Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Page 208 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
thehog said:
I know. I will miss my Walsh fantasy Christmas present! :cool:

But I'm sure he's planning a new one! Maybe when Thomas competes his transformation into GT rider? Or Porte wins the Tour losing 10kg in 3 months?

Lots to look forward to! :cool:
I think you should now try to come up with some catchy titles including the word "asthma".
Should be fun for all factions.;)
 
red_flanders said:
I'm sure you have formed your opinion by watching from the sidelines, only recently to jump in and offer these thoughts. Ignoring the fact that you, by definition, are part of the Clinic.

Cool story bro.
Hilarious which part of Spud's post you choose to comment on......four words.......and totally ignoring the eloquent disproval of Hogs BS

Very telling :D
 
red_flanders said:
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.
Well-stated arguments, red_flanders. I appreciate you taking the time to write them out.

My personal opinion is that Walsh is not on the Sky bandwagon, so we do disagree on that point. I don't have a problem with people having differing opinions, but I have a problem when opinions are branded as 'right' or 'wrong'. Overall, my feeling is that he retains a shred of journalistic integrity, despite his legion of biases and conflicts of interest. I don't consider him a neutral observer, obviously, either, but I can take his biases into account when I read his opinions.

BTW, his Barabbas analogy was so tortured that he deserves to be tried at the Hague for crimes against humanity. <hyperbole>
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
1
0
thehog said:
LOL! Big sales for Walsh :p
But the reviewers love him!

A book from the heart. From humble beginnings at the bottom of the Rift Valley to the top of Mt Ventoux. An awesome read, hard to put down. One of the most honest books on professional cycling I have read with a lot of funny incidents...
 
ebandit said:
Hilarious which part of Spud's post you choose to comment on......four words.......and totally ignoring the eloquent disproval of Hogs BS

Very telling :D
Unlike yourself, I'm unconcerned with the Hog's BS. If that's telling for you, so be it.

I am concerned with repeated sock-puppetry. And the BS which is the topic of the thread.
 
ebandit said:
Keep saying it hog

.......but it won't make you any more right ;)

I've caught you out (again) with a blatant strawman and you've called up your little army of co-trolls to try and shout it as a victory :rolleyes:.....

You lot remind me of these guys.....
Ultimately you’re only lying to yourself Mark L.

You should just admit you haven’t read the book and made a mistake. No harm done. Your creditability is shot for a while but that’s the price you pay for making up stories.
 
the sceptic said:
But the reviewers love him!
Busy day at the News Corp office adding all those reviews! :cool:

That cannot be said of Froome's book, written primarily by David Walsh, which is really remarkable. The description of Froome's history, from Kenya to South Africa to Italy to Monaco (racing for a UK team) is an absolutelhy remarkable one. There's no way, simply no way, he should have been expected to have had the opportunity to become a pro cyclist. Yet a combination of crazy determination, miraculously good fortune, and incredibly hard work combined to make it actually happen.

A common reaction to Froome is "how did he come out of nowhere to win the Tour de France?" This book describes that. It was perhaps the most consistently addictive biography I've read. 5 stars for this one is no-brainer.
 
djpbaltimore said:
Well-stated arguments, red_flanders. I appreciate you taking the time to write them out.

My personal opinion is that Walsh is not on the Sky bandwagon, so we do disagree on that point. I don't have a problem with people having differing opinions, but I have a problem when opinions are branded as 'right' or 'wrong'. Overall, my feeling is that he retains a shred of journalistic integrity, despite his legion of biases and conflicts of interest. I don't consider him a neutral observer, obviously, either, but I can take his biases into account when I read his opinions.

BTW, his Barabbas analogy was so tortured that he deserves to be tried at the Hague for crimes against humanity. <hyperbole>
Thank you and likewise.

To the bolded, I don't understand that view. I feel that one must take the information one has and form an opinion of precisely that, right and wrong.

It's another repeated critique I see here, that people have become entrenched in opinions. I don't see a problem with an entrenched opinion when one has a deep well of evidence and reason to explain why that opinion has been formed. Without that, what are we talking about?

Now if one has come to an opinion without rational examination and that opinion can't stand up to pointed questions, I can see why one would object to that opinion being entrenched. But it's rather silly IMO to view a large body of evidence and not form an opinion until so much fact is present as to constitute irrefutable proof. At that point you are not forming an opinion as much as acknowledging the state of what is proven.

There is more than enough evidence to form an opinion of Walsh. If anyone is on the fence at this point about him then one wonders how much information they really possess on the topic.
 

daveyt

BANNED
Oct 23, 2014
162
0
0
Thread subject seems odd. Clearly Walsh has jumped on the bandwagon. The question is why. Either he has done his research and been genuinely convinced they are doing nothing illegal or he has joined some deep conspiracy for some unknown reason, probably money.

I go with the former option. I don't buy him doing such a u turn. It's not logical.
 
daveyt said:
Thread subject seems odd. Clearly Walsh has jumped on the bandwagon. The question is why. Either he has done his research and been genuinely convinced they are doing nothing illegal or he has joined some deep conspiracy for some unknown reason, probably money.

I go with the former option. I don't buy him doing such a u turn. It's not logical.
I tend to agree with you.
 
red_flanders said:
Unlike yourself, I'm unconcerned with the Hog's BS. If that's telling for you, so be it.

I am concerned with repeated sock-puppetry. And the BS which is the topic of the thread.
Ah right.......so you aren't actually going to deal with the body of Spuds post.......but just write it off as sock-puppetry.........nice

Mark L
 
LaFlorecita said:
write a positive review or you're fired:cool:
The reviews are almost as good as Walsh's writing! :rolleyes:


This is one of the best books I've read about cycling. Chris Froome with the guidance of Dave Walsh, have made a great easy to read and entertaining book. Very warm and truthful. En horabuena!

--
Having been duped by the hype of Lance Armstrong I still have grave misgivings about professional cycling, but the subject fascinates me intensely. I hope that we will never find anything dicey about Chris Froome. The book is well worth the read and I found it captivating.

--

I really enjoyed this book. Was not a huge Froome fan before (didn't dislike him either, just indifferent) but after reading his story it's hard not too root for the guy. He had such an interesting childhood and for the reviewer who did not like those sections, I found them to be the meat and potatoes of the story. Hearing what exactly was going on in the tour with Wiggins was also very interesting. I want to read Wiggins account now so I can compare them although I'd be inclined to believe Froome's account. Also, the insight to how Team Sky operates is very interesting. I have no trouble believing that they would be very "plan oriented" and by design unable to switch up if things do not go according to plan. All in all, one of the better books on cycling to come out in the last year or so. Although he did take a few shots at Armstrong it was refreshing to read a cycling book that was not page after page after page of Armstrong bashing.
 
thehog said:
Ultimately you’re only lying to yourself Mark L.

You should just admit you haven’t read the book and made a mistake. No harm done. Your creditability is shot for a while but that’s the price you pay for making up stories.
It's like when that lynch mob arrived at a doctor"s door.....baying for her blood because they thought she was a child-abuser.......and all because somebody had heard her referred to as a 'paediatrician'..........the mob weren't interested in details or truth :rolleyes:

So well done hog.........you've typed 'Jesus' into your little Kindle and found an example of it.........and nobody has the f'ing intelligence to actually read it in context and see if is actually being used in the way Hitch alledges.

Mark L
 
the sceptic said:
It seems hard to believe someone can be that naive though. Especially after all that work he did on Lance.
It's hard to believe after reading the posts on this thread? Naiveté seems to be prevalent. Despite those obviously trolling like Mark, there are a great many who are IMO arguing for the Walsh POV with sincerity. I find that naive as well.
 

daveyt

BANNED
Oct 23, 2014
162
0
0
the sceptic said:
It seems hard to believe someone can be that naive though. Especially after all that work he did on Lance.
The most likely scenario is that what he is writing is true.
 
red_flanders said:
It's hard to believe after reading the posts on this thread? Naiveté seems to be prevalent. Despite those obviously trolling like Mark, there are a great many who are IMO arguing for the Walsh POV with sincerity. I find that naive as well.
I think there’s also the point that because there are so many factual errors in both books you wonder how much work did Walsh do in terms of investigating the team and Froome.

Even if you believe in Walsh the fact there are just so many mistakes you start to wonder about his integrity. If he overlooked simple things like race results then has he also overlooked doping? If he wasn’t aware of Froome’s asthma then how can he be aware of anything else?
 
red_flanders said:
My views on that particular tripe have been made clear in other posts, which respond to rational questions from legitimate forum members.
He actually bothered to read the excerpt, Red, understand the context and compare it with Hitches allusion..........we are talking about details Red........a body of evidence is made up of details.........that is why what people actually say matters

Mark L
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY