Log in:  

Register

Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Re: Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

29 Dec 2016 21:08

gooner wrote:Such a state sponsored doping, Radcliffe was practically named at that Cuture, Media and Sports committee.

Collins too has questioned Coe in the past at it.

Any tangible results the CMS can boast with apart from a public apology to Radcliffe?

And again, the state sponsored doping angle is a strawman.
Nobody is arguing that the UK government has plotted or knowingly implanted a nation-wide doping scheme.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,121
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re: Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

29 Dec 2016 21:23

sniper wrote:
gooner wrote:Such a state sponsored doping, Radcliffe was practically named at that Cuture, Media and Sports committee.

Collins too has questioned Coe in the past at it.

Any tangible results the CMS can boast with apart from a public apology to Radcliffe?

And again, the state sponsored doping angle is a strawman.
Nobody is arguing that the UK government has plotted or knowingly implanted a nation-wide doping scheme.


Both Benotti and Glenn said it.

Plus

sniper wrote:Widespread and in some cases systematic doping is ongoing in UK sports, there is no point in denying that.
A fact is that large segments of UK sports are state-sponsored.
It logically means that doping in the UK is for a considerable part sponsored by the state.



State sponsored doping has one meaning, not what you say from the point of view of investing in sports for training and preparation purposes to then come to that conclusion.
User avatar gooner
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 25 Mar 2013 14:18

29 Dec 2016 21:29

I think you misunderstood,

1. yes, the doping in the UK is to some extent sponsored by the state. Facilitators like UKAD, Reedie, Coe and Cookson are sponsored by the state. Simples.

2. Fair enough if you insist on the traditional meaning of "state sponsored doping" as in "nation-wide doping plotted, planned and executed by the government". But then do realize that nobody actually argues that that is what's going on in the UK.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,121
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

29 Dec 2016 21:34

It's not to some extent sponsored.

If there is no argument, you don't use the phrase then.
User avatar gooner
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 25 Mar 2013 14:18

Re:

29 Dec 2016 21:54

gooner wrote:It's not to some extent sponsored.

If there is no argument, you don't use the phrase then.

People will use the phrase as they deem relevant and appropriate.
Some people deem it relevant and appropriate in the context of lottery- and state-funded dopers and/or facilitators like UKAD, Cookson, Coe, Reedie, and of course BC and by extension Sky (to the extent that it involves BC staff).

Compare it to US Postal if you will. State-sponsored doping, though obviously not in the old east-bloc sense of the word.

Again, nobody is arguing for nation-wide doping plotted by the UK government.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,121
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

29 Dec 2016 22:12

So to sum up (and fwiw), I agree with you that the term "state-sponsored doping" -- when used in the more traditional/canonical meaning of "nation-wide doping plotted by the government" -- does not apply to the UK.

If you argue that the term should therefore be avoided in reference to the UK, that's certainly fair enough.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,121
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re:

29 Dec 2016 23:58

sniper wrote:So to sum up (and fwiw), I agree with you that the term "state-sponsored doping" -- when used in the more traditional/canonical meaning of "nation-wide doping plotted by the government" -- does not apply to the UK.

If you argue that the term should therefore be avoided in reference to the UK, that's certainly fair enough.


Hypothetical statement:
"British Cycling have spent UK taxpayer funds in activities related to the use of performance enhancing drugs."

Who thinks a statement like that will come back to haunt you? Yeah, me neither.
User avatar TeflonDub
Junior Member
 
Posts: 102
Joined: 14 Aug 2015 22:30

08 Jan 2017 13:29

Does Walsh still have full access to Sky? He has revealed this morning that Sky hired Tony Blairs former PR consultant to try and set up a press conference in which Froome would praise Brailsford but he then failed to do so.

Walsh is on a crusade at the minute which can be summarised as Big Bad Brailsford needs to go now whilst Fantastic Froome is a clean hero. Any story about Sky he writes always seems to try and separate Froome from any wrongdoing.

