Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[the sceptic]

David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST 38 m

@2beaucoup I'm not defending Chris Froome here but am going to point out the obvious: what you're missing is evidence.

There was evidence against Armstrong in 99?

 

[Benotti69]

There was evidence against Armstrong in 99?

Doctor Maserati will be with you in a moment to pick clean your argument and leave you on t'other side feeling all cold and lonesome due to questioning Walsh, Sky latest pr Guru.

S'funny Walsh, calling Bassons a anti-doping guru, back in 99 Bassons was a brave and courageous rider who was not afraid to speak the truth, not a guru, but hell a bit of revisionism from Walsh is readily acceptable.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Dopers tend not to engage, with the exception of JV, but he is savy to t'interweb and knows that you can manipulate the message with a little bit of inside info fed to fans.

Dopers tend not to engage, that is in part true - so then why give them a convenient way to not engage by making up stuff?

 

[Benotti69]

Todays made up line:
"That he was not one of the journos laughing at Armstrong climbing Sestriere is news to me,"
That is completely false.

Are you saying Walsh was one of the journo's laughing in the press room, because he gave an interview on sportscompetitor radio and made it clear he was one of the ones laughing!

Your second line is interesting - is that what you want? To stroke your internet ego? That people might read your stuff? Do you have no self esteem that people will dismiss you as a liar?

I have no internet ego, it is impossible when you are anonymous. The only ones who take this seriously, apart from you, are those who fear their cheating will be found out. Dismissing an anonymous 010110101010001s is pathetic.

My self esteem is in good nick thanks for asking.

I slap it around with my right hand.

Must hurt.

Dopers tend not to engage, that is in part true - so then why give them a convenient way to not engage by making up stuff? Why do you pretend to highlight a lie by lying?

Dont agree with me, it might hurt your self esteem, ego and other fictious stuff that your pedantism runs on.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Doctor Maserati will be with you in a moment to pick clean your argument and leave you on t'other side feeling all cold and lonesome due to questioning Walsh, Sky latest pr Guru.

S'funny Walsh, calling Bassons a anti-doping guru, back in 99 Bassons was a brave and courageous rider who was not afraid to speak the truth, not a guru, but hell a bit of revisionism from Walsh is readily acceptable.

I have no problem questioning Walsh. I do have a problem with people making stuff up and misrepresenting what people say - I have been doing that since I started on this forum in 2009.
That is why our paths so much Benotti.

As for Walsh - I actually do not agree with him.
But I don't have to make up stuff to disagree with his opinion.

 

[sniper]

there is misrepresenting and there is interpreting.

...
I slap you around with my right hand.
...

how should that be interpreted?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Are you saying Walsh was one of the journo's laughing in the press room, because he gave an interview on sportscompetitor radio and made it clear he was one of the ones laughing!

Yes, he was one of the journo's laughing in the press room.

It is not about disagreeing with you - in fact i believe Sky have a program there somewhere. But I disagree with you making stuff. Always will.

 

[Benotti69]

I have no problem questioning Walsh. I do have a problem with people making stuff up and misrepresenting what people say - I have been doing that since I started on this forum in 2009.
That is why our paths so much Benotti.

As for Walsh - I actually do not agree with him.
But I don't have to make up stuff to disagree with his opinion.

I have no intention of misquoting or misrepresenting people. But if i do, well I know you've got my back, just not too close ok Doc.

I pointed to a tweet, it is representative of the positive spin (my word) that Walsh has been giving Sky this year via twitter.

I found that tweet to be untrue of what Walsh said on a radio interwiew, competitor radio. So i posted.

Now you 'pick' on my posts with such glee, not that i am bothered, but that could be interpretated in a certain manner.

I will continue to post in the same manner i have as a nobody on t'internet in a tiny echo chamber where no more than 12 people post.

If you wish to continue pedantisicing them for your pleasure feel free, whatever you floats your boat.

Walsh deserves criticism at the moment. if it is all part od some elaborate plan to lull Sky into a position of weakness i will be the first to apologise and praise him here as i have done on numerous occasions before he started his so called 'embedding' with Sky. He is not embedded but i will use the term as that is what people seem to think he is doing.

Embedded is a term used for journalists and photogrpahers who go to war zones where they live full time (24/7) with the troops for months. Walsh has not done that. He has flown in and out of Sky camps and races. Anything untoward could easily be hidden from Walsh.

 

[sittingbison]

Give it a rest you two - you know who I mean. Attacking the messenger is not on....keep it up and you'll miss the next exciting instalment of the dawg and pony show

 

[Cycle Chic]

I have no intention of misquoting or misrepresenting people. But if i do, well I know you've got my back, just not too close ok Doc.

I pointed to a tweet, it is representative of the positive spin (my word) that Walsh has been giving Sky this year via twitter.

I found that tweet to be untrue of what Walsh said on a radio interwiew, competitor radio. So i posted.

Now you 'pick' on my posts with such glee, not that i am bothered, but that could be interpretated in a certain manner.

I will continue to post in the same manner i have as a nobody on t'internet in a tiny echo chamber where no more than 12 people post.

If you wish to continue pedantisicing them for your pleasure feel free, whatever you floats your boat.

Walsh deserves criticism at the moment. if it is all part od some elaborate plan to lull Sky into a position of weakness i will be the first to apologise and praise him here as i have done on numerous occasions before he started his so called 'embedding' with Sky. He is not embedded but i will use the term as that is what people seem to think he is doing.

Embedded is a term used for journalists and photogrpahers who go to war zones where they live full time (24/7) with the troops for months. Walsh has not done that. He has flown in and out of Sky camps and races. Anything untoward could easily be hidden from Walsh.

Maybe he knows how clueless Sky are. I mean they haven't been too bright so far...hiring Leinders....catapulting Froome and Wiggins into racehorses, ..letting Froome and Porte go full genius and then having to have it pointed out by the World's media how Armstrong'ish that was.

Their PR Agency is clueless. I cannot believe that Walsh is this naïve. He's playing the waiting game...and he cant 'live' with them 24/7 ...he's a journalist on other sports.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I have no intention of misquoting or misrepresenting people. But if i do, well I know you've got my back, just not too close ok Doc.

I pointed to a tweet, it is representative of the positive spin (my word) that Walsh has been giving Sky this year via twitter.

I found that tweet to be untrue of what Walsh said on a radio interwiew, competitor radio. So i posted.

But thats exactly what you did. You completely misrepresented what Walsh said and you appear to admit it is all in your zeal to expose Sky.

That is pathetic.

Now you 'pick' on my posts with such glee, not that i am bothered, but that could be interpretated in a certain manner.

It is far from glee - far from it.
I look at you as one of the people that does more damage to anti-doping efforts because you make stuff up and allow people (like Brailsford, JV etc) to dismiss other genuine, smart questions or analysis.

I am guessing that wasn't your interpretation.

I will continue to post in the same manner i have as a nobody on t'internet in a tiny echo chamber where no more than 12 people post.

If you wish to continue pedantisicing them for your pleasure feel free, whatever you floats your boat.

Walsh deserves criticism at the moment. if it is all part od some elaborate plan to lull Sky into a position of weakness i will be the first to apologise and praise him here as i have done on numerous occasions before he started his so called 'embedding' with Sky. He is not embedded but i will use the term as that is what people seem to think he is doing.

Embedded is a term used for journalists and photogrpahers who go to war zones where they live full time (24/7) with the troops for months. Walsh has not done that. He has flown in and out of Sky camps and races. Anything untoward could easily be hidden from Walsh.

Then I will continue to correct you in the same manner.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Give it a rest you two - you know who I mean. Attacking the messenger is not on....keep it up and you'll miss the next exciting instalment of the dawg and pony show

Hold on.
If someone is lying I will show it. I make zero apologies for doing so.

And suggesting someone is dense for reading a solitary tweet and coming to the conclusion they did may not be nice, but is factual.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I have no problem questioning Walsh. I do have a problem with people making stuff up and misrepresenting what people say.

We are delighted you come in time after time to correct us with the right - of course your - interpretation.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/david-walsh

And I should say, when we talk about doping and Lance, and this is the thing I will always remember, maybe as much as anything, on the day that he made 'brilliant' ride up Sestriere in the '99 Tour, the journalists in the press room, the majority of them, were laughing cynically. They thought this was the greatest joke. This guy, riding up this mountain, at this speed? With this apparent effortlessness, in The Tour of Renewal? In the Tour post Festina, when they were all riding clean?

Well, Doc, where does David state 'I laughed'? It states clearly 'they'.

End of vortex.

David should re read this and watch the Giro 2009 and then the Pena Cabarga stage. This guy, doing this on Pena Cabarga? In the time of the ABP? With climbing speeds down?

 

[sittingbison]

Hold on.
If someone is lying I will show it. I make zero apologies for doing so.

And suggesting someone is dense for reading a solitary tweet and coming to the conclusion they did may not be nice, but is factual.

Not got a problem with first part, that's attacking the message.

Got a real problem with second part, that's attacking the messenger, which is not acceptable.

Move on.

 

[thehog]

We are delighted you come in time after time to correct us with the right - of course your - interpretation.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/david-walsh

Well, Doc, where does David state 'I laughed'? It states clearly 'they'.

End of vortex.

David should re read this and watch the Giro 2009 and then the Pena Cabarga stage. This guy, doing this on Pena Cabarga? In the time of the ABP? With climbing speeds down?

End of vortex?

Not possible.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

We are delighted you come in time after time to correct us with the right - of course your - interpretation.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/david-walsh

Well, Doc, where does David state 'I laughed'? It states clearly 'they'.

End of vortex.

David should re read this and watch the Giro 2009 and then the Pena Cabarga stage. This guy, doing this on Pena Cabarga? In the time of the ABP? With climbing speeds down?

Benottis point was that somehow a tweet meant he was not in the press room. Your piece confirms that.

Page 65 of Walshs SDS book:

"I had watched the final climb to Sestriere on a big screen in the salle de press. At the moment of Armstrong's acceleration there was a collective and audible intake of breath and, as he rode clear, there was ironic laughter and shaking of heads. Not every journalist was overcome with scepticism, not even the majority, but there was enough to form a platoon of sceptics. This was't everyone Tour of renewal.

That evening I called Alex Butler, my sports editor at the Sunday Times. "Hell of a stage today,' he said. 'Armstrongs got it now, hasn't he?'
'He will win the Tour no doubt about that'.
"You're not convinced about him?'
I can hear disappointment in his voice.

 

[Benotti69]

I dont think Walsh is on a lose lose. His 'Whislteblowers' talks have shown that he doesn't give a fig for other journalists opinions.

That he was not one of the journos laughing at Armstrong climbing Sestriere is news to me, that it took the bullying of Bassons to make Walsh question Arstrong shows how much Walsh can actually see in cycling, very little.

That he then went against the grain to write about Armstrong performances not being natural shows he aint interested in others opinions.

Why he is giving Sky an easy ride? Maybe he is close to retiring at 60 and does not want to jeopardise that!

I cannot see his reasons to not doubt and probe deeper.

Kimmage will not take Murdoch's shilling if it means compromising his integrity.

Benottis point was that somehow a tweet meant he was not in the press room.

Page 65 of Walshs SDS book:

Your pedantism failed. Where do I say he was not in the pressroom?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not got a problem with first part, that's attacking the message.

Got a real problem with second part, that's attacking the messenger, which is not acceptable.

Move on.

Fine - but it was factual, and they did say they don't have an internet ego, so....
But we will move on.

End of vortex?

Not possible.

With you still here too, no.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Good thing this misinterpretation by Doc Mas has come to a good conclusion, now, group hug.

Walsh should really get his old who is doing what adagium out of the closet.

 

[thehog]

With you still here too, no.

Medusa.

...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Your pedantism failed. Where do I say he was not in the pressroom?

Seriously?
This is what started it.

A tweet from Walsh,

David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST

People who make more noise than sense say I acted on suspicion in 99. Simply not true. Armstrong bullying Bassons was key moment for me.

So Walsh admits to not being one of the journalists in the pressroom laughing while watching Armstrong sprinting up Sestriere.

Armstrong bullied Bassons after Sestriere when Bassons attacked on the road to Alpe D'Huez.

So in similar vein, why not question Woggins who attacked Landis and begin to doubt Wiggins performances?

We got the excuses of Armstrong, enlarged heart, loss of body weight, higher cadence, yadayada and we are getting similar lies from Sky.

The same goes for the meteroic of Froome, excuses being believed and not questioned.

Walsh seems to be not reading Sky well here.

He is back to being a fan with a laptop.

How did you even come to that conclusion based on one tweet? (Which does not mention, Sestriere, laughing, press room)

 

[thehog]

Zzzzzz.

Vortex.

Vooooorateeex.



Vortexxxxxxxxxx.

 

[Benotti69]

Seriously?
This is what started it.

How did you even come to that conclusion based on one tweet? (Which does not mention, Sestriere, laughing, press room)

I said he admits not laughing.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I said he admits not laughing.

Great.
Here is the tweet, again.

David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST

People who make more noise than sense say I acted on suspicion in 99. Simply not true. Armstrong bullying Bassons was key moment for me.

Where does he admit not laughing?

 

[Benotti69]

Great.
Here is the tweet, again.

Where does he admit not laughing?

So we can continue to expand the vortex.

My post made sense to the non pedantic. I will leave it at that. You continue to troll my posts.

Emma O'Reilly felt the need to question Walsh. Go get pedantic on her if you dare.