Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[pmcg76]

I like conjecture as much as most. Some I agree with. Some I don't. There's a lot of conjecture at the (in my view) less plausible end of the scale relating to Wiggo, hence I tend to comment on it. My basic point is that the UCI and cycling were dodgy long before Lance arrived on the scene.

So what do you think is the most likely reason for the UCI's rule change in 1994?

There were also rumours at the time that after Obree went "off message" following his very brief pro career in 1993 that the UCI were after him, as it was not good to have riders talking about doping. I'm not sure whether this portrays the UCI in a better or worse light than my "Pinarello Theory".

Obree's brief pro career was 95 not 93 but nice of you to follow the clinic nuts in twisting facts to suit your agenda. When did Indurain go for the record, I think it was late 94 or 95.

I would say the UCI were not happy about two amateur's (one completely unknown, Obree) smashing the hour record which was supposedly an elite record. I think they thought that the record was becoming more about bike technology and technique rather than ability. I think some unknown Italian amateur almost beat the record as well using the Obree position.

I have no doubt UCI were not corruption free pre-Armstrong but I don't think they ever had the same relationship with other cyclists as they had with Armstrong. His Lanceness simply dwarfed all other cyclists so of course they wanted to protect him more than others.

 

[RownhamHill]

I would say the UCI were not happy about two amateur's (one completely unknown, Obree) smashing the hour record which was supposedly an elite record. I think they thought that the record was becoming more about bike technology and technique rather than ability. I think some unknown Italian amateur almost beat the record as well using the Obree position.

Sorry I'm struggling here, how is this theory different to the Pinarello theory above? Both seem to suggest the UCI cynically changed the rules so that unknown amateur rider/manufacturers couldn't make the pro-peloton (both riders and manufacturers) look silly.

And, surely it's more corrupt if the governing body had so internalised it's role in promoting the needs and image of the pros, that it took this action spontaneously with no lobbying from anyone in the professional ranks? Isn't that the ultimate demonstration of power, when you don't even have to ask for the things you want, people just offer them to you anyway.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Obree's brief pro career was 95 not 93 but nice of you to follow the clinic nuts in twisting facts to suit your agenda. When did Indurain go for the record, I think it was late 94 or 95.

Indurain got the Hour record in Sept 1994, beating Obree's mark from April that year.

Re the timing of Obree's pro career, I'll actually stick with my original theory that it was Pinarello cosying up to the UCI that brought about the first ban. It's nearly 20 years ago, and it's easy to confuse timing of events.

As an aside, it's impressive of Obree to have two riding positions banned in close succession. He knew about marginal gains, that's for sure!

There was something distinctly odd about the timing of the ban in 1994, the day before the World Champs. The UCI most definitely did not want Obree crashing their party and it must have been sweet for Obree when he won the WCs the year after with Verbruggen track-side.

I have no doubt UCI were not corruption free pre-Armstrong.

That's a relief!

 

[sniper]

Sky has attempted to redress the negative press that has overshadowed their Tour de France success by granting journalist David Walsh to an ‘access all areas’ pass for the 2013 season. Walsh wrote important books about doping at US Postal before penning Seven Deadly Sins: My Pursuit of Lance Armstrong last year.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hayman-refuses-to-discuss-geert-leinders

not sure what to make of this, but it smells fishy. Wonder what's in it for Walsh. Keeping his job, perhaps? Or a nice bonus?
In my humble view, Walsh lost a lot of credibility when he said he believes Sky are clean because Vaughters says so.
I don't think he's independent wrt Sky.

 

[Benotti69]

I am willing to give Walsh the benefit of the doubt for now and give him time to have a good look and ask some hard questions of the head honchos at Sky concerning Leinders, Mick Barry, Yates etc and their so called transparency.

Walsh interviewed a young 21 year old Armstrong and was impressed and wrote a positive article, but as we know that opinion changed.

Give Walsh some time.

 

[cineteq]

- "Sky has the biggest budget, so, I think, it's natural they will get the best riders"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ4tyw3t-Pk#t=4m25s

Did he really believe this? This is the statement I have the most problem with.

 

[martinvickers]

Indurain got the Hour record in Sept 1994, beating Obree's mark from April that year.

Re the timing of Obree's pro career, I'll actually stick with my original theory that it was Pinarello cosying up to the UCI that brought about the first ban. It's nearly 20 years ago, and it's easy to confuse timing of events.

As an aside, it's impressive of Obree to have two riding positions banned in close succession. He knew about marginal gains, that's for sure!

There was something distinctly odd about the timing of the ban in 1994, the day before the World Champs. The UCI most definitely did not want Obree crashing their party and it must have been sweet for Obree when he won the WCs the year after with Verbruggen track-side.



That's a relief!

It's odd to remember a time when the UCI, or at least it's head bods, were pretty obviously pretty anti-GB. Don't think they took at all well to the 'scientific/engineering' approach from Obree and Boardman - probably felt it ruined the romanticism of the sport or something. Now of course, that 'scientific' approach, unicorn or not, is the would-be saviour of the sport...oh, times change, don't they...

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

It's odd to remember a time when the UCI, or at least it's head bods, were pretty obviously pretty anti-GB. Don't think they took at all well to the 'scientific/engineering' approach from Obree and Boardman - probably felt it ruined the romanticism of the sport or something. Now of course, that 'scientific' approach, unicorn or not, is the would-be saviour of the sport...oh, times change, don't they...

UCI/IOC had all the scientific needs at that time, Conconi was working on the E-test. What is Brit Cycling working on now? Aicar test perhaps? You know, a study on the effects of Aicar on amateur cyclists?

Did he really believe this? This is the statement I have the most problem with.

That is why they got Cataldo this year, he is the best.

 

[sniper]

- "Sky has the biggest budget, so, I think, it's natural they will get the best riders"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ4tyw3t-Pk#t=4m25s

Did he really believe this? This is the statement I have the most problem with.

Walsh is all over the place in that interview. Sorry Benotti69, but imo he's lost it. I hope he proves me wrong though.

 

[martinvickers]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hayman-refuses-to-discuss-geert-leinders

not sure what to make of this, but it smells fishy. Wonder what's in it for Walsh. Keeping his job, perhaps? Or a nice bonus?
In my humble view, Walsh lost a lot of credibility when he said he believes Sky are clean because Vaughters says so.
I don't think he's independent wrt Sky.

1. Pretty clearly Sky have brought down a PR ban - a la Michael Barry - now's the time for Walshy to get involved.

2. If Heyman signed the infamous form, as we must assume he did, Sky must be giving him the dirty eye right now.

3. When anyone in this forum has done a tenth as much for anti-doping as Walshy, they get to throw stones - he's got just as much cred as Kimmage, and considerably better investigative skills.

And people need to be prepared to accept their hunches can be wrong. Walsh is not measured by whether he gives you the answer you want or not.

And for the record, that includes me. If he finds something genuinely dodgy, i hope he screams it to the world, and that bloody team is kicked out.

 

[martinvickers]

UCI/IOC had all the scientific needs at that time, Conconi was working on the E-test. What is Brit Cycling working on now? Aicar test perhaps? You know, a study on the effects of Aicar on amateur cyclists?

I think you misunderstand my use of the word scientific - it wasn't a euphemism

 

[horsinabout]

- "Sky has the biggest budget, so, I think, it's natural they will get the best riders"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ4tyw3t-Pk#t=4m25s

Did he really believe this? This is the statement I have the most problem with.

I wonder how they got Walsh to say all that in the video.....
waterboarding perhaps.......his bleeps in a nutcracker....an elbow in the groin region?

Perhaps he phoned his dad and said, dad you can't do it without doping, to which his father replied, well why did you go after LA then. Walsh, for the thrill of the chase father, Come home son your time is done here. No father, I'm getting paid way too much..

Is he just another Philistine..

 

[blackcat]

I think you misunderstand my use of the word scientific - it wasn't a euphemism

Walsh does not believe Wiggins is on the up. he said as much in an email. i wish i had it to crtl C ctrl P.

We are going back to his 2009? Giro with Garmin. when he only came tio ten, or early teens.

to think Walsh believes Wiggins is risible.

Question now is, what ethics light does this shine on Walsh?

 

[Benotti69]

Walsh is all over the place in that interview. Sorry Benotti69, but imo he's lost it. I hope he proves me wrong though.

It would be stupid of Walsh to start attacking Sky now when he has gained 'full' access. Softly softly catchy monkey is what I think is happening. Walsh can get a job in any sports department so he is not worried about his job.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

1. Pretty clearly Sky have brought down a PR ban - a la Michael Barry - now's the time for Walshy to get involved.

2. If Heyman signed the infamous form, as we must assume he did, Sky must be giving him the dirty eye right now.

3. When anyone in this forum has done a tenth as much for anti-doping as Walshy, they get to throw stones - he's got just as much cred as Kimmage, and considerably better investigative skills.

And people need to be prepared to accept their hunches can be wrong. Walsh is not measured by whether he gives you the answer you want or not.

And for the record, that includes me. If he finds something genuinely dodgy, i hope he screams it to the world, and that bloody team is kicked out.

I never get this 'people need to' argument. 'People' come up with their own criteria. And while i agree that people should accept their hunches can be wrong, what happens if Walsh is simply wrong?
Quite simply, I do not want Walsh, PK or anyone to tell me that rider X or team B is doping, I want them to continue to ask tough questions. Let 'people' decide.
And to be fair to both DW & PK that is exactly what they do. That is why they are credible.

To the blue - again, it's not like Walsh works in a lab or uses CSI.
He is a journalist - he is reliant on good sources of information. And of course his reputation means he gets lots of information.

 

[mattghg]

When anyone in this forum has done a tenth as much for anti-doping as Walshy, they get to throw stones - he's got just as much cred as Kimmage, and considerably better investigative skills.

This.

It would be stupid of Walsh to start attacking Sky now when he has gained 'full' access. Softly softly catchy monkey is what I think is happening. Walsh can get a job in any sports department so he is not worried about his job.

This too.

 

[blackcat]

but Walsh called it as he saw it on Armstrong.

And he alluded to it in an email conversation I had. but has not gone on the record with this Wiggins assumption.

he just needs to give a nod and a wink.

like, these are "not marginal gains. these are some astronomical improvements, heretofore not considered possible from a rider who previously could not climb".

nod

wink

not overt points for defamation. you wedge wiggins. if he wants to make a case, there will be a greater spotlight on the implausibility of his career ascent.

 

[armchairclimber]

So much wishful thinking.

 

[Wingmanrob]

Well I guess I should make my first ever post....

I was at a lecture in Portsmouth on Monday, conducted by David Walsh. During the Q&A he was asked about his views on Sky and Wiggins and he said he had an element of doubt about the results but not enough to make an accusation and had no concrete proof that anything was amiss. He did go onto say that his position as a writer for a News Corporation newspaper didn't restrict his reporting on Sky and he wouldn't hesitate to call out Wiggins if he found out he was on the juice.
He also confirmed he'll be in the SKY bus for this years TDF and will be following the team closely.

 

[sniper]

Well I guess I should make my first ever post....

I was at a lecture in Portsmouth on Monday, conducted by David Walsh. During the Q&A he was asked about his views on Sky and Wiggins and he said he had an element of doubt about the results but not enough to make an accusation and had no concrete proof that anything was amiss. He did go onto say that his position as a writer for a News Corporation newspaper didn't restrict his reporting on Sky and he wouldn't hesitate to call out Wiggins if he found out he was on the juice.
He also confirmed he'll be in the SKY bus for this years TDF and will be following the team closely.

Thanks. Good post. What was the lecture about, if you don't mind me asking?

An "element of doubt"? Did he mention Leinders?

He did go onto say that his position as a writer for a News Corporation newspaper didn't restrict his reporting on Sky

That's the problem. It most definitely does restrict his reporting on Sky.

Walsh should start asking questions about Leinders. Renewed. As long as he doesn't, I'll be forced to conclude he's on the bandwagon.

 

[Arnout]

Possibly not his reporting but the amount of his reporting that gets publicized.

 

[Parrulo]

Well I guess I should make my first ever post....

I was at a lecture in Portsmouth on Monday, conducted by David Walsh. During the Q&A he was asked about his views on Sky and Wiggins and he said he had an element of doubt about the results but not enough to make an accusation and had no concrete proof that anything was amiss. He did go onto say that his position as a writer for a News Corporation newspaper didn't restrict his reporting on Sky and he wouldn't hesitate to call out Wiggins if he found out he was on the juice.
He also confirmed he'll be in the SKY bus for this years TDF and will be following the team closely.

are we supposed to believe that? if any of my employees did anything to trash my credibility i would want his head on a plate for dinner and the rest of his body saved for the next business meeting. highly doubtful that murdoch doesn't think the same. people don't become so successful by being soft and letting stuff happen

 

[Wingmanrob]

Thanks. Good post. What was the lecture about, if you don't mind me asking?

An "element of doubt"? Did he mention Leinders?


That's the problem. It most definitely does restrict his reporting on Sky.

Walsh should start asking questions about Leinders. Renewed. As long as he doesn't, I'll be forced to conclude he's on the bandwagon.

It was a talk about his book and doping in cycling largely from when he became involved with the Armstrong story. It was a talk arranged by Portsmouth University.

Yeah he did mention Leinders but not in any great detail, also mentioned Tenerife too. But he was pressed on the conflict on interest and he was adament that he's got free reign. I also cant imagine that a reporter with his reputation would risk ruining it by working for a company where his reporting was restricted. He'd lose all credibility.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

People, David Walsh is no longer dependend of his newspaper job. Get real. No bandwagon. Pro cycling teams are scared of him. As they should. He connects real dots. Real people/cyclists talk to him.

 

[Wingmanrob]

People, David Walsh is no longer dependend of his newspaper job. Get real. No bandwagon. Pro cycling teams are scared of him. As they should. He connects real dots. Real people/cyclists talk to him.

Exactly.

And by not reporting he'd risk ruining the credibility of News Corporation most respected newspapers. The Sky team isn't owned by Sky, just bankrolled by them.