djpbaltimore said:
None of those examples really address my issue with your post. I wanted examples where I (or other posters) claimed that those two sentences gave him a pass for the rest of his words and deeds on record. It seems to me that you are inferring what other people are thinking based on what they wrote and making a sweeping generalization.
You have written some of the most cogent, incisive arguments with respect to doping and sky, so I would think you would want to run far away from loaded arguments about Froome racing on illegal horse steroids and Walsh taking every single word out Brailsford's mouth as the word of god.
Well then we disagree strongly. The posts I linked have the sole purpose of attempting to make Walsh look credible by pointing out the rare instances where he has deviated from the Sky or Froome talking points. They are in fact mild exceptions which only server to underline the rule.
I don't think I'm inferring anything. I think I'm accurately identifying the actual motivation behind the posts. I think the generalization is wholly accurate.
I'm glad you've enjoyed some of my posts, but this is my strong feeling on what's happening here. People are reacting to the "exaggeration" for one simple reason. It's spot on. Or they would ignore it. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" comes to mind.
I think it is wholly accurate to rail Walsh for his taking Brailsford's word hook line and sinker. It is the overwhelming criticism of his approach and is exactly the point of this thread. He has become, willingly or otherwise, a stooge and a mouthpiece for the team, offering almost no rational critique of anything they have said. The extremely rare occasions where he has offered mild critique are STILL based in being uncritical. His "critique" of the UCI and Sky in the TUE situation are instructional. He simply accepts what the UCI and Sky are saying happened as if it were the actual truth in the matter, ignoring the UCI's long history of lying and covering up positives, and the particular way in which they've done it with TUE's and Zorzoli.
Any informed and rational observer has to deal with the very high likelihood that Sky and the UCI have not exactly given all the details of what really happened, just as they have in the past. One must ask, "After so many coverups and all the strange circumstances here, how can you expect us to take what you say at face value?" But no such questions trouble Walsh at this point. He is a believer, has stated such and has demonized riders who have quite likely done NOTHING different than Sky or Froome in particular.
As such I not only appreciate Hitch's post calling out these posters but applaud it. They are very much part of the problem. No truth will come to the fore when people are willing to swallow such biased and un-critical observations.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram