Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Page 102 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Parrulo said:
Your not Irish? Your IP suggested otherwise but who cares anyway? My point stands. How can you still defend walsh even after this book? Can you answer me that?
I am Irish but your theory was dispelled in my original post. Parrulo, I have no problem with you disagreeing me but bringing this along national lines is not the way to go about this. I'm prepared to forget about it and move on.

gooner said:
Secondly regarding Walsh, I have been critical of Kimmage a few times on this forum and the biggest time was on a subject that isn't even linked with Sky. I also criticised Shane Stokes up thread. Two Irish journalists, if you don't know that.:rolleyes:
If I was biased to Walsh, why not those two?

I don't agree with everything Walsh says and I have said in this thread fans give too much attention to journalists in the sport(Kimmage and Walsh) in comparison to what their counterparts get in other sports. Journalists aren't to be religious followed as if they are some sporting institution. Regarding the book, he talks about the stage on the descent where Voeckler went into the garden of the house in the Tour in 2011 and used this as an example of Kerrison's genius where he recced it numerous times and played a video of it before the stage. Walsh was more or less saying because of what Kerrison did here, it was the reason which mainly helped EBH win the stage. Another is wind tunnels and adjusting position where riders were knocking seconds off here and there. He was giving the impression it was revolutionary which we all know it's clearly not. His analysis of tactics and racing scenarios isn't great but it has to be remembered he is not a designated cycling journalist, he is a sports journalist who covers many other events like in rugby and golf.

Where I defend Walsh is that he has somehow compromised himself to the point where he won't report on anything that he feels suspicious about. On the JTL story, he had his suspicions after his tweet saying he didn't have the form to start the worlds. Later, he spoke to 3 cycling fans who were also talking about it and afterwards he rang up Brailsford who didn't answer his phone when he was about to ask him on the subject. He then says he enquired around contacting various people in anti-doping and other teams and found out there was a story in all this. He again rings up Brailsford to ask him about it and say he was running it on the Sunday Times. Now if he's a sellout, why act on the suspicion? Wouldn't he ignore it? Instead he criticises the team and Brailsford for not knowing about the l'Equipe article which questioned JTL in early 2012.

Remember as well, he wrote books on Roche and Kelly and in the case of Roche, it didn't stop him going to Italy for a week to get the details behind his link to Conconi when it first came out. He was a lot closer to Roche and Kelly back then compared to Froome now. Similar with Lance who he was eulogising about back in 1993 after he interviewed him. He spoke glowingly to Kimmage about Lance afterwards on the back of it. Did that stop him later? Take the Lance and Michelle de Bruijn success, those were tough times for him and he also was taken to task during the Roche/Conconi story on national TV for daring to question. In the UK, the Sunday Times, including Walsh were heavily criticised for investigating and uncovering FIFA corruption all during the World Cup nomination process which many felt sabotaged England's hopes of hosting the World Cup in 2018. He was on Sky Sports News after that failed bid defending the ST investigation under tough questioning of their role and specifically their timing of it.

I just don't buy the bandwagon claim that he's taking it easy now and cashing in turning a blind eye when I take this history into account. He has gone for the difficult story even when it wouldn't be popular and at some stages it affected his family life(Kimmage told him to back off at one and forget about Lance due to it). No doubt he has been hugely impressed by what he has seen at Sky but I see no reason to say he won't report on anything untoward with substance if he comes across it in the future. He has done it before even after admiring initially in the first place. The JTL story reassures me with his reporting on Sky now.

I have no issue if someone disagrees with Walsh's reporting(he's not flawless)but what I won't accept is the under the bus job where there is lying, baiting and twisting of his words. Examples like someone saying Walsh said JTL isn't doping because he doesn't like needles. It's a blatant lie to push a certain narrative to people who mightn't have read the book. I even see someone on here say he was sanctimonious after Lance got busted but that was never thrown at him when he was doing multiple interviews, appearances and penning SDS last year. It all fits in now after his year with Sky and writing of this book which means lets just treat him like a piece of meat and forget what he has done in the past.
 
Sep 21, 2012
77
0
0
Okay, here's a theory [checks tinfoil, clears throat]...

This writing is so preposterously unconvincing, so truly awful, because it has been fashioned this way on purpose. It's a cry for help! Walsh is just another empty-eyed hostage being forced to read from his captor's script.

This is the only way I can interpret any of this in Walsh's favour. Reading such utter drivel as the Brailsford/Jesus, Riis/Barabbas passage, I can't escape the image of Walsh silently mouthing, "Help... m-me." That he's become such a shameless sell-out is still hard for me to fathom. Christ, this is "The little f**king Troll!" What happened to him? He was supposed to be one of the ones with integrity.

He's still going to blow the wheels of the bandwagon from within, right? RIGHT!?
 
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Holy smoke:
WTF..?

Attack and drop everyone because you're the strongest = tactical masterclass. Is this like a parody of the Bruyneel "tactical mastermind" ?

Would chase down every break of the day? Yeh, no he wouldn't, unless he was being a grunt.

His only chance was to attack from far out? Like Quintana?

His amazing attacks from "far out" left him empty for future days - but going 100% destroying opponents doesn't?

