• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Brits don't dope?

Page 20 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Justinr said:
It will be interesting to see what thats about. Maybe, just maybe, it has f****k all to do with SKY despite The Sceptics post above ...

Most likely not in relation to Sky but agree, it's definitely one to keep an eye on as the week progresses.
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
Visit site
the sceptic said:
I would be shocked if that has anything to do with sky.

I was just commenting on the general tone of the article, painting Walsh as a lone anti doping crusader, working against an endless stream of fans with typewrites until one day he gets the dream gig with sky, and becomes their biggest fan.


Ok maybe i misinterpreted based on what you have just said in your first sentence - apologies. But i go back to what i have said before about Walsh : one minute he's the darling of the clinic for pursuing Armstrong, the next he's the devil cos he didn't give you the view you wanted on Sky. Make your mind up ...
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
Visit site
gooner said:
Most likely not in relation to Sky but agree, it's definitely one to keep an eye on as the week progresses.


Well of course. I'm jus reacting to the fact that (it seems) whenever there is a potential doping story people try to link it to SKY regardless of the facts. Witness the PR thread and the pills - a completely unrelated BW picture was posted kind of implying he was involved. Utter BS.

I'm happy to have reasoned debates / discussions / arguments, but when utter lies / tripe like that is posted, why bother? All it encourages me to do is either (a) log off or (b) fight back big time with attacks that aren't relevant, and we all know that is not good ...
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Justinr said:
Well of course. I'm jus reacting to the fact that (it seems) whenever there is a potential doping story people try to link it to SKY regardless of the facts. Witness the PR thread and the pills - a completely unrelated BW picture was posted kind of implying he was involved. Utter BS.

I'm happy to have reasoned debates / discussions / arguments, but when utter lies / tripe like that is posted, why bother? All it encourages me to do is either (a) log off or (b) fight back big time with attacks that aren't relevant, and we all know that is not good ...

Don't take any notice of the bait by the sceptic, he's just trying to get us bogged down in another discussion about Walsh/Sky. I knew this was going to happen the minute I posted the link. He knows full well the thread to go to if he has a problem about Walsh/Sky on this.

Like yourself, I'm more interested in the details of the story that Walsh is referring to and what sport it is related to.
 
Justinr said:
Ok maybe i misinterpreted based on what you have just said in your first sentence - apologies. But i go back to what i have said before about Walsh : one minute he's the darling of the clinic for pursuing Armstrong, the next he's the devil cos he didn't give you the view you wanted on Sky. Make your mind up ...

You simply can't know that's the case. He was neither the "darling of the clinic" whatever that means (again, painting all of us with a single, broad brush), nor is he the devil. And people can react to different behavior with genuinely different feelings or judgement.

I genuinely, simply and completely believe he was acting differently toward Armstrong than he is toward Sky. He did the same with Kelly and others before, declaring them all clean. He's often been wrong. No mea culpa forthcoming though. All best forgotten, eh?

I considering it insulting that you keep assigning to all in the clinic this idea that "we" only listen to what we want to hear. The same could be said of those who listen to Walsh now.

And let me assure you, there were a LOT of people who now know what Armstrong is/was who did NOT accept a word of what Walsh and many, many others were saying about Armstrong back before the admission. For YEARS many of us saw what Armstrong was and for YEARS people came in here and railed against this place.

They were wrong then, dead wrong. I wouldn't be so sure of myself on this one. Things have a way of sorting themselves out eventually.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Visit site
hrotha said:
It was a slow and rational process.

But that would contradict that accusations often thrust upon The Clinic 12. If a handful of members all agree on the same pieces of information, or adopt a unified perspective on a particular issue, then it's called an Echo Chamber.

If there is dissent within the ranks, with disagreement among usual allies, The Clinic 12 suddenly become hypocrites.

There is no tolerance for "rational" thinking from those who are determined to paint The Clinic as a hive with no means for independent thought. It doesn't suit their agenda if the members here don't follow blindly in the path of whoever has been given elevated status. Whether it be some public anti-doping crusader or longstanding member of The Clinic itself, there are countless examples of people being called out if their narrative becomes contradictory, or if the "facts" just don't seem to line up.

The Clinic is often chastised for supposed blind allegiance to one party or another, but when the exact opposite is proven to be the case, then The Clinic is deemed to be a directionless mass with no purpose whatsoever.

This is, of course, consistent with the screeching that often takes place whereby The Clinic is scolded for libelous and unwarranted attacks that have the potential to ruin lives and careers, all while being reassured that no one, out there, actually pays any attention to The Clinic whatsoever, and to believe otherwise is delusional.

Make up your mind. Indeed.
 
Walsh had a doping story on Armstrong. Perhaps he doesn't have a doping story on Sky (at this time). That would perhaps explain why he is "acting differently" toward Sky.

The "evidence" of doping discussed here in the Clinic would get any publisher sued into oblivion for defamation. That is perhaps why no reputable publisher accuses Sky of team doping.

Walsh's pursuit of Armstrong, after much difficulty, brought him considerable well-deserved fame. I can't believe he would dissipate that in exchange for a series of fraudulent puff-pieces on Sky. I also can't imagine that he would turn down another doping story--an item that would bring him far more renown than another series of puff-pieces on Sky. He is a sports reporter, after all, and he's doing what sports reporters do.

Many here are holding Walsh to a standard that perhaps only Kimmage could maintain. And what has Kimmage gotten for his pains? Pro cycling remains just as filthy as it always has been and Kimmage just hangs on, financially.

Journalists are not saints, that's for sure. They'll laud you one moment, then stick the knife in your guts the next. They are truly a double-edged sword. If Walsh has the opportunity to stick it to Sky, like he did to Armstrong, I'm sure he will.
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
Visit site
red_flanders said:
I considering it insulting that you keep assigning to all in the clinic this idea that "we" only listen to what we want to hear. The same could be said of those who listen to Walsh now.

Red - the post was not meant to be insulting or painting everyone with the same brush, just a late night viewpoint post. To be fair though there are a lot of posters who say the same thing and (re)act in a similar way. Thats not meant to be offensive - just an observation.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Visit site
gooner said:
Don't take any notice of the bait by the sceptic, he's just trying to get us bogged down in another discussion about Walsh/Sky. I knew this was going to happen the minute I posted the link. He knows full well the thread to go to if he has a problem about Walsh/Sky on this.

Like yourself, I'm more interested in the details of the story that Walsh is referring to and what sport it is related to.
Baiting the baiter?

hrotha said:
To say that the opinion on Walsh changed "from one minute to the next" is blatantly false. There were months of misgivings and of giving Walsh the benefit of the doubt. It was a slow and rational process.
That is pretty correct.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
Visit site
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
Visit site
"People often talk about me having remarkable perseverance. But it was easy for me to persist. I know this comes across as arrogance, and I really don't want that, but I always knew I was on the side of the truth, so it wasn't a challenge to persevere. It was just natural. I thought, 'people just have to know this guy is a liar and a fraud.'"

How he felt about Lance then is very similar to how most here feel about Froome and Sky now.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
Visit site
SundayRider said:
"People often talk about me having remarkable perseverance. But it was easy for me to persist. I know this comes across as arrogance, and I really don't want that, but I always knew I was on the side of the truth, so it wasn't a challenge to persevere. It was just natural. I thought, 'people just have to know this guy is a liar and a fraud.'"

How he felt about Lance then is very similar to how most here feel about Froome and Sky now.

Difference being that there was plenty of evidence of Armstrong's doping going back to 2001 or earlier, not to mention his rabid aggression toward his detractors. With Sky, Wiggins & Froome there is internet conjecture and SFA else. That's not to say there isn't doping going on, just that there is a massive difference in the two scenarios.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
Visit site
ultimobici said:
Difference being that there was plenty of evidence of Armstrong's doping going back to 2001 or earlier, not to mention his rabid aggression toward his detractors. With Sky, Wiggins & Froome there is internet conjecture and SFA else. That's not to say there isn't doping going on, just that there is a massive difference in the two scenarios.

There is no hard evidence they are dirty but there is lots of coincidences/reasons that they are very unlikely to be clean.
 
MarkvW said:
Journalists are not saints, that's for sure. They'll laud you one moment, then stick the knife in your guts the next. They are truly a double-edged sword. If Walsh has the opportunity to stick it to Sky, like he did to Armstrong, I'm sure he will.

The difficulty Walsh now has is that he has a dog in the fight. He has nailed his colours to the mast by publishing pro-Sky whitewash books where he puts forward flimsy excuses unbecoming of a journalist of his reputation in order to justify them (Chris roomed with Richie, what doper would do that? Lance roomed alone!) and published doe-eyed praise of Brailsford and Sky with no recompense to the suspicions that people had. If he did not ask the questions, it is a wasted opportunity and his reputation has justifiably suffered as a result, since many of these questions were obvious and if Sky were clean, they could have been able to silence some of the doubters. If he did ask the questions, he chose not to publish the answers, in which case he is deliberately withholding information from the public, which is in fact the opposite of what a journalist is supposed to do. And his reputation has justifiably suffered as a result.

At this point, he has published some pretty one-sided writings, has firmly entrenched his position as being absolutely 100% pro-Sky, and given the reputation that he has built and the position he was put in, is in such a position that should anything come out about them, Walsh is going to look mighty foolish.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
Visit site
Libertine Seguros said:
The difficulty Walsh now has is that he has a dog in the fight. He has nailed his colours to the mast by publishing pro-Sky whitewash books where he puts forward flimsy excuses unbecoming of a journalist of his reputation in order to justify them (Chris roomed with Richie, what doper would do that? Lance roomed alone!) and published doe-eyed praise of Brailsford and Sky with no recompense to the suspicions that people had. If he did not ask the questions, it is a wasted opportunity and his reputation has justifiably suffered as a result, since many of these questions were obvious and if Sky were clean, they could have been able to silence some of the doubters. If he did ask the questions, he chose not to publish the answers, in which case he is deliberately withholding information from the public, which is in fact the opposite of what a journalist is supposed to do. And his reputation has justifiably suffered as a result.

At this point, he has published some pretty one-sided writings, has firmly entrenched his position as being absolutely 100% pro-Sky, and given the reputation that he has built and the position he was put in, is in such a position that should anything come out about them, Walsh is going to look mighty foolish.

I agree Benotti. He wrote a book singing Sky's praises, he has ghost written Froome's book. He is not going to suddenly change his mind on Sky now, even if hard evidence came out. If it ever does he will come out and say something like 'I didn't anything like that would ever be possible in the post Armstrong era etc etc'.
 
Oct 25, 2012
485
0
0
Visit site
SundayRider said:
No way will it be anything to do with Sky. The bloke has just co-written Froome's autobiography. The Tour starts in Yorkshire. No way is anything going to come out about Sky before then.

why not? some story seems to break every year just before the tour
 
Oct 25, 2012
485
0
0
Visit site
SundayRider said:
I agree Benotti. He wrote a book singing Sky's praises, he has ghost written Froome's book. He is not going to suddenly change his mind on Sky now, even if hard evidence came out. If it ever does he will come out and say something like 'I didn't anything like that would ever be possible in the post Armstrong era etc etc'.

maybe hes a master of disguise
 
Dec 11, 2013
1,138
0
0
Visit site
SundayRider said:
I agree Benotti. He wrote a book singing Sky's praises, he has ghost written Froome's book. He is not going to suddenly change his mind on Sky now, even if hard evidence came out. If it ever does he will come out and say something like 'I didn't anything like that would ever be possible in the post Armstrong era etc etc'.


So you've already decided to condemn Walsh based on how he's going to react to something which hasn't happened yet.

Seems a tad unfair.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
Visit site
TailWindHome said:
So you've already decided to condemn Walsh based on how he's going to react to something which hasn't happened yet.

Seems a tad unfair.

Not really. It's the fact that he seems almost as certain that they are clean as he was that Armstrong was doping. Its that sort of one extreme to the other that is weird.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Visit site
ultimobici said:
Difference being that there was plenty of evidence of Armstrong's doping going back to 2001 or earlier, not to mention his rabid aggression toward his detractors. With Sky, Wiggins & Froome there is internet conjecture and SFA else. That's not to say there isn't doping going on, just that there is a massive difference in the two scenarios.

I love the new Skybot metric "I'm not saying they're clean, but you guys are idiots to say they're dirty." At least Armstrong fanboys owned their denial full-force.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Visit site
MarkvW said:
Walsh had a doping story on Armstrong. Perhaps he doesn't have a doping story on Sky (at this time). That would perhaps explain why he is "acting differently" toward Sky.

The "evidence" of doping discussed here in the Clinic would get any publisher sued into oblivion for defamation. That is perhaps why no reputable publisher accuses Sky of team doping.

Walsh's pursuit of Armstrong, after much difficulty, brought him considerable well-deserved fame. I can't believe he would dissipate that in exchange for a series of fraudulent puff-pieces on Sky. I also can't imagine that he would turn down another doping story--an item that would bring him far more renown than another series of puff-pieces on Sky. He is a sports reporter, after all, and he's doing what sports reporters do.

Many here are holding Walsh to a standard that perhaps only Kimmage could maintain. And what has Kimmage gotten for his pains? Pro cycling remains just as filthy as it always has been and Kimmage just hangs on, financially.

Journalists are not saints, that's for sure. They'll laud you one moment, then stick the knife in your guts the next. They are truly a double-edged sword. If Walsh has the opportunity to stick it to Sky, like he did to Armstrong, I'm sure he will.

Yea, because every "journalist" ghost writes a book for the subject of scrutiny...Walsh has become Sally Jenkins...:rolleyes:
 

TRENDING THREADS