Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Dr. Maserati]

Red - I am going to snip to two relevant parts of your post, just to cut repetition:

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.

Well if everyone in cycling knew about Leinders past why was it a big deal when it finally broke in May of last year?

Unless he can prove or show that they did indeed know then he can only say what Sky have already said to him on the matter.
He is not writing in the Clinic.

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.

Very easily - because the most vocal in their criticism have not read Walshs articles.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Big MEH to Walsh article and Walsh.....

 

[gooner]

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?

Again this has to be addressed. Walsh questioned Brailsford on the decision to hire Leinders and it was printed it in the Sunday Times. You know this but choose to ignore it again.

 

[gooner]

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

Please explain why the Times were the first to cover the Leinders story and then Froome, Porte and motoman.

 

[gooner]

So, I read Walsh's piece, and I don't think it was damning for Sky at all. He parroted the zero tolerance policy thing and ignored the many examples other than Leinders where it has been conveniently breached. He painted both affairs as little more than innocent gaffes, really.

So it wasn't damning when he suggested Brailsford may have ignored the l'Equipe article which questioned JTL hugely.

 

[gooner]

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.

Totally agree. The articles are just interpreted to suit one's certain ways.

Pretty obvious now with some, that Walsh can do no right after this.

 

[gooner]

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.

Big difference. The Ferrari association was a secret one so when Walsh was about to break the story of course it was going to entail huge coverage over many pages. The Leinders association was public knowledge as he was on the payroll as an employee and only after de Rooy going public saying there was a team wide programme at Rabobank did it garner more attention. Hey he was even spotted at races in Sky gear. You make it sound like Leinders was freelancing similar to Ferrari.

Anyway, no way did Leinders hold the same influence and have the same reputation as Ferrari in the sport.

 

[bianchigirl]

Dr M, if everyone in cycling knew about Armstrong's past, why was it a big deal whe it finally broke? Personally would have everyone who's connected with the sport who is 'shocked' by revelations of doping thrown out on their ear as either too delicate or total hypocrites.

 

[Digger]

Re: Leinders...it stil shocks me how easy it was to find out the truth before last summer...I heard about Leinders before last summer 2012. Just out of curiosity I googled him...and there it was, a mention in an autobiography of a rider from Rabobank as far as I remember...Leinders used to measure his HCT after EPO.
So I agree with people here...for Sky to claim ignorance here is ridiculous.

 

[Digger]

Big difference. The Ferrari association was a secret one so when Walsh was about to break the story of course it was going to entail huge coverage over many pages. The Leinders association was public knowledge as he was on the payroll as an employee and only after de Rooy going public saying there was a team wide programme at Rabobank did it garner more attention. Hey he was even spotted at races in Sky gear. You make it sound like Leinders was freelancing similar to Ferrari.

Anyway, no way did Leinders hold the same influence and have the same reputation as Ferrari in the sport.

They both did similar things - managed transfusions, EPO, measured HCT etc. So that's a mute point.

 

[gooner]

They both did similar things - managed transfusions, EPO, measured HCT etc. So that's a mute point.

I'm not disputing what Leinders did. My point was in response to why Walsh had a 6 page write up in regards to Ferrari/Lance. The association was different as the link was kept secret from the public. Ferrari wasn't publicly on the USPS payroll in the same way Leinders was at Sky. Ferrari wasn't turning up to races with USPS gear on. That's why it was a big story at the time and why it covered many pages with Walsh disclosing the dates of when Lance visited him.

Leinders was more a Del Moral or Celaya figure at Rabobank but no way did he have the influence with riders across many teams over the years that Ferrari had. USPS/Lance still felt the need to work with Ferrari even when those two were on the payroll. This should tell you all you need to know about the impact of Ferrari in comparison to the others already named. That still doesn't make things better, Leinders still should be out of the sport.

 

[hrotha]

So it wasn't damning when he suggested Brailsford may have ignored the l'Equipe article which questioned JTL hugely.

No, because he protrayed it just as an honest mistake.

 

[gooner]

No, because he protrayed it just as an honest mistake.

Seemingly, Brailsford and his management team did not give much weight or were not aware of the doubts expressed in L’Equipe when that paper reported on Tiernan-Locke.

Walsh leaves open the possibility that they didn't take any notice of it even though they knew about the article.

 

[hrotha]

Walsh leaves open the possibility that they didn't take any notice of it even though they knew about the article.

Exactly. An honest error of judgment, which is what I said.

 

[gooner]

Perhaps the most strident sceptic was the L’Equipe journalist who covered those two races. After saying he was either a “champion or a chimera”, the writer asked: “What do his peers think? With the microphone open, not much. But with the tape recorder turned off, they express some deep doubts.”

An honest mistake to dismiss this. This is a criticism by Walsh if they indeed did ignore this with full knowledge of the piece, not Walsh saying it was a honest mistake of judgement. He definitely leaves this open as a possibility.

 

[sniper]

snipped for brevity.

could gooner and dr. mas address the points raised here by Dear Wiggo?

excellent post, Dear Wiggo. I'd go as far as to say the "theory" spin is plain evidence of the fact that David Walsh is a sell out.
You couldn't come up with such a spin by accident.
Especially if you realize that in essense Walsh is a quality thinker and journo, then you cannot claim that this is an accidental slip of the tongue by him. Clearly it's deliberate spin.

Indeed, striking how Freeman's "theory" conflicts with Brailsford's bilhardzia 'theory', and even more striking to see how Walsh swallows it uncritically and even gives it his own spin (by deliberately calling Freeman's story a "theory").

snipped for brevity.

superpost, flanders.
there really is little room for doubt.

gooner? dr. mas?
crickets...

 

[sniper]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

superpost, indeed.
there really is little room for doubt.

 

[gooner]

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 line you quoted by Walsh is 100% fact. No falsehood. He can't write that on Julich, no matter what you think. This is the Sunday Times not the clinic.

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.

Again nothing false about the part you quoted here. He's not under suspicion for anything during his time at Sky and Walsh never said that



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.



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?



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.



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.[/QUOTE]

 

[gooner]

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.

Do you have proof of this after the Vuelta in 2010? De Jongh endorsed his appointment. The stuff with Leinders only came out after de Rooy's comments in May 2012.

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.

Walsh was stating a fact in what you quoted. No falsehood in that. Walsh writes for the Sunday Times, he doesn't post in the clinic. You say this passage isn't the end of the world so you're nitpicking.

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.

Again. where is the falsehood? He hasn't performed this year and he's under investigation for his performances at Endura. Stop adding arms and legs to say Walsh said Sky were clean here.

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.

Funny you should say that.

David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST 29 Sep
@leguape Alex, you're right. Reckon letter was received Mon or Tues of last week. JTL pulled out of road race on Wednesday.

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?

JV has said on numerous occasions he doesn't particularly like them. He's not a fan of their ZTP approach. They are disliked for other reasons also. This from John Gadret:

John Gadret (Ag2r-LaMondiale) has claimed that Team Sky has few friends in the peloton. Speaking in a long interview in L'Equipe, the shaven-headed Frenchman also suggested that there would be little sympathy or support for Froome if something happened to him during the final stages of the Tour.

"All the riders have turned against them because they're rich and because they think control the peloton," Gadret is reported to have said.

"At the Tour de Bavière (Bayern-Rundfahrt) they blocked the road behind the breakaway. But I went to the front with them. At the moment it's our fault, we just need to put our skates on and things would be quickly sorted out."

Asked if Froome could signify a fresh start for the sport, Gadret replied: "In any case, if something happens to him tomorrow (in the future), he will not have any support…"

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tour-de-france-shorts-rain-on-its-way-no-friends-for-team-sky

 

[sniper]

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

Probably not.
But how does that affect the argument that Sky must have known about Leinders' role at Rabo and that Walsh ignores this?

 

[sniper]

snipped for brevity

it's a nobrainer, gooner, come to terms with it.
it's not about falsehood. it's about ignorance, complete lack of skepsis, and strong bias, by a journalist who previously showed no such traits. This has now been abundantly exposed in this thread, and i haven't seen any sort of convincing rebuttal by either you or dr. mas.
Like i said, and this goes for both Walsh and posters like you and dr. Mas: either you have an agenda, or you're wearing thick blinders.

 

[Benotti69]

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

I think Sky are either ahead of the other teams in doping, being able to maximise PEDS better than others with riders that respond the best to those PEDS or they have paid for people to turn a blind eye to their doping.

But Leinders worked for Sky from 2010 to 2012, they won the TdF in 2012, hardly uninstrumental when we know how important Docs are to teams.

Wiggans and Froome were grupetto fodder. We know that Ferrari was/is still working with riders yet Sky beat his clients. Was it Leinders? I dont know.

Does Leinders still work for Sky? Why not? It is not like there are the cyclingequivalent of the KGB following these guys. The Italians seem to have some who care to catch the riders doping.

But to answer your question, Ferrari has more GT wins to his 'credit' than Leinders. So Ferrari more instrumental, but Leinders is an important part of Sky's story and to try and dismiss him because he is not Ferrari does not wash with me.

Sky stated they would not touch these doctors with barge poles, Wiggins is on record as stating teams should be thrown out of races if there is a 1% chance of a team working with a Leinders.

Leinders is not a small fish. He ran Rabos program.

Walsh has not done his journalist work on Leinders or Sky.

 

[gooner]

it's a nobrainer, gooner, come to terms with it.
it's not about falsehood. it's about ignorance, complete lack of skepsis, and strong bias, by a journalist who previously showed no such traits. This has now been abundantly exposed in this thread, and i haven't seen any sort of convincing rebuttal by either you or dr. mas.
Like i said, and this goes for both Walsh and posters like you and dr. Mas: either you have an agenda, or you're wearing thick blinders.

You've got a good sense of humour. When I see yourself and Red taking issue with 100% facts from Walsh's piece, it's the likes of you and him come across with the agenda. Now tell where this false information here is. Don't be a politician and deflect, answer the question head on. The same goes for Red also.

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.

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.

+1, all of this of course.


but don't count on walsh pointing this out.


as brodeal also said walsh sh/could have called out Sky's signing of Locke when it went down.
Remember l'Equipe already explicitly questioned Locke's performances last year. We must apparently assume Walsh stopped reading l'Equipe in 2012.

Sniper, remember this from yesterday when you were throwing your weight around having a go at Walsh without reading the article. Just to refresh your memory, Walsh reference the l'Equipe article with extracts from it.

Would you care to retract your statement now?

Tongue tied maybe.

 

[Benotti69]

Again this has to be addressed. Walsh questioned Brailsford on the decision to hire Leinders and it was printed it in the Sunday Times. You know this but choose to ignore it again.

If you get the message out first you control that message. Simple Goebbels 101.

Please explain why the Times were the first to cover the Leinders story and then Froome, Porte and motoman.

See above.

Big difference. The Ferrari association was a secret one so when Walsh was about to break the story of course it was going to entail huge coverage over many pages. The Leinders association was public knowledge as he was on the payroll as an employee and only after de Rooy going public saying there was a team wide programme at Rabobank did it garner more attention. Hey he was even spotted at races in Sky gear. You make it sound like Leinders was freelancing similar to Ferrari.

Anyway, no way did Leinders hold the same influence and have the same reputation as Ferrari in the sport.

If Leinders was common knowledge what took Walsh so long to point out that Sky hired a doping doctor?

How do you know what the influence of Leinders was at Sky? Ferrari's reputation is backed by a lot GT wins. Of course his rep is not higher than Ferraris, but that does not lessen that a 'clean' team hired a doping doctor.

Just because Ferrari is the better PED doc does not matter in this equation. If you hire a doping doc in cycling there is only 1 reason, to enable doping. Whether he gets you the Ferrari levels of influence is neither here nor there as we are not discussing how many wins, doping is doping is doping.

 

[gooner]

If you get the message out first you control that message. Simple Goebbels 101.

If you're compromised to the point of being a sellout, you don't get the message out at all.

If Leinders was common knowledge what took Walsh so long to point out that Sky hired a doping doctor?

Everything changed after de Rooy's comments. Just because he exposed the Ferrari link to Lance doesn't mean he's capable of doing it with everyone else. It's not as simple as that.

How do you know what the influence of Leinders was at Sky?

I don't know, just like you don't either for certain. There is still a cloud over it. What I don't accept is Walsh hasn't questioned it or addressed it in his articles.

Ferrari's reputation is backed by a lot GT wins. Of course his rep is not higher than Ferraris, but that does not lessen that a 'clean' team hired a doping doctor.

Just because Ferrari is the better PED doc does not matter in this equation. If you hire a doping doc in cycling there is only 1 reason, to enable doping. Whether he gets you the Ferrari levels of influence is neither here nor there as we are not discussing how many wins, doping is doping is doping.

You made the comparison with Ferrari/Lance and Wiggins/Froome/Leinders, not me. See below.

I'm not disputing what Leinders did. My point was in response to why Walsh had a 6 page write up in regards to Ferrari/Lance. The association was different as the link was kept secret from the public. Ferrari wasn't publicly on the USPS payroll in the same way Leinders was at Sky. Ferrari wasn't turning up to races with USPS gear on. That's why it was a big story at the time and why it covered many pages with Walsh disclosing the dates of when Lance visited him.

Leinders was more a Del Moral or Celaya figure at Rabobank but no way did he have the influence with riders across many teams over the years that Ferrari had. USPS/Lance still felt the need to work with Ferrari even when those two were on the payroll. This should tell you all you need to know about the impact of Ferrari in comparison to the others already named. That still doesn't make things better, Leinders still should be out of the sport.