I'm not sure how Walsh's position is tenable as being the journalist with full access to the team. He has certainly revealed absolutely nothing since the story broke, this despite his Ccomments that Brailsford would regret the day that he allowed him into the team since he knows a lot of people who could tell him things. Walsh has been played for a fool and continues to be so.
ontheroad
Member
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 10 Oct 2012 18:04

Re:

09 Jan 2017 13:59

ontheroad wrote:Does Walsh still have full access to Sky? He has revealed this morning that Sky hired Tony Blairs former PR consultant to try and set up a press conference in which Froome would praise Brailsford but he then failed to do so.

Walsh is on a crusade at the minute which can be summarised as Big Bad Brailsford needs to go now whilst Fantastic Froome is a clean hero. Any story about Sky he writes always seems to try and separate Froome from any wrongdoing.

I'm not sure how Walsh's position is tenable as being the journalist with full access to the team. He has certainly revealed absolutely nothing since the story broke, this despite his Ccomments that Brailsford would regret the day that he allowed him into the team since he knows a lot of people who could tell him things. Walsh has been played for a fool and continues to be so.


Walsh is a tool and a fool. All those years chasing Armstrong he failed. It was Landis and the feds that took Armstrong down. Walsh played little part in it all in the end. But he has cashed in on it and Sky have used that reputation to blind the fans to their UKPostal team dominance of July.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,205
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re:

09 Jan 2017 14:15

ontheroad wrote:Does Walsh still have full access to Sky? He has revealed this morning that Sky hired Tony Blairs former PR consultant to try and set up a press conference in which Froome would praise Brailsford but he then failed to do so.

Walsh is on a crusade at the minute which can be summarised as Big Bad Brailsford needs to go now whilst Fantastic Froome is a clean hero. Any story about Sky he writes always seems to try and separate Froome from any wrongdoing.

I'm not sure how Walsh's position is tenable as being the journalist with full access to the team. He has certainly revealed absolutely nothing since the story broke, this despite his Ccomments that Brailsford would regret the day that he allowed him into the team since he knows a lot of people who could tell him things. Walsh has been played for a fool and continues to be so.



Walsh is trying to save face. He became so ridiculous and he shut everyone out who even wanted to question his logic. Walsh's first Sky book was an open love letter to Sir Dave.

Brailsford played Walsh for a fool and is still playing him for a fool.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,887
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

09 Jan 2017 14:39

Benotti69 wrote:
ontheroad wrote:Does Walsh still have full access to Sky? He has revealed this morning that Sky hired Tony Blairs former PR consultant to try and set up a press conference in which Froome would praise Brailsford but he then failed to do so.

Walsh is on a crusade at the minute which can be summarised as Big Bad Brailsford needs to go now whilst Fantastic Froome is a clean hero. Any story about Sky he writes always seems to try and separate Froome from any wrongdoing.

I'm not sure how Walsh's position is tenable as being the journalist with full access to the team. He has certainly revealed absolutely nothing since the story broke, this despite his Ccomments that Brailsford would regret the day that he allowed him into the team since he knows a lot of people who could tell him things. Walsh has been played for a fool and continues to be so.


Walsh is a tool and a fool. All those years chasing Armstrong he failed. It was Landis and the feds that took Armstrong down. Walsh played little part in it all in the end. But he has cashed in on it and Sky have used that reputation to blind the fans to their UKPostal team dominance of July.


A journalists' job is to inform as he did with sources. Any different to Lawton, is it?

It's like saying Damien Ressiot failed. That was enough for Armstrong's downfall. Journalists can't be blamed for incompetent sports governance that fails to act.
User avatar gooner
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 25 Mar 2013 14:18

Re: Re:

09 Jan 2017 14:50

gooner wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:
ontheroad wrote:Does Walsh still have full access to Sky? He has revealed this morning that Sky hired Tony Blairs former PR consultant to try and set up a press conference in which Froome would praise Brailsford but he then failed to do so.

Walsh is on a crusade at the minute which can be summarised as Big Bad Brailsford needs to go now whilst Fantastic Froome is a clean hero. Any story about Sky he writes always seems to try and separate Froome from any wrongdoing.

