Armstrong's propaganda war.

AidanR

Whilst I don't doubt the deviousness or PR companies, I'd like to think that they'd be a bit better at it than this...


Edit No, wait, I think I'd prefer it if they were cretinous morons.

BikingBernie

cajun_cyclist wrote:

in talking about the 'propaganda' war and things being taken off the internet, perhaps it has been stated here but the Underground 13 Matt Decanio website has had to be way toned down, at times not operabl. Also, I use to read some website that was named something like "Stop Lance" or something and that one has been taken down too.

You are probably thinking of the 'InvestigateLance.org' site.

http://web.archive.org/web/200804300639 ... lance.org/

There are many examples where material critical of Armstrong has rapidly disappeared from the web, even when the rest of the source document is still available - minus the bit relating to Armstrong of course. One example is the bit in Jesus Manzano's interview with L'Equipe where he revealed that the USP /Disco team doctor, Del Moral, was a friend of the guy who owned the Spanish UCI approved testing lab (Walter Viru) and that Viru used to tip-off the team when the UCI 'vampires' were going to do a test.

A while ago I contacted various people on some US forums trying to track down some 'missing' documentation that they had posted or linked to on forums. One of these was convinced that I was working for Armstrong and was trying to confirm that he was not breaking a 'cease and desist' order he had been threatened with for linking to material critical of Armstrong...

BikingBernie

AidanR wrote:

Whilst I don't doubt the deviousness or PR companies, I'd like to think that they'd be a bit better at it than this...

Edit No, wait, I think I'd prefer it if they were cretinous morons.

Of course, they may just be very cleverly posing as the sort of cretinous moron who believes everything that the Lance Armstrong PR machine puts out. After all, Lance fan-boys are not known for their rationality, so if a professional 'Astroturfer' acts in too rational a manner this might well result in their cover being blown.

No_Ta_Doctor

It doesn't really matter that the posts were crap arguments, if a PR company is doing it then what they're interested in is stirring the waters and muddying them. The aim is to start a debate on Greg's cleanliness, then others may start to doubt it and his character ends up smeared. If posters here had responded with actual counter argument then all they would have done was to argue the toss until everyone else got tired - they'd be getting paid for it, we'd be skipping work.... That would be enough to make it look like there was some genuine debate on the topic.

Creationists use the same tactics in arguing against evolution. They're loud and stubborn enough to make those with less information think they might be credible, even when they get knocked down at every turn. Because the "debate" just keeps on going it makes it look genuine. It's unfortunately a very effective rhetorical tactic, it plants the seed of doubt.

Of course, when people then come to google Greg Lemond Doping they'll find this stuff spread over all the forums out there (except, thankfully, this one).... And a lot of them won't be as well informed as many of the posters here.

cajun_cyclist

BikingBernie wrote:

cajun_cyclist wrote:

in talking about the 'propaganda' war and things being taken off the internet, perhaps it has been stated here but the Underground 13 Matt Decanio website has had to be way toned down, at times not operabl. Also, I use to read some website that was named something like "Stop Lance" or something and that one has been taken down too.

You are probably thinking of the 'InvestigateLance.org' site.

http://web.archive.org/web/200804300639 ... lance.org/

There are many examples where material critical of Armstrong has rapidly disappeared from the web, even when the rest of the source document is still available - minus the bit relating to Armstrong of course. One example is the bit in Jesus Manzano's interview with L'Equipe where he revealed that the USP /Disco team doctor, Del Moral, was a friend of the guy who owned the Spanish UCI approved testing lab (Walter Viru) and that Viru used to tip-off the team when the UCI 'vampires' were going to do a test.

A while ago I contacted various people on some US forums trying to track down some 'missing' documentation that they had posted or linked to on forums. One of these was convinced that I was working for Armstrong and was trying to confirm that he was not breaking a 'cease and desist' order he had been threatened with for linking to material critical of Armstrong...

Thanks for the answer, "investigate Lance", yes that sounds familiar, I think the gist of the website was to actually try to get the US congress to indeed investigate LA which given what is going on now, is not that far off. Of course, congress themselves, investigated US baseball while the current investigation involves attorneys.

Kléber

No tA Doctor, that's a good point but this backfired so quickly that if, big if it's true then even some ardent Lance-fans will think "hang on, this man is hiring PR agencies to run smear campaigns via internet forums" and re-evaluate the character of the man and the company he keeps.

No_Ta_Doctor

Kléber wrote:

No tA Doctor, that's a good point but this backfired so quickly that if, big if it's true then even some ardent Lance-fans will think "hang on, this man is hiring PR agencies to run smear campaigns via internet forums" and re-evaluate the character of the man and the company he keeps.

A small price to pay though. Plausibly deniable, worst case scenario is "I had no idea these people were doing this, I've just fired them". But the stuff will still be out there, indexed by google....

Of course, it's all just conjecture.

smithy21

Surely the PR co are not going to waste time on a primarily UK based forum. Are people getting a bit carried away with their own importance here?

Leaving that aside I dont understand how smearing Lemond would help the LA was clean argument anyway. If you take Lemond out of the equation as being clean you are essentially saying that a clean cyclist has never won anything since time began and then expecting people to believe LA beat everyone clean.

Smearing Lemond amounts to saying "OK I won dirty but so did you".

Kléber

Indeed, LeMond is a side show. Novitzky is looking into whether Armstrong and his business associates obtained federal money on false purposes. The only issue at stake is witness credibility, Landis has obvious flaws but LeMond does not.

Throwing mud in his direction, whether from fans or corporate shills, just serves to muddy everything and everyone.

No_Ta_Doctor

smithy21 wrote:

Surely the PR co are not going to waste time on a primarily UK based forum. Are people getting a bit carried away with their own importance here?

.

It's not just here though, it's been posted on other paces as well. Once the peice is written it takes but a few minutes to copy paste it all over the place.

mididoctors

No tA Doctor wrote:

smithy21 wrote:

Surely the PR co are not going to waste time on a primarily UK based forum. Are people getting a bit carried away with their own importance here?

.

It's not just here though, it's been posted on other paces as well. Once the peice is written it takes but a few minutes to copy paste it all over the place.

creationists and GW deniers etc are a somewhat larger army of motivated idiots..

lance fans and haters for that matter are somewhat less motivated... most posters here are at least boarder-line "haters" (for want of a short hand) and frankly they all get tired of posting about it all except BB

OTOH they have less ground on the web to cover I suppose.. how orgainised is organised?

if some nut is running around dumping a load of drive by posting rather than being paid..

I suppose the example to look at is chinny's electric bike... which turned from small joke story into a meme into shoddy journalism that was reported by the MSM

so in that sense I suppose it is possible

conceptual_primate

No tA Doctor wrote:

smithy21 wrote:

Surely the PR co are not going to waste time on a primarily UK based forum. Are people getting a bit carried away with their own importance here?

.

It's not just here though, it's been posted on other paces as well. Once the peice is written it takes but a few minutes to copy paste it all over the place.

It still strikes me as amateur, and quite possibly the work of an obsessed fan on a crusade. Surely if this was the post of a PR company (and one with a clientbase including LA) they would have approached it with a bit more professionalism and put more thought and effort into the approach, for example:

- registering in advance, upload a profile pic and spend a bit of time posting on unrelated topics to suggest an authentic person behind the posts.

- avoid mentioning LA at all in the post. just focus on the goal; defamation of GL. mentioning LA, even breifly, runs the risk of the thread focusing in on him as there is likely to be more strong opinion on him than GL (and certainly more 'evidence').

- having a more modestly sized, personal post. rather than BANG! & lumping it all into one post - reeking of trolling.

- use of multiple accounts to simulate debate (not necessarily all "hear, hear, i concur" posts).

- tailoring the non-US posts, i.e. remove the reference to American tax dollars on this forum.

... and these are just off the top of my head.

No_Ta_Doctor

Good points Conceptual.

Just for fun though, I typed "greg lemond doping" into google. I found the CN forum post listed as number five, and the now deleted post here (though still with its title intact) number nine. That's pretty impressive placement, whoever did it.

dulldave

Just because the approach they've taken is a bit lame doesn't mean it wasn't done by professionals. PR as a sector has been pretty poor at keeping up with the web and this kind of bumbling attempt is quite normal even (perhaps especially) from larger agencies.

That's not to say that I think this is the work of a PR company. More that it could be.

No_Ta_Doctor

dulldave wrote:

Just because the approach they've taken is a bit lame doesn't mean it wasn't done by professionals. PR as a sector has been pretty poor at keeping up with the web and this kind of bumbling attempt is quite normal even (perhaps especially) from larger agencies.

That's not to say that I think this is the work of a PR company. More that it could be.

Just wish I had the IP Address.....

micron

This is fairly explicit on the Trek v Lemond Public Strategies, um, strategy http://www.scribd.com/doc/24739922/TREK ... mond-Brand

Again it's the blurring of the lines between Trek Corporation and Lance Armstrong that raises eyebrows.

Seanos

Instead of turning cranks some of you boys are turning into cranks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

paulcuthbert

Yeah, so what happened earlier???

Steve2020

A new member called Chapeau (then Chapeau! and Chapeau!! etc) kept posting a long nonsensical and entirely flimsy post claiming that Greg Lemond took EPO to win the 1989 Tour and generally attacking him. Apparently it was posted on other cycling forums too. It kept getting removed and he kept getting banned.

rockmount

Steve2020 wrote:

It kept getting removed and he kept getting banned.

Why ?

Steve2020

Because it was defamatory?

Maybe the mods are more relaxed about other defamatory accusations because they know them to be true / quite fancy getting sued by certain people.

I bet BB would love to get sued by LA - could be another McLibel. Libestrong?

If this was the best anyone has on Lemond it is no wonder he's generally considered clean (in summary, the 'evidence' was that he rode fast on a 'flexible' bike, got back in 89 to something like the form you would expect from one of the greatest stage racing talents of his generation, and that Miguel Indurain finished 7th in the 1996 TdF(don't ask))

rockmount

Steve2020 wrote:

Because it was defamatory?

Maybe the mods are more relaxed about other defamatory accusations because they know them to be true / quite fancy getting sued by certain people.

I bet BB would love to get sued by LA - could be another McLibel. Libestrong?

If this was the best anyone has on Lemond it is no wonder he's generally considered clean (in summary, the 'evidence' was that he rode fast on a 'flexible' bike, got back in 89 to something like the form you would expect from one of the greatest stage racing talents of his generation, and that Miguel Indurain finished 7th in the 1996 TdF(don't ask))

Double standards ?

mididoctors

rockmount wrote:

Double standards ?

yeah but the mob hasn't got a problem with it.. me included I guess

morstar

But there is a big difference between discussing the implications of circumstantial evidence that is in the public domain and just citing some that has miraculously appeared with no corroboration out of the blue after 21 years.

dulldave

Seanos wrote:

Instead of turning cranks some of you boys are turning into cranks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Perhaps, but it's not quite as 'tin foil helmet brigade' as you're making out. Especially given that Lemond claims LA had threatened to do this type of thing if he didn't shut up.

I'm still undecided either way but prepared to at least discuss the possibilities. If you want to avoid conspiracy theories you'd best avoid web forums

BikingBernie

conceptual_primate wrote:

It still strikes me as amateur, and quite possibly the work of an obsessed fan on a crusade.

I think that, in all probability, you are correct in this instance. However, in my original post I was making a more general point. That is, given that tactics he has used previously, is it not likely that he will use any propaganda weapon that he can in order try to undermine the case against him, including 'Astroturfing' campaigns?

It seems that, given the weight of the evidence, it would probably be a much better tactic to use covert defamation tactics and to get others to attack the investigation on his behalf, especially if there is a good chance of the truth actually becoming public. Given Armstrong's current 'credibility' problem comment from a 'third party' may also be regarded as being more 'balanced' and 'credible' than anything Armstrong could say himself.

The bottom line is that no one should under-estimate the effort that he and his corporate backers are willing to put into protecting the value of the 'Armstrong brand'.

Armstrong Uses Second Team to Help Spread His Message
New York Times
18 July 2010

...Dozens of people at this race are spreading the pro-Armstrong and pro-Livestrong word, even during his most embattled moments.

While prosecutors served grand jury subpoenas last week, Armstrong supporters worked among the fans. A well-organized group of about four dozen young adults paid by Nike is following the race route, driving along in black cars and trucks bearing the Livestrong and Nike logos.

...Another Armstrong work force lures fans through the Internet. His RadioShack team has its own writers who post race reports, videos and features on the squad’s Web site. A Livestrong employee occasionally provides some of that content, said Philippe Maertens, the team’s spokesman. That Livestrong employee also posts stories and videos about topics including Armstrong, the race and the RadioShack team on Livestrong.com, a for-profit Web site that focuses on health and fitness.

All those efforts are marketing tools that benefit Armstrong’s foundation but in the end give Armstrong a public-relations boost, too.

