Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Page 26 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
martinvickers said:
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.

Highlighted points are IMO pure BS.
 
martinvickers said:
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 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.

How much did internet mind reading school cost? Did they actually teach you anything or was it just one of those shams where they convince you you can do the thing rather than actually teaching you it.cynic that I am, my opinion leans towards the latter.
 
thehog said:
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?

You want it to look like he made up that percentage on purpose to make Froome look clean, which is ridculous if you had followed his tweets that day.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
Luckily we have you to show us the light.

Yep, it's a blessing.

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.

Strawman. How about you answer what I wrote, not what you wish I did. In fact, come to think of it, WISHING somebody had written something other than they did is a bit of a theme with you on this thread, isn't it...

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.

Strawman again. You weren't asked to 'collate' anything. You were asked, very simply, what questions YOU want asked that haven't been answered..and you couldn't deliver.

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?

If you can find where I said anything of the sort, it would be start. Again, answer what I wrote, not what you wish I wrote. If you did trawl a few of these threads, you'd know my views on Sky, Froome etc...don't assume you know them.

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.

Bingo. And here's the thing.

You ARE a nobody, an anonymous one at that. And you aren't worth lunch with Brailsford, or anyone else important.

Seriously. I'm not joking, you aren't.

You're meaningless. Seems to hurt you, to offend you. The tone you adopt is sarcastic, as if you actually believe you are worth lunch.

But it's the truth. You. Don't. Matter.

Here's the thing.

Neither. Do. I.

See, it's not personal. It's the absolute reality for most of us.

Sure, Race Radio has a bit of an audience - so yes, he matters more, because he has more influence. David Walsh matters a great deal more because he has a great deal of influence, both by reputation and by dint of the size of his audience. And he doesn't need to please you, or me, or anyone here to maintain that. See how I bring that back round to the point in hand?

It just seems I'm a lot more OK with not mattering, and not being worth lunch, than you are. Which is very odd.

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.

So first it was the questions that didn't matter, and now it's the answers? What does matter? Your opinion? Is that it? Is that the measure for us all, your personal satisfaction? Really?

I don't mean to be cruel, LS; You are one of the most unfaillingly civil and intelligent posters on here, much more so than I in all honesty. You're no troll, you've a vast amount of historic info, you're great, honestly, in many ways.

But my comments on this thread and it's punters, notwithstanding Netserk, stand.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
kingjr said:
You want it to look like he made up that percentage on purpose to make Froome look clean, which is ridculous if you had followed his tweets that day.

I have explained this multiple times.....but The Hog would prefer to ignore it and write nonsense.....there is a word for that
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Netserk said:
I did not call it out as trolling, but as BS.

Stop twisting what others have said hog. That counts for not only me but everyone. Especially RR.

And why is it BS, netserk?

I appreciate it's your 'opinion'. Not overly interested in opinion, with all due respect. Like a***holes, everyone has one, often full of the same stuff. Even when it's an admin's opinion, unless of course they are admin-ning!

Now argument, evidence, I can do something with.

So again, WHY do you think its BS? Apart from simply wanting it to be.
 
martinvickers said:
Others make more effort to appear reasonable. Doesn't mean they are.

You mean like when you called Libertine Seguros "the gold standard" in order to appear reasonable and make your enemies on the wing- bennoti, dw look unreasonable.

Looking at the way you attack ls now as just another internet warrior, it seems to have been just the type of deceit you are critisizing here.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
The Hitch said:
You mean like when you called Libertine Seguros "the gold standard" in order to appear reasonable and make your enemies on the wing- bennoti, dw look unreasonable.

I don't have any 'enemies' on this board. There's actually very few of you I dislike at all. Even the one's I think are full of ****. Hell, I blocked Hog because his nonsense was making threads unreadable for me, and I still think he or she is a gas.

Do I think, does the evidence suggest, there's a small cadre introduce more heat than light, and think sarcasm is somehow wisdom? Sure. And if people make themsleves look unreasonable, they do it to themselves. I just note it. I don't cause it.

Doesn't make them an 'enemy'...just a b*******er, and hell, the world's full of them, some of my best mates are full of it - social glue, don't you know.

But if that's they way you see it, 'enemies', it says rather more about you than me, friend. or Enemy. Or whatever.

Looking at the way you attack ls now as just another internet warrior, it seems to have been just the type of deceit you are critisizing here.

Honestly, if you think what I'm doing is me 'on attack', you've a lot to learn. I'm significantly more unpleasant when I get really riled.
 
Race Radio said:
I have explained this multiple times.....but The Hog would prefer to ignore it and write nonsense.....there is a word for that

Yes it's called 'perception'.

It was your subconscious which had to find a reason for Froome to be clean after the freakshow you just witnessed.

When have you ever seen Contador to be made to look like such an amateur? Never in my career. Not even Lance could do what Froome did to Contador on Ventoux.
 
martinvickers said:
Bingo. And here's the thing.

You ARE a nobody, an anonymous one at that. And you aren't worth lunch with Brailsford, or anyone else important.

Seriously. I'm not joking, you aren't.

You're meaningless. Seems to hurt you, to offend you. The tone you adopt is sarcastic, as if you actually believe you are worth lunch.

But it's the truth. You. Don't. Matter.

Here's the thing.

Neither. Do. I.

See, it's not personal. It's the absolute reality for most of us.

Sure, Race Radio has a bit of an audience - so yes, he matters more, because he has more influence. David Walsh matters a great deal more because he has a great deal of influence, both by reputation and by dint of the size of his audience. And he doesn't need to please you, or me, or anyone here to maintain that. See how I bring that back round to the point in hand?

It just seems I'm a lot more OK with not mattering, and not being worth lunch, than you are. Which is very odd.



So first it was the questions that didn't matter, and now it's the answers? What does matter? Your opinion? Is that it? Is that the measure for us all, your personal satisfaction? Really?

I don't mean to be cruel, LS; You are one of the most unfaillingly civil and intelligent posters on here, much more so than I in all honesty. You're no troll, you've a vast amount of historic info, you're great, honestly, in many ways.

But my comments on this thread and it's punters, notwithstanding Netserk, stand.

Martinvickers letter to child labourer in ****stan being exploited by Nike

Dear Child. Here's the thing.

You ARE a nobody, an anonymous one at that. And you aren't worth lunch with Knight, Ronaldo, Lebron James or anyone else important.

Seriously. I'm not joking, you aren't.

And neither is that pro fairness protester or any of his hippy friends, who visited you last week and said they would fight to give you a fair life.

You're meaningless. Seems to hurt you, to offend you. The tone you adopt is sarcastic, as if you actually believe you are worth lunch.

But it's the truth. You. Don't. Matter.

Sure, Tiger Woods has a bit of an audience - so yes, he matters more, because he has more influence. Rafael Nadal matters a great deal more because he has a great deal of influence, both by reputation and by dint of the size of his audience. And he doesn't need to please you, or me, or anyone here to maintain that.
 
2 sides to every story

Tour de France: "Froomstrong" Act 1
http://mobile.lemonde.fr/sport/arti...e-france-froomstrong-acte-1_3449999_3242.html

Tour de France: "Juan, Pat, help us to understand the exceptional"
http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article...a-comprendre-l-exceptionnel_3450751_3242.html

[size=+0][SIZE=+0]Tour de France: Froome is it supernatural?[/size][/SIZE]

[size=+0][SIZE=+0]By [/size][/SIZE][size=+0][SIZE=+0]Christopher Buet[/size][/SIZE][size=+0][SIZE=+0] , published[/size][/SIZE][size=+0][SIZE=+0]15/07/2013 at 13:02[/size][/SIZE][size=+0][SIZE=+0], Updated at 14:15[/size][/SIZE]
[size=+0][SIZE=+0]CYCLING - On the slopes of Mont Ventoux, Christopher Froome gave a striking demonstration. [/size][size=+0]Doping? [/size][size=+0]The day after his feat, informed observers want to believe in the performance of the yellow jersey despite a legitimate question.[/size][/SIZE]
http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/sport/tour-de-france-froome-est-il-surnaturel_1266504.html

Tour de France: a cereal bar and it leaves for Chris Froome

http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/2013/07/19/une-barre-de-cereales-et-ca-repart-pour-chris-froome_3450162_3242.html

The French Media don't have any problems expressing their DOUBTS and address the reasons.
 
martinvickers said:
Yep, it's a blessing.



Strawman. How about you answer what I wrote, not what you wish I did. In fact, come to think of it, WISHING somebody had written something other than they did is a bit of a theme with you on this thread, isn't it...
Yes. But since you brought up 'tone', that is a key feature in this 'wishing'.

I perceive Walsh's tone as "Sky are clean, can't see why people have issues with me saying that and not explaining why I say that". I perceive your tone as "go back to bed, America. Here's 47 channels of American Gladiators". We are not only wrong to not believe Walsh, but wrong to want more information in order to judge. Judging based on the information available to us is wrong, but wanting more information that is presently denied us is wrong too. How do we become right, Reverend Jim?

Strawman again. You weren't asked to 'collate' anything. You were asked, very simply, what questions YOU want asked that haven't been answered..and you couldn't deliver.
No, you're right, I wasn't asked to collate things. But many worthy questions have been asked, and given I've been having a rough time of it recently and have wasted enough time writing long posts about Sky that get buried under an avalanche of he said she said garbage over the last few days, I was too lazy to go and hunt for them because it was late on a Friday night and I really wished I had something better to do with that time.

If you can find where I said anything of the sort, it would be start. Again, answer what I wrote, not what you wish I wrote. If you did trawl a few of these threads, you'd know my views on Sky, Froome etc...don't assume you know them.
Don't you think that that's just a tiny bit hypocritical from somebody who's just performed internet psychiatry on every poster who does not believe Sky to be clean?

Bingo. And here's the thing.

You ARE a nobody, an anonymous one at that. And you aren't worth lunch with Brailsford, or anyone else important.

Seriously. I'm not joking, you aren't.

You're meaningless. Seems to hurt you, to offend you. The tone you adopt is sarcastic, as if you actually believe you are worth lunch.

But it's the truth. You. Don't. Matter.

Here's the thing.

Neither. Do. I.

See, it's not personal. It's the absolute reality for most of us.

Sure, Race Radio has a bit of an audience - so yes, he matters more, because he has more influence. David Walsh matters a great deal more because he has a great deal of influence, both by reputation and by dint of the size of his audience. And he doesn't need to please you, or me, or anyone here to maintain that. See how I bring that back round to the point in hand?

It just seems I'm a lot more OK with not mattering, and not being worth lunch, than you are. Which is very odd.
You're right, but you don't necessarily know that, because we are anonymous. My tone is sarcastic because you hint that because I am meaningless, I am wrong to have expectations of those less meaningless than I. You say that the people who don't agree with Walsh don't want truth, but we don't know what the truth is. How can we know whether it's what we want? Perhaps people want vindication. But people kind of like knowing if they're right or if they're wrong sometimes. People had faith in Walsh being able to uncover the truth, for better or for worse. Now we don't know whether or not he has been able to, because whatever truth he's found, he has not deemed his audience worthy of sharing it with, and has preferred to go with the bland, anodyne sports reporting approach at odds with what we have come to expect from David Walsh when placed in a situation where many doping questions are being asked in the media and he is in the best position of everybody to make the call. Which is very disappointing for somebody with the investigative reputation that he has. Am I wrong to have wanted more?

So first it was the questions that didn't matter, and now it's the answers? What does matter? Your opinion? Is that it? Is that the measure for us all, your personal satisfaction? Really?

I don't mean to be cruel, LS; You are one of the most unfaillingly civil and intelligent posters on here, much more so than I in all honesty. You're no troll, you've a vast amount of historic info, you're great, honestly, in many ways.

But my comments on this thread and it's punters, notwithstanding Netserk, stand.
The statement "as long as the questions are asked, it doesn't matter if we get to hear the answers" was in line with the sarcastic tone of the post. Because that's the situation we're being given right now, and I disapprove of this. Because the answers to the questions ARE important. Because David Walsh's opinion carries a lot of clout, and here he is presenting an opinion that is at least partially at odds with what people may have expected based on his past actions. Whatever doubts he may have had have been assuaged. What is important is what assuaged those doubts and enabled Walsh to be satisfied Sky stand for clean cycling.

Think of it as being much like cycle racing as a whole. The result may be what's important in the end, but you can't always understand the result without having seen the race.
 
Folks, (not you Cycle Chic) I don't like deleting posts but the bickering and insults are just over the top and need to stop. I will grant that some folks are currently responding to very insulting, now deleted posts, but after a few more minutes grace period I don't expect to see any more responses.

Back on topic. Thanks.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
gooner said:
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.

Walsh has not done any digging on Armstrong. He was told who to talk to, Betsy, Emma O'Reilly, Stephen Swart came out in NZ about his doping and Walsh was tipped off that Armstrong was using Ferarri. What did Walsh dig up about Armstrong?

