A pair of David Walsh interviews - Clinic Edition

[coinneach]

To broaden this topic out, I'd be curious to consider what makes a good journalist?

Is it someone who asks difficult questions, but then rarely gets and interview, or job?

Is it someone who is good at allowing people to express themselves?

Is it someone who is good at deducing the truth, but not having enough evidence, so their company has to settle the law suit out of court?

(Wiggins speaks of why he doesn't like Kimmage in his recent Fotheringham book....says Kimmage only wants you to answer a question a certain way, so you end up either agreeing with him or disagreeing, but getting nowhere)

 

[Benotti69]

To broaden this topic out, I'd be curious to consider what makes a good journalist?

Is it someone who asks difficult questions, but then rarely gets and interview, or job?

Is it someone who is good at allowing people to express themselves?

Is it someone who is good at deducing the truth, but not having enough evidence, so their company has to settle the law suit out of court?

(Wiggins speaks of why he doesn't like Kimmage in his recent Fotheringham book....says Kimmage only wants you to answer a question a certain way, so you end up either agreeing with him or disagreeing, but getting nowhere)

That is what Wiggins is scared off and why Kimmage has won so many awards for his interviewing and why Brailsford offered Walsh the embed and not Kimmage.

It will be easier for Sky to hide stuff from Walsh then Kimmage a former pro. Walsh is not living with Sky 24/7 for the season so he is hardly doing a fly on the wall. At the end of the day Walsh is not going to find anything due to his 'limited' access.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

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.

So to clarify, do you KNOW Wiggins is clean, as you've claimed, or are you PRETTY MUCH CERTAIN Wiggins is clean, but without full knowledge, as you now imply?

 

[martinvickers]

Poor old David Walsh.

I've only one question. Is he a blasphemer, or a heretic?

Or is apostate better?

 

[mattghg]

Poor old David Walsh.

I've only one question. Is he a blasphemer, or a heretic?

Or is apostate better?

Defector.

Politics is as good as religion for a metaphor here.

 

[martinvickers]

Defector.

Politics is as good as religion for a metaphor here.

Politics lacks the moral certainty, and faith in things unseen.

And jihad, obviously.

 

[Ferminal]

What.....?

 

[thehog]

I like David Walsh.

It will be a case of what he doesn't write tons what he does come July.

 

[IndianCyclist]

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 is basically a nice guy. But he has gone after the top names in cycling when he had witnesses or evidence e.g LA, Roche. He was very courageous in that aspect though he got vilified for it. He would have asked the correct questions and the answers he would have got have nothing substantial in them. Otherwise there is no way that he would not have reported on any discrepancy. If he finds something he will report it for sure. Though it may be so well hidden that even he may not be able to dig it out.

 

[Benotti69]

Walsh is basically a nice guy. But he has gone after the top names in cycling when he had witnesses or evidence e.g LA, Roche. He was very courageous in that aspect though he got vilified for it. He would have asked the correct questions and the answers he would have got have nothing substantial in them. Otherwise there is no way that he would not have reported on any discrepancy. If he finds something he will report it for sure. Though it may be so well hidden that even he may not be able to dig it out.

A big IF, and the chances of him finding something are slim to nothing. I guess all the talk of attention to detail at Sky is disguising how they marginal gain.

If Walsh gets anything it will be similar to Armstrong with Emma, Betsy and Swart, but I doubt there will that as I think no one wants anymore scandals in the sport at the moment but it may well happen in a few years.

Wiggins is a volatile person. Who knows which way he will go after cycling.

 

[del1962]

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

And am I not able to laugh at the heard mentality of those who turn on Walsh

It seems the herd around here want to silence those who don't agree with the Sky doping mantra. (This can be verified by some of the bans that get handed out)

Oh and I would not put mucgh credence into a no-hoper on twitter who has a leg breaker and one of the biggest cheats in football as his avatar, (the guy in the avatar also assaulted a woman in a nightclub).

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And am I not able to laugh at the heard mentality of those who turn on Walsh.

As long as we can laugh at your typos.

It seems the herd around here want to silence those who don't agree with the Sky doping mantra. (This can be verified by some of the bans that get handed out)

Oh and I would not put mucgh credence into a no-hoper on twitter who has a leg breaker and one of the biggest cheats in football as his avatar, (the guy in the avatar also assaulted a woman in a nightclub).

It's amusing to watch you attempt to portray a tiny number of people who have "turned" against Walsh as a herd.
There are far more people who support Sky based purely on faith.
Not a smart thing to do in this sport.

 

[Benotti69]

Walsh interviewed on 'off the ball', newstalk.ie tonight, defending Wiggins position as his right to ride the TdF to win as defending champion. He thinks Wiggins is better than last year.

Seems like he has bought Sky are clean.

 

[Netserk]

Seems like he has been bought Sky are clean.

Fixed

 

[gooner]

Walsh interviewed on 'off the ball', newstalk.ie tonight, defending Wiggins position as his right to ride the TdF to win as defending champion. He thinks Wiggins is better than last year.

Seems like he has bought Sky are clean.

There was no doping discussion here. I don't know how it can be talked about in the terms you posted above. This interview was entirely on the topic on the racing, tactics and politics of Sky that will happen during the Tour this year.

I thought Walsh spoke a bit of sense. Take the first time trial where I think Wiggins could beat Froome once again. Walsh said what if Wiggins is in yellow here. It could easily happen and from here on the leadership could be still be one of debate. All we have before that is the AX 3 Domaines and unless Froome launches an attack that sticks, Froome could even be behind Wiggins after the first TT in the race. That AX 3 Domaines stage is vital to Froome's hopes because if Wiggins finds himself in yellow as a defending champion after the TT he will play this out in the media and try and garner the public's support that he's deserving of the team support for the overall. Notice too how Walsh said Porte is very good friends with Froome and would be more in his camp while Thomas would be in Wiggins's one.

 

[Ferminal]

And am I not able to laugh at the heard mentality of those who turn on Walsh

It seems the herd around here want to silence those who don't agree with the Sky doping mantra. (This can be verified by some of the bans that get handed out)

Oh and I would not put mucgh credence into a no-hoper on twitter who has a leg breaker and one of the biggest cheats in football as his avatar, (the guy in the avatar also assaulted a woman in a nightclub).

So you'd rather not have an opinion on the statements Walsh makes, and just play some silly game where anyone who disagrees with those statements is part of a heard who opposes the statements he makes not because of their dubious factual basis, but because he supports Sky => anyone who disagrees with him does it because they don't support Sky?

Surely the idiots here are anyone who agrees/disagrees with what Walsh says purely because of where he has positioned himself currently, and not on the basis of the factual credibility of his statements. Different heard same paddock. Well, at least they are better than the "have no opinion and nothing to contribute but will criticise people who do" flok.

 

[armchairclimber]

It's "herd" FFS.

 

[thehog]

There was no doping discussion here. I don't know how it can be talked about in the terms you posted above. This interview was entirely on the topic on the racing, tactics and politics of Sky that will happen during the Tour this year.

I thought Walsh spoke a bit of sense. Take the first time trial where I think Wiggins could beat Froome once again. Walsh said what if Wiggins is in yellow here. It could easily happen and from here on the leadership could be still be one of debate. All we have before that is the AX 3 Domaines and unless Froome launches an attack that sticks, Froome could even be behind Wiggins after the first TT in the race. That AX 3 Domaines stage is vital to Froome's hopes because if Wiggins finds himself in yellow as a defending champion after the TT he will play this out in the media and try and garner the public's support that he's deserving of the team support for the overall. Notice too how Walsh said Porte is very good friends with Froome and would be more in his camp while Thomas would be in Wiggins's one.

When did Walsh take up the team publicist role?

 

[gooner]

When did Walsh take up the team publicist role?

I'm not defending Walsh. I understand the criticism he's getting at the moment.

Everything points to Walsh getting too close to Sky to the point where it looks like it's clouding and compromising his judgement to say anything of note. And this is where is I think Brailsford is a wily old fox, he knew if he could get Walsh on side it's a major plus on the PR side of things for them and paints them in good light with Walsh's faith and support. Walsh has certainly been too quick and too hasty for me in doing this and I think it would have been better to be reporting on this from a distance where it could be done more objectively. I'm not really a big fan of this "embedding" stuff and I think it's a lot more credible for teams to release data and blood profiles to dispel any doubts that the fans and public have.

I was only referring to the interview on Newstalk that Benotti posted about. There wasn't any doping discussion or questions asked about it. If there was a slight criticism about it, maybe Walsh came across pro-Wiggins a bit too much but really it's an interview that belongs in the Road Racing Section more than the clinic. Newstalk will probably put it up later(I will post the link of they do so) and you can hear it for yourself if you want.

 

[thehog]

I'm not defending Walsh. I understand the criticism he's getting at the moment.

Everything points to Walsh getting too close to Sky to the point where it looks like it's clouding and compromising his judgement to say anything of note. And this is where is I think Brailsford is a wily old fox, he knew if he could get Walsh on side it's a major plus on the PR side of things for them and paints them in good light with Walsh's faith and support. Walsh has certainly been too quick and too hasty for me in doing this and I think it would have been better to be reporting on this from a distance where it could be done more objectively. I'm not really a big fan of this "embedding" stuff and I think it's a lot more credible for teams to release data and blood profiles to dispel any doubts that the fans and public have.

I was only referring to the interview on Newstalk that Benotti posted about. There wasn't any doping discussion or questions asked about it. If there was a slight criticism about it, maybe Walsh came across pro-Wiggins a bit too much but really it's an interview that belongs in the Road Racing Section more than the clinic. Newstalk will probably put it up later(I will post the link of they do so) and you can hear it for yourself if you want.

I agree. The Walsh move is a good one. He looks independent but really he and DB share the same boss.

Perception is reality right?

Sky are handling the doping question like their racing. Their strapped an SRM to Walsh and the team and they're all on song.

Kids. Why would I? Imagine - I'd lose it all. Kids. How's Paul Kimmidge? I'm a wally for saying things about Landis. It was a spur of the moment thing. Kids. Why would I dope? I'd lose it all.

It's all too nice and too cosy.

 

[Cimber]

Alex Dowsett to Cycle Sport Magazine, Feb 2013 edition:

On likely differences between Sky and Movistar:



Anyway, to completely disregard the approach Sky *say* they are taking is to assume that training methods are uniform across the peloton, and that absolutely nothing can be done to improve on what currently manifests itself as cyclist training. It also assumes that if anyone did adopt different training methods, they'd have zero effect and that any riders who are consistently winning races in 2013 are dopers. I'll just go and grab that Queen CD...

Saxo/CSC were using pre-season camps since forever and they always used Watts to optimize training. Its not something Sky invented, its not something that is new to the peloton. CSC and Riis put their success in the 00s down to "harder and smarter training" - now we all know that there was more to it than that...

 

[Benotti69]

There was no doping discussion here. I don't know how it can be talked about in the terms you posted above. This interview was entirely on the topic on the racing, tactics and politics of Sky that will happen during the Tour this year.

I thought Walsh spoke a bit of sense. Take the first time trial where I think Wiggins could beat Froome once again. Walsh said what if Wiggins is in yellow here. It could easily happen and from here on the leadership could be still be one of debate. All we have before that is the AX 3 Domaines and unless Froome launches an attack that sticks, Froome could even be behind Wiggins after the first TT in the race. That AX 3 Domaines stage is vital to Froome's hopes because if Wiggins finds himself in yellow as a defending champion after the TT he will play this out in the media and try and garner the public's support that he's deserving of the team support for the overall. Notice too how Walsh said Porte is very good friends with Froome and would be more in his camp while Thomas would be in Wiggins's one.

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.

 

[gooner]

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.

That's true but I don't think Ger Gilroy helped in the interview either about this where he didn't touch any of the topics that needed to be asked about Sky. He really wanted to keep this on a racing only theme.

I am sure this wouldn't have happened if Eoin McDevitt was still on the show.

 

[Benotti69]

That's true but I don't think Ger Gilroy helped in the interview either about this where he didn't touch any of the topics that needed to be asked about Sky. He really wanted to keep this on a racing only theme.

I am sure this wouldn't have happened if Eoin McDevitt was still on the show.

True about Eoin McDevitt. But Walsh could have easily directed the interview in that direction if he wished. He has been fielding these questions about Sky at every 'whistleblower' talk he gives.

 

[thehog]

I'm looking forward to Walsh's next compelling piece in the Times.

He really is telling the story behind the story with Team Sky.

I've leant so much since he was "embedded" in the team with access to everyone.