Saturday, July 03, 2010

The Significance of the WSJ Article - in three

1. The WSJ is regarded as a legitimate mainstream media news outlet, and it does not practice "tabloid journalism." The accusations leveled against Armstrong were all corroborated by other sources and Landis was not just taken on his word. This is the first instance of a newspaper like the Journal coming out against Lance with such damning allegations.

2. The revelations that Trek was aware that bicycles being provided to USPS team were being diverted is devastating to their credibility, and their disinterest in stopping the practice suggests complicity in facilitating doping at USPS - just as many long suspected.

3. (This one taken verbatim from the text) "Three other former U.S. Postal riders told the Journal in interviews that there was doping on the team during the time Mr. Armstrong was its lead rider, and one of them admitted that he himself had doped."


  1. Joe, any hints or ideas on who the riders are in (3) ?

  2. Yes, but it wouldn't be prudent for me to compromise their anonymity by naming them here in public... Hope you can understand.

  3. Sorry, I read into the article that those in question had come out into the open.

    I guess not...

  4. For all this Wall Street Journal article brouhaha, somebody better be working on a good conspiracy video or article about how WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Sky Broadcasting, which bankrolls the Sky team of Bradley Wiggins, and therefore it’s obvious that Murdoch is paying Landis to spout this stuff and using his paper to lend credibility to it, all with the intent of bringing down Armstrong and aiding Wiggins’ Tour chances. Because if nobody’s on that yet, the Armstrong army is really falling down on the job.

    BTW: I think the three who confirmed Floyd's tales are Hincapie, Hamilton and Zabriske.


Pappillon welcomes your comments and encourages your participation. However, in commenting, you agree that you will not:1) Post material that infringes on the rights of any third party, including intellectual property, privacy or publicity rights. 2) Post material that is unlawful, obscene, defamatory, threatening, harassing, abusive, slanderous, hateful, or embarrassing to any other person or entity as determined by Pappillon in its sole discretion. 3) Impersonate another person.