On 7/20/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
A point I have made more than once. But this seems to
single
Armstrong out. The section is gradually getting bigger and bigger,
with special pleading and guilt by association creeping back in. I do
not see how it can be considered neutral to give the strong impression
that he is a doper who has not been caught, which is what one or two
editors are determinedly trying to do, when the legal position is that
he is clean, despite being quite possibly the most tested athlete in
history.
I suppose it depends how you word it. If we could cite some
respectable opinion pieces that said he was probably a doper, you
could throw in some weasly "he remains under a cloud of suspicion"
type sentences.
Steve