Cycling Weekly

dave_1

what'd you make of the online journalism from them at the moment? ...commenting that Lance took the spotlight at the Giro presentation from the other riders...BUT failing to provide the balancing story aboout the 500 additional journos who are accredited for the 09 race over last year's 600

2. the more recent imbalance of 2 days ago was the critique of LA having 3 or 4 Astanas around him-again they had a crack at LA and JB but it makes perfect sense to keep him close enough to GC that he can go in breaks and tire Basso and Di Luca over the next week if he has legs too...again the weakly doesn't mention this blindingly obvious tactic..LL ahd Horner up front for bike changes, wheel changes if needed!

iainf72

1) 500 extra journalists and how much more coverage of the race in the UK? Not much. 500 extra journalists so we can get reports on someone who's using the race for training? On newsnow when Menchov won, there were more mentions of Lance going backwards than of Dennis winning. How on earth can that be good for the sport?

2) He's training. If he really is, put your resources into Levi

The Italians don't even think he'll make Rome now.

Funny how in the 2 training races he did earlier in the year in Oz and California he didn't get dropped, but all the races he's done in Europe he goes backwards when the road tilts.

nickwill

I've become increasingly frustrated by Cycling Weekly's 'Bee in a Bonnet' approach to LA.
It seems to have become an obsession.
Give the man a break, and concentrate on reporting the sport. They accuse Armstrong of dominating media coverage, and then fall prey to the same thing they are accusing others of, only in a negative light.

dave_1

Lionel who? ...have a look at his twitter...I recall some less than friendly Armstrong comments...no serious journalist should be that partisan

iainf72

Dave_1 wrote:

Lionel who? ...have a look at his twitter...I recall some less than friendly Armstrong comments...no serious journalist should be that partisan

And should a professional athlete call a journalist "foolish" because he expressed an opinion?

Kléber

Journalistic accreditation for cycling races has risen in general this year, races without Armstrong have seen the number of press passes increase. It's not just something to do with Armstrong, although clearly the number at the Giro is massively dependent on him.

As for Birnie, he seems to care for the sport first and is calling for a cleaner form of cycling. Sounds good to me.

aurelio_-_banned

Dave_1 wrote:

Lionel who? ...have a look at his twitter...I recall some less than friendly Armstrong comments...no serious journalist should be that partisan

I think the word you were looking for was 'honest', not 'partisan'.

nickwill

Dave_1 wrote:

Lionel who? ...have a look at his twitter...I recall some less than friendly Armstrong comments...no serious journalist should be that partisan

Agreed!
Calling for a cleaner sport is laudable, but surely there have been other cyclists who have demonstrably been potentially worthier recipients of his scorn.
Let's have some objectivity please!

DaveyL

Except he hasn't just focussed on one individual. Already during the Giro there have been comments about Petacchi and Di Luca.

aurelio_-_banned

Nickwill wrote:

Calling for a cleaner sport is laudable, but surely there have been other cyclists who have demonstrably been potentially worthier recipients of his scorn.

You mean go after the tiddlers whilst effectively protecting the biggest shark in the pond? The UCI already does that particular job very effectively...

stagehopper

Following his comments and he's critical of dopers and suspected dopers across the board.

DaveyL

I suspect there are plenty of other journos who feel the same way and don't speak out. His honesty and integrity should be supported, not criticised.

LangerDan

My problem with their approach is that IPC seem to be taking a "run with the hare and hunt with the hounds" view on all this. The C-W blog and Twitter take decidedly critical stance on LA. However when it comes to cold , hard print - the main revenue source for IPC, I'd guess - the approach can vary from softly, softly to the full-blown LA hagiography that has filled Cycle-Sports covers.

micron

Aren't articles that are critical of Armstrong simply redressing the balance on the hundreds and hundreds of empty words 'most tested...blah blah....greatest cyclist ever...blah blah...raising cancer awareness...' that every other media outlet - all those extra accredited journalists who are following Armstrong rather than the race - print without any kind of critical thinking whatsoever?