Originally Posted by Don't be late Pedro
So, as a hypothetical question... if Kimmage were to come out and say something similar to Walsh would you reconsider or just assume that he too had sold out to some extent?
Id like to think im not as much of a nutjob about this as others ( i don't for example think wiggins smoking is proof of doing) but i am disappointed by the interview and here is why.
When you have wiggins praising lance Armstrong as an inspiration for his win all year, now claiming he has never ridden with lance and that doping was "15 years ago" and froome becoming best rider in the world out of nowhere and guys like rogers and Barry and yates being hired even though everyone knew they had a past, and whatsmorr rogers finding the form of his life and wiggins, who spoke frankly about doping when he wasn't very good now cursing at the very idea of a doping question, and lienders in lswept under the rug for months before being dealt with only when the **** hit the fan and most importantly, bailsford treating anti doping entirely as a political campaign and not doing a single anti doping thing unless it can be sold to a very naive press (same press which believed pass 500 tests = doping not possible).
And here comes walsh and says that he bekieves sky are clean bevause vaughters ( who is hardly a stranger to running his own game) says that wiggins might could if everything went well with 2 ymore ears at garmjn have resembled something like the one we saw at sky, well that to me sounds like a massivr cop out that totaly plasters over the entire debate because "vaughters says so"
And id like to think that in an alternate universe in which my mind worked differently and for some reason i took the side that wiggins and bailsford really were the frontline against doping and that they only appeared to some people of above average intellgence to be on the other side because they have the self control of mr bean, id like to think thay even if i was on that side id still see dws interview as a cop out that does not adress the discussion at all.
Btw as regards kimmage i recall in the post lance stuff walsh was the one who said " i really hope wiggins is clean" and " he should speak out against this" which bailsford of course heard and arranged the scripted 2 minute promo where wiggins says that lance cheated and wiggins did not.
Kimmage meanwhile was asking sky questions.
Also is it not true that kimmage arrived far earlier at the lance doped conclusion?
So i have far more confident in kimmage than walsh. Hell i even posted a few months ago that i didnt think walsh knew half as much about doping as kimmage and was shut down by bennoti.
So lets leave the - its as if kimmage came out and said sky was clean for when the big man actually comes our and says it.
Not that i woulr.neccesarily move with kimmage, i believe the weakness with all these people os.that they want nothing else in life than clean cycling whereas one should never let your emoions cloud your judgment. Walsh clearly does and kimmage probably too but he is imo far stronger and has maybe seen enough to be a real cynic.