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

Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Page 50 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
guys, with all due respect, does it matter (to the topic of the thread i mean)?

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?

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:
During his Tour reign, Armstrong got used to taking abuse from French fans and hearing doping allegations from the French news media.
http://blackchristiannews.com/news/2009/07/armstrong-sets-the-stage-to-be-a-tour-de-france-force-in-2010.html

I can't help but think that Walsh has similar motives.
 
sniper said:
guys, with all due respect, does it matter (to the topic of the thread i mean)?

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?

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:

http://blackchristiannews.com/news/2009/07/armstrong-sets-the-stage-to-be-a-tour-de-france-force-in-2010.html

I can't help but think that Walsh has similar motives.
You have given us the logic fallacy that because A does something from certain motives, B has to have the same motives for doing the same thing.

I think it is called false equivalence
 
Oct 15, 2012
3,064
0
0
elduggo said:
I would be very surprised if there was any anti-Irish bias as far as Porte goes. His agent his Irish, as is his girlfriend (or at least she has Irish family). Porte was over here for a week in the summer and there were many sightings of him out and about on his bike.

Which leads me to conclude that Walsh has somehow twisted what Porte told him to level accusations (via implication) at Irish folk.
You do realise that Walsh is irish, too? Is Walsh now anti-irish despite being irish? Occam's shaking his head...too complicated.

I fear RH above is probably closer to the truth. You claimed something 'categorically' which I don't really believe you possibly can. Irish corner is not dutch corner - but there were plenty of people there, many of them irish. I really don't believe for a second that you, or anyone, can categorically state what each and every one of them said, shouted or did at each and every moment of the climb. Can you form a broad impression of the excellence of the irish at the corner - of course you can; we all did. But EVERY SINGLE ONE?

No. Not credible, sorry. And that's not personal. Anyone in that position would be the same.

Much more likely, you simply didn't hear everything - and one of the things you missed, but Porte (who was aimed at) heard was a catcall. Porte has then, most likely, wrongly linked that with further un-irish abuse elsewhere, reported same to Walsh, who has printed it - simple explanation remains the most likely.
 
Oct 15, 2012
3,064
0
0
sniper said:
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:

http://blackchristiannews.com/news/2009/07/armstrong-sets-the-stage-to-be-a-tour-de-france-force-in-2010.html

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.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
del1962 said:
You have given us the logic fallacy that because A does something from certain motives, B has to have the same motives for doing the same thing.

I think it is called false equivalence
Not in cycling. It is called repeating the past ;)
 
martinvickers said:
Yes. It goes to motive. Next.



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?



Well, there's no evidence to back that up, i fear, just the conception you started with.
+++100

10 chars
 
Oct 25, 2012
268
0
0
martinvickers said:
You do realise that Walsh is irish, too? Is Walsh now anti-irish despite being irish?
honestly, yes, I think so. Its a case of your friends' enemy being your enemy too. Walsh seems to have this notion that Irish people HATE Sky (which, ironically, may have had a hand in them signing Deignan), which is a nonsense.
 
Oct 25, 2012
268
0
0
martinvickers said:
I fear RH above is probably closer to the truth. You claimed something 'categorically' which I don't really believe you possibly can. Irish corner is not dutch corner - but there were plenty of people there, many of them irish. I really don't believe for a second that you, or anyone, can categorically state what each and every one of them said, shouted or did at each and every moment of the climb. Can you form a broad impression of the excellence of the irish at the corner - of course you can; we all did. But EVERY SINGLE ONE?
Yes. I wasn't watching everybody but I was watching Porte. No one paid him any heed. You can get the idea of the mood and atmosphere at that corner as he passed from the video clip that did the rounds.

If this discussion was about Geraint Thomas then things would be different, but they are not.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
del1962 said:
You have given us the logic fallacy that because A does something from certain motives, B has to have the same motives for doing the same thing.
who's logic is that? nobody's, i hope, and certainly not mine.

it's much more simple than that: sometimes there are reasons to draw a parallel, another many times there aren't.
in this particular case i think there are, but by all means i might be wrong.
 
Jul 17, 2012
3,278
0
0
martinvickers said:
Yes. It goes to motive. Next.



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?



Well, there's no evidence to back that up, i fear, just the conception you started with.
Good point well made.
 
Jul 17, 2012
3,278
0
0
elduggo said:
Yes. I wasn't watching everybody but I was watching Porte. No one paid him any heed. You can get the idea of the mood and atmosphere at that corner as he passed from the video clip that did the rounds.

If this discussion was about Geraint Thomas then things would be different, but they are not.
What happened to Geraint?
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Being a Tuesday - my sources tell me the issues on 'Irish Corner'/'Corner 10' relate to the section around the corner, now known as Northern Ireland corner.

All was fine until some Euskaltel-Euskadi riders went to take the corner wide - saying it was their traditional route. A minor standoff (just 6 weeks) and scuffle ensued.
My sources tell me Bono is writing a song (not a rebel song) about Porte called "Keep Your Flag Out Of My Wheel".
 
Mar 25, 2013
3,762
0
0
elduggo said:
that didn't happen at Irish corner. And it certainly wasn't Irish people, as Walsh implied.

As for the comments about Porte saying they weren't French people abusing him. Well, also at 'Irish Corner' that day were South Africans, Brits, Danes, Dutch, folks from the Ivory Coast, Spanish, and thats just the nationalities I interacted with or am aware of.

Walsh, however, in the context of his previous tweets, is clearly implying that it was Irish people. And I can state categorically this was not the case.
See my post from earlier. I brought Porte into the discussion which had to be done as some wanted to batter Walsh with more rubbish without bringing the whole picture into it.

gooner said:
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.
elduggo said:
The Irish did nothing to Porte. Unless it was at Dutch corner, in which case I can't comment.
Walsh put what the Irish said about the French to Porte at San Sebastian. The Dutch weren't putting everything on the French.

elduggo said:
honestly, yes, I think so. Its a case of your friends' enemy being your enemy too. Walsh seems to have this notion that Irish people HATE Sky (which, ironically, may have had a hand in them signing Deignan), which is a nonsense.
This is just utter nonsense and a complete strawman. I'm 100% Irish with no blood line or friends that live in the UK. Are you putting me in that category also because I said there might have been a small section of Irish fans who dished it out to Porte? That isn't the thinking behind my argument.

I'm sure signing Deignan had nothing got to do with his great form for United Healthcare this year:rolleyes:. Absurd logic on your part.

elduggo said:
Yes. I wasn't watching everybody but I was watching Porte. No one paid him any heed. You can get the idea of the mood and atmosphere at that corner as he passed from the video clip that did the rounds.

If this discussion was about Geraint Thomas then things would be different, but they are not.
Someone said that was from the second time up the Alpe. That isn't conclusive of the entire corner and certainly not the two times up it. I'm sure the vast vast majority of the corner were well behaved but he said it wasn't the French. The Irish put it off on them. This leaves it open to interpretation what Porte is referring to and yes, it could be a small minority of Irish who let their feelings be known.

Like has been said, you can't speak for everyone there at the corner.
 
Oct 25, 2012
268
0
0
JimmyFingers said:
What happened to Geraint?
we had a bit of craic with G after the comments he made about Dan Martin on twitter the week before. Twas all a bit of a laugh (calling him english, etc)
 
Oct 25, 2012
268
0
0
gooner said:
Are you putting me in that category also because I said there might have been a small section of Irish fans who dished it out to Porte?
I'm putting Walsh in that category.
 
I watched the video. I see Porte eyes ahead ride pass Irish corner with not even turning his head. I don’t get it. What was up? Where was the abuse?

Later on a flag was caught in Porte break lever as he was riding with no hands looking and speaking to Froome.

Porte turned around to the flag bearer and told him to “f*** off” with no provocation from the fan.

Not excusing bad behavior but it’s not all one way traffic here.
 
Jul 7, 2013
937
0
0
thehog said:
Later on a flag was caught in Porte break lever as he was riding with no hands looking and speaking to Froome.

Porte turned around to the flag bearer and told him to “f*** off” with no provocation from the fan..
he should had step down from the bike (if would be possible) and beat the **** out of that idiot. this is how you treat people who put months of work in danger because they can't stay out of the path.

he was very polite just giving him a “f*** off”
 
Sep 26, 2009
1,815
0
0
martinvickers said:
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....
that wasn't because of post Armstrong fallout....it was because he was riding like a demented Duracell rabbit.....you must have been watching a different TDF than the rest of us.
 
Apr 20, 2012
4,238
0
0
martinvickers said:
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.
These bold parts are in my view an absolute disgrace vickers.

Poor poor Sky:


What a cycling hooligan!


Another one!

So, could it be the madness on the Alpe was just a bit overrated/blown up by Walsh's reporting on other testimonies?

Nasty Irish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=XZONPgyKDwk#t=7285
Another lie caught on tape.
 
Mar 25, 2013
3,762
0
0
elduggo said:
yes, his tweets accusing Irish people of doing things they didn't on Alpe d'Huez.
Could you show me this?

hes the one that made it about nationality.
No, you're assuming that Walsh is thinking this, saying the Irish have an anti-Sky agenda. He never said that and not in his tweets. The first time he addressed all this was in his apology.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
elduggo said:
yes, his tweets accusing Irish people of doing things they didn't on Alpe d'Huez.

hes the one that made it about nationality.
His tweets? Accusing the "Irish" of what? Thats a bit vague and you may want to substantiate, clarify or retract that.

Because his only tweets on that day (July 18) separate to the unfolding race was:
Been through the crowds on Alpe d'Huez. Biggest I've seen. The Team Sky car felt like a Man United fan in Liverpool. #evencarshavefeelings
And the only reference about Irish corner was when the race was passing and
Going through Irish corner now, plenty of Martin and Roche support but sadly Martin has been dropped from YJ group.


Cycle Chic said:
that wasn't because of post Armstrong fallout....it was because he was riding like a demented Duracell rabbit.....you must have been watching a different TDF than the rest of us.
The doping questions came before a wheel had been turned in anger - and even of he did ride like the duracell bunny, MVs point is correct, no other leader has been questioned as much about doping.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
<snipped>


The doping questions came before a wheel had been turned in anger - and even of he did ride like the duracell bunny, MVs point is correct, no other leader has been questioned as much about doping.
So what that Froome had to answer questions about doping. He was leading the biggest race of the year, the fans are entitled to feel let down by he sport and shaking a car or 2 is very mild compared to the reactions in some sports.

The whole sport has questions to answer. Better they address them and prevent worse.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts