tyler are not stepping forward and making allegations or accusations - although obviously Tyler has gone public (on 60 minutes) with his testimony, whereas Hincapie has not. They are answering questions under oath before a Federal Grand Jury - they have been subpoenaed and have no choice in the matter. If they lie and are proved to be liars, they face jail time. All of the evidence I've heard thus far supports their stories. I have not heard of anybody stepping forward with evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, which contradicts their stories. Edited May 23, 2011 by Lucky Luke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT1 Posted May 23, 2011 Share 1) The death penalty is more a socio economic discussion..let's try a practical example - would you speed less, more or the same if the standard fine was R8,000?2) Riders are not forced to ride - look at Cadel Evans - he only rides 2 or 3 selected races before July. Conty riding the Giro is the exception not the norm - most top GC riders only do 1 or 2 of the Grand Tours. In rugby and cricket top players are rested and fans don't complain (too much).3) If memory serves only 6 riders didn't finish Zoncolan - most of the riders would not be on the top flight drugs of the riders at the front and they managed to finish... Plus - the belgian fans love the Muur - riders walk up there all the time... You do realise that your point 3 effectively causes point 2 right? I just don't buy this "they have to take the drugs" line... 1. More, the same, if I can get away with it. - same as the riders who choose to dope.2. Ahem, Cadel is a poor example, but that's not the point, the guys may choose what races, but the organisers, and sponsor put huge pressure on them to do more, and be competitive more.3. Oh, you're one of those the French can't win the TDF cause they're clean pundits, are you? Yes, I know full well, that the organisers and sponsors, and media/fans cause the pressure that causes the doping. Edited May 23, 2011 by TNT1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeTurbo Posted May 23, 2011 Share Who is Tyler Hamilton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Let's Ride Posted May 23, 2011 Share Who is Tyler Hamilton? Same??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted May 23, 2011 Share Who is Tyler Hamilton? He's famous for owning a goldie called Tugboat… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldron Posted May 23, 2011 Share 1. More, the same, if I can get away with it. - same as the riders who choose to dope.2. Ahem, Cadel is a poor example, but that's not the point, the guys may choose what races, but the organisers, and sponsor put huge pressure on them to do more, and be competitive more.3. Oh, you're one of those the French can't win the TDF cause they're clean pundits, are you? Yes, I know full well, that the organisers and sponsors, and media/fans cause the pressure that causes the doping. 1. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. The penalties for doping are way too soft...2. Everyone has pressure - all of us are constantly being pushed to sell more, produce more, communicate more, increase profits, reduce overheads etc but very few of us resort to breaking the law to achieve it...why is it so hard for cyclists?3. Not at all - you're saying that these fragile little athletes can't finish the tour without drugs. I say they can. Some do. It may be slower and we may not see the Alp d'Huez climb record broken constantly but it's more than possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EigerSA Posted May 23, 2011 Share In this case, that was done by Fabiani. I think the (mainstream) reportage on this story - even the latest bit - has been balanced. Fabiani as spokesman did what he could under the circumstances, what else can he do but deny. Reportage on this though I don't think has been balanced. Tyler Hamilton admits to doping and yet the press is more interested in the possibility of Lance doping. I think the press should be questioning Hamilton's motives far closer and asking him how Lance could have doped and never given in a positive sample. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted May 23, 2011 Share Fabiani as spokesman did what he could under the circumstances, what else can he do but deny. Reportage on this though I don't think has been balanced. Tyler Hamilton admits to doping and yet the press is more interested in the possibility of Lance doping. Obviously. That Hamilton doped isn't new. Also, this isn't the first time he's admitted to doping. The "fresh" thing about the story is that Hamilton is the latest member of Lance's close circle to say that the Texan doped. Proving Lance doped is only a small part of the FDA investigation. Also, remember, Lance has refused to discuss any new claims against him since his (in)famous rebuke of an AFP journalist last year. His failure to engage media leaves the scope for speculation wide open. I think the press should be questioning Hamilton's motives far closer and asking him how Lance could have doped and never given in a positive sample. That has extensively covered in Landis' revelations. Even the doping authorities said his comments about micro-dosing, etc, helped give gredence to anecdotal evidence of this kind of doping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EigerSA Posted May 23, 2011 Share Obviously. That Hamilton doped isn't new. Also, this isn't the first time he's admitted to doping. The "fresh" thing about the story is that Hamilton is the latest member of Lance's close circle to say that the Texan doped. Proving Lance doped is only a small part of the FDA investigation. Also, remember, Lance has refused to discuss any new claims against him since his (in)famous rebuke of an AFP journalist last year. His failure to engage media leaves the scope for speculation wide open. True but again surely that's his prerogative? And this is what I meant earlier, the media shouldn't be speculating, but reporting, at least this is my view on the media's role. Speculation is dangerous without evidence. Lance stands accused by his team mates of doping, why is the press not saying "prove it", otherwise it smacks of sour grapes. That has extensively covered in Landis' revelations. Even the doping authorities said his comments about micro-dosing, etc, helped give gredence to anecdotal evidence of this kind of doping. As I remember, not all doping authorities agreed with this and the juries's still out as to the validity of the micro-dosing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted May 23, 2011 Share True but again surely that's his prerogative? And this is what I meant earlier, the media shouldn't be speculating, but reporting, at least this is my view on the media's role. Speculation is dangerous without evidence. Lance stands accused by his team mates of doping, why is the press not saying "prove it", otherwise it smacks of sour grapes. In this case, I think the mainstream media has been reporting. For speculation, read the specialist cycling and sports training bloggers. Landis' revelations were new, but Lance point-blank refused to discuss them. His perogative? Sure. But someone's refusal to comment doesn't preclude a journalist from publishing the allegations once it has been scrutinsed by the gatekeepers in a media organisation. As I remember, not all doping authorities agreed with this and the juries's still out as to the validity of the micro-dosing. For sure. It'll take them some time to take what Landis has told them and research it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOldGuy Posted May 23, 2011 Share There seems to be a common misreading of the recent news re: Hamilton and Hincapie (I'm not specifically directing this at you Nick) George and Tyler are not stepping forward and making allegations or accusations - although obviously Tyler has gone public (on 60 minutes) with his testimony, whereas Hincapie has not. They are answering questions under oath before a Federal Grand Jury - they have been subpoenaed and have no choice in the matter. If they lie and are proved to be liars, they face jail time. All of the evidence I've heard thus far supports their stories. I have not heard of anybody stepping forward with evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, which contradicts their stories. Good point Luke. I agree on your final comment, so far nobody, except Mr Armstrong and his attorney has come up with any evidence to disprove their accusations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT1 Posted May 23, 2011 Share 3. So why can't the surrender monkeys win anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Saint Posted May 23, 2011 Share There seems to be a common misreading of the recent news re: Hamilton and Hincapie (I'm not specifically directing this at you Nick) George and Tyler are not stepping forward and making allegations or accusations - although obviously Tyler has gone public (on 60 minutes) with his testimony, whereas Hincapie has not. They are answering questions under oath before a Federal Grand Jury - they have been subpoenaed and have no choice in the matter. If they lie and are proved to be liars, they face jail time. All of the evidence I've heard thus far supports their stories. I have not heard of anybody stepping forward with evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, which contradicts their stories.See now here is a good post. I would like to add to this. These guys are answering questions before Federal Investigators and the consequence of lying is jail time. Now if it is later proved they they were lying about Lance and their knowledge of Lance taking PEDS then they will be subject to jail time - so ask yourself why would they lie about it? I would have to conclude that with this in mind the whole book deal money making theory is out the window. It is more like I am going to tell the truth because I don't want to go to jail for Lance and whilst i'm telling the truth i am going to make a few bucks out of it. The reason they have only mentioned Lance is because the investigation is only about Lance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now