A pair of David Walsh interviews - Clinic Edition

[SundayRider]

If Sky did not havemore than a big whiff of doubt about how they are winning I would expect the interview that Walsh gave but that they do have so many questions from hiring doping docs to riders stratosperic performance improvements I would have expected a less than pro Sky tone.

Walsh doubted Armstrong's '99 win, where Armstrong came from only finishing 1 prevoius tour to winning is not to dissimilar to Wiggins rise from Grupetto to winning and not to mention those doubts leaves me thinking Walsh has been blinded.

Wiggins average GT finish prior to the Tour in 09? 113th...

 

[Benotti69]

Wiggins average GT finish prior to the Tour in 09? 113th...

Most feel the TdF is the hardest tour due to the best riders particapating, so Wiggins like Armstrong only finished 1, 124th prior to his transformation.

That Walsh is not questioning this is puzzling.

I have heard Walsh on competitor radio talking about Armstrong not having GT ability and then boom winning. Wiggins no GT ability then boom podium in '09. As I said, puzzling.

 

[SundayRider]

Most feel the TdF is the hardest tour due to the best riders particapating, so Wiggins like Armstrong only finished 1, 124th prior to his transformation.

That Walsh is not questioning this is puzzling.

I have heard Walsh on competitor radio talking about Armstrong not having GT ability and then boom winning. Wiggins no GT ability then boom podium in '09. As I said, puzzling.

Wiggins showed a lot less on the road than Armstrong did prior to transformation. LA went from classics/one day rider to GT winner. Wiggins went from erm track specialist/pack fodder on the road to GT podium.

 

[Benotti69]

Wiggins showed a lot less on the road than Armstrong did prior to transformation. LA went from classics/one day rider to GT winner. Wiggins went from erm track specialist/pack fodder on the road to GT podium.

Yep, but i think Wiggins was cleanER than Armstrong at those respective times.

Armstrong was doping from his junior years. It would appear Wiggins started 'marginal gaining' in 2009.

 

[SundayRider]

Yep, but i think Wiggins was cleanER than Armstrong at those respective times.

Armstrong was doping from his junior years. It would appear Wiggins started 'marginal gaining' in 2009.

Oh yes I agree with that.

 

[gooner]

Walsh's interview from last night.

http://www.newstalk.ie/The-tricky-politics-of-Team-Sky

 

[mikehammer67]

we may know more when he eventually gets to room with the team doctors

they may start sleeptalking and let the cat out the bag

 

[Benotti69]

we may know more when he eventually gets to room with the team doctors

they may start sleeptalking and let the cat out the bag

I dont expect Walsh to find out about Sky.

It will come from another source eventually.

 

[blackcat]

I dont expect Walsh to find out about Sky.

It will come from another source eventually.

will they revoke the knighthoods?

 

[mikehammer67]

no, nothing will come of the embed through the ST anyhow

TBH it's all a bit silly

they're two sides of the same coin-the ST and team sky

 

[Benotti69]

will they revoke the knighthoods?

If Wiggins were truly cool he never would've accepted it.

 

[Benotti69]

no, nothing will come of the embed through the ST anyhow

TBH it's all a bit silly

they're two sides of the same coin-the ST and team sky

That was the whole point of getting Walsh from the ST and not an unemployed journalist like Kimmage

 

[armchairclimber]

If Wiggins were truly cool he never would've accepted it.

That's certainly something we can agree on.

So, basically, anyone, a journalist like Walsh, another team manager like Vaughters...whoever....anyone, no matter who, that comes along and suggests that SKY are clean are just not to be believed. Correct?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That's certainly something we can agree on.

So, basically, anyone, a journalist like Walsh, another team manager like Vaughters...whoever....anyone, no matter who, that comes along and suggests that SKY are clean are just not to be believed. Correct?

One is a journalist. The other a GM of another team.
How would they know for sure Sky are clean?

They can offer an opinion, and certainly are in a reasonable position to offer an opinion, but ultimately that's all they can offer.

 

[armchairclimber]

One is a journalist. The other a GM of another team.
How would they know for sure Sky are clean?

They can offer an opinion, and certainly are in a reasonable position to offer an opinion, but ultimately that's all they can offer.

Sure, and I don't think either of them have said "Fact" after expressing their opinion but, and here's the rub, I suspect that their opinions would carry more weight around here if they were saying that SKY are doping.

If Walsh and Vaughters were on here saying that they think that SKY are cheating then I'd most likely believe them. They are two people who I trust...sharp and with some proven integrity.

I concede that, as Walsh is on Murdoch's payroll, his position might appear compromised but I think that he's the kind of man who would resign rather than do what the money tells him to do. He'd have a job with a rival outfit in no time.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sure, and I don't think either of them have said "Fact" after expressing their opinion but, and here's the rub, I suspect that their opinions would carry more weight around here if they were saying that SKY are doping.

If Walsh and Vaughters were on here saying that they think that SKY are cheating then I'd most likely believe them. They are two people who I trust...sharp and with some proven integrity.

I concede that, as Walsh is on Murdoch's payroll, his position might appear compromised but I think that he's the kind of man who would resign rather than do what the money tells him to do. He'd have a job with a rival outfit in no time.

I would say neither (& in particular Walsh) would say that anyone or any team dopes publicly until they had exceedingly strong reason to.

Indeed Walsh did not become vocal publicly on Armstrong until 2001 and he found him to be evasive on Ferrari and Walsh subsequently found out he had been visiting him.

 

[armchairclimber]

I would say neither (& in particular Walsh) would say that anyone or any team dopes publicly until they had exceedingly strong reason to.

Indeed Walsh did not become vocal publicly on Armstrong until 2001 and he found him to be evasive on Ferrari and Walsh subsequently found out he had been visiting him.

Indeed and, probably, wisely so. If there's anything amiss, he may not find it in this case but I'm surprised by how forthcoming he has been....rather than just keeping his own counsel. I do think that people are doing him a disservice by questioning his integrity...even in veiled terms. He has shown enough guts, tenacity and decency in the past to have earned some respect ... in my opinion. I don't think he'd be Murdoch's pet for any money.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Indeed and, probably, wisely so. If there's anything amiss, he may not find it in this case but I'm surprised by how forthcoming he has been....rather than just keeping his own counsel. I do think that people are doing him a disservice by questioning his integrity...even in veiled terms. He has shown enough guts, tenacity and decency in the past to have earned some respect ... in my opinion. I don't think he'd be Murdoch's pet for any money.

Just in case your "veiled terms" is a veiled term at me - I can assure you I have height of respect for Walsh.

But he is a journalist, nothing more.
Would I trust him to highlight doping if he uncovered it, yes - (although I am less certain about his editors/middle management) - but he isn't wearing a white coat in a lab, or interrogating people in a cellar. He is reliant on sources with corroborated information.

 

[mikehammer67]

if he decides they're doping he'll prob have to resign and resort to twitter

they've prob got his phone hacked anyhow as a precaution

 

[armchairclimber]

Just in case your "veiled terms" is a veiled term at me - I can assure you I have height of respect for Walsh.

But he is a journalist, nothing more.
Would I trust him to highlight doping if he uncovered it, yes - (although I am less certain about his editors/middle management) - but he isn't wearing a white coat in a lab, or interrogating people in a cellar. He is reliant on sources with corroborated information.

For the avoidance of doubt, no, I wasn't referring to you. You are one of the voices in here that I have respect for.

 

[Benotti69]

That's certainly something we can agree on.

So, basically, anyone, a journalist like Walsh, another team manager like Vaughters...whoever....anyone, no matter who, that comes along and suggests that SKY are clean are just not to be believed. Correct?

If we take what we know about Sky and their time as a pro team, there are lots of questions about how they have gone about their business. When those questions have been put to them the answers have been less than acceptable. So I dont believe JV or Walsh. JV has a vested interest in Sky being seen as clean. Sky's PR model is a step above Garmin's after all.

Sure, and I don't think either of them have said "Fact" after expressing their opinion but, and here's the rub, I suspect that their opinions would carry more weight around here if they were saying that SKY are doping.

If Walsh and Vaughters were on here saying that they think that SKY are cheating then I'd most likely believe them. They are two people who I trust...sharp and with some proven integrity.

I concede that, as Walsh is on Murdoch's payroll, his position might appear compromised but I think that he's the kind of man who would resign rather than do what the money tells him to do. He'd have a job with a rival outfit in no time.

Walsh would find it hard to get a job at another paper in today's falling sales.

Kimmage is a mulitple award winner and no one is offering him a job. The accountants in the papers, which are hæmorrhaging money, have put a block on staff jobs.

 

[armchairclimber]

If we take what we know about Sky and their time as a pro team, there are lots of questions about how they have gone about their business. When those questions have been put to them the answers have been less than acceptable. So I dont believe JV or Walsh. JV has a vested interest in Sky being seen as clean. Sky's PR model is a step above Garmin's after all.



Walsh would find it hard to get a job at another paper in today's falling sales.

Kimmage is a mulitple award winner and no one is offering him a job. The accountants in the papers, which are hæmorrhaging money, have put a block on staff jobs.

If Walsh had the goods on SKY he'd have no problem at all, even in today's terrible climate.

 

[Benotti69]

If Walsh had the goods on SKY he'd have no problem at all, even in today's terrible climate.

Walsh had the goods on kelly when he tested positive at Paris Brussells and ignored it.

He claims he wouldn't do that again, but his thought process on Sky seems clouded. That he doesn't appear to question the hiring of Leinders, the rise of Wiggins and Froome, the weak answers given when asked why Sky ignored their own ZTP......

That Sky seem to be USPS Part II

Walsh could be playing a blinder and only time will tell.

 

[B_Ugli]

I have been reading the Walsh book on Armstrong - Seven Deadly Sins and am about half way through it.

Despite what I have read in the books by Voet, Millar & Hamilton and the USADA reason decision this is by far the best book I have read. Not in terms of the information (a lot of which is already known), but just how Walsh links all the events together and gives a real insight into the world of intimidation/arrogance by Lance Armstrong. I think he also gives you a real snapshot of Armstrong's state of mind over the years. Walsh likens Ferrari's relationship to Armstrong as Armstrong being Ferrari's Frankenstein.

The part I have found the most shocking by far is in Spring 1997 when Armstrong attends a team training camp with Cofidis which shocked everyone concerned as he had not yet received the all clear from his doctors and was still a very frail man. (I actually remember seeing the pictures in the media of him in his baseball cap and bald head). Later it would transpire that the real reason he was there was that it was located close by to Michele Ferrari (to whom he visited) and the trip was a way of him having a legitimate reason to be in that area of Europe.

Here is a man who only months previous has been staring death in the face and had tumours removed from various parts of his body. Here he is literally champing at the bit to take even more performance enhancing drugs as quickly as possible the moment he steps out of hospital, on top of the medication he is probably taking to counteract the effects of the chemotherapy.

I think Frankenstein is a pretty accurate picture by Walsh of Armstrong - the man clearly thought his body was invincible to everything natural and unnatural he could throw at it to whatever extremes humanly possible.

 

[Benotti69]

I have been reading the Walsh book on Armstrong - Seven Deadly Sins and am about half way through it.

Despite what I have read in the books by Voet, Millar & Hamilton and the USADA reason decision this is by far the best book I have read. Not in terms of the information (a lot of which is already known), but just how Walsh links all the events together and gives a real insight into the world of intimidation/arrogance by Lance Armstrong. I think he also gives you a real snapshot of Armstrong's state of mind over the years. Walsh likens Ferrari's relationship to Armstrong as Armstrong being Ferrari's Frankenstein.

The part I have found the most shocking by far is in Spring 1997 when Armstrong attends a team training camp with Cofidis which shocked everyone concerned as he had not yet received the all clear from his doctors and was still a very frail man. (I actually remember seeing the pictures in the media of him in his baseball cap and bald head). Later it would transpire that the real reason he was there was that it was located close by to Michele Ferrari (to whom he visited) and the trip was a way of him having a legitimate reason to be in that area of Europe.

Here is a man who only months previous has been staring death in the face and had tumours removed from various parts of his body. Here he is literally champing at the bit to take even more performance enhancing drugs as quickly as possible the moment he steps out of hospital, on top of the medication he is probably taking to counteract the effects of the chemotherapy.

I think Frankenstein is a pretty accurate picture by Walsh of Armstrong - the man clearly thought his body was invincible to everything natural and unnatural he could throw at it to whatever extremes humanly possible.

To date his body has been pretty damn invincible. Whether he has done untold damage that will arise down the road remains to be seen.

That Armstrong was a Frankenstein both physically and mentally played a massive part in his downfall.

Sky doesn't have a Frankenstein although Woggins mental state can be flakey. He might be the weak link in Sky's chainmail.