guys, with all due respect, does it matter (to the topic of the thread i mean)?
Yes. It goes to motive. Next.
don't loose sight of the real issues here, such as: why did Walsh spend several paragraphs on the angry mob in an article whose aim it is to explain why Froome is a clean winner?
Froome got a greater amount of doping questioning every day in yellow than I can remember a leader getting in a very very long time. Much more than wiggins, who took about two days of it - it was practically every day for Froome.
There is no direct evidence Froome doped. none. Nobody with Emma/Betsy stories. Nada. That's just a plain fact, whether it pleases you or not - i'd say not, in most cases here. But a fact it is. Yet this whole tour, the 100e tour, was overshadowed by accusations and insinuations of Froome doping.
Whether you think Froome doped or not, he wasn't paying this price primarily for his own doping - he was paying it because of Armstrong. In the first post-Oprah post USADA tour. and in fact the whole 1989-2007 period, give or take a year or two.
The media's view of the sport, not for the first time, lags behind the actual sport. the media have woken up to the shambles the pro circuit, and the tour, got into..but many years after it actually did.
Media and fans alike - Always fighting last year's war.
And the 'fans', both in this forum, and on the Alpe, were doing something similar, taking out years of frustration on yesteryear's riders on today's, whether fair or not. In that regard, some of the excesses on the Alpe re Sky riders encapsulated that whole problem. and that, basically, is the point Walsh was making.
Walsh wasn't trying to prove Froome was clean - how could he - he was simply stating his view that froome was clean.
But it was his view expressed in the face of a post-Armstrong frenzy, from kimmage's odd go at EBH to Vayer's magazine, through the Equipe stuff, the attack on Ax 3 Domaines and Ventoux, culminating, if you like, in the madness of the double Alpe. And the Clinic regulars deciding to throw him under the bus because years of dedicated anti-doping work means nothing if you don't agree with the Clinic's hunches, does it. Hence this thread and OP, frankly.
And in that context, the rough treatment of Sky riders was entirely on topic. Of course, lots of people on here may not have read the article. But they can hardly expect to have their views on the article taken seriously without reading it, can they?
We know USPS apologists used to take recourse to similar rethorics, painting Lance as a victim and painting his accusers as (sometimes violent) haters. e.g. here:
I can't help but think that Walsh has similar motives.
Well, there's no evidence to back that up, i fear, just the conception you started with.