Where did Kimmage go behind the scenes? What scenes was he behind to ask any questions?

As for the Roche conconi story, the Italians busted that. Walsh got hold of the documents where it was listed the riders names and blood levels. Even then he came across as pretty unsure about what he was actually holding in his hands on the late late show! He was ganged up on by Roche, an idiot planted doc and Pat stupid Kenny.

Walsh is a great journalist! He has not shown that on writing about Sky. We dont have the full details of Froome's Bilharzia, how they can skinny down without losing power, how Froome and Wiggins went from Gruppetto to winning the TdF. Walsh has written some nice prose but told us very little along with about a dash of pinapple juice in the bidons.

If Walsh was an investigative journalist on this, he would've got as much documentation abut Froome's numbers from day 1, including medical reports about his blood disease and gone to someone outside the team with some cred and asked them to look at them.

Walsh is back to his days when he fawned over Sean Kelly and ignored the pills in the jersey pocket.
 
Nov 27, 2012
327
0
0
gooner said:
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.

Kimmage was offered complete and unrestricted access to Sky in 2010. Similar deal as Walsh except for shorter time. Kimmage started asking questions and wrote a story about Michael Barry and Roger Palfreemen. Sunday Times refused to publish the article. Kimmage’s access was cut back and the ST pulled him from reporting on the tour. It could be argued Kimmage was investigating and reporting but Sunday Times rejected his articles.
 
northstar said:
Kimmage was offered complete and unrestricted access to Sky in 2010. Similar deal as Walsh except for shorter time. Kimmage started asking questions and wrote a story about Michael Barry and Roger Palfreemen. Sunday Times refused to publish the article. Kimmage’s access was cut back and the ST pulled him from reporting on the tour. It could be argued Kimmage was investigating and reporting but Sunday Times rejected his articles.

Rubbish - they reneged on the original agreement when Bradley threw his toys out of the pram.
 
Nov 27, 2012
327
0
0
Digger said:
Rubbish - they reneged on the original agreement when Bradley threw his toys out of the pram.

OK, Sky reneged on the access agreement and then Sunday Times refused to publish his article about it. So the timeline was unrestricted access, Wiggins fiasco, restricted access, his article about the change of access including info about Barry and Palfreemen is rejected. Is that correct?
 
kingjr said:
You want it to look like he made up that percentage on purpose to make Froome look clean, which is ridculous if you had followed his tweets that day.

No I don't think Race Radio was lying. Not in the slightest. His word is solid and strong. He's proved that and deserve the respect he has gained on Twitter.

I just think it was the inner Race speaking and he was too quick to try and rationalise what we all saw on Ventoux. I had trouble putting it into words what Froome did. It Ventoux was longer Froome could have kept going - that's how strong he was.

To compare it to Mayo's time was dumb.

The worst part of the comparison was if Mayo was doing a standing start ITT and Froome had his 220km lead in Mayo would have only beaten Froome by a minute or so.

That's a freakshow! Mayo had a calm day wind wise.

Forget RR for a second. It's not about him. It's about Froome. And Walsh's defence of Froome as clean.

I'm still trying to digest what Froome did that day. If Contador pulled the same stunt I'd be in the same position trying to rationalise it. But when a guy who was 10 minutes off the pace in Poland and did what he did in the Vuetla and has only just got stronger and stronger I'm not buying it.

It's the same with many here. The wind doesn't matter. The eyes don't lie. Froome obliterated GT winners and podium finishes and did it with ease.

That's what we're discussing.
 
thehog said:
Forget RR for a second. It's not about him. It's about Froome.
Forgive me, but following your posts this sounds rather odd coming from you.

thehog said:
It's the same with many here. The wind doesn't matter. The eyes don't lie. Froome obliterated GT winners and podium finishes and did it with ease.
I didn't see anything being done with "ease".



See Hog, I know what you mean by saying "the eyes don't lie". Thing is, I personally don't trust my eyes to be clever enough to determine who is doping and who is not. I need a bit more. Same goes for RR I'd say and for most people who are not convinced that Froome is doping.

My stance is, if you want to know how Froome suddenly became the worlds best GC rider in 2011 you have to dig as deep as you can into the Bilharzia stuff. Because there lies the rub somewhere, either in his favour or against him.