• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Page 80 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 15, 2012
3,064
0
0
the sceptic said:
Martin. Stop vortexing.
Sceptic, stop deflecting.

This thread is about whether Walsh is on the skys bandwagon or not.

What do you think Martin? Are you in the "I dont know" camp on this one as well?
I'm on record as saying it's a stupid thread title, simply because it entirely presupposes there is a 'bandwagon' to jump on.

As for an 'i don't know' camp, this' is the problem with most of the sh*t in this place. We don't know, none of us. We like to think we do, pretend we do, and quite often become right ****holes when we are confronted with the reality of it.

From the outside it seems fairly clear to me - Walsh believes in them. He may be wrong, he may be right, but he's admitted as much in his Times article. And believing in them, he's happy to work with them.

Which is why I found Shane and Leslie's 'sick' moment utterly silly. Not offensive, just...silly.

How dare Walsh think differently to them! How dare he treat them on the basis of what he believes, as opposed to what they do!

It happens in here all the time too - condemning him, or others, for not acting as if the beliefs of various clinicians are proven truth; making assumptions on motive that simply ignore the difference.

I'm happy to wait and read the books, both of them, first. God forbid i start with facts, and work to a conclusion rather than the other way round.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,010
0
0
martinvickers said:
Sceptic, stop deflecting.



I'm on record as saying it's a stupid thread title, simply because it entirely presupposes there is a 'bandwagon' to jump on.

As for an 'i don't know' camp, this' is the problem with most of the sh*t in this place. We don't know, none of us. We like to think we do, pretend we do, and quite often become right ****holes when we are confronted with the reality of it.

From the outside it seems fairly clear to me - Walsh believes in them. He may be wrong, he may be right, but he's admitted as much in his Times article. And believing in them, he's happy to work with them.

Which is why I found Shane and Leslie's 'sick' moment utterly silly. Not offensive, just...silly.

How dare Walsh think differently to them! How dare he treat them on the basis of what he believes, as opposed to what they do!

It happens in here all the time too - condemning him, or others, for not acting as if the beliefs of various clinicians are proven truth; making assumptions on motive that simply ignore the difference.

I'm happy to wait and read the books, both of them, first. God forbid i start with facts, and work to a conclusion rather than the other way round.
Great post. Even with me liking Lesli's and Shane's journalism...
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
martinvickers said:
Sceptic, stop deflecting.



I'm on record as saying it's a stupid thread title, simply because it entirely presupposes there is a 'bandwagon' to jump on.

As for an 'i don't know' camp, this' is the problem with most of the sh*t in this place. We don't know, none of us. We like to think we do, pretend we do, and quite often become right ****holes when we are confronted with the reality of it.

From the outside it seems fairly clear to me - Walsh believes in them. He may be wrong, he may be right, but he's admitted as much in his Times article. And believing in them, he's happy to work with them.

Which is why I found Shane and Leslie's 'sick' moment utterly silly. Not offensive, just...silly.

How dare Walsh think differently to them! How dare he treat them on the basis of what he believes, as opposed to what they do!

It happens in here all the time too - condemning him, or others, for not acting as if the beliefs of various clinicians are proven truth; making assumptions on motive that simply ignore the difference.

I'm happy to wait and read the books, both of them, first. God forbid i start with facts, and work to a conclusion rather than the other way round.
I believe he needs to be questioned when his thought process on doping suddenly is on the level of your average BikeRadar poster.

What do you think he is going to write in his book that we didnt already know? There isnt any facts out there at the moment for you to make up your mind?
 
Oct 15, 2012
3,064
0
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
Great post. Even with me liking Lesli's and Shane's journalism...
I like them too - but, as a general rule, if your going to tweet something that basically equates to "How awful - you don't act like my hunches are right!" than I'm going to laugh at it.
 
Oct 15, 2012
3,064
0
0
the sceptic said:
I believe he needs to be questioned when his thought process on doping suddenly is on the level of your average BikeRadar poster.

What do you think he is going to write in his book that we didnt already know? There isnt any facts out there at the moment for you to make up your mind?
I have many gifts. Clairvoyance is not once of them. Re-read what you just asked.

IF it's something which by defintiion is something we don't already know, how on earth am I going to predict it?
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
Yes how on earth indeed Martin. Because what I just said is as random as say, guessing the lotto numbers for next week.

Nice editing Bison. You would make a good kindergarden mod. :rolleyes:
 
Jul 5, 2012
2,299
0
0
the sceptic said:
...Nice editing Bison. You would make a good kindergarden mod. :rolleyes:
Rather than deleting the entire post, delivering a warning to you for a personal attack, and banning you, I thought I would just edit out the offending bit and leave the rest which was a reasonable post

Post not poster the sceptic ;)
 
Oct 15, 2012
3,064
0
0
the sceptic said:
Yes how on earth indeed Martin. Because what I just said is as random as say, guessing the lotto numbers for next week.

Nice editing Bison. You would make a good kindergarden mod. :rolleyes:
You asked me to identify something which, by defintiion, I didn't know - that's just barmy, Sceptic. It's nothing to do with 'randomness', it's to do with a basic paradox - how do i know what I don't know?
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
martinvickers said:
You asked me to identify something which, by defintiion, I didn't know - that's just barmy, Sceptic. It's nothing to do with 'randomness', it's to do with a basic paradox - how do i know what I don't know?
I asked you to think Martin. You cant make an educated guess?
 
Oct 15, 2012
3,064
0
0
the sceptic said:
I asked you to think Martin. You cant make an educated guess?
Not really. How educated could it be if it's something which, by definition I don't know yet - it's the opposite of educated.

Of course we could simply wait a couple of weeks, read the book, and find out conclusively...but then, where's the sarcastic fun in that, right?
 
martinvickers said:
You asked me to identify something which, by defintiion, I didn't know - that's just barmy, Sceptic. It's nothing to do with 'randomness', it's to do with a basic paradox - how do i know what I don't know?
I don't think Stokes and co. are angry that Walsh holds a different line than them. By all accounts Stokes is in the "I don't know" camp and happily reports Sky stories.

I think he's annoyance is the closeness of Walsh and Froome. And that Walsh writes his articles as if he's an "independent".

That I believe is their frustration.

It's a little unethical from a journalistic point of view.

For me I don't really worry. I just take Walsh with a grain of salt. Always did. Even in the Armstrong era.
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
martinvickers said:
Not really. How educated could it be if it's something which, by definition I don't know yet - it's the opposite of educated.

Of course we could simply wait a couple of weeks, read the book, and find out conclusively...but then, where's the sarcastic fun in that, right?
Thats good Martin. I admire your abilty to ignore anything that has happened in the past.

But for me personally, it would be a waste of time and money to read the book. I deem it highly likely that Walsh is going to continue on the path that he has been on all year long. Nothing new will come from it, well nothing new that the clinic would be interested in anyway. I would be very surprised if Walsh suddenly stops being best friends with team sky and writes something that matters.

I have no evidences to back up this claim, its just an opinion.
 
Oct 15, 2012
3,064
0
0
thehog said:
I don't think Stokes and co. are angry that Walsh holds a different line than them. By all accounts Stokes is in the "I don't know" camp and happily reports Sky stories.

I think he's annoyance is the closeness of Walsh and Froome. And that Walsh writes his articles as if he's an "independent".

That I believe is their frustration.

It's a little unethical from a journalistic point of view.

For me I don't really worry. I just take Walsh with a grain of salt. Always did. Even in the Armstrong era.
Ah, well, now I see where you're going wrong. And it's a very understandable mistake, because of where we are.

Walsh is not a policeman. I repeat, he is not a policeman. It's not his job to catch baddies. Nor is it his job to catch dopers - that's WADA and the ADO's and the Federations. And, in some places (the enlightened ones) the police.

It's Walsh's job to write and to report. Sometimes that takes him into catch the baddies territory; but it's not necessary. His job is to be honest. Not much more, not much less. Froome is not an 'antagonist' to Walsh. Given Armstrong's extraordinary relationship with Walsh and Kimmage it's easy to think that' the norm - the journo v's the sports cheat - but it isn't the norm. Not even close.

And it's slightly absurd to expect them to act as if it IS the norm. There's no conflict of interest in that sense. If Froome was wining and dining Craig Reedie. That would be a conflict, because they will soon be antagonists - Reedie trying to catch cheats, and Froome, fairly or unfairly, trying not to be caught.

Yes, walsh should question, of course he should - but the rider, any rider, is not 'the enemy' of the jouno - they are the 'enemy' of the anti-doping people.
 
Oct 15, 2012
3,064
0
0
the sceptic said:
Thats good Martin. I admire your abilty to ignore anything that has happened in the past.
Ball, not man.

But for me personally, it would be a waste of time and money to read the book.
"I don't need no stinking facts"

I deem it highly likely that Walsh is going to continue on the path that he has been on all year long. Nothing new will come from it, well nothing new that the clinic would be interested in anyway. I would be very surprised if Walsh suddenly stops being best friends with team sky and writes something that matters.
You will not be surprised if I tell you that the 'Clinic consensus' is not my measure of truthfulness or usefulness. I don't pray at that church, however much I support their freedom of worship.
 
the sceptic said:
Thats good Martin. I admire your abilty to ignore anything that has happened in the past.

But for me personally, it would be a waste of time and money to read the book. I deem it highly likely that Walsh is going to continue on the path that he has been on all year long. Nothing new will come from it, well nothing new that the clinic would be interested in anyway. I would be very surprised if Walsh suddenly stops being best friends with team sky and writes something that matters.

I have no evidences to back up this claim, its just an opinion.
Basically you have made up your mind and will now only listen to those who reflect you opinion. Anything that may challenge your view is a 'waste of time'.

What you have is not an opinion but a religion.

In reality, it's not a religion, it's a cult. All opposing ideas are dismissed, mods minimise dissent. Everyone outside views you as oddities, but they are just the infidels, right?
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
Parker said:
Basically you have made up your mind and will now only listen to those who reflect you opinion. Anything that may challenge your view is a 'waste of time'.

What you have is not an opinion but a religion.

In reality, it's not a religion, it's a cult. All opposing ideas are dismissed, mods minimise dissent. Everyone outside views you as oddities, but they are just the infidels, right?
Parker. It makes sense that you would know alot about the subject of cults and religions.

However in this case you are mitaken.

Walsh has had plenty of time to change my mind after he became Wiggins' biggest fan in the giro. However I am not impressed with the way he has gone about the Froome situation. In my opinion he is extremely naive at best.

I dont think reading a book is going to change my mind.

However, if you have any arguments to the contrary feel free to share them.
 
the sceptic said:
Parker. It makes sense that you would know alot about the subject of cults and religions.
Does it? You know about my religious beliefs do you?

the sceptic said:
Walsh has had plenty of time to change my mind after he became Wiggins' biggest fan in the giro.
What exactly would have changed your mind? People are quick to state what they can't believe in, but won't state what they can.

the sceptic said:
I dont think reading a book is going to change my mind.
Don't you think an even minded person would be interested in what it said, though. To dismiss it out of hand seems somewhat fanatical.
 
martinvickers said:
"I don't need no stinking facts"
The book will provide facts about what exactly?

Look, this is all a little silly. There is no way a team is going to let a journalist (or reporter, or whatever applies here) get information about doping by the team stars.

We know from Hamilton's and many others riders' statements that even riders on the team who aren't in the inner circle don't know what's going on RE: doping on a team. We sure aren't going to learn anything from an embedded reporter. Other than how that reporter can be co-opted by access and star power, but we already know that.

I will be interested to read his report when someone publishes it where I can find it online, but it's not going to end one iota of the "Are Froome/Sky doping?" debate.
 
red_flanders said:
The book will provide facts about what exactly?

Look, this is all a little silly. There is no way a team is going to let a journalist (or reporter, or whatever applies here) get information about doping by the team stars.

We know from Hamilton's and many others riders' statements that even riders on the team who aren't in the inner circle don't know what's going on RE: doping on a team. We sure aren't going to learn anything from an embedded reporter. Other than how that reporter can be co-opted by access and star power, but we already know that.

