Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[JMBeaushrimp]

So on the money. I had my doubts about Armstrong in '99, but was not ready to call BS for exactly those reasons, as well as the fact that I was rooting for him and willing to ignore the fact that he'd only been climbing since the previous Vuelta, and had been a total non-factor before that.

Hautacam was just absurd, and completely turned my view. I watched the video of it with a buddy who didn't follow cycling and he was aghast, and just laughing about how doped he thought LA was.

It's worth noting, and to bring this back to Sky, Armstrong's palmares and pedigree, as well as his previous placings were light years better than anything Froome did before his breakout Vuelta.

Froome's transformation has been more dramatic to my view than Armstrong's, whose transformation was plenty shocking.

As I was reading the thread, I was thinking this exactly.

I actually lost friends due to my "I would bet my life he's dirtier than sh*t" pronouncements regarding LA after his first TdF win, even though LA had some decent (although questionable) palmares.

Even my father, who had lost wins to later-to-be-found-out dopers in the 60s and 70s, loved the recovery narrative of LA enough to buy it for a year or so.

The Sky crew is ridiculous. No palmares of note in their teens and twenties, and sudden - and I mean SUDDEN - domination over every rider on earth. Even known dopers. Known dopers past and current!

The fact is that either you accept the fact that Froomedog's clean, which as the Chicken said "would make him the most talented cyclist in the history of the earth", or there's something nefarious going on.

I stand by my belief that Froome is NOT the most talented cyclist in human history, and history - particularly the history of pro cycling - has my back.

 

[martinvickers]

Walsh has stated that it was Armstrong's verbal attacks on clean Bassons that convinced him Armstrong was a doper nothing to do with cancer.

Check out competitor radio interview with Walsh.

Check out the classic "Flawed Fairytale" column, written for the Sunday Times on 25 July 1999 - before the race had even finished - that kicked the whole thing off. Immediately after the Basson's part of the story -

"For four years he was a one-day rider and it is highly unusual in this sport for such a rider to become a champion stage-racer.

That the change happened after his successful battle with life-threatening cancer three years ago does not make it any easier to understand."

The very first column. Before the race was even over. The unbelievability of the cancer comeback.

You were saying, Benotti?

 

[red_flanders]

The fact is that either you accept the fact that Froomedog's clean, which as the Chicken said "would make him the most talented cyclist in the history of the earth", or there's something nefarious going on.

I stand by my belief that Froome is NOT the most talented cyclist in human history, and history - particularly the history of pro cycling - has my back.

Indeed. The Chicken quote sums it up perfectly.

Why it's so obvious to him and so muddled to others I leave as a mystery.

 

[red_flanders]

Check out the classic "Flawed Fairytale" column, written for the Sunday Times on 25 July 1999 - before the race had even finished - that kicked the whole thing off. Immediately after the Basson's part of the story -

The very first column. Before the race was even over. The unbelievability of the cancer comeback.

Yeah, good find and good points.

On the flip side it points a bright light on the inconsistency of his analysis. Armstrong was much, much more likely to be a GT winner than Froome, given his previous palmares.

Not likely at all mind you, but much more likely than Froome.

It really does look and feel like bandwagon to me.

 

[Benotti69]

Check out the classic "Flawed Fairytale" column, written for the Sunday Times on 25 July 1999 - before the race had even finished - that kicked the whole thing off. Immediately after the Basson's part of the story -



The very first column. Before the race was even over. The unbelievability of the cancer comeback.

You were saying, Benotti?

Want the link?

http://competitorradio.competitor.com/?s=walsh

This discussion has come up a lot about Froome racing faster than dopers up mountains with Walsh not blinking and people thought he laughed at the absurdity of Armstrong on Sestriere in 99. Walsh on the link talks about Bassons being the money shot.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Check out the classic "Flawed Fairytale" column, written for the Sunday Times on 25 July 1999 - before the race had even finished - that kicked the whole thing off. Immediately after the Basson's part of the story -



The very first column. Before the race was even over. The unbelievability of the cancer comeback.

You were saying, Benotti?

Reflecting on the 1999 Tour, Walsh tells Press Gazette: “Cycling had just come out of maybe its worst year for doping – the 1998 Tour was shown up by French police to be a drug-riddled circus.

“Then Armstrong came along and you had to make a decision: Was this part of the rejuvenation of cycling or was this a continuation of the doping culture?”

