Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[gooner]

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” ― George Orwell.

Is Kimmage doing a judicial enquiry? No, he's being an investigative journalist. I don't expect a thesis, and I don't expect a judicial enquiry. Perhaps I expect too much of him, but I expect a level of investigative journalism where the reasoning behind his decision is clarified. Kimmage is perhaps too aggressive to the point of being crass with his questioning, but the point stands: journalism isn't just trite reporting of what happened and "what a great day for Team Sky". David Walsh doesn't have to alienate people and be aggressive like Paul Kimmage, but he's a guy of too much repute for some of the bland nothingness that came out of his social media during the Tour.

For one thing, because accusations of Sky doping were common during the Tour, not just from "nobodies on the internet" (glad to know my reputation precedes me), but from other media sources. Walsh is a man with the reputation, and in the position, to make a statement to counteract that. Did he do that? Only inasmuch as we know Walsh felt they were clean. We don't know how or why. He hasn't given us a reason to believe him. Maybe he doesn't feel the need to, but that sells Sky short, if they are clean.

What investigative journalism has Kimmage done down the years? He even admits it was Walsh who did all the digging with regards to Lance and distances himself from this. By and large he writes good columns giving his take on all things doping and holds people to account on what they have said or done wrong. Be it in one on one interviews or press conferences we see this. I don't think he has done anything like Walsh did in getting the dates Lance visited Ferrari or spending a week in Italy getting to the bottom of the Roche/Conconi story. There might be one or two instances with Kimmage but I would'nt say as a whole investigative journalism is his strong point. Did Kimmage ask any questions behind the scenes like Walsh said he did with Julich? This isn't a criticism of Kimmage but just that he's reporting style seems to be different to Walsh here.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

So the video that shows the cross wind on top, which means a tailwind for most of the climb, is lying?

Where are those weather stations located?

To avoid a ban, I mention the locations of the weather stations, not the wind they reported...

Bedoin, Malaucene, and Sault. As a frequent visitor you well know that they surround Mont Ventoux.

John Swanson

 

[red_flanders]

His explanation is he's a sports reporter. He's reporting sport - same as he's done for many, many years. If you've built him up to be some great investigator who will deliver a definitive verdict on Sky's virtuousness, then that's your doing not his.

I used to think the same as you, but then I read articles he wrote on other sports. He's a sports reporter. He is neither a investigator nor a cheerleader. He writes the story he feels will interest his readers.

Why, for example, is Antoine Vayer not subjected to the same scrutiny? His magazine was a monument to bad science, but his 'not normal' assessments are taken as read without challenge. Much of the internet is guilty of judging evidence and accounts based not on their own merits but whether they support preformed opinions.

Ultimately, none of you really know anything much about Sky (or any other team). You observe through proxies and from afar. You have no firm basis to make judgements one way or another. So to dismiss or smear Walsh or whoever because they do not fit the agenda is intellectually dishonest.

I don't care for strawmen in discussions. It's preposterous to ask (and thereby suggest) that I've:

built him up to be some great investigator who will deliver a definitive verdict on Sky's virtuousness

Of course I have done no such thing, so what follows is meaningless.

He has a track record of aggressively and vehemently pursuing Armstrong, and I'm glad he did it. That path was not a sports reporting path, that was investigative journalism. So he has set the context of "who he is" to the world with his very public chase of Armstrong, with the book sales etc.

Sky do not have the history and evidence of cheating that Armstrong did. However they have more than enough for anyone to be suspicious, and having chased down one person cheating the sport it is not surprising that many would expect him to see all the same signals and open his eyes, PARTICULARLY as he offered that he thinks SKY are clean. If he had said no such thing, no one would be having his discussion.

 

[red_flanders]

If you knew the mountain, or checked a map, you would understand that a hard crosswind on top means 80% of the climb has a tailwind.

the first 15.5km from Bedoin to Chalet Reynard would have a tailwind, as would most of the 2km past Chalet Reynard

80% of the climb with a tailwind.

Yes, the part of the climb that was protected from the wind may have had tailwind if that was in fact the wind direction. You know what I can't tell from the video? What direction exactly they're going on the various hard turns on that top exposed part. And for Ventoux, not as much wind compared to other editions I've seen, cross or otherwise. On some turns it appears hard but on others smoke drifts almost straight up and flags are almost flat. Very un-Ventoux-like actually.

The point is, and why this entire line of discussion is a red herring, is that the headwind tailwind argument is like arguing about millimeters in a marathon. Froome's performance was visually and measurably ridiculous. How is that really even a discussion? His time was up with the top dopers of all time, and his dominance was total. And he looked like he backed off at the end. It was ridiculous. The wind direction discussion is just chatter in the breeze...

 

[thehog]

The point is, and why this entire line of discussion is a red herring, is that the headwind tailwind argument is like arguing about millimeters in a marathon. Froome's performance was visually and measurably ridiculous. How is that really even a discussion? His time was up with the top dopers of all time, and his dominance was total. And he looked like he backed off at the end. It was ridiculous. The wind direction discussion is just chatter in the breeze...

Good post.

Forget the super hard gradient. The heat. The crowds. The switch backs. The lack of tree coverage and glaring sun. Ventoux is a super easy climb. A little bit of tailwind means you can go full ***.

With all that tailwind it's a wonder Contador couldn't do the same!

 

[The Hitch]

Do we have to hate LeMond too? I hope not

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond-there-can-be-spectacular-performances-without-doping

Even when he is critical, calling on them to release their power figures, he is supportive

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013...or-froome-others-to-release-power-data_295268

Is Lemond on record multiple times saying that anyone who matches Armstrongs time on climbs is definately a doper?

 

[red_flanders]

I'll say this once only:

Stop with the wind direction discussion.

It's been done to death a month ago on several Froome thread's, and ended with taxus4a getting a weeks ban for continuing after my warning's at the time. The only reason I'm not banning race radio and others is because the warning was a month ago on another thread. However many people are aware of it.

It's is also completely off topic on this thread.

The next mention is out of here

Cheers
Bison

Sorry, I didn't see this until after I posted. Feel free to remove, thx.

 

[Race Radio]

Instead of bickering over one climb, perhaps you should check out veloclinics work, which compares Froome's performances with the 2002-2007 GT podium finisher baseline. Every ascent tells the same story, so did Froome have a tail wind on every finishing climb or what?

http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/56107398914/2013-tour-de-france-overall-analysis

He does excellent work. I agree with much of it.

Perhaps I have not made my position clear, so I will say it again. I think that some of Froome's performances are questionable. I, like many in the sport, do not think they represent conclusive evidence of doping. I would like to see more (Syringes, Blood bags, testimony of doctors and teammates) before I jump on the bandwagon. Many here think that if a guy like Walsh does not automatically go after Froome he is a sell out. I do not see that yet

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

He does excellent work. I agree with much of it.

Perhaps I have not made my position clear, so I will say it again. I think that some of Froome's performances are questionable. I, like many in the sport, do not think they represent conclusive evidence of doping. I would like to see more (Syringes, Blood bags, testimony of doctors and teammates) before I jump on the bandwagon. Many here think that if a guy like Walsh does not automatically go after Froome he is a sell out. I do not see that yet

You are making strange accusations here, you even throw Greg LeMond into the discussion. I wonder why.

Is LeMond an field expert in the ''spot the doper'' game?

"American cycling legend Greg Lemond hailed compatriot Floyd Landis's victory in the Tour de France, describing this year's edition of the race as "the best of all time.". Lemond, a three-time Tour winner with victories in 1986, 1989 and 1990, said the drugs scandal which saw dozens of riders kicked out of the peloton before the race began had levelled the field and allowed a "clean" Landis to win.

"It was an incredible Tour," said Lemond. "The best of all time. It was like the 1980s where you had different guys dominating on different days. We haven't seen that sort of competition for years."

Lemond congratulated Tour organisers on their decision to bar teams implicated in the Spanish drug scandal from the race.

Among the riders to be prevented from taking part were Germany's Jan Ullrich and Italy's Ivan Basso, two of the riders among the favourites for the crown.

"I'm happy that Ullrich and Basso weren't allowed in," Lemond said. "Suddenly the guys in the background, guys who were probably doubting their own ability to be competitive, were able to come to the fore. That's very encouraging," he said.

Lemond had nothing but praise for Landis, the surprise winner of tour's yellow jersey. "He was one of my favourites before the race. He's clean and what's more, he's a great guy," he added."

In 2009 LeMond spotted Contador - correctly - on Verbier:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=z2AiCVzx2L8#t=1403
which was a 'decent' - understatement - effort. Suddenly people stepped in and came up with the tailwind story - an absolute lie, first class - that would explain the climbing of Contador and others like Wiggins for instance. That looks to happen a lot of times the last years, same went on with Hesjedal on Pampeago last year. Do you really think LeMond is going to come out and get unipublic and the cycling incrowd - even his former trainer van Diemen disagreed with him on Dutch TV - again over his head?

Now, back to Walsh. Libertine - as usual - did a pretty good job in explaining an opinion on him. Walsh is basicly saying he thinks SKY are clean so we have to take his word for it, without plausible explanations. Or do we have to believe the roommate story?

Are we at liberty to doubt this? Are we at liberty to form our own opinion?
A guy, a team, coming close to efforts only done by convicted BLOOD dopers? With no explanation whatsoever? Just the Kerrison revolution? Well, that would be interesting if it werent for Wiggins in the 2009 Tour de Bloostransfusions.

Does that mean we hate Walsh? Froome? SKY? You?
No sir, we just disagree.

 

[weeniebeenie]

I suspect that Race Radio's point was that there appears to be a double standard.

When Walsh says he thinks that Froome is clean he is accused of being corrupt and taking money from the Sky / Murdoch empire.

When LeMond says he thinks that Froome is clean he is simply assumed to be wrong and no aspersions are cast about his integrity.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

While this is a fair point, it is also to be noted that LeMond hasn't been put in a position where corruption and taking money from the Murdoch empire can arise as an accusation. Walsh works for a newspaper owned by Murdoch, and has spent two months travelling embedded at the team, going for lunches and staying at hotels on the team. This doesn't mean that any payola or corruption exists - but if one did believe in a buy-off conspiracy theory, there are more dots for one to join with Walsh than there are with LeMond.

 

[weeniebeenie]

I totally agree but think that Walsh has done more than enough in his career to be given the benefit of the doubt.

In SDS he discusses handing in his resignation (which was rejected) following amendments that were made by The Times to an article that he wrote on Armstrong. To me that suggests he values his credibility more than his job

Basically I think that he genuinely believes that Froome is clean and while he may be wrong he is not corrupt.

 

[sniper]

He does excellent work. I agree with much of it.

Perhaps I have not made my position clear, so I will say it again. I think that some of Froome's performances are questionable. I, like many in the sport, do not think they represent conclusive evidence of doping. I would like to see more (Syringes, Blood bags, testimony of doctors and teammates) before I jump on the bandwagon. Many here think that if a guy like Walsh does not automatically go after Froome he is a sell out. I do not see that yet

what is questionable is why Walsh proactively posts and writes about his believe in Sky, rather than about his skepsis. Isn't he skeptic at all? Is he a 100% believer? Of course not.
If he is skeptic, it's his task as a journalist to pursue that skepsis.
I know times are changing, but truth finding once used to be a journalist's main task. Walsh's current task seems to be to make the world look brighter than she actually is.

Same cloud hangs over your tweets: why do you tweet about how some of Froome's performances are "encouraging"? Why not tweet about how "discouraging" his many Lance-like performances are? You seem to agree that some of his performances are dodgy. Why not pursue that?

We know (because you explicitly say so) that you hope to get as much sponsors into the game as possible, but isn't that another way of admitting that you have an agenda? Everybody understands, of course, but your pursuit of sponsors doesn't improve your credibility wrt anti-doping matters. In the fight against doping, money should move to the background. Otherwise it's a lost cause.

EDIT: I should add that, like many, I too have great appreciation for your contributions here and on twitter. Probably that's also why many in here keep you to a higher standard. Like we do with Walsh.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I totally agree but think that Walsh has done more than enough in his career to be given the benefit of the doubt.

In SDS he discusses handing in his resignation (which was rejected) following amendments that were made by The Times to an article that he wrote on Armstrong. To me that suggests he values his credibility more than his job

Basically I think that he genuinely believes that Froome is clean and while he may be wrong he is not corrupt.

Which is fine. But if he's not corrupt then he genuinely believes what he's writing. Which is again fine. But many don't believe what he's writing, and not just in the Clinic, as evidenced by the many questions raised about Sky and Froome in the industry press. Which is why we'd like to hear more about how Walsh arrived at his conclusion in order that we may ascertain why he believes that.

Basically, "David Walsh says Sky are clean" is not enough for me or many others to rationalise the many performances that suggest otherwise when placed within the context of the history of the sport. However, David Walsh is not a fool, and he must have studied the facts before arriving at those conclusions. In which case, I want to know the facts in order that I may arrive at my own conclusion. Walsh has enough esteem stored up that we may take his support as being more important than that of, say, Phil Liggett or Anthony Tan. But not enough for us to accept divisive conclusions without further justification.

 

[JimmyFingers]

s

What investigative journalism has Kimmage done down the years? He even admits it was Walsh who did all the digging with regards to Lance and distances himself from this. By and large he writes good columns giving his take on all things doping and holds people to account on what they have said or done wrong. Be it in one on one interviews or press conferences we see this. I don't think he has done anything like Walsh did in getting the dates Lance visited Ferrari or spending a week in Italy getting to the bottom of the Roche/Conconi story. There might be one or two instances with Kimmage but I would'nt say as a whole investigative journalism is his strong point. Did Kimmage ask any questions behind the scenes like Walsh said he did with Julich? This isn't a criticism of Kimmage but just that he's reporting style seems to be different to Walsh here.

Quality post. I think it's extremely simplistic to dismiss Walsh as being paid for, because essentially you're accusing someone who has previous campaigned against systematic doping as now being complicit with it. Why would he do such a sudden and massive about turn? As soon as he did those first tweets the knives came out for him, and the muck began to fly, but there's no convincing reason why Walsh would just turn his back on everything he's stood for and worked towards.

 

[hrotha]

I suspect that Race Radio's point was that there appears to be a double standard.

When Walsh says he thinks that Froome is clean he is accused of being corrupt and taking money from the Sky / Murdoch empire.

When LeMond says he thinks that Froome is clean he is simply assumed to be wrong and no aspersions are cast about his integrity.

I haven't read any BS arguments from LeMond to support his opinion, unlike with Walsh.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Quality post. I think it's extremely simplistic to dismiss Walsh as being paid for, because essentially you're accusing someone who has previous campaigned against systematic doping as now being complicit with it. Why would he do such a sudden and massive about turn? As soon as he did those first tweets the knives came out for him, and the muck began to fly, but there's no convincing reason why Walsh would just turn his back on everything he's stood for and worked towards.

In which case, can he not let us know what the convincing reason there is for his being convinced by Sky? By telling us to believe him but not telling us why, he is doing himself, and Sky, a disservice. If we're wrong to suspect, we need him to tell us why we're wrong so that we may become right, rather than treat us as fools for being wrong. Producing drivel like sharing hotel rooms does nobody any favours, because it's a paper-thin justification that shouldn't convince anybody, and just makes Walsh look more incompetent than he in reality is.

If he wants to go the sports reporting route, then that's fine, but he then shouldn't get frustrated by people wanting more doping questions, because those questions remain unanswered, at least to us mere mortals who don't get to go for lunch with Dave Brailsford. But if he wants to go the investigative journalism route, like he did before, he needs to show the investigative work he did that led him to the conclusions he has made. Again, I'm not accusing him of being disingenuous, or bought, or corrupt - I'm making the assumption that his opinion has been formed in good faith, and as part of the ignorant masses, would like the knowledge that led to this to be shared.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

Basically I think that he genuinely believes that Froome is clean and while he may be wrong he is not corrupt.

I agree with this.

 

[thehog]

I suspect that Race Radio's point was that there appears to be a double standard.

When Walsh says he thinks that Froome is clean he is accused of being corrupt and taking money from the Sky / Murdoch empire.

When LeMond says he thinks that Froome is clean he is simply assumed to be wrong and no aspersions are cast about his integrity.

Race Radio believes the Clinic collectively think Froome is a doper.

He wants there to be a tailwind up Ventoux. He so desperately wants there to be a tailwind. Life & death. Because it rationalises for him what Froome did. Provides him an excuses to say "well he may have been fast as Armstrong but there was a big tailwind that day". Because Race Rasio has called out Armstrong his entire career and now when another rider comes along who clearly doped off his head & Race is conflicted. Conflicted because he's in the "in crowd". Lunch with Porte, contact with Walsh.

As another said. Doesn't matter tailwind, headwind or otherwise. What Froome did on Ventoux was insanity. Made Contador look like like a chump.

Vuelta 2011 after being dropped by 10 minutes at Poland 4 weeks prior. How is it possible to make such improvements?

Froome just doesn't add up. Whilst Walsh writes articles titled "Why I believe in Chris Froome" and Race Radio has become a lunchtime meteorologist both appear desperate. Desperate to prove that what we're seeing is normal. It's not.

Why does RR want so badly for Froome to be clean? So badly to make up fake percentage differences between a ITT and 220km stage and now wind directions. Why?

Full *** is full *** no matter how you slice it

 

[Race Radio]

What? Sacked without severance? Do you know anything about EU law?

Beside your friend Yates confirmed it.

You were going to give us some evidence of Yates confirming this......what happen, couldn't find it? What part of EU law requires an independent contractor to be paid 400,000 when he retires.....or did you make this up?

While you are at it where is the proof of the TUE claim? Sky says no riders had a TUE at the Tour, now is your chance to prove they are liars......or that you are

 

[martinvickers]

In which case, can he not let us know what the convincing reason there is for his being convinced by Sky? By telling us to believe him but not telling us why, he is doing himself, and Sky, a disservice. If we're wrong to suspect, we need him to tell us why we're wrong so that we may become right, rather than treat us as fools for being wrong. Producing drivel like sharing hotel rooms does nobody any favours, because it's a paper-thin justification that shouldn't convince anybody, and just makes Walsh look more incompetent than he in reality is.

If he wants to go the sports reporting route, then that's fine, but he then shouldn't get frustrated by people wanting more doping questions, because those questions remain unanswered, at least to us mere mortals who don't get to go for lunch with Dave Brailsford. But if he wants to go the investigative journalism route, like he did before, he needs to show the investigative work he did that led him to the conclusions he has made. Again, I'm not accusing him of being disingenuous, or bought, or corrupt - I'm making the assumption that his opinion has been formed in good faith, and as part of the ignorant masses, would like the knowledge that led to this to be shared.

But only a few posts ago you were specifically asked what different questions you wanted, and you admitted you weren't able to come up with them, and said "the answers are more important than the questions" - which is, of course, utterly nonsense contextually and can only lead to the answer 42.

Perhaps, in the final analysis, the truth is this.

Your opinion is just that, your opinion, be it your opinion of Sky, Froome or for that matter Walsh's work. And it's not the objective benchmark of what is satisfactory.

Walsh, Sky, Froome, Uncle Tom Cobley, no-one is under an obligation or duty of any kind to satisfy YOU. Your satisfaction is not needed. They do their best, according to their lights, and after that, it's your problem.

The vast majority of the people who have turned on Walsh in this thread did so for one reason and one reason only. He didn't prove their pre-conception right. No more. No less.

The vast majority of the people who have defended Walsh in this thread did so for one reason and one reason only. He suggested their pre-conception was right. No more. No less.

The vast majority of clinicians here don't want the truth. They think they already know it. They want vindication. And their attitude to Walsh, and what he's done, and whether it is 'satisfactory' work is almost entirely dependant on whether his conclusions matched their pre-conceptions. It is no more noble than that.

Some are obvious in their biases, and don't much care, they enjoy running with the hounds. Others make more effort to appear reasonable. Doesn't mean they are.

 

[thehog]

But only a few posts ago you were specifically asked what different questions you wanted, and you admitted you weren't able to come up with them, and said "the answers are more important than the questions" - which is, of course, utterly nonsense contextually and can only lead to the answer 42.

Perhaps, in the final analysis, the truth is this.

Your opinion is just that, your opinion, be it your opinion of Sky, Froome or for that matter Walsh's work. And it's not the objective benchmark of what is satisfactory.

Walsh, Sky, Froome, Uncle Tom Cobley, no-one is under an obligation or duty of any kind to satisfy YOU. Your satisfaction is not needed. They do their best, according to their lights, and after that, it's your problem.

The vast majority of the people who have turned on Walsh in this thread did so for one reason and one reason only. He didn't prove their pre-conception right. No more. No less.

The vast majority of the people who have defended Walsh in this thread did so for one reason and one reason only. He suggested their pre-conception was right. No more. No less.

The vast majority of clinicians here don't want the truth. They think they already know it. They want vindication. And their attitude to Walsh, and what he's done, and whether it is 'satisfactory' work is almost entirely dependant on whether his conclusions matched their pre-conceptions. It is no more noble than that.

Some are obvious in their biases, and don't much care, they enjoy running with the hounds. Others make more effort to appear reasonable. Doesn't mean they are.

Thankfully we have Father Martin to provide us with the sermon of truth.

Thanks Martin.

Delightful reading. I like it when you tell me how to think.

Can you tell us about wind direction? I'm sure you know the truth about the wind

 

[thehog]

You were going to give us some evidence of Yates confirming this......what happen, couldn't find it? What part of EU law requires an independent contractor to be paid 400,000 when he retires.....or did you make this up?

While you are at it where is the proof of the TUE claim? Sky says no riders had a TUE at the Tour, now is your chance to prove they are liars......or that you are

Cool.

Who's us? You mean, you?

When you work the difference between 5% and 12% I'll address it.

And stop making up lies about the wind.

Why lie about the wind?

Froome is everything that Armstrong was and more. I know that's hard for you to rationalise. But deal with it.

It's not my fault the Dawg dopes.

 

[Race Radio]

what is questionable is why Walsh proactively posts and writes about his believe in Sky, rather than about his skepsis. Isn't he skeptic at all? Is he a 100% believer? Of course not.
If he is skeptic, it's his task as a journalist to pursue that skepsis.
I know times are changing, but truth finding once used to be a journalist's main task. Walsh's current task seems to be to make the world look brighter than she actually is.

Same cloud hangs over your tweets: why do you tweet about how some of Froome's performances are "encouraging"? Why not tweet about how "discouraging" his many Lance-like performances are? You seem to agree that some of his performances are dodgy. Why not pursue that?

We know (because you explicitly say so) that you hope to get as much sponsors into the game as possible, but isn't that another way of admitting that you have an agenda? Everybody understands, of course, but your pursuit of sponsors doesn't improve your credibility wrt anti-doping matters. In the fight against doping, money should move to the background. Otherwise it's a lost cause.

EDIT: I should add that, like many, I too have great appreciation for your contributions here and on twitter. Probably that's also why many in here keep you to a higher standard. Like we do with Walsh.

I think I have been pretty clear on this thread that that I think Froome has some questionable performances. That the initial times I saw for Ventoux were not correct. I explained all of this earlier but it is likely that info has been missed in the flood of trolling nonsense on this thread.

The challenge that many have is the lack of ancillary information. No syringes, blood bags. No former friends, staff, teammates telling stories. No back dated TUE's, failed tests. Without this people like LeMond and Walsh feel more comfortable in their support.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

But only a few posts ago you were specifically asked what different questions you wanted, and you admitted you weren't able to come up with them, and said "the answers are more important than the questions" - which is, of course, utterly nonsense contextually and can only lead to the answer 42.

Perhaps, in the final analysis, the truth is this.

Your opinion is just that, your opinion, be it your opinion of Sky, Froome or for that matter Walsh's work. And it's not the objective benchmark of what is satisfactory.

Walsh, Sky, Froome, Uncle Tom Cobley, no-one is under an obligation or duty of any kind to satisfy YOU. Your satisfaction is not needed. They do their best, according to their lights, and after that, it's your problem.

The vast majority of the people who have turned on Walsh in this thread did so for one reason and one reason only. He didn't prove their pre-conception right. No more. No less.

The vast majority of the people who have defended Walsh in this thread did so for one reason and one reason only. He suggested their pre-conception was right. No more. No less.

The vast majority of clinicians here don't want the truth. They think they already know it. They want vindication. And their attitude to Walsh, and what he's done, and whether it is 'satisfactory' work is almost entirely dependant on whether his conclusions matched their pre-conceptions. It is no more noble than that.

Some are obvious in their biases, and don't much care, they enjoy running with the hounds. Others make more effort to appear reasonable. Doesn't mean they are.

Luckily we have you to show us the light. Maybe I shouldn't make so much effort. It is unbecoming and belies my biases. I am alone, the Clinic is alone, we dreamt up all those stories from the worldwide press where questions were raised that Walsh was in a better position than anybody to answer. If there are questions, it is not Walsh's job to ask them, it is mine. If you look through this thread, the Sky megathread, the Froome megathread, many questions that we have not seen answers to have been asked. I see no value in wasting my time collating these when if Walsh did his job properly, and I'm trusting that he did, most of them should have been asked already. I'd just like to know what the answers were. Are you saying you wouldn't? That you believe, you're happy to accept that, and that anybody who is not convinced by what we've been shown so far is simply unreasonable? That we already have the truth, therefore the quest for truth is unnecessary? Notwithstanding that my questions would never be answered because I'm just a nobody on the internet. I am not deemed worthy of lunch with the mighty Dave Brailsford. But as long as the questions are asked, it doesn't matter if we get to hear the answers. The reporters will report that the news is good, and the people can go back to work.

And we have all been taught to dream by the fresh ink of the newspapers, Soyuzpechat.