I will be interested to read his report when someone publishes it where I can find it online, but it's not going to end one iota of the "Are Froome/Sky doping?" debate.
To summarise: "The man we used to say was brilliant is now rubbish because he says does not agree with our prejudices. He may well of talked to many people, but that means nothing against my entrenched opinion based on talking to no-one"

"Journalism is confirming what I already think. Opposing reports are public relations" - George Orwell.
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
Parker said:
Does it? You know about my religious beliefs do you?


What exactly would have changed your mind? People are quick to state what they can't believe in, but won't state what they can.


Don't you think an even minded person would be interested in what it said, though. To dismiss it out of hand seems somewhat fanatical.
Well youre a sky believer arent you?

Its hard to say what could have changed my mind. But maybe questioning Froomes performance in the tour would be a good start. Perhaps digging a bit deeper into the badzilla and Leinders? There is plenty of material to work with, but Walsh ignores it all.
 
Parker said:
To summarise: "The man we used to say was brilliant is now rubbish because he says does not agree with our prejudices. He may well of talked to many people, but that means nothing against my entrenched opinion based on talking to no-one"

"Journalism is confirming what I already think. Opposing reports are public relations" - George Orwell.
Hmmm. Do think something in Walsh's book is going to actually shed light on whether Sky are doping? Please explain. I would be happy to hear how you think what I've said is in any way inaccurate.

If you can't argue the points raised, please don't respond. Saying I'm prejudiced or whatever your point is here does nothing to move the discussion forward. Seriously, let's step it up a bit and cease the clownish responses.
 
the sceptic said:
Well youre a sky believer arent you?

Its hard to say what could have changed my mind. But maybe questioning Froomes performance in the tour would be a good start. Perhaps digging a bit deeper into the badzilla and Leinders? There is plenty of material to work with, but Walsh ignores it all.
I think Sky are probably clean, yes.

I also think that Walsh has asked all the questions you have asked. He has possibly seen confidential documents too. However, because he has come to a different conclusion - that there is no real story - than you have, from your extensive research on this forum, then you think he hasn't asked those questions.

I realise that spending ten weeks following around a team and asking them anything can't possibly compare to the proper journalism of get drunk on red wine on campsites nowhere near a race while reading twitter. But maybe, given his record, you may want to give Walsh a chance.
 
red_flanders said:
Hmmm. Do think something in Walsh's book is going to actually shed light on whether Sky are doping? Please explain. I would be happy to hear how you think what I've said is in any way inaccurate.
The problem is that you have decided that Sky are doping. If it hasn't happened, how can he shed light on it?

Your assessment of Walsh is not based on whether he tells the truth, but whether he endorses your idea of the truth.
 
Parker said:
The problem is that you have decided that Sky are doping. If it hasn't happened, how can he shed light on it?
That is absolutely incorrect. I have not decided if Sky are doping, but I have decided that Froome is doping. Sky may be aiding doping or not. Not sure. I think that's a pretty clear distinction.

To be clear, there is nothing anyone has said or could say about Froome that will make me think he is clean, because my opinion of him was formed by watching him ride. By barely noticing him early in his career because he was a nobody, then watching him match performances only hard-core blood dopers and EPO users had ever produced. I think he's a doper because no one clean has ever ridden like that. Ever. Add in the fact that he was pack-fodder before that and it gets more laughable.

And no, no stories of Bilharzia or anything else will change the fact that his performances are absurd. Clear enough?

I have read Walsh and find it interesting. But what he says makes no impression on my opinion of Froome and only a minor one on my impression of Sky. He's simply not in a position to know anything one way or another, and never will be.
 
red_flanders said:
T
To be clear, there is nothing anyone has said or could say about Froome that will make me think he is clean, because my opinion of him was formed by watching him ride.
And therein we have the views of a extremist fanatic. Your opinion is correct because it is your opinion.

If you get a chance, pick up a copy of Cycling Anthology Vol. 3 and read the essay by Klaus Bellon. It's about you.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts