Those that break rank always get the most criticism. Walsh was previously a hero of the anti-doping movement due to his fearless pursuit of Armstrong, and I suppose many hoped he would be equally fearless in his pursuit of Sky, they are UK Postal after all. When he came out generally in support of them (and he's stopped short of stating they are clean, just that he believes they are) he became a target instead, and this thread bears witness to that. They would have preferred he stay in attack dog mode like Kimmage has so now his legacy is being tainted and his opinion discredited.Ferminal said:Demonise him? I have never had any opinion of the man. Surely I can say that some of the points he makes are highly debatable, or that he has been working in a position which sways him towards a particular outcome. I can do that without any of it being a reflection of the person in general or any of his work in the past or future (nor should anything in the past or future be relevant to anything said today).
I'd be surprised if normal people's intentions are to actually belittle Walsh but it may be due to the lack of substantive discussion of the details. Most of his arguments on the matter have been fragile (at least as far as I can tell given the lack of a rigorous discussion) so I don't see any reason for people to be attack dogs due to some sort of fear that their "narrative" as you call it is being torn apart. The whole Sky - Walsh - News thing is I think more to do with the other parties than the integrity of the individual.