I'm not sure how Walsh's position is tenable as being the journalist with full access to the team. He has certainly revealed absolutely nothing since the story broke, this despite his Ccomments that Brailsford would regret the day that he allowed him into the team since he knows a lot of people who could tell him things. Walsh has been played for a fool and continues to be so.


Walsh is a tool and a fool. All those years chasing Armstrong he failed. It was Landis and the feds that took Armstrong down. Walsh played little part in it all in the end. But he has cashed in on it and Sky have used that reputation to blind the fans to their UKPostal team dominance of July.


A journalists' job is to inform as he did with sources. Any different to Lawton, is it?

It's like saying Damien Ressiot failed. That was enough for Armstrong's downfall. Journalists can't be blamed for incompetent sports governance that fails to act.


Like Reedie, Cookson, Coe, UKAD and British Cycling. I couldn't agree more.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,887
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

09 Jan 2017 14:56

thehog wrote:
gooner wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:
ontheroad wrote:Does Walsh still have full access to Sky? He has revealed this morning that Sky hired Tony Blairs former PR consultant to try and set up a press conference in which Froome would praise Brailsford but he then failed to do so.

Walsh is on a crusade at the minute which can be summarised as Big Bad Brailsford needs to go now whilst Fantastic Froome is a clean hero. Any story about Sky he writes always seems to try and separate Froome from any wrongdoing.

I'm not sure how Walsh's position is tenable as being the journalist with full access to the team. He has certainly revealed absolutely nothing since the story broke, this despite his Ccomments that Brailsford would regret the day that he allowed him into the team since he knows a lot of people who could tell him things. Walsh has been played for a fool and continues to be so.


Walsh is a tool and a fool. All those years chasing Armstrong he failed. It was Landis and the feds that took Armstrong down. Walsh played little part in it all in the end. But he has cashed in on it and Sky have used that reputation to blind the fans to their UKPostal team dominance of July.


A journalists' job is to inform as he did with sources. Any different to Lawton, is it?

It's like saying Damien Ressiot failed. That was enough for Armstrong's downfall. Journalists can't be blamed for incompetent sports governance that fails to act.


Like Reedie, Cookson, Coe, UKAD and British Cycling. I couldn't agree more.


I agree on them too. Different names from what I'm referring to though.
User avatar gooner
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 25 Mar 2013 14:18

Re: Re:

09 Jan 2017 17:46

gooner wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:
ontheroad wrote:Does Walsh still have full access to Sky? He has revealed this morning that Sky hired Tony Blairs former PR consultant to try and set up a press conference in which Froome would praise Brailsford but he then failed to do so.

Walsh is on a crusade at the minute which can be summarised as Big Bad Brailsford needs to go now whilst Fantastic Froome is a clean hero. Any story about Sky he writes always seems to try and separate Froome from any wrongdoing.

I'm not sure how Walsh's position is tenable as being the journalist with full access to the team. He has certainly revealed absolutely nothing since the story broke, this despite his Ccomments that Brailsford would regret the day that he allowed him into the team since he knows a lot of people who could tell him things. Walsh has been played for a fool and continues to be so.


Walsh is a tool and a fool. All those years chasing Armstrong he failed. It was Landis and the feds that took Armstrong down. Walsh played little part in it all in the end. But he has cashed in on it and Sky have used that reputation to blind the fans to their UKPostal team dominance of July.


A journalists' job is to inform as he did with sources. Any different to Lawton, is it?

It's like saying Damien Ressiot failed. That was enough for Armstrong's downfall. Journalists can't be blamed for incompetent sports governance that fails to act.


Walsh was trying to take Armstrong down. He was doing more than reporting the facts. He failed. He has no problem taking the cash and kudos for it. I dont think Walsh corrects people about who took Armstrong down.

I would not compare Walsh to Lawton. Walsh was Sky's gimp. Now that others have gotten dirt on Sky Walsh feels betrayed. If he didn't let his ego rule his job he would have never embedded with Sky.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,205
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: Re:

09 Jan 2017 18:00

Benotti69 wrote:
Walsh was trying to take Armstrong down. He was doing more than reporting the facts. He failed. He has no problem taking the cash and kudos for it. I dont think Walsh corrects people about who took Armstrong down.


You said he failed regarding Armstrong. How then? He's not in the anti-doping world or sports governance. He's a journalist. I think he helped inform us well enough. A journalist can only do so much.

To say he failed, is revisionism again and an opinion you didn't have prior to his reporting on Sky.

I would not compare Walsh to Lawton. Walsh was Sky's gimp. Now that others have gotten dirt on Sky Walsh feels betrayed. If he didn't let his ego rule his job he would have never embedded with Sky.


Never did compare. I referred to Lawton's reporting on the package based on his source. Will he have failed if it doesn't take down Wiggins and UKAD give all the clear?

It's comparing to what you said about Walsh's work on Armstrong.
User avatar gooner
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 25 Mar 2013 14:18

Re: Re:

09 Jan 2017 18:43

gooner wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:
Walsh was trying to take Armstrong down. He was doing more than reporting the facts. He failed. He has no problem taking the cash and kudos for it. I dont think Walsh corrects people about who took Armstrong down.


You said he failed regarding Armstrong. How then? He's not in the anti-doping world or sports governance. He's a journalist. I think he helped inform us well enough. A journalist can only do so much.

To say he failed, is revisionism again and an opinion you didn't have prior to his reporting on Sky.

I would not compare Walsh to Lawton. Walsh was Sky's gimp. Now that others have gotten dirt on Sky Walsh feels betrayed. If he didn't let his ego rule his job he would have never embedded with Sky.


Never did compare. I referred to Lawton's reporting on the package based on his source. Will he have failed if it doesn't take down Wiggins and UKAD give all the clear?

It's comparing to what you said about Walsh's work on Armstrong.


I dont think i claimed Walsh took down Armstrong. He went after Armstrong with a vengeance. That is plain for all to see. He never let go of the story. He could have plenty of times. Walsh wanted Armstrong caught. That is not revisionism. Walsh wanted more than writing about Armstrong, he wanted him taken down and that is evident in interviews he gave(eg competitor radio) and how he handle himself afterward the Oprah show.

Lawton has stated the what was in the jiffy bag will never be probably never be proven.

I think if Lawton wanted to see Wiggins fall we would see stories about Wiggins transformation in 2009 and he would be looking for evidence (or lack of) asthma/allergies prior to 2009.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,205
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

09 Jan 2017 18:47

To say he failed, is revisionism

why? One can think he did a good -or even a great- job going after Lance, but still conclude that he failed to actually bring him down.
And i think that's the point: he didn't bring Lance down, but he seems happy to take credit for bringing him down.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,121
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

09 Jan 2017 18:56

The way he's introduced is one thing (fair point), it's another to say he failed in his role as a journalist. He didn't.
User avatar gooner
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 25 Mar 2013 14:18

Re: Re:

09 Jan 2017 18:58

Benotti69 wrote:
I dont think i claimed Walsh took down Armstrong. He went after Armstrong with a vengeance. That is plain for all to see. He never let go of the story. He could have plenty of times. Walsh wanted Armstrong caught. That is not revisionism. Walsh wanted more than writing about Armstrong, he wanted him taken down and that is evident in interviews he gave(eg competitor radio) and how he handle himself afterward the Oprah show.


Yes he did want his downfall, that doesn't mean he failed though as a journalist.
User avatar gooner
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 25 Mar 2013 14:18

Re: Re:

09 Jan 2017 21:10

gooner wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:
I dont think i claimed Walsh took down Armstrong. He went after Armstrong with a vengeance. That is plain for all to see. He never let go of the story. He could have plenty of times. Walsh wanted Armstrong caught. That is not revisionism. Walsh wanted more than writing about Armstrong, he wanted him taken down and that is evident in interviews he gave(eg competitor radio) and how he handle himself afterward the Oprah show.


Yes he did want his downfall, that doesn't mean he failed though as a journalist.


Walsh was being more than a journalist in going after Armstrong. For Walsh it was personal.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,205
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Random Direction and 20 guests

Back to top