• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Page 247 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Refusing counseling because he feels he doesn't deserve it is perfectly believable by anyone who understands depression.

Was he depressed because he was caught and not because of his actions?

fmk_RoI said:
Believing that the letters of reference were requested by his legal representative is believable by anyone who knows the legal system.

Legal reps only act from instructions from client. TH asked for refs or asked counsel to ask for refs.

Why did TH let Walsh try and set up a sports magazine to fund TH?

Sorry TH is a paedo and nothing in the evidence will convince otherwise. He only recently admitted his guilt. 5 years after the event. There were other victims involved. Only 1 came forward prepared to give evidence. TH is not someone who is remorseful. He has not admitted to other offences. As tweet said, a manipulator and imo a full scale predator.
 
Former sports journalist Paul Howard - who recently revealed that David Walsh had approached him privately with plans to create a magazine to help Humphries - reveals that certain friends of Humphries sought to create a false impression of the situation he faced:
Paul Howard‏ @AkaPaulHoward

It's clear that several of Tom Humphries' media friends were determined to see him as some tortured character from a Nabokov novel.
And:
Paul Howard‏ @AkaPaulHoward

Until the facts of the case got in the way of that narrative.
And:
Paul Howard@AkaPaulHoward

Over the last six years, some of us have had to walk away from conversations with friends of Tom who tried to push that very line.
 
Benotti69 said:
Sorry TH is a paedo and nothing in the evidence will convince otherwise. He only recently admitted his guilt. 5 years after the event. There were other victims involved. Only 1 came forward prepared to give evidence. TH is not someone who is remorseful. He has not admitted to other offences. As tweet said, a manipulator and imo a full scale predator.

I’ve always understood that term to apply only to relationships involving children pre-puberty, and wiki says the maximum age is 13. So by the most common definition Humphries was not a pedophile (unless there were other, younger victims; maybe there were, but I haven't found any reports of ages). A predator, sure, but there is a world of difference between an older man having a sexual relationship with someone who doesn’t even understand what sex is, and someone who does. The girl was fourteen when he started texting her, sixteen when they first had sex, not an adult, but not exactly a child, either. Many people seem to regard Humphries as a monster, equating what he did, apparently, with murder (a life sentence was theoretically possible?). He strikes me more as a con man. Did he rape the girl, physically overpowering her? I don’t know, but nothing I’ve read about the case indicates that he did, and the fact that she agreed to see him voluntarily, then saw him again several more times, certainly strongly argues that he didn’t.

I'm not saying this to minimize what Humphries did, but to point out that when considering crimes of adults vs. children, there is a spectrum, and what Humphries did is not nearly the worst that can be done. The girl may be scarred for life, she may say her childhood was destroyed, but she is not nearly as scarred, and not nearly as much of her childhood has been destroyed, as someone who has been abused by his/her parents until adulthood. Nor does her experience equate with that of Jerry Sandusky's victims, who were far younger and more vulnerable, and definitely did make him fit the definition of a pedophile. There's no sharp line when individuals become adults, and are considered responsible for their behavior, but their ability to understand what's going on certainly increases as they age.

What puzzles me most about this is that it apparently remained a secret until one of Humphries' daughters discovered some texts on his cell phone. It seems until then, no one knew this was going on. Having a young daughter myself, I have a really difficult time believing the girl didn’t tell any of her friends about this, and that none of them advised her to stop texting Humphries, and none ever reported this to an adult. Again, I'm not saying this to dismiss what she went through, but I find it odd she never reached out to her friends.
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
What puzzles me most about this is that it apparently remained a secret until one of Humphries' daughters discovered some texts on his cell phone. It seems until then, no one knew this was going on. Having a young daughter myself, I have a really difficult time believing the girl didn’t tell any of her friends about this, and that none of them advised her to stop texting Humphries, and none ever reported this to an adult. Again, I'm not saying this to dismiss what she went through, but I find it odd she never reached out to her friends.
How much was known - or ought to have been known - is one of the issues Ewan MacKenna is pressing, with reference to a particular incident:
There's a heart-wrenching story that took place at the clubhouse of a prominent GAA club in the midst of this tragedy. Tom Humphries was inside, having a drink at the bar with an adult female member. Outside in the car park was the girl he groomed and was continuing to groom. We can never comprehend what was going through her mind nor should we have the arrogance to attempt to, but she was in tears and in view. And still this was allowed to go on.
I'm not going to get into an argument with you, but I would ask that you re-read what you've written, because a lot of it does come across as blaming the girl for inaction, and I don't think that that's reasonable. First, when he started sending her sexually explicit texts, she did ask him to stop, and for a time he did. Second, I think many people - male and female - can relate to being in situations which could have been eased if only we'd asked for help, but for whatever reason we were unable to reach out to others. Such are the weaknesses that some prey on. They should not be used to excuse what others have done, they should not be used to make us guilty for what others have done.

