• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Page 42 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
sniper said:
ok, so
(2010 > ?)
2011 > 67 days
2012 > 44 days
= 111 days at least

This is what brailsford said:
If that's not deliberately wrongfooting the press&fans, i don't know what is.
It would have been nice at that interview Brailsford did at TA if someone asked if the 40 days was when.
Did Brailsford put the best spin on it - sure.

Still no idea what that has to with Walsh, who reported the facts.

I also dont see how this is news to you when you previously commented on it in thread at the time:
sniper said:
Infriggingdeed. where do the 40 days come from, when it used to be 80? how is a room full of journos letting him get away with that?
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Dr. Maserati said:
It would have been nice at that interview Brailsford did at TA if someone asked if the 40 days was when.
Did Brailsford put the best spin on it - sure.

Still no idea what that has to with Walsh, who reported the facts.

I also dont see how this is news to you when you previously commented on it in thread at the time:
Plenty of others do and do see so this might have more to do with your comprehension skills than with anything else? Just thinkin out loud here of course.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Yep, reporting is what DW is doing since he joined the Sky train.
His pieces on sky remind me of the vrijman report. I doubt he really writes all that himself or whether he just reproduces spin fed to him by team sky lawyers and pr department.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
sniper said:
Plenty of others do and do see so this might have more to do with your comprehension skills than with anything else? Just thinkin out loud here of course.
Well, as you started the day with an adhominen I would think that my comprehension skills are pretty spot on as your post has nothing to do with Walsh and the rehashing of stuff already discussed was merely to troll & bait.

But thats just me, you know, thinking out loud here of course.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Well, as you started the day with an adhominen I would think that my comprehension skills are pretty spot on as your post has nothing to do with Walsh and the rehashing of stuff already discussed was merely to troll & bait.

But thats just me, you know, thinking out loud here of course.
adhominem was unneccessary, apologies.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
One point where he looses out is he did not tweet even a vague reference to the Miley Cirus twearking thing, using your logic I assume this means he condones that behavior. This is unforgivable.
It's spelled twerking, not twearking.
 
May 10, 2009
3,654
0
0
Dr you say Walsh will spot disceprancies - well i have spoken to him and was shocked at the details he wasn't aware of...he hadn't been aware of Wiggins saying what he did about landis until i told him. Then Wiggins gave a version as to why he said it - he said he was just coming off the bus at the tour and was caught unawares...fair enough except that he said it in January at a press day...small example there but i feel walsh has let himself down with his lack of follow up questions.
I mean the obvious thing would be the actually see froome's blood values and not have to take the word of Fleeman.
 
Digger said:
Dr you say Walsh will spot disceprancies - well i have spoken to him and was shocked at the details he wasn't aware of...he hadn't been aware of Wiggins saying what he did about landis until i told him. Then Wiggins gave a version as to why he said it - he said he was just coming off the bus at the tour and was caught unawares...fair enough except that he said it in January at a press day...small example there but i feel walsh has let himself down with his lack of follow up questions.
I mean the obvious thing would be the actually see froome's blood values and not have to take the word of Fleeman.
Wiggos response was a disgrace. He spent 3 years defending and fanboying Armstrong and when Walsh asked him he just pretended that he said 1 good thing about lance "months" before the tour and that the reason was because he was scared to say anything bad about lance. Which is a strawman and not an explanation of why he said good things about lance.

I think it's legitimate to critisize Walsh for not calling him out on that. Dropped the ball.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Digger said:
Dr you say Walsh will spot disceprancies - well i have spoken to him and was shocked at the details he wasn't aware of...he hadn't been aware of Wiggins saying what he did about landis until i told him. Then Wiggins gave a version as to why he said it - he said he was just coming off the bus at the tour and was caught unawares...fair enough except that he said it in January at a press day...small example there but i feel walsh has let himself down with his lack of follow up questions.
I mean the obvious thing would be the actually see froome's blood values and not have to take the word of Fleeman.
I agree with you in part - but I also stand by that he will spot discrepancies in what he finds. That is why he has spoken to as many people at length and that is why he records the details.

Is he going to remember some interview that a person did before he (Walsh) followed Sky, nope.
As much as some like to portray it, Walsh is not a 'cycling journalist" so he will not remember every detail previously and will be playing catchup.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Dr. Maserati said:
...
As much as some like to portray it, Walsh is not a 'cycling journalist" so he will not remember every detail previously and will be playing catchup.
these "some" being sky and walsh in the first place.
 
May 10, 2009
3,654
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
I agree with you in part - but I also stand by that he will spot discrepancies in what he finds. That is why he has spoken to as many people at length and that is why he records the details.

Is he going to remember some interview that a person did before he (Walsh) followed Sky, nope.
As much as some like to portray it, Walsh is not a 'cycling journalist" so he will not remember every detail previously and will be playing catchup.
Which is my main criticism I have of him re: Sky...he simple doesn't have his homework done in the same way he had on other occasions. He has big time dropped the ball.
He said Sky using Pineapple flavoured water was a sign of marginal gains - anyone on here knows cyclists have been using this type of thing for decades.
I have always said if Walsh wanted to say Sky are clean, having asked them the tough questions, and the tough follow up questions, I can't really say much to that...but this year he has shown himself to be out of his depth.
Not asking the TUE question until the middle of July, and then accepting again the word of someone else...amazing.
 
