Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[RownhamHill]

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.

Nope. The bit bolded is not really what Occam suggests, is it?

 

[del1962]

Dave like Farell was probably upset that it was his fellow countrymen behaving badly, good on Dave for not sweeping it under the carpet

 

[martinvickers]

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.

Don't care. You don't assault a rider. Full stop. No excuses, no "but...". No. Never. Fullstop.

Those germans should have been prosecuted and banned from any race ever again.

And i'm serious.

LA may well be a sociopath -well, he is. No excuse to become one too.

As for Walsh, i doubt he was embedded with Postal or discovery, so he may have had less access to the immediate story. But as i say,don't care.

Assault a rider, any rider? Get the f*** away from the sport.

 

[thehog]

Don't care. You don't assault a rider. Full stop. No excuses, no "but...". No. Never. Fullstop.

Those germans should have been prosecuted and banned from any race ever again.

And i'm serious.

LA may well be a sociopath -well, he is. No excuse to become one too.

As for Walsh, i doubt he was embedded with Postal or discovery, so he may have had less access to the immediate story. But as i say,don't care.

Assault a rider, any rider? Get the f*** away from the sport.

Sounds like you want to assault the assaulters?

 

[sniper]

Sounds like you want to assault the assaulters?

lol

Anyway, as you said, it's about walsh, and the way he -- fully in line with armstrong apologists back in the days -- uses the harrassments as a deflection away from the real issues and at the same time try and create some sort of misplaced empathy for an otherwise pretty obvious cheat.

In the article "why i believe in froome", walsh dedicates several paragraphs to the angry mob.

The word leinders isn't used once.

 

[del1962]

It is quite funny to see the spitting feathers brigade to turn on Walsh because he does not agree with them.

 

[gooner]

lol

Anyway, as you said, it's about walsh, and the way he -- fully in line with armstrong apologists back in the days -- uses the harrassments as a deflection away from the real issues and at the same time try and create some sort of misplaced empathy for an otherwise pretty obvious cheat.

In the article "why i believe in froome", walsh dedicates several paragraphs to the angry mob.

The word leinders isn't used once.

Do you forget the interview with Brailsford on Leinders before the Tour and again last week mentioning him when he was writing on JTL.

Leinders had no influence on Froome's win. This topic has been addressed by Walsh and other UK papers beforehand.

 

[sniper]

Do you forget the interview with Brailsford on Leinders before the Tour and again last week mentioning him when he was writing on JTL.

Leinders had no influence on Froome's win. This topic has been addressed by Walsh and other UK papers beforehand.

and you know that how exactly...?
showing some bias there, gooner.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

and you know that because...?
showing some bias there, gooner.

Because Leinders was not at the Tour this year - hasn't been with Sky in well over year.

Unless of course you have some information to suggest otherwise - or are you just showing your bias?

 

[sniper]

Because Leinders was not at the Tour this year - hasn't been with Sky in well over year.

Unless of course you have some information to suggest otherwise - or are you just showing your bias?

i don't know, and again that's not really the point.
in a paper titled "why i believe in froome", the dodgy hiring of leinders by froome's superiors should have priority over the quite irrelevant angry mob issue.
the only reason it was brought up in this thread is because walsh uses it in exactly the same context as usps apologists used to use it.

 

[gooner]

i don't know, and again that's not really the point.
in a paper titled "why i believe in froome", the dodgy hiring of leinders by froome's superiors should have priority over the quite irrelevant angry mob issue.
the only reason it was brought up in this thread is because walsh uses it in exactly the same context as usps apologists used to use it.

Are you saying Walsh and the UK media haven't addressed the Leinders topic beforehand?

 

[del1962]

Of course the pitchfork brigade is alway right

 

[Dr. Maserati]

i don't know, and again that's not really the point.
in a paper titled "why i believe in froome", the dodgy hiring of leinders by froome's superiors should have priority over the quite irrelevant angry mob issue.
the only reason it was brought up in this thread is because walsh uses it in exactly the same context as usps apologists used to use it.

In an article titled "Why I believe in Chris Froome" the author is entitled to write what they wish.

And it was pretty much the final article in a series which had also included several different articles that reference Leinders and other Sky practices.
That is the context - but as you don't subscribe you don't know.

 

[red_flanders]

In an article titled "Why I believe in Chris Froome" the author is entitled to write what they wish.

And it was pretty much the final article in a series which had also included several different articles that reference Leinders and other Sky practices.
That is the context - but as you don't subscribe you don't know.

And people are allowed to criticize him for what he writes. We all know he's able to write what he wants, the free press is not a new invention.

