Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[del1962]

I would laugh at it if it wasn't the case and feel ****ing ashamed if it was.

It is still an insult though.

 

[Ferminal]

I got nothing to sell.

 

[sniper]

http://www.humansinvent.com/#!/14227/the-humans-invent-cycling-podcast-david-walsh-special/

podcast with david 'facepalm' walsh.

"I think I went into it with open eyes".

interesting walsh's comments on how popular his sky articles were/are.

see also digger's twitter comments on it.

Some new, previously unheard, total facepalm arguments by walsh in this podcast.
E.g. wrt Steffen PRentice.
ffs.

again calls the doubters "mob".
doesn't want to have anything to do with them. calls them aggressive.

what an utter sell out.
Objectively speaking, there is again some incredible crap coming out of his mouth.
Objectively speaking.

 

[sniper]

walsh says wiggins didn't work with Leinders, only with Freeman.
He knows because "that's what I was alluded to"
He just continues to insult himself and the fans.

The Prentice argument is like this:
the fact that Sky haven't fired any doctor who didn't want to dope (like usps did with Prentice) suggests Sky are clean.
you can't make it up.

 

[sniper]

one of the interviewers about ZTP:

"the fact that the policy is flawed doesn't mean that Sky are doping" (walsh agrees of course)

ffs, it doesn't mean that they;re clean either!!

 

[sniper]

don't listen to that podcast without a puke bag.

 

[bobbins]

Walsh is in team sys pocket as is Richard Moore. Neither of them will rock the boat about sky as they are both dependent on the sky gravy train. Moore hasn't got a clue, he's almost as big an embarrassment as Walsh.

Did first tour clean then joined the arms race. Not hard to see but no one is asking the questions apart from Digger who is scarily close to the truth.

 

[The Hitch]

don't listen to that podcast without a puke bag.

Why link it and give it extra traffic then?

 

[sniper]

Why link it and give it extra traffic then?

good point, probably.
well, there is some interesting info to be gathered from that interview, for instance Walsh's assessment of the economic success of Team Sky, and the popularity of his Sky articles.
Not necessarily something we couldn't figure ourselves, but it does make the whole picture of why UCI, ASO and BC wanted a brittish TdF winner so much clearer. As well as why walsh jumped on that bandwagon.

 

[sniper]

race radio didn't tweet a link to the excellent shane stokes interview.
now he does tweet a link to that deplorable david walsh interview.

Race Radio, care to comment?

by the way, also pointed out by digger on twitter, in that interview walsh comes up with one of the most despicable arguments thus far: since walsh feels (!) that brailsford ran a clean track cycling program, we must assume that his road program is clean as well...after all, why would brailsford suddenly change his working ethics?

no comment i guess.

 

[del1962]

Thaks for the link Sniper, a good and intersting podcast

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

As well as why walsh jumped on that bandwagon.

He didn´t. Just told what he saw. He can´t lie only to please the clinic. I thought this would be clear.

 

[Benotti69]

He didn´t. Just told what he saw. He can´t lie only to please the clinic. I thought this would be clear.

No one asked him to lie. But after his good work previously on riders non related to Sky he has had no problem making judgements and calling out riders without doping positives.

He has failed to apply the same criteria he used before and not delved too deep into how Sky achieve their wins, well apart from pineapple juice in water bidons, keeping mechanics dry and a ban on nutella.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Walsh should go all in now and
claim Sky can't win classics because the competition dopes.

 

[hrotha]

Walsh should go all in now and
claim Sky can't win classics because the competition dopes.

Eh, didn't he already kinda do that, or did I dream that up?

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Eh, didn't he already kinda do that, or did I dream that up?

Did he already? Must have missed it.
Sounds like we are running a bit empty on the arguments then.
3 weeks before xmas, that can't be good.

 

[sniper]

Did he already? Must have missed it.
Sounds like we are running a bit empty on the arguments then.
3 weeks before xmas, that can't be good.

he implied it (which i think is what hrotha alludes to) with the impressive argument that doping at grand tours is logistically more complex than at the classics.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

he implied it (which i think is what hrotha alludes to) with the impressive argument that doping at grand tours is logistically more complex than at the classics.

ah right, but why the soft approach? Just go for it: Passapotador, Nutella, tailwind, detective work and dopers at the classics.

 

[The Hitch]

Apparently in the podcast sniper linked Walsh said this which absolutely takes the cake and beats anything he ever said for pure stupidity.

"It will be chip, chip, chip away and knock little bits off the scepticism that people feel. I think it will be helpful for the sport if Chris Froome wins it again. And say to people that this guy is bit of a freakish talent, he has a talent for climbing mountains, he is pretty good against the clock and he is clean."

Walsh now knows for a FACT, that Froome is clean. "He is clean".

But the bit before is what truly shocks. Froome winning it multiple times will show that he is clean?

Didn't Armstrong, Contador, Indurain, win the Tour multiple times?

 

[the sceptic]

Hitch you must have missed the interview where Froome says he wants to win it again because it would be more credible for the new clean post doping era.

Walsh is so deep in fairytale land now. Even if Froome climbs Hautacam faster than Riis he will be a believer.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

We need someone to ask Wiggins how he feels about this "multiple TdF wins implies [clean]".

 

[The Hitch]

Hitch you must have missed the interview where Froome says he wants to win it again because it would be more credible for the new clean post doping era.

Froome said it but didnt give a reason, just said it for headlines.

Walsh is actually constructing a deep argument for why Froome winning it multiple times would be credible - because it would show he is talented, totally oblivious to the fact that Armstrong won the Tour SEVEN times.

 

[thehog]

Apparently in the podcast sniper linked Walsh said this which absolutely takes the cake and beats anything he ever said for pure stupidity.



Walsh now knows for a FACT, that Froome is clean. "He is clean".

But the bit before is what truly shocks. Froome winning it multiple times will show that he is clean?

Didn't Armstrong, Contador, Indurain, win the Tour multiple times?

I think what Walsh is saying is the following;

I'm due to write Froome biography next year and what could be better than another win?! With the SDS and Inside Sky selling well despite the numerous errors, I'd on a winner if a Chris takes another title! and then my book is released shortly after! I'll put a down payment on the holiday in the Bahamas right away.

 

[Ferminal]

F1 technical regulations are 78 pages long.

http://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...CAL REGULATIONS - PUBLISHED ON 04.07.2013.pdf

Double points in the final round next year. Maybe Amaury could dish out an hour bonus for the sprint win in Paris, would make things very exciting.

 

[Ferminal]

he implied it (which i think is what hrotha alludes to) with the impressive argument that doping at grand tours is logistically more complex than at the classics.

Don't forget that Hamilton told him that Fabian is Luigi and therefore 100% doper confirmed.