Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[elduggo]

Walsh is going on what many at Sky told him at the time. I think there is no doubt there was some Irish fans who behaved like this. This after the apology:

no there wasn't. I was there. Don't make a statement about something you have no idea about.

 

[elduggo]

That was based "on multiple conversations" with people at Sky. Read the ST piece and what Walsh said about Alan Farrell speaking to Irish fans the next day. The Irish fans tried to play it off on the French but Porte after Walsh's apology said it wasn't them. I think he would know a French accent if he heard one. I'm sure there was many Irish fans who behaved accordingly but from what has been said on this, I definitely think there was a section of Irish fans that indeed did do this.

no there wasn't. The fans Farrell spoke to were the Lakeside Wheelers, who knew him

Did you read the stickybottle retort from these guys? I can back up everything they said in it as I was next to them on the alpe.

Please don't make statements like the above when you clearly have no idea what happened that day.

 

[thehog]

no there wasn't. I was there. Don't make a statement about something you have no idea about.

Thank-you.

Walsh should have printed a retraction or at least asked for comment from the Corner 10 brigade before slipping the knife in.

Porte also should clam down a little. To readily wanting to beat up on people. The Quintana comment comes to mind.

 

[elduggo]

What on earth has this got to do with defending doping allegations with Sky? Do you think we should excuse behaviour like smashing eggs and beers off cars now? These idiots deserve to be shown up for the behaviour irrespective of where they come from.

what idiots? what are you talking about?

 

[elduggo]

Thank-you.

Walsh should have printed a retraction or at least asked for comment from the Corner 10 brigade before slipping the knife in.

Porte also should clam down a little. To readily wanting to beat up on people. The Quintana comment comes to mind.

I contacted Walsh on twitter following his accusations. The videos that people saw, as well as many of the pictures that were circulated, which pretty much exonerated any Irish people from those things Walsh accused us of, were taken by me and/or the people I travelled there with. In those photos was a picture of their van which was emblazoned with a company logo. We tracked down the address, e-mail, phone number of that company and sent the details to Walsh. I told him he could contact those guys and ask them for comment. The result? He blocked me on twitter.

 

[thehog]

He won the SJA Sportwriter of the Year Award in 2000 and Feature Writer of the Year in 2001. He certainly wasn't 'run of the mill' at that time.

Sounds like a love-in for sports journalists!

Michael Slater at the Allan Border medal presentation comes to mind.

 

[thehog]

I contacted Walsh on twitter following his accusations. The videos that people saw, as well as many of the pictures that were circulated, which pretty much exonerated any Irish people from those things Walsh accused us of, were taken by me and/or the people I travelled there with. In those photos was a picture of their van which was emblazoned with a company logo. We tracked down the address, e-mail, phone number of that company and sent the details to Walsh. I told him he could contact those guys and ask them for comment. The result? He blocked me on twitter.

I’m sorry to hear that you and your sport loving group got pinpointed by a respected sports writer.

A retraction or at the very least a clarification would have gone a long way.

I hope 2014 is much better.

Back to my original point. If Walsh got this part so wrong what else hasn’t he fact checked?

Also Froome didn’t help himself from what he did at CI. That was uncalled for.

 

[RownhamHill]

God, there's a lot of angels on the head of pins here.

This was the first year of 'Irish Corner', modelled in a small but fun way after Dutch Corner. It was, by pretty much all accounts, for a first effort, a fantastic success, and is likely to be repeated- both Dan and Nico commented on how much it meant to them.

The 'pioneers' of Irish Corner were, broadly, less 'boisterous' - for which read 'less drunk' - than some of the Dutch Corner, hard as that is on our national pride in having a social beverage - IT was pretty clear that parts of the Alpe were getting out of hand.

It's also absolutely clear that a group of french-speaking 'protesters' made a bee-line for sky at that corner, and a few other places. The protest, such as it was is fine, that's free speech. Trying to inject something in the mouth, as was done later, is not.

At that corner, a few, a small few, but a few made their less than amorous feelings fror Sky known. They were not responsible for the syringe nonsense.

So all in all, likeliest 'Occam' explanation - well behaved, fun day out, couple of irish more raucous than others but nowt too serious, and a few 'natives' some of whom seemed to take things too far. And Porte seems to have linked - in my view wrongly - a couple of perfectly acceptable irish-accented comments around that corner with the bigger picture of a broadly french protest, parts of which got out of control. and Walsh reported what he was told happened, as reporters are apt to do,even when the reporting turns out to be mistaken because the witness is mistaken.


Far too many here are trying to make the facts fit their theory, rather than the thery fit the facts.

Good post, I was with you all the way until the bolded part.

I think it's pretty clear from all the evidence that:

- There were lots of good natured Irish people at Irish corner.
- There was a group of less good natured French people making comments
- Porte claims that there were some 'non-French' people making some kind of comments as well (the implication of Walsh's tweet being these were Irish, but that's not actually explicit anywhere I've seen).

Given that we don't know any more details of what Porte was referring to, what he thinks he heard, and who he thinks said it, I'm interested in how you draw the conclusion that the 'non-French' comments were nowt serious, and perfectly acceptable, and on what basis you draw the opinion that Porte was wrong to have linked these with the more serious French protest? In short, how do you know the witness was mistaken?

I don't actually care who said what, or who's right and who's wrong, to be honest, just amused that in a post bemoaning angels dancing on the heads of pins that you then appear to do exactly the same thing by asserting a fact (the witness was mistaken) in order for your theory to fit the facts. Isn't a better theory that there was a group French protestors, and some (or I suppose at least one) of the Irish fans might have said something as well, which might have been out of order, but really we just don't know?

 

[gooner]

no there wasn't. I was there. Don't make a statement about something you have no idea about.

Richie Porte was there too if you didn't know that already and he said the abuse he got was not from the French which is who the Irish said were doing all of it. Are you calling him a liar? What agenda would he have in saying a certain nationality were doing it? I seen the signs at the time and it's obvious the French were at it but Porte is not on about them here.

Someone is telling porkies.

 

[Benotti69]

Am, both were 'on the mountain' as from Hogs post from an unattributed piece from someone called O'Sheas- so, nothing to do with the car.

In what way would Farrell being a 'Sky employee' mean he is biased?

Froome who can barely look up from his stem would notice the fans on his way up a mountain in the TdF? I dont think so.

If you are Walsh, you take the Sky line and then fact check it with someone who has no bias.

Then you may, as I have done, find the tweets that back up that he singled out the Irish.

Walsh's tweets had the tone of a fan.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Froome who can barely look up from his stem would notice the fans on his way up a mountain in the TdF? I dont think so.

If you are Walsh, you take the Sky line and then fact check it with someone who has no bias.

What bias has Farrell as a Sky employee (your suggestion) got?
It is rather obvious that there was abuse of the Sky riders and the support cars. The only dispute is were the Irish involved.

Walsh's tweets had the tone of a fan.

Deflection noted - you said he 'singled out' the Irish fans, I asked where, you said on twitter. Please back that up.

 

[hrotha]

I honestly don't see how any of this is important. Seems like such an inconsequential thing to question Walsh for.

 

[gooner]

no there wasn't. The fans Farrell spoke to were the Lakeside Wheelers, who knew him

Did you read the stickybottle retort from these guys? I can back up everything they said in it as I was next to them on the alpe.

Please don't make statements like the above when you clearly have no idea what happened that day.

Richie Porte was there that day as well for your information. Did you not know that? He said it wasn't the French(I already said they were at it) that gave him the abuse which is what the Irish said in the stickybottle piece who did all this. This is entirely in relation to Porte. To be quite frank with you, I don't care one iota who did the thing but you can't bring Walsh's tweets in here to batter him with like the hog just did and then selectively leave out what Porte said afterwards in response to it. That's why I brought the tweet on him into it. You can dress it up all you like but this is what he said. Someone who was there like yourself.

Someone is telling porkies.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I honestly don't see how any of this is important. Seems like such an inconsequential thing to question Walsh for.

All true.

But of course there were no questions asked - it is a series of statements like Walsh 'singled out the Irish' etc that are repeated even when shown to be untrue in an effort to smear him (and of course Sky).

 

[thehog]

Richie Porte was there that day as well for your information. Did you not know that? He said it wasn't the French(I already said they were at it) that gave him the abuse which is what the Irish said in the stickybottle piece who did all this. This is entirely in relation to Porte. To be quite frank with you, I don't care one iota who did the thing but you can't bring Walsh's tweets in here to batter him with like the hog just did and then selectively leave out what Porte said afterwards in response to it. That's why I brought the tweet on him into it. You can dress it up all you like but this is what he said. Someone who was there like yourself.

Someone is telling porkies.

Perhaps Porte could man up tell us all what he heard and by whom?

Until then it’s just twaddle. He’d do better riding his bike than trying to isolate nationalities in a crowd of 300,000 strong.

 

[thehog]

I honestly don't see how any of this is important. Seems like such an inconsequential thing to question Walsh for.

I would agree. But Walsh really shouldn't have printed what he did. Or at least fact checking his story to know it was a non-story.

He stirred the pot. Got a reaction and sold newspapers. Newspaper man at work.

Storm in a teacup really.

 

[gooner]

what idiots? what are you talking about?

Idiots who were smashing eggs and beers of the Sky car on the Alpe. Read Alan Farrell's comments on saying fans were rocking the car from side to side. Yes they are idiots.

Pretty obvious what I was talking about.

 

[gooner]

Perhaps Porte could man up tell us all what he heard and by whom?

Until then it’s just twaddle. He’d do better riding his bike than trying to isolate nationalities in a crowd of 300,000 strong.

300,000 strong at Irish corner.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Idiots who were smashing eggs and beers of the Sky car on the Alpe. Read Alan Farrell's comments on saying fans were rocking the car from side to side. Yes they are idiots.

Pretty obvious what I was talking about.

While I think booing in general is poor form (but I understand peoples reactions), throwing eggs is disgraceful - but wasting beer is unforgivable.
(That rules out the Irish, boom boom.)

One thing - Farrell was an Alpe d'Huez virgin, he could have been sitting in a car marked 'plutonium do not touch' with a sleeping new born on the hood of the car and the car would still be rocked on Dutch corner until the smell of the burning clutch becomes overpowering.

 

[thehog]

300,000 strong at Irish corner.

Our Irish friends were well behaved. They've come on here and other blogs to attest nothing like Porte or Walsh claimed occurred.

So Porte appears mistaken. Very much so.

He should put up or shut up. Tell us what he heard.

There were a lot of people on that mountain. I watched the video. Porte’s head is fixed on the road upwards as he passes Irish corner.

Not sure what Porte is on about or why he is making up lies about the Irish. It’s not constructive. Its destructive.

 

[gooner]

While I think booing in general is poor form (but I understand peoples reactions), throwing eggs is disgraceful - but wasting beer is unforgivable.
(That rules out the Irish, boom boom.)

One thing - Farrell was an Alpe d'Huez virgin, he could have been sitting in a car marked 'plutonium do not touch' with a sleeping new born on the hood of the car and the car would still be rocked on Dutch corner until the smell of the burning clutch becomes overpowering.

I'm only referring to the Irish in relation to Porte. Just for the record, I'm wasn't saying they were rocking the car from side to side.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm only referring to the Irish in relation to Porte. Just for the record, I'm wasn't saying they were rocking the car from side to side.

Cool - what did Porte say?

 

[del1962]

Waslh reminds me a bit of Zola

 

[martinvickers]

Good post, I was with you all the way until the bolded part.

I think it's pretty clear from all the evidence that:

- There were lots of good natured Irish people at Irish corner.
- There was a group of less good natured French people making comments
- Porte claims that there were some 'non-French' people making some kind of comments as well (the implication of Walsh's tweet being these were Irish, but that's not actually explicit anywhere I've seen).

Given that we don't know any more details of what Porte was referring to, what he thinks he heard, and who he thinks said it, I'm interested in how you draw the conclusion that the 'non-French' comments were nowt serious, and perfectly acceptable, and on what basis you draw the opinion that Porte was wrong to have linked these with the more serious French protest? In short, how do you know the witness was mistaken?

I don't actually care who said what, or who's right and who's wrong, to be honest, just amused that in a post bemoaning angels dancing on the heads of pins that you then appear to do exactly the same thing by asserting a fact (the witness was mistaken) in order for your theory to fit the facts. Isn't a better theory that there was a group French protestors, and some (or I suppose at least one) of the Irish fans might have said something as well, which might have been out of order, but really we just don't know?

I think you misunderstand me - my whole point is we don't know - my 'explanation' was not a declaration of fact, just an attempt to cool some wilder conjectures with some rather more plausible explanations that fit Occam/Ockham - the whole point of occam is to work out broadly what is the most likely answer ..not what the definitive answer is.

Now, in the land that gave us,among others, kimmage, the chances of ALL the irish at irish corner being 'pro-sky'- approaches zero - that's just reality. We also 'know' that Porte claimed some 'non-french' abuse there. we also 'know' the worse abuse , and the genuinely unacceptable stuff on the alpe appears to have been french.

Occam therefore suggests, only suggests mind, that a few of. the irish let a few of the sky boys know their feelings. porte heard, and then wrongly connected that 'discussion' with much worse french inspired abuse later. big deal. that's perfectly fine, free speech. Porte, therefore, was wrong, or at best imprecise . But to suggest from that alone that he was lying because of some inate anti-irish bias takes a bit of a leap, and asks more questions than it answers.

Occam. The simplest answer that accounts for the known evidence is the most likely answer. No more, no less.

And Hog, I don't care how 'mad' you get as a spectator over your hunch over doping - and that's all it is with Froome at this point, like it or not - you DO NOT ASSAULT a rider.

Never. Full stop.

It is a cardinal sin, going all the way back to the guy who punched Mercx and before.

Trying to squirt some unknown liquid into a riders mouth, be it Froome, Contador, Pantani, Riis, hell, even Armstrong. No. Never.

That is not on. It frankly is the first step to ending the existence of the sport, when rider safety from spectators can't be trusted.


If you can't keep your temper about the riders, stay off the f***ing Alpe. Because you're not a fan. You're a dangerous thug.

 

[thehog]

And Hog, I don't care how 'mad' you get as a spectator over your hunch over doping - and that's all it is with Froome at this point, like it or not - you DO NOT ASSAULT a rider.

Agreed.

But I think we're talking more about Walsh.

German fans spat at Armstrong on the alpe.

Where was David then?

All round its ugly. But I dont' think Walsh helped the situation.