Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[ebandit]

Are you comparing him to Jesus?

Nope

Mark L

 

[LaFlorecita]

The most likely scenario is that what he is writing is true.

Lol

and you started out so well

 

[The Hitch]

Please own the fact that your posting style is tinged with heaping dollops of hyperbole. And please don't cry foul and act aggrieved when a self-evident example is pointed out. Educate me on the quotes where Walsh held sky up as the 'model of perfection and absolutely everything that is good about mankind' and where Walsh was 'taking every single word that comes out of braiksfords mouth as the word of god'. You probably have a valid argument about the bias in Walsh's reporting, buried underneath all the rhetoric. Overall, he probably has been too much of a PR mouthpiece for sky and his financial gains are clearly a potential conflict of interest. But Walsh saying that Sky have not walked the walk or lived up to their vocal ideals suggests that his view is more nuanced than you are giving him credit for.

He absolutely does attribute to brailsford and froome and others in sky all the greatest characteristics. None of yous was prepared to argue against it when it came out, the pro Walsh presence on here was like the marie Celeste back when hog was quoting page after page after page of Walsh brown nosing froome and brailsford.

Now a year later you take it up hoping the quotes have been forgotten.

Walsh doesn't just compare froome to Jesus, which is actually pretty strong evidence of his ultra bias, such infatuation is present throughout. he praises froomes hard work and porrrays him as the most hard working rider in the world, citing him allegedly training in secret between tram training sessions. He is also of course the most naturally talented person in the world, as evidence by the laughable example of the giro del capo amateur race where froome winning stage and almost winning another was evidence of him being the future great, and sky say the doctors have always ranked froome as a physical specimen. That's not enough. He also praises him as one of the most focused people he's ever met, giving that bizzaro comparison of froome to colombus on thebday of the team presentation, with Walsh in owe of his mental approch. But that's not enough either. Froome is also portrayed as a gentle bastion of morality. That's evident in the Jesus comparison. He never raises his voice, never shows anger never does a single thing a human being would do, always perfect.
brailsford the same. He compares him to Henry v. He himself says he didn't k ow what an amazing person brailsford was before he met him. It's there throughout the book. And the exanple of the sky employee cutting out pictures of dopers from magazine when theybhad dopers working for rhen. The butrerfly landing and its significance. Please

When walsh paints froome as the most hard working and the most takented and the most focused and the most moral, and he portrays brailsford as the genius on all kevels and all roundgiant among humans, as he does, I am not exaggerating by saying he portrays them as the emboddyment offal that is great in human beings. Why what do you think Walsh left out?
Does he have to give an example of froome healing a sick chils before I'm allowed to accuse him of painting froome as a model of perfection?

 

[Benotti69]

This is very much how I read Walsh's view of the TUE issue, as would most moderate, rational folk.

When a team talks about transparency, being different and a ZTP in a sport where the culture is to dope most moderate rational folk wait or the team to walk the walk after talk the talk. Sky only talk!

 

[ebandit]

He absolutely does attribute to brailsford and froome and others in sky all the greatest characteristics. None of yous was prepared to argue against it when it came out, the pro Walsh presence on here was like the marie Celeste back when hog was quoting page after page after page of Walsh brown nosing froome and brailsford.

Now a year later you take it up hoping the quotes have been forgotten.

Walsh doesn't just compare froome to Jesus, which is actually pretty strong evidence of his ultra bias, such infatuation is present throughout. he praises froomes hard work and porrrays him as the most hard working rider in the world, citing him allegedly training in secret between tram training sessions. He is also of course the most naturally talented person in the world, as evidence by the laughable example of the giro del capo amateur race where froome winning stage and almost winning another was evidence of him being the future great, and sky say the doctors have always ranked froome as a physical specimen. That's not enough. He also praises him as one of the most focused people he's ever met, giving that bizzaro comparison of froome to colombus on thebday of the team presentation, with Walsh in owe of his mental approch. But that's not enough either. Froome is also portrayed as a gentle bastion of morality. That's evident in the Jesus comparison. He never raises his voice, never shows anger never does a single thing a human being would do, always perfect.
brailsford the same. He compares him to Henry v. He himself says he didn't k ow what an amazing person brailsford was before he met him. It's there throughout the book. And the exanple of the sky employee cutting out pictures of dopers from magazine when theybhad dopers working for rhen. The butrerfly landing and its significance. Please

When walsh paints froome as the most hard working and the most takented and the most focused and the most moral, and he portrays brailsford as the genius on all kevels and all roundgiant among humans, as he does, I am not exaggerating by saying he portrays them as the emboddyment offal that is great in human beings. Why what do you think Walsh left out?
Does he have to give an example of froome healing a sick chils before I'm allowed to accuse him of painting froome as a model of perfection?

So now you are surprised that Walsh describes a grand tour winner as ......'focussed'

Outrageous suggestion.



Mark L

 

[the sceptic]

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 all of them are trolling.

When the book came out, the thread was vortex-proof. Everyone saw how ridiculous Walsh was and there was nothing the bots could do about it.

 

[The Hitch]

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.

So if brailsford tells Walsh that no team trains as hard as sky and then Walsh without asking other teams says Kn radio that no team trains as hard as sky, he isnt taking brailsfords word as the word of god?

 

[Afrank]

*sigh* I don't know what it is about this thread today.

Sceptic and Hog, stop trolling ebandit.

ebandit, stop trolling those saying Walsh was comparing Froome and Sky to jesus (it may be useful to instead respond to others points and from that offer your own view of what Walsh meant by comparing Sky-Tinkoff to Jesus-Barabbas).

I swear, I'm getting tempted to hand out a few bans and close this thread for the day, but I'd really rather not ban anyone today. Any more off topic posts will be deleted, and further action will be taken if I see posts whose only purpose is the troll rather then discuss.

 

[thehog]

So if brailsford tells Walsh that no team trains as hard as sky and then Walsh without asking other teams says Kn radio that no team trains as hard as sky, he isnt taking brailsfords word as the word of god?

Walsh speaks...

There is an arresting theatrical drama about Ventoux when the riders get to the top of the tree line and come out into the blinding light of the moonscape beyond. It is a mountain built to stage final acts. This final act begins with Froome attacking and leaving everybody for dead except Quintana. Tactically it is a master class, and illustrates how much wisdom Team Sky have been able to plant in Froome’s head these past few years. The younger, straight out of Africa, Froome would have chased down every break of the day before finding himself out of gas. Or on another day from the early years he would have looked around him, taking in all the big names, and decided his only chance was to attack from far out, when they weren’t paying much attention. They would think he was mad and do what bike riders have done since 1903: give him enough rope to hang himself. He would often get a good placing on the stage but would have emptied his tank to do so. The next day, he would sleep with the fishes. But here on Ventoux, he is calculating, waiting for the right moment. And his understanding of the perfect strategic climb is no coincidence. Froome has climbed Ventoux before...

 

[The Hitch]

So now you are surprised that Walsh describes a grand tour winner as ......'focussed'

Outrageous suggestion.



Mark L

So you aren't going to adress any posts of substance anyone makes and just pick on small sections of them with sarcastic put downs?

 

[The Hitch]

Walsh speaks...

That reminds me, Walsh saying that froome was poor before 2011 because he hadn't learned tactics is a clear as day example of Walsh "taking as the word of god" what brailsford tells him.

The claim itself is ridiculous. There is no evidence of froome attacking all the time in stages and thus tiring himself out to the point of being unable to show his talent. Walsh is straight up taking an argument brailsford has given him without questioning it.

Those who objected to my comment that Walsh takes brailsfords word as the word of god, may want to reconsider

 

[ebandit]

So you aren't going to adress any posts of substance anyone makes and just pick on small sections of them with sarcastic put downs?

err....posts of substance?.....yeah...go on then if you post one I'll adress (sic) it...

p.s. you missed the wider implication of what you saw as merely a sarcastic put-down

Meanwhile Astana gets its 5th (!!!!!!) positive, has the current TdF champion in its team, and you guys are going all frothy mouthed about Sky...: awesome way to miss the point rolleyes:

Mark L

 

[the sceptic]

err....posts of substance?.....yeah...go on then if you post one I'll adress (sic) it...

p.s. you missed the wider implication of what you saw as merely a sarcastic put-down

Meanwhile Astana gets its 5th (!!!!!!) positive, has the current TdF champion in its team, and you guys are going all frothy mouthed about Sky...: awesome way to miss the point rolleyes:

Mark L

True, I wonder how Walsh would deal with that one?

Nibali a doper, but still getting dropped by the sick Froome?

Or Nibali is cleans but the rest of his team is doping?

 

[Mellow Velo]

When a team talks about transparency, being different and a ZTP in a sport where the culture is to dope most moderate rational folk wait for the team to walk the walk after talk the talk. Sky only talk!

I find this reply most confusing.
You seem to be disagreeing by agreeing.

"Team Sky talk the talk of high ethical standards but do not walk the walk." D Walsh

 

[Mellow Velo]

True, I wonder how Walsh would deal with that one?

Nibali a doper, but still getting dropped by the sick Froome?

Or Nibali is cleans but the rest of his team is doping?

He was also dropped by the guy who finished 85th in the Dauphine and quit the TDF while in 105th spot at 2hours 48 minutes down.

I know you like things simple, but it isn't quite that simple.

 

[the sceptic]

He was also dropped by the guy who finished 85th in the Dauphine and quit the TDF while in 105th spot at 2hours 48 minutes down.

I know you like things simple, but it isn't quite that simple.

I will make things even more simple for you.

If Nibali is a doper then how does one explain that he gets beaten by the clean Froome and Wiggins?

If Nibali is clean then how does one explain that the rest of his team seems to be doping?

Would love to see Walsh trying to spin his way out of that.

 

[djpbaltimore]

So if brailsford tells Walsh that no team trains as hard as sky and then Walsh without asking other teams says Kn radio that no team trains as hard as sky, he isnt taking brailsfords word as the word of god?

I am not planning on getting in a battle of semantics, but I will give you my view. One example does not equate to 'every single word'. IMO, that is an exaggeration pure and simple. As for your question below, feeding the poor and caring for the sick is just about the definition of the best part of humankind, not some spiel about work ethic and morality in cycling. When Froome is compared to Mother Theresa, that argument has more merit. In case I haven't made myself clear, I had much less of a problem with your use of hyperbole as a rhetorical device, than your assertion that you weren't doing so. Similar to people more upset about the hypocrisy of things like the ZTP than about the doping itself. And if you had written a thoroughly detailed post like the one below, there would've never been an issue.

He absolutely does attribute to brailsford and froome and others in sky all the greatest characteristics. None of yous was prepared to argue against it when it came out, the pro Walsh presence on here was like the marie Celeste back when hog was quoting page after page after page of Walsh brown nosing froome and brailsford.

Now a year later you take it up hoping the quotes have been forgotten.

Walsh doesn't just compare froome to Jesus, which is actually pretty strong evidence of his ultra bias, such infatuation is present throughout. he praises froomes hard work and porrrays him as the most hard working rider in the world, citing him allegedly training in secret between tram training sessions. He is also of course the most naturally talented person in the world, as evidence by the laughable example of the giro del capo amateur race where froome winning stage and almost winning another was evidence of him being the future great, and sky say the doctors have always ranked froome as a physical specimen. That's not enough. He also praises him as one of the most focused people he's ever met, giving that bizzaro comparison of froome to colombus on thebday of the team presentation, with Walsh in owe of his mental approch. But that's not enough either. Froome is also portrayed as a gentle bastion of morality. That's evident in the Jesus comparison. He never raises his voice, never shows anger never does a single thing a human being would do, always perfect.
brailsford the same. He compares him to Henry v. He himself says he didn't k ow what an amazing person brailsford was before he met him. It's there throughout the book. And the exanple of the sky employee cutting out pictures of dopers from magazine when theybhad dopers working for rhen. The butrerfly landing and its significance. Please

When walsh paints froome as the most hard working and the most takented and the most focused and the most moral, and he portrays brailsford as the genius on all kevels and all roundgiant among humans, as he does, I am not exaggerating by saying he portrays them as the emboddyment offal that is great in human beings. Why what do you think Walsh left out?
Does he have to give an example of froome healing a sick chils before I'm allowed to accuse him of painting froome as a model of perfection?

My feeling remains that Walsh's words after TUE-gate illustrates evidence contrary to the commonly held theory that he is completely in the tank for SKY. It doesn't mean he hasn't sullied his credibility by choosing to cozy up to SKY, possibly with financial issues foremost on his mind. But, he could have chosen to whitewash the story and he did not. He is not taking marching orders IMO.

I think trying to make this an issue of two diametrically opposed 'sides' (Pro-Walsh vs. Walsh- skeptics) with no middle ground is more naive than anything that has been written in this thread. And as uncomfortable as I am with riders getting dodgy TUEs, I am just as uncomfortable with posters labeling unpopular opinions as trolling. The end result of the latter policy will be an echo chamber, not a forum. YMMV

 

[sniper]

He was also dropped by the guy who finished 85th in the Dauphine and quit the TDF while in 105th spot at 2hours 48 minutes down.

I know you like things simple, but it isn't quite that simple.

it's 1+1.
nobrainer. where's the complication?
one could perhaps wish it were more complicated.
it's not.

 

[Benotti69]

I find this reply most confusing.
You seem to be disagreeing by agreeing.

So Walsh knows Sky are doping, was told his job was on the line and did a 'cycling journalist' job on Sky.

That is all that makes sense, Walsh was told to get on the Sky bandwagon and he hopped on and enjoyed the ride.

 

[Mellow Velo]

it's 1+1.
nobrainer. where's the complication?
one could perhaps wish it were more complicated.
it's not.

Yesterday, the sceptic claimed was that Froome wasn't sick at all. Today, when he's beating Froome, he's made him sick again.

Hey, if you guys think a journalist can pass a judgement, not just on Froome and put it into print based upon such logic, no wonder you get so p*ssed off so easily.

Anyhow, that's me done on this subject.

Carry on talking to yourselves.

 

[mrhender]

I am not planning on getting in a battle of semantics, but I will give you my view. One example does not equate to 'every single word'. IMO, that is an exaggeration pure and simple. As for your question below, feeding the poor and caring for the sick is just about the definition of the best part of humankind, not some spiel about work ethic and morality in cycling. When Froome is compared to Mother Theresa, that argument has more merit. In case I haven't made myself clear, I had much less of a problem with your use of hyperbole as a rhetorical device, than your assertion that you weren't doing so. Similar to people more upset about the hypocrisy of things like the ZTP than about the doping itself. And if you had written a thoroughly detailed post like the one below, there would've never been an issue.



My feeling remains that Walsh's words after TUE-gate illustrates evidence contrary to the commonly held theory that he is completely in the tank for SKY. It doesn't mean he hasn't sullied his credibility by choosing to cozy up to SKY, possibly with financial issues foremost on his mind. But, he could have chosen to whitewash the story and he did not. He is not taking marching orders IMO.

I think trying to make this an issue of two diametrically opposed 'sides' (Pro-Walsh vs. Walsh- skeptics) with no middle ground is more naive than anything that has been written in this thread. And as uncomfortable as I am with riders getting dodgy TUEs, I am just as uncomfortable with posters labeling unpopular opinions as trolling. The end result of the latter policy will be an echo chamber, not a forum. YMMV

Sincere questions?

What is the middle ground?
Care to elaborate some more?

I do not think it works the way that Walsh get's memo's for passing directly further to the "consumers"..
But I do think that is is very likely that he was/is being influenced by higher powers..

As to unpopular opinions, historically the Clinic has held the unpopular opinion.. When the Clinic is proved right it, time and time again...
-The "popular" opinionators dissapear..

So if one is arguing that that the "new" popular opinions of the Clinic is wrong you need to take into account the historical development...

Being overly vocal could be an issue here, but it has it's explanations..
(Go back and see some of the bull-sh!t doubters has recieved over the years..)

Also I don't like the use of words like: troll, skybots etc...
They don't strenthten any argument in my book..
But I can live with them as long as posters do not use all (most) their time discusing other posters instead of interesting topics
(not saying you are, but it seems imo, to be an issue here)...

cheers

 

[TailWindHome]

If Nibali is clean then how does one explain that the rest of his team seems to be doping?

Off topic I know but it's a bit of stretch describing the latest Astana positive's as one of 'the rest of his team'

 

[djpbaltimore]

Sincere questions?

What is the middle ground?
Care to elaborate some more?

I do not think it works the way that Walsh get's memo's for passing directly further to the "consumers"..
But I do think that is is very likely that he was/is being influenced by higher powers..

As to unpopular opinions, historically the Clinic has held the unpopular opinion.. When the Clinic is proved right it, time and time again...
-The "popular" opinionators dissapear..

So if one is arguing that that the "new" popular opinions of the Clinic is wrong you need to take into account the historical development...

Being overly vocal could be an issue here, but it has it's explanations..
(Go back and see some of the bull-sh!t doubters has recieved over the years..)

Also I don't like the use of words like: troll, skybots etc...
They don't strenthten any argument in my book..
But I can live with them as long as posters do not use all (most) their time discusing other posters instead of interesting topics
(not saying you are, but it seems imo, to be an issue here)...

cheers

IMO, middle ground are people who don't think 1) that nothing Walsh says about cycling or Sky can be trusted or 2) because Walsh says Sky are clean that it must be true. I think this is probably most people, but everything about Sky seems to fall back into tribal feuds and whose 'side' you are on. And by human nature, people tend to argue about their opponent's most extreme positions (truthers vs deniers), exacerbating the divide, and diminishing any shred of civility.

As I stated before, I don't necessarily think opinions can be wrong, because, unlike facts, they are subjective by their very nature. To me, calling honest debate trolling because you have the support of the majority is bullying, and only encourages posters to leave the forum.

Honestly, I don't think there is any coercion from above on Walsh, but I do think he knows his audience and which side his bread is buttered. Similarly, I don't think people like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck necessarily believe everything they spout off about, but they are gifted at knowing what their audience wants to hear. Walsh may have missed the mark with 'The Climb' on that count, but I think my larger point stands. Nationalistic fans like to cheer for and take pride in their countrymen on moral and athletic grounds and throw accusations of laziness and cheating at their opponents. Walsh is providing them red-meat.

 

[the sceptic]

Off topic I know but it's a bit of stretch describing the latest Astana positive's as one of 'the rest of his team'

Nitpicking. My point still stands.

 

[TailWindHome]

Nitpicking. My point still stands.

I see.
You don't actually understand what nit picking means.

Carry on.