• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Page 106 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
3
0
Visit site
martinvickers said:
Indeed, BroDeal.

And the fact that "Flawed fairytale" was published some ten years before TeamSky came into existence in no way whatsoever detracts from the logic of your suggestion; why, it merely highlights Walsh's demonic clairvoyence, the psychic swine that he is!

And then you wonder why BikeRadar types mock you...

Glad you finally found something to vortex about Martin.

But if you dont have anything to contribute other than your usual idiocy why dont you take it somewhere else? This thread is for laughing at Walsh.
 
BroDeal said:
Which genius mod decided it was a good idea to have a Walsh book thread with no discussion allowed?

The Muppetarium over at Bike Radar is absolutely obsessed with what is being said in this forum. Since the mods have effectively killed this place, it might be a good idea for people to register at BR and clue the Muppets in to a little truth.
Relax. Digger suggested it. Hitch and others agreed. The purpose of that thread is to serve as an objective reference and rebuttal to be used against skybots. You're free to discuss the quotes and everything else in this thread.
 
martinvickers said:
Indeed, BroDeal.

And the fact that "Flawed fairytale" was published some ten years before TeamSky came into existence in no way whatsoever detracts from the logic of your suggestion; why, it merely highlights Walsh's demonic clairvoyence, the psychic swine that he is!

And then you wonder why BikeRadar types mock you...

BR forum - they are unbelievably clueless and naïve and is almost identical to roadbikereviewforum of five years ago - same level of wilful ignorance...so well done Martin!
 
martinvickers said:
Indeed, BroDeal.

And the fact that "Flawed fairytale" was published some ten years before TeamSky came into existence in no way whatsoever detracts from the logic of your suggestion; why, it merely highlights Walsh's demonic clairvoyence, the psychic swine that he is!

And then you wonder why BikeRadar types mock you...

BikeRadar?
Seriously?
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Visit site
Digger said:
BR forum - they are unbelievably clueless and naïve and is almost identical to roadbikereviewforum of five years ago - same level of wilful ignorance...so well done Martin!

Brodeal raised it, not me. I'm just amused that it matters to him.

As for "well done martin", well, to be absolutely honest, I'm not terribly bothered - whatever keeps you happy.
 
martinvickers said:
Indeed, BroDeal.

And the fact that "Flawed fairytale" was published some ten years before TeamSky came into existence in no way whatsoever detracts from the logic of your suggestion; why, it merely highlights Walsh's demonic clairvoyence, the psychic swine that he is!

Indeed, Vickers.

After spending years persecuting the evil American doper responsible for corrupting cycling, Walsh suddenly decided the same excuses for ridiculous performance that were unbelievable when they were given by Americans were perfectly plausible when they were given by Brits. That he had an opportunity to get in on the ground floor of the corporate driven machine that latches onto sports celebrities and turns them into national heroes surely had nothing to do with his new gullibility. A vaunted journalist of such integrity would not think to cash in by tossing his supposed morals aside and writing a book that could very well have been put out by the Iraqi Ministry of Information.

It looks like Walsh decided there is too much money to be made in assuaging a country's inferiority complex with jingoistic claptrap to convince the prols that--yes--they really are superior to the rest of the world. They work harder. They work smarter. And those in other countries are too lazy and beholden to the past to reap the rewards that our boys have so deservedly obtained.

But maybe you can come up with a less money grubbing explanation for Walsh acting as Sky's propagandist. Seeing as how you manage to rationalize everything else about Sky, I am sure you will not disappoint.
 
BroDeal said:
The Muppetarium over at Bike Radar is absolutely obsessed with what is being said in this forum.

So? Who cares. If the people there are obsessed with what is said here they can come and confront us and tell us what they think we have wrong, or they can continue to whisper to themselves.

Seems to me if they talk about the clinic all the time then the clinic is clearly the elder in the relationship because no one here cares what some ppl on some forum no one has ever heard of say.

But if people here keep mentioning this bike radar place all the time and gossiping what is said there, that relationship begins to change.

Ignore them I say, and if they continue to care about what is said here in the clinic, good. Everytime I read a doping article on the internet and in the comments section someone talks about how much they hate cn forum the clinic, I think good - we are getting under their skin. Don't let them get under yours.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
Indeed, Vickers.

After spending years persecuting the evil American doper responsible for corrupting cycling, Walsh suddenly decided the same excuses for ridiculous performance that were unbelievable when they were given by Americans were perfectly plausible when they were given by Brits. That he had an opportunity to get in on the ground floor of the corporate driven machine that latches onto sports celebrities and turns them into national heroes surely had nothing to do with his new gullibility. A vaunted journalist of such integrity would not think to cash in by tossing his supposed morals aside and writing a book that could very well have been put out by the Iraqi Ministry of Information.

It looks like Walsh decided there is too much money to be made in assuaging a country's inferiority complex with jingoistic claptrap to convince the prols that--yes--they really are superior to the rest of the world. They work harder. They work smarter. And those in other countries are too lazy and beholden to the past to reap the rewards that our boys have so deservedly obtained.

But maybe you can come up with a less money grubbing explanation for Walsh acting as Sky's propagandist. Seeing as how you manage to rationalize everything else about Sky, I am sure you will not disappoint.

Leaving aside the, frankly silly, editorialising, that's actually very, very easy.

He believes them.

Spent a fair amount of time with them, was convinced. No conspiracy, no 'cash in', no Murdoch, nothing.

He just believes them.

You don't. That's fine. He's not obliged to agree with you, nor you with him. No-one is.

I think the book's fun, interesting in part for some of the backstage gossip, but as I said RIGHT AT THE START, it's clear he's convinced, and the last parts of the book are a very tough read because of it. It's a patchy book at best. Banville it ain't.

But then as I said in another thread, I don't make a god of any journo. Not Walsh, not Kimmage. None of them. And I don't need to come up with some c*** and bull conspiracy theory requiring powers of clairvoyence and a decade as a 'sleeper',pretending to hate dopers when he really loves'em, if he doesn't write what I agree with, or what I want to see.

Sorry if that's not exciting enough for ya.
 
martinvickers said:
Leaving aside the, frankly silly, editorialising, that's actually very, very easy.

He believes them.

Spent a fair amount of time with them, was convinced. No conspiracy, no 'cash in', no Murdoch, nothing.

He just believes them.

You don't. That's fine. He's not obliged to agree with you, nor you with him. No-one is.

I think the book's fun, interesting in part for some of the backstage gossip, but as I said RIGHT AT THE START, it's clear he's convinced, and the last parts of the book are a very tough read because of it. It's a patchy book at best. Banville it ain't.

But then as I said in another thread, I don't make a god of any journo. Not Walsh, not Kimmage. None of them. And I don't need to come up with some c*** and bull conspiracy theory requiring powers of clairvoyence and a decade as a 'sleeper',pretending to hate dopers when he really loves'em, if he doesn't write what I agree with, or what I want to see.

Sorry if that's not exciting enough for ya.
The issue Martin isn't that Walsh believes sky and we don't. That was already the case a year ago but until a few days ago, many of the people who are going hard after Walsh here including myself left Walsh alone even at times gave him the benefit of the doubt.

But Walsh goes well.past agree and disagree here. He paints with a childlike innocence and naivety a black and white picture of heroic benevolent princes fighting evil witches and dragons.

And in a way not unfamiliar to those with an interest I history, he paints a clearly fabricated picture of what those who don't agree with him believe in order to make them look bad.

It's like the writers in medieval times who would always say the leader their monarch was fighting was ugly because in their eyes ugly=evil

Their king and all his family was always so handsome though. And charismatic and all the other qualities humans can possess.

And we have it here. Everything about everyone at sky is brilliant. They are all intelligent, funny, inspirational, super super hard working (more than anyone else), committed every second of every hour to integrity and fairness and so on and so on.
The doubters on the other hand supported lance (cursed to begin with) . They support contador. They are idiotic and impulsive. Their reasons to doubt Sky in the first place are mob like and totally unfounded and a result of their total inability to think things through like Walsh does. No matter how ridiculous it sounds they point at sky for absolutely any reason they can think of it and scream - doper.

I know you may think a few of the members of the clinic fit the above, but for Walsh holds it as the generic descritption for those who doubt Sky. It is totally not on and a clear case of him taking absolute liberties with the truth in order to present his own side. Michael Moore, Fox News style.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
After spending years persecuting the evil American doper responsible for corrupting cycling, Walsh suddenly decided the same excuses for ridiculous performance that were unbelievable when they were given by Americans were perfectly plausible when they were given by Brits. That he had an opportunity to get in on the ground floor of the corporate driven machine that latches onto sports celebrities and turns them into national heroes surely had nothing to do with his new gullibility. A vaunted journalist of such integrity would not think to cash in by tossing his supposed morals aside and writing a book that could very well have been put out by the Iraqi Ministry of Information.
I support this message.
 
martinvickers said:
Leaving aside the, frankly silly, editorialising, that's actually very, very easy.

He believes them.

Oh, BS. No one who has any familiarity with cycling is that dumb. This is the same excuse people used for Liggett.

martinvickers said:
But then as I said in another thread, I don't make a god of any journo. Not Walsh, not Kimmage. None of them. And I don't need to come up with some c*** and bull conspiracy theory requiring powers of clairvoyence and a decade as a 'sleeper',pretending to hate dopers when he really loves'em, if he doesn't write what I agree with, or what I want to see.

Hey, look. Vickers is back to his usual explanation of vast conspiracies rather than amoral people pursuing their own ends, pretending for the moment to believe whatever gives them credibility in the eyes of those they are trying to influence then capitalizing on opportunities that present themselves from beliefs they care not a whit about. Armstrong had Livestrong. Walsh had Armstrong. Money was made on both.

Good old Walsh. When it suited his purposes he was a stalwart crusader against doping. When it did not, he used the public profile he got from his professed beliefs to pimp Froome to the public. Sky could not have chosen a more perfect person to espouse the Big Lie.

Good luck with your conspiracy solutions to everything. Don't spend all your money on newsletters.
 
hrotha said:
Relax. Digger suggested it. Hitch and others agreed. The purpose of that thread is to serve as an objective reference and rebuttal to be used against skybots. You're free to discuss the quotes and everything else in this thread.

^^This

It was supposed to be a thread with quotes only posted with the reference "walk Number of chapter:Number of page" that could be quoted by that reference as counter arguments

Unfortunately no one was a fan of the attitude era so no one is using the references :(
 

High Octane

BANNED
Nov 9, 2013
29
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
Indeed, Vickers.

After spending years persecuting the evil American doper responsible for corrupting cycling, Walsh suddenly decided the same excuses for ridiculous performance that were unbelievable when they were given by Americans were perfectly plausible when they were given by Brits. That he had an opportunity to get in on the ground floor of the corporate driven machine that latches onto sports celebrities and turns them into national heroes surely had nothing to do with his new gullibility. A vaunted journalist of such integrity would not think to cash in by tossing his supposed morals aside and writing a book that could very well have been put out by the Iraqi Ministry of Information.

It looks like Walsh decided there is too much money to be made in assuaging a country's inferiority complex with jingoistic claptrap to convince the prols that--yes--they really are superior to the rest of the world. They work harder. They work smarter. And those in other countries are too lazy and beholden to the past to reap the rewards that our boys have so deservedly obtained.

But maybe you can come up with a less money grubbing explanation for Walsh acting as Sky's propagandist. Seeing as how you manage to rationalize everything else about Sky, I am sure you will not disappoint.

Good trolling rant, perfect for the internet. But lets look at the real world facts. All there is against Froome is one particular time on one particular day in one particular set of conditions. It would be very hard to convince anybody who knows about cycling that this proves Froome is doping. There's no witnesses, no links with a string of dodgy people. No string of investigations. No hospital room incident. No makeup needed for injections. No intimidation. A team that fired a load of people that had vague links to doping 20 years ago. It's light years behind postal. Postal would never have let a journalist get so close to their day to day operations with the amount of conspiracy that was going on - just too risky.

None of this proves Froome is not doping, of course, but you need to provide an argument that holds merit and has integrity before attacking Walsh. It's not good to smear someone like Walsh because he won't say what you want him to say. People have tried to smear him before and it turned out they were fundamentally dishonest and not very nice people. Just a heads up.
 
Parrulo said:
^^This

It was supposed to be a thread with quotes only posted with the reference "walk Number of chapter:Number of page" that could be quoted by that reference as counter arguments

Unfortunately no one was a fan of the attitude era so no one is using the references :(

You weren't a fan of the attitude era if you didn't realize this was a reference.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1371053&postcount=2283
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Visit site
High Octane said:
But lets look at the real world facts. All there is against Froome is one particular time on one particular day in one particular set of conditions. It would be very hard to convince anybody who knows about cycling that this proves Froome is doping. Then there's no witnesses, no links with a string of dodgy people. No string of investigations. No hospital room incident. No makeup needed for injections. No intimidation. No team that fired a load of people that had vague links to doping 20 years ago. It's light years behind postal. Postal would never have let a journalist get so close to their day to day operations with the amount of conspiracy that was going on - just too risky.

None of this proves Froome is not doping, of course.
Mmmh, on what page exactly was this in the Gospel of Saint Dave?

Good find, grazie.
 
Parrulo said:
^^This

It was supposed to be a thread with quotes only posted with the reference "walk Number of chapter:Number of page" that could be quoted by that reference as counter arguments

Unfortunately no one was a fan of the attitude era so no one is using the references :(

So instead of a thread about Walsh's book, we are left with all discussion composted into a 2500 post garbage thread. Brilliant.
 
High Octane said:
Good trolling rant, perfect for the internet. But lets look at the real world facts. All there is against Froome is one particular time on one particular day in one particular set of conditions. It would be very hard to convince anybody who knows about cycling that this proves Froome is doping. There's no witnesses, no links with a string of dodgy people. No string of investigations. No hospital room incident. No makeup needed for injections. No intimidation. A team that fired a load of people that had vague links to doping 20 years ago. It's light years behind postal. Postal would never have let a journalist get so close to their day to day operations with the amount of conspiracy that was going on - just too risky.

None of this proves Froome is not doping, of course, but you need to provide an argument that holds merit and has integrity before attacking Walsh. It's not good to smear someone like Walsh because he won't say what you want him to say. People have tried to smear him before and it turned out they were fundamentally dishonest and not very nice people. Just a heads up.

Clearly Froome is doping. Did Christ die on the cross, or of a cold?
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
3
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
So instead of a thread about Walsh's book, we are left with all discussion composted into a 2500 post garbage thread. Brilliant.

They should just make me a mod so I can ban all the skybots trolling this thread. Problem solved.
 
High Octane said:
Good trolling rant, perfect for the internet. But lets look at the real world facts. All there is against Froome is one particular time on one particular day in one particular set of conditions. It would be very hard to convince anybody who knows about cycling that this proves Froome is doping. Then there's no witnesses, no links with a string of dodgy people. No string of investigations. No hospital room incident. No makeup needed for injections. No intimidation. No team that fired a load of people that had vague links to doping 20 years ago. It's light years behind postal. Postal would never have let a journalist get so close to their day to day operations with the amount of conspiracy that was going on - just too risky.

None of this proves Froome is not doping, of course, but you need to provide an argument that holds merit and has integrity before attacking Walsh. It's not good to smear someone like Walsh because he won't say what you want him to say. People have tried to smear him before and it turned out they were fundamentally dishonest and not very nice people. Just a heads up.

Back again, BPC?

It does not take much to figure out that Froome is doping. A range of what VO2MAX is required to climb at the speed he climbed at during the Tour can be calculated. Using the amount of improvement that VO2MAX can change from training, it can be shown that when he was younger, even in a moderately trained state, he would have had a huge aerobic engine that would have been apparent when he first started racing. I have no doubt whatsoever that Froome is doping. No one can naturally make that huge of a performance gain.
 
Mar 12, 2009
2,521
0
0
Visit site
Anyone remember the Walsh interview he gave last year just after (or before, can't remember) SDS was released? He was asked about the Vuelta result (-12) calling pretty much the whole podium dopers. (Purito has never tested positive, neither has Piti, for that matter).

Funny how Froome beat those said dopers by minutes at the Tour this year. :rolleyes: