Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Page 223 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Beech Mtn said:
Tonton said:
Or it could be that Walsh manufactured his portrait of GL as the hero vs. villain LA in order to enhance the story that he was telling. Better than just the tale of a villain. And he probably didn't conduct 1% as much research on Gl as he did on LA. Sky? He may have been bribed, which I doubt is the case, or he got LA (his target), and he's too lazy to spend the time and effort for a second crusade. Easier to say that Sky looks legit than jeopardize his status with the masses (and job opportunities) by attacking the Sky juggernaut. I'm not an expert on Walsh, but that's my read.

I believe it was probably personal for Walsh, as far as Lance goes, because of the things LA supposedly said about Walsh's young son who died. There were a lot of folks with reason to go after Lance, and they found a willing ear in Walsh, when most of the cycling media wasn't going to touch the subject with a 10-foot pole.

Walsh also had a lot of help from Ballester with the first book.

Walsh wouldn't have the same animus towards the Sky crew.

What did Armstrong say about Walsh's deceased son? I believe it was more Walsh using that as a motivation against Armstrong as his son was a dedicated rugby player before he died. I could be wrong but don't remember Armstrong going that low (not to say he didn't).
 
thehog said:
Beech Mtn said:
Tonton said:
Or it could be that Walsh manufactured his portrait of GL as the hero vs. villain LA in order to enhance the story that he was telling. Better than just the tale of a villain. And he probably didn't conduct 1% as much research on Gl as he did on LA. Sky? He may have been bribed, which I doubt is the case, or he got LA (his target), and he's too lazy to spend the time and effort for a second crusade. Easier to say that Sky looks legit than jeopardize his status with the masses (and job opportunities) by attacking the Sky juggernaut. I'm not an expert on Walsh, but that's my read.

I believe it was probably personal for Walsh, as far as Lance goes, because of the things LA supposedly said about Walsh's young son who died. There were a lot of folks with reason to go after Lance, and they found a willing ear in Walsh, when most of the cycling media wasn't going to touch the subject with a 10-foot pole.

Walsh also had a lot of help from Ballester with the first book.

Walsh wouldn't have the same animus towards the Sky crew.

What did Armstrong say about Walsh's deceased son? I believe it was more Walsh using that as a motivation against Armstrong as his son was a dedicated rugby player before he died. I could be wrong but don't remember Armstrong going that low (not to say he didn't).


Actually...


I outline what’s in the book, mentioning that Walsh seems motivated, at least in part, by the memory of his dead son, who he said was his favourite.

Armstrong’s eyes narrow. He cracks his knuckles, one by one.

“How could he have a favourite son? That guy’s a scumbag. I’m a father of three… to say ‘my favourite son,’ that’s f*****. I’m sorry. I just hate the guy. He’s a little troll.”

His voice rises. I try to change the subject but it’s too late. He’s going.

“F****** Walsh,” he says. “F****** little troll.”

Armstrong added:

“I’ve won six tours. I’ve done everything I ever could do to prove my innocence. I have done, outside of cycling, way more than anyone in the sport. To be somebody who’s spread himself out over a lot of areas, to hopefully be somebody who people in this city, this state, this country, this world can look up to as an example. And you know what? They don’t even know who David Walsh is. And they never will. And in 20 years nobody is going to remember him. Nobody.”

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/david-walsh-oprah-armstrong-interview-did-not-go-nearly-far-enough
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
thehog said:
Beech Mtn said:
Tonton said:
Or it could be that Walsh manufactured his portrait of GL as the hero vs. villain LA in order to enhance the story that he was telling. Better than just the tale of a villain. And he probably didn't conduct 1% as much research on Gl as he did on LA. Sky? He may have been bribed, which I doubt is the case, or he got LA (his target), and he's too lazy to spend the time and effort for a second crusade. Easier to say that Sky looks legit than jeopardize his status with the masses (and job opportunities) by attacking the Sky juggernaut. I'm not an expert on Walsh, but that's my read.

I believe it was probably personal for Walsh, as far as Lance goes, because of the things LA supposedly said about Walsh's young son who died. There were a lot of folks with reason to go after Lance, and they found a willing ear in Walsh, when most of the cycling media wasn't going to touch the subject with a 10-foot pole.

Walsh also had a lot of help from Ballester with the first book.

Walsh wouldn't have the same animus towards the Sky crew.

What did Armstrong say about Walsh's deceased son? I believe it was more Walsh using that as a motivation against Armstrong as his son was a dedicated rugby player before he died. I could be wrong but don't remember Armstrong going that low (not to say he didn't).

So it's nothing more than an interpretation.

Coyle asked Walsh about his son. Walsh didn't say this out of nowhere.

Real classy how people try to use this to score points against him.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Beech Mtn said:
Tonton said:
Or it could be that Walsh manufactured his portrait of GL as the hero vs. villain LA in order to enhance the story that he was telling. Better than just the tale of a villain. And he probably didn't conduct 1% as much research on Gl as he did on LA. Sky? He may have been bribed, which I doubt is the case, or he got LA (his target), and he's too lazy to spend the time and effort for a second crusade. Easier to say that Sky looks legit than jeopardize his status with the masses (and job opportunities) by attacking the Sky juggernaut. I'm not an expert on Walsh, but that's my read.

I believe it was probably personal for Walsh, as far as Lance goes, because of the things LA supposedly said about Walsh's young son who died. There were a lot of folks with reason to go after Lance, and they found a willing ear in Walsh, when most of the cycling media wasn't going to touch the subject with a 10-foot pole.

Walsh also had a lot of help from Ballester with the first book.

Walsh wouldn't have the same animus towards the Sky crew.

Walsh was after writing plenty of Armstrong before Lance said that to Dan Coyle.

Hate Walsh on Sky all you like but don't distort the facts and revise.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re:

hrotha said:
Sniper, I don't see the problem with that theory, other than the fact that "passive doping" is an absolutely ridiculous term. It's basically overtraining.
but can overtraining or 'passive doping' cause myopathy?
not that I know of. Not even Lemond's team have put that hypothesis forward. According to them it was either genetic or lead-intoxication. Not overtraining.
More importantly, Walsh is ignoring the elephant in the room, namely a third option: that the myopathy was (cortico-)steroid induced.
So what it shows is that Walsh was already ignoring elephants well before he began working with/for/on Sky.

And what about the Tapie statement. Are he and RR just making stuff up there? Would love to see the original quote.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Re:

hrotha said:
Sniper, I don't see the problem with that theory, other than the fact that "passive doping" is an absolutely ridiculous term. It's basically overtraining.
its *** term

#scatology... will bulls.h.i.t get thru the swear filter?


#bovine


#clen

#sinobeef
#mick rogers
 
Re:

blackcat said:
freekin asterisks

asterisks? What about oversized sausages?!? :rolleyes:

14098v5.jpg
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Walsh writing today that Tour De France is losing it's appeal. My guess is this is the 1st hint in Sky's withdrawal from the sport.
 
Re:

Benotti69 said:
Walsh writing today that Tour De France is losing it's appeal. My guess is this is the 1st hint in Sky's withdrawal from the sport.

The UCI has lost its appeal. The Tour is and will always be fine. Perhaps Walsh should be writing about Cookson and mismanagement of the sport?
 
Impressive journalism by Walsh in the Sunday Times. He's now into praising Coe and sighting his magical win the 1980 Moscow Olympics in the 800m.

Just one problem though..... Coe didn't win the 800m, Steve Ovett did :cool:

2wr3gp0.jpg


2cbqtc.jpg
 
Re:

sniper said:
what a plonker.

It's incredible. It's not a minor oversight, the Coe v Ovett rivalry in the 80s was almost bigger than football. The Moscow Olympics was the big showdown and Ovett best Coe at his strongest event. It's not something that ever was forgotten. How Walsh could get it so wrong is staggering.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
I'd forgive him if he'd write for some minor journal.
But from a 'chief sports writer' of the ST who's been so busy banging himself on the chest lately, this is staggering indeed.
 
Re:

sniper said:
I'd forgive him if he'd write for some minor journal.
But from a 'chief sports writer' of the ST who's been so busy banging himself on the chest lately, this is staggering indeed.

Agreed. The stupidity of it all, is Walsh is citing that the key victory to replicate the 'stealth' & 'judgment' to win the 800m as he has now taken the Russians under control. Except Coe fluffed the 800m final. He was the fastest and should have won but displayed poor tactics and got best by Ovett who ran a much smarter race.

Basically what Walsh is saying is Coe fluffed it with the Russians as he did the 1980 800m final but Walsh is too stupid to realise.

14nfy55.jpg


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2012/apr/18/50-olympic-moments-coe-ovett-moscow-1980
 
It was laughable but par for the course - coe is some kind of genius...the end justifies the means basically...so it's ok to lie as long as there is a greater good...is it ok to dope, increase your brand, set up a charity and do good for others in that case?

Anyway the sky fans who say it's unfair to compare speeds - there are pages in walsh's books on lance's speeds. How he told pelkey in 1999 that lance can't be clean as he's going as fast as last year when we know for certain they doped...so now that it's sky, walsh and the fans (same thing) are saying speeds aren't useful.
 
Re:

sniper said:
lol.

ST should probably hire an extra guy to fact check and proof read Walsh's pieces.

Hire? He just needed to type "1980 Men's 800m Olympic Final" into Google! :rolleyes:

Or get an intern to fact check Walsh, diabolical. Phil Liggert has a better memory!
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
sniper said:
lol.

ST should probably hire an extra guy to fact check and proof read Walsh's pieces.

Hire? He just needed to type "1980 Men's 800m Olympic Final" into Google! :rolleyes:

Or get an intern to fact check Walsh, diabolical. Phil Liggert has a better memory!

phil liggett is senile, so if you mean, a memory that is distorted, then yes, ilggett has a better memory