Circle Those Wagons Bjarne

B. Lafferty said:

- CSC has denied claims made by French journalist Gilles Le Roc'h that it
holds a secret file on cycling journalists that establishes what measure of
access each individual journalist should be given to the team's riders. Le
Roc'h, who is also president of the International Association of Cycling
Journalists, told Associated Press at the weekend that he had been told that
the Danish team held a dossier that reportedly set out whether a journalist
was "friendly, sympathetic, awkward or dangerous". Le Roc'h explained to AP
that the holding of such a dossier is illegal under French law. According to
AP, the alleged dossier's main goal is to prevent access to the team by
journalists who are overly concerned with the issue of doping.

From ProCycling. Denials issued by CSC. It's not drugs. It's the faux
military bonding.

Hey Brian
Why should they do any favors for, or even be reasonable to people whos
only goal is to screw them over. If i think someone's determined to
stir up [censored] just so they can report it I don't talk to them and tell
my people not to talk to them.
There used to be a beat writer for the Yankees back in the 60/70s who
used to make up all kinds of rumors, lie to teamates about other
teamates, and all kinds of other good [censored] just to have stories to
report. He caused all kinds of problems until the team started feeding
outrageous fake stories and he ran them. He ended up retiring in
disgrace. Explain to me why CSC should be considerate to these type of
"journalists"? If I know someone is going to screw me no matter what,
and never do a positive story I'm not talking to them either.
They need to talk to any objective journalist, but not someone whos
only agenda is to create [censored], even where there might not be any.
Bill C

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

- CSC has denied claims made by French journalist Gilles Le Roc'h that it
holds a secret file on cycling journalists that establishes what measure
of
access each individual journalist should be given to the team's riders.
Le
Roc'h, who is also president of the International Association of Cycling
Journalists, told Associated Press at the weekend that he had been told
that
the Danish team held a dossier that reportedly set out whether a
journalist
was "friendly, sympathetic, awkward or dangerous". Le Roc'h explained to
AP
that the holding of such a dossier is illegal under French law. According
to
AP, the alleged dossier's main goal is to prevent access to the team by
journalists who are overly concerned with the issue of doping.

From ProCycling. Denials issued by CSC. It's not drugs. It's the faux
military bonding.

Hey Brian
Why should they do any favors for, or even be reasonable to people whos
only goal is to screw them over. If i think someone's determined to
stir up [censored] just so they can report it I don't talk to them and tell
my people not to talk to them.

It's not about favors. It's about reporters dong their job as opposed to
being a mere extentioin of the team's pr aparatus.

There is a drug problem in cycling. From a public relations point of view,
it would be wiser to simply not profile reporters (it is apparently illegal
to do so in France) and allow access. That doesn't mean a rider has to
answer a question. The PR guy that Riis uses is very good at coaching
riders in dealing with the press.

If the allegation is true, it gives the appearance of having something to
hide. Not that Bjarne and his boys would have anything to hide now, would
they?

Quoted message said:

There used to be a beat writer for the Yankees back in the 60/70s who
used to make up all kinds of rumors, lie to teamates about other
teamates, and all kinds of other good [censored] just to have stories to
report. He caused all kinds of problems until the team started feeding
outrageous fake stories and he ran them. He ended up retiring in
disgrace. Explain to me why CSC should be considerate to these type of
"journalists"? If I know someone is going to screw me no matter what,
and never do a positive story I'm not talking to them either.
They need to talk to any objective journalist, but not someone whos
only agenda is to create [censored], even where there might not be any.

And who decides? One person's [censored] is another's news. The [censored] in cycling
is drug use. It's news for which the cyclists and their teams have nobody to
blame but themselves and their code of silence.

Quoted message said:

Bill C

B. Lafferty said:

- CSC has denied claims made by French journalist Gilles Le Roc'h that
it holds a secret file on cycling journalists that establishes what
measure of access each individual journalist should be given to the
team's riders.

You think the women's teams don't have dossiers on Bruce?

B. Lafferty said:

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

- CSC has denied claims made by French journalist Gilles Le Roc'h that it
holds a secret file on cycling journalists that establishes what measure
of
access each individual journalist should be given to the team's riders.
Le
Roc'h, who is also president of the International Association of Cycling
Journalists, told Associated Press at the weekend that he had been told
that
the Danish team held a dossier that reportedly set out whether a
journalist
was "friendly, sympathetic, awkward or dangerous". Le Roc'h explained to
AP
that the holding of such a dossier is illegal under French law. According
to
AP, the alleged dossier's main goal is to prevent access to the team by
journalists who are overly concerned with the issue of doping.

From ProCycling. Denials issued by CSC. It's not drugs. It's the faux
military bonding.

Hey Brian
Why should they do any favors for, or even be reasonable to people whos
only goal is to screw them over. If i think someone's determined to
stir up [censored] just so they can report it I don't talk to them and tell
my people not to talk to them.

It's not about favors. It's about reporters dong their job as opposed to
being a mere extentioin of the team's pr aparatus.

There is a drug problem in cycling. From a public relations point of view,
it would be wiser to simply not profile reporters (it is apparently illegal
to do so in France) and allow access. That doesn't mean a rider has to
answer a question. The PR guy that Riis uses is very good at coaching
riders in dealing with the press.

If the allegation is true, it gives the appearance of having something to
hide. Not that Bjarne and his boys would have anything to hide now, would
they?

Quoted message said:

There used to be a beat writer for the Yankees back in the 60/70s who
used to make up all kinds of rumors, lie to teamates about other
teamates, and all kinds of other good [censored] just to have stories to
report. He caused all kinds of problems until the team started feeding
outrageous fake stories and he ran them. He ended up retiring in
disgrace. Explain to me why CSC should be considerate to these type of
"journalists"? If I know someone is going to screw me no matter what,
and never do a positive story I'm not talking to them either.
They need to talk to any objective journalist, but not someone whos
only agenda is to create [censored], even where there might not be any.

And who decides? One person's [censored] is another's news. The [censored] in cycling
is drug use. It's news for which the cyclists and their teams have nobody to
blame but themselves and their code of silence.

Quoted message said:

Bill C

Brian we're going to disagree here.
I do not think journalists are any better, or deserve any more
consideration than any other tradesman. This glorified idea that
journalists are watching out for truth, justice, and all things good is
BS for the most part. They are hacks getting paid to do a job just like
everybody else except that the bad ones get to wreck people's lives
without paying any penalty as long as they do it carefully. You can
spin an awful lot, and raise tons of nasty questions without going into
libel or slander and get away with it. The paparazi clowns are
"journalists" too, as was Jayson Blair, as were the Hearst flunkies.
People go get what their bosses want, or what they think they can sell.
I don't think Howard Dean is calling Matt Drudge to come do interviews
because it's not in her interest and it's guaranteed that he'd spin it
as negatively as possible. If French laws say you can't profile
reporters then there must be no requirements for press credentials for
any event because they are all equal? I hope that Sandy chips in with
some details about the law.
I think they should be free to tell anyone they want to go screw off,
just like you would anyone else. I don't think they should have any
more access than anyone else.
Bill C

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Brian we're going to disagree here.

I do not think journalists are any better, or deserve any more
consideration than any other tradesman. This glorified idea that
journalists are watching out for truth, justice, and all things good is
BS for the most part. They are hacks getting paid to do a job just like
everybody else except that the bad ones get to wreck people's lives
without paying any penalty as long as they do it carefully. You can
spin an awful lot, and raise tons of nasty questions without going into
libel or slander and get away with it. The paparazi clowns are
"journalists" too, as was Jayson Blair, as were the Hearst flunkies.
People go get what their bosses want, or what they think they can sell.
I don't think Howard Dean is calling Matt Drudge to come do interviews
because it's not in her interest and it's guaranteed that he'd spin it
as negatively as possible. If French laws say you can't profile
reporters then there must be no requirements for press credentials for
any event because they are all equal? I hope that Sandy chips in with
some details about the law.
I think they should be free to tell anyone they want to go screw off,
just like you would anyone else. I don't think they should have any
more access than anyone else.
Bill C

Just a couple of points:

The allegation as to CSC is that they are seeking to prevent any journalists
from asking questions relating to drugs. This position is apparently not so
much related to how the answers are used in print, but that CSC does not
want the question presented to them at all. If the team is clean and has
nothing to hide, what's the big deal about a journalist asking a question
about a problem that is rife in the peloton?

The reporters in question are not Jason Blairs. If they print falsehoods,
they can be sued for libel in France or England much more easily than here
in the US.

I'm certain that many of the teams advise their riders how to answer certain
questions and the riders learn with whom not to talk openly. (e.g. Armstrong
speaks to his friend Bergonzi when he wants to get something into the
Italian press but does not accord David Walsh the same consideration) The
problem here is the alleged making and keeping of dossiers which is designed
to prevent journalist access in a very organized manner; that being a threat
to journalists doing their job of reporting. (Perhaps this was the
motivation for making this act a crime in France?) The irony is that these
same teams and riders want positive publicity from the very same people they
are potentially intimidating into not asking the hard questions.

What could Bjarne possibly be concerned about? CSC is the clean machine.
No?

Bill C said:

I do not think journalists are any better, or deserve any more
consideration than any other tradesman. This glorified idea that
journalists are watching out for truth, justice, and all things good is
BS for the most part. They are hacks getting paid to do a job just like
everybody else except that the bad ones get to wreck people's lives
without paying any penalty as long as they do it carefully. You can
spin an awful lot, and raise tons of nasty questions without going into
libel or slander and get away with it.

Anyone that has read Walsh's book would understand that. It is so
obvious that only the most psychotic whack job wouldn't figure it
out.

If I was Bjarne I would be very concerned about something like a
stomach ailment getting spun into a doping allegation. I know it
seems far fetched, almost beyond belief. But I would still be
concerned about it.

Bob Schwartz
[email hidden]

B. Lafferty said:

What could Bjarne possibly be concerned about? CSC is the clean machine.
No?

Yes,
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=machination

He's doing a great job!

B. Lafferty said:

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Brian we're going to disagree here.

I do not think journalists are any better, or deserve any more
consideration than any other tradesman. This glorified idea that
journalists are watching out for truth, justice, and all things good is
BS for the most part. They are hacks getting paid to do a job just like
everybody else except that the bad ones get to wreck people's lives
without paying any penalty as long as they do it carefully. You can
spin an awful lot, and raise tons of nasty questions without going into
libel or slander and get away with it. The paparazi clowns are
"journalists" too, as was Jayson Blair, as were the Hearst flunkies.
People go get what their bosses want, or what they think they can sell.
I don't think Howard Dean is calling Matt Drudge to come do interviews
because it's not in her interest and it's guaranteed that he'd spin it
as negatively as possible. If French laws say you can't profile
reporters then there must be no requirements for press credentials for
any event because they are all equal? I hope that Sandy chips in with
some details about the law.
I think they should be free to tell anyone they want to go screw off,
just like you would anyone else. I don't think they should have any
more access than anyone else.
Bill C

Just a couple of points:

The allegation as to CSC is that they are seeking to prevent any journalists
from asking questions relating to drugs. This position is apparently not so
much related to how the answers are used in print, but that CSC does not
want the question presented to them at all. If the team is clean and has
nothing to hide, what's the big deal about a journalist asking a question
about a problem that is rife in the peloton?

The reporters in question are not Jason Blairs. If they print falsehoods,
they can be sued for libel in France or England much more easily than here
in the US.

