ChewbaccaD said: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?
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
ChewbaccaD said:I get it, you're a Walsh apologist. Carry on.
gooner said:Great comeback. Very informative response.
How about addressing the post and the point I made?
ChewbaccaD said:Not to you.
ChewbaccaD said: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?
Benotti69 said: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.
gooner said: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 said: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.
ChewbaccaD said: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$$.
Nathan12 said: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.
Nathan12 said: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.
Scott SoCal said:Dead on............
I'm sorry, what?!Nathan12 said:Bartalucci, Possoni, Cioni...it still baffles me how Porte hasn't attracted greater scrutiny considering he was one of Contador's top domestiques.
Nathan12 said: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.
ChewbaccaD said: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.
Nathan12 said: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.
ChewbaccaD said: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.
ChewbaccaD said:Yea, because every "journalist" ghost writes a book for the subject of scrutiny...Walsh has become Sally Jenkins...
Stitch a flag with his picture on it and fly it high if you want, I don't care.
Nathan12 said: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.
Scott SoCal said:Dead on............
gooner said: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?
gooner said: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 said:...
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.