Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Page 135 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Zam_Olyas said:
He was asked a question and what else was he supposed to do? ... no comments??

He's entitled to his opinion.

Walsh isn't flawless by any means but if you're going point out inconsistencies, he should be judged to the same criteria.

If people think the work Shane Stokes is doing is actively achieving something constructive with Sky or exposing them, then that's their opinion. I'm entitled to disagree.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
RownhamHill said:
Sorry, just seen this, wasn't ignoring your question. I don't really understand what you mean by addressing his arguments (eg he says he believes in Dave Brailsford, how do you address that statement in anything other than a pantomime 'oh no he doesn't', 'oh yes he does' style?), but the response below is what I 'think' about the whole thing, that hopefully goes some way to answering your question.

Honestly, I think (from what I've seen of it parsed through these boards, as I haven't read the book) that Walsh's writing is very interesting, and gives me pause for thought.

I choose to take what he says at face value, in that I think he probably genuinely believes what he is writing, and it's very obvious that as a result of spending lots of time with the team he has gone from being cautiously sceptical about their cleanliness to a true believer in it.

That, in and of itself, isn't enough to convince me personally that Sky is clean (because why would it), but it is an interesting 'dot' of evidence as far as I'm concerned.

And it's interesting because it then begs the question as to why he now is a true believer: he could be cynically lying about the whole experience (which I personally dismiss as just too far-fetched a possibility, but of course I could be wrong), he could be being made a complete patsy by team Sky or Froome himself (which, if they/he are/is doping, is the obvious thing for them/him to do, and I certainly don't dismiss), or (whisper it) it could be because they are clean and that spending 10 weeks with them is enough to form that judgement from one's observations (which again I don't dismiss).

Also, leaving aside the 'quality' or truthfulness of Walsh's argument, as a separate note I actually have a lot of respect for him for having the courage of his convictions/brazen cynicism (delete as appropriate) in this case. I actually think it would have been easier for him to project a veneer of objectivity as Skidmark so eloquently laid out, but that doing that would actually have been fundamentally dishonest - it would have been covering his own **** in case in 1 week/month/year/decade it all blows up in his face and his reputation would be left in tatters (at worst he'd be shown as part of a cynical fraud, at best a blithering idiot who Sky made a fool out of (see Armstrong/Ligget)). As it is, he has laid his cards on the table - and whether you think it's a winning hand or not at least (I tend to think) he's been honest about what he thinks.

Of course, since I don't know Walsh, I don't know any one from team Sky, and I have no way of forming any kind of meaningful judgement that goes beyond my own prejudices, suspicions and hopes I remain open to all eventual possibilities.

Good post.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
sniper said:
Why don't you take one step back and tell us honestly what you think of the quality of walsh's arguments. Why are you skipping that part?

RownhamHill said:
Also, leaving aside the 'quality' or truthfulness of Walsh's argument
:rolleyes:
10 chars
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
elduggo said:
also, rather than you spout about it on a message board, how about actually addressing some of the points he made?
+1

gooner said:
How about reading my posts throughout the thread?[
i have. Most of the time I've seen you deflect away rather than address the issues at hand, e.g. by saying stuff like "walsh took down usps, stokes didn't", "if you don't criticize kimmage you cant criticize walsh", etc.

so tell me.
why didn't sky take stokes' up on his offer to pass on the data to ashenden?
why hasn't walsh tried to get ashenden involved for data checking?
why is walsh using double standards, one for contador/horner, another for sky/froome?
why didn't walsh check with other teams to ask their opinions on sky, like stokes did?

as FGL says, Stokes at least seems to have learned from the past.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
gooner said:
Wrong. Armstrong had the bullying of Bassons and the story in Le Monde about the positive. Smith had the link with her doping husband and her rise would be the equivalent of Froome coming out of nowhere in his late 30's and finishing 2nd in the Vuelta in 2011. It doesn't compare. Look at the famous Sports Illustrated article in 1997 about her rise. Rasmussen was thrown out of the Tour and Contador was linked with Puerto before Walsh said that. On Roche, Walsh went to Italy for a week after the story with Conconi first broke over there and got the backbone and facts on Roche's association with him.

You couldn't be more wrong on Walsh.

Walsh found reasons to go after these athletes that had no positives. The same reasons exist to go after Sky, doping doctor, riders coming from nowhere to win TdFs, doping DS's, ex USPS rider on the team who was banned from talking to the media yada yada....Walsh decided that his criteria for others was different from Sky who are indirectly his paymaster.

Walsh couldn't be more wrong on Wigans, Froome, Porte, Brailsford and Sky.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
gooner said:
It quite simple, it's grand to point out inconsistencies with Walsh but not Stokes because it fits your stance.
Wtf are you on about? You are the one coming here with an article of Stokes of 1999 in which he at that time shows either he is ignorant or going along with the mainstream media at that time. I dont think he is proud of that piece, do you?

But, and here is the catch, did Stokes know about the backdated tue back then? If the answer is no, what exactly did he do wrong?

It is not like he heard the rambling of pills in the back of a riders jersey who got popped the same day for a doping offence while using the urine of one of his doped soigneurs/carers that day and not mentioning that for how many years?

Here you go:
In mid-September Paul and I went to beautiful Senlis, about twenty miles north of the capital for the start of the Paris–Brussels semi-classic. It was a working assignment for me but we both went there as fans, wanting to savour the atmosphere and hoping to catch up with Kelly before the race left town.
We got to him about thirty minutes before the start and as he sat and chatted with us, we could have been speaking to the lowliest rider in the peloton, not the number one. Through those years people continually asked, ‘Kelly, what’s he like?’ My favourite answer was that he was the kind of fellow that if he found a geyser he wouldn’t come back and tell you he’d invented hot water. Paul had grown to love him too.
After shooting the breeze for twenty minutes or so, it was time for Kelly to get himself to the start line. He stood up, hopped on his bike and, as he was wont to do, he bounced the rear wheel off the road a couple of times to check he had the right pressure in his tyre. As he did, there was the unmistakable sound of pills rattling inside a small plastic container in his back pocket. I looked at Paul, silently asking, ‘Did you hear that?’ He had. Then Kelly was gone and we were silent; kids who had got close to Father Christmas and seen the glue that held his beard in place.
‘Could it have been anything else?’
‘No, it was definitely the sound of pills.’
‘Why would he need those in a race?’
‘Don’t know.’
‘Me neither.’

I wondered if they could be supplements but we knew no rider was going to use supplements during a race. It should have been a seminal moment. We had inadvertently seen the realities of professional cycling, but we weren’t ready for that. I had a biography to write, one in which the hero is a farmer’s son from Carrick-on-Suir, a man who as a boy had eaten raw turnips when hungry.
He got to the top because he never lost that hunger and he was loved because he remained true to the modest background whence he had come. Pills rattling against plastic didn’t fit into the story. When you’re a fan, as I was, you don’t ask the hero about the sound that came from his pocket. Still, Paul and I could never forget it.
Kelly finished third that day, went to doping control and failed. The banned drug Stimul was found in his urine. What I remember now is how Sean Kelly looked that evening. A small semi-circle of journalists stood around him at Rhode-Saint-Genèse asking about his third-place finish but it was his deathly white face and the enlarged pupils that struck me. He didn’t look like himself.
When the news of his positive test was made public, he did what all cyclists did: denied using Stimul and said there had to have been a mix-up in the doping control room. One of his arguments was that there were six or seven people in the room when he was giving his sample as opposed to the stipulated two. If Kelly had used Stimul, he had behaved very stupidly because it was an easily detectable drug and by finishing third he had ensured that he would be tested.
Robert Millar, the Scottish rider, was dismissive of the charge, not on any moral grounds but on the basis that Stimul was passé, a seventies drug no one used any more. Karl McCarthy, international secretary for the Irish Cycling Federation, flew into Brussels to plead on Kelly’s behalf, and when the Belgian Federation still insisted he was guilty, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) sent the case back to them and asked them to reconsider.
Sixteen months after the race, the UCI confirmed the original result stood.
Kelly was fined 1000 Swiss francs, which was approximately one sixth of what he earned for showing up at a village race, and given a one-month suspended sentence. When I wrote about the 1984 Paris–Brussels in the biography, I didn’t mention the rattle of pills in the morning and I tried to make the case that it was hard to believe Kelly had used a substance so easily detectable. I chose to see the ridiculous leniency of the authorities as proof that, at worst, it was a minor infraction. It wasn’t how a proper journalist would have reacted. At the time I knew what I was doing.
Things changed over the following fifteen years.
So, we have an eyewithness account of David Walsh turning his cheeck on Kelly. Do we have the same for Stokes?

gooner said:
I'm looking forward to the list of articles of what Stokes exposed in the sport.
Given your obsession with Stokes [and Kimmage] I leave that honour to you.

That said, I dont see the relevance in this point at all, is anyone disputing what Walsh has done in the past?
gooner said:
I notice no one still mentions or captions how Walsh got the JTL story.
It could be no one is that interested in it? But to do you some sort of honour I will go in to it now:

''That Thursday evening I was in London speaking with a group of cycling fans, mostly corporate guys working in the City. Three of them in turn asked about Tiernan-Locke and the unspecified reason for his withdrawal from Team GB. They thought something was up. As the Inspector Clouseau of cycling, I felt I should have had an answer for them. I didn’t, but at least mine wasn’t the only suspicious mind. The more I thought about it, the more I sensed that this smelt more fishy than an anchovy’s armpit.

I called people in other teams, sources close to the dark heart of the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) and people involved in the anti-doping movement. There was a story behind Tiernan-Locke’s withdrawal. According to one source, the rider had been sent a letter by the UCI asking him to explain an irregularity in his biological passport. Another source simply knew that a Team Sky rider had some kind of issue related to a discrepancy in his biological passport. Some anti-doping people feared the case was being used as a political tool in the UCI presidential election.''


So, Walsh is drinking beers with some corporate buddies, comes up with a theory - as being the Chief Inspector Clouseau of Cycling - makes a few phonecalls and ultimately gets conformation from his new friend Dave Brailsford the story is correct. Good job, kuddos for Walsh. And now?
gooner said:
Expressing suspicion or reservations on twitter or radio achieves nothing.
I agree on ****ter but in reality there are not a lot Anglo Saxon journalist who are not on the Sky jippy a yee wagon. Kimmage. Now Stokes a little, anyone else?

gooner said:
You're not living in the real world if you think Froome starting to dominate in his mid 20s is the same as a swimmer doing it at a similar age. It's quite laughable.
I am sure you will now come with compelling arguments because why this is so laughable. Or do you not have any arguments?

gooner said:
Simple question, what age would that be in regards to Froome?

If you want to answer to it, respond to the specific points in the Sports Illustrated article. It has been noticed you never responded to the quoted sections I posted up thread from it which give a clear image of the transformation she made.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1372514&postcount=2799
Perhaps you cant think out of the box but I will repeat it one more time:

Michelle Smith went from a normal women into a linebacker swimming 'goddess'' [well, you know why that is in '' _ ''] in 2-3 years time. Froome went from a normal looking guy into an anorexic cycling 'god' in 3 months time, or should we say 3 weeks time? Weight on versus weight of. It is not that hard.

RownhamHill said:
(I tend to think) he's been honest about what he thinks.
I agree, I just cant understand his logic.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
I agree, I just cant understand his logic.
sorry to single out this tidbit, but why would you think that he really believes in what he writes? how would you explain that kind of logic?
there is a very simple and economic explanation for walsh's logic, namely that he's getting paid for it.
if you think he genuinely believes, you'd have to assume he has gone senile or something, which is a rather far-fetched theory imo.
 
Jun 25, 2013
1,442
0
0
I will just say one thing that I found interesting in the CN interview with David Walsh was that he felt that he could guarantee that Froome was clean but the rest of the riders on Sky he couldn't give that same guarantee because of prior teams that they have been on and the doping programs they might of been involved in. What was he Chris Froome's personal chauffeur that he could observe him so much more closely as to confirm that he wasn't a doper? :rolleyes:

Apart from that, I suppose one could give him the benefit of the doubt that he couldn't lend the same sort of weight behind such assertions that the whole Sky team were clean as opposed to just Froome given that no-one can ever be so certain post Armstrong and well this whole last 10 years to be frank.

Also, unless Murdoch put a whole pile of cash in front of Walsh, I can't see why he would lie in saying that Froome at the very least you can have confidence in being clean. It isn't really his MO and there is just too much at risk, given what he experienced chasing Armstrong, to assert Froome is clean in the knowledge or reasonable suspicion that he isn't and be outed as a complete liar.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
darwin553 said:
Also, unless Murdoch put a whole pile of cash in front of Walsh, I can't see why he would lie in saying that Froome at the very least you can have confidence in being clean. It isn't really his MO and there is just too much at risk, given what he experienced chasing Armstrong, to assert Froome is clean in the knowledge or reasonable suspicion that he isn't and be outed as a complete liar.

Noone is saying he is lying ( I believe ). It's more he's turning a blind eye, and not asking the tough questions.

As for repercussions? I'd expect the same as Phil Liggett has had, after years of defending / supporting / being friends with LA.
 
Jan 27, 2012
15,230
2,615
28,180
darwin553 said:
I will just say one thing that I found interesting in the CN interview with David Walsh was that he felt that he could guarantee that Froome was clean but the rest of the riders on Sky he couldn't give that same guarantee because of prior teams that they have been on and the doping programs they might of been involved in. What was he Chris Froome's personal chauffeur that he could observe him so much more closely as to confirm that he wasn't a doper? :rolleyes:

Apart from that, I suppose one could give him the benefit of the doubt that he couldn't lend the same sort of weight behind such assertions that the whole Sky team were clean as opposed to just Froome given that no-one can ever be so certain post Armstrong and well this whole last 10 years to be frank.

Also, unless Murdoch put a whole pile of cash in front of Walsh, I can't see why he would lie in saying that Froome at the very least you can have confidence in being clean. It isn't really his MO and there is just too much at risk, given what he experienced chasing Armstrong, to assert Froome is clean in the knowledge or reasonable suspicion that he isn't and be outed as a complete liar.

Froome guaranteed clean, Porte, EBH and Stannard could be dodgy. Sounds reasonable.
 
Jun 25, 2013
1,442
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Noone is saying he is lying ( I believe ). It's more he's turning a blind eye, and not asking the tough questions.

So what you are saying is that he was basically treated as a first class guest during his stint with Sky and wasn't made privy to the real 'nuts and bolts' of how the team operates and trains? ;)
 
Jun 25, 2013
1,442
0
0
Dazed and Confused said:
Froome guaranteed clean, Porte, EBH and Stannard could be dodgy. Sounds reasonable.

Wouldn't it stand to reason that if he deemed Froome to be clean that Porte would be clean as well? :rolleyes:
 

thehog

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
31,285
2
22,485
I note the comparison to the '99 cortisone positive comes up again as indication for Walsh knew about Armstrong with the backdated TUE.

Many don't appear to know that UKAD fully allows by its own rules a retroactive TUE even after positive. Just as long as it's done within 10 days (although extensions are allowed).

RETROACTIVE PROCEDURE FOR A STANDARD TUE
Athletes have 10 working days to make a Retroactive TUE application to UK Anti-Doping following Doping Control (deadline can be extended but notification is required within 10 working days).

So that little trick is now legit by Sky.
 
Jul 1, 2011
1,566
10
10,510
Dear Wiggo said:
Noone is saying he is lying ( I believe ). It's more he's turning a blind eye, and not asking the tough questions.

Well not strictly:

sniper said:
there seems no better way to insult walsh by suggesting, like you do, that he genuinely believes in those arguments.
 
Jan 27, 2012
15,230
2,615
28,180
thehog said:
I note the comparison to the '99 cortisone positive comes up again as indication for Walsh knew about Armstrong with the backdated TUE.

Many don't appear to know that UKAD fully allows by its own rules a retroactive TUE even after positive. Just as long as it's done within 10 days (although extensions are allowed).



So that little trick is now legit by Sky.

The procedure follows the general concept in pro cycling: everything goes unless you test positive.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
darwin553 said:
Wouldn't it stand to reason that if he deemed Froome to be clean that Porte would be clean as well? :rolleyes:

Yes, most definitely. I believe Porte can invoke the cohabitus legitimus clause as proof he is clean.

It goes like this:

Froome is clean, because he shared a room with Porte and there's no way Froome would dope in front of someone else.

Porte shared a room with clean rider Froome.

Therefore Porte is clean.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Yes, most definitely. I believe Porte can invoke the cohabitus legitimus clause as proof he is clean.

It goes like this:

Froome is clean, because he shared a room with Porte and there's no way Froome would dope in front of someone else.

Porte shared a room with clean rider Froome.

Therefore Porte is clean.
lol.

now ask yourself, with this type of arguments, has walsh become senile or
is he knowingly misleading his readers?
i can't imagine walsh really believing in these arguments.
i haven't used the word 'liar' yet, by the way, and indeed i find that a bit heavy in this case.
let me say that the area between turning a blind eye and lying is rather gray here.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
darwin553 said:
So what you are saying is that he was basically treated as a first class guest during his stint with Sky and wasn't made privy to the real 'nuts and bolts' of how the team operates and trains? ;)

I have not read the book. Was he told the mechanics work out of the rain, or did he see it himself?

If the latter, then perhaps he saw some nuts and bolts. Otherwise, well, you know.
 
Aug 30, 2010
3,838
529
15,080
darwin553 said:
I will just say one thing that I found interesting in the CN interview with David Walsh was that he felt that he could guarantee that Froome was clean but the rest of the riders on Sky he couldn't give that same guarantee because of prior teams that they have been on and the doping programs they might of been involved in. What was he Chris Froome's personal chauffeur that he could observe him so much more closely as to confirm that he wasn't a doper? :rolleyes:

Apart from that, I suppose one could give him the benefit of the doubt that he couldn't lend the same sort of weight behind such assertions that the whole Sky team were clean as opposed to just Froome given that no-one can ever be so certain post Armstrong and well this whole last 10 years to be frank.

Also, unless Murdoch put a whole pile of cash in front of Walsh, I can't see why he would lie in saying that Froome at the very least you can have confidence in being clean. It isn't really his MO and there is just too much at risk, given what he experienced chasing Armstrong, to assert Froome is clean in the knowledge or reasonable suspicion that he isn't and be outed as a complete liar.
Was Walsh not aware that Froome came from the bastion of clean pro cycling. Barloworld?
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
3
0
gooner said:
It's OK for Shane to go back to 2007, so why don't we go back to one in 99 from him.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/lances-life-wheel-turns-full-circle-26145118.html

Instead of just spouting about all this on radio and twitter, why doesn't he ask the appropriate people and if he feels so strongly about it, write a big column on the Irish Times who he works for also. He can expand on his claim of other teams who have strong reservations on Sky and share it with us.

What he's doing at the moment is achieving nothing.



Wrong. Armstrong had the bullying of Bassons and the story in Le Monde about the positive. Smith had the link with her doping husband and her rise would be the equivalent of Froome coming out of nowhere in his late 30's and finishing 2nd in the Vuelta in 2011. It doesn't compare. Look at the famous Sports Illustrated article in 1997 about her rise. Rasmussen was thrown out of the Tour and Contador was linked with Puerto before Walsh said that. On Roche, Walsh went to Italy for a week after the story with Conconi first broke over there and got the backbone and facts on Roche's association with him.



You couldn't be more wrong on Walsh.

Nice work detective Gooner. I for one am glad to see that Stokes isnt as naive as he was in 1999 and has learned from his mistakes.

Even so, that article is nothing compared to the horse**** spouted by your love Walsh lately.

Shame on him though, implying that sky are dopings. How dare he. Or are you more butthurt because of the implication that Walsh is a clown? I cant tell.
 
Oct 25, 2012
485
0
0
the sceptic said:
Nice work detective Gooner. I for one am glad to see that Stokes isnt as naive as he was in 1999 and has learned from his mistakes.

check Stokes' twitter feed. A couple of months back FMK attacked him over that article. He explained himself and the context it was written in quite well, and of course he regrets it.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
the sceptic said:
Nice work detective Gooner. I for one am glad to see that Stokes isnt as naive as he was in 1999 and has learned from his mistakes.

Even so, that article is nothing compared to the horse**** spouted by your love Walsh lately.

What do you think made him change his mind as the years went on?

Shame on him though, implying that sky are dopings. How dare he. Or are you more butthurt because of the implication that Walsh is a clown? I cant tell.

I will respond here but no more to the likes of you and anyone else who love the controversy and circus that this sport brings and WANT Sky to be doping. I can't be having it with your ilk. Staying around your type would turn you off the sport.

Did you even listen to the interview?

He said it was too early to say the last 2 winners were clean. That's entirely different to saying they were doping.

I think he's pretty much undecided but wants to see more transparency.

For the record, I don't know Walsh but I know his work well over the last 2 decades and I think he's a good man who has the best interests of sport in general at heart. If it's a simple disagreement people have on his reporting on Sky, I take no issue with it(he's not perfect)but in many aspects it's a disrespectful under the bus job. Like one person saying he was sanctimonious after Lance got busted when it wasn't the position of people when he was vindicated last year. The same with Kelly and the pills in the 80s. If you have a problem with this, why wasn't it brought up beforehand and don't worry this was well known before he penned SDS. All this has been highlighted now because he has come to a differing opinion to others and people have spat out their dummies where's he's now just treated like a piece of meat with personal insults. Then I hear a myth portrayed repeatedly that he somehow only cared about Lance. Comparing him with McQuaid takes the biscuit. This is something I won't accept.

The problem I have with Shane Stokes is he pens a column in 99 and probably only changed his mind on the back of Walsh's work in the first place. Recently he made a sarcastic silly response to Walsh and the picture with Froome at the dinner which offered nothing but playing to the choir and gallery. This when he didn't even know the reason why he was there at all and from someone who has a close relationship himself with Dan Martin.

Regarding Kimmage, I think his response to Walsh's article during the Tour where he had a go at him on the Second Captains interview was nothing short of disgraceful. This when Walsh never had a go at him personally but it didn't stop Kimmage doing it to a great friend of nearly 30 years and straining their relationship in the process. That should say it all about his priorities. I know for a fact Walsh wasn't happy and was deeply hurt personally from Kimmage's comments in that interview.

That's my point, it's personal and some of the reaction has been hysterical more than a simple disagreement.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
elduggo said:
check Stokes' twitter feed. A couple of months back FMK attacked him over that article. He explained himself and the context it was written in quite well, and of course he regrets it.

some seem to suggest (a) we should endorse walsh's crap because other journalists have spouted similar crap at some point in their past and (b) shane stokes cannot talk sense in a 2013 interview because he spouted crap in 1999.
all that is rather shortsighted, imo.
lets judge actions and statements on their own merit.

similarly, i don't see how the fact that walsh helped to take down armstrong would now entitle him to give sky a pass, or, even better, compel us posters to give walsh a pass.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
elduggo said:
check Stokes' twitter feed. A couple of months back FMK attacked him over that article. He explained himself and the context it was written in quite well, and of course he regrets it.

Of course he should regret it now.
 

Latest posts