You should probably also read this.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
fmk_RoI said:
Refusing counseling because he feels he doesn't deserve it is perfectly believable by anyone who understands depression.

Was he depressed because he was caught and not because of his actions?

fmk_RoI said:
Believing that the letters of reference were requested by his legal representative is believable by anyone who knows the legal system.

Legal reps only act from instructions from client. TH asked for refs or asked counsel to ask for refs.

Why did TH let Walsh try and set up a sports magazine to fund TH?

Sorry TH is a paedo and nothing in the evidence will convince otherwise. He only recently admitted his guilt. 5 years after the event. There were other victims involved. Only 1 came forward prepared to give evidence. TH is not someone who is remorseful. He has not admitted to other offences. As tweet said, a manipulator and imo a full scale predator.
Not a paedo..definite predator and manipulator, there is a huge diffference as already pointed out. Waited till the girl hit an age he thought was ok , UK age of consent is 16..which the girl was, the difference here is he groomed her well in advance of that- and age of consent in Ireland is 18.
I am a little confused with the judges decision. If you abuse a position of power ie you're a teacher/guard/parent etc max sentence is 10 yrs. If you're not in that position its 5 which is what his was reduced from....was he not in a position of trust and power as a coach at the GAA club ?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

noddy69 said:
Benotti69 said:
fmk_RoI said:
Refusing counseling because he feels he doesn't deserve it is perfectly believable by anyone who understands depression.

Was he depressed because he was caught and not because of his actions?

fmk_RoI said:
Believing that the letters of reference were requested by his legal representative is believable by anyone who knows the legal system.

Legal reps only act from instructions from client. TH asked for refs or asked counsel to ask for refs.

Why did TH let Walsh try and set up a sports magazine to fund TH?

Sorry TH is a paedo and nothing in the evidence will convince otherwise. He only recently admitted his guilt. 5 years after the event. There were other victims involved. Only 1 came forward prepared to give evidence. TH is not someone who is remorseful. He has not admitted to other offences. As tweet said, a manipulator and imo a full scale predator.
Not a paedo..definite predator and manipulator, there is a huge diffference as already pointed out. Waited till the girl hit an age he thought was ok , UK age of consent is 16..which the girl was, the difference here is he groomed her well in advance of that- and age of consent in Ireland is 18.
I am a little confused with the judges decision. If you abuse a position of power ie you're a teacher/guard/parent etc max sentence is 10 yrs. If you're not in that position its 5 which is what his was reduced from....was he not in a position of trust and power as a coach at the GAA club ?

https://www.independent.ie/sport/ewan-mackenna-humphries-walsh-cusackthe-shame-game-36259052.html

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/crime/paedophile-humphries-relieved-to-be-away-from-public-in-jail-36262740.html


Paedophile Tom Humphries is "relieved" to be in prison away from the publicity surrounding his case, it has emerged.
Convicted paedophile Humphries, who is now known as prisoner 108586, is on the G1 landing of the Midlands prison after being jailed for two and a half years.
 
David Walsh, in 2012, in Seven Deadly Sins:
"When I wrote about the 1984 Paris-Brussels in the biography, I didn't mention the rattle of pills in the morning and I tried to make the case that it was hard to believe Kelly had used a substance so easily detectable. I chose to see the ridiculous leniency of the authorities as proof that, at worst, it was a minor infraction. It wasn't how a proper journalist would have reacted. At the time I knew what I was doing."
 
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
David Walsh, in 2012, in Seven Deadly Sins:
"When I wrote about the 1984 Paris-Brussels in the biography, I didn't mention the rattle of pills in the morning and I tried to make the case that it was hard to believe Kelly had used a substance so easily detectable. I chose to see the ridiculous leniency of the authorities as proof that, at worst, it was a minor infraction. It wasn't how a proper journalist would have reacted. At the time I knew what I was doing."

'Trust me, I know more than you.'

Shall we put his Sky book in the same, er ..... place?
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Visit site
Re:

King Boonen said:
Mod hat on:

Hi folks, this is starting to get pretty off-topic now. Considering that what Tom Humphries did has been reported I don't really think we need to continue debating over what term we need to use, especially as he isn't the subject of the thread.
Disagree slightly as he is being labelled something he is not. I think its fair to point that out as there is a difference. David didn't give a character reference to a Paedo but to a sex offender and sexual predator.Its actually quite a difference and if you think this crime is bad-and it is, then an actual Paedo is far worse.
 
Re: Re:

noddy69 said:
King Boonen said:
Mod hat on:

Hi folks, this is starting to get pretty off-topic now. Considering that what Tom Humphries did has been reported I don't really think we need to continue debating over what term we need to use, especially as he isn't the subject of the thread.
Disagree slightly as he is being labelled something he is not. I think its fair to point that out as there is a difference. David didn't give a character reference to a Paedo but to a sex offender and sexual predator.Its actually quite a difference and if you think this crime is bad-and it is, then an actual Paedo is far worse.
Only if he too becomes an offender.
 
Re: Re:

noddy69 said:
King Boonen said:
Mod hat on:

Hi folks, this is starting to get pretty off-topic now. Considering that what Tom Humphries did has been reported I don't really think we need to continue debating over what term we need to use, especially as he isn't the subject of the thread.
Disagree slightly as he is being labelled something he is not. I think its fair to point that out as there is a difference. David didn't give a character reference to a Paedo but to a sex offender and sexual predator.Its actually quite a difference and if you think this crime is bad-and it is, then an actual Paedo is far worse.
Sorry, seems I wasn’t clear. I’m not saying that it doesn’t matter what labelled is applied to Tom Humphries, I’m saying that there is not need to either use a labelled or debate it here. His crimes have been widely reported and people can draw their own conclusions about what they think is an appropriate term. Maybe a better thing for me to say would be to please refer to TomHumphries by his name only, just to avoid the off-topic debate. Is that fair?
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
noddy69 said:
King Boonen said:
Mod hat on:

Hi folks, this is starting to get pretty off-topic now. Considering that what Tom Humphries did has been reported I don't really think we need to continue debating over what term we need to use, especially as he isn't the subject of the thread.
Disagree slightly as he is being labelled something he is not. I think its fair to point that out as there is a difference. David didn't give a character reference to a Paedo but to a sex offender and sexual predator.Its actually quite a difference and if you think this crime is bad-and it is, then an actual Paedo is far worse.
Sorry, seems I wasn’t clear. I’m not saying that it doesn’t matter what labelled is applied to Tom Humphries, I’m saying that there is not need to either use a labelled or debate it here. His crimes have been widely reported and people can draw their own conclusions about what they think is an appropriate term. Maybe a better thing for me to say would be to please refer to TomHumphries by his name only, just to avoid the off-topic debate. Is that fair?
Fine with that.
 
From one of the Humphries pieces in the Sindo:
In that now infamous 2012 interview with Matt Cooper's Last Word radio show on Today FM, David Walsh was adamant in defence of Humphries. "And all I would say about the Tom situation is that I know a damn sight more about it than most people. I believe Tom is a fine man. And I believe in the end, that will come out and people will understand he's a fine man," he said. The segment was broadcast for the first time after Humphries was sentenced.

It is hard to see how Walsh, a man who is renowned for integrity in sport, could have said what he said without having been utterly misled. In his statement last week, Walsh apologised for his "ill-judged" and "insensitive" comments but cast no blame on Humphries.
 
Walsh has moved on. Now he's peddling the fake news bandwagon:
Last week, Ken Fawes, the editor-in-chief of The Cincinnati Sentinel, gave his take on the future of news at a conference in the United Kingdom.

He delivered three key points.

First, the future of news is not about human journalism, Fawes said. Second, news brands will survive only if they pin their entire business around efficiency and scale. Lastly, artificial intelligence (AI) can be programmed to do anything a person can do.

Fawes showed how one of his articles, titled "Fraudulent Clinton votes found in Ohio warehouse", had generated hundreds of thousands of page views.

He also showed a Wikipedia entry about himself and how his publication played a key role in the 2016 US presidential election.

But many seasoned media professionals attending the conference did not catch the lie.

Ken Fawes - an anagram of "fake news" - was actually an actor hired to play the role.

The man orchestrating the act was reporter David Walsh, the chief sports writer of British-based The Times.

Walsh, an investigative journalist who was instrumental in exposing famed US cyclist Lance Armstrong for doping, then elaborated on the importance of fact-checking and journalists not taking things at face value.
Do you think he checked the facts of the Humphries case before declaring he knew more than most people about the charges and about the situation his friend found himself in? Or did he just trust his instinct for the truth?
When a story seems too good to be true, it usually is. A journalist’s instinct for the truth is what engenders in our stories the greatest trust and authenticity.
– David Walsh
 
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
David Walsh speaks... about why he won't speak:
“I’ve taken more than a few hits arising out of this and am still feeling a little bruised. As a result I prefer not to say anything at the moment.”

Should be noted that Walsh waited to after the sentencing to release his statement of contrition. It’s clear he didn’t want to impact he length of the term. Walsh is still manipulating the situation.

Interesting to also note, back in 2012 when Walsh was telling the Off the Ball program that Humphries was a “fine man” he was strangely being disgusted that Bruyneel was offering EPO to Zabriskie.

Walsh is a strange man.

fkae14.jpg
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
fmk_RoI said:
David Walsh speaks... about why he won't speak:
“I’ve taken more than a few hits arising out of this and am still feeling a little bruised. As a result I prefer not to say anything at the moment.”

Should be noted that Walsh waited to after the sentencing to release his statement of contrition. It’s clear he didn’t want to impact he length of the term. Walsh is still manipulating the situation.

Interesting to also note, back in 2012 when Walsh was telling the Off the Ball program that Humphries was a “fine man” he was strangely being disgusted that Bruyneel was offering EPO to Zabriskie.

Walsh is a strange man.

fkae14.jpg

The same Barry who said Sky used TUE's unethically and somewhat against the rules?

On a different note, I wonder when Landa is ripping it up next year, if Walsh will be feeling sick again ala Astana Giro?
 
Re: Re:

MartinGT said:
thehog said:
fmk_RoI said:
David Walsh speaks... about why he won't speak:
“I’ve taken more than a few hits arising out of this and am still feeling a little bruised. As a result I prefer not to say anything at the moment.”

Should be noted that Walsh waited to after the sentencing to release his statement of contrition. It’s clear he didn’t want to impact he length of the term. Walsh is still manipulating the situation.

Interesting to also note, back in 2012 when Walsh was telling the Off the Ball program that Humphries was a “fine man” he was strangely being disgusted that Bruyneel was offering EPO to Zabriskie.

Walsh is a strange man.

fkae14.jpg

The same Barry who said Sky used TUE's unethically and somewhat against the rules?

On a different note, I wonder when Landa is ripping it up next year, if Walsh will be feeling sick again ala Astana Giro?

Walsh will be due for another massive contradiction by then. The Movistar train will be motoring with Quintana, Valverde and Landa with Walsh becoming sickened by their domination. He’ll be upset that a fine man like Froome is being beaten by a doping train.