Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Dec 27, 2010
6,013
0
0
Not sure I'd draw that conclusion.

I think most of us would miss something out given "only" 10 questions.
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
will10 said:
Originally Posted by Bill Stapleton
...[Walsh] thinks we're ahead of the curve. But think about it for a sec. We're building long-lasting, trusting relationships with people who are spending a lot of money - Coke, Nike, Subaru. If we're f***ing lying, we can kiss it all goodbye. And if we were lying we'd do some stupid stuff to try to cover it up, wouldn't we? Does anybody think for a second that a secret that big wouldn't come out?
for Nike read Asics for Subaru read Nissan for Coke read FRS r u tired of being lied
 
We have threads on Lance, we have threads on Sky, you embarass yourself by opening another thread with flawed logic, what could even be called trolling,

I suggest the mods should move this to another thread or close it down.
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
Walsh is probably employed by the UCI as an undercover agent. All the anti doping talk was just a smokescreen to please the clinic:rolleyes:
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
will10 said:
uh, I don't follow.
his sponsors did not last did they? this ongoing and binding relationship was nothing but.

and the FRS marketing is Tired of being tired. So I changed it to Are you tired of being tired
to, Are you tired of being lied
 
Jun 30, 2012
79
0
0
We could all list 10 good questions.

1999 cortisone,
2001 TdS test
Simeoni incident


Etc

Debatable from a corporate viewpoint whether this is the right way to approach a USD 1 m litigation though...maybe ST realise they wont get their money and are just out to maximise column inches.
 
this thread is a bit weird. Your making conclusions about Sky based on a letter he wrote about Armstrong?

Anyway i dont think Walsh is on the Sky bandwagon. For the faults i see in him, it must be remembered that he handled himself with immense honor and courage on the Armstrong thing for years. And i would not throw accusations at such a man lightly
 
Walsh on Twitter asked people to tweet one question to ask Lance if they were Oprah, and said the best 10 would be re-tweeted.
It seems to consist of questions from people who tweeted. (it at least contains my question)

So I wouldn't read too much in to it.

However it is true that Walsh hasn't been critical of Sky. It maybe because he doesn't follow Cycling too intensely now.
 
Aug 9, 2010
5,284
0
0
The Hitch said:
this thread is a bit weird. Your making conclusions about Sky based on a letter he wrote about Armstrong?

Anyway i dont think Walsh is on the Sky bandwagon. For the faults i see in him, it must be remembered that he handled himself with immense honor and courage on the Armstrong thing for years. And i would not throw accusations at such a man lightly
it is weird

Thnx Hitch
 
Dec 30, 2011
3,119
0
0
As a British journalist writing for a pro Sky newspaper I am not surprised that Walsh would not want to criticise Sky. Why stick out a leg and claim they are doping when, unlike with Armstrong, there is not enough proof for him to decide fully himself?
 
David Walsh works for the Sunday Times which is conected to Sky.

I think it is fair to say that his link to News International means that every moral stand that he has previously had is now invalid.

With his conflict of interest, we can't look at what he says, but what he doesn't say.

Every day that someone on Team Sky says nothing adds to the proof. The silence is defening. The lack of evidence is the most compelling evidence.
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
Parker said:
With his conflict of interest, we can't look at what he says, but what he doesn't say.
parker post avec acuity

so I deign to quote Walsh:"...................................."
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
The Hitch said:
this thread is a bit weird. Your making conclusions about Sky based on a letter he wrote about Armstrong?

Anyway i dont think Walsh is on the Sky bandwagon. For the faults i see in him, it must be remembered that he handled himself with immense honor and courage on the Armstrong thing for years. And i would not throw accusations at such a man lightly
What I found striking about the OPs post was they didn't mention Vaughters once.
Surely Walsh asking Oprah to ask Lance questions must be based on Sky .... Or JV because Walsh didn't ask about Girona. Or Contador because Walsh didn't ask Oprah to ask Lance about building schools in Israel.
 
Dec 30, 2011
3,119
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
What I found striking about the OPs post was they didn't mention Vaughters once.
Surely Walsh asking Oprah to ask Lance questions must be based on Sky .... Or JV because Walsh didn't ask about Girona. Or Contador because Walsh didn't ask Oprah to ask Lance about building schools in Israel.
It is what I find striking with this board not only this particular OP.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
We saw Walsh jump on the Sky/Garmin bandwagon a few weeks ago in that interview with Brailsford.
Now he conveniently avoids asking LAnce anything re: his ties with UCI. "Did the UCI help you avoid testing positive?", or something more specific e.g. wrt the donations, Vrijman, whatever.

Instead, Walsh throws in a couple of highly rethorical questions
("Did you have any sympathy for those rivals determined to race clean?")
and questions to which we already know the answer (e.g. "Did you tell doctors at the Indiana University Hospital on October 27, 1996 that you had taken EPO, human growth hormone, cortisone, steroids and testosterone?").

Really, the only relevant things to ask Lance concern his ties with the UCI, and Walsh omits that.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
We saw Walsh jump on the Sky/Garmin bandwagon a few weeks ago in that interview with Brailsford.
Now he conveniently avoids asking LAnce anything re: his ties with UCI. Something like: "Did the UCI help you avoid testing positive?", or something more specific e.g. wrt the donations, Vrijman, whatever.

Instead, Walsh throws in a couple of highly rethorical questions
("Did you have any sympathy for those rivals determined to race clean?")
and questions to which we already know the answer (e.g. "Did you tell doctors at the Indiana University Hospital on October 27, 1996 that you had taken EPO, human growth hormone, cortisone, steroids and testosterone?").

Really, the only relevant things to ask Lance concern his ties with the UCI, and Walsh omits that.
Walsh is either losing his touch, or he's on the Sky bandwagon.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
The Hitch said:
this thread is a bit weird. Your making conclusions about Sky based on a letter he wrote about Armstrong?
Mellow Velo said:
Even the Hog might have trouble joining these dots. Weirdly weird.
It's quite simple.
Walsh doesn't seem interested in exposing the UCI.
An explanation could be that Walsh is on the Sky bandwagon and doesn't unnecessarily want to raise the topic of UCI protection, as it applies to Sky.

Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Strange conclusion, if I am right, I most of the time am [;)] Walsh has made a twitter 'lotto' for questions big old mamma Oprah should ask the wonderboy.
edit: see the Asian and the sceptic.
ok, that would be another explanation :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts