Fifty Plus (50+) - Go Lance

60 minutes had to apologize some years back when they set out to prove that Chevy trucks caught fire in a side collision. CBS had set flares under the trucks to insure ignition.

The too, CBS's Dan rather had to resign after it became known he had made up a National Guard story to impugn Bush.

Maybe CBS is on drugs. CBS news is losing viewers year after year..

Al

Armstrong's lawyers want apology from '60 Minutes'

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Attorneys for Lance Armstrong have demanded an on-air apology from "60 Minutes" after the head of Switzerland's anti-doping laboratory denied allegations the seven-time Tour de France winner tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs at the 2001 Tour de Suisse.

In a letter sent Wednesday to CBS News Chairman and "60 Minutes" executive producer Jeff Fager, lawyer Elliot Peters said the May 22 segment about Armstrong was built on a series of falsehoods, and he accused the reputable CBS show of sloppy journalism.

"In the cold light of morning your story was either extraordinarily shoddy, to the point of being reckless and unprofessional, or a vicious hit-and-run job," Peters wrote. "In either case, a categorical on-air apology is required."

CBS News spokesman Kevin Tedesco said Wednesday he couldn't immediately comment on the letter, but added: "We consider this the most thorough investigation into doping in the sport of cycling ever done."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Armstrongs-lawyers-want-apf-1084897475.html?x=0&.v=1

You know I am really, really tired of this, uh, this, well I just don't have a polite word that adequately describes "the situation."

If "everybody's" doing it, well that's a level playing field and I'm good with that. But bald faced lying is what really gets my goat. And there is plenty of THAT from some people who have had some practice.

Then there's the feeling of betrayal I get when I learn that my trust in someone is destroyed when they get around to changing their story. I believed Hamilton was innocent of blood doping at the Olympics. I wanted to believe he was innocent because he said he was and I really admired him. It was even worse with Landis.

I always thought Andreu was just sucking bitter sour grapes because he turned out to be such a lightweight. Hincapie is a different story.

I just want it to all go away and let me get back to enjoying the sport again. But that's not going to happen.

You know I am really, really tired of this, uh, this, well I just don't have a polite word that adequately describes "the situation."

If "everybody's" doing it, well that's a level playing field and I'm good with that. But bald faced lying is what really gets my goat. And there is plenty of THAT from some people who have had some practice.

Then there's the feeling of betrayal I get when I learn that my trust in someone is destroyed when they get around to changing their story. I believed Hamilton was innocent of blood doping at the Olympics. I wanted to believe he was innocent because he said he was and I really admired him. It was even worse with Landis.

I always thought Andreu was just sucking bitter sour grapes because he turned out to be such a lightweight. Hincapie is a different story.

I just want it to all go away and let me get back to enjoying the sport again. But that's not going to happen.

Unfortunately, that's pro sports for you - whenever there's money involved, people will find a way to cheat.

SP
Bend, OR

The best defense is a good offense.
This is just LA's lawyers playing poker.

I just want it to all go away and let me get back to enjoying the sport again. But that's not going to happen.

I want the truth. I'll adjust.

I want the truth. I'll adjust.

Good luck with that.

I want the truth. I'll adjust.

Que Jack Nicholson.

alcanoe, 5 will get you ten that, when the wash cycle is done and the washer makes that 'ding', it will have come out that there really was a positive test result for Lance at Tour de Suisse in 2001. Which, by the way, is the only part of the story where Lance's attorney is seeking an apology. The various denials of the 2001 accusations are too filled with weasel words for me to believe them. I think CBS did a good job on the story; that it harkens back to when there was more guts and less fluff on 60 minutes; when it was often said the worst words a CEO could hear were "60 minutes is in the lobby."

We need an active and investigative press.

We need an active and investigative press.
I agree but they should be looking for truth, not ratings.

so i guess the rest of accusations in the 60 episode are true then?

In the greater scheme of things, why does it matter?

I agree but they should be looking for truth, not ratings.

Ratings are truth.

Unfortunately, that's pro sports for you - whenever there's money involved, people will find a way to cheat.

SP
Bend, OR

It's been attributed to Richard Petty of NASCAR fame and I "If you ain't cheating, you ain't racing."

And no less than an esteemed American governor of the Great State of MN said " "Win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat!"

In the greater scheme of things, why does it matter?

You're not married or operate a business that has employees. Trust is important.

On Hincapie: during the Versus coverage of the Tour of California, they announced that George denied making any statements concerning Armstrong using drugs.

I did a google search to check that out. Among the many sites parroting CBS, there's this one http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/8527684/George-Hincapie-denies-reports-he-has-implicated-Lance-Armstrong-in-doping-investigation.html

"George Hincapie denies reports he has implicated Lance Armstrong in doping investigation"

The writer though tries to spin that to implicate Armstrong.

It's supposed to be confidential testimony. So nobody knows what Hincapie said except CBS of course.

The best thing to do is wait untile it's decided...... again. I'm keeping the faith with Armstrong until he's proven guilty.

Al

We need an active and investigative press.

And an honest one too.

Al

"George Hincapie denies reports he has implicated Lance Armstrong in doping investigation"
Al

What he denied was talking to CBS. He has not denied testifying to the grand jury. Google again, and find the actual text of his "denial tweet".

Lance's problem is that 60 Minutes is a real news organization with real lawyers. They will not roll over as easily as the sportswriters and cycling journalists they have bullied into submission in the past.

CBS is standing by its story:

CBS newsmagazine 60 Minutes is standing by its story centered on the Lance Armstrong doping case, which aired a few weeks ago, after Armstrong's lawyers demanded an apology early Wednesday.

In a statement issued by Jeff Fager, chairman of CBS News and an executive producer of 60 Minutes, he said, "60 Minutes stands by its story as truthful, accurate and fair."

"Lance Armstrong and his lawyers were given numerous opportunities to respond to every detail of our reporting for weeks prior to the broadcast and their written responses were fairly and accurately included in the story," Fager said. "Mr. Armstrong still has not addressed charges by teammates Tyler Hamilton and George Hincapie that he used performance enhancing drugs with them."

Fager gave three pieces of evidence defending the piece by 60 Minutes that Armstrong's lawyers alluded to as being inaccurate.


1) The letter from Keker & Van Nest, Mr. Armstrong's attorneys, claims that there was no “positive” or “suspicious” test from the 2001 Tour de Suisse:

Mr. Armstrong's teammate, Tyler Hamilton, told 60 Minutes about the 2001 Tour de Suisse test. Included in his interview are the same facts that Hamilton reported under oath to U.S. federal officials under the penalty of perjury. 60 Minutes also reported that the Swiss Anti-Doping Laboratory Director, Dr. Martial Saugy, told U.S. officials and the FBI that that there was a “suspicious” test result from the Tour de Suisse in 2001. This was confirmed by a number of international officials who have linked the "suspicious" test to Armstrong. In recent days, Dr. Saugy finally confirmed to the media that there were "suspicious" test results.

2) The letter from Armstrong’s attorneys claims that 60 Minutes was inaccurate in reporting about a meeting between Dr. Saugy, Mr. Armstrong and former U.S. Postal Team Director, Johan Bruyneel:

60 Minutes reported there was a meeting between Dr. Saugy, Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Bruyneel. Dr. Saugy refused our requests for an interview, but after the broadcast he confirmed that the meeting took place. Mr. Armstrong, after our broadcast, said he couldn’t recall that any such meeting took place.

3) Mr. Armstrong's lawyers claim our story was "shoddy," while we found at least three inaccuracies in their letter: They claimed that 60 Minutes reported the meeting took place at the Swiss lab; they claimed that 60 Minutes reported the meeting took place in 2001; and they claimed that 60 Minutes said it was a "secret" meeting. All three are wrong.

David Howman, managing director of the World Anti-Doping Agency, told 60 Minutes that any meeting between Mr.Armstrong, Mr. Brunyeel and the Swiss lab director, Dr. Saugy, would be "highly unusual” and “inappropriate.”

In the greater scheme of things, why does it matter?

Pretty good story on that here:


http://fraudbytes.blogspot.com/2011/06/lance-armstrong-investigation-odds-and.html#more

And, this is just breaking today -- the Associated Press is reporting that the Swiss lab director *did* tell US investigators 3 separate times that Lance's results in 2001 were "suspicious." This is the allegation at the heart of Lance's letter to 60 Minutes demanding an apology.

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/news/story?id=6614413

Well, I hope you all have fun with this thread. I'm getting way to cynical. When it comes to truth, I've (we've) been lied to so many times it is a sheer fantasy to believe that we'll ever know "the truth", or that as RCK says that it matters in the greater scheme of things.

Lies, lies, everywhere there are lies:

"It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

"I did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky."

"I have never taken any banned substance, including testosterone. I was the strongest man at the Tour de France, and that is why I am champion.”

"I am not a crook."

“I told the Congress ‘thanks but no thanks’ for that Bridge to Nowhere."


"I have never bet on baseball or on games involving my own team."

"I have right here in my hands George Washington's handwritten first Inaugural Address."

Bill O'Rielly didn't really win two Peabody Awards.

Hillary Clinton may have “misspoke” when she said she had to evade sniper fire when she was visiting Bosnia in 1996 as first lady.

"This won't hurt at all."

"You won't find a better deal than this anywhere."

"No, we're just friends."

"Really, taste it. You'll like it. Honest."

"The check's in the mail."

"It will only take a minute."

"Cigarettes are not harmful."

"It's not you; it's me."

"It's for your own good."

"As governor of Texas, I have set high standards for our public schools, and I have met those standards."

"I don't know how it happened."

"I'll be ready in a few minutes."

The truth is that everything is a lie. Oops - hmmm . . . .

