Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Dr. Maserati]

It's not conjecture, it's a fact. Their policy was "no cycling doctors". They changed it to go for a doping doctor using the death of Txema González as a ridiculous excuse.

And Walsh covered that in today's article:

There is no suggestion that Leinders was involved in doping at Team Sky but the team’s initial policy had been against employing doctors from within professional cycling.

 

[hrotha]

And Walsh covered that in today's article:

No. Referencing something is not the same as covering it.

And that's still only half of my post. Don't pick the bits you find convenient to reply to.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No. Referencing something is not the same as covering it.

I really have no idea what you are on about at this stage.

Today's article was about JTL, so of course he is only going to refer to things that happened before.
Your initial arguments were that Walsh portrayed everything as "innocent gaffes", even though he has accurately referenced things you misread.

 

[hrotha]

I really have no idea what you are on about at this stage.

Today's article was about JTL, so of course he is only going to refer to things that happened before.
Your initial arguments were that Walsh portrayed everything as "innocent gaffes", even though he has accurately referenced things you misread.

He hasn't. No Barry or Rogers, no questioning why Julich, Yates and De Jongh were hired in the first place when their stories (except possibly Yates's) were known, Leinders as this unknown doctor, no Txema González, no questioning of the motives for the policy change for doctors, and all of that while still touting Sky as being in the vanguard of the fight against doping. Walsh says the zero tolerance policy doesn't work because Sky failed to dentify the breaches, i.e. they screwed up, not because they willingly breached it - which is obvious they did, for the reasons I mentioned above and in my previous posts.

Arguing this further would just have us go in circles, so I won't bother.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

He hasn't. No Barry or Rogers, no questioning why Julich, Yates and De Jongh were hired in the first place when their stories (except possibly Yates's) were known, Leinders as this unknown doctor, no Txema González, no questioning of the motives for the policy change for doctors, and all of that while still touting Sky as being in the vanguard of the fight against doping. Walsh says the zero tolerance policy doesn't work because Sky failed to dentify the breaches, i.e. they screwed up, not because they willingly breached it - which is obvious they did, for the reasons I mentioned above and in my previous posts.

Arguing this further would just have us go in circles, so I won't bother.

You are going around in circles, I am sitting back watching you chase your tail.

Your initial points were about today's article.
Now you want to bring up a load of other stuff that Walsh has already covered?
Again, pretty clear you are another of the posters who does not actually read what Walsh has covered.

 

[hrotha]

Sure, buddy.

 

[Benotti69]

Walsh never covered the Leinder's story at Sky in the same manner in which he covered Ferrari at USPS.

 

[coinneach]

Sorry to interrupt this private tiff (and apologies if this point has been made)

But, reverting to topic, for all Sky bleat about riders right to confidentiality (which I agree with , BTW), I can't help thinking it would be seen as a good day to bury bad news.

So yes, perhaps Walsh is doing Sky's work for them.

On the other hand, if he is fed the story, he can hardly not report it, can he?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Walsh never covered the Leinder's story at Sky in the same manner in which he covered Ferrari at USPS.

In what manner was the way he covered the Ferrari/Leinders stories different?

 

[Benotti69]

In what manner was the way he covered the Ferrari/Leinders stories different?

Dont you remember? You mean the Ferarri story is not in your archive? Tsk.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Dont you remember? You mean the Ferarri story is not in your archive? Tsk.

Yes, I remember it.

That is the very reason I am asking you (again) in what manner was the way he covered the Ferrari/Leinders stories different?

So, rather than another deflection, please answer the question.

 

[Benotti69]

Yes, I remember it.

That is the very reason I am asking you (again) in what manner was the way he covered the Ferrari/Leinders stories different?

So, rather than another deflection, please answer the question.

Why dont you post both stories from your archive and let the posters see how well Walsh pursued the Ferrari story and equalled it with his journalistic pursuit of Leinders?

 

[sniper]

Yes, I remember it.

That is the very reason I am asking you (again) in what manner was the way he covered the Ferrari/Leinders stories different?

So, rather than another deflection, please answer the question.

are you for real?
walsh is on sky's payroll and sky just made full use of his services in order to achieve limited hangout.
it's clearcut, an abc, really, and yet there you are pretending it's not.

and while at it here you are giving new meaning to the word 'coverage'.
he didn't cover the leinders affair, not when it broke, nor in today's article.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Why dont you post both stories from your archive and let the posters see how well Walsh pursued the Ferrari story and equalled it with his journalistic pursuit of Leinders?

Because I am not the one who said:

Walsh never covered the Leinder's story at Sky in the same manner in which he covered Ferrari at USPS.

are you for real?
walsh is on sky's payroll and sky just made full use of his services in order to achieve limited hangout.
it's clearcut, an abc, really, and yet there you are pretending it's not.

and while at it here you are giving new meaning to the word 'coverage'.
he didn't cover the leinders affair, not when it broke, nor in today's article.

Hi Sniper,
How do you know Walsh is "on Skys payroll", and how much is he being paid.
thanks

 

[Benotti69]

Because I am not the one who said:

So your archive not up to it? Rather defend Walsh than prove he has not done his 'job' on Lenders.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So your archive not up to it? Rather defend Walsh than prove he has not done his 'job' on Lenders.

Please stop deflecting and simply back up what YOU posted, or withdraw or clarify your remarks.

 

[martinvickers]

If sky didnt know anything about Leinders past then how did they know about him in the first place? He just showed up one day when they needed a doctor?

De Jonge vouched for him.

 

[Benotti69]

Please stop deflecting and simply back up what YOU posted, or withdraw or clarify your remarks.

Walsh wrote a six-page feature about Armstrong's performances, his campaign against Christophe Bassons and about his association with Doctor Michele Ferrari.

Walsh did not write a six page feature on Wigans/Froome their meteoric rise from Grupetto to TdF winners podium using Geert Leinders.

 

[sniper]

Please stop deflecting and simply back up what YOU posted, or withdraw or clarify your remarks.

it's a majority vs. minority thing.
majority in here agree that walsh hasn't critically purchased the leinders story, and certainly not in the fashion in which he once purchased the ferrari story.
if you wanna back up that minority position and convince people, then you do carry a burden of proof.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

It's some kind of parliament now

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Walsh wrote a six-page feature about Armstrong's performances, his campaign against Christophe Bassons and about his association with Doctor Michele Ferrari.

Walsh did not write a six page feature on Wigans/Froome their meteoric rise from Grupetto to TdF winners podium using Geert Leinders.

A six page feature eh?
Did you read that feature or just spend a few minutes googling around and happen upon this article from Cycling Weekly?
Armstrong Tried to Bully Us.

One of the on-going untruths regarding the Lance Armstrong affair is this is a new story. Not here it isn't, 10 years ago David Walsh questioned Armstrong's performances in the pages of out sister publication, Cycle Sport.

In a six-page feature Walsh cast doubt on on the American's performances, his campaign against Christophe Bassons (who spoke out against drugs in 1999) and about Armstrong's association with Doctor Michele Ferrari.

 

[Benotti69]

It's some kind of parliament now

Dont get sucked in Zam, the tentacles of pedantism wont let go once they get you

 

[Benotti69]

A six page feature eh?
Did you read that feature or just spend a few minutes googling around and happen upon this article from Cycling Weekly?

Feature sitting in my archive Cant post here as it will activate the vortex.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

it's a majority vs. minority thing.
majority in here agree that walsh hasn't critically purchased the leinders story, and certainly not in the fashion in which he once purchased the ferrari story.
if you wanna back up that minority position and convince people, then you do carry a burden of proof.

Would that be the same "majority" who haven't actually read any of Walshs ST articles?

PS How much are Sky paying Walsh? Just in case you forgot I asked.

 

[Benotti69]

it's a majority vs. minority thing.
majority in here agree that walsh hasn't critically purchased the leinders story, and certainly not in the fashion in which he once purchased the ferrari story.
if you wanna back up that minority position and convince people, then you do carry a burden of proof.

Even Sky Fan Dim criticises Walsh.

Dave (Dim) ‏@dimspace 2h
@mewmewmew13 but Walsh, so desperate to maintain his reputation as being hard hitting has come out of it looking a bit stupid

When Sky fans start thinking Walsh is looking stupid something is up.