 

[del1962]

And people are allowed to criticize him for what he writes. We all know he's able to write what he wants, the free press is not a new invention.

And stangely ppl are allowed to criticise his critics for what they write.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And people are allowed to criticize him for what he writes. We all know he's able to write what he wants, the free press is not a new invention.

Cool.
What about the people who don't actually read what he writes?

 

[red_flanders]

Cool.
What about the people who don't actually read what he writes?

If your issue was people not reading it, just say so to whomever you think didn't read it. You've already done that, we got it. Repeatedly.

Telling the whole forum that he's allowed to write what he wants because of what his editor titled the article (and maybe he's his own editor in this case, don't know)...well let's just say I don't find that a particularly compelling defense of Mr. Walsh's work. Which stands on its own merit (or lack of merit) no matter if some people read it or not.

You read it? Make a case for why it does or doesn't support the topic. Then consider moving on?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

but as you don't subscribe you don't know.

Stop trolling and baiting please. You dont need this stuff.

What about the people who don't actually read what he writes?

Sorry, I was wrong, you do need it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If your issue was people not reading it, just say so to whomever you think didn't read it. You've already done that, we got it. Repeatedly.

And if they continue to comment I will happily correct them.

Telling the whole forum that he's allowed to write what he wants because of what his editor titled the article (and maybe he's his own editor in this case, don't know)...well let's just say I don't find that a particularly compelling defense of Mr. Walsh's work. Which stands on its own merit (or lack of merit) no matter if some people read it or not.

You read it? Make a case for why it does or doesn't support the topic. Then consider moving on?

The 'topic' - if you mean of the thread, it would have struggled to get to page 5 except that many who have not read his articles continue to comment.

Other than that -you are spoiling for a fight on numerous threads today - I respectfully suggest you take some time away from here.

 

[Benotti69]

Because Leinders was not at the Tour this year - hasn't been with Sky in well over year.

Unless of course you have some information to suggest otherwise - or are you just showing your bias?

Ferrari was hiding in his camper van on mountains to work with USPS.

Why not Leinders in secrecy?

The idea that Sky did not know when Walsh was going to arrive and not have time to prepare for his arrival is crazy. D

As for Walsh discovering doping, how longs does it take to pop a pill?

Walsh is convinced Sky are clean, that is why he hasn't bothered. A couple of trips to Tenerife, a visit to Italy another to the 100th edition TdF where he would be lauded as the guy who kept after Armstrong. Nice.

Why has he not interviewed Mick Barry, Sean Yates, Motoman, Michael Rasmussen?

Wigans, Froome, Porte and all on the team are not going to shoot themselves and admit to doping.

Walsh should've stayed outside Sky to write about them, but I guess Sunday Times & ky wanted him inside the team and doing editorial PR.

 

[thehog]

Don't care. You don't assault a rider. Full stop. No excuses, no "but...". No. Never. Fullstop.

Those germans should have been prosecuted and banned from any race ever again.

And i'm serious.

LA may well be a sociopath -well, he is. No excuse to become one too.

As for Walsh, i doubt he was embedded with Postal or discovery, so he may have had less access to the immediate story. But as i say,don't care.

Assault a rider, any rider? Get the f*** away from the sport.

Armstrong had death threats prior to the 04 ITT up the alpe.

Death threats!

Crazy!

Comedy syringes from the French are hardly scary in comparison.

Still ASO allowing two trips up the Alpe with more booze to sink a battleship was always bound to cause trouble.

Maybe next year they can cage in the French or adopt the British Police tactic of kettlerling.

That should stop the unruliness.

Darn the French. Acting like its their country and their race

 

[red_flanders]

And if they continue to comment I will happily correct them.


The 'topic' - if you mean of the thread, it would have struggled to get to page 5 except that many who have not read his articles continue to comment.

Other than that -you are spoiling for a fight on numerous threads today - I respectfully suggest you take some time away from here.

I suggest you worry less about me, and more about the topic. Starting to sound like you don't like people asking pointed questions about your posts.

#palpableirony

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I suggest you worry less about me, and more about the topic. Starting to sound like you don't like people asking pointed questions about your posts.

#palpableirony

I have no problem answering questions that are relevant and on the topic. None.

If you have a question - ask. If you want to fight, I am not interested.

 

[Daniel Benson]

Fine. Ask a question Red. Dr M will answer it. No name calling, or aggression needed. I'll monitor.

D

 

[red_flanders]

Fine. Ask a question Red. Dr M will answer it. No name calling, or aggression needed. I'll monitor.

D

I already did. Ridiculous.