Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Avoriaz]

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.

I would suggest the opposite is true here. 1999 was riding the tail of the freewheeling EPO era. The Festina wounds were incredibly fresh, it was the Tour of renewal and Bang! Armstrong dominates alone.

Fast forward to 2012 and riders haver served or are serving bans (Landis, Basso, Contador), there are thoughts of clean winners (Sastre, Evans), and a relatively cleaner peloton. Doping is, whether you like it or not, harder to get away with to the extent it had been at the dog end of the 90s. This leads him to suspend disbelief a little longer. There is as yet no Swart, O'Reilly or hospital room. Walsh has his eyes and ears open, and you will know if (not necessarily when) he finds it.

We, on the other hand, who aren't privy to internal workings, and having been burnt over the 90s and 00s often find the easier default to them cheating. In this way it protects us (as exemplified by your use of lack of evidence they are clean).

 

[gooner]

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.

On twitter after AX3 Domaines.

David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST 7 Jul
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.

Walsh in SDS before he was reporting on Sky.

I thought of Christophe Bassons and his persecution on the 1999 Tour de France was the defining moment in my reaction to Lance Armstrong. Back then, it was obvious you could not be anti-doping and anti-Bassons. Impossible.

He hasn't moved the goal posts.

 

[gooner]

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.

It was an opinion that he thought they were clean.

This isn't the sound of a man who had a preconceived stance where nothing would change his mind as his reporting on them progresses over time.

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

 

[the sceptic]

It was an opinion that he thought they were clean.

This isn't the sound of a man who had a preconceived stance where nothing would change his mind as his reporting on them progresses over time.

No, that is a sound of a man who is using the "never tested positive" defense against the haters that disagree with sky being clean.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, that is a sound of a man who is using the "never tested positive" defense against the haters that disagree with sky being clean.

Here we go again.....

This is simple - I do believe Froome is doping, which by default implicates Sky.
But, I am in no position to back that up. Its merely my opinion, nothing more.

Now, if you have something (anything) definitive (even a good rumour would start things off), that would assist me (or Walsh, or UKAD etc) then tell us here and now what it is.

 

[gooner]

No, that is a sound of a man who is using the "never tested positive" defense against the haters that disagree with sky being clean.

What are you on about?

There has been no Bassons style incident with Froome/Wiggins. No dumping of syringes or no link with Ferrari. Even without the positive from 99 Walsh would have been convinced. It was the same with Michelle Smith and her physical transformation and the continuing work with her doping husband under intense questioning along the way. There was no positive there either.

You can dress it up all you like but the stuff against Sky doesn't stack up to anything like the above.

 

[martinvickers]

I would suggest the opposite is true here. 1999 was riding the tail of the freewheeling EPO era. The Festina wounds were incredibly fresh, it was the Tour of renewal and Bang! Armstrong dominates alone.

Fast forward to 2012 and riders haver served or are serving bans (Landis, Basso, Contador), there are thoughts of clean winners (Sastre, Evans), and a relatively cleaner peloton. Doping is, whether you like it or not, harder to get away with to the extent it had been at the dog end of the 90s. This leads him to suspend disbelief a little longer. There is as yet no Swart, O'Reilly or hospital room. Walsh has his eyes and ears open, and you will know if (not necessarily when) he finds it.

We, on the other hand, who aren't privy to internal workings, and having been burnt over the 90s and 00s often find the easier default to them cheating. In this way it protects us (as exemplified by your use of lack of evidence they are clean).

I was about to suggest exactly this point, but you've put it very well.

We - fans, media even - are always fighting 'last years war' - it's absolutely understandable, but it doesn't make it logical, if you get what I mean.

 

[the sceptic]

Here we go again.....

This is simple - I do believe Froome is doping, which by default implicates Sky.
But, I am in no position to back that up. Its merely my opinion, nothing more.

Now, if you have something (anything) definitive (even a good rumour would start things off), that would assist me (or Walsh, or UKAD etc) then tell us here and now what it is.

Didnt he drop that line in the same interview where he explains why he thinks sky are clean?

It sounds like he is making a challenge to people that dont agree with him. But since he should know that no random person on the internet or anywhere else will have any evidence against sky it appears as though he ..gasp.. created a strawman.

 

[martinvickers]

What are you on about?

There has been no Bassons style incident with Froome/Wiggins. No dumping of syringes or no link with Ferrari. Even without the positive from 99 Walsh would have been convinced. It was the same with Michelle Smith and her physical transformation and the continuing work with her doping husband under intense questioning along the way. There was no positive there either.

Except, in effect, there was - the famous 'whiskey' sample...they got Michelle Smith De Bruin within a few years. Not quick enough, and the cheating cow got to keep her medals. But they got her. And the anti-doping regime then was nowhere near as extensive as it is now.

You can dress it up all you like but the stuff against Sky doesn't stack up to anything like the above.

There is one smoking gun with Sky. The hire of Leinders. All proper investigate roads lead there. All the rest is really emotional poppycock. And I say that as someone with absolutely no time for Yates either, but as oily as he is, he ain't Leinders.

But I've said it before. If you think Brailsford, Sutton, for example are dodgy - there is no shortage of former British Cyclists who can't stand them. Houvenaghal would happily slit Sutton's throat. Pendleton hates Brailsford. Romero. Bellis, maybe someone like Hannah Mahyo or Katie Colclough, who fell outside the inner circle. Maybe even JTL soon. Go to riders with axes to grind, little to fear, and knowledge of the inside.

Go to Michael Barry, Alex Dowsett. Has anyone ever asked Obree about Boardman and Keen, and what he might know/have heard?

OR do the easy thing, and shout sarcastically from the sideline, 'cos we don't need no stinking facts.

 

[heart_attack_man]

David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST 7 Jul
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, pretty much he's ok with doping, as long as there's no bullying?

Right...

 

[martinvickers]

So, pretty much he's ok with doping, as long as there's no bullying?

Right...

Of course that's not what he meant. Are you being facetious, or do you actually miss the point being made?

 

[gooner]

Except, in effect, there was - the famous 'whiskey' sample...they got Michelle Smith De Bruin within a few years. Not quick enough, and the cheating cow got to keep her medals. But they got her. And the anti-doping regime then was nowhere near as extensive as it is now.

I know. I was just saying without the positive, beforehand he was convinced about De Bruin through her physical transformation and work with Erik who helped achieved it.

There is one smoking gun with Sky. The hire of Leinders. All proper investigate roads lead there. All the rest is really emotional poppycock. And I say that as someone with absolutely no time for Yates either, but as oily as he is, he ain't Leinders.

On Leinders agree totally and they have to answer for that. At the same time he has been ditched and if for example they continued to work with him after his past was disclosed(like Michelle and Erik did), I think Walsh would be all over them.

But I've said it before. If you think Brailsford, Sutton, for example are dodgy - there is no shortage of former British Cyclists who can't stand them. Houvenaghal would happily slit Sutton's throat. Pendleton hates Brailsford. Romero. Bellis, maybe someone like Hannah Mahyo or Katie Colclough, who fell outside the inner circle. Maybe even JTL soon. Go to riders with axes to grind, little to fear, and knowledge of the inside.

Go to Michael Barry, Alex Dowsett. Has anyone ever asked Obree about Boardman and Keen, and what he might know/have heard?

OR do the easy thing, and shout sarcastically from the sideline, 'cos we don't need no stinking facts.

Well said. Walsh has spoken to Julich who has said nothing suspicious about the team.

 

[heart_attack_man]

Of course that's not what he meant. Are you being facetious, or do you actually miss the point being made?

You're missing MY point. He is inconsistent.

In SDS he writes that he knew after Sestriere. In this tweet, that didn't matter - it was the bullying that convinced him.

 

[gooner]

You're missing MY point. He is inconsistent.

In SDS he writes that he knew after Sestriere. In this tweet, that didn't matter - it was the bullying that convinced him.

His tweet shouldn't matter even though it corresponds with what I quoted from him in SDS while at the same time it shows one being said before he was embedded with Sky and the other after AX3 Domaines.

Consistency seems to only matter with your own posts.

 

[martinvickers]

You're missing MY point. He is inconsistent.

In SDS he writes that he knew after Sestriere. In this tweet, that didn't matter - it was the bullying that convinced him.

I'm not sure he said meant it didn't matter - just that the Bassons incident was the bigger red flag. It all added up.

You have to remember, managing to beat everyone at the height of the drug years impresses differently from beating everyone now when the war between doper and anti-doper is rather more even. Not completely, by any stretch. But different, all the same

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Didnt he drop that line in the same interview where he explains why he thinks sky are clean?

He does say he thinks Sky are clean in that interview - he also (wait for it) adds numerous qualifiers:

I've spent about 3 weeks with Team Sky this year so far, and everything I have seen about them indicates that theyre clean. It's not proof that they're clean and I'm not saying that they're clean, but nobody has come up with any evidence that they're doping, nothing"

......as I said, and you ignored, all you have (and I have) is our opinions that Walsh is wrong to believe Sky are clean.

It sounds like he is making a challenge to people that dont agree with him. But since he should know that no random person on the internet or anywhere else will have any evidence against sky it appears as though he ..gasp.. created a strawman.

No - quite the opposite.
He is saying what he believes - but is also careful to request that people in the know are welcome to change his opinion.

This is how he (and most journo's) work - they are reliant on well placed sources or people with inside info. That is ultimately how he exposed USPS.
Not on watts or VAM, people.

 

[Parker]

This idea that one single event convinced him about Armstrong is daft. When Walsh says that it's just storytelling. He's seen many remarkable sporting performances in his professional lifetime - he didn't pursue them for doping.
In reality it would have been a succession of things - not least the press room gossip mill. Armstrong's 1999 performance hadn't come totally out of the blue - he'd been 4th in both the Vuelta and the Worlds the year before.

Similarly he didn't turn up at Sky with an opinion based solely on what Vaughters told him. Sky had been around for three seasons with a lot of success and British Cycling had been increasingly prosperous over the previous decade. Walsh would have taken more than a passing interest. And he is a good old school journalist. He has contacts and sources in the right places and talks to them. He would have gauged opinions from a variety of sources.

 

[the sceptic]

He does say he thinks Sky are clean in that interview - he also (wait for it) adds numerous qualifiers:

......as I said, and you ignored, all you have (and I have) is our opinions that Walsh is wrong to believe Sky are clean.



No - quite the opposite.
He is saying what he believes - but is also careful to request that people in the know are welcome to change his opinion.

This is how he (and most journo's) work - they are reliant on well placed sources or people with inside info. That is ultimately how he exposed USPS.
Not on watts or VAM, people.

He also mentioned that some people on twitter had been calling him skys *****, and a couple of sentences later he gives the quote in question.

The conclusion I draw from that is that he is challenging said twitter haters to prove him wrong.

Obviously I could be wrong. Its possible he didnt mean it that way at all, but thats what it sounds like to me.

 

[Bronstein]

On twitter after AX3 Domaines.



Walsh in SDS before he was reporting on Sky.



He hasn't moved the goal posts.

Neither of these quotes change the fact that by Walsh's own admission, he was almost certain that Armstrong was a doper after watching his performances through the first 9 stages of the 99 TdF. Even though the Bassons incident hadn't even occurred, Walsh already believed Armstrong was a doper.

Like Armstrong, Froome dominated the first three GC relevant stages of the 2013 TdF:

Armstrong 99 TdF:

Prologue - Armstrong wins

Stage 8 ITT (56km) - Armstrong wins
Zulle +0.57
Moreau +2.04
Olano +2.21

Stage 9 Sestriere - Armstrong wins
Zulle +0.31
Escartin+1.26
Gotti +1.26
Virenque +2.27

Froome 2013 TdF:

Stage 8 Ax-3-Domaines - Froome wins
Valverde +1.08
Mollema+1.10
Ten Dam +1.16
Contador +1.45

Stage 11 ITT (33Km) - Froome 2nd, first of the GC contenders
Mollema +1.53
Talansky +1.56
Valverde +2.00

Stage 15 Ventoux - Froome wins
Quintana +0.29
Rodriguez +1.23
Contador +1.40


Why hasn't Walsh viewed Froome's dominant performances with the same skepticism that he expressed about Armstrong? Not only has Walsh expressed very little skepticism with respect to Sky/Froome, he has even gone so far as to publicly state that he believes Froome is clean.

Similarly dominant performances by Froome have led Walsh to what is essentially the opposite conclusion he drew about Armstrong in 99. If this isn't moving the goalposts, I honestly don't know what is.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

He also mentioned that some people on twitter had been calling him skys *****, and a couple of sentences later he gives the quote in question.

The conclusion I draw from that is that he is challenging said twitter haters to prove him wrong.

Obviously I could be wrong. Its possible he didnt mean it that way at all, but thats what it sounds like to me.

That is fair enough.
And I would agree to an extent that it was at them, but also at anyone who has info.
We saw it here that plenty of 'anonymous' people hidden behind handles were informed insiders of the LA lie.

Having said that, his comments about the mob in the ST piece about Froome was completely dumb and could have been counterproductive.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Neither of these quotes change the fact that by Walsh's own admission, he was almost certain that Armstrong was a doper after watching his performances through the first 9 stages of the 99 TdF. Even though the Bassons incident hadn't even occurred, Walsh already believed Armstrong was a doper.

Like Armstrong, Froome dominated the first three GC relevant stages of the 2013 TdF:

Armstrong 99 TdF:

Prologue - Armstrong wins

Stage 8 ITT (56km) - Armstrong wins
Zulle +0.57
Moreau +2.04
Olano +2.21

Stage 9 Sestriere - Armstrong wins
Zulle +0.31
Escartin+1.26
Gotti +1.26
Virenque +2.27

Froome 2013 TdF:

Stage 8 Ax-3-Domaines - Froome wins
Valverde +1.08
Mollema+1.10
Ten Dam +1.16
Contador +1.45

Stage 11 ITT (33Km) - Froome 2nd, first of the GC contenders
Mollema +1.53
Talansky +1.56
Valverde +2.00

Stage 15 Ventoux - Froome wins
Quintana +0.29
Rodriguez +1.23
Contador +1.40


Why hasn't Walsh viewed Froome's dominant performances with the same skepticism that he expressed about Armstrong? Not only has Walsh expressed very little skepticism with respect to Sky/Froome, he has even gone so far as to publicly state that he believes Froome is clean.

Similarly dominant performances by Froome have led Walsh to what is essentially the opposite conclusion he drew about Armstrong in 99. If this isn't moving the goalposts, I honestly don't know what is.

Sure, but again - his view was not totally down to just performance.
In that 99 Tour it was the first time LA was exposed to the spotlight and he wilted with his comments and attitude, adding to that he was expected to lose some time on the first MTF (Sestriere) which he blitzed.

Froomes suspicions are his transformation in 2011 Vuelta - but he was expected to be the top contender for this years Tour.

 

[sittingbison]

...It was the same with Michelle Smith and her physical transformation and the continuing work with her doping husband....

...they got Michelle Smith De Bruin within a few years.....There is one smoking gun with Sky. The hire of Leinders. All proper investigate roads lead there...

Sir Wiggos weight fluctuations from 2008 82kg track to 2012 69kg road, with an apparent increase in total power and huge increase in W/kg? Dawgs weight reduction from Barloworld? Dodger and Richie Porte pumping out 450W day after day in the mountains? Are these not physical transformations similar to Smiths shoulders?

 

[thehog]

On twitter after AX3 Domaines.



Walsh in SDS before he was reporting on Sky.



He hasn't moved the goal posts.

??

SDS wasn't released in 1999.

That's revisionist.

Go back to 1999 and tell us what Walsh was saying.

The goal post have moved to a different field.

 

[sittingbison]

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

There is plenty of "evidence" that Sky are cheating. All discussed at length for thousands of posts in Sky, Wiggo and Dawg threads.

The real question is whether or not its "proof". Until its examined properly instead of being dismissed out of hand that question will remain unresolved.

...This is how he (and most journo's) work - they are reliant on well placed sources or people with inside info. That is ultimately how he exposed USPS.
Not on watts or VAM, people.

Correctomundo. When a person does pop their head above the ramparts, it will be game over. All the "evidence" will suddenly be seen in a new light. Just like all the stuff in Landis and Hamiltons revelations.

There will one day be a disgruntles team mate or employee that will spill. JTL anyone?

 

[heart_attack_man]

His tweet shouldn't matter even though it corresponds with what I quoted from him in SDS while at the same time it shows one being said before he was embedded with Sky and the other after AX3 Domaines.

Consistency seems to only matter with your own posts.

While Bronstein has done a fine job explaining why your first point is fallacious, I would request you point out to me where I have been inconsistent.