Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[gooner]

Before he met Sky this year he thought they were clean.

Also what are the plenty of qualifiers?

That's an opinion before he went in, not a default position like some say where he wouldn't change his mind if he saw anything untoward or inconsistent going forward in the future.

Back in April.

"So, if anyone out there has proper evidence about Sky cheating, well, I'm a journalist and I would live to hear it."

Notice the word "proper". Not the nonsense that some like to portray that we can throw the same level of evidence at Sky like we once did with USPS.

An example is Carbon Monoxide. I have seen people throw this around in discussions but yet to see it said in the manner of any known knowledge that Sky are doing it.

 

[sniper]

....is a point (their point) , nothing more- so it cannot possibly address it.

That was pretty clear.

 

[Benotti69]

That's an opinion before he went in, not a default position like some say where he wouldn't change his mind if he saw anything untoward or inconsistent going forward in the future.

Back in April.

Funny how he called out Contador and Rasmussen in 2007 but thinks Froome can do the same clean.

Notice the word "proper". Not the nonsense that some like to portray that we can throw the same level of evidence at Sky like we once did with USPS.

An example is Carbon Monoxide. I have seen people throw this around in discussions but yet to see it said in the manner of any known knowledge that Sky are doing it.

Yeah Sky were inviting him knowing that he would discover their doping secrets. Fans are not that stupid.

After Walsh's love fest with Sky who is going to give him the doping info? Murdoch would do much worse than Armstrong.

 

[heart_attack_man]

Notice the word "proper". Not the nonsense that some like to portray that we can throw the same level of evidence at Sky like we once did with USPS.

I'm pretty sure a bunch of journalists laughing at Armstrong up Sestriere isn't exactly evidence either, but it was enough to convince him in the past. Not sure why considering some Sky riders are now exhibiting similar climbing abilities.

"Proper" evidence obviously wasn't quite as important back then?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm pretty sure a bunch of journalists laughing at Armstrong up Sestriere isn't exactly evidence either, but it was enough to convince him in the past. Not sure why considering some Sky riders are now exhibiting similar climbing abilities.

"Proper" evidence obviously wasn't quite as important back then?

It wasn't.
He has already said that LAs treatment of Bassons was more suspicious.

Which is like most people - we do not use just one piece to draw conclusions, we use many differing pieces.

 

[the sceptic]

That's an opinion before he went in, not a default position like some say where he wouldn't change his mind if he saw anything untoward or inconsistent going forward in the future.

Back in April.



Notice the word "proper". Not the nonsense that some like to portray that we can throw the same level of evidence at Sky like we once did with USPS.

An example is Carbon Monoxide. I have seen people throw this around in discussions but yet to see it said in the manner of any known knowledge that Sky are doing it.

He used to use performance as a strong indicator on whether someone was doping or not, but now suddenly he has adopted the @cogg@n school of thought where performance never proves anything?

What kind of real world evidence did you expect Walsh to come up with? Its not like they were going to do transfusions while he was watching or confess everything when he looked them in the eyes over the dinner table.

 

[gooner]

Funny how he called out Contador and Rasmussen in 2007 but thinks Froome can do the same clean.

Contador was coming off his name in Puerto and Rasmussen was thrown off the Tour. Walsh isn't flawless, no one is but he was being interviewed after all this took place.

Yeah Sky were inviting him knowing that he would discover their doping secrets. Fans are not that stupid.

After Walsh's love fest with Sky who is going to give him the doping info? Murdoch would do much worse than Armstrong.

So why were you up in arms about Kimmage not being allowed to follow in 2010 Tour? And before you say it's a Walsh thread, it's entirely relevant as I'm comparing your inconsistency between the two.

I'm pretty sure a bunch of journalists laughing at Armstrong up Sestriere isn't exactly evidence either, but it was enough to convince him in the past. Not sure why considering some Sky riders are now exhibiting similar climbing abilities.

"Proper" evidence obviously wasn't quite as important back then?

Walsh only referred to the laughing in the press room. He said after AX3 Domaines it was the bullying of Bassons which was the turning point for him and got wrongly accused of moving the goal posts because he was in and around Sky.

Walsh said in SDS that the Bassons incident was the key one for him which was written before he went reporting inside in Sky.

 

[gooner]

He used to use performance as a strong indicator on whether someone was doping or not, but now suddenly he has adopted the @cogg@n school of thought where performance never proves anything?

What kind of real world evidence did you expect Walsh to come up with? Its not like they were going to do transfusions while he was watching or confess everything when he looked them in the eyes over the dinner table.

What I said to Benotti above applies to yourself.

So why were you up in arms about Kimmage not being allowed to follow in 2010 Tour? And before you say it's a Walsh thread, it's entirely relevant as I'm comparing your inconsistency between the two.

 

[heart_attack_man]

It wasn't.
He has already said that LAs treatment of Bassons was more suspicious.

Which is like most people - we do not use just one piece to draw conclusions, we use many differing pieces.

Interesting:

"My instinct says, 'Don't believe it. This is all about as logical as the Tour being led by a lobster on a bike. A lobster complete with helmet and a moving backstory about a last-minute escape from a pot of boiling water."

"In 1999 Sestriere became a fork in the road for the Press Corps. Those who wanted to do Journalism went one way; their old comrades took the other route. Things wouldn't be the same for a long time."

"I had watched the final climb to Sestriere on a big screen in the salle de presse. 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 were enough to form a platoon of sceptics."

I could go on, but I won't. Unless David's words himself aren't enough to convince you that he was convinced?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

He used to use performance as a strong indicator on whether someone was doping or not, but now suddenly he has adopted the @cogg@n school of thought where performance never proves anything?

What kind of real world evidence did you expect Walsh to come up with? Its not like they were going to do transfusions while he was watching or confess everything when he looked them in the eyes over the dinner table.

Then why give out? What did you expect?
That Sky "were going to do transfusions while he was watching or confess everything when he looked them in the eyes over the dinner table"?

he is a journalist - not a cop. He will rely on information that contradicts what he was told, that is usually done through a source. Which is why being able to uncover and leak the JTL story is significant.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Yes, they are there.
It has nothing to do with me that you will not subscribe.



You have no idea what was or was not asked.

Very simple - if you do want to know what he wrote and comment on it subscripe. If you dont and are relying on others, then don't comment.

Dear doc MAs, dear friend, I have read all articles David Walsh has written on Sky, so, point me where he has done all the above. Dont BS me.

Walsh has not been journalistic on Sky, why?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Interesting:

"My instinct says, 'Don't believe it. This is all about as logical as the Tour being led by a lobster on a bike. A lobster complete with helmet and a moving backstory about a last-minute escape from a pot of boiling water."

"In 1999 Sestriere became a fork in the road for the Press Corps. Those who wanted to do Journalism went one way; their old comrades took the other route. Things wouldn't be the same for a long time."

"I had watched the final climb to Sestriere on a big screen in the salle de presse. 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 were enough to form a platoon of sceptics."

I could go on, but I won't. Unless David's words himself aren't enough to convince you that he was convinced?

You can link to it, please.

Because if this is from SDS then there are large parts missing from what you wrote.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Dear doc MAs, dear friend, I have read all articles David Walsh has written on Sky, so, point me where he has done all the above. Dont BS me.

Walsh has not been journalistic on Sky, why?

Really?
You appear to not only remember Walsh articles, but what you wrote here earlier.

No they are not. His great journalistic skills are behind a paywall. So, we must rely on you to give us info, snippets even, or shall we just wait for Santa and ask him that Sky - book?

Sceptic was absolutely right, the who-what-where-when-why and how questions were not asked by Walsh. Since he did that with his golden goose - the Texas bikeshopowner - the question is WHY isnt Walsh so thorough when it comes to team SKY? Or is he saving all his smelly doping stories for that Santaclaus book?

 

[heart_attack_man]

You can link to it, please.

Because if this is from SDS then there are large parts missing from what you wrote.

It is from SDS. Of course there are "large" parts missing - did you want me to transcribe the entire book? Pretty sure that's against forum rules anyway.