I'm certain that many of the teams advise their riders how to answer certain
questions and the riders learn with whom not to talk openly. (e.g. Armstrong
speaks to his friend Bergonzi when he wants to get something into the
Italian press but does not accord David Walsh the same consideration) The
problem here is the alleged making and keeping of dossiers which is designed
to prevent journalist access in a very organized manner; that being a threat
to journalists doing their job of reporting. (Perhaps this was the
motivation for making this act a crime in France?) The irony is that these
same teams and riders want positive publicity from the very same people they
are potentially intimidating into not asking the hard questions.

What could Bjarne possibly be concerned about? CSC is the clean machine.
No?

My core argument is purely Libertarian. I don't think that anyone's
right to free association, or right to speak to, or not speak to
whomever they choose should be infringed on in any way other than
police and court investigators conducting an official inquiry. I do not
think that the press should have any more right to infringe on people's
right to privacy and free association than anyone else.
That said, if someone chooses to keep them out of a press conference,
or not answer questions raised by them, I think they should publish
that and leave us to decide on.
Bill C

Brian, I think the allegation is that CSC violated French law by
keeping a list of journalists to whom they wished to deny access to the
team.

The subject matter of those journalists' questions, I think, is YOUR
allegation. And while logical and it goes to motive, it is not THE
allegation.

I do hope Sandy turns up to enlighten us to how this law is applied and
argued. Is its basis that it is a denial of trade to journalists (that
sounds so Euro)? Is it because it prevents the public's right to know?
Is it because it shields illegal behavior?

"Hunter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Brian, I think the allegation is that CSC violated French law by
keeping a list of journalists to whom they wished to deny access to the
team.

The subject matter of those journalists' questions, I think, is YOUR
allegation. And while logical and it goes to motive, it is not THE
allegation.

It's not MY allegation.

http://fr.sports.yahoo.com/050612/45/7t3g.html

Selon le président de l'Association internationale des journalistes de
cyclisme, l'équipe CSC recenserait les reporters sportifs pour mieux repérer
les abonnés aux questions sur le dopage. Un procédé choquant mais pas
nouveau.

" Ami ", " compatissant ", " embêtant " ou " dangereux ". Ce sont les quatre
étiquettes que collerait l'équipe CSC aux journalistes. Un fichier aurait
même été fabriqué pour permettre aux coureurs de repérer à quel reporter ils
avaient affaire. Gilles Le Roc'h, spécialiste du vélo à l'agence Reuters et
surtout président de l'Association internationale des journalistes de
cyclisme (AIJC), a révélé cette affaire hier sur le Dauphiné. De son côté,
la CSC dément l'existence du fichier et exige de Gilles Le Roc'h qu'il
retire " ses graves accusations ".

Le fichier à scandale

La pilule a du mal à passer dans la profession. Comment ? Bjarne Riis a
dressé une liste noire des journalistes ? " Cette méthode opaque est
inadmissible, surtout de la part d'un homme donnant des leçons à tout le
monde ", tempête le président de l'AIJC. Stages commando en hiver,
préparation pointue avec le Docteur Luigi Checcini, soin particulier accordé
au matériel, communication très contrôlée grâce au sémillant Bryan NygardÂ.
L'équipe CSC ne fait pas les choses à moitié. Et lorsqu'il s'agit de filtrer
les journalistes pour éviter les obsédés du dopage, elle accouche d'un fichu
fichier. C'est la touche de modernité, l'Âoil perçant de Riis sur le
cyclisme, pareil à cet aigle dont sa société de management a fait son
emblème.

Une vieille habitude

Trier sur le volet les porte-micros complaisants et les méchants fouineurs,
n'est en réalité pas nouveau. La " Famille " des journalistes de cyclisme a
explosé en trois temps. En 1966 d'abord, date des premiers contrôle
antidopage. Un aveu dans la presse pouvait donner lieu à une suspension. Au
milieu des années 80, les remous s'accélèrent dans ce jacuzzi partouzien, où
les coureurs barbotaient avec les journalistes depuis toujours. Fini les
petits instants de complicité, à la bonne franquette, les secrets partagés
autour d'un verre : l'époque voit arriver les premiers camping-car d'équipe,
Bernard Tapie et la hausse des salaires, la télévision annexant le Tour de
France, et bientôt, l'EPO, symbole d'un cyclisme désespérément chimique.
Pour achever le divorce entre la presse et les coureurs, il y eut le Tour
1998, chapelet de scandales, éthiques, judiciaires. Voire sportifs lorsque
ont débarqué sur l'épreuve des journalistes en service commandé - débusquer
les tricheurs, dénoncer la farce du sport.

Halte aux obsédés du dopage

1998, Bjarne Riis connaît. Il était porte-parole des coureurs à
Aix-les-Bains, lors de la seconde grève. Sept ans plus tard, les épreuves
cyclistes sont le même théâtre d'affrontement, entre les journalistes "
dangereux " et les " amis " du peloton, par exemple ceux qui roulent sur des
vélos offerts par une équipe ou se sont payé une soirée pot-belge. Ceux-là
ont le monopole de la passion. C'est ce qu'ils disent, du moins. Leurs
confrères " dangereux " se répartissent entre les monomaniaques du dopage,
qui transportent dans leurs bagages un bazzoka à régler quelques comptes
personnels, et, plus naïvement, ceux qui font leur métier d'information,
dédaigneux des tabous et autres codes qui scellent d'ordinaire la grande
famille du vélo.

Le divorce consommé ?

Le fichier de CSC, si son existence se confirme, accentuera les lignes de
fracture dans la presse sportive. D'aucuns pourront se gausser de la fameuse
loi du silence qui sévirait dans le cyclisme. Oubliant qu'aujourd'hui, il
reste possible d'accomplir son métier de journaliste. Etre reporter sur le
Dauphiné est quand même moins risqué qu'exercer en Irak. (Tiens, Florence
Aubenas a été libérée ce matinÂ.) Enfin, à trois semaines du Tour de France,
demeure une question. Une seule. Dans quelle catégorie du fichier CSC ont
été classés : Jean-René Godard, Gérard Holtz, Henri Sannier, Alain Vernon
(France Télévision), Dominique Issartel, Frédérique Gallametz, Philippe
Brunel (L'Equipe), Jean-Louis Le Touzet (Libération), Pierre Ballester
(ex-L'Equipe) ?

Cyclismag, le cyclisme à visage humain

Quoted message said:

I do hope Sandy turns up to enlighten us to how this law is applied and
argued. Is its basis that it is a denial of trade to journalists (that
sounds so Euro)? Is it because it prevents the public's right to know?
Is it because it shields illegal behavior?

Good questions. Sandy?

B. Lafferty said:

Le fichier de CSC, si son existence se confirme, [...]

Ce qui reste a demontrer, n'est-ce-pas?
That article doesn't mention anything about the law, but it does make
the point that such a list doesn't really keep a journo from
reporting, and the cycling beat's not quite Iraq.

To link this to another thread, reporters are like cops: they have to
put down a story even if they haven't checked the facts and don't know
what they're talking about. If you become a subject, you'd better
cover your own ass.

Philip Holman said:

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

" Ami ", " compatissant ", " embêtant " ou " dangereux ".

It wouldn't surprise me if there were a couple of people around here
who
have files on you. I wonder how those files are labeled?

Tempting but I'll pass.

How frustrating. It's just hanging up there like a big 'ol volleyball
in perfect position to be spiked.

"Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Philip Holman said:

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty wrote:

>" Ami ", " compatissant ", " embêtant " ou " dangereux ".

It wouldn't surprise me if there were a couple of people around here
who
have files on you. I wonder how those files are labeled?

Tempting but I'll pass.

How frustrating. It's just hanging up there like a big 'ol volleyball
in perfect position to be spiked.

I'm probably in BL's kill file which is ironic when considering this
thread.

Phil H

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
|- CSC has denied claims made by French journalist Gilles Le Roc'h that it
| holds a secret file on cycling journalists that establishes what measure
of
| access each individual journalist should be given to the team's riders. Le
| Roc'h, who is also president of the International Association of Cycling
| Journalists, told Associated Press at the weekend that he had been told
that
| the Danish team held a dossier that reportedly set out whether a
journalist
| was "friendly, sympathetic, awkward or dangerous". Le Roc'h explained to
AP
| that the holding of such a dossier is illegal under French law. According
to
| AP, the alleged dossier's main goal is to prevent access to the team by
| journalists who are overly concerned with the issue of doping.
|
| From ProCycling. Denials issued by CSC. It's not drugs. It's the faux
| military bonding.
|

I doubt there'll be an apology. THe phrase "It was my fault", doesn't exist
in French.

"Le Roc'h withdraws

In a e-mail sent to a Danish television station, the French journalist
Gilles Le Roc'h, has withdrawn his accusations against the CSC team. Last
week, Le Roc'h, the president of the International Association of Cycling
Journalists (AIJC), alleged that CSC kept files on journalists, classifying
them as 'friend' or 'dangerous' according to their likelihood of asking
questions about doping. CSC strongly denied the accusations."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/jun05/jun15news

"trg" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
| "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
| [email hidden]...
||- CSC has denied claims made by French journalist Gilles Le Roc'h that it
|| holds a secret file on cycling journalists that establishes what measure
| of
|| access each individual journalist should be given to the team's riders.
Le
|| Roc'h, who is also president of the International Association of Cycling
|| Journalists, told Associated Press at the weekend that he had been told
| that
|| the Danish team held a dossier that reportedly set out whether a
| journalist
|| was "friendly, sympathetic, awkward or dangerous". Le Roc'h explained to
| AP
|| that the holding of such a dossier is illegal under French law. According
| to
|| AP, the alleged dossier's main goal is to prevent access to the team by
|| journalists who are overly concerned with the issue of doping.
||
|| From ProCycling. Denials issued by CSC. It's not drugs. It's the faux
|| military bonding.
||
|
| I doubt there'll be an apology. THe phrase "It was my fault", doesn't
exist
| in French.
|
|
| "Le Roc'h withdraws
|
| In a e-mail sent to a Danish television station, the French journalist
| Gilles Le Roc'h, has withdrawn his accusations against the CSC team. Last
| week, Le Roc'h, the president of the International Association of Cycling
| Journalists (AIJC), alleged that CSC kept files on journalists,
classifying
| them as 'friend' or 'dangerous' according to their likelihood of asking
| questions about doping. CSC strongly denied the accusations."
|
| http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/jun05/jun15news
|

For Brian, who's so fond of posting in non-english languages-

Det danske cykelhold Team CSC blev i weekenden anklaget af franske
journalister for at føre hemmelige arkiver over dele af den internationale
sportspresse, så rytterne kunne være på vagt over for de mest kritiske. De
anklager er nu trukket tilbage.

Anklagerne blev født på en mistanke hos det franske nyhedsbureau AFP, som
angiveligt havde set Team CSC-pressechefen Brian Nygaard fotografere i
presselokalet. Og angrebet blev siden formuleret af Gilles le Roc'h, formand
for den internationale forening af cykeljournalister (AIJC). Han har nu i en
mail til TV2 Sporten trukket sine ord tilbage.

- Jeg har aldrig sagt, at der findes en 'sort liste', men blot at disse
billeder uden tvivl er det bedste middel til at fortælle en cykelrytter om
en journalist inden et interview. Jeg må understrege, at CSC aldrig har
forhindret journalister i at arbejde, skriver Gilles le Roc'h.

http://ekstrabladet.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=297631

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
|- CSC has denied claims made by French journalist Gilles Le Roc'h that it
| holds a secret file on cycling journalists that establishes what measure
of
| access each individual journalist should be given to the team's riders.
Le
| Roc'h, who is also president of the International Association of Cycling
| Journalists, told Associated Press at the weekend that he had been told
that
| the Danish team held a dossier that reportedly set out whether a
journalist
| was "friendly, sympathetic, awkward or dangerous". Le Roc'h explained to
AP
| that the holding of such a dossier is illegal under French law.
According
to
| AP, the alleged dossier's main goal is to prevent access to the team by
| journalists who are overly concerned with the issue of doping.
|
| From ProCycling. Denials issued by CSC. It's not drugs. It's the faux
| military bonding.
|

I doubt there'll be an apology. THe phrase "It was my fault", doesn't
exist
in French.

"Le Roc'h withdraws

In a e-mail sent to a Danish television station, the French journalist
Gilles Le Roc'h, has withdrawn his accusations against the CSC team. Last
week, Le Roc'h, the president of the International Association of Cycling
Journalists (AIJC), alleged that CSC kept files on journalists,
classifying
them as 'friend' or 'dangerous' according to their likelihood of asking
questions about doping. CSC strongly denied the accusations."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/jun05/jun15news

Interesting. He was quite adamant that his story was correct and that his
source was from within CSC. I wonder what the pressures were that made him
change his story.

trg said:

Quoted message said:

I doubt there'll be an apology. THe phrase "It was my fault", doesn't
exist
in French.
"Le Roc'h withdraws

B. Lafferty said:

Interesting. He was quite adamant that his story was correct and that his
source was from within CSC. I wonder what the pressures were that made him
change his story.

He was told he would be assassinated by a ray gun fired from a grassy
knoll by aliens from a UFO.

On 06/15/2005 04:15 AM, in article
[email hidden], "B. Lafferty"

Quoted message said:

"trg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
|- CSC has denied claims made by French journalist Gilles Le Roc'h that it
| holds a secret file on cycling journalists that establishes what measure
of
| access each individual journalist should be given to the team's riders.
Le
| Roc'h, who is also president of the International Association of Cycling
| Journalists, told Associated Press at the weekend that he had been told
that
| the Danish team held a dossier that reportedly set out whether a
journalist
| was "friendly, sympathetic, awkward or dangerous". Le Roc'h explained to
AP
| that the holding of such a dossier is illegal under French law.
According
to
| AP, the alleged dossier's main goal is to prevent access to the team by
| journalists who are overly concerned with the issue of doping.
|
| From ProCycling. Denials issued by CSC. It's not drugs. It's the faux
| military bonding.
|

I doubt there'll be an apology. THe phrase "It was my fault", doesn't
exist
in French.

"Le Roc'h withdraws

In a e-mail sent to a Danish television station, the French journalist
Gilles Le Roc'h, has withdrawn his accusations against the CSC team. Last
week, Le Roc'h, the president of the International Association of Cycling
Journalists (AIJC), alleged that CSC kept files on journalists,
classifying
them as 'friend' or 'dangerous' according to their likelihood of asking
questions about doping. CSC strongly denied the accusations."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/jun05/jun15news

Interesting. He was quite adamant that his story was correct and that his
source was from within CSC. I wonder what the pressures were that made him
change his story.

He was promised an exclusive and given full-and-complete access to the
rider's medical dossiers.

--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash

"Donald Munro" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

trg said:

Quoted message said:

I doubt there'll be an apology. THe phrase "It was my fault", doesn't
exist
in French.
"Le Roc'h withdraws

B. Lafferty said:

Interesting. He was quite adamant that his story was correct and that
his
source was from within CSC. I wonder what the pressures were that made
him
change his story.

He was told he would be assassinated by a ray gun fired from a grassy
knoll by aliens from a UFO.

Now the real purpose of the early season military commando training becomes
clear.