The drug taking evidence against Lance Armstrong is huge and appears overwhelming. It has emerged long after he finished racing when it would really have meant something. Now that it is "out" scores of people are coming forward to say they knew it all along and, indeed, that it was common knowledge. It appears Armstrong before his cancer was too famous and too powerful for people to speak out against him and, after, that his charity work made him virtually untouchable. The editors of cycling magazines who knew what was going on were warned off publishing any stories as they would be "harming the sport". Drug taking is not as serious as issue, not in the same league, as paedophilia, but the story seems to have many similarities and the lives of many young athletes can be ruined by following the drug trail.
Our press consistently boasts its investigative journalism as reason why it should not be subject to stricter publication codes. It seems to me that such journalism is rather more effective at hacking victims phones and publishing nude/half-nude shots of celebrities than it is at exposing the damaging activities of the some of the rich, famous and powerful. That is what investigative journalism should mean.
