Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Benotti69]

This is a joke right? I feel like we're booing at the parolympics.

Yes it is like booing the Spanish basketball team some whose athletes were not intellectually disabled, but ringers.

2000 Sydney games.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

Interesting point: there's a definite personal edge to Walsh's pursuit of Lance. There's his anecdote about interviewing Emma O'Reilly in Ireland during the early part of one of the Tours and all he can think about if whether Lance has missed him and is wondering where he is. There is also an element of career building: Lance made Walsh, he's the reason he can sell books. It's certainly not his rather dubious prose. Now his crusade is being made into a film. Good times.

By talking about Walsh's dubious prose do you mean that he's a bad writer.

If so, I agree.

It makes you wonder when you think that prior to his Armstrong hunt he was already journalist of the year in separate years in Britain and the Republic of Ireland.

I always thought that his main strength as a journalist was his investigative skills as opposed to his writing but his work on team sky contradicts that.

 

[rainman]

Yes it is like booing the Spanish basketball team some whose athletes were not intellectually disabled, but ringers.

2000 Sydney games.

Spaniards cheating, who would have thought But back on topic, if by some miracle Kimmage had got the gig how good would that have been. He would have unsettled the team at first with his blunt manner and underlying scepticism, but not so long ago he was also a pro rider, he understands life in the peloton in a way that Walsh could never do, I think they would have accepted him to a degree. He'd have seen through the Nutella prank and had a laugh with them. He wouldn't have discovered anything dubious, whatever they've got going on, and there is something, it will be guarded like Fort Knox. It may not even be presently illegal, but no outsider is about to find out. Besides that we'd now have a readable book for the off season, with a warts and all appraisal of Sky not a glossy brochure with all the credibility of a fairy tale.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

But the fact that Kimmage would unsettle the team was specifically why he wasn't brought on board. There needs to be a middle ground, somebody who can ask the difficult question without being so aggressive as to be a nuisance, or someone who can be nice and polite and know how to steer the conversation so that the participant hangs themselves. I understand and have a lot of time for Kimmage, but it's clear Team Sky have no interest in dealing with him.

Walsh probably does genuinely believe in Team Sky. He probably enjoys their company and found them very nice and accommodating and personable and not the kind to stab you in the back. Many reports of people who've met people like Froome at least would corroborate that (Porte less so and Wiggins definitely less so, of course). But Walsh really ought to also know that Tyler Hamilton was a nice guy. We have people on the forum who'll vouch for that. I always bring up the same three dopers because of the anecdotes of people on the board - Hamilton, Sinkewitz, Nozal - all extremely friendly and personable characters who all got busted for doping (twice).

I'm perfectly fine with David Walsh believing Team Sky are clean. But I'm not fine with him trying to sell me this based on reasoning so flimsy it is unbecoming of a journalist of his reputation and is insulting of the intelligence of the seasoned fan. Reasoning like "Froome must be clean because he roomed with the second most suspicious rider on the team" does not help anyone, least of all Walsh, who is made to look stupid by putting forward an argument an eight year old could counter. If he didn't ask tough questions and believes based on faith, then that's fine but it should be noted that he hasn't done his job as an embedded journalist very well as there are many questions that remain unanswered, that a whitewash book like this will only draw more attention to. If he did ask the tough questions, then why haven't the answers been at least alluded to if not detailed in the book? After all, if he has asked the tough questions and Brailsford, Froome, Kerrison or whoever has answered them in a convincing and satisfactory enough way to make Walsh a firm believer, then surely that information should be shared with the public so that the doubters' doubts can be assuaged?

Basically, if the questions weren't asked, then Walsh remains at least partially in the dark. If they were asked, and the answers were good, then why isn't Walsh telling us what these answers are, to silence the critics not just of Team Sky but of himself?

 

[mewmewmew13]

With a certified theHog stamp of approval

Can't wait for the end of year Clinic party in Vegas.

Yay!
send details

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

But the fact that Kimmage would unsettle the team was specifically why he wasn't brought on board. There needs to be a middle ground, somebody who can ask the difficult question without being so aggressive as to be a nuisance, or someone who can be nice and polite and know how to steer the conversation so that the participant hangs themselves. I understand and have a lot of time for Kimmage, but it's clear Team Sky have no interest in dealing with him.

Walsh probably does genuinely believe in Team Sky. He probably enjoys their company and found them very nice and accommodating and personable and not the kind to stab you in the back. Many reports of people who've met people like Froome at least would corroborate that (Porte less so and Wiggins definitely less so, of course). But Walsh really ought to also know that Tyler Hamilton was a nice guy. We have people on the forum who'll vouch for that. I always bring up the same three dopers because of the anecdotes of people on the board - Hamilton, Sinkewitz, Nozal - all extremely friendly and personable characters who all got busted for doping (twice).

I'm perfectly fine with David Walsh believing Team Sky are clean. But I'm not fine with him trying to sell me this based on reasoning so flimsy it is unbecoming of a journalist of his reputation and is insulting of the intelligence of the seasoned fan. Reasoning like "Froome must be clean because he roomed with the second most suspicious rider on the team" does not help anyone, least of all Walsh, who is made to look stupid by putting forward an argument an eight year old could counter. If he didn't ask tough questions and believes based on faith, then that's fine but it should be noted that he hasn't done his job as an embedded journalist very well as there are many questions that remain unanswered, that a whitewash book like this will only draw more attention to. If he did ask the tough questions, then why haven't the answers been at least alluded to if not detailed in the book? After all, if he has asked the tough questions and Brailsford, Froome, Kerrison or whoever has answered them in a convincing and satisfactory enough way to make Walsh a firm believer, then surely that information should be shared with the public so that the doubters' doubts can be assuaged?

Basically, if the questions weren't asked, then Walsh remains at least partially in the dark. If they were asked, and the answers were good, then why isn't Walsh telling us what these answers are, to silence the critics not just of Team Sky but of himself?

Great post.

Intelligent, fair, and reasoned.

I only fear the challenges to it...

 

[thehog]

But the fact that Kimmage would unsettle the team was specifically why he wasn't brought on board. There needs to be a middle ground, somebody who can ask the difficult question without being so aggressive as to be a nuisance, or someone who can be nice and polite and know how to steer the conversation so that the participant hangs themselves. I understand and have a lot of time for Kimmage, but it's clear Team Sky have no interest in dealing with him.

Walsh probably does genuinely believe in Team Sky. He probably enjoys their company and found them very nice and accommodating and personable and not the kind to stab you in the back. Many reports of people who've met people like Froome at least would corroborate that (Porte less so and Wiggins definitely less so, of course). But Walsh really ought to also know that Tyler Hamilton was a nice guy. We have people on the forum who'll vouch for that. I always bring up the same three dopers because of the anecdotes of people on the board - Hamilton, Sinkewitz, Nozal - all extremely friendly and personable characters who all got busted for doping (twice).

I'm perfectly fine with David Walsh believing Team Sky are clean. But I'm not fine with him trying to sell me this based on reasoning so flimsy it is unbecoming of a journalist of his reputation and is insulting of the intelligence of the seasoned fan. Reasoning like "Froome must be clean because he roomed with the second most suspicious rider on the team" does not help anyone, least of all Walsh, who is made to look stupid by putting forward an argument an eight year old could counter. If he didn't ask tough questions and believes based on faith, then that's fine but it should be noted that he hasn't done his job as an embedded journalist very well as there are many questions that remain unanswered, that a whitewash book like this will only draw more attention to. If he did ask the tough questions, then why haven't the answers been at least alluded to if not detailed in the book? After all, if he has asked the tough questions and Brailsford, Froome, Kerrison or whoever has answered them in a convincing and satisfactory enough way to make Walsh a firm believer, then surely that information should be shared with the public so that the doubters' doubts can be assuaged?

Basically, if the questions weren't asked, then Walsh remains at least partially in the dark. If they were asked, and the answers were good, then why isn't Walsh telling us what these answers are, to silence the critics not just of Team Sky but of himself?

Yes good post.

On his last podcast he brought up Kevin Livingston in relation to Porte. Saying Livingston was Lance's right hand man and was named in the Ferrari files but Porte is clean as a whistle on that front. Which means Froome and Sky are clean because they have no doping associations.

I sat there listening and thinking is Walsh a moron? Did he not apply the same logic to Rogers with Wiggins? Or Barry? Rogers had a double distinction of being named in the Freiburg papers as well. Or Porte with Rogers.

He appears to lose his head and apply one set of logic to tell the reader why they are not USPS styled dirty.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Yes good post.

On his last podcast he brought up Kevin Livingston in relation to Porte. Saying Livingston was Lance's right hand man and was named in the Ferrari files but Porte is clean as a whistle on that front. Which means Froome and Sky are clean because they have no doping associations.

I sat there listening and thinking is Walsh a moron? Did he not apply the same logic to Rogers with Wiggins? Or Barry? Rogers had a double distinction of being named in the Freiburg papers as well. Or Porte with Rogers.

He appears to lose his head and apply one set of logic to tell the reader why they are not USPS styled dirty.

Cummon, Hoggy! There is obviously no logic involved.

At all.

Ever.

Investigative journalist? Right...

 

[Archibald]

Due to size constraints imposed by the publisher, not all anecdotes made it into Walsh's book. He was heartbroken to be forced to leave this one out.

"As a young boy Luigi was fascinated by bike racing. He would watch races with his father on the family's telly, and the two would often travel to the Italian countryside and mountains to stand on the roadside, cheering the riders as they passed by in their colourful outfits. He had his heart set on becoming a professional racer. His mother, who was a devout Catholic like many Italians, had other hopes for her boy. She envisioned him growing up to be a priest. So one day Luigi asked his father what he should do. He did not want to disrespect his mother, but he loved cycling. His father told him, 'Follow your heart. Whether a champion or a gregario, you can still do good in this world, maybe even as much as a man of the cloth.' Luigi's mother was disappointed, but she she held her tongue and put her faith in The Lord.

"Luigi's mother's faith was finally rewarded when her son went to work for Team Sky. It was as though God himself and, perhaps, Jesus as well had guided her boy by giving him the cycling passion that would eventually see him work for a cycling team with a wholesomeness and piety would awe even the Saints."

I believe that exerpt is from his upcoming book on Radioshack, no?

...Basically, if the questions weren't asked, then Walsh remains at least partially in the dark. If they were asked, and the answers were good, then why isn't Walsh telling us what these answers are, to silence the critics not just of Team Sky but of himself?

may have been mentioned before, but surely Sky would have vetted the content of the manuscript prior to publishing? There's no way they'd say "hey, come on board and write what you want to about us"

 

[elduggo]

But that said he did go after Michelle Smith when no-one else was, and Stephen Roche....

I don't know that he deserves any special kudos for either of these. He did alienate himself in Ireland somewhat, but was he not english-based at the time? Hence, did it really matter?

The night Smith won her final Olympic medal Gary O'Toole was doing analysis on Irish TV. He called her out on her 'abnormal' performances there and then and got a bollocking off the Irish public for doing so.

In a way going after Smith was like shooting fish in a barrel. Everyone knew what she was at. No one wanted to believe it though. That was all that prevented someone else from going after the story. Same for Roche.

 

[elduggo]

But the fact that Kimmage would unsettle the team was specifically why he wasn't brought on board. There needs to be a middle ground, somebody who can ask the difficult question without being so aggressive as to be a nuisance, or someone who can be nice and polite and know how to steer the conversation so that the participant hangs themselves. I understand and have a lot of time for Kimmage, but it's clear Team Sky have no interest in dealing with him.

well except they did invite him before but it was one of the riders who pulled the whole thing one day before it was meant to happen. If one were cynical they might think the whole thing was a set-up from the off.

 

[MartinGT]

Someone has to ask Walsh re JTL

 

[JRanton]

Someone has to ask Walsh re JTL

Well in fairness to him he did break the story to start with and has criticised Sky for not learning from the mistake of the Leinders hire.

 

[hrotha]

Well in fairness to him he did break the story to start with and has criticised Sky for not learning from the mistake of the Leinders hire.

See, that's the problem. Walsh immediately defaults to the "mistake" theory. "They didn't know who they were signing, even though they should have". That paints Sky as naive fools, not as wrongdoers.

 

[MartinGT]

See, that's the problem. Walsh immediately defaults to the "mistake" theory. "They didn't know who they were signing, even though they should have". That paints Sky as naive fools, not as wrongdoers.

It also shows up their BS PR and how the apparently don't leave any stone unturned and are meticulous in everything they supposedly do.

It also shows up their no doping charter that everyone signs

"I swear I do not dope, did not dope and do my duty to Team Sky, dib dib dib"

"There we are JTL, here is your Team Sky badge, welcome to the gang"

 

[JRanton]

See, that's the problem. Walsh immediately defaults to the "mistake" theory. "They didn't know who they were signing, even though they should have". That paints Sky as naive fools, not as wrongdoers.

Yup, fair point. You only had to look at the leaked suspicion index from the 2010 Tour and the subsequent hires that Sky made to know that they made no effort to stay clear of suspect riders. In fact, you could argue they actively targeted riders with dodgy passports!

Having said that, in JTL's case, his performances since joining the team do support the ''naïve fools'' line and that he'd stopped doping whilst on the team.

 

[The Hitch]

Yup, fair point. You only had to look at the leaked suspicion index from the 2010 Tour and the subsequent hires that Sky made to know that they made no effort to stay clear of suspect riders. In fact, you could argue they actively targeted riders with dodgy passports!
.

Ah, i totally had forgotten about that.

Thanks for reminding me.

When people say- the mob doubts froome cos he rode 1 stage sort of fast but they don't understand he trains really hard and sky have better bikes, the above is another important argument they should be confronted with.

If Sky is all clean, why then did they in 2011 having promised to be team clean, take a lot of riders who scored so high on the UCI suspicion index.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Excellent post and agree. Although the last line. I'm not sure he's looking for stories anymore. I think now he wants to be part of the story.

I think we're past that. He's the St George to lance's dragon and now he's trading heavily off that reputation. Nothing wrong with that but there's something that struck me reading Seven Deadly Sins: immaturity perhaps? There's times he comes accross as petty and petulent, something that just leaks through his writing. And now there's elements of triumphalism to him, he's won the fight and is enjoying his time in the limelight a little too much.

It depends whether you begrudge him or not. You could argue he took a lot of personal and professional risks to take down Lance, but given the stacks of evidence against him I think Walsh was fairly certain the truth would eventually out, so felt secure enough to pursue him whole-heartedly no matter what the short term cost. And it's certainly paying dividends now.

Does that mean he's gone soft? That he's ignoring the obvious with Sky? There's certainly an anecdotal case for that, depending on your take on things. But I will re-iterate I can't see him defending Sky or being part of a cover up if he knew them to be doping, or even believed there was a reasonable possibility. The truth will out, and his career will crumble pretty quickly on the back of any scandal from within Sky, if they were exposed as a new US Postal.

 

[the sceptic]

David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST
@paigerich Richard, the Rogers story is depressing. Clenbuterol same substance as Contador. If he's used this he deserves all he will get.

David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST

@grahambyrne12 As for Mick Rogers, if he's guilty would it not be slightly more logical to get suspicious about Saxo?

David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST
@AndrewLM777 Andrew, if Rogers doped this year, he could have doped last year. Do I think he could have done that with Sky's approval? No.

 

[The Hitch]

What strikes me reading those tweets is no mention of Rogers' prior controversies. "If he doped"? This is ****ing Mick the dodger Dodgers who was strongly linked to 2 separate doping rings.

Walsh was judgmental about Horner because of other people's accusations, but his tweets about rogers show a man who has never heard any of the accusations against Mick.

Walsh is imo showing yet again he knows very little about the cycling other than what he learnt about armstrong and what he learnt this year from sky.

 

[thehog]

Rogers doped alone at Sky. Interesting!

What a nutter!

 

[the sceptic]

I guess testing positive for clen or climbing as fast as dopers is only evidence if your name is Contador.

We need to give good old Mick the benefit of the doubt on this one.

 

[sittingbison]

...You only had to look at the leaked suspicion index from the 2010 Tour and the subsequent hires that Sky made to know that they made no effort to stay clear of suspect riders. In fact, you could argue they actively targeted riders with dodgy passports!...

...If Sky is all clean, why then did they in 2011 having promised to be team clean, take a lot of riders who scored so high on the UCI suspicion index.

guys, you are looking at this from the wrong perspective.

Sir Dave wanted to hire the best riders, so he looked the UCI Index. Its only a marginal difference between performance index and suspicion index

 

[Netserk]

guys, you are looking at this from the wrong perspective.

Sir Dave wanted to hire the best riders, so he looked the UCI Index. Its only a marginal difference between performance index and suspicion index

I always knew Barredo had talent like a champ.

 

[Ferminal]

Walsh wasn't interested in Rogers doping with Ferrari previously, so why should it bother him that he's tested positive now?