Pretty good story on that here:


http://fraudbytes.blogspot.com/2011/06/lance-armstrong-investigation-odds-and.html#more

And, this is just breaking today --

I love the statement "Howman used Jones as an example that never failing a drug test is not proof of innocence".

So now you have to prove your innocence? I thought they had to prove guilt and you were deemed inniocent until they did. The cycling world is a strange place.

Al

The need to prove guilt applies when it gets to a criminal proceeding. Right now, it's battle for public opinion, being waged by the Armstrong camp against any and all comers. Note that those do not include the prosecutors, who remain silent. In today's skirmish, CBS clearly won, as Armstrong failed to take into account the fact that CBS had backup for their claims about the 2001 test results. They were left only able to attack the messenger by condemning leaks. Imagine what it will be like if charges are filed.

If the French could not nail LA, no one can. They had the best motivation to do so. CBS looks like to me that just the alligations are enough to convict. Where is the beef. CBS is a sinking ship and will try anything to gain attention. Who really knows about Landis, Tyler. Its like trying to use convicted felons to bring charges without proof. This may never end in our lifetime. See you out on the road, ride safe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo&feature=related

"You can't handle the truth!"

Lots of folks are swimming in that river that flows through Egypt.

"Lance's problem is that 60 Minutes is a real news organization "

This is the most laughable statement in this whole post. 60 Minutes = kings of Yellow Journalism for a long long time.

The truth is that everything is a lie. Oops - hmmm . . . .

Truthfully speaking, ah, this pretty much sums it up.

"Lance's problem is that 60 Minutes is a real news organization "

This is the most laughable statement in this whole post. 60 Minutes = kings of Yellow Journalism for a long long time.

I know that it's very popular to say that. I also know that there are several high profile examples of stories they blew. But, over a very long period of time, I think their record of breaking real news -- important news -- is unparalleled in broadcast journalism, at least in the U.S.

"Everybody lies" -- Dr Gregory House
:p

In the greater scheme of things, why does it matter?

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

I know that it's very popular to say that. I also know that there are several high profile examples of stories they blew. But, over a very long period of time, I think their record of breaking real news -- important news -- is unparalleled in broadcast journalism, at least in the U.S.

yeah 60 minutes is actually one of the last bastions of "real" journalism.

Wikipedia says Yellow Journalism is "is a type of journalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism) that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines".. that sounds like the exact definition of every cable news network a lot more than it sounds like "60 Minutes"

The truth is always important. If you don't believe that there's no point in having the conversation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo&feature=related

"You can't handle the truth!"

That attitude is exactly why in 1969 during Basic in Ft. Jackson and after being Soldier of the Month (and intent on becoming a Green Beret) I had a "defining moment" and got myself out of the military ASAP.

Just hope more and more people are seeing thru the typical media outlets and their "stories". It's amazing what they have people believing.

I'm not saying Lance did not use drugs. Not saying he did. Just glad people are seeing thru the ruse that is our media.

The biggest news story I can imagine would be finding that any member of the MSM, of which CBS is one of the founders, gave a rats a$$ about the truth.

That attitude is exactly why in 1969 during Basic in Ft. Jackson and after being Soldier of the Month (and intent on becoming a Green Beret) I had a "defining moment" and got myself out of the military ASAP.

Your comment made me chuckle a bit. My father was a drill instructor, and I understand only too well the "military mind set". I grew up with daily inspections, receiving a new foot locker for Christmas about every other year, the relentless message that I was far from being what I could become with harder work, attention to following orders, and a level of "discipline" most would find unusual, to say the least. By the time I was 18 I pretty much stopped taking orders from anyone, in the context of the singular hierarchal military theory of leadership. With that said, I'm quite comfortable these days with truth as a concept that is based primarily on beliefs, and knowing that beliefs don't have to be rational.

The biggest news story I can imagine would be finding that any member of the MSM, of which CBS is one of the founders, gave a rats a$$ about the truth.

More in the "if you can't refute the message, then attack the messenger" vein. Which parts of the CBS story do you claim to be inaccurately reported? If you can't provide a cogent, fact-based response to that question, maybe you should think twice about your blanket characterization of the network.

The biggest news story I can imagine would be finding that any member of the MSM, of which CBS is one of the founders, gave a rats a$$ about the truth.

I'm hoping you don't really believe that, and you're just repeating a rant you heard somewhere.




(http://www.cpj.org/killed/)

AzTallRider and I have debated LA before, with me giving LA the benefit of the doubt. I am less inclined to grant that benefit now, in light of Tyler Hamilton testifying before a grand jury. Since the perjury conviction of Barry Bonds, Hamilton's testimony must be taken more seriously. We really don't know what Hincapie's testimony was, so no need to speculate.
I have often stated I hope LA did not dope, but, would not be suprised if he did. As a cancer survivor I would hate anyting to affect the Lance Armstrong Foundation.
Last, for the top riders of that time period, I feel the playing field was level.

With that said, I'm quite comfortable these days with truth as a concept that is based primarily on beliefs, and knowing that beliefs don't have to be rational.

I'm totally with you.