...“That’s the whole Armstrong nature, to have an army of people around him, and it’s been like that for years,” said James Startt, a reporter for Bicycling magazine who is covering his 21st Tour. “The communications machine, the marketing machine, that he has brought to the sport is completely unprecedented.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/sport ... trong.html

smithy21

BikingBernie wrote:

conceptual_primate wrote:

It still strikes me as amateur, and quite possibly the work of an obsessed fan on a crusade.

I think that, in all probability, you are correct in this instance. However, in my original post I was making a more general point. That is, given that tactics he has used previously, is it not likely that he will use any propaganda weapon that he can in order try to undermine the case against him, including 'Astroturfing' campaigns?

It seems that, given the weight of the evidence, it would probably be a much better tactic to use covert defamation tactics and to get others to attack the investigation on his behalf, especially if there is a good chance of the truth actually becoming public. Given Armstrong's current 'credibility' problem comment from a 'third party' may also be regarded as being more 'balanced' and 'credible' than anything Armstrong could say himself.

The bottom line is that no one should under-estimate the effort that he and his corporate backers are willing to put into protecting the value of the 'Armstrong brand'.

Armstrong Uses Second Team to Help Spread His Message
New York Times
18 July 2010

...Dozens of people at this race are spreading the pro-Armstrong and pro-Livestrong word, even during his most embattled moments.

While prosecutors served grand jury subpoenas last week, Armstrong supporters worked among the fans. A well-organized group of about four dozen young adults paid by Nike is following the race route, driving along in black cars and trucks bearing the Livestrong and Nike logos.

...Another Armstrong work force lures fans through the Internet. His RadioShack team has its own writers who post race reports, videos and features on the squad’s Web site. A Livestrong employee occasionally provides some of that content, said Philippe Maertens, the team’s spokesman. That Livestrong employee also posts stories and videos about topics including Armstrong, the race and the RadioShack team on Livestrong.com, a for-profit Web site that focuses on health and fitness.

All those efforts are marketing tools that benefit Armstrong’s foundation but in the end give Armstrong a public-relations boost, too.

...“That’s the whole Armstrong nature, to have an army of people around him, and it’s been like that for years,” said James Startt, a reporter for Bicycling magazine who is covering his 21st Tour. “The communications machine, the marketing machine, that he has brought to the sport is completely unprecedented.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/sport ... trong.html

BB- I know you have an agenda but that NYT article is a non story. A cycling team with its own website writing reports of a race they are participating in? Really?? Thats revoutionary!!

conceptual_primate

BikingBernie wrote:

conceptual_primate wrote:

It still strikes me as amateur, and quite possibly the work of an obsessed fan on a crusade.

I think that, in all probability, you are correct in this instance. However, in my original post I was making a more general point. That is, given that tactics he has used previously, is it not likely that he will use any propaganda weapon that he can in order try to undermine the case against him, including 'Astroturfing' campaigns?

I don't disagree with your point mate, i was just talking specifically about this incident.

dulldave wrote:

Just because the approach they've taken is a bit lame doesn't mean it wasn't done by professionals. PR as a sector has been pretty poor at keeping up with the web and this kind of bumbling attempt is quite normal even (perhaps especially) from larger agencies.

That's not to say that I think this is the work of a PR company. More that it could be.

I agree that it could be, i just think on the balance it reads more like an 'amateur' - I may be wrong tho, it's happened before

BikingBernie

smithy21 wrote:

that NYT article is a non story. A cycling team with its own website writing reports of a race they are participating in? Really?? Thats revoutionary!!

A nice attempt to set up a 'straw man', but who said that anything Armstrong does is 'revolutionary'? How about the rest of what is in the article? Almost 50 people just selling Armstrong's yellow bracelets. The 'Chalkbot' team? The 'army' of people working to promote Armstrong's image? No, non of it 'revolutionary but, as the article points out, the Armstrong marketing campaign is on a scale that is 'completely unprecedented' in the sport.

Seanos

BikingBernie wrote:

smithy21 wrote:

that NYT article is a non story. A cycling team with its own website writing reports of a race they are participating in? Really?? Thats revoutionary!!

How about the rest? Almost 50 people just selling Armstrong's yellow bracelets. The 'Chalkbot' team? The 'army' of people working to promote Armstrong's image? No, non of it 'revolutionary but, as the article points out, the Armstrong marketing campaign is on a scale that is 'completely unprecedented' in the sport.

And your point is?