Brits don't dope?

[gooner]

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

Great comeback. Very informative response.

How about addressing the post and the point I made?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Great comeback. Very informative response.

How about addressing the post and the point I made?

No..............

 

[gooner]

No..............

Pretty obvious why.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Pretty obvious why.

Not to you.

 

[gooner]

Not to you.

No, that's not why. You were more than happy to respond first and have done so in other instances before.

Like I said, pretty obvious why.

 

[Afrank]

It's pretty obvious to me you two should stop the back and forth bickering before it get's out of hand. Either respond to the post and address it's points or not post anything at all. No need to try to get the last word, It's rather childish.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Here's a question for you: Why do you think that Walsh didn't learn a lesson about sniffing the posterior of a cyclist claiming to be clean after he wrote Roche's books and was proved a fool?

 

[gooner]

Here's a question for you: Why do you think that Walsh didn't learn a lesson about sniffing the posterior of a cyclist claiming to be clean after he wrote Roche's books and was proved a fool?

I will respond to yours.

Firstly, the sins of Roche can't be put on to Froome when Walsh has his personal dealings with him and then deciding whether to accept the offer to help with the book. Of course Walsh could be wrong just like he was with Roche, I never denied that once on here. Again, that's not the point being made. I don't buy into your claim that he has somehow completely turned a blind eye to things that maybe untoward happening at Sky as a result of him ghost writing Froome's book. That's the original point of the discussion which you brought up. Hence, why the Roche example is highlighted. I also think an article after his ITS book was released where he heavily criticises the team for JTL and the hiring of Rogers over his past links to Ferrari/Freiberg further prove it. I don't think Brailsford or Fran Millar would have been happy either with a picture of Rogers in a Sky kit and Wiggins in his yellow jersey together sprawled across a broadsheet paper above the piece in question. This is why I don't think it will be any different with Froome.

Walsh has done a book with Paula Radcliffe. We know about doping in athletics and this book was done at the height of his work with Lance. So to say doing a book now with Froome is out of the ordinary where he wouldn't have done it before and has somehow changed from the Lance days, is plain wrong.

 

[Benotti69]

Walsh missed loads of dopers at Sky. Not just Rogers and JTL. Servais Knaven still works for Sky and look where he rode and his results.

Walsh is not digging at all into Sky.

My guess is SundayTimes warned Walsh off doping stories on Sky unless it was inevitable. He will never get another job like the one he has at Times, those jobs no longer exist. He is 59 and probably wants to retire from sports journalism with ST and receive a decent pension. He could've stayed away from cycling, but he didn't and this will tarnish his reputation.

 

[Nathan12]

Walsh missed loads of dopers at Sky. Not just Rogers and JTL. Servais Knaven still works for Sky and look where he rode and his results.

Walsh is not digging at all into Sky.

My guess is SundayTimes warned Walsh off doping stories on Sky unless it was inevitable. He will never get another job like the one he has at Times, those jobs no longer exist. He is 59 and probably wants to retire from sports journalism with ST and receive a decent pension. He could've stayed away from cycling, but he didn't and this will tarnish his reputation.

Bartalucci, Possoni, Cioni...it still baffles me how Porte hasn't attracted greater scrutiny considering he was one of Contador's top domestiques.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I will respond to yours.

Firstly, the sins of Roche can't be put on to Froome when Walsh has his personal dealings with him and then deciding whether to accept the offer to help with the book. Of course Walsh could be wrong just like he was with Roche, I never denied that once on here. Again, that's not the point being made. I don't buy into your claim that he has somehow completely turned a blind eye to things that maybe untoward happening at Sky as a result of him ghost writing Froome's book. That's the original point of the discussion which you brought up. Hence, why the Roche example is highlighted. I also think an article after his ITS book was released where he heavily criticises the team for JTL and the hiring of Rogers over his past links to Ferrari/Freiberg further prove it. I don't think Brailsford or Fran Millar would have been happy either with a picture of Rogers in a Sky kit and Wiggins in his yellow jersey together sprawled across a broadsheet paper above the piece in question. This is why I don't think it will be any different with Froome.

Walsh has done a book with Paula Radcliffe. We know about doping in athletics and this book was done at the height of his work with Lance. So to say doing a book now with Froome is out of the ordinary where he wouldn't have done it before and has somehow changed from the Lance days, is plain wrong.

That wasn't my point at all. My point is that Walsh has a history of throwing his journalistic integrity away to make a buck. That he later anguishes over his decision is obvious, but as I said, you'd think he'd learn a thing or two from being burned. What I also opine is that he certainly takes a much more aggressive stance on people when they aren't friends of his...

As to your point about Froome, here's some other questions (one of which you still haven't answered): Why would he take a chance on someone, that even you admit he doesn't really know, when his lifetime friend Roche burned him so badly? Why would he, in light of the massive amount of information we've learned about the doping in professional cycling, so unquestioningly accept the premise that his new homeboys are clean, considering that their performances are on par with the worst doped performances in cycling's history?

Walsh shows an incredible lack of judgment and inquisitiveness when it comes to anyone who isn't Lance Armstrong. In some ways, he's worse than Sally Jenkins. At least Sally remained somewhat consistent in her complete lack of journalistic integrity. Walsh does it, and then has to go try to cover his a$$, and then turns around and jumps right back into the same morass, pretending that this time, it's all different.

Stitch a flag with his picture on it and fly it high if you want, I don't care.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Walsh missed loads of dopers at Sky. Not just Rogers and JTL. Servais Knaven still works for Sky and look where he rode and his results.

Walsh is not digging at all into Sky.

My guess is SundayTimes warned Walsh off doping stories on Sky unless it was inevitable. He will never get another job like the one he has at Times, those jobs no longer exist. He is 59 and probably wants to retire from sports journalism with ST and receive a decent pension. He could've stayed away from cycling, but he didn't and this will tarnish his reputation.

Walsh doesn't dig into anything unless it's Lance Armstrong or an effort to cover the fact that he didn't do the work he should have done beforehand, and now wants to go to Italy to cover his very compromised a$$.

That's the thing that it so bothersome about "journalists" like Walsh, they're so eager to bet all the good interviews, that he doesn't really do any critical thinking or research until after it comes out that the guys he was lionizing were doping cheats. I'm sure Walsh loves to go to dinner parties and rehash the anecdotes he has when he rubbed shoulders with his heroes...unless your name is Lance Armstrong...

 

[Nathan12]

Walsh doesn't dig into anything unless it's Lance Armstrong or an effort to cover the fact that he didn't do the work he should have done beforehand, and now wants to go to Italy to cover his very compromised a$$.

Why would he? Walsh is motivated by personal dislike, not the desire for a cleaner sport. He likes Brailsford, he likes Froome, so he'll turn a blind eye to the glaring inconsistencies at Sky. He says as much in his talks: both that he went after Lance because he just didn't like him, and that he's not a proper investigative journalist.

Either that or he simply can't be bothered anymore and is making a quick buck on thousands of idiots buying Froome's book before retiring. He'll still earn royalties when it's languishing in £1 bargain bins in 10 years.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Why would he? Walsh is motivated by personal dislike, not the desire for a cleaner sport. He likes Brailsford, he likes Froome, so he'll turn a blind eye to the glaring inconsistencies at Sky. He says as much in his talks: both that he went after Lance because he just didn't like him, and that he's not a proper investigative journalist.

Either that or he simply can't be bothered anymore and is making a quick buck on thousands of idiots buying Froome's book before retiring. He'll still earn royalties when it's languishing in £1 bargain bins in 10 years.

Great post!

 

[Scott SoCal]

Why would he? Walsh is motivated by personal dislike, not the desire for a cleaner sport. He likes Brailsford, he likes Froome, so he'll turn a blind eye to the glaring inconsistencies at Sky. He says as much in his talks: both that he went after Lance because he just didn't like him, and that he's not a proper investigative journalist.

Either that or he simply can't be bothered anymore and is making a quick buck on thousands of idiots buying Froome's book before retiring. He'll still earn royalties when it's languishing in £1 bargain bins in 10 years.

Dead on............

 

[Nathan12]

Dead on............

He expressly says it in his talks. What's hilarious is he always follows this with, "Lance always said I we were two peas in a pod, but that's not true". of course, it's absolutely true. Two egomaniacs, out to get what they want from the sport for personal gains. I've always thought it: Armstrong and Walsh share the same intrinsic personality traits. As do Brailsford and Walsh.

 

[trevim]

Bartalucci, Possoni, Cioni...it still baffles me how Porte hasn't attracted greater scrutiny considering he was one of Contador's top domestiques.

I'm sorry, what?!
I can't remember him being of any use for Contador in the 2 GT's they rode together. Even Kloostergaard was more useful. Porte was happy riding around, saving his bullets for the ITT's and not signing a new contract because he didn't like what Riis could offer him at the time.
Not that it matters but that's when I started to dislike him. And then he signed for Sky

 

[del1962]

He expressly says it in his talks. What's hilarious is he always follows this with, "Lance always said I we were two peas in a pod, but that's not true". of course, it's absolutely true. Two egomaniacs, out to get what they want from the sport for personal gains. I've always thought it: Armstrong and Walsh share the same intrinsic personality traits. As do Brailsford and Walsh.

Love the way Lance has manipulated your thought process

 

[Beech Mtn]

That wasn't my point at all. My point is that Walsh has a history of throwing his journalistic integrity away to make a buck. That he later anguishes over his decision is obvious, but as I said, you'd think he'd learn a thing or two from being burned.

<snipped>

Walsh shows an incredible lack of judgment and inquisitiveness when it comes to anyone who isn't Lance Armstrong. In some ways, he's worse than Sally Jenkins. At least Sally remained somewhat consistent in her complete lack of journalistic integrity. Walsh does it, and then has to go try to cover his a$$, and then turns around and jumps right back into the same morass, pretending that this time, it's all different.

Stitch a flag with his picture on it and fly it high if you want, I don't care.

I'm of the opinion that Walsh doesn't actually much question what he's told by "insiders." For the Lance investigations, he had lots of info from Betsy and the LeMonds, and the other folks they put him in touch with. It seems like he pretty well ran with what they told him regarding Lance, without much fact-checking or questioning their truthfulness. Which worked out well when dealing with honest sources.

I don't really see what he's doing so differently with Sky now, just believing what his friends/sources tell him. Which won't work out so well if they are not as honest as say, a Betsy Andreu. He isn't going to question his friends. Which does not make him much of an investigator.

Also re Walsh - he gets so much praise for From Lance to Landis (which was a very good book), but that book was also largely based on LA Confidentiel, in which Walsh had the help of a good co-author. Also, with both those books, the publisher and authors expected to get sued, so there was a lot of going over the manuscript with a fine-toothed comb and requiring sources to go on the record, etc that was required by the legal team and publishing house. Those books were not rushed out, unlike the disappointing Seven Deadly Sins, which hurt Walsh's reputation.

He expressly says it in his talks. What's hilarious is he always follows this with, "Lance always said I we were two peas in a pod, but that's not true". of course, it's absolutely true. Two egomaniacs, out to get what they want from the sport for personal gains. I've always thought it: Armstrong and Walsh share the same intrinsic personality traits. As do Brailsford and Walsh.

I always thought Betsy was more Lance's pod-mate than Walsh.

 

[gooner]

That wasn't my point at all.. My point is that Walsh has a history of throwing his journalistic integrity away to make a buck. That he later anguishes over his decision is obvious, but as I said, you'd think he'd learn a thing or two from being burned. What I also opine is that he certainly takes a much more aggressive stance on people when they aren't friends of his...

As to your point about Froome, here's some other questions (one of which you still haven't answered): Why would he take a chance on someone, that even you admit he doesn't really know, when his lifetime friend Roche burned him so badly? Why would he, in light of the massive amount of information we've learned about the doping in professional cycling, so unquestioningly accept the premise that his new homeboys are clean, considering that their performances are on par with the worst doped performances in cycling's history?

Walsh shows an incredible lack of judgment and inquisitiveness when it comes to anyone who isn't Lance Armstrong. In some ways, he's worse than Sally Jenkins. At least Sally remained somewhat consistent in her complete lack of journalistic integrity. Walsh does it, and then has to go try to cover his a$$, and then turns around and jumps right back into the same morass, pretending that this time, it's all different.

Yes, it was the point you were making. You can try and move the goal posts if you wish, but the whole discussion originates from this.

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

Unlike you, I've answered the question posed to me and haven't ducked it.

Stitch a flag with his picture on it and fly it high if you want, I don't care.

How's that Horner flag going these days?

 

[gooner]

Why would he? Walsh is motivated by personal dislike, not the desire for a cleaner sport. He likes Brailsford, he likes Froome, so he'll turn a blind eye to the glaring inconsistencies at Sky. He says as much in his talks: both that he went after Lance because he just didn't like him, and that he's not a proper investigative journalist.

Either that or he simply can't be bothered anymore and is making a quick buck on thousands of idiots buying Froome's book before retiring. He'll still earn royalties when it's languishing in £1 bargain bins in 10 years.

Dead on............

He hated Roche? Did he hate Michelle Smith? Where was his personal beef when he spoke out against FIFA corruption while the Sunday Times was under big criticism for it's timing of it during a World Cup nomination process involving England? The same with Linford Christie? What about Contador/Puerto? There's a common theme in all these stories. He has a big story at the end of the week coming out on corruption in British sport.

It's a complete myth to say he was all about Lance and a falsehood to say it was only due to his personal dislike. In the case of Michelle Smith, you couldn't meet a nicer athlete.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Yes, it was the point you were making. You can try and move the goal posts if you wish, but the whole discussion originates from this.



Unlike you, I've answered the question posed to me and haven't ducked it.



How's that Horner flag going these days?

1. Put your fingers in your ears and yell it really loudly and it still doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. Something you should be used to.

2. Your question was ridiculous, and answering that he went to Italy serves no purpose to me as it doesn't really affect my point (a point you seem too thick to understand).

3. I only hoist Horner's flag because I like to see people like you foam at the mouth. The guys is a POS lying doper, but I sure would have loved to see him go at Froomedog. Fortunately, we have another POS lying doper who will challenge him (well, maybe not considering today's news, but we can all hope anyway) this July. Good to see the dogs all running together again. Pip pip, chereo old chap...

PS: Learn to read.
PPS: Have fun with your denial

 

[Nathan12]

He hated Roche? Did he hate Michelle Smith? Where was his personal beef when he spoke out against FIFA corruption while the Sunday Times was under big criticism for it's timing of it during a World Cup nomination process involving England? The same with Linford Christie? What about Contador/Puerto? There's a common theme in all these stories. He has a big story at the end of the week coming out on corruption in British sport.

It's a complete myth to say he was all about Lance and a falsehood to say it was only due to his personal dislike. In the case of Michelle Smith, you couldn't meet a nicer athlete.

It's not a complete myth, simply because Walsh himself admits as much in the talks he gives: he didn't like Lance, so he decided to pursue him. Which is fair enough- we're all swayed by our emotions. In my opinion, he's gone the other way with Sky and become far too close personally with members of the team, so that he can no longer report objectively. Like Armstrong in reverse, and as damaging as his pursuit of Lance was laudable because he's ignoring things that are staring the rest of us in the face. My point is about Armstrong and Team Sky, not Michelle Smith or Linford Christie or FIFA. Walsh is ghostwriting Froome' autobiography for God's sake- how on earth can he remain objective given that fact?

 

[martinvickers]

...

3. I only hoist Horner's flag because I like to see people like you foam at the mouth. The guys is a POS lying doper, but I sure would have loved to see him go at Froomedog. Fortunately, we have another POS lying doper who will challenge him (well, maybe not considering today's news, but we can all hope anyway) this July. Good to see the dogs all running together again. Pip pip, chereo old chap...

PS: Learn to read.

So more or less an express admission of trolling? Come on, Chewie...

 

[Benotti69]

kettles shouldn't call pots black..........