Froome does recon of GT climbs? No way, why haven't others thought of this?
 
Ferminal said:
WTF..?

Attack and drop everyone because you're the strongest = tactical masterclass. Is this like a parody of the Bruyneel "tactical mastermind" ?

Would chase down every break of the day? Yeh, no he wouldn't, unless he was being a grunt.

His only chance was to attack from far out? Like Quintana?

His amazing attacks from "far out" left him empty for future days - but going 100% destroying opponents doesn't?

Froome does recon of GT climbs? No way, why haven't others thought of this?
The tactics bit and froome doing reccons, deserve to be in the quotes thread.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
gooner said:
I even see someone on here say he was sanctimonious after Lance got busted but that was never thrown at him when he was doing multiple interviews, appearances and penning SDS last year.
False. :)

It most certainly was, but searching Twitter activity from a year ago is easier said then done (at least for me, YMMV). If I can dig up the specific tweets that I recall, that did precisely what your are denying took place, I will post the links. If I don't, those tweets still exist regardless. I'm certain the same took place on other platforms as well.
 
Aug 8, 2013
262
0
0
sky would never have drugged Walsh too would they?

that would explain it but surely that's step
too far even for the evil mastermind brailsford
 
Sure it is not April Fools Day in some part of the world? I really did not expect Walsh to be so over the top in his misguided love of Sky but this is preposterous. But what really gets me is that he is a terrible writer. Terrible. Sheesh
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Granville57 said:
False. :)

It most certainly was, but searching Twitter activity from a year ago is easier said then done (at least for me, YMMV). If I can dig up the specific tweets that I recall, that did precisely what your are denying took place, I will post the links. If I don't, those tweets still exist regardless. I'm certain the same took place on other platforms as well.
It's in relation to one person(he knows who he is) that didn't have that position towards him this time last year. I know that for a fact. That's my point and it was the same for the forum. Walsh was not called out for being sanctimonious around here back then.
 
Oct 21, 2012
1,106
0
0
I'm through to chapter 5, and this is honestly the worst book I have ever had the misfortune to read. Forget the fact that pretty much all the content so far is utterly ridiculous, the standard of writing is almost disgusting. How the hell can somebody who writes so poorly have made a career out of journalism?

I remember reading 'Lanced: The Shaming of Lance Armstrong' and that certainly wasn't anywhere near as bad as this. Were all his columns for the various newspapers he worked for ghostwritten?
 
Bag of Guts said:
Okay, here's a theory [checks tinfoil, clears throat]...

This writing is so preposterously unconvincing, so truly awful, because it has been fashioned this way on purpose. It's a cry for help! Walsh is just another empty-eyed hostage being forced to read from his captor's script.

This is the only way I can interpret any of this in Walsh's favour. Reading such utter drivel as the Brailsford/Jesus, Riis/Barabbas passage, I can't escape the image of Walsh silently mouthing, "Help... m-me." That he's become such a shameless sell-out is still hard for me to fathom. Christ, this is "The little f**king Troll!" What happened to him? He was supposed to be one of the ones with integrity.

He's still going to blow the wheels of the bandwagon from within, right? RIGHT!?
I feel sorry for him. I think the pressure has got to him. He was built as the Armstrong slayer. Now he's having a break down or something. Or more to point he actually never really was a good writer or journalist.

Comparing ITT times to a road stage just lacks total credibility. Surely he can't be that stupid?

I just don't know anymore.

Maybe someone might get to ask him sometime soon, perhaps? :rolleyes:
 
Walsh, a combination of Phil Liggett, P.T. Barnum, and the Reverend Jim Jones. Who needs Paul Sherwen's gold mine when the British mugs are waiting to be sheared.

Armstrong should have claimed that even though he grew up in Texas, he always felt British. Walsh would have concentrated on Ullrich instead.
 

High Octane

BANNED
Nov 9, 2013
29
0
0
BroDeal said:
Walsh, a combination of Phil Liggett, P.T. Barnum, and the Reverend Jim Jones. Who needs Paul Sherwen's gold mine when the British mugs are waiting to be sheared.

Armstrong should have claimed that even though he grew up in Texas, he always felt British. Walsh would have concentrated on Ullrich instead.
How times change. You never would have seen this type of trolling against Walsh a few years ago.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
2
0
BikeRetard excuses are almost as funny as the book:

-The "mistakes" are due to the book being rushed for the christmas market
-Walsh would make more money if he found out about doping, thus they are clean
-Walsh track record speaks for itself
-He doesnt work for an ADA so he is allowed to be enthusiastic about sky (fair enough, but clearly Walsh is trying to be more than a fan here)

Gave up after a couple of pages. Its like Martinvickers^2 over there. What a nightmare.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
BroDeal said:
Walsh, a combination of Phil Liggett, P.T. Barnum, and the Reverend Jim Jones. Who needs Paul Sherwen's gold mine when the British mugs are waiting to be sheared.

Armstrong should have claimed that even though he grew up in Texas, he always felt British. Walsh would have concentrated on Ullrich instead.
Right on cue. What took you so long?

I thought this sort of nationalistic talk was banned.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY