Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

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.

I fear for someone wanting to have a link to that.

But, hey, lets not call out Walsh's hypocritical stance on Team Sunday Times.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

Ok, if I have read you wrong, then I do apologise.

But you bring up one point, ie performance on mountains, when the fact is Walsh uses many points. I don't believe there is anything controversial in showing that.

Also - this may be where we miss each other.
Where has Walsh written that he needs "proper evidence" before he is convinced? Maybe he said before he can write a damning article, but I doubt he has been that explicit.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

For the last time Master Vortex:

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

You are very vague on what you are requesting - so here are the dates for all pieces mentioning Kerrison -
01 February 2013
17 March 2013
28 Apri 2013
5 May 2013
12 May 2013
19 May 2013
30 June 2013
7 July 2013
14 July 2013
28 July 2013

You're welcome.

 

[heart_attack_man]

Ok, if I have read you wrong, then I do apologise.

But you bring up one point, ie performance on mountains, when the fact is Walsh uses many points. I don't believe there is anything controversial in showing that.

Also - this may be where we miss each other.
Where has Walsh written that he needs "proper evidence" before he is convinced? Maybe he said before he can write a damning article, but I doubt he has been that explicit.

Performance in the mountains is A point I'm bringing up, sure. Just as DW himself brought it up in SDS. I would suggest that there are, many points for Sky that would be just as questionable as LA/USPS. So the double standard doesn't really add up.

Walsh HASN'T written that he needs proper evidence to be convinced. Quite the opposite - he was convinced with LA WITHOUT proper evidence, but what he had witnessed with LA was not dissimilar to Froome /Sky. Why so convinced for LA, but a "true believer" for Froome?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

You are very vague on what you are requesting - so here are the dates for all pieces mentioning Kerrison -
01 February 2013
17 March 2013
28 Apri 2013
5 May 2013
12 May 2013
19 May 2013
30 June 2013
7 July 2013
14 July 2013
28 July 2013

You're welcome.

And all of these articles answer the who-what-where-when-why and how questions? So, per example, believing the good doctor - Peters I believe - point blank on Froome's blood profile was conform the who-what-where-when-why and how questions a JOURNALIST would ask?

There are so many holes in Walshs'es articles it is unbelievable this man still has a job.

 

[Bronstein]

Another example of Walsh's clear inconsistency from Seven Deadly Sins:

Context - Walsh is having a discussion with another journalist about Armstrong.


"This is mad. Clean guy goes faster than the EPO generation? So what do you think, Charles? Smoother road surfaces? Tail winds every day? Lighter bikes? Or these leaders are doping, as Bassons says?’

‘I can’t argue with your logic,’ Charles said, ‘but I find it really hard to believe that a guy who has had cancer, pretty serious cancer too, would come back and put that **** in his body.’

‘I know, that’s the bit that’s hard to believe. But, on the other hand, what drug do they give you when you’re recovering from cancer? EPO. Side-effects? Seemingly far less than for most drugs. The bottom line is that you can’t go faster without EPO than with it, and we’re being asked to believe you can'."


Obviously Walsh didn't pay much attention to the fact that Froome set the 3rd fastest time up Ax-3-Domaines, beating the times of known dopers such as Armstrong, Ullrich, Basso, Mayo, Contador, etc.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Performance in the mountains is A point I'm bringing up, sure. Just as DW himself brought it up in SDS. I would suggest that there are, many points for Sky that would be just as questionable as LA/USPS. So the double standard doesn't really add up.

Walsh HASN'T written that he needs proper evidence to be convinced. Quite the opposite - he was convinced with LA WITHOUT proper evidence, but what he had witnessed with LA was not dissimilar to Froome /Sky. Why so convinced for LA, but a "true believer" for Froome?

But this is the whole point.

If he used performance as his one and only basis for drawing a conclusion, then the apparent hypocrisy would be warranted - but it is clear from many of his books and articles that he uses a lot of things.

 

[rhubroma]

Another example of Walsh's clear inconsistency from Seven Deadly Sins:

Context - Walsh is having a discussion with another journalist about Armstrong.


"This is mad. Clean guy goes faster than the EPO generation? So what do you think, Charles? Smoother road surfaces? Tail winds every day? Lighter bikes? Or these leaders are doping, as Bassons says?’

‘I can’t argue with your logic,’ Charles said, ‘but I find it really hard to believe that a guy who has had cancer, pretty serious cancer too, would come back and put that **** in his body.’

‘I know, that’s the bit that’s hard to believe. But, on the other hand, what drug do they give you when you’re recovering from cancer? EPO. Side-effects? Seemingly far less than for most drugs. The bottom line is that you can’t go faster without EPO than with it, and we’re being asked to believe you can'."


Obviously Walsh didn't pay much attention to the fact that Froome set the 3rd fastest time up Ax-3-Domaines, beating the times of known dopers such as Armstrong, Ullrich, Basso, Mayo, Contador, etc.

Must be the wind.

 

[Benotti69]

But this is the whole point.

If he used performance as his one and only basis for drawing a conclusion, then the apparent hypocrisy would be warranted - but it is clear from many of his books and articles that he uses a lot of things.

It is a pretty good basis to ask a wider circle of experts then the BS SKy are serving to him on a platter.

Why is Walsh not getting Froome's numbers from pre Vuelta'11?

Why does he roll over and let Sky tickle his tummy?

 

[Benotti69]

The competitor radio interviews that David Walsh gives is interesting when you compare his looking Armstrong and his refusal to look at Wiggins/Froome in a similar light.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It is a pretty good basis to ask a wider circle of experts then the BS SKy are serving to him on a platter.

Why is Walsh not getting Froome's numbers from pre Vuelta'11?

Why does he roll over and let Sky tickle his tummy?

Who are the 'experts' he has to ask?

He has asked and talked with a wide group of people (even our Digger) - but often the people he talks to get dismissed, because they obviously have not done a good job convincing him that Sky are dirty.

I would be pretty sure Froomes pre Vuelta 11 numbers would make as much sense to Walsh as they would to you.

 

[Digger]

Did he just say - "I think they are clean"...... and thats it?

Of course not - you throw up a quote from him and there will be a qualifier in it.

You said he didn't go in with any preconceived notions, or words to that effect...and I am saying he did...he thought they were clean...based on JV.

 

[caryopsis]

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.

For reference's sake the post above is what started the discussion about "proper" evidence.

 

[heart_attack_man]

But this is the whole point.

If he used performance as his one and only basis for drawing a conclusion, then the apparent hypocrisy would be warranted - but it is clear from many of his books and articles that he uses a lot of things.

And it is also clear that with Froome /Sky a lot of things don't add up, yet he believes Sky and not LA. Jingoism perhaps?

If nothing else, he's certainly inconsistent.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Who are the 'experts' he has to ask?

He has asked and talked with a wide group of people (even our Digger) - but often the people he talks to get dismissed, because they obviously have not done a good job convincing him that Sky are dirty.

I would be pretty sure Froomes pre Vuelta 11 numbers would make as much sense to Walsh as they would to you.

Good thing he contacted Rasmussen on that little mistake for a doctor hired by Brailfraud. Real journalistic of Walsh.

Fran Walsh, Sky's newest PR assistent.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And it is also clear that with Froome /Sky a lot of things don't add up, yet he believes Sky and not LA. Jingoism perhaps?

Walsh is Irish.

Good thing he contacted Rasmussen on that little mistake for a doctor hired by Brailfraud. Real journalistic of Walsh.

Fran Walsh, Sky's newest PR assistent.

He didn't need to contact Rasmussen - he mentioned plenty about Leinders and his blood doping at Rabo.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You said he didn't go in with any preconceived notions, or words to that effect...and I am saying he did...he thought they were clean...based on JV.

No, someone threw in a strawman that Sky being clean was his default.

He did say that if pushed he would believe they are clean - but he also qualified that remark by saying it still meant Sky had questions to answer.

 

[Von Mises]

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?

Comeon, context is very different in 1999 and 2012-2013. It is not like Walsh and other journalists watching Sestriere were making mental calculations in their head - how many watts, what weight, what time? Basically it was a gut feeling and to be honest we dont know (and Walsh probably either) what actually ignited this feeling - maybe he just did not like Armstrong. For sake of comparision, Greg LeMond was also watching Sestriere and did not see it suspicious and embraced Armstrong´s victory with open hands.

So yeah, maybe in Froome´s case he also starts with gut feeling and maybe his gut feeling in this case is wrong (or maybe right, I do not know) and of course his assessments are subjective and like any human he tries to rationalize these. But all in all it is not hypocrisy or "selling out", it is just very human way to act in situations where lack of information and strong evidence is so obvious. All people act in this way.

 

[Bronstein]

It didn't take Walsh a long time to form the belief that Armstrong was a doper. These are his own words in Seven Deadly Sins:


"Before his bullying of Bassons, I considered Armstrong nothing more than a likely, almost certain cheater, one of a great number of professional cyclists still hooked up to the old doping drip."


Therefore it took a grand total of three important GC stages (Prologue, Stage 8 ITT and Stage 10 Sestiere) for Walsh to believe that Armstrong was almost certainly doping. I think everything that Walsh discovered after the Sestriere stage merely served to confirm his existing opinion with respect to Armstrong.

By contrast, it seems as though Walsh has developed his view of Sky/Froome on the initial premise that they are clean.

 

[Benotti69]

Who are the 'experts' he has to ask?

He has asked and talked with a wide group of people (even our Digger) - but often the people he talks to get dismissed, because they obviously have not done a good job convincing him that Sky are dirty.

He has talked to Sky staff.

His whole modus operandi for pursuing Armstrong was to talk to people outside the Armstrong cirlce, why? because he would've ended up with Sky like BS from USPS.

I mean Froome beating the times of former dopers doesn't ring any bells with Walsh in 2013, but it did in 2007 with Contador and Rasmussen. Walsh has done a Wigans.

I would be pretty sure Froomes pre Vuelta 11 numbers would make as much sense to Walsh as they would to you.

Walsh has no motivation to get the numbers and put it out there for experts to analyse. What is stopping Walsh getting the figures and going to Ashenden?

Weak arguments doc.

 

[the sceptic]

Good posts Bronstein.

You know you must be on to something when the vortex avoids your posts.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Good posts Bronstein.

You know you must be on to something when the vortex avoids your posts.

There is - because Bronstein is actually 'quoting' and using what Walsh writes - not off making up a wild conspiracy and looking for Walsh to ask specific questions and then changing when it is pointed out he has covered it.

 

[Benotti69]

"...to the people who dont in cycling, the cycnics and the sceptics: I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry that you can't dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles"


Pretty sad that Walsh would quote Armstrong for the SDS book while feeling sorry for those cant dream big about Sky and the miracles of Wigans and Froome.

Yep Walshy, i bet you are!

 

[sniper]

Comeon, context is very different in 1999 and 2012-2013. It is not like Walsh and other journalists watching Sestriere were making mental calculations in their head - how many watts, what weight, what time? Basically it was a gut feeling and to be honest we dont know (and Walsh probably either) what actually ignited this feeling - maybe he just did not like Armstrong. For sake of comparision, Greg LeMond was also watching Sestriere and did not see it suspicious and embraced Armstrong´s victory with open hands.

So yeah, maybe in Froome´s case he also starts with gut feeling and maybe his gut feeling in this case is wrong (or maybe right, I do not know) and of course his assessments are subjective and like any human he tries to rationalize these. But all in all it is not hypocrisy or "selling out", it is just very human way to act in situations where lack of information and strong evidence is so obvious. All people act in this way.

indeed the context was/is very different. In 2012/13 we have the historical knowledge of festina and usps, making it all the more baffling that a journo like walsh gives his fiat to sky in the absence of any evidence.

because thats forgotten around here: while there is a lack of evidence that sky dope, reversely there is a lack of evidence that they are clean. So in 2012/13 with the festina usps affairs fresh in memory, nobody with a brain can vouch for sky.

 

[sniper]

There is - because Bronstein is actually 'quoting' and using what Walsh writes.

unlike you.