Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[elduggo]

Could you show me this?



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.

sorry, my bad, I meant in his article. Apologies to you and Sir David.

 

[elduggo]

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:

And the only reference about Irish corner was when the race was passing and





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.

clarified above

 

[thehog]

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.

The misconception about Walsh is that he was anti-doping full stop.

He was not always. It was really only with Armstrong.

At one point he dismissed most all American cycling journalists with a wave of his hands, calling them "the best educated, most steadfast cheerleaders who ever set foot from one country to another."

as with others:

Walsh was himself just another cheerleader, no better or worse than most of his peers. No better or worse than most of the people reporting this sport today. Whatever line was on offer to distract us from the needle and the damage it was doing, Walsh seemed to buy it. In his book about the 1993 Tour - Inside The Tour de France - he wrote positively about the increasing medicalisation of the sport, suggesting it was a good thing. He wrote admiringly of Nicolas Terrados, Manolo Saiz's ONCE team doctor, who five years later would be arrested and charged during the police busts launched by l'affaire Festina.

Two years earlier, in 1991, at the height of the Intralipid affair, Walsh had leaped to the defence of Kelly and Earley, almost taking over Jock Boyer's role as PDM's official apologist, insisting to all who would listen that this ‘bad fish' episode was not a doping story.

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/11/10/1805511/on-doping-and-david-walsh

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

Which proves Walshs point - it has little to do with Froome but about the recent history of the sport particularly in the fall out from Armstrong.

 

[del1962]

The misconception about Walsh is that he was anti-doping full stop.

He was not always. It was really only with Armstrong.



as with others:



http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/11/10/1805511/on-doping-and-david-walsh

Stephen Roche disagrees

 

[Parker]

Which proves Walshs point - it has little to do with Froome but about the recent history of the sport particularly in the fall out from Armstrong.

I think a lot of it was just drunk bellends behaving like drunk bellends. Little to do with any anger about anything and lots to do with them being ***. They probably went to Magaluf the next week and behaved exactly the same there.

 

[Von Mises]

The misconception about Walsh is that he was anti-doping full stop.

He was not always. It was really only with Armstrong.



as with others:



http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/11/10/1805511/on-doping-and-david-walsh

Where is the news? Walsh has admitted that his cycling career started with Kelly . I think that it was Kimmage who said about Walsh "Kelly fan with typewriter" and he did not mean in derogatory sense, but wanted to show how complicated it was for Walsh, from one side friendship and admiration, from another side doping issues. Kimmage has described also his personal dilemmas, for instance his relationship with David Millar.

 

[martinvickers]

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".

Actually crying with laughter. Chapeau.

p.s. watch out for Giro 2014. I promise you now, some berk is gonna protest. I'd say round carrickfergus direction.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Which proves Walshs point - it has little to do with Froome but about the recent history of the sport particularly in the fall out from Armstrong.

No it doesnt. Where is the proof of the Alpe rape of team Sky? By the Irish? Or did he look into Ritchies eyes and knew he was not lying?

The Armstrong fallout doping questions line is very lame. And I bet you know that. It was just another Walsh way of not letting us forget 'who slayed the dragon'. The ultimate milk cow.

So it seems Walsh is doing a reverse Walsh with regards to team Sky as to the way he handled Armstrong. Maybe he is just tired of his quest for the holy grail and let the others handle the doping stuff now.

Does that mean he is on the sky bandwagon? Not at all, just not being very journalistic, or, his hands are tied.

 

[martinvickers]

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.

Sorry, bull.

1. Kimmage had a go before the race even started. Vayer published before the race started. Doping was the ghost in the race from before it set out, more than ever before.

2. Froome didn't go full 'duracell' - by which you can only mean the extrememly high cadence spurt - until Ventoux. His Ax 3 domaine attack was spectacular, but nothing like as spectacular stylistically as Ventoux.

And they went to town on him after Ax 3 domaines.

Of course Froome, like all recent GT leaders, is under suspicion. and, honestly, that's fine, i can understand it, no problem - i'm not defending him. But if you think the exceptional level of probing/cycnicism he took this year was unconnected to the Oprah farce, you are kidding yourself. It's how media works. Frankly, it's also how this place works. Everybody wants to be first to get to the new war.

Nothing Froome did this year approached Pantani on the Hautacam ludicrous. Check the numbers yourself, it just didn't. But if you went ONLY by the level of probing, you'd think the bike he rode was putting out petrol fumes.

And less of the childishness about which Tour i watched. That's fairly close to a personal attack. Stick to he facts.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No it doesnt. Where is the proof of the Alpe rape of team Sky? By the Irish? Or did he look into Ritchies eyes and knew he was not lying?

Well, if you actually read this thread - that something happened to Sky and others is not in dispute, just their nationality.