I could still write more detailing how much he was not convinced, and in fact near the start of Chapter 4 he talks about how "That Evening" he was on the phone to Alex Butler, sports editor of ST, and the following conversation had in it this exact question:

"But back to Armstrong for a minute, David. Do you believe he's doping?"
"Yeah, I do. Of course I can't prove it. I'm going to talk to people. See what others are saying."
"Well make sure you give it to us in time for the Lawyers to see."

If you're attempting to infer that I am taking things out of context, I would appreciate you retracting that inference, as this is clearly not the case.

 

[the sceptic]

What I said to Benotti above applies to yourself.

I dont remember saying anything about Kimmage not being invited to sky.

To me its pretty meaningless who gets or doesnt get invited to spend the tour with sky. I dont expect Walsh, Kimmage or anyone else to uncover anything that matters.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It is from SDS. Of course there are "large" parts missing - did you want me to transcribe the entire book? Pretty sure that's against forum rules anyway.

I could still write more detailing how much he was not convinced, and in fact near the start of Chapter 4 he talks about how "That Evening" he was on the phone to Alex Butler, sports editor of ST, and the following conversation had in it this exact question:

"But back to Armstrong for a minute, David. Do you believe he's doping?"
"Yeah, I do. Of course I can't prove it. I'm going to talk to people. See what others are saying."
"Well make sure you give it to us in time for the Lawyers to see."

If you're attempting to infer that I am taking things out of context, I would appreciate you retracting that inference, as this is clearly not the case.

I am not attempting. Let me be abundantly clear - you did take things out of context. You mentioned earlier that LAs Sestriere climb was the 'evidence' Walsh used.

I said it was part of it, and mentioned that the treatment of Bassons was as much to coming to an opinion.

Your subsequent post proves that.

Original post:

I'm pretty sure a bunch of journalists laughing at Armstrong up Sestriere isn't exactly evidence either, but it was enough to convince him in the past. Not sure why considering some Sky riders are now exhibiting similar climbing abilities.

"Proper" evidence obviously wasn't quite as important back then?

 

[heart_attack_man]

I'm pretty sure a bunch of journalists laughing at Armstrong up Sestriere isn't exactly evidence either, but it was enough to convince him in the past. Not sure why considering some Sky riders are now exhibiting similar climbing abilities.

"Proper" evidence obviously wasn't quite as important back then?

What I posted is above.

I was referring to the fact that proper evidence wasn't important to convince him of doping in the past. That is, he was convinced after Sestriere, even WITHOUT "proper evidence", but with the same lack of "proper evidence" for Sky he doesn't seem to have a problem, even though they climb at similarly ridiculous speeds.

If you can't tell that from the above post, then I would suggest that your comprehension of the above isn't accurate.

I can now kind of understand why people call it the Vortex. Wow.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Really?
You appear to not only remember Walsh articles, but what you wrote here earlier.

Deflecting. Deflecting.
Point me to the articles and stop your vortexing/deflecting. I just stated I read all the reporter pieces by David Walsh, so stop vortexing and get on topic.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What I posted is above.

I was referring to the fact that proper evidence wasn't important to convince him of doping in the past. That is, he was convinced after Sestriere, even WITHOUT "proper evidence", but with the same lack of "proper evidence" for Sky he doesn't seem to have a problem, even though they climb at similarly ridiculous speeds.

If you can't tell that from the above post, then I would suggest that your comprehension of the above isn't accurate.

I can now kind of understand why people call it the Vortex. Wow.

To the blue - you post it, I query it.
I do not believe I have a reading comprehension - thats getting close to personal, be careful doing that.

Again, you are using Sestriere as the sole reason for him being "convinced" - that is clearly not the case, as SDS clearly goes in to.

As well as that if Walsh was only to use "proper evidence" to have suspicions or be convinced, he would not have joined or even queried Sky in the first place.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Deflecting. Deflecting.
Point me to the articles and stop your vortexing/deflecting. I just stated I read all the reporter pieces by David Walsh, so stop vortexing and get on topic.

I am more than happy to get on topic.

Not sure which article it is that you want me to link to - but the search function is very easy on the ST site.

 

[heart_attack_man]

I am not attempting. Let me be abundantly clear - you did take things out of context. You mentioned earlier that LAs Sestriere climb was the 'evidence' Walsh used.

I said it was part of it, and mentioned that the treatment of Bassons was as much to coming to an opinion.

Your subsequent post proves that.

Original post:

I still haven't taken anything out of context. Your accusation of such does not make it so. I NEVER said that LA's Sestriere climb was evidence that Walsh used, however I did IMPLY that the Sestriere climb was enough to convince him that he was doping. Lance's Sestriere climb is no more evidence than Froome's Aix 3 or Alpe ridiculousness. Read again the passages I posted from SDS, particularly the call with his editor the NIGHT of Sestriere.

Not evidence. Never said it was. At any point.

Still awaiting your retraction. Feel free - any time.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I am more than happy to get on topic.

Not sure which article it is that you want me to link to - but the search function is very easy on the ST site.

For the last time Master Vortex:

Sceptic was absolutely right, the who-what-where-when-why and how questions were not asked by Walsh. Since he did that with his golden goose - the Texas bikeshopowner - the question is WHY isnt Walsh so thorough when it comes to team SKY?

Give me the dates of the articles where Walsh has addressed this, deflector.

 

[heart_attack_man]

To the blue - you post it, I query it.
I do not believe I have a reading comprehension - thats getting close to personal, be careful doing that.

Again, you are using Sestriere as the sole reason for him being "convinced" - that is clearly not the case, as SDS clearly goes in to.

As well as that if Walsh was only to use "proper evidence" to have suspicions or be convinced, he would not have joined or even queried Sky in the first place.

Nothing personal about it - your comprehension of that wasn't correct. Once again, I was talking about him not requiring PROPER EVIDENCE to be CONVINCED of Armstrong's doping after watching Sestriere. Yet then he asks for "PROPER EVIDENCE" for Sky - Why? Why the difference in requirement when Sestriere = Aix 3 or Alpe. Froome = donkey a few years earlier when Armstrong = donkey a few years earlier (and DW had interviewed him at that time). I'd say that that similarities are actually quite eerie between the 2 teams in MANY ways.

I would suggest that this is because, like in 1999 when the journalists chose 1 fork of the road, this time he has chosen the other fork.

Your last point, I'm not going to get involved in, because I can just see more of this.

No personal attacks here, Doc. I often like some of what you post, but you can't attempt to shut me down like that. Walsh has been hypocritical in his approach to Sky.

 

[Bronstein]

Another example of Walsh's double standards from Seven Deadly Sins:


"That evening [after the Sestriere stage] I called Alex Butler, my sports editor at the Sunday Times.

‘Hell of a stage today,’ he said. ‘Armstrong’s 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.

‘Afraid not. Actually, I think it stinks. This guy has ridden the Tour de France four times before now, ridden nine mountain stages and not been anywhere near. Suddenly he’s an outstanding climber."


In the three GTs prior to the 2011 Vuelta, Froome never finished in the top 20 of any mountain stage. Yet during the 2011 Vuelta he suddenly became one of the best climbers in the world. It seems very inconsistent to believe on the one hand that Froome is clean, yet adopt a skeptical attitude with respect to Armstrong.

 

[heart_attack_man]

Another example of Walsh's double standards from Seven Deadly Sins:


"That evening [after the Sestriere stage] I called Alex Butler, my sports editor at the Sunday Times.

‘Hell of a stage today,’ he said. ‘Armstrong’s 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.

‘Afraid not. Actually, I think it stinks. This guy has ridden the Tour de France four times before now, ridden nine mountain stages and not been anywhere near. Suddenly he’s an outstanding climber."


In the three GTs prior to the 2011 Vuelta, Froome never finished in the top 20 of any mountain stage. Yet during the 2011 Vuelta he suddenly became one of the best climbers in the world. It seems very inconsistent to believe on the one hand that Froome is clean, yet adopt a skeptical attitude with respect to Armstrong.

This.

Tenchars.