Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[thehog]

Of course he should regret it now.

I agree with you. Stokes is saying to hold caution. He's not accusing Sky of doping.

Which is the right position to take. One Walsh probably should have taken.

But I guess the Nutella incident pushed him over the edge

 

[red_flanders]

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'm sure you probably don't care, but as someone discussing this in good faith, this is the kind of defensive, baseless position that makes me take whatever else of value you might be adding far less seriously.

I can't speak for everyone but I certainly wish Sky weren't doping. I have seen more than enough to be convinced that at least some of Sky are doping.

I used to watch cycling before oxygen vector doping took hold. It was more exciting and more human. I very much wish we had that version of cycling back.

I'm sure I'm not alone and I have seen nothing from the contributors on this thread that indicates anyone WISHES Sky were doping. Instead of making baseless accusations like this, why not address the questions and concerns which many have brought up in this thread?

The discussion would improve if everyone would stick to the issues at hand and not ascribe motivations to others which they can't confirm and only are put forth to attack the poster.

 

[red_flanders]

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.

Another credibility-reducing offering. Come on people.

 

[Benotti69]

What has Walsh found out in 10 months at Sky?

Ellingsworth ripped out a page with Virenque on it but idolise Tom Simpson.
Pineapple juice in their water bottles
No nutella
No beer on rest days in GTs
No sunbathing on GT rest days
Champagne after MTF wins
Training an extra 2 hours with Kerrison
Everyone is happy
Everyone is nice
Mechanics work in the dry
Yellow Butterfly's land on Brailsford
Froome's exercise and physiology is the same at Barloworld, a pro conti team

 

[thehog]

What has Walsh found out in 10 months at Sky?

Ellingsworth ripped out a page with Virenque on it but idolise Tom Simpson.
Pineapple juice in their water bottles
No nutella
No beer on rest days in GTs
No sunbathing on GT rest days
Champagne after MTF wins
Training an extra 2 hours with Kerrison
Everyone is happy
Everyone is nice
Mechanics work in the dry
Yellow Butterfly's land on Brailsford
Froome's exercise and physiology is the same at Barloworld, a pro conti team

Actually his "embedding" was 10 weeks only. Total.

But yes your list is excellent!

 

[gooner]

I'm sure you probably don't care, but as someone discussing this in good faith, this is the kind of defensive, baseless position that makes me take whatever else of value you might be adding far less seriously.

I can't speak for everyone but I certainly wish Sky weren't doping. I have seen more than enough to be convinced that at least some of Sky are doping.

I used to watch cycling before oxygen vector doping took hold. It was more exciting and more human. I very much wish we had that version of cycling back.

I'm sure I'm not alone and I have seen nothing from the contributors on this thread that indicates anyone WISHES Sky were doping. Instead of making baseless accusations like this, why not address the questions and concerns which many have brought up in this thread?

The discussion would improve if everyone would stick to the issues at hand and not ascribe motivations to others which they can't confirm and only are put forth to attack the poster.

You're right about one thing, I couldn't careless if you take me seriously or not. I wasn't referring to yourself who actually does come up with lots of fair points on the topic.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Where is this "don't you dare doubt Walsh" business coming from? What is this, some kind of religious cult? With his reputation, Walsh should've been able to present a good case for Sky's cleanliness. He appears not to have done that.

Just because some reporter has done good work in the past (Walsh), or once wrote a naive piece (Stokes), doesn't mean readers are obligated to hold that same view of all their present and future work no matter what.

I have far more patience with Stokes' case where his naive piece was written when he was fairly new to cycling, IINM. Stokes used to believe, saw that this was incorrect, and now takes a more cautious view. Seems reasonable.

More curious to me is why Walsh has suddenly taken a less cautious view. And he hasn't presented his reasoning well at all. They wouldn't dope because they are good, ethical guys, and you like them. Guess what? Di Luca and Hamilton are also good, ethical guys. And they doped. Many times.

In Walsh's case, with him being employed by the Sunday Times, he should've been extra careful to try not to come across as biased or too close to the team. That he did not do so, while still trying to present his work as an authoritative look at Sky's cleanliness, rather than a fan-piece, is a mistake, IMO.

 

[pmcg76]

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.

I will say in defence of Stokes in 99, he was just getting started in cycling journalism at the time so less likely to write something controversial that would have seen his career torpedoed before it even began. He was also relatively young at the time(early 20s I think). Stokes rode as an amateur in Ireland and was really just a guy who graduated from writing stuff at local level in Ireland to getting more international and bigger gigs as time went along. He was hardly a household name journalist like Walsh.

Walsh has been writing on cycling for over 30 years now and has been with major publications a long time now. I don't think you can compare 99 Stokes v 07 Walsh or even 01-02 Walsh.

 

[the sceptic]

Where is this "don't you dare doubt Walsh" business coming from? What is this, some kind of religious cult? With his reputation, Walsh should've been able to present a good case for Sky's cleanliness. He appears not to have done that.

Just because some reporter has done good work in the past (Walsh), or once wrote a naive piece (Stokes), doesn't mean readers are obligated to hold that same view of all their present and future work no matter what.

I have far more patience with Stokes' case where his naive piece was written when he was fairly new to cycling, IINM. Stokes used to believe, saw that this was incorrect, and now takes a more cautious view. Seems reasonable.

More curious to me is why Walsh has suddenly taken a less cautious view. And he hasn't presented his reasoning well at all. They wouldn't dope because they are good, ethical guys, and you like them. Guess what? Di Luca and Hamilton are also good, ethical guys. And they doped. Many times.

In Walsh's case, with him being employed by the Sunday Times, he should've been extra careful to try not to come across as biased or too close to the team. That he did not do so, while still trying to present his work as an authoritative look at Sky's cleanliness, rather than a fan-piece, is a mistake, IMO.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

I will say in defence of Stokes in 99, he was just getting started in cycling journalism at the time so less likely to write something controversial that would have seen his career torpedoed before it even began. He was also relatively young at the time(early 20s I think). Stokes rode as an amateur in Ireland and was really just a guy who graduated from writing stuff at local level in Ireland to getting more international and bigger gigs as time went along. He was hardly a household name journalist like Walsh.

Walsh has been writing on cycling for over 30 years now and has been with major publications a long time now. I don't think you can compare 99 Stokes v 07 Walsh or even 01-02 Walsh.

Pmcg always fair and knowledgeable.

 

[thehog]

Is there a link to where Walsh suggests the 2012 Vuelta podium wasn't clean?

 

[sniper]

Is there a link to where Walsh suggests the 2012 Vuelta podium wasn't clean?

i did dig up this interview on contador from 2010, where we get to see the real walsh.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/david-walsh-weighs-in-on-contador-case
reading that, you get a sense of why i think walsh was bought. he doesn't really believe. There's no way this guy, in the space of two to three years, turned from a really good, investigative journo with balls and sense of reality into a naive, clueless fool.

"I'm not surprised by Contador. I'm always a bit surprised that they're caught but I'm never surprised that they might be doing it.

"I thought the whole idea of a guy coming from Spain and bringing meat to the Tour de France, it just didn't convince me. Who supplied the meat? Well Contador didn't know that even though he had a month to find out. He was told about this on the 24th of August, we're now talking six weeks later.

"Where did this beef come from? What's the name of the shop? That's important because we want to go back to the shop and ask who supplies the beef and does it have Clenbuterol in.

"You've now got Contador and Mosquera both in trouble and you have to think that this sport is going nowhere."

this is the walsh we knew.
me thinks he's getting some really good cash to be sky's PR agent.

 

[skidmark]

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.

I mostly don't disagree with you, in that (although I have no real way of assessing from anything but a very distant standpoint) I tend to believe Walsh believes what he's saying. Perhaps 'disingenuous' is a less appropriate term to describe him in my eyes than 'reasoning with blinders on'; that is, he's not purposefully distracting from the point, he just doesn't get the point. The biggest impression that I have of him is that, in the field of investigative journalism, he's just not a very good investigator. I am not familiar with any of his stuff other than this, I've never even read LA Confidentiel, but reading his cyclingnews interview alone made me wanna barf in my mouth. The dismissiveness and wholesale defensiveness are based on a standard of proof that, in my eyes, are beneath the standing of someone who wants to be taken seriously as an investigative journalist. It just paints a picture of a man that did an expose on something that an idiot couldn't miss (Lance) and then, in a different setting, is acting like an idiot. I like that he admits his bias, and I could forgive the terrible writing and hyperbolic metaphors to an extent if they were accompanied with a bit more substance, depth, and digging.

 

[Digger]

Just returning from my twitter escapades...for the record I do believe Walsh believes what he's saying. I don't for a second think he was bought off or anything.
I have said numerous times that if he asked the tough questions, was better prepared for follow up questions, and was more consistent in his application with criteria, and then still believed Sky were clean, there isn't that much I could say - I could disagree but there is no way I could be as vociferous as I am.

 

[the sceptic]

Is there a link to where Walsh suggests the 2012 Vuelta podium wasn't clean?

I wonder what he thinks about the 2011 vuelta

 

[Catwhoorg]

I wonder what he thinks about the 2011 vuelta

Clean Froome denied a rightful GT win by a dirty doping Cobo of course.

 

[thehog]

I mostly don't disagree with you, in that (although I have no real way of assessing from anything but a very distant standpoint) I tend to believe Walsh believes what he's saying. Perhaps 'disingenuous' is a less appropriate term to describe him in my eyes than 'reasoning with blinders on'; that is, he's not purposefully distracting from the point, he just doesn't get the point. The biggest impression that I have of him is that, in the field of investigative journalism, he's just not a very good investigator. I am not familiar with any of his stuff other than this, I've never even read LA Confidentiel, but reading his cyclingnews interview alone made me wanna barf in my mouth. The dismissiveness and wholesale defensiveness are based on a standard of proof that, in my eyes, are beneath the standing of someone who wants to be taken seriously as an investigative journalist. It just paints a picture of a man that did an expose on something that an idiot couldn't miss (Lance) and then, in a different setting, is acting like an idiot. I like that he admits his bias, and I could forgive the terrible writing and hyperbolic metaphors to an extent if they were accompanied with a bit more substance, depth, and digging.

Agreed.

I think if he set up some "guiding principles" of how he'd work his embedding it might have served better.

He appears to move his goal posts about depending on what is presented.

Cioni I get. That makes sense. But not knowing this up front dilutes what he presents. He then says certain people if hired he'd ask mode questions and write it about it. But that's awfully selective and arbitrary.

Similar to his work on tailwinds and speeds etc. it's changed per the rider and situation.

He throws in Nutella and beers on rest days etc. but the happily writes the team celebrates with champagne and the team Sky chef serves up Nutella based deserts.

Thus is very hard to take him seriously. In his head I'm sure he gets it all but no one actually knows what standards he's applying to each situation.

Now if it's just a general story then fine but he's going on record and saying categorically - these guys are clean.

 

[wansteadimp]

I mostly don't disagree with you, in that (although I have no real way of assessing from anything but a very distant standpoint) I tend to believe Walsh believes what he's saying. Perhaps 'disingenuous' is a less appropriate term to describe him in my eyes than 'reasoning with blinders on'; that is, he's not purposefully distracting from the point, he just doesn't get the point. The biggest impression that I have of him is that, in the field of investigative journalism, he's just not a very good investigator. I am not familiar with any of his stuff other than this, I've never even read LA Confidentiel, but reading his cyclingnews interview alone made me wanna barf in my mouth. The dismissiveness and wholesale defensiveness are based on a standard of proof that, in my eyes, are beneath the standing of someone who wants to be taken seriously as an investigative journalist. It just paints a picture of a man that did an expose on something that an idiot couldn't miss (Lance) and then, in a different setting, is acting like an idiot. I like that he admits his bias, and I could forgive the terrible writing and hyperbolic metaphors to an extent if they were accompanied with a bit more substance, depth, and digging.

I think the point is that Walsh isn't an investigative journalist. He's a sports reporter that did one piece of good investigation on Lance. He reports the races and gives his opinion, previously he has been more forthcoming on calling riders out than other reporters, expecting lightening to strike twice and for him to bring down Sky after turning up the heat on Lance is unrealistic.

The book is the standard puff piece that appears on book shelves this time of year based on sporting success in the year. Someone's auntie knows they like cycling and a book on Sky cycling is an ideal gift. Kerching.

The content of this sort of book is always dire, I'd never expect anything else.

I guess he is on the bandwagon, but I'm not sure he was the man to be pinning hopes on in the first place.

 

[sniper]

for the record I do believe Walsh believes what he's saying. I don't for a second think he was bought off or anything.

Hold the phone.

You don't believe in Froome's radical transformation, but you do believe in Walsh's similarly spectacular transformation?

From this Walsh (2010)
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/david-walsh-weighs-in-on-contador-case
and this Walsh:
http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Deadly-Sins-Pursuit-Armstrong/dp/1476737118

to this Walsh (2013)
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/interview-david-walsh-on-inside-team-sky

Credible transformation? Really?

Only one explanation that really cuts it: dough.

 

[Digger]

Hold the phone.

You don't believe in Froome's radical transformation, but you do believe in Walsh's similarly spectacular transformation?

From this Walsh (2010)
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/david-walsh-weighs-in-on-contador-case
and this Walsh:
http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Deadly-Sins-Pursuit-Armstrong/dp/1476737118

to this Walsh (2013)
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/interview-david-walsh-on-inside-team-sky

Credible transformation? Really?

Only one explanation that really cuts it: dough.

Listen you might be right - I just think it's stupidity, incredible arrogance to be different for the sake of it...maybe it's about a quiet life with where he now lives.
Either way I feel he has done a terrible job the past year. I mean just embarrassingly bad.

 

[red_flanders]

You're right about one thing, I couldn't careless if you take me seriously or not. I wasn't referring to yourself who actually does come up with lots of fair points on the topic.

I know. I just thought I'd jump in and harass you some more. Sorry.

I still haven't read where you address the arguments but I haven't gotten through all the responses...

 

[The Hitch]

Is there a link to where Walsh suggests the 2012 Vuelta podium wasn't clean?

No link, but there was a chat with Walsh earlier this year around january, that was streamed, mostly about 7ds, but one of the questions towards the end was about the Vuelta and if he believes it was clean and he laughed saying that it was ridiculous seeing the Spaniards fly away from everyone and that the Vuelta allow the riders to dope and it is not a race to be taken seriously.

It wasn't just me who saw this interview, someone else mentioned it here as well. I don't know if it was recorded though, i was watching a stream linked through velorooms.

 

[Pentacycle]

Walsh can laugh all he want, he is still no expert on cleanliness of riders.

For the '12 Vuelta I'd rather believe what Ferrari wrote on 53x12, that the race's performances indicated clean riding, or at least close to it.

It was Froome who wasn't able to regain his TdF watts, that caused the Spaniards to fly away from him.

 

[roundabout]

Has 53x12 ever accused any rider of doping?

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Walsh can laugh all he want, he is still no expert on cleanliness of riders.

For the '12 Vuelta I'd rather believe what Ferrari wrote on 53x12, that the race's performances indicated clean riding, or at least close to it.

It was Froome who wasn't able to regain his TdF watts, that caused the Spaniards to fly away from him.

Call 1-800 Ferrari if you want to learn how to ride like J-Rod, Contador and Valverde clean. You will beat the competition by 10 minutes minimum, guaranteed. Call now and get a 10% discount.