A pair of David Walsh interviews - Clinic Edition

[Froome19]

Why turn on him though, just accept he has a different position to you and his might be as informed as yours.

No it certainly is based on more information than anyone on this forum has ever had accessible to them.

That is may be based on bias as well is another factor which may contribute as well.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So Walsh says he believes in Wiggins and he's a "wrong 'un". What happens when Kimmage comes to the same conclusions?...which he probably will, ultimately. Will he be put in the "corrupt/sell out" box too?

Walsh offered his opinion, it is either right or wrong. Nothing about stating something means he is a sellout, he just could be wrong.

And you mention that Kimmage will "come to the same conclusions" - which subtly means that he does not share Walshs opinion.
Also, care to explain how or why Kimmage will "probably" come to the same conclusions as Walsh, or is that a faith based wish?

Funny as hell. It's quite simple, Walsh believes in Wiggins because there's nothing to indicate otherwise to him...and that is because he IS clean. In the end some of the clinic will get it....others will cling onto their beliefs regardless.

Now this is interesting as you appear certain that Wiggins is clean.
Can you please state exactly how you are so sure he is clean?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

No it certainly is based on more information than anyone on this forum has ever had accessible to them.

That is may be based on bias as well is another factor which may contribute as well.

Is that including Vaughters and Pinotti or just the general casual posters?

 

[del1962]

Is that including Vaughters and Pinotti or just the general casual posters?

I don't think Vaughters views is subtantially different from Walshes though, does Pinotti post here (under what name?)

 

[armchairclimber]

Walsh offered his opinion, it is either right or wrong. Nothing about stating something means he is a sellout, he just could be wrong.

And you mention that Kimmage will "come to the same conclusions" - which subtly means that he does not share Walshs opinion.
Also, care to explain how or why Kimmage will "probably" come to the same conclusions as Walsh, or is that a faith based wish?


Now this is interesting as you appear certain that Wiggins is clean.
Can you please state exactly how you are so sure he is clean?

Sell out was a term used by someone else. The inference that Walsh's integrity has been compromised by his employment also came from someone else...it's not an unreasonable punt mind you.

Re. Kimmage...it is a guess that Kimmage is interested in finding the truth. I do think that he will get to the truth and that truth is "Wiggins won the TDF clean".

I don't think he's far from that position now but he has legitimate gripes with the hiring of Leinders. He's not alone there.

 

[Froome19]

Sell out was a term used by someone else. The inference that Walsh's integrity has been compromised by his employment also came from someone else...it's not an unreasonable punt mind you.

Re. Kimmage...it is a guess that Kimmage is interested in finding the truth. I do think that he will get to the truth and that truth is "Wiggins won the TDF clean".

I don't think he's far from that position now but he has legitimate gripes with the hiring of Leinders. He's not alone there.

In the interest of neutrality.. It is also important to note that Kimmage as well certainly is not a fan of Wiggins, just as Walsh's stance may have been influenced by external factors such as his employment ( and to be honest seeing as he is just about the most respected sports journalist in Britain atm, it is unlikely he has any qualms about his employment he has probably the safest job of any journalist, though any self respecting employee likes to keep his employers happy). So too Kimmage has reasons to dislike Wiggins, and maybe even to dislike Sky. Also remember that Kimmage has a family to feed as well..

Not to say that Kimmage is untrustworthy or biased, but there are other factors at work in any situation.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sell out was a term used by someone else. The inference that Walsh's integrity has been compromised by his employment also came from someone else...it's not an unreasonable punt mind you.

Re. Kimmage...it is a guess that Kimmage is interested in finding the truth. I do think that he will get to the truth and that truth is "Wiggins won the TDF clean".

I don't think he's far from that position now but he has legitimate gripes with the hiring of Leinders. He's not alone there.

So what happens Kimmage is a guess - which you use to conveniently ignore that he does not currently share Walshs opinion.

And you suggest that as Kimmage is interested in the truth, it will come to pass that he will believe Wiggins is clean because of, well what exactly.
This is your second opportunity to state clearly why you are sure Wiggins is clean.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

In the interest of neutrality.. It is also important to note that Kimmage as well certainly is not a fan of Wiggins, just as Walsh's stance may have been influenced by external factors such as his employment ( and to be honest seeing as he is just about the most respected sports journalist in Britain atm, it is unlikely he has any qualms about his employment he has probably the safest job of any journalist, though any self respecting employee likes to keep his employers happy). So too Kimmage has reasons to dislike Wiggins, and maybe even to dislike Sky. Also remember that Kimmage has a family to feed as well..

Not to say that Kimmage is untrustworthy or biased, but there are other factors at work in any situation.

Like what?
You wrote a long post stating lots of things but not saying why.

Kimmage certainly liked Bradley back in 2008- but I don't think Kimmage likes people who lie or are inconsistent with what they say.

 

[armchairclimber]

So what happens Kimmage is a guess - which you use to conveniently ignore that he does not currently share Walshs opinion.

And you suggest that as Kimmage is interested in the truth, it will come to pass that he will believe Wiggins is clean because of, well what exactly.
This is your second opportunity to state clearly why you are sure Wiggins is clean.

Er, where does Kimmage accuse Wiggins of doping? I must have missed that.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Er, where does Kimmage accuse Wiggins of doping? I must have missed that.

Where did I say Kimmage accuses Wiggins of doping?

And something you did miss is another opportunity to state exactly what makes you sure that Wiggins is clean.

 

[armchairclimber]

Where did I say Kimmage accuses Wiggins of doping?

And something you did miss is another opportunity to state exactly what makes you sure that Wiggins is clean.

He is clean because he doesn't dope. Pan y Agua. He doesn't take drugs.
I know this. You don't and clearly don't believe it. That isn't my problem. I don't have an issue with other people, including you, being suspicious of Wiggins.

Walsh believes in Wiggins. Kimmage has no reason to suspect that Wiggins won the tour by foul means. They're not really that far apart. When Kimmage comes out and accuses Wiggins of cheating then you might have a point worth making.

 

[Digger]

Walsh isn't being influenced by his employees. I know that for certain. He is however, and it's sad to hear, being influenced by JV. JV told Walsh that Wiggins was clean in '09.
Again this is not good. And Walsh is being hugely inconsistent in his reporting of Sky.
As regards Kimmage and Wiggins. Well don't expect him to share Walsh's views on Wiggins anytime soon. And that's an understatement based on numerous factors. Leinders, Wiggins' idolisation of lance, Wiggins' continuous contradictions etc.

 

[Digger]

He is clean because he doesn't dope. Pan y Agua. He doesn't take drugs.
I know this. You don't and clearly don't believe it. That isn't my problem. I don't have an issue with other people, including you, being suspicious of Wiggins.

Walsh believes in Wiggins. Kimmage has no reason to suspect that Wiggins won the tour by foul means. They're not really that far apart. When Kimmage comes out and accuses Wiggins of cheating then you might have a point worth making.

I know for a fact they are a mile apart.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

He is clean because he doesn't dope. Pan y Agua. He doesn't take drugs.
I know this. You don't and clearly don't believe it. That isn't my problem. I don't have an issue with other people, including you, being suspicious of Wiggins.

Walsh believes in Wiggins. Kimmage has no reason to suspect that Wiggins won the tour by foul means. They're not really that far apart. When Kimmage comes out and accuses Wiggins of cheating then you might have a point worth making.

Are you thehog of side A?

 

[Digger]

Armchair did give a funny reason for why Wiggins is clean. He's clean because he doesn't dope!! Genius...

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

JV told Walsh that Wiggins was clean in '09.

Good thing that boy from Colorado never lies.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

He is clean because he doesn't dope. Pan y Agua. He doesn't take drugs.
I know this. You don't and clearly don't believe it. That isn't my problem. I don't have an issue with other people, including you, being suspicious of Wiggins.

Walsh believes in Wiggins. Kimmage has no reason to suspect that Wiggins won the tour by foul means. They're not really that far apart. When Kimmage comes out and accuses Wiggins of cheating then you might have a point worth making.

Do not attempt to speak for me. I have suspicions of him, but nothing more.
However, you seem certain - and I am offering you an opportunity (once again) to assist me in making an informed decision.

So again, how do you know he does not dope, because repeating it does not make it so.

 

[hrotha]

Why turn on him though, just accept he has a different position to you and his might be as informed as yours.

Because it's not a matter of believing this or that. The issue is Walsh's failure to ask the right questions and to follow up on them. Now, I think we'll all agree Walsh is a good journalist. He'd know which questions he should be asking, and which of the answers he's getting don't stand to closer scrutiny. So he's either blinded (by personal likes, a willingness to believe in Sky or whatever) or a sellout.

Not sure about this being due to his believing JV, as Digger suggested. For one, 2009 Wiggins was a vastly inferior rider in absolutely every aspect, so even if he was clean in 2009 that doesn't mean he was clean in 2011-2013. Furthermore, JV has said Wiggins pretty much did his own thing even back in 2009.

 

[The Hitch]

Fixed it

Other side of the coin and the above quote could apply to many posters in the clinic.

No it doesn't apply to dirty. Its perfectly possible to know someone is dirty without ever meeting them (e.g. if the test positive, or admit) it is simply not possible to know someone is clean if you are not them, and especially not if they are lance Armstrong fanboys who just won the tdf

 

[The Hitch]

Because it's not a matter of believing this or that. The issue is Walsh's failure to ask the right questions and to follow up on them. Now, I think we'll all agree Walsh is a good journalist. He'd know which questions he should be asking, and which of the answers he's getting don't stand to closer scrutiny. So he's either blinded (by personal likes, a willingness to believe in Sky or whatever) or a sellout.

Not sure about this being due to his believing JV, as Digger suggested. For one, 2009 Wiggins was a vastly inferior rider in absolutely every aspect, so even if he was clean in 2009 that doesn't mean he was clean in 2011-2013. Furthermore, JV has said Wiggins pretty much did his own thing even back in 2009.

Walsh said in January "vaughters told me that if wiggins was on Garmin in 2012 Wiggins would hve won the tour. So if wiggins could have won the tour clean on Garmin why wouldn't he on sky"

Or words to that effect.

 

[Ferminal]

Lol - people turn on Walsh because he does not follow the herd mentality around here.

I'm not allowed to be critical of factually dubious statements he makes?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

No it doesn't apply to dirty. Its perfectly possible to know someone is dirty without ever meeting them (e.g. if the test positive, or admit) it is simply not possible to know someone is clean if you are not them, and especially not if they are lance Armstrong fanboys who just won the tdf

And even if you are them (as it were) that is still no guarantee that you are clean. You may had been mislead in the supplements you are taking or just taken something innocently which turns out to be on the banned list.

 

[armchairclimber]

Well, the fact is that no rider/athlete can be proven to be clean. They can provide samples which suggest that they are clean at the time the sample was taken, that is all.

The athlete can know they are clean but and certain people close to them (not necessarily emotionally, but in a medical capacity for instance) can know that they have always been clean....though, as you say, that can change...accidentally.

The clinic has a future....and speculation, cloud investigation and accusation can continue. Phew.

 

[Froome19]

No it doesn't apply to dirty. Its perfectly possible to know someone is dirty without ever meeting them (e.g. if the test positive, or admit)

But I was talking about specifically in Wiggins case where it is indeed not possible to know whether he is dirty or not.

 

[Ferminal]

And even if you are them (as it were) that is still no guarantee that you are clean. You may had been mislead in the supplements you are taking or just taken something innocently which turns out to be on the banned list.

Yep, like poor old Bertie.