May 10, 2009
3,654
0
0
The Hitch said:
Wiggos response was a disgrace. He spent 3 years defending and fanboying Armstrong and when Walsh asked him he just pretended that he said 1 good thing about lance "months" before the tour and that the reason was because he was scared to say anything bad about lance. Which is a strawman and not an explanation of why he said good things about lance.

I think it's legitimate to critisize Walsh for not calling him out on that. Dropped the ball.
I know for certain he wouldn't have said it to Wiggins at all, if he hadn't been told about that incident the day he interviewed Wiggins...to me that was an amazing thing to miss out on...it's fundamental to the Wiggins storu, the way he defended lance to the hilt and villfied landis.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Digger said:
Which is my main criticism I have of him re: Sky...he simple doesn't have his homework done in the same way he had on other occasions. He has big time dropped the ball.
He said Sky using Pineapple flavoured water was a sign of marginal gains - anyone on here knows cyclists have been using this type of thing for decades.
I have always said if Walsh wanted to say Sky are clean, having asked them the tough questions, and the tough follow up questions, I can't really say much to that...but this year he has shown himself to be out of his depth.
Not asking the TUE question until the middle of July, and then accepting again the word of someone else...amazing.
When you say he doesn't have his homework done as on other occasions I assume you mean LA - well it took him 2 years before he got on the Ferrari scent.

Also - the pineapple thing. See that is a misrepresentation of what Walsh actually said. That dilutes (pun intended) things and suggests that Walsh said it was (as you suggest) a marginal gain or something new that Sky invented.

He didn't he merely mentioned it as Skys "attention to detail", nothing more.

As for the TUE - how many journo's ask that question? And also how can he prove or suggest that Farrell is lying, you think the UCI will assist Walsh? Nope.

Again, it is something noted and recorded and may come up futher down the road.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
While each single thing walsh said or didn't say can be up for lengthy debate and is perhaps open for differing interpretations, the picture as a whole is in fact becoming quite compelling.
I appreciate dr. maserati coming up with excuses why walsh didn't ask this, didn't say that, overlooked X, ignored Y. But then you don't need all those caveats and disclaimers if you just assume he's become part of Sky's PR team.
Occams razor.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
sniper said:
doc, what you seem to be forgetting, ignoring or dismissing, is the fact that, while each single thing walsh said or didn't say is indeed up for debate and for different interpretations, the picture as a whole is actually quite compelling, and more than one poster in here agrees with me.
I appreciate you are coming up with excuses why he didn't ask this, didn't say that, overlooked X, ignored Y. But then you don't need all those caveats and disclaimers if you just assume he's become part of Sky's PR team.
Occams razor.
Ah, the appeal to other (unnamed) users, nice.

Well other people agree with me (see what i did there) and these people have good credit and actually have read what Walsh actually writes without having to read pastebin 6 months later or rely on peoples faulty (or biased like you) interpretation.

If Walsh is on the PR team why was Sir Dave angry?
Brailsford is understood to be angry details of the UCI probe were leaked into the public domain, insisting "confidentiality" was important while any rider was under investigation.
 
May 10, 2009
3,654
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
When you say he doesn't have his homework done as on other occasions I assume you mean LA - well it took him 2 years before he got on the Ferrari scent.

Also - the pineapple thing. See that is a misrepresentation of what Walsh actually said. That dilutes (pun intended) things and suggests that Walsh said it was (as you suggest) a marginal gain or something new that Sky invented.

He didn't he merely mentioned it as Skys "attention to detail", nothing more.

As for the TUE - how many journo's ask that question? And also how can he prove or suggest that Farrell is lying, you think the UCI will assist Walsh? Nope.

Again, it is something noted and recorded and may come up futher down the road.
Pineappple thing didn't even warrant mention - it's a nothing but he put it forth because it followed the narrative he wished to pursue.
As for TUE's, as Kimmage said, this is a question he should have asked at the start.
Well he said he knew lance was doping at Sestrieres...yet froome goes as fast and he believes him...there are alot of inconsistencies in his logic. He said he knew Ras and AC were doping in 2007 just by the speeds they were going. Again can we have some consistency here.

Sky are not a team that has come out just this year - you may disagree but the number of days leinders worked, something so small as that, he should have followed up and said 'you said x and now you are saying y.'

Why hasn't he asked for medical records on the TUE's? Or even say i asked bubt was refused...why hasn't he asked for blood values to be seen by him? He told me he would get anexpert to look at Wiggins' values from 2009, which many have an issue with...he failed to do so.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
sniper said:
While each single thing walsh said or didn't say can be up for lengthy debate and is perhaps open for differing interpretations, the picture as a whole is in fact becoming quite compelling.
I appreciate dr. maserati coming up with excuses why walsh didn't ask this, didn't say that, overlooked X, ignored Y. But then you don't need all those caveats and disclaimers if you just assume he's become part of Sky's PR team.
Occams razor.
Again, can you stop with the large edits and deleting of your posts.

I have no problem with corrections or minor clarifications. But it is ridiculous that you post something to which i am responding and then i find you have changed your mind (again).
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Again, can you stop with the large edits and deleting of your posts.

I have no problem with corrections or minor clarifications. But it is ridiculous that you post something to which i am responding and then i find you have changed your mind (again).
if you're in here, i assume you accept and respect the rules.

see what i did there?
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Digger said:
Pineappple thing didn't even warrant mention - it's a nothing but he put it forth because it followed the narrative he wished to pursue.
As for TUE's, as Kimmage said, this is a question he should have asked at the start.
Well he said he knew lance was doping at Sestrieres...yet froome goes as fast and he believes him...there are alot of inconsistencies in his logic. He said he knew Ras and AC were doping in 2007 just by the speeds they were going. Again can we have some consistency here.

Sky are not a team that has come out just this year - you may disagree but the number of days leinders worked, something so small as that, he should have followed up and said 'you said x and now you are saying y.'
See, you think the pineapple thing is not worth mentioning (Id broadly agree) - and then add that it is done so "because it followed the narrative he wished to pursue.

No Dig - lets be clear, thats a strawman and a narrative you wish to pursue.
Walsh is writing for a main stream paper in their sports section, not a cycling publication.

Walsh has given his explanations on Sestriere, indeed I have often seen them twisted (did he in fact laugh, or not laugh) - for me its about up there with twearking/twerking.

Walsh has qualified his thoughts on Froome and qualified his thoughts on others, but many prefer to ignore that and paint in black and white.

I do not agree with his ultimate assessment of Froome - but ultimatley I have nothing to suggest that he is wrong let alone being part of some PR BS.


Digger said:
Why hasn't he asked for medical records on the TUE's? Or even say i asked bubt was refused...why hasn't he asked for blood values to be seen by him? He told me he would get anexpert to look at Wiggins' values from 2009, which many have an issue with...he failed to do so.
Do you know he hasn't asked, or are you assuming?

Regardless, he is not a medical expert, nor has he any way of verifying what he would get. I would not expect anything in the medical files to show outright doping.
 
Mar 25, 2013
3,762
0
0
Walsh only referred to the laughter in the press room after Sestriere. He always pointed to Lance's treatment of Bassons as the turning point. He has been entirely consistent on this and it was no surprise to him unfairly ridiculed for him saying so after Froome's performance on AX3 Domaines. He says this exact thing before his time at Sky in SDS.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Dr. Maserati said:
No Dig - lets be clear, thats a strawman and a narrative you wish to pursue.
Walsh is writing for a main stream paper in their sports section, not a cycling publication.
you can't just continue saying everybody's wrong and just hope it sticks.
you actually need arguments, doc.
Digger here is spot on.
 
May 10, 2009
3,654
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
See, you think the pineapple thing is not worth mentioning (Id broadly agree) - and then add that it is done so "because it followed the narrative he wished to pursue.

No Dig - lets be clear, thats a strawman and a narrative you wish to pursue.
Walsh is writing for a main stream paper in their sports section, not a cycling publication.

Walsh has given his explanations on Sestriere, indeed I have often seen them twisted (did he in fact laugh, or not laugh) - for me its about up there with twearking/twerking.

Walsh has qualified his thoughts on Froome and qualified his thoughts on others, but many prefer to ignore that and paint in black and white.

I do not agree with his ultimate assessment of Froome - but ultimatley I have nothing to suggest that he is wrong let alone being part of some PR BS.



Do you know he hasn't asked, or are you assuming?

Regardless, he is not a medical expert, nor has he any way of verifying what he would get. I would not expect anything in the medical files to show outright doping.
Re: asking or not asking i made it clear he needed to say he asked, if he did ask.
I never said the medical records would show doping - so that's strawman.

Qualified his thoughtso n Froome - by saying we would all be proved wrong by thinking he doped.


The pineappple thing should not have been mentioned by walsh as it's been done for years (most people would not consider mentioning it as it's been used by their teams - it's so common, but Walsh had a narrative and was so badly informed, he didn't even know this...that clear enough?...so to say it is an example of attention to detail is folllowing a narrative that this team is always looking for the smaller details - and in the context of that particular article which yes i did read, there were other examples cited...even Kimmage said on Irish radio it was nonsenical of Walsh to mention it.


Re: Walsh on Sestriere - doesn't matter whether he laughed...i never saw anywhere that he laughed himself...he said he knew from that point though...and if that's not enough..he used speeds to ascertain that Ras and AC were doping in 2007.
 
May 10, 2009
3,654
0
0
gooner said:
Walsh only referred to the laughter in the press room after Sestriere. He always pointed to Lance's treatment of Bassons as the turning point. He has been entirely consistent on this and it was no surprise to him unfairly ridiculed for him saying so after Froome's performance on AX3 Domaines. He says this exact thing before his time at Sky in SDS.
Yes Bassons but Sestriere was another big moment - BUT he used speeds re: Alberto and Ras...so you can't have it both ways...when Froome is climbing that fast...Walsh just ignored these speeds.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS