Comments on: How not to defend your reputation http://www.pkellypr.com/blog/2006/0731/how-not-to-defend-your-reputation/ Irish Communications Consultant - Be Noticed Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:02:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Piaras http://www.pkellypr.com/blog/2006/0731/how-not-to-defend-your-reputation/#comment-28677 Piaras Tue, 01 Aug 2006 18:49:01 +0000 http://www.pkellypr.com/blog/2006/0731/how-not-to-defend-your-reputation/#comment-28677 It's definitely necessary to mention the scientific phrases, but the way he presented his case was atrocious, immediately blurting out terms that he didn't look like he understood. We live ina world of soundbytes and there was very little from his statement that people could come away with. Plain English first, Science later :D It’s definitely necessary to mention the scientific phrases, but the way he presented his case was atrocious, immediately blurting out terms that he didn’t look like he understood. We live ina world of soundbytes and there was very little from his statement that people could come away with.

Plain English first, Science later :D

]]> By: fmk http://www.pkellypr.com/blog/2006/0731/how-not-to-defend-your-reputation/#comment-28596 fmk Tue, 01 Aug 2006 09:10:41 +0000 http://www.pkellypr.com/blog/2006/0731/how-not-to-defend-your-reputation/#comment-28596 i'm afraid the testosterone/epistestosterone jargon is necessary and, to be honest, most cycling fans or followers of doping stories actually know what it means. i would agree with you that his pr is dreadful, but (quel surprise) i'd argue it from different reasoning. on the day before the final stage of the tour, he was asked his views on the doping scandal that opened the race. rather than condeming the dopers, he tried to argue there was no problem, that it was just a perceived problem, that the press and the public had the wrong idea about the sport. this was even before he was charged with anything, and set alarm bells ringing in the heads of many who have followed cycling and have heard these words before, coming form the mouths of convicted junkies like richard virenque and david millar. after he was caught, again his responses were evasive and less than convincing - when he started giving responses, that is, having gone to ground for a day and more. it was only after he'd brought his spanish lawyer on board that he started giving more detailed respones. first the cortisone for his hip injury. then the drugs for his thyroid problem. then the two beers and four whiskies the night before his epic escape, after which he tested positive. all could naturally account for elevated testosterone levels. interestingingly, if the nyt is to be believed, these excuses are all wasted, as the testosterone found has been shown to be synthetic,a nd the testestrone/epistestestorone ratio is claimed to be 11:1 (4:1 is the legal limit, 1:1 to 2:1 is the mean average). on the pr side, you'd probably have to credit his team, phonak, who were quick to admit it was landis who had tested positive, and were quick to say they'd fire him should the test be confirmed. this is the major change in cycling in the last year or so - the teams are finally respecting their sponsors, and coming down heard on those who damage the team's - and hence the sponsor's - good name. re the website. tyler hamilton had a site dending his innocence. it didn't stop him being banned, but it did create enough doubt in the minds of many such that there's a lot of people still believe he was innocent. lance armstrong has used his site to constantly counter-attack his attackers.people i’m afraid the testosterone/epistestosterone jargon is necessary and, to be honest, most cycling fans or followers of doping stories actually know what it means. i would agree with you that his pr is dreadful, but (quel surprise) i’d argue it from different reasoning.

on the day before the final stage of the tour, he was asked his views on the doping scandal that opened the race. rather than condeming the dopers, he tried to argue there was no problem, that it was just a perceived problem, that the press and the public had the wrong idea about the sport. this was even before he was charged with anything, and set alarm bells ringing in the heads of many who have followed cycling and have heard these words before, coming form the mouths of convicted junkies like richard virenque and david millar.

after he was caught, again his responses were evasive and less than convincing - when he started giving responses, that is, having gone to ground for a day and more. it was only after he’d brought his spanish lawyer on board that he started giving more detailed respones. first the cortisone for his hip injury. then the drugs for his thyroid problem. then the two beers and four whiskies the night before his epic escape, after which he tested positive. all could naturally account for elevated testosterone levels.

interestingingly, if the nyt is to be believed, these excuses are all wasted, as the testosterone found has been shown to be synthetic,a nd the testestrone/epistestestorone ratio is claimed to be 11:1 (4:1 is the legal limit, 1:1 to 2:1 is the mean average).

on the pr side, you’d probably have to credit his team, phonak, who were quick to admit it was landis who had tested positive, and were quick to say they’d fire him should the test be confirmed. this is the major change in cycling in the last year or so - the teams are finally respecting their sponsors, and coming down heard on those who damage the team’s - and hence the sponsor’s - good name.

re the website. tyler hamilton had a site dending his innocence. it didn’t stop him being banned, but it did create enough doubt in the minds of many such that there’s a lot of people still believe he was innocent. lance armstrong has used his site to constantly counter-attack his attackers.people

]]>