Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Benotti69]

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

Is Walsh's salary common knowledge? Sky = Murdoch = Sunday Times.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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

The vortex is merely an ad hominem used to deflect.

You made a claim, you are the one who is hijacking the thread by your continued refusal to back up your claims.
I have every right to ask you back up what you said and will continue to do so.
So, if you aren't merely trolling - than post and link what you have.
Thanks.

 

[Benotti69]

The vortex is merely an ad hominem used to deflect.

You made a claim, you are the one who is hijacking the thread by your continued refusal to back up your claims.
I have every right to ask you back up what you said and will continue to do so.
So, if you aren't merely trolling - than post and link what you have.
Thanks.

The vortex is humour or did you have that removed when you upgraded those pedant implants?

Sorry doc but my archive is not digital. Hard copy only. Dont have a flat bed scanner.

But no doubt you can post your link so those late to the sport can read Walsh the journalist rather than Mr Sky PR.

 

[hrotha]

Dr Mas is asking Benotti to post a link to that feature? But just last night he was telling us to go buy the Sunday Times if we wanted to read Walsh's full piece.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The vortex is humour or did you have that removed when you upgraded those pedant implants?

Sorry doc but my archive is not digital. Hard copy only. Dont have a flat bed scanner.

But no doubt you can post your link so those late to the sport can read Walsh the journalist rather than Mr Sky PR.

Why don't you post the publication, date, article Headline and page numbers?

 

[MatParker117]

Is Walsh's salary common knowledge? Sky = Murdoch = Sunday Times.

To be pedantic The Sunday Times and Team Sky are under different corporate umbrella's.

 

[Benotti69]

Why don't you post the publication, date, article Headline and page numbers?

I am not at home right now. Why dont you post the link? It'll end this 'tít for tat' that will get us banned by those over zealous mods that lurk in the shadows of every post.

 

[Benotti69]

To be pedantic The Sunday Times and Team Sky are under different corporate umbrella's.

Murdoch's corporate umbrellas and sorry to hear of your condition.

 

[the sceptic]

jesus christ

 

[Benotti69]

jesus christ

a well known pedantist.

 

[The Hitch]

Even Sky Fan Dim criticises Walsh.



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

What? you linked a tweet from 1 sky fan, who thinks differently to most sky fans.

That proves sky fans are turning on walsh? Why would sky fans turn on walsh unless he started criticising Sky?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Dr Mas is asking Benotti to post a link to that feature? But just last night he was telling us to go buy the Sunday Times if we wanted to read Walsh's full piece.

Because Benotti claimed the feature was sitting in his archives.....

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

Also, I said i would not repost the full article - but I certainly gave out information that was contained in the article.
Something Benotti is refusing to do.

 

[sniper]

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?

but don't worry. walsh has 'quizzed' all sky doctors, sky riders, and sky managers, and has been assured that nothing untoward has happened whilst leinders was at sky.
so i guess that settles it.

 

[Benotti69]

What? you linked a tweet from 1 sky fan, who thinks differently to most sky fans.

That proves sky fans are turning on walsh? Why would sky fans turn on walsh unless he started criticising Sky?

Not just any Sky fan, but Dim.

 

[Benotti69]

Because Benotti claimed the feature was sitting in his archives.....

Also, I said i would not repost the full article - but I certainly gave out information that was contained in the article.
Something Benotti is refusing to do.

I may be good but i cannot teleport to it.

Still refusing to post a link to it that you have in order to keep dragging this out?

No more vortexing.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I may be good but i cannot teleport to it.

Still refusing to post a link to it that you have in order to keep dragging this out?

No more vortexing.

How am I supposed to link to something when you are the one who made the claim? And then you refuse to back it up or even give a reference to what it is?

You have posted 14 times since you made your claim, I hope it is not a deflection tactic to hide what you wrote earlier, so here is what you posted.

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

 

[BroDeal]

Crikey! 50 miles in the rain and this thing is still going.

 

[sniper]

and froome pre-2011-vuelta passport data?
sky don't publish them, but walsh don't care.
after all Sky doctor Freeman himself has looked at all froome's data and assured Walsh that there is nothing to see. And so Walsh moves on.

He [Walsh] spoke to Richard Freeman, one of Team Sky's doctors, about Froome's dramatic improvement in the 2011 Vuelta a Espana and was convinced by the medical expert's theory.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling...-froome-unfair-journalist-20130722-2qf3v.html

 

[The Hitch]

Not just any Sky fan, but Dim.

Dim was criticising Walsh long ago so your theory makes no sense.

 

[sniper]

Crikey! 50 miles in the rain and this thing is still going.

Agreed.
this is a nobrainer.
Walsh is either a sellout or he has lost his capacity to think straight.
Whichever it is its a darn pity

 

[Dear Wiggo]

and froome pre-2011-vuelta passport data?
sky don't publish them, but walsh don't care.
after all Sky doctor Freeman himself has looked at all froome's data and assured Walsh that there is nothing to see. And so Walsh moves on.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling...-froome-unfair-journalist-20130722-2qf3v.html

Interesting read.

He spoke to Richard Freeman, one of Team Sky's doctors, about Froome's dramatic improvement in the 2011 Vuelta a Espana and was convinced by the medical expert's theory.

DWalsh --> Richard Freeman: how did Froome improve so dramatically?
(Freeman & Walsh discuss something)
DWalsh: I accept this theory.

Next up are quotes from Freeman. In the context of the piece, this should be the theory, right? The thing that convinced Walsh?

"I was confused because Chris hadn't performed with this consistency for the team and I wondered how he'd done it," Freeman told Walsh.

"Before I could be satisfied, I spent two weeks re-examining all of his blood samples from his two seasons in our team and looked at all the information in his biological passport.

"What I wanted was to compare blood results from the Vuelta with the blood tests he'd done previously to see if there were changes. There weren't.

"His blood values remained the same and whatever the reasons for him riding consistently in that Vuelta, in my opinion it wasn't down to him doing things he shouldn't have done."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling...-journalist-20130722-2qf3v.html#ixzz2gKSNUXCQ

He was confused, coz Chris had changed big time. He looked at blood values and nothing had changed while at the team. Nothing about before the team.

What strikes me, however, is the theory of how Froome improved (the topic of conversation) is not evident. Maybe it's just the wording and what Walsh meant was - I asked Freeman if Froome had doped, and his theory convinced me. But then it's not a theory, is it? It's fact: the blood is the same the whole way through, there are no indications of doping.

Surely an analysis of blood profiles would be concrete, not theoretical? The tells of Hgb increases in GTs and suppressed retics pretty much paint the bad picture. An expert should know that.

Team Sky chief Davis Brailsford told Walsh that he thought Froome's progress in 2011 was in part related to his successfully managing his bilharzia, a debilitating condition caused by a parasite that attacks red blood cells.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling...-journalist-20130722-2qf3v.html#ixzz2gKTwuKtT

The very next bit is Brailsford saying Froome can now manage his Badhzilla better. But if the blood values haven't changed (Freeman's "theory"), it would appear Badhzilla wasn't affecting his blood anyway.

We finish with the following uninformative bit:

Walsh also quizzed Sky's chief doctor, Alan Farrell, about therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs) which have been one route taken by cyclists seeking unethical advantages.

They claim a medical reason for needing a banned corticosteroid, persuade the team doctor to apply for it and try to beat the system that way.

But Farrell told Walsh: "I've been with the team since April last year, almost 16 months. Applications for TUEs come from me and in my time, we have applied for two TUEs."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling...-journalist-20130722-2qf3v.html#ixzz2gKUBMeBA

1. Only 2 TUEs in 16 months for the entire team seems incredible, but ok.
2. No indication if both TUEs were for Froome or not - there's absolutely no useful information pertaining to the question: does Froome (subject of the article) have TUEs.

Apologies if this has all been covered before.

 

[red_flanders]

People think Walsh is on the bandwagon because he simply misses obvious issues or misrepresents the real state of things, and he seems to have blinders on in regard to SKY and not others. Pretty simple. This article is more of the same, uneven coverage. He makes good points and misses giant red flags while misrepresenting facts.

Team Sky have been in the vanguard of the fight against doping in cycling and operate a “zero tolerance” policy against anyone with a doping conviction or known to have been involved in doping. Last year the team’s reputation was damaged by the news that they had employed Geert Leinders, a Belgian doctor, not knowing that he had a shady past.

He has no way of knowing they "didn't know" about Leinders and frankly it's silly to think they didn't. Everyone in cycling knew where he worked and the accusations against him. He could say they "claimed not to know" as even a modicum of investigation would have revealed Leinders as suspicious.

Flatly stating they "have been in the vanguard of the fight against doping" also not a fact, but his opinion. There are enough questions around Sky that I would think a less biased reporter would say they "consistently and repeatedly claim/state to be anti-doping", or something along those lines. To flatly state that they are in the vanguard reveals bias at the least and for many, blinders.

Late last year two members of Sky’s backroom team, Steven de Jongh and Bobby Julich, admitted past involvement in doping and had to leave the team.

How is it that I and everyone I know assumes or STRONGLY suspected Julich was doping and SKY and Walsh act like it was news when he admitted? Not the end of the world this statement, but still part of what reads like an act.

The irony for Team Sky is that according to what The Sunday Times has learnt, Tiernan-Locke’s suspicious values relate to the final four months of last year when he was riding for Endura, a UCI Continental team. He has performed disappointingly for Team Sky and been unable to reproduce the form that won him a contract.

Now this reads well and does in fact support the idea that JTL cleaned up his act when he joined SKY, which does support the idea that SKY don't run a dirty team. Reasonable.

Shortly before informing his fans of his non-participation in the world road race, Tiernan-Locke received a letter from the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) requesting him to explain suspicious numbers in his blood values over the past 12 months. The UCI only instigates this kind of investigation against a rider when it believes the divergence in blood values is too great to ignore.

Also reasonable to throw suspicion on the real reason JTL pulled out. And good not to state it as fact even though it's obvious what really happened. Report and let the reader decide. Well done.

For Team Sky this controversy is both embarrassing and damaging. With their “zero tolerance” policy on doping, which means no one with any kind of doping past can work with the team, Sky have taken the moral high ground in professional cycling. This hasn’t made them the most popular team in the peloton.

Hmmm. Well, many people with doping pasts have worked for the team and have done so for a long time before outing themselves or being outed by others. So to state they have taken the moral high ground is a conclusion stated as fact which isn't supported. Another conclusion would be they hire who they want to hire, doper or not, because everyone in the sport is tainted. When they get called on it they throw these people under the bus. To me that is more in line with the facts and timelines, but this is not mentioned or considered? Why? Why is the pro-SKY explanation and party line offered as fact? The reason they are not the most popular team is quite likely because they are hypocritical, not because they're anti-doping, yet Walsh suggests it's their clean stance which does not endear them. He has reached conclusions that the facts do NOT necessarily support. Is anyone really surprised people react to this?

But for a team so opposed to doping and averse to being associated with any rider or staff member accused of doping, it might be considered surprising that they signed the British rider. The team had already been through the mill with Dr Geert Leinders, the Belgian doctor who arrived in Manchester in October 2010 for an interview with Team Sky. He was interviewed by Dr Steve Peters and Dr Richard Freeman, two of its backroom staff. “I could have grilled him and grilled but when someone assures you that he has not been involved in doping, that doesn’t seem appropriate,” Peters subsequently said.

But Sky’s recruitment process wasn’t sufficiently rigorous and Leinders’ doping past would resurface and temporarily damage the team’s reputation.

Well, there are just a whole lotta issues there, aren't there? It starts off well, with what appears to be skepticism about the process, but lets them off the hook stating the "process wasn't sufficiently rigorous". Sorry, I just can't buy that. I certainly can't see anyone simply accepting that rather ridiculous story about "when someone assures you". He has not ever probed on this garbage and in this article again repeats it as if it was a legit explanation. Again, more questions about his objectivity.

Now Brailsford and Team Sky must wait to see if their recruitment processes have again been deficient.

Ugh. While legit, they do need to do this, it simply repeats what I think is a lie that the issue with Leinders was the "process". Sorry, I can't believe any informed person in cycling did not know who Leinders was. I'm referring to SKY not Walsh. "Gee, we asked him and he said he wasn't a doping doc". Uh, OK.

So while I can't bury Walsh for every statement I think there are serious questions about his credibility and bias on this issue. How can anyone really criticize those who are skeptical of Walsh? How is this article proof that he's not SKY's *****? It's not.

 

[Race Radio]

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

Do you think Leinders was as instrumental to Sky's success as Ferrari was to USPS?

 

[the sceptic]

Good post flanders.

Everything Walsh writes or tweets oozes of pr campaign and damage control.

 

[red_flanders]

Good post flanders.

Everything Walsh writes or tweets oozes of pr campaign and damage control.

Thanks for the compliment. I would disagree that everything he writes comes off that way, there is good info and good reporting there. But there are way too many statements that do come off that way. He's at best doing a poor job of reporting, probably biased and at worst an unwilling shill. I see no evidence of intentional damage control. Just my view, but jeez, to proclaim this article as evidence he's not their *****? Fail.