Brits don't dope?

[The Hitch]

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.

"Rabid aggression towards his detractors"? You don't think Wiggins has shown that

Anyway its easy to say now that there was plenty of evidence against Armstrong.

But the vast majority of the people who say that now would never in a million years accept any of the things there were against Armstrong before 2005 as anything but conjecture.

Its very convenient to now say- oh Armstrong had a backdated TUE, Sky haven't had that.

But a backdated TUE can be dismissed as easily as most of the arguments against sky are on here with - "it doesn't prove he is doping". " And it was. For 13 years.

Armstrong (like Wiggins will 13 years later) got a favorable course with a weak field (no ullrich, pantani). He saw this opportunity, put his head down, and trained harder than a clean athlete possibly can, purely on will power, and won. that he destroyed the entire field and it wasn't close, doesn't matter, weak field, favourable course.
Sure a lot of his behaviour doesn't make sense, but it doesn't prove he is doping.

 

[elduggo]

Last major story I can remember breaking before the Tour (that included big names/main contenders) was Puerto in '06.

there was a story 2 years ago before the start in Liege where a handful of riders were named in a Belgian newspaper.

then wasn't the Stuart O'Grady 'news' leaked just before last year's tour?

 

[red_flanders]

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.

Understood, but it's too simplistic to paint everyone with what I see as a dismissive brush. I think it always better to respond to specifics than paint entire groups with a broad brush that suggests (or outright states) deficient thinking.

And I know it goes both ways.

 

[gooner]

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

Oh there's no problem doing it though with Paula Radcliffe, Gareth Southgate and Lawrence Dallaglio. No doping in rugby and athletics.

Walsh has written books with Roche and Kelly and in the case of Roche, it didn't stop him later with the Conconi story. He interviewed Lance back in 1993 where he told Kimmage, he took a liking to him after it. Did that stop him in 1999. I see no reason to say it's different now.

 

[red_flanders]

Oh there's no problem doing it though with Paula Radcliffe, Gareth Southgate and Lawrence Dallaglio. No doping in rugby and athletics.

Walsh has written books with Roche and Kelly and in the case of Roche, it didn't stop him later with the Conconi story. He interviewed Lance back in 1993 where he told Kimmage, he took a liking to him after it. Did that stop him in 1999. I see no reason to say it's different now.

I don't think there's any doubt that Walsh will happily report it if people find out something more concrete about Sky (or if they hand it to him like the JTL piece), the issue is that he's abandoned all notion of objectivity and is quite unlikely to be the one to find anything.

I don't think it's a big deal as long as no one expects more from him. He has made his call, and it's clear he's not going to break any stories–or more accurately be the one to find any dirt on his own.

 

[Justinr]

"Rabid aggression towards his detractors"? You don't think Wiggins has shown that

Anyway its easy to say now that there was plenty of evidence against Armstrong.

But the vast majority of the people who say that now would never in a million years accept any of the things there were against Armstrong before 2005 as anything but conjecture.

Its very convenient to now say- oh Armstrong had a backdated TUE, Sky haven't had that.

But a backdated TUE can be dismissed as easily as most of the arguments against sky are on here with - "it doesn't prove he is doping". " And it was. For 13 years.

Armstrong (like Wiggins will 13 years later) got a favorable course with a weak field (no ullrich, pantani). He saw this opportunity, put his head down, and trained harder than a clean athlete possibly can, purely on will power, and won. that he destroyed the entire field and it wasn't close, doesn't matter, weak field, favourable course.
Sure a lot of his behaviour doesn't make sense, but it doesn't prove he is doping.

Well ultimobici is probably referring with Armstrong to:

1. the bedside confession
2. the steroid 'positive' and backdated TUE (the steroid levels were less than the trigger point iirc)
3. the sacked personal assistant who found steroids in the bathroom

There is no equivalent to those 3 with Sky. In fact I don't believe there have been any TUEs at all with Sky at the TdF over the years.

I think that's the point he was making. The 'weak field' is coincidence (and Ulrich was never really a threat was he - too fat and out of shape) - after all BW hadn't come back from near death, Armstrong had. Bit of a difference.

 

[Justinr]

Oh there's no problem doing it though with Paula Radcliffe, Gareth Southgate and Lawrence Dallaglio. No doping in rugby and athletics.

Walsh has written books with Roche and Kelly and in the case of Roche, it didn't stop him later with the Conconi story. He interviewed Lance back in 1993 where he told Kimmage, he took a liking to him after it. Did that stop him in 1999. I see no reason to say it's different now.

It didn't stop him with Roche at all - there is youtube of a chat show meeting between him and Roche where the subject is Conconi. Very frosty.

 

[Justinr]

He has made his call, and it's clear he's not going to break any stories–or more accurately be the one to find any dirt on his own.

Harsh. I don't doubt that Walsh would shop them if he saw anything - and I don't think he has gone native deep down, he could easily do a Roche with any of the people he now 'supports'.

His time with them at the tour was never going to come to anything - if they were doping they're hardly likely to do it in front of him. Personally I was very disappointed with the Sunday Times article he did, not with the conclusions (either way) but because it was 2 pages of boredom - I was hoping for a lot more detail on what he saw : training, diet, recovery.

If he was guilty of anything it was probably guilty of being played - regardless of the fact I think they are clean he was never going to see anything too specific was he.

 

[red_flanders]

Harsh. I don't doubt that Walsh would shop them if he saw anything - and I don't think he has gone native deep down, he could easily do a Roche with any of the people he now 'supports'.

His time with them at the tour was never going to come to anything - if they were doping they're hardly likely to do it in front of him. Personally I was very disappointed with the Sunday Times article he did, not with the conclusions (either way) but because it was 2 pages of boredom - I was hoping for a lot more detail on what he saw : training, diet, recovery.

If he was guilty of anything it was probably guilty of being played - regardless of the fact I think they are clean he was never going to see anything too specific was he.

Completely agree on all points.

EDIT: Actually disagree with the "gone native" bit. Depending on what that means to a person. For me he's gone native. I think nothing short of a bludgeon to the cranium will pop him out of the fawning he's currently doing.

But otherwise, I'm with ya.

 

[Justinr]

Completely agree on all points.

EDIT: Actually disagree with the "gone native" bit. Depending on what that means to a person. For me he's gone native. I think nothing short of a bludgeon to the cranium will pop him out of the fawning he's currently doing.

But otherwise, I'm with ya.

Sound the alarms, ring the bells, blow the trumpets ... RedF and I have agreed on something! lol

The 'gone native' bit is always somewhat subjective. To me he's a journo - they never go native because to them a scoop is like a salesman making the big sale. Maybe he's befriending them to see if he can get in closer (I don't know).

 

[The Hitch]

I don't think there's any doubt that Walsh will happily report it if people find out something more concrete about Sky (or if they hand it to him like the JTL piece), the issue is that he's abandoned all notion of objectivity and is quite unlikely to be the one to find anything.

I don't think it's a big deal as long as no one expects more from him. He has made his call, and it's clear he's not going to break any stories–or more accurately be the one to find any dirt on his own.

At this stage I don't even know if Walsh would report something more concrete. He would come off looking so so bad given the things he has said.

 

[red_flanders]

At this stage I don't even know if Walsh would report something more concrete. He would come off looking so so bad given the things he has said.

He's going to look like an idiot either way. Might as well get the clicks and the story and move into "I'm not biased, see" mode.

 

[del1962]

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

Maybe that is why Kimmage pulled out ghostwriting O'Driscoll's bio, he did not want to be the next aunt Sally

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Oh there's no problem doing it though with Paula Radcliffe, Gareth Southgate and Lawrence Dallaglio. No doping in rugby and athletics.

Walsh has written books with Roche and Kelly and in the case of Roche, it didn't stop him later with the Conconi story. He interviewed Lance back in 1993 where he told Kimmage, he took a liking to him after it. Did that stop him in 1999. I see no reason to say it's different now.

Oh yea, Walsh went after Roche and Kelly just like he did Armstrong...

Edit: Maybe he took it easier on them because Roche and Kelly were so much more forthcoming with information than Armstrong was...<-to put a rollyeyes there would be superfluous.

Edit 2: Come to think of it, putting rollyeyes in any of my posts is superfluous.

 

[gooner]

Oh yea, Walsh went after Roche and Kelly just like he did Armstrong...

Did he or did he not travel to Italy for a week when the link to Conconi first came out, to get more substance behind the story?

Again, what's the difference with Walsh ghost writing the other autobiographies that have been mentioned? That was the point made and not the one that you made above. Doing one with Froome doesn't mean he has turned a blind eye like you think he has. A book with Roche didn't hold him back.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Did he or did he not travel to Italy for a week when the link to Conconi first came out, to get more substance behind the story?

Again, what's the difference with Walsh ghost writing the other autobiographies that have been mentioned? That was the point made and not the one that you made above. Doing one with Froome doesn't mean he has turned a blind eye like you think he has. A book with Roche didn't hold him back.

Yea, because that's exactly the extent he went after Armstrong...

My point is that there isn't any difference between Walsh and Sally Jenkins...you haven't really written anything to counter that...Sally has written things negative about dopers too...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Walsh has lost journalistic integrity with anyone who understands journalistic integrity.

 

[Justinr]

He's going to look like an idiot either way. Might as well get the clicks and the story and move into "I'm not biased, see" mode.

He'll only look an idiot (in my view) if something comes out to bite him.

 

[Justinr]

Yea, because that's exactly the extent he went after Armstrong...

My point is that there isn't any difference between Walsh and Sally Jenkins...you haven't really written anything to counter that...Sally has written things negative about dopers too...

Yes but Walsh hasnt tried to defend blood (and other) doping in the face of overwhelming evidence that the subject not only did it but lied to the writer. If you cant see a difference there then, well, you need to reassess.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Yes but Walsh hasnt tried to defend blood (and other) doping in the face of overwhelming evidence that the subject not only did it but lied to the writer. If you cant see a difference there then, well, you need to reassess.

The word you're looking for is "yet."

 

[the sceptic]

At this stage I don't even know if Walsh would report something more concrete. He would come off looking so so bad given the things he has said.

Not to mention that he is so emotionally invested at this point that it would probably break his heart if his new best friends cheated on him.

I predict he will just deny everything, and continue to spin no matter what happens.

Walsh is the last person in the world I would trust to uncover anything about sky at this point. Still looking forward to read his book on Froome though.

 

[gooner]

Yea, because that's exactly the extent he went after Armstrong...

Where did I say that?

My point is that there isn't any difference between Walsh and Sally Jenkins...you haven't really written anything to counter that...Sally has written things negative about dopers too...

Did Walsh write a book with Roche (who he was a lot closer to than Froome) and then travel to Italy for a week for the Conconi story?

Yes or no.

 

[gooner]

The word you're looking for is "yet."

And that's the whole point in the Roche/Conconi example later after the book.

 

[del1962]

I think there seems to be a common misconception as to what a sports journalist is about, and how different they are from a news / political journalist

Sport is about entertainment and to some extent you have to be a fan to be a sports journalist, even Kimmage has to be when he writes on Rugby or Dan Martin

 

[ChewbaccaD]

And that's the whole point in the Roche/Conconi example later after the book.

I get it, you're a Walsh apologist. Carry on.