Geert Leinders

[Benotti69]

And I asked you what interviewing them would reveal that he had not already covered.
You tried to be a smartas$ and mention 'saddle cream'.

How would we know what it would have revealed if he didn't interview them. Leave no stone unturned.

You posted something recently in a whinge about mods and humour. I added some humour. Because it was me you are biased and therefore did not find it humorous. Deal with it.

Yes, you do touch a nerve - because you regularly post nonsense about things that you don't know about.
Just because it is not a court of law does not mean you should be allowed slam people - as well as the fact that I have to clean up your errors.

Who appointed you the cleaner of threads? Wanna be a mod, apply.

I am entitled to my opinion of Walsh's reporting. If my opinion slams Walsh's reporting of Team Sky so be it. I will not give money to Murdoch. I read and listen to Walsh in other forms. That validates my opinion as far as i am concerned. That you continue to pick like an old hen at posts is not forwarding the discussion.

Got a link. Post it otherwise shut up!

 

[Benotti69]

No. Point being you don't comment on articles if you haven't even read them. This is pretty simple. I don't comment on articles from news outlets on the sport in other countries because I haven't read them myself. This is completely opposite for some around here.

If you have so much interest in what Walsh writes that you want to give an opinion on the forum from it, go out and buy the paper or subscribe to the website.

Walsh is on the radio regularly. I have attended a talk Walsh gave and his opinions on Sky were discussed at length, also his tweets are a valid form for discussion too.

To say because you dont read the ST you cannot comment about Walsh is wrong.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You guys still at each other's throats

Dr Mas you don't have to post a link or a summary but it would help your argument considerably and it would stop this deja vu bickering (hopefully).

I have already linked it earlier in this thread.
And indeed, I have given the summary of it ie that Walsh mentions that Leinders was accused of being the one to suggest using relatives for blood doping.

The 'bickering' is something to do with Murdoch and other excuses for not reading it - frankly BS that I have zero interest in.

 

[martinvickers]

Walsh is on the radio regularly. I have attended a talk Walsh gave and his opinions on Sky were discussed at length, also his tweets are a valid form for discussion too.

To say because you dont read the ST you cannot comment about Walsh is wrong.

But you didn't comment on Walsh, per se. You commented on his writing.

 

[Samson777]

If you have so much interest in what Walsh writes that you want to give an opinion on the forum from it, go out and buy the paper or subscribe to the website.

That is a strange way to argue, I am sorry to say..

When your argument finish with a strange conclusion, something is often wrong. So since you conclude that Murdoch should get more money, you should perhaps ask yourself, what is wrong with the argument.

 

[Benotti69]

But you didn't comment on Walsh, per se. You commented on his writing.

Wrong! Again!

This is what lead the merry Doctor on another pedantic chase into the vortex.

Why hasn't Walsh interviewed Michael Rasmussen or Thomas Dekker, i bet JV would lend him for the cause of anti doping?

I questioned why he didn't interview these 2 riders.

 

[gooner]

Walsh is on the radio regularly. I have attended a talk Walsh gave and his opinions on Sky were discussed at length, also his tweets are a valid form for discussion too.

To say because you dont read the ST you cannot comment about Walsh is wrong.

And I have listened to Walsh numerous times on radio. You can comment on them if you wish but that's a deflection on your part from the discussion on reading his articles. Radio isn't where he is going to break the news regarding JTL or about his conversations with Freeman or talking about the interview with Brailsford regarding Leinders all before he writes about it in the Sunday Times. The ST is his job and where he will keep the substantial backbone of his work on the likes of this.

 

[Benotti69]

And I have listened to Walsh numerous times on radio. You can comment on them if you wish but that's a deflection on your part from the discussion on reading his articles. Radio isn't where he is going to break the news regarding JTL or about his conversations with Freeman or talking about the interview with Brailsford regarding Leinders all before he writes about it in the Sunday Times. The ST is his job and where he will keep the substantial backbone of his work on the likes of this.

Walsh made it absolutely clear at the 'whistleblowers' talk before he went with Sky that he fully expected to find nothing, but was going to keep an open mind.

Kimmage asked why go if you expect find nothing. If anything is to be found it would be got by being on the outside rather than inside. Walsh said no he wanted to see.

mind open but expecting to find nothing????

I think he didn't look to hard. He went looking for another Armstrong knowing Sky wouldn't have an Armstrong in their team.

 

[martinvickers]

Wrong! Again!

This is what lead the merry Doctor on another pedantic chase into the vortex.



I questioned why he didn't interview these 2 riders.

Nice try, B, but it doesn't wash.

Tell me, who else, apart from ST, does Walsh do interviews for these past few years? With links, please.

 

[Benotti69]

Nice try, B, but it doesn't wash.

Tell me, who else, apart from ST, does Walsh do interviews for these past few years? With links, please.

No one he is staff at ST.

Asking a loaded question aint hard.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Walsh made it absolutely clear at the 'whistleblowers' talk before he went with Sky that he fully expected to find nothing, but was going to keep an open mind.

Kimmage asked why go if you expect find nothing. If anything is to be found it would be got by being on the outside rather than inside. Walsh said no he wanted to see.

mind open but expecting to find nothing????

I think he didn't look to hard. He went looking for another Armstrong knowing Sky wouldn't have an Armstrong in their team.

What did you expect? Sky to be doping in front of Walsh? Of course not.

Walsh is a journalist - he is there to ask questions and record it and check it against what is known. Even if Sky are doping it may take years before he has something that suggests an inconsistency to what he was told or viewed.

 

[gooner]

That is a strange way to argue, I am sorry to say..

When your argument finish with a strange conclusion, something is often wrong. So since you conclude that Murdoch should get more money, you should perhaps ask yourself, what is wrong with the argument.

I don't have a care in the world if you don't buy the paper or don't subscribe to the ST website. I don't look at it from the point of view of giving money to Murdoch, I look at it from reading an excellent journalist's articles.

Just don't comment on his articles if you have that line of thinking to Murdoch where you won't read the pieces as a result.

 

[Benotti69]

What did you expect? Sky to be doping in front of Walsh? Of course not.

What did Walsh expect, Sky to be doping in front of him? Of course not.

Walsh is a journalist - he is there to ask questions and record it and check it against what is known. Even if Sky are doping it may take years before he has something that suggests an inconsistency to what he was told or viewed.

He could've done all that without the love fest.

 

[martinvickers]

No one he is staff at ST.

Asking a loaded question aint hard.

It's not loaded, it's leading.

Because..

How, exactly, can you make any sensible comment on what interviews Walsh does or doesn't do, or the contents thereof...and in the same breath state proudly your refusal to read the only media that publishes said interviews...it's absolutely nonsense! You are simply in no position, by your own happy admission, to make any sensible comment. and comment you have made on his interviews - i.e. his writing for the ST, must therefore, basically, be trolling.

Unless you can, actually show otherwise, of course...

 

[Benotti69]

Just don't comment on his articles if you have that line of thinking to Murdoch where you won't read the pieces as a result.

Stop feeding the vortex.

I asked why did Walsh not interview 2 former riders of Leinders, Rasmussen and Dekker. It set off Maserati's pedantism, again. Simple answer was to post a link or some quotes. But he'd rather pages of this.

 

[the sceptic]

martin vickar, this thread is about Leinders not Walsh. Why dont you stop trolling and take your fanboyism to the appropriate thread.

 

[Benotti69]

It's not loaded, it's leading.

Because..

How, exactly, can you make any sensible comment on what interviews Walsh does or doesn't do, or the contents thereof...and in the same breath state proudly your refusal to read the only media that publishes said interviews...it's absolutely nonsense! You are simply in no position, by your own happy admission, to make any sensible comment. and comment you have made on his interviews - i.e. his writing for the ST, must therefore, basically, be trolling.

I have answered all that Martin thanks, read my posts. Otherwise to get me repeating myself could be misconstrued as baiting or trolling on your part and no point in getting a ban now is there? Good lad!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What did Walsh expect, Sky to be doping in front of him? Of course not.

Be clear - are you objecting to the fact Walsh went there?
If he is offered the chance, as he was by Sky then he has to go.
Do not blame Walsh that if Sky are doping they are not going to do it in front of him.

He could've done all that without the love fest.

Which you didn't read.

 

[martinvickers]

martin vickar, this thread is about Leinders not Walsh. Why dont you stop trolling and take your fanboyism to the appropriate thread.

I was responding to other posts in the direction the thread had gone, it was not a direction I initiated. I'm quite content for mods to amend or move as they see fit.

You, on the other hand, not for the first time, seem to think you have a special pass to give personal abuse. I can assure you. You don't.

Ball not man.

 

[gooner]

Stop feeding the vortex.

I asked why did Walsh not interview 2 former riders of Leinders, Rasmussen and Dekker. It set off Maserati's pedantism, again. Simple answer was to post a link or some quotes. But he'd rather pages of this.

Are they going to say anything in relation to Sky? That's what we are talking about here. Sky and Walsh. We know what Leinders was up to at Rabo. You're nitpicking for the sake of it.

Can we give it a rest with this vortex nonsense? Just because someone has an alternative opinion, it's immediate cries of vortex this and vortex that. I haven't agreed with Dr. on one or two other topics on the forum but it's got nothing to do with a vortex. It's a differing of opinion and it's debated and discussed from there.

Just address the topic here on reading his articles.

 

[martinvickers]

I have answered all that Martin thanks, read my posts. Otherwise to get me repeating myself could be misconstrued as baiting or trolling on your part and no point in getting a ban now is there? Good lad!

I have. You didn't.

You've repeated some nonsense about being at his talks or hearing him on radio, and that being enough, but the bottom line is you asked why he wasn't interviewing in a certain manner. Did he do interviews at these talks? Did he interview people on radio? No, and never has, and never suggested he would. So how could you make any sensible remark on the content of interviews based on media where no interviews occurred, or ever were going to occur?

Those interviews you demand/comment upon appear in his printed work, which you refuse to read. That renders you in no sensible position to comment, quite clearly.

Now, come on, if that's the best you got, B, that ain't good enough.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Stop feeding the vortex.

I asked why did Walsh not interview 2 former riders of Leinders, Rasmussen and Dekker. It set off Maserati's pedantism, again. Simple answer was to post a link or some quotes. But he'd rather pages of this.

My pedantsim is correcting you. The vortex is you deflecting.

I asked you what it would have revealed that was not already covered - it is not my fault you had not read the article.
And I did link to it - again, its up to you not to pay for it.
But do not blame others when they call out your ignorance.

 

[ferryman]

OK, a weak plea before I'm out of here. Step back and think. It's a stupid debate, that it is descending into name calling. Which is getting close to breaking forum rules. Over to you guys. I hope for the best.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

OK, a weak plea before I'm out of here. Step back and think. It's a stupid debate, that it is descending into name calling. Which is getting close to breaking forum rules. Over to you guys. I hope for the best.

Not being smart - but the forum rules have not been applied hence why it has become a 'stupid debate'.

Much of this discussion should be in the Walsh thread - although that has turned in to the Sky racing tactics thread.
When I pointed out that Walsh had written a piece on Leinders and blood doping. I gave a summary, and did link to it. Yet the name calling kicked in and the excuses for not reading the articles started.
Let us know what to do.

 

[thehog]

Not being smart - but the forum rules have not been applied hence why it has become a 'stupid debate'.

Much of this discussion should be in the Walsh thread - although that has turned in to the Sky racing tactics thread.
When I pointed out that Walsh had written a piece on Leinders and blood doping. I gave a summary, and did link to it. Yet the name calling kicked in and the excuses for not reading the articles started.
Let us know what to do.

Doc... Cool it. Please. Take 5.