• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Page 69 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
horsinabout said:
Pink Floyd?

Gentlemen you are bickering and it is very discourteous to other posters. It is what puts me off posting here, because you are not tackling the issues. Think about it:confused:

Well, what is the issue?

And what do you mean by bickering? People are allowed post here of there own free will. No-one asks them to post, its a forum and they should be queried on what they post.

As an example - you say Kimmage is the real deal, which is fine yet say that Walsh has a commitment to his "puppet masters" - yet both were employed by the ST when they were going to be inside with Sky.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Visit site
horsinabout said:
I think this might be worth a reply, I’ll have a go and do my best.

Firstly, the three points made here regarding Kimmage draws an assumption that Kimmage 'wants to become an insider'.

Sorry, have to stop you right there. It draws no such assumption. The three points make a comparison on known facts. The original suggestion, by Hog, was that someone writing from the inside is not as motivated to get the truth as someone outside.

To which I raised the obvious point, if being on the inside is so toxic to finding and set out truth, why did Kimmage go inside Garmin, and try and go inside Sky?


It's not a comment, at that stage, on Kimmage. It's a comment on Hog's completely compromised logic. Sniper then put forward a series of assertions that basically boiled down to Walsh was bought off, Kimmage is not. No evidence, no argument, simple assertion based on nothing.

At this stage Benotti decided to read implications that simply weren't in the text.

Firstly the suggestion that I was spinning, quite apart from being an unacceptable personal attack, was nonsense. Benotti tried to draw some distinction between Kimmage being invited to imbed, and wanting to imbed, hanging the whole argument on what might, kindly, be described as an idiosyncratic reading of the word "attempt" - most of us simply take it to mean "tried to", "made an effort to"...but Benotti wants to read something entirely more sinister, despite the fact that it's utterly irrelevant, since the only issue that matters is that Kimmage wanted to imbed, which is undisputed - whether of his own initiative, or by invitation makes absolutely no difference - he wanted to do it, and was annoyed when the agreement broke down. And that is important because, going back to the original Hog nonsense, if imbedding compromises your integrity or desire to tell the truth, why was Kimmage willing to be so compromised?

The only sensible answer is that's it's not compromising in that way at all, and that the suggestion that Walsh was compromised is post ex facto rationalisation to justify an inherent prejudice against the fact that he didn't write what Hog wanted him to.


Once you start introducing unevidenced nonsense about puppetmasters, you simply throw your lot in wholesale with Hog. In all gentleness, that' not a good position to be in in this discussion.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
martinvickers said:
I'm sorry, but I don't see what you're trying to say here. A couple of random assertions, but no arguments, let alone evidence.

The position set out by Hog before he...well, hogged...was that an 'insider' has a "different determination" than an outsider when it comes to finding the truth.

No ifs, no buts. No Kimmage exemption, quite rightly.

So the simple question arose, if being an insider is so fatal to truth finding as Hog declared, why did Kimmage, who has attacked Walsh over his work with Sky this year, why did Kimmage...

a) become an 'insider' with Garmin
b) attempt to become an 'insider' with Sky
c) become so offended an when he wasn't able to be an 'insider' with Sky.


So far, we've had hog simply refuse to answer and thus disqualify himself, and now this declaration that Kimmage is "the real deal", with no evidence or explanation for why the rule doesn't apply to him beyond what appears to be a religious credo.

Now, I am grateful you at least answered the question, fair play, but I'd be grateful for a bit more than this, because there's no there there at the moment.
as benotti said, this aint the kimmage thread. Paul can stand on his head, dance on the ceiling, and have his *** sold out by sky and garmin for all i care, it woukdnt have any bearing on our analysis of walsh. The walsh case is a pretty straightforward case. Economy of reasoning.
As i think the skeptic and red flanders said in some other thread, after festina and usps, you gotta be either pretty darn stupid or willingly blind to vouch for the performances of sky/froome 2012/13. We all know Walsh aint stupid.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
sniper said:
as benotti said, this aint the kimmage thread. Paul can stand on his head, dance on the ceiling, and have his *** sold out by sky and garmin for all i care, it woukdnt have any bearing on our analysis of walsh. The walsh case is a pretty straightforward case. Economy of reasoning.
You're correct - this isn't the Kimmage thread, but it has been correctly introduced as a comparison to some of the points raised here.

Your objection is noted, laughed at and ignored.

sniper said:
As i think the skeptic and red flanders said in some other thread, after festina and usps, you gotta be either pretty darn stupid or willingly blind to vouch for the performances of sky/froome 2012/13. We all know Walsh aint stupid.

Isn't this part of your nobrainer# stuff.

You are taking the opinions (that is all they are) of 2 anonymous posters to reinforce your view.

And I know it upsets you greatly, but cycling is indeed a lot cleaner than it was back in Festina days.
 
martinvickers said:
Sorry, have to stop you right there. It draws no such assumption. The three points make a comparison on known facts. The original suggestion, by Hog, was that someone writing from the inside is not as motivated to get the truth as someone outside.

To which I raised the obvious point, if being on the inside is so toxic to finding and set out truth, why did Kimmage go inside Garmin, and try and go inside Sky?



Once you start introducing unevidenced nonsense about puppetmasters, you simply throw your lot in wholesale with Hog. In all gentleness, that' not a good position to be in in this discussion.

The hogs logic?

It's simple.

No doping.

Just calling out the dopers one by one.

Very simple logic.

I like my position.

Angry man.
 
gooner said:
It's either a great way of showing transparency or not. Kimmage said it is, so why doesn't he recognise it with Walsh now? He was pre-judging all this.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/kim...and-froome-better-walk-the-walk-29424052.html

It's clearly evident in the video above he pays a lot of credence to this and remember Walsh has been with Sky even more longer than Kimmage was with Garmin in taking in the Giro and training camps. I haven't heard Walsh say he has been refused any access.

3 years later is not an argument. That only makes it sound like this sort of stuff is only good enough for Kimmage. The success is of a lot higher level now than it was back then.

Vickers has started the entire Walsh v Kimmidge all on his own.

He's done well.

Apparently is my argument?!

Go figure that out :rolleyes:
 
martinvickers said:
Ball not man. hog. Cut out he ad hominems.

Nice bait Vickers.

Try get me up for a ban?

You introduced Kimmidge. I refused to be drawn in to your nonsense.

You just go on and on and on.

Let me guess next response "Stop right there Hog, enough nonsense".

No Kimmidge where I'm standing.

Just a compromised Walsh.

And wee angry Vickers :rolleyes:
 
del1962 said:
With Roche wasnt he more of an insider though?

I mean he co-authored his biography, this did not stop Walsh looking at evidence to his connections to a certain doctor.

What I meant was Walsh has already selected his position and looks for evidence to match his theory.

He thinks Sky are clean so he finds everything that's "Why I believe in Froome".

With Armstrong it was the reverse.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
Nice bait Vickers.

Try get me up for a ban?

You introduced Kimmidge. I refused to be drawn in to your nonsense.

You just go on and on and on.

Let me guess next response "Stop right there Hog, enough nonsense".

No Kimmidge where I'm standing.

Just a compromised Walsh.

And wee angry Vickers :rolleyes:

Hog, you ran from this conversation much earlier when the basic hypocrisy of your position was pointed out. You're done.

Your only task now is to stop breaching the rules with attacks on my personality. Or keep them up, and face the consequences, presumably.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
thehog said:
The hogs logic?

It's simple.

No doping.

Just calling out the dopers one by one.

Very simple logic.

I like my position.

Angry man.

The Hogs logic?

Its simple.

Reply to themselves.

Dredge up old threads.

Quotes stuff without linking.

Throw out unfounded allegations.

Claim an inside knowledge.

Troll & bait.

Very simple logic.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Good.

I am glad you told everyone.

You add no value.

None.

One can't help but call to the mind the old saying...

""I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it..."
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Good.

I am glad you told everyone.

You add no value.

None.

Cool.

I don't think anyone reads threads when you get into your circleology.

So know no one knows but you.

I add lots of value I'm sorry.

You can't form you're own opinions.

Sorry.

Now enough and let this thread get back on track, ok?

No replying now.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
thehog said:
Cool.

I don't think anyone reads threads when you get into your circleology.

So know no one knows but you.

I add lots of value I'm sorry.

You can't form you're own opinions.

Sorry.

Now enough and let this thread get back on track, ok?

No replying now.

The thread that you posted in when there was no activity for a few days?

Sure- I would be delighted to discuss the topic with you - what new point did you wish to discuss?
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
3
0
Visit site
martinvickers said:
One can't help but call to the mind the old saying...

""I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it..."

So you spend about 50% of your time on here crying about personal attacks and then you post that?
 
Dr. Maserati said:
The thread that you posted in when there was no activity for a few days?

Sure- I would be delighted to discuss the topic with you - what new point did you wish to discuss?

Well it certainly got some activity. That's a good thing for the forum.

My point was Walsh has a predetermined position.

He's not coming for a "I don't know if they are doping or not" and then looking at all the facts to make up his mind and write an article.

He's started at clean. And found as much as he could to support that theory.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Visit site
the sceptic said:
So you spend about 50% of your time on here crying about personal attacks

No. and frankly, what business is it of yours? You clearly have a bee in your bonnet about me given recent threads, but you mustn't make the error of assuming I care. Really.

If you don't like it, report it. I'm pretty confident I can stand by it.

and then you post that?

Yes. It's a quote. GB Shaw. Quite famous, actually. Basically translates to don't feed the troll. Not a personal attack at al, but a well known saying and a gentle advisory to the Doc. If your dislike of me blinds you to that, it ain't my problem.

Now, on ye go.
 
the sceptic said:
So you spend about 50% of your time on here crying about personal attacks and then you post that?

He just likes to bait. That's Vicksers mission.

Very counter productive. And very angry.

But it is what it is.

But he constantly gets stuff wrong and has to be corrected.

Scots and the English language. Classic Vickers.

Mouth first, brain second.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
The forum in a nutshell.

Someone makes a personal remark, the other person makes a complaint.
The complaint is ignored or unseen - next time when someone gets a personal attack, they respond in kind.

Often they will regret it. But when the forum is not moderated the people who wish to discuss topics will be trolled by those who don't and eventually they stop posting.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
The forum in a nutshell.

Someone makes a personal remark, the other person makes a complaint.
The complaint is ignored or unseen - next time when someone gets a personal attack, they respond in kind.

Often they will regret it. But when the forum is not moderated the people who wish to discuss topics will be trolled by those who don't and eventually they stop posting.

This, sadly, by 100. Look at this thread; Obvious trolling relying on mod inaction, hoping, it seems to start rows, presumably to have others banned. Constructive.

But I repeat, the Shaw quote is a well known saying, not a personal attack, however much certain posters want it to be.. It's so obvious it beggers belief it could be interpreted otherwise, except by malicious intent.