The Armstrong fallout doping questions line is very lame. And I bet you know that. It was just another Walsh way of not letting us forget 'who slayed the dragon'. The ultimate milk cow.

So it seems Walsh is doing a reverse Walsh with regards to team Sky as to the way he handled Armstrong. Maybe he is just tired of his quest for the holy grail and let the others handle the doping stuff now.

Does that mean he is on the sky bandwagon? Not at all, just not being very journalistic, or, his hands are tied.

Which we have covered here - it took Walsh 2 years to be able to find anything substantive to write about his suspicions. And less to time to get the JTL piece.

 

[sniper]

Well, if you actually read this thread - that something happened to Sky and others is not in dispute, just their nationality.

Which we have covered here - it took Walsh 2 years to be able to find anything substantive to write about his suspicions. And less to time to get the JTL piece.

it took him 2 years to conclude that froome is clean.

 

[martinvickers]

These bold parts are in my view an absolute disgrace vickers.

Don't take this personally, it's of general application. But I'm not at all interested in your view. I'm interested in your arguments, and the evidence you raise. But you don't get to tell me what's a disgrace - that's a moral value judgement, and I don't care about moral guidance from you. I don't rate it. so lets stick to the actual facts, eh?

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.

[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, what on earth does that show - it doesn't feature porte at irish corner from what i can see, and it speeds through the crowd focusing on the riders - as race cameras tend to do - the idea that this somehow proves your case is risible.

now. why don't you put the sarcasm away, and actually tackle the subject, m'kay?

 

[sniper]

now. why don't you put the sarcasm away, and actually tackle the subject, m'kay?

it has been tackled.
and isince you continue to ignore the arguments, sarcasm is right in place here.
#lackofdistance

 

[Dr. Maserati]

it took him 2 years to conclude that froome is clean.

Much less - it took staying with the team at various camps and races, it took questioning all the main people, it took questioning the Doctors at length, it took going to Manchester to discuss Leinders role in the team, it took being ridiculed by people who have not read his pieces.

Yet he still got and published the JTL piece.

 

[martinvickers]

it has been tackled.
and isince you continue to ignore the arguments, sarcasm is right in place here.
#lackofdistance

What arguments have I ignored? Arguments based, you know, on data and facts, rather than dislike and hunches?

 

[Benotti69]

Which proves Walshs point - it has little to do with Froome but about the recent history of the sport particularly in the fall out from Armstrong.

Which was still run by McQuaid and his puppet master Hein till a week or so ago.

 

[sniper]

Much less - it took staying with the team at various camps and races, it took questioning all the main people, it took questioning the Doctors at length, it took going to Manchester to discuss Leinders role in the team,

thanks for proving the point.

it took being ridiculed by people who have not read his pieces.

he gets ridiculed mainly by people who have read his pieces.

Yet he still got and published the JTL piece.

#limited hangout

 

[martinvickers]

Which was still run by McQuaid and his puppet master Hein till a week or so ago.

What's the relevance of this? Is it legitimate to beat up on riders because there are crap administrators.

You seem to take the view that because some, even large, parts of the sport are rotten, EVERYONE in it is fair game, regardless of their own behaviour, depending on your own personal feelings about them. That can't be an acceptable moral position, however much it is attractive to irritated fans.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

thanks for proving the point.

he gets ridiculed mainly by people who have read his pieces.


#limited hangout

Name them - just 10 examples of people who have read all his articles on Sky, thanks.

 

[gooner]

thanks for proving the point.

he gets ridiculed mainly by people who have read his pieces.

A category which you don't fit into.

#limited hangout

Back to the hashtags I see.

 

[sniper]

A category which you don't fit into.

did i say i do?

anyway, for the sake of the thread, let's not ignore sittingbison's moderation.
the post, not the poster.

 

[gooner]

did i say i do?

anyway, for the sake of the thread, let's not ignore sittingbison's moderation.
the post, not the poster.

I'm entitled to point out you ridiculed him on his JTL article before even reading the piece.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

did i say i do?

anyway, for the sake of the thread, let's not ignore sittingbison's moderation.
the post, not the poster.

Good point, it should be about post, not poster.

But when one continues to post redundant commentary about a subject that they have little or no knowledge of and through repetition ignore the actual information, it exposes the bias of the poster.

 

[thehog]

Where is the news? Walsh has admitted that his cycling career started with Kelly . I think that it was Kimmage who said about Walsh "Kelly fan with typewriter" and he did not mean in derogatory sense, but wanted to show how complicated it was for Walsh, from one side friendship and admiration, from another side doping issues. Kimmage has described also his personal dilemmas, for instance his relationship with David Millar.

It just demonstrates that Walsh is not the crusader that some think he is.

He tends to be selective dependant on who he likes and where his next pay cheque is coming from.

This is all pre-Sky so it puts his recent behavior into context.