Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Parrulo]

Some please confront Walsh with that over twitter!!!!1

I want to see how he dodges that one

 

[Benotti69]

Some please confront Walsh with that over twitter!!!!1

I want to see how he dodges that one

He is doing his damndest to dodge the Armstrong ones.

 

[The Hitch]

He is doing his damndest to dodge the Armstrong ones.

What Armstrong ones? Walsh's opposition of Armstrong doesn't have to contradict supporting Sky. Different times, different scenarios. Even though i believe he is wrong his - i havent seen anything argument does make sense.

This however is Walsh saying A vs Walsh saying B. 2 direct opposites.

 

[Benotti69]

What Armstrong ones? Walsh's opposition of Armstrong doesn't have to contradict supporting Sky. Different times, different scenarios. Even though i believe he is wrong his - i havent seen anything argument does make sense.

This however is Walsh saying A vs Walsh saying B. 2 direct opposites.

I believe, to be confirmed, that he had his doubts about Armstrong on Sestriere. I heard it on an interview he gave competitor radio, but would like to read the aritcle he wrote after Sestriere. He appears to have revised that saying he didn't doubt Armstrong till bullying Bassons and Corticoid backdated TUE was revealed.

Edit: Just found this quote from Walsh

“I had a bad sense against Armstrong from the first day of that tour,” said Walsh.

http://www.thescore.ie/david-walsh-on-seven-deadly-sins-728334-Dec2012/

 

[Almeisan]

To me nitpicking about this is pretty meaningless. He have been privately very suspicious but decided that publicly, there was not enough evidence up to cortisol and Bassons.

If he didn't have doubts based on his performances, and Sestriere one was probably the most suspicious because it came first, how did he ever become suspicious?

On the other hand, if one can be suspicious based on performance only or not is an important point.

 

[gooner]

I believe, to be confirmed, that he had his doubts about Armstrong on Sestriere. I heard it on an interview he gave competitor radio, but would like to read the aritcle he wrote after Sestriere. He appears to have revised that saying he didn't doubt Armstrong till bullying Bassons and Corticoid backdated TUE was revealed.

Edit: Just found this quote from Walsh



http://www.thescore.ie/david-walsh-on-seven-deadly-sins-728334-Dec2012/

He may have felt that way at the start of the Tour but Walsh didn't make up his mind then. Even the Sestriere episode, he referred to the reaction of other journalists. Never did I hear him say he made up his mind from that. This extract from Seven Deadly Sins backs him up.

I thought of Christophe Bassons and how 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.

Remember, this was all before his time with Sky so Walsh can't be accused of inconsistency in this regards.

Regarding the Rasmussen/Contador quotes, Walsh has to answer for that himself. Like Hitch said, there is a contradiction here in judging one from the other and I won't defend him on this one.

 

[Mr.38%]

Awesome interview on "Vive le Velo" in VRT één (as usual). Walsh is completely under Froomes spell. Almost pitiful.

 

[the sceptic]

Awesome interview on "Vive le Velo" in VRT één (as usual). Walsh is completely under Froomes spell. Almost pitiful.

Could you give a quick summary?

 

[JustinReynolds]

Walsh

You guys make me laugh.

One moment Walsh is the best journo ever for being right about LA (despite years of villification), and now he is 'under the spell' of SKY for spending loads of time with them and not writing about doping.

Please guys - get a bloody life. You just DON'T want to hear that any winner is clean (regardless of team). Its almost as if its 'win a stage' = 'doping'.

 

[pedaling squares]

You guys make me laugh.

One moment Walsh is the best journo ever for being right about LA (despite years of villification), and now he is 'under the spell' of SKY for spending loads of time with them and not writing about doping.

Please guys - get a bloody life. You just DON'T want to hear that any winner is clean (regardless of team). Its almost as if its 'win a stage' = 'doping'.

Not at all. Walsh was held in high regard for swimming against the current and calling it like he saw it. Now he's getting some stick for failing to make what many people believe is a similar call. He called Contador a cheat based on speed alone. He hasn't called Froome a cheat despite climbing at speeds previously reserved for dopers. Nothing unfair about people questioning these differences.

It's not 'win a stage = doping', it's 'sprint uphill at Armstrong/Pantani/Ricco speed and leave climbers in your dust = doping'.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Could you give a quick summary?

Well, to summarize:
* Sky is clean as far as he can see, but, doesnt rule out doping on the total
* no evidence
* being embedded is good because you are on the spot talking to the relevant people
* no whistleblowers whatsoever
* Froome always had talent
* Armstrong was obvious doping because the riders could dope to 50%

He is a true believer, good for him. In this case I can not agree with him.

 

[Mr.38%]

Could you give a quick summary?

It's available now:

http://www.sporza.be/cm/sporza/vide.../ViveLeVelo_17juli/MV_130717_VLV_tafel_Lieven

 

[Benotti69]

You guys make me laugh.

One moment Walsh is the best journo ever for being right about LA (despite years of villification), and now he is 'under the spell' of SKY for spending loads of time with them and not writing about doping.

Please guys - get a bloody life. You just DON'T want to hear that any winner is clean (regardless of team). Its almost as if its 'win a stage' = 'doping'.

Try reading what is being wuestioned about Walsh.

Not at all. Walsh was held in high regard for swimming against the current and calling it like he saw it. Now he's getting some stick for failing to make what many people believe is a similar call. He called Contador a cheat based on speed alone. He hasn't called Froome a cheat despite climbing at speeds previously reserved for dopers. Nothing unfair about people questioning these differences.

It's not 'win a stage = doping', it's 'sprint uphill at Armstrong/Pantani/Ricco speed and leave climbers in your dust = doping'.

^^^

And that Froome never showed GT potential then explodes on the La Vuelta.

Also that he is the best climber by miles and best TTer.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Try reading what is being wuestioned about Walsh.



^^^

And that Froome never showed GT potential then explodes on the La Vuelta.

Also that he is the best climber by miles and best TTer.

He turned into Conti overnight. Yet it doesnt ring a bell for mister Walsh. At least thats how it looks like.

 

[zlev11]

DW: Why is it sad? They’re cheating. It’s sad that they cheat, but it’s good news when they get caught. What is sad is that the guy who’s wearing the yellow jersey now, Alberto Contador, is definitely cheating.

M: How can you tell he’s cheating?

DW: Michael Rasmussen went up the Gourette-Col d'Aubisque faster than Lance Armstrong ever went up it. Alberto Contador was alongside him the whole way. I’ve been at that race since the early 80s and I know what speeds they go up that mountain. The speeds the leaders go up at today are just illogical.

hahahahaha

there was never even a mountain top finish on that climb during any of Armstrong's tour wins, so how is that even comparable? he was right, but that's way more of a stretch than comparing Froome's times this year to Armstrong's on climbs that were actually finishing climbs.

Walsh is a loser.

 

[silverrocket]

You guys make me laugh.

One moment Walsh is the best journo ever for being right about LA (despite years of villification), and now he is 'under the spell' of SKY for spending loads of time with them and not writing about doping.

Please guys - get a bloody life. You just DON'T want to hear that any winner is clean (regardless of team). Its almost as if its 'win a stage' = 'doping'.

No, it's the fact many people liked Walsh because he was asking the doping questions we all wanted to, and he/we all turned out to be right. Now he has fallen out of favour because he is no longer asking those questions. This last point has given rise to a whole new line of questioning.

 

[thehog]

hahahahaha

there was never even a mountain top finish on that climb during any of Armstrong's tour wins, so how is that even comparable? he was right, but that's way more of a stretch than comparing Froome's times this year to Armstrong's on climbs that were actually finishing climbs.

Walsh is a loser.

DW: Look you have to understand the money I was earning back then. Next to nothing. I had to make a name for myself. Calling out Armstrong was easy. I knew he was doping. But now its different. I finally cobbled together a book which outsold the other two disasters by 7 copies to one. I have a movie deal in the works and Sky are providing me an all expenses paid holiday to the Tour. I've been to Tenerife 3 times as well! Am I going to call out Sky's doping? Hell no. No chance. I'm saving for retirement and this weekly column thing with the Times sure beats reporting on the nags at ascot. God that was boring and paid nothing. Mrs. Walsh has been on my back as well. She wants to go to Flordia this year for Christmas. And I think she deserves it. If I write an article that Chris Froome is outpacing Armstrong on the climbs then I can kiss my Sunday Times gig goodbye.

As for Kimmidge. Well he needs to think bigger. Bigger than writing p1ssy little articles for the Irish Times at €10£ a paragraph.

Did I tell you I have a movie deal?

Walsh is not a loser. He has finally hit jackpot!

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Can't say I blame Walsh for shifting press releases.

Nearing retirement and employed in a dysfunctional business which is rapidly approaching EOL. Add the fact Walsh' employer is owned by the same outfit which ultimately sponsor the British team (team Sky) and the traditional journalistic concept goes down the toilet.

Enjoy the fee lunch, Walsh and take care of the weight.

 

[bewildered]

I'm not yet willing to believe that Walsh has done a 180 on his journalistic principles. He is conflicted/compromised working for the ST, yes, but they wouldn't print anything negative anyway and he would lose his job. He might have his suspicions but they mightn't be enough yet for him to lose his job over.

I just don't think he has anything concrete yet but maybe he feels that being behind the scenes and meeting the Sky team off camera might reveal something to him, he'll see them as nobody else from the media gets to and maybe one of them will say or do something like the Lance/Bassons eureka moment for him.

Not willing to judge him just yet. If he gets anything concrete I still have hope that he'll jump ship and write about them

 

[fruit bars with eyes]

You guys make me laugh.

One moment Walsh is the best journo ever for being right about LA (despite years of villification), and now he is 'under the spell' of SKY for spending loads of time with them and not writing about doping.

Please guys - get a bloody life. You just DON'T want to hear that any winner is clean (regardless of team). Its almost as if its 'win a stage' = 'doping'.

I'm sitting at the foot of L'alpe D'huez - riding my bike and following the sport I love; Froome is a mutant freak doping experiment- I have reached the end of my tether witliblokes like you

 

[Avoriaz]

No, it's the fact many people liked Walsh because he was asking the doping questions we all wanted to, and he/we all turned out to be right. Now he has fallen out of favour because he is no longer asking those questions. This last point has given rise to a whole new line of questioning.

Nearly right. He IS still asking the questions; it is the answer he gives and the conclusions he draws people don't like

 

[Robert21]

One thing that I don't get about Walsh's story is how is now claims that he had no reason to suspect Armstrong until the 'Bassons incident' and that 'extra-terrestrial' performances in themselves do not suggest doping.

However, I distinctly recall one radio interview that he did where he says that it was clear from the off that Armstrong was doping, with everyone in the press room laughing out loud and making jokes the first time Armstrong blew everyone away in the mountains. I.e. it was the way that he was riding that made it clear what he was up to.

It also seems that things were no different this time around as well:

PONT-SAINT-ESPRIT, France (VN) — There was a collective groan among the press corps Sunday when Chris Froome (Sky) turned the screws with about 7km to go on France’s hardest climb to drop Alberto Contador (Saxo-Tinkoff).

No, the freebie buffet hadn’t run out. Team Sky just dropped a Froome bomb. And it ****ed people off.

“That attack is not the smartest PR move,” grumbled one scandal-weary scribe, “not if he doesn’t want to raise eyebrows.”

Froome made Contador look like an espoir. The Sky captain spun his legs as if they were well-lubed pistons, churning out huge power, grinding his way toward the Ventoux summit and victory, only to leave a swath of doubt in his wake.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013...-chris-froome-just-too-good-to-be-true_295224

 

[leon7766]

Typical of all conspiracy theorists attitude.If someone says or does something you agree with hes a hero if he says something different he has been paid off .

From what I can see about this person has been near the front of the charge against doping and some people on here should be ashamed .Sadly they wont be its not in the nature of such people

 

[Logic Al]

Definitely, Walsh may be wrong about Froome/Sky

But to accuse him of turning after everything he's done last 12 years or so is crazy

 

[sniper]

Definitely, Walsh may be wrong about Froome/Sky

But to accuse him of turning after everything he's done last 12 years or so is crazy

it's not accusing him of turning.
it's seeing him turn.