Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[sniper]

...
I know "limited hangout" (what happened the hashtag?) is your favorite new phrase - but can you explain then why Brailsford was angry that it was leaked?

did he say so?
would fit right in if this were indeed a Limited Hangout OP.
he also sais sky are the cleanest team ever.

And can you explain why a piece that shows Skys had not done due diligence in the hiring and monitoring of JTL is not damaging for Sky?

well, the idea with Limited Hangout is not to have No Hangout at all. It's to keep it within limits. Damage Control.
Perhaps Walsh has learnt from Froome. Don't make it look too ridiculous.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

did he say so?
would fit right in if this were indeed a Limited Hangout OP.
he also sais sky are the cleanest team ever.

well, the idea with Limited Hangout is not to have No Hangout at all. It's to keep it within limits. Damage Control.
Perhaps Walsh has learnt from Froome. Don't make it look too ridiculous.

To be sure, and I hope Walsh proves me wrong.
I don't think this is all clear-cut, although my posts may sometimes give that impression.

No - your posts give the impression that you have limited knowledge of Walsh and indeed any subject to do with cycling in general.
Added to that is that you maintain your position even when confronted with the correct information shows your bias.

Its difficult for Walsh "prove you wrong" when you do not read his articles and you have already made up your mind.
However, when you post something "wrong" I will continue to show you are wrong.

 

[Digger]

Ok, thanks.
"write positive or go home" - it just doesn't ring true for me. There seems to be something missing or slightly inaccurate.

If 'they' were asked to write about something else other than Team Sky, (sunflowers, wine, Tom Simpson, the French etc) it would seem plausible.



Again not disputing the overall - and I can well believe Brailsford has contacted editors.

But, when you say, "I have been told different" - is this in relation to Walsh, or other areas? I am not trying to uncover people here and can see why you need to be vague - but again this seems to be something that happens in one area being attributed to all areas. That seems at odds with the releasing of the JTL piece.

The person wrote a piece on leinders...it was pulled and he was told to avoid this stuff, toe the party line or go home...not I have no intention of getting into four pages of semantics. The bottom line is that they didn't want to know...and he wasn't going to get his work in the paper unless he did what they wanted.
He has done more than contact though - he has dictated to them and shouted them down and threatened.

The final part about being told different - in fairness I wasn't clear there I will admit.
I have been told that other writers, not Walsh or Kimmage, have had pressure, for want of a better word (maybe there is a more apt term) not to write pieces on Sky which may paint them in a negative light...again in a debate on twitter this summer it's something Kimmage alluded to.

The JTL...personally I believe there is more there than meets the eye.
But that;s besides the point here.

Am I comfortable with Walsh's book coming out this Xmas on Sky and his year? No.
All I can say is that my conversations with him have left me hopping my head off a wall in disbelief and inconsistency in his logic.

 

[sniper]

No - your posts give the impression that you have limited knowledge of Walsh and indeed any subject to do with cycling in general.
Added to that is that you maintain your position even when confronted with the correct information shows your bias.

Its difficult for Walsh "prove you wrong" when you do not read his articles and you have already made up your mind.
However, when you post something "wrong" I will continue to show you are wrong.

good arguments
and keep patting yourself on the back.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The person wrote a piece on leinders...it was pulled and he was told to avoid this stuff, toe the party line or go home...not I have no intention of getting into four pages of semantics. The bottom line is that they didn't want to know...and he wasn't going to get his work in the paper unless he did what they wanted.
He has done more than contact though - he has dictated to them and shouted them down and threatened.

Put away your sword - I don't want 4 pages of semantics either, but if there is something I do not understand, I will query you.

The final part about being told different - in fairness I wasn't clear there I will admit.
I have been told that other writers, not Walsh or Kimmage, have had pressure, for want of a better word (maybe there is a more apt term) not to write pieces on Sky which may paint them in a negative light...again in a debate on twitter this summer it's something Kimmage alluded to.

The JTL...personally I believe there is more there than meets the eye.
But that;s besides the point here.

Am I comfortable with Walsh's book coming out this Xmas on Sky and his year? No.
All I can say is that my conversations with him have left me hopping my head off a wall in disbelief and inconsistency in his logic.

To the blue - being honest, that's as much to do with you than Walsh. I can see his consistency in general (not on all things) - his current opinions at first glance seem at odds to his reputation. But his reputation is exaggerated.

The highlighted is true - and something that has been ignored. DW writes for a UK paper with broad readership and as noted they would prefer a puff feel good piece than recycling the Leinders story. Add in that any such story needs to adhere to their standards of legal, truthfulness and allowing a right to reply it is significant that it got published and suggests that Walsh has built a firm source which for Team Sky should be worrying.

 

[Digger]

Put away your sword - I don't want 4 pages of semantics either, but if there is something I do not understand, I will query you.



To the blue - being honest, that's as much to do with you than Walsh. I can see his consistency in general (not on all things) - his current opinions at first glance seem at odds to his reputation. But his reputation is exaggerated.

The highlighted is true - and something that has been ignored. DW writes for a UK paper with broad readership and as noted they would prefer a puff feel good piece than recycling the Leinders story. Add in that any such story needs to adhere to their standards of legal, truthfulness and allowing a right to reply it is significant that it got published and suggests that Walsh has built a firm source which for Team Sky should be worrying.

Ok then - he said to me that one reason he thinks sky are not doping is down to how poor they are in the classics - how good were USP in same?

Secondly he talks of speeds in the past and knowing they weren't legit (not talking lance here)...then he ignores the speeds froome goes...how is that consistent.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ok then - he said to me that one reason he thinks sky are not doping is down to how poor they are in the classics - how good were USP in same?

Secondly he talks of speeds in the past and knowing they weren't legit (not talking lance here)...then he ignores the speeds froome goes...how is that consistent.

On face value - IMO it isn't consistent.

So?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Walsh is not on the wagon, he is being used. And his eyes have been blindfolded. No doping because of the classics? No doping because Vaughters told him so we might add.

 

[the sceptic]

I dont think Walsh is being used. He is not someone that desperately wants to believe they are clean.

Im sure the book will reveal everything though, for just $29,99 YOU can learn the secrets of team sky and how they won the tour!!!

 

[Digger]

http://www.macleans.ca/canada/features/article.jsp?content=20070727_150415_8508&page=1

How is this consistent?
Macleans.ca: Have you been following this year’s tour?

David Walsh: Oh yeah. I do find it compelling in its way, but it’s a kind of a sick world. I watch it and then I don’t feel good having watched. I wish I had the discipline to completely switch off.

M: It’s sad to see Vinokourov and Ramussen win races and get taken down the next day.

DW: Why is it sad? They’re cheating. It’s sad that they cheat, but it’s good news when they get caught. What is sad is that the guy who’s wearing the yellow jersey now, Alberto Contador, is definitely cheating.

M: How can you tell he’s cheating?

DW: Michael Rasmussen went up the Gourette-Col d'Aubisque faster than Lance Armstrong ever went up it. Alberto Contador was alongside him the whole way. I’ve been at that race since the early 80s and I know what speeds they go up that mountain. The speeds the leaders go up at today are just illogical.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Walsh is not on the wagon, he is being used. And his eyes have been blindfolded. No doping because of the classics? No doping because Vaughters told him so we might add.

please link to where JV "told" Walsh that there was no doping at Sky.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

http://www.macleans.ca/canada/features/article.jsp?content=20070727_150415_8508&page=1

How is this consistent?
Macleans.ca: Have you been following this year’s tour?

David Walsh: Oh yeah. I do find it compelling in its way, but it’s a kind of a sick world. I watch it and then I don’t feel good having watched. I wish I had the discipline to completely switch off.

M: It’s sad to see Vinokourov and Ramussen win races and get taken down the next day.

DW: Why is it sad? They’re cheating. It’s sad that they cheat, but it’s good news when they get caught. What is sad is that the guy who’s wearing the yellow jersey now, Alberto Contador, is definitely cheating.

M: How can you tell he’s cheating?

DW: Michael Rasmussen went up the Gourette-Col d'Aubisque faster than Lance Armstrong ever went up it. Alberto Contador was alongside him the whole way. I’ve been at that race since the early 80s and I know what speeds they go up that mountain. The speeds the leaders go up at today are just illogical.

IMO it isn't - I already said that.

This is your problem, not Walshs - I wrote earlier "I can see his consistency in general (not on all things)".

You have effectively ignored that and have gone off to give me examples of something I don't particularly dispute.

You want Black or White, good or bad, to suit your view. Your entitled to do so, but don't expect everyone to behave or think the same.

 

[Benotti69]

please link to where JV "told" Walsh that there was no doping at Sky.

Walsh mentioned it at the 'whistleblowers' in Dublin that Vaughter's had no suspicions about Sky.

 

[Benotti69]

IMO it isn't - I already said that.

This is your problem, not Walshs - I wrote earlier "I can see his consistency in general (not on all things)".

You have effectively ignored that and have gone off to give me examples of something I don't particularly dispute.

You want Black or White, good or bad, to suit your view. Your entitled to do so, but don't expect everyone to behave or think the same.

are you ignoring that Walsh called out Contador and not Froome?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

are you ignoring that Walsh called out Contador and not Froome?

Are you ignoring that I wrote:
"I can see his consistency in general (not on all things)".

 

[Benotti69]

Are you ignoring that I wrote:
"I can see his consistency in general (not on all things)".

Well being inconsistent on 2 TdF winners, one caught with a Clen positive the other not to be caught yet, but doing a Contador is not consistency in general.

 

[sniper]

please link to where JV "told" Walsh that there was no doping at Sky.

This been linked tens of times upthread.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This been linked tens of times upthread.

Linked?

I have seen it repeated plenty of times, never linked.
In fact I know you are one of the ones to suggest it. So, if it is linked (tens of times) then it should be easy for you to find it and link it, one more time.

 

[Digger]

Walsh also said that he bases a lot of his belief on Wiggins on the fact that he thinks Vaughters runs a clean team and also told him Wiggins was clean...so going into the year he already believed strongly in Wiggins...
I said to walsh Wiggins had a very dodgy set of blood values from 2009. He argued the point a bit but said that he would get an independent expert to judge those values...he never did.
Morkenberg said those values are not what you'd expect...and I know three former pros who have seen that graph who say it strongly indicates blood doping.

 

[sniper]

Linked?

I have seen it repeated plenty of times, never linked.
In fact I know you are one of the ones to suggest it. So, if it is linked (tens of times)

what did i suggest?

then it should be easy for you to find it and link it, one more time

probably, yeah.

 

[sniper]

Walsh also said that he bases a lot of his belief on Wiggins on the fact that he thinks Vaughters runs a clean team and also told him Wiggins was clean...so going into the year he already believed strongly in Wiggins...
I said to walsh Wiggins had a very dodgy set of blood values from 2009. He argued the point a bit but said that he would get an independent expert to judge those values...he never did.
Morkenberg said those values are not what you'd expect...and I know three former pros who have seen that graph who say it strongly indicates blood doping.

good and rather interesting coupla posts on the last coupla pages, digger. +1

 

[Dr. Maserati]

what did i suggest?

You posted the same as FGL - highlighted below....

JV would do less harm to cycling and more good to anti-doping if he'd say nothing.
The cleaner-message is for his wallet and nothing else.

the only thing vaughters is achieving is he keeps journalists from digging deeper, rather than inviting them to do their job.
Not clever, unless that's exactly what he wants of course.

Just briefly recall Walsh.
In one of his first interviews wrt Team Sky, he said he believed in Sky because Vaughters had told him they were clean. (sorry no time to look for link). If that's what vaughters hopes to achieve, well kudos.

probably, yeah.

Good - as per forum rules:
"Proof of point, opinions, and common knowledge: you can't just say "we know Bobby the Bod is doping". You have to provide some proof using linked sources or verifiable material. "

Since you say it is indeed linked, even here on this thread - then get it.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Linked?

I have seen it repeated plenty of times, never linked.
In fact I know you are one of the ones to suggest it. So, if it is linked (tens of times) then it should be easy for you to find it and link it, one more time.

Walsh mentioned it at the 'whistleblowers' in Dublin that Vaughter's had no suspicions about Sky.

There you have it, or is Benotti now also a liar?

And, per forum rules, no trolling/baiting etc etc.

 

[sniper]

You posted the same as FGL - highlighted below....



Good - as per forum rules:
"Proof of point, opinions, and common knowledge: you can't just say "we know Bobby the Bod is doping". You have to provide some proof using linked sources or verifiable material. "

as i said, it's been linked, so not sure why your posting this rule.
perhaps what you're saying is that posters with longer memory should be wasting their precious time reposting links to aid posters with shorter memory?

 

[King Boonen]

There you have it, or is Benotti now also a liar?

And, per forum rules, no trolling/baiting etc etc.

That is not what he asked for.