What first piqued Walsh’s suspicion was Armstrong’s reaction to an article by a young cyclist named Christophe Bassons, in which the Frenchman claimed the top riders were still doping.

“Armstrong bullied him and hounded him out of the race,” says Walsh. “My feeling at that moment was that a clean rider wouldn’t have done that. It was pretty obvious to me that Armstrong was doping – not from
any evidence I had but from the way he behaved.

“I think if anybody had been applying cold logic at the time, they would have come to the same conclusion.”

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/david-walsh-it-was-obvious-me-lance-armstrong-was-doping

I am sure everybody is sure that i am not Bennoti but i thought that was interesting. And you are welcome Benno

 

[red_flanders]

That is interesting.

 

[Benotti69]

Reflecting on the 1999 Tour, Walsh tells Press Gazette: “Cycling had just come out of maybe its worst year for doping – the 1998 Tour was shown up by French police to be a drug-riddled circus.

“Then Armstrong came along and you had to make a decision: Was this part of the rejuvenation of cycling or was this a continuation of the doping culture?”

What first piqued Walsh’s suspicion was Armstrong’s reaction to an article by a young cyclist named Christophe Bassons, in which the Frenchman claimed the top riders were still doping.

“Armstrong bullied him and hounded him out of the race,” says Walsh. “My feeling at that moment was that a clean rider wouldn’t have done that. It was pretty obvious to me that Armstrong was doping – not from
any evidence I had but from the way he behaved.

“I think if anybody had been applying cold logic at the time, they would have come to the same conclusion.”

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/david-walsh-it-was-obvious-me-lance-armstrong-was-doping

I am sure everybody is sure that i am not Bennoti but i thought that was interesting. And you are welcome Benno

Molto grazie Zamo, siete stupendo.

And MV as i was saying...............

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Reflecting on the 1999 Tour, Walsh tells Press Gazette: “Cycling had just come out of maybe its worst year for doping – the 1998 Tour was shown up by French police to be a drug-riddled circus.

“Then Armstrong came along and you had to make a decision: Was this part of the rejuvenation of cycling or was this a continuation of the doping culture?”

What first piqued Walsh’s suspicion was Armstrong’s reaction to an article by a young cyclist named Christophe Bassons, in which the Frenchman claimed the top riders were still doping.

“Armstrong bullied him and hounded him out of the race,” says Walsh. “My feeling at that moment was that a clean rider wouldn’t have done that. It was pretty obvious to me that Armstrong was doping – not from
any evidence I had but from the way he behaved.

“I think if anybody had been applying cold logic at the time, they would have come to the same conclusion.”

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/david-walsh-it-was-obvious-me-lance-armstrong-was-doping

Too bad dear ol David missed the 1999 Giro hey?

I don't get the issue with changing one's view about Walsh. He doggedly pursued Armstrong for years, and obviously was barking up the right tree. He's called out other riders who were obviously doping, great, we agree.

Then he presents views on another rider who is doing exactly the same things, and he declares that he thinks they are clean...with caveats to be fair.

So...a lot of people think he is wrong this time. Why would one not object to his views when one thinks his views are wrong? Why would one not wonder why he believes one unbelievable performance when he didn't and doesn't (Horner) believe others?

One need not think Walsh is a bad guy to disagree with him. A lot of people think he's genuinely wrong, I personally think he has blinders on, and others think he's on the take.

None of those reactions seem surprising, even if I don't subscribe to the latter. Facts are not in evidence in that case in my view. Still, it wouldn't surprise me to find out (given his rather inconsistent views and rather cozy connections) that his views may have been obscured by the Pound sign.

Why would you frame changing one's mind about Walsh as a bad thing?

Game
set
Match.

Too bad I have not read all those articles...

Duh.

REdFlanders is on a roll.

Roll on.

 

[sniper]

“My feeling at that moment was that a clean rider wouldn’t have done that. It was pretty obvious to me that Armstrong was doping – not from
any evidence I had but from the way he behaved.

“I think if anybody had been applying cold logic at the time, they would have come to the same conclusion.”[/B]

a pity he threw all this logic overboard when it came to wiggo.

“I think you have to question Landis’ credibility because he lied under oath before and the stories that you hear about him drinking and things like that and you know, [making] telephone calls to people I know, threatening them with things, you just think that the guy appears to not all be there. So when you see these kinds of claims in the press you have to question his credibility because it’s almost like it’s coming from a mad man, but at the same time maybe that’s all borne out of frustration and things.”

not the statements of a clean man.

 

[gooner]

I don't get the issue with changing one's view about Walsh. He doggedly pursued Armstrong for years, and obviously was barking up the right tree. He's called out other riders who were obviously doping, great, we agree.

Then he presents views on another rider who is doing exactly the same things, and he declares that he thinks they are clean...with caveats to be fair.

So...a lot of people think he is wrong this time. Why would one not object to his views when one thinks his views are wrong? Why would one not wonder why he believes one unbelievable performance when he didn't and doesn't (Horner) believe others?

One need not think Walsh is a bad guy to disagree with him. A lot of people think he's genuinely wrong, I personally think he has blinders on, and others think he's on the take.

None of those reactions seem surprising, even if I don't subscribe to the latter. Facts are not in evidence in that case in my view. Still, it wouldn't surprise me to find out (given his rather inconsistent views and rather cozy connections) that his views may have been obscured by the Pound sign.

Why would you frame changing one's mind about Walsh as a bad thing?

He has only blinders on when he doesn't agree with a certain line of argument. Bassons in 99 said you couldn't be top 10 without doping(I wouldn't go that far today). His comments on Contador and Rasmussen were both after Rasmussen was busted and Contador's name was linked in with Puerto.

I haven't been much on the forum much lately but short memories seem to be kicking in and a certain JTL column has been already forgotten.

A few pages back I see a smart *** tweet by Shane Stokes. This from a guy who was defending Armstrong in an article on an Irish national newspaper in 1999 and probably later only changed his mind on the back of Walsh's reporting in the first place. Every week he seems to be cosying up to Dan Martin for an interview on Velonation. That's grand for him though.

People have a problem that in his 13 weeks with Sky he has reported exactly on what he has seen and asked questions in accordance where nothing untoward or suspicious has come to his attention.

What do you want him to do? Report and write on stuff he hasn't seen.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

What has Shane Stokes got to do with this now? That he was mistaken about The lance before as is Walsh about Froomey now?

 

[Benotti69]

He has only blinders on when he doesn't agree with a certain line of argument. Bassons in 99 said you couldn't be top 10 without doping(I wouldn't go that far today). His comments on Contador and Rasmussen were both after Rasmussen was busted and Contador's name was linked in with Puerto.

I haven't been much on the forum much lately but short memories seem to be kicking in and a certain JTL column has been already forgotten.

A few pages back I see a smart *** tweet by Shane Stokes. This from a guy who was defending Armstrong in an article on an Irish national newspaper in 1999 and probably later only changed his mind on the back of Walsh's reporting in the first place. Every week he seems to be cosying up to Dan Martin for an interview on Velonation. That's grand for him though.

People have a problem that in his 13 weeks with Sky he has reported exactly on what he has seen and asked questions in accordance where nothing untoward or suspicious has come to his attention.

What do you want him to do? Report and write on stuff he hasn't seen.

Bit of consistency would be grand. No proof of Contador or Rasmussen doping but Walsh not afraid to judge them!

Froome comes from nowhere and all is beloved patriot dory with Walsh, because he didn't see anything? But he wasn't there 24/7.

 

[gooner]

What has Shane Stokes got to do with this now? That he was mistaken about The lance before as is Walsh about Froomey now?

Someone else brought Stokes and his tweet into this thread so he is fair game.

Stokes was clearly wrong on Lance. It remains to be seen with Walsh and Froome. Big difference first of all. Point being, is he probably changed his mind on the back of Walsh's reporting in the following years. Now that he disagrees with what Walsh is doing, he comes out with a sarcatic smart *** comment which he thinks is funny and offers nothing but just playing to the gallery. If it was a simple disagreement I have no issues with it, but to treat the man now like a piece of meat due to him not liking his position on Sky and because Lance is now exposed, is something I'm not going to accept. Especially as he is very close himself to riders like Dan Martin and Nico Roche where he is continuously interviewing them for Velonation. No different to what I see with Walsh and Froome.

 

[thehog]

Someone else brought Stokes and his tweet into this thread so he is fair game.

