Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[del1962]

One could observe that given the story that just came out yesterday, a major Wiggins fan- one who has even fabricated evidence to defend his hero, isn't really in a position to lecture people on which athletes they should or should not support.

One could argue that anyway.

What you on about,

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

For the love of sweet baby Jesus, could the he-said she-said p*ssing contests be held via DM, so we lurkers don't have to load pointless pages of stupid comments and meaningless rebuttals?

Please, FFS!

 

[AcademyCC]

Just read the book. Its really bad, He was one of the people I looked up to on this planet.

I cant describe how much of a **** up it was.

Lunatic. It reads like Dave Brailsford wrote his perfect situation, printed it, then multiplied by 10.

 

[thehog]

Absolutley laughable.

This bloke us under the Sky Trance.

What a complete and UTTER Goon.

The mechanics work in the trucks when its raining, therefore allowing Froome to drop everyone on climbs like he is racing kids.

Bell

END

The stupidity of Walsh and the rainy mechanics at the Giro story was he missed the bleeding obvious.

The friggin team leader of the team became scared of the rain! Couldn't even descend without having his breaks on and unclipping one pedal!

But just as long as mechanics kept dry

Do you think Walsh is stupid?

 

[the sceptic]

Just read the book. Its really bad, He was one of the people I looked up to on this planet.

I cant describe how much of a **** up it was.

Lunatic. It reads like Dave Brailsford wrote his perfect situation, printed it, then multiplied by 10.

Yeah its pretty bad. Much worse than I imagined even though I didnt have high expectations.

As an aside, I wonder what Dr Mas makes of it. Hope his ban is over soon.

 

[thehog]

Yeah its pretty bad. Much worse than I imagined even though I didnt have high expectations.

As an aside, I wonder what Dr Mas makes of it. Hope his ban is over soon.

Vortex is somewhere, watching, waiting.

His first post "have you read the book"?

What will he do?

Don't worry I'm sure he's picked out every passage of the book, sliced it, diced it and ready to throw back out.

 

[sittingbison]

Okey dokey you two, what about a bit of self regulation please. Its not about another poster. Please modify or delete your own posts accordingly

Cheers
Bison

 

[the sceptic]

Okey dokey you two, what about a bit of self regulation please. Its not about another poster. Please modify or delete your own posts accordingly

Cheers
Bison

Im just curious what he thinks about it, thats all. I respect his opinions.

Anyway feel free to delete my post.

 

[MarkvW]

Just read the book. Its really bad, He was one of the people I looked up to on this planet.

I cant describe how much of a **** up it was.

Lunatic. It reads like Dave Brailsford wrote his perfect situation, printed it, then multiplied by 10.

I tried to read LA Confidential, but could barely get through it. Walsh is a very poor writer. I'm amazed that people buy his stuff.

But there is no way I can buy any of the nonsense that Walsh is intentionally trying to mislead anybody about Sky. First, I have never seen anything that indicates he is a lying scumbag. Second, he'd make a load more money with a Sky tell-all than he will with a sycophantic fanboy book.

Maybe Walsh is an idiot about Sky, maybe not. I'm more than a little surprised that his opinions matter so much here (unless, of course, this thread is a disguised attempt to promote his book).

 

[thehog]

p

Second, he'd make a load more money with a Sky tell-all than he will with a sycophantic fanboy book.

No he wouldn't as that would be the end of the gig.

He's got Froome's autobiography coming up and probably 3-4 more Sky books.

He'll keep being embedded for the years to come via the Sunday Times.

A lot more lucrative to keep the message standard as today for a nice steady generation of income into retirement.

There's no money in a Sky is doping book. His previous efforts bar SDS sold next to nothing and were loss makers.

He's not going back to that world.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

No he wouldn't as that would be the end of the gig.

He's got Froome's autobiography coming up and probably 3-4 more Sky books.

He'll keep being embedded for the years to come via the Sunday Times.

It costs around 6 million euro (cf Tinkov) to buy what he has for free / is getting paid for now.

 

[thehog]

It costs around 6 million euro (cf Tinkov) to buy what he has for free / is getting paid for now.

Correct. And the hassle of writing a doping book. He's in the cool gang now and Walsh is not going anywhere.

Just look at the way Walsh has brushed over Leinders and made dikchead statements like "crucify Brailsford, bring us Riiis".

Even if he found doping he'd put a positive spin on it.

After all this expect a reality show "At home with the Dawgs" live from Monaco hosted by David Walsh.

 

[The fridge in the blue trees]

Where did I say Riis showed more talent than Froome? I used Walsh's own examples of Kelly and Smith to point out how Walsh himself previously differentiated between "good dopers" (talented athletes who were good from the word go, and doped) and "bad dopers" (less talented athletes who doped to turn themselves from also-rans to top stars). I used the somewhat unfair term "untalented" rather than "less talented", which was picked up in the post I was responding to, because they were not happy at considering Froome "untalented".

I personally do not know much about Michelle Smith, unlike David Walsh, so I attempted to explain myself using examples I was more familiar with. I.e. athletes who had been comparatively inauspicious until using doping to turn themselves into chemically created golems. I cheerfully acknowledge that calling Froome "untalented" prior to the 2011 Vuelta is an exaggeration and unfair on him. However, to qualify my point, I wished to demonstrate that that in no way took away from how preposterous his transformation had still been, which I demonstrated by naming three athletes I am more familiar with who had been nowhere before suddenly becoming champions with the benefit of doping - Johnson, Riis and Mühlegg - and explaining how none of those three were "untalented" either.

However Froome from 2009-mid 2011 wasn't really more than breakaway fodder either. His transformation was certainly more ridiculous than Bernhard Kohl, or Mauro Santambrogio, or Ezequiel Mosquera.

Ok, misunderstood your post then. Agree with the rest mostly.

 

[gooner]

No he wouldn't as that would be the end of the gig.

He's got Froome's autobiography coming up and probably 3-4 more Sky books.

He'll keep being embedded for the years to come via the Sunday Times.

A lot more lucrative to keep the message standard as today for a nice steady generation of income into retirement.

There's no money in a Sky is doping book. His previous efforts bar SDS sold next to nothing and were loss makers.

He's not going back to that world.

I can think of 10 books Walsh has done between writing solely himself or ghost writing ones and because you strongly disagree with one of them, he gets accused of cashing in.

By your logic, he would have stopped after LA Confidential and not even wrote From Lance to Landis and revert back more to the type of books on Roche and Kelly.

 

[sniper]

I tried to read LA Confidential, but could barely get through it. Walsh is a very poor writer. I'm amazed that people buy his stuff.

But there is no way I can buy any of the nonsense that Walsh is intentionally trying to mislead anybody about Sky. First, I have never seen anything that indicates he is a lying scumbag. Second, he'd make a load more money with a Sky tell-all than he will with a sycophantic fanboy book.

Maybe Walsh is an idiot about Sky, maybe not. I'm more than a little surprised that his opinions matter so much here (unless, of course, this thread is a disguised attempt to promote his book).

how exactly would he do that? what's the "all" in that "tell-all"?
sky they're not leaving needles in waste bins, not publicly mobbing fellow racers or journalists (well, wiggo came close), they're not ****ing off employers, not backdating tues, not betting on themselves, etc.
as some poster said some pages back, armstrong/usps were the paragon of red flags.
it's only logical to assume Sky have learnt from that. In any case, they are visibly doing as much as they can to minimize red flags. (In fact, i'd argue walsh has been hired to deal with the few red flags such as Leinders/JTL/froome-ET, and color them differently. Limited Hangout.)
So what tell-all could walsh have in mind? Also, walsh wasn't working for usps when he decided to take on armstrong. He is working for murdoch now though.

you're off the mark here, mark.

 

[Benotti69]

I can think of 10 books Walsh has done between writing solely himself or ghost writing ones and because you strongly disagree with one of them, he gets accused of cashing in.

By your logic, he would have stopped after LA Confidential and not even wrote From Lance to Landis and revert back more to the type of books on Roche and Kelly.

No Walsh dirtied his bib with cycling, but when Armstrong went down Brailsford saw an opportunity to make Sky look 'clean' and Walsh saw $$$s.

I have no problem with Walsh earning the $$$s, however it is the manner of which he hunted Armstrong, called out Rasmussen, Contador, went after Roche, left Kelly alone and now ignores the obvious at Sky which is what he is being called out over.

Walsh did a great job on Armstrong and now is reversing or erasing all that good work with Sky.

Mechanics not working in the rain, not sure how many days it rained at Le Tour, gives you wings! Worse than the dash of pineapple juice in the bidons that French teams were doing 20 years ago.

 

[EnacheV]

I have no problem with Walsh earning the $$$s, however it is the manner of which he hunted Armstrong, called out Rasmussen, Contador, went after Roche, left Kelly alone and now ignores the obvious at Sky which is what he is being called out over.

its obvious to 12-15 people. aka false. that's your problem. he can't accuse of something that's not there except a dozen minds that don't matter anyway.

 

[hrotha]

its obvious to 12-15 people. aka false. that's your problem. he can't accuse of something that's not there except a dozen minds that don't matter anyway.

Yay! THE CLINIC 12 RETURNS!

 

[LaFlorecita]

its obvious to 12-15 people. aka false. that's your problem. he can't accuse of something that's not there except a dozen minds that don't matter anyway.

Do you actually, seriously believe it's just a group of 12 to 15 people? If so, you're even more ignorant than I thought.

 

[Alphabet]

Those 12-15 people are the only ones that bother entering into debates about Froome, Sky, and Walsh. I salute their perseverance and determination to keep talking about the same thing over, and over, and over again; only to be met by counter-arguments that get progressively weaker.

The rest of us know what time it is and don't have the patience to keep discussing it with closed minded people.

 

[EnacheV]

Do you actually, seriously believe it's just a group of 12 to 15 people? If so, you're even more ignorant than I thought.

yes, there are a dozen of people that rehash same old meme's every day.

if they catch Sky/Froome doping, very well, hang them. Till than there is NOTHING. Not even a clue.

The most people saying "sky dope" are the usual grumpy rivals fans, they say that not because they have evidences/etc , they say that because the feel good.

There are only a handful people who think they have evidences to back up the Sky doping theory.

What makes "Skybots" posting is the ridiculous repeat of same whishful thinking presented as proof, every day, by a few people.

20,000 posts of nothing. That say's a lot.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

When did they catch Bjarne Riis doping?

Until then, there is nothing.

 

[Benotti69]

<snip>

20,000 posts of nothing. That say's a lot.

there is plenty, plenty, keep believing in unicorns...

 

[the sceptic]

yes, there are a dozen of people that rehash same old meme's every day.

if they catch Sky/Froome doping, very well, hang them. Till than there is NOTHING. Not even a clue.

The most people saying "sky dope" are the usual grumpy rivals fans, they say that not because they have evidences/etc , they say that because the feel good.

There are only a handful people who think they have evidences to back up the Sky doping theory.

What makes "Skybots" posting is the ridiculous repeat of same whishful thinking presented as proof, every day, by a few people.

20,000 posts of nothing. That say's a lot.

458 posts of trolling, that says a lot. If you were so sure sky were cleans you wouldnt spend all that time trolling the clinic.

 

[the sceptic]

When did they catch Bjarne Riis doping?

Until then, there is nothing.

I agree. We must wait for more evidence. We simply cant condemn him based on hearsay alone. I think his confession might have been a false confession. If he was doping there would have been more evidences.

Maybe he had a good mechanic and got up 2 hours earlier than everyone else. That is enough to climb faster than dopers.