Stokes was clearly wrong on Lance. It remains to be seen with Walsh and Froome. Big difference first of all. Point being, is he probably changed his mind on the back of Walsh's reporting in the following years. Now that he disagrees with what Walsh is doing, he comes out with a sarcatic smart *** comment which he thinks is funny and offers nothing but just playing to the gallery. If it was a simple disagreement I have no issues with it, but to treat the man now like a piece of meat due to him not liking his position on Sky and because Lance is now exposed, is something I'm not going to accept. Especially as he is very close himself to riders like Dan Martin and Nico Roche where he is continuously interviewing them for Velonation. No different to what I see with Walsh and Froome.

Here's the thing.

No one is looking for wrong or right.

No one is expecting one to say - "doper"!

Walsh. Taking in his history should really be calling out the ridiculous nature of Froome. The performances, visually, are mental.

To pretend all is well at HQ is utter silliness. I don't think many mind a - "I don't know" but to pretend the performances weren't insane as we all saw is blind.

Totally blind.

 

[martinvickers]

Want the link?

http://competitorradio.competitor.com/?s=walsh

This discussion has come up a lot about Froome racing faster than dopers up mountains with Walsh not blinking and people thought he laughed at the absurdity of Armstrong on Sestriere in 99. Walsh on the link talks about Bassons being the money shot.

I'm well aware of that - doesn't change the basic fact that in his very, very first dissenting column, before the race was even over, he also raised the difficulty of believing the cancer comeback. It was a factor, in black and white, like it or not.

I have no doubt other factors were involved, even predominant - hell, i read the blooming column so I know what he said at the time. It was clear he felt the Bassons treatment stank. No one denies it. But it is simply not true thatt he cancer comeback had nothing to do with i. However he post rationalised it, at the time, in the heat of that first moment, he made the link.

 

[The Hitch]

What do I want Walsh to do. first of, I think he should apologize for claiming Sky doubters are bitter Armstrong fans. Totally out of order comment that shows his unpleasant side.

But what I want him to do is to ask Wiggins why he became Armstrong's number 1 cheerleader for 3 years, and ask wiggins why he blatantly lied about the extent of his Armstrong heroworship.

That a clean athlete who knows Armstrong doped would defend Armstrong so vigorously after a doped Armstrong just cost him a TDF podium obviously makes absolutely 0 sense. Anyone who actually does care about whether Sky are clean or not, should be very interested in why Wiggins did that.

 

[Samson777]

What do I want Walsh to do. first of, I think he should apologize for claiming Sky doubters are bitter Armstrong fans. Totally out of order comment that shows his unpleasant side.

But what I want him to do is to ask Wiggins why he became Armstrong's number 1 cheerleader for 3 years, and ask wiggins why he blatantly lied about the extent of his Armstrong heroworship.

That a clean athlete who knows Armstrong doped would defend Armstrong so vigorously after a doped Armstrong just cost him a TDF podium obviously makes absolutely 0 sense. Anyone who actually does care about whether Sky are clean or not, should be very interested in why Wiggins did that.

Wiggins is pathetic, no doubt. But one thing, off course Wiggins would probably be able to figure that wonderboy was a doper, he's probably not that stupid. But beside the obvious, is there something else indicating, that Wiggins knew about Wonderboys dope? Perhaps I just forgot, at this point.

 

[Ferminal]

Reflecting on the 1999 Tour, Walsh tells Press Gazette: “Cycling had just come out of maybe its worst year for doping – the 1998 Tour was shown up by French police to be a drug-riddled circus.

“Then Armstrong came along and you had to make a decision: Was this part of the rejuvenation of cycling or was this a continuation of the doping culture?”

What first piqued Walsh’s suspicion was Armstrong’s reaction to an article by a young cyclist named Christophe Bassons, in which the Frenchman claimed the top riders were still doping.

“Armstrong bullied him and hounded him out of the race,” says Walsh. “My feeling at that moment was that a clean rider wouldn’t have done that. It was pretty obvious to me that Armstrong was doping – not from
any evidence I had but from the way he behaved.

“I think if anybody had been applying cold logic at the time, they would have come to the same conclusion.”

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/david-walsh-it-was-obvious-me-lance-armstrong-was-doping

I am sure everybody is sure that i am not Bennoti but i thought that was interesting. And you are welcome Benno

So the '98 Vuelta was OK for the cancer stricken lad, or IOWCIJ..?

 

[Cyivel]

Wiggins is pathetic, no doubt. But one thing, off course Wiggins would probably be able to figure that wonderboy was a doper, he's probably not that stupid. But beside the obvious, is there something else indicating, that Wiggins knew about Wonderboys dope? Perhaps I just forgot, at this point.

https://twitter.com/Vaughters/status/294596446387310597

(read the whole lot not just the first tweet)

I thought there was an interview (post reasoned decision) where Wiggins claimed he looked at Armstrong in the final week in 2009 and knew something was wrong but I can't find that interview so it could be a figment of my imagination or I'm remembering it wrong.

Edit: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...nce-armstrong-is-a-lying-*******-8466325.html

 

[Dear Wiggo]

No, unlike you I believe in arguments, not in a 2 d world in which there are those who agree with you and those who disagree with you.

Walsh has discredited himself not by taking a different position, I have NEVER ever criticised a single sky fan until they said somthing stupid, and that included Walsh for about a year after he chose their side. Walsh discredited himself by his hypocricy on the climbing times issue. He was fanboying Froome and Wiggins for a long time before that, but I barely made a post about him.

Anyone who goes around for a decade preaching that they know who is doping based on how fast they climb, then immediately switches position the second their friend posts Armstrongesque times, has in the eyes of any rational human being discredited themself on that issue. You can't promise "taxes won't rise if I get elected" then raise them the second you get into office.

There is right and there is wrong and Walsh in his behaviour there has shown himself quite clearly to be in the wrong.

But when he did that he discredited himself full stop and whether he agrees with my position or not has nothing to do with it.

We could also add his offensive and factually incorrect comment about Sky doubters being bitter Armstrong fanboys, when the evidence clearly shows that most of those who defend Sky were Armstrong's biggest fans and defenders including Wiggins himself, Ligget, Sherwen, Kirby, Brunyeel, etc.

See thats what "arguments" are. I make a case. I back it up. None of this - those who agree with me are right those who disagree are wrong, nonesence.



**** Pound said a short while after the Tour that he simply isn't going to watch the Tour de France because its still as dirty as ever.
About the TDF that Froome won 3 stages in and won overall by 5 minutes. I doubt his comment was directed at the winner of the combativity award

Ashenden said this in September 2012 as wiggins and brailsfraud were announcing to the world how everyone ought to thank them for making cycling clean.

Good post, Hitch. Agreed on all counts.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Wiggins is pathetic, no doubt. But one thing, off course Wiggins would probably be able to figure that wonderboy was a doper, he's probably not that stupid. But beside the obvious, is there something else indicating, that Wiggins knew about Wonderboys dope? Perhaps I just forgot, at this point.

Not sure if Cyivel's (very nice) twitter link is the only source.

I have an idea in his thread or one of the related ones, JV assures us he told Wiggins (and Talansky for that matter) all about his own doping, and that of LA. As soon as they join the team.

It's not documented, but I get the impression it's part of the initiation process Garmin riders go through where JV reads them the riot act and says they don't need to dope.

 

[sniper]

Not sure if Cyivel's (very nice) twitter link is the only source.

I have an idea in his thread or one of the related ones, JV assures us he told Wiggins (and Talansky for that matter) all about his own doping, and that of LA. As soon as they join the team.

It's not documented, but I get the impression it's part of the initiation process Garmin riders go through where JV reads them the riot act and says they don't need to dope.

wiggo pretending he didn't know lance doped in 2009.
matt white pretending not to know who del moral was.
sky not knowing what lienders was up to at rabo.
weltz publicly supporting lance in 2012.

clean(er) cycling, yes we can.

 

[Benotti69]

Wiggins is pathetic, no doubt. But one thing, off course Wiggins would probably be able to figure that wonderboy was a doper, he's probably not that stupid. But beside the obvious, is there something else indicating, that Wiggins knew about Wonderboys dope? Perhaps I just forgot, at this point.

Maybe that Walsh had been writing about Armstrong's doping since 1999.

Then we have Greg LeMond calling Armstrong "the greatest athlete ever or the greatest fraud" in 2001, I bet every single pro cyclist heard that line.

Wigans is pathetic but not stupid.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

That a clean athlete who knows Armstrong doped would defend Armstrong so vigorously after a doped Armstrong just cost him a TDF podium obviously makes absolutely 0 sense. Anyone who actually does care about whether Sky are clean or not, should be very interested in why Wiggins did that.

This is true, I remember Walsh saying of Armstrong that "some of the things he was saying just didn't add up" and yet he's not overly skeptical of this.

Whatever's going on in his head I hardly think he's "Sky's *****" but maybe not being completely objective and honest with himself.