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

Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Page 90 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 5, 2011
763
0
0
thehog said:
He's a nice chap, wears nicely pressed jackets.

Think I might read the new Sky book. Anyone know where I might find it? Is it next to 'might as well win' and 'its not about the bike' at my local bookstore?
Its in the sugar coated bullsh!t section.
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
Simply from reading the first 20-odd pages, you quickly pick up on how Walsh seems to go out of his way to show just how much everyone at Sky seemed to like him - not only sticking in the knife with regards to "one of my closest friends" Kimmage, but also casting himself as some kind of avuncular presence who both indirectly lifted the team and brought out the best in their riders.

One hopes that in the remainder of the book Walsh doesn't actually do a John Terry and metaphorically try and climb the podium alongside those he was meant to be scrutinising.

It's quite apparent, reading between the lines of those introductory pages, that while Kimmage is the kind of guy who would have joined Sky in the hope that he would uncover something nefarious, Walsh on the other hand was probably hoping for confirmation that the team were doing things the right way.
:rolleyes:
 
Oct 15, 2012
3,064
0
0
sniper said:
various things
- the closeness between walsh and the sky riders
- the way walsh allows the whool to be pulled over his eyes by sky staff/riders
- the "doing the right thing" quote. what does that mean in the first place? especially when sky are nowhere near providing the degree of transparency required to earn any such label.
- sky's/porte's attitude of feeling wronged/aggrieved by those who don't buy the PR and the way Walsh goes along in that sentiment.

big usps/liggett flavor to all this.
puking in my mouth a little bit.
1. "do the right thing" isn't a quote, it's a broad synopsis. So please don't tilt at windmills that aren't actually there. Kindle doesn't allow for copy and paste, so i was trying, quickly, to give a broad feel. The actual quote is a lot more specific, and it's about richie personally, not the team generally.

2. Walsh himself notes at the start of that very account his own discomfort at being present at this event, and he covers the event with that.

But you know what? Bear this is mind. Kimmage's argumentative attitude ended up getting his stay kaboshed. Is it utterly shocking Walsh learned a lesson here that being that aggressive was likely to stymie his getting to watch close up? He did the JTL article afterwards; indeed he broke it.


3. The wool/whool thing is nothing to do with the evidence in the book, it's simply your opinion; the red flag isn't in the book here, it's in your head, which is fine, but let's not pretend it's something new in the book, it's just restating your own previously held opinions.


4. While we're about it. Why would clean riders 'NOT' be aggrieved if they were treated as dopers?

Seems bizarrely catch 22 to me - if you don't care about being called a doper, it's because you're a doper - but if you DO care about being called a doper, it's also because you're a doper. That's just ridiculous and self-serving.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
martinvickers said:
1. "do the right thing" isn't a quote, it's a broad synopsis. So please don't tilt at windmills that aren't actually there. Kindle doesn't allow for copy and paste, so i was trying, quickly, to give a broad feel. The actual quote is a lot more specific, and it's about richie personally, not the team generally.

2. Walsh himself notes at the start of that very account his own discomfort at being present at this event, and he covers the event with that.
fair, thanks.
But you know what? Bear this is mind. Kimmage's argumentative attitude ended up getting his stay kaboshed. Is it utterly shocking Walsh learned a lesson here that being that aggressive was likely to stymie his getting to watch close up? He did the JTL article afterwards; indeed he broke it.
fair point
3. The wool/whool thing is nothing to do with the evidence in the book, it's simply your opinion; the red flag isn't in the book here, it's in your head, which is fine, but let's not pretend it's something new in the book, it's just restating your own previously held opinions.
fair, but the "sky/froome are clean" part is as unproven as the "sky is dirty" part.
so for the n-th time, where are walsh's arguments for believing, other than on his bankaccount? under all normal circumstances, he should be agnostic at best (and preferably skeptic about froome's results, but ok, lets stick to agnostic).
4. While we're about it. Why would clean riders 'NOT' be aggrieved if they were treated as dopers?
we've gone through that so many times e.g. wrt wiggo's rant.
if you're clean, you don't rant at fans.
you provide transparency and answer questions.
 
Feb 19, 2013
263
0
0
Sceptic where are you quoting from?

It's quite apparent, reading between the lines of those introductory pages, that while Kimmage is the kind of guy who would have joined Sky in the hope that he would uncover something nefarious, Walsh on the other hand was probably hoping for confirmation that the team were doing things the right way.
I don't see how this reflects badly on Walsh, or well on Kimmage. Why would you hope to find something nefarious ... unless you were already 100% convinced there was something nefarious to be found?
 
Feb 19, 2013
263
0
0
thehog said:
One must look forward to the Kinmage movie being released soon.

He and others will give their views on Walsh, comedy oversized syringes and Froome going on the genius up Ventoux.
What a larf.
 
Sep 3, 2012
444
0
0
thehog said:
One must look forward to the Kinmage movie being released soon.

He and others will give their views on Walsh, comedy oversized syringes and Froome going on the genius up Ventoux.
The Kimmage movie will touch on Sky/Froome/Walsh? I hope so the more things are scrutinised the better. When's it due for release I can't remember... I do recall the trailer a while back.
 
Oct 15, 2012
3,064
0
0
sniper said:
fair, thanks.
fair point
fair, but the "sky/froome are clean" part is as unproven as the "sky is dirty" part.
Don't disagree, but assuming one is as bad as assuming another.

so for the n-th time, where are walsh's arguments for believing, other than on his bankaccount? under all normal circumstances, he should be agnostic at best (and preferably skeptic about froome's results, but ok, lets stick to agnostic).
All I can say is, get the book, give it a read, draw your own conclusions...but don't make your mind up, and bend the book to fit.

we've gone through that so many times e.g. wrt wiggo's rant.
if you're clean, you don't rant at fans.
you provide transparency and answer questions.
I'm sorry, but that's crap - transparency or not, if someone calls me a cheat, and I'm not, I'm gonna tell 'em to f*** off. I'm not going to say "thank you, sir, a very fair question!" .That is just not human nature.
 
Bexon30 said:
The Kimmage movie will touch on Sky/Froome/Walsh? I hope so the more things are scrutinised the better. When's it due for release I can't remember... I do recall the trailer a while back.
He was at the Tour but the story concentrates on the events surrounding his life from the UCI lawsuit till present day.

But he was at the Tour asking questions.

An alternative view than the serine Sky view from Walsh.
 
Nothing Walsh says, or how Wiggo reacts means anything WRT whether Sky are doping, or members of the team are doping. Everyone has potential incentive to lie, and negatives can't be proven.

That Walsh is on the bandwagon is and has been clear for a while, but it doesn't mean Sky are doping and it doesn't mean they are clean.

It's all just noise to keep the ink flowing while the show goes on.
 
red_flanders said:
Nothing Walsh says, or how Wiggo reacts means anything WRT whether Sky are doping, or members of the team are doping. Everyone has potential incentive to lie, and negatives can't be proven.

That Walsh is on the bandwagon is and has been clear for a while, but it doesn't mean Sky are doping and it doesn't mean they are clean.

It's all just noise to keep the ink flowing while the show goes on.
What soberness conceals, drunkness reveals.

If Porte is upset with Walsh for not doing enough to sell that Sky are doing it the right way, then what is Walsh missing?

Because I agree with you. I feel no closer to the answer. Clean or not clean. Walsh doesn't appear to add much on that front.

Which leads me to the next point. If clean surely with the resources they could put together something?

A website, some data outside of raw power files? But you get nothing.

But that is not Walsh's job. To prove they are clean. Just to market them.
 
Sep 3, 2012
444
0
0
red_flanders said:
Nothing Walsh says, or how Wiggo reacts means anything WRT whether Sky are doping, or members of the team are doping. Everyone has potential incentive to lie, and negatives can't be proven.

That Walsh is on the bandwagon is and has been clear for a while, but it doesn't mean Sky are doping and it doesn't mean they are clean.

It's all just noise to keep the ink flowing while the show goes on.
And the shows in full swing right about now, however, Porte and his behaviour is slightly odd. Walsh should be asking bigger questions of performances by Porte and Froome though. As for Wiggins did he get out before the pressure got too great?, as iirc it was him that cancelled on Kimmage following Sky. Perhaps his focus back to track to switch now is a result of Walsh being too close. He's too loose and a weak link in the Sky team. I hope Walsh steps back (not literally) and questions more. As a quality journalist he was very recently.
 
No one who doubts Froome should buy the book. Walsh insulted us when he said those who doubt Froome are bitter Armstrong fans.

Did you believe in Armstrong. Did you swallow the lie all the way up to 2012.

Or, did you know he was doping, were repulsed by his behaviour, the lies that surrounded him, the put downs of anyone who spoke the truth.

If so do you remember how you felt when Landis spoke out? Hope? And do you remember then, when Walsh's new hero, and "hero of clean cycling" Bradley Wiggins, who had just finished 4th/3rd at the dirtiest TDF since Pantani, came out and dismissed the Landis testimony calling him a drunk and going on a 3 year long raise awareness for the great Lance Armstrong, campaign?

Walsh paints us, you and me as the Armstrong fans, lying through his teeth because he know he can, while trying to paint the real LA defenders, including those like Brailsford who in setting up Sky were open about making it UK Postal, as the doubters.

Say no to this Stalinistic historical revisionism and don't give Walsh 1 penny. Hell get plenty enough of them from his new base- the blind fanboys. He can delude himself that they were on his side on Armstrong and we were not, if he wants.
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
red_flanders said:
Nothing Walsh says, or how Wiggo reacts means anything WRT whether Sky are doping, or members of the team are doping. Everyone has potential incentive to lie, and negatives can't be proven.

That Walsh is on the bandwagon is and has been clear for a while, but it doesn't mean Sky are doping and it doesn't mean they are clean.

It's all just noise to keep the ink flowing while the show goes on.
You are right.

However I do think the average fan that doesnt follow things too closely is more likely to believe sky are clean than not.

"hey look everyone the famous st. Walsh that put down Armstrong is saying we are clean, surely there can be no doubt then"

Good move by sky. The Walsh shield will protect them from the haters on twitter and elsewhere.
 
the sceptic said:
You are right.

However I do think the average fan that doesnt follow things too closely is more likely to believe sky are clean than not.

"hey look everyone the famous st. Walsh that put down Armstrong is saying we are clean, surely there can be no doubt then"

Good move by sky. The Walsh shield will protect them from the haters on twitter and elsewhere.
In England they will believe Sky are clean always, no matter what. You can see how when JV, - one of the people they like, made 1 negative tweet about Wiggins he was immediately attacked as a doper trying to discredit "those who are trying to do it clean" (interesting use of the word trying to describe those who can win any race they want by half an hour).

However, outside of England most think they are doping. In Denmark there was that poll and 80% said they thought Sky were doping. In France I think as well cos Kirby was moaning all TDF that the accusations against Froome came from jealous Frenchies upset that they couldnt win a stage. In Romania, the commentators according to our friend jens_attacks take it as a given that everyone is doping and make jokes about it.

Most cycling fans have by now come to doubt the cyclists at the top and naturally when you have someone like Froome ride faster than Lance, very few are going to believe that. Generally only those with a nationalistic horse in the race. Because only some form of extreme bias could cause anyone who has watched cycling over the last 20 years to not laugh at Sky in the last 2 years.

The people who aren't cycling fans all think its a doped sport and naively believe their own ones (usually football) are clean.

Either way thats why everyone in the cycling media are always falling over themselves to say that its all clean now. They are trying to convince people it is. But after the last 20 years, even if cycling did become clean they would have a hard time doing so. the way it is now, with people still +ing for EPO, guys like Valverde at the top, Riis still as DS, Armstrong story only a year old, Horner winning Vuelta, Sky turning nobodies into greatest athletes ever lived, good luck lol.
 
Mar 25, 2013
3,762
0
0
mattghg said:
Sceptic where are you quoting from?



I don't see how this reflects badly on Walsh, or well on Kimmage. Why would you hope to find something nefarious ... unless you were already 100% convinced there was something nefarious to be found?
Agree, how can anyone say hoping to find something untoward is good or even to be endorsed is beyond understanding.

From finishing the book, initially he seemed a bit sceptical of agreeing to the arrangement and mentioned to Brailsford he heard the team didn't want to answer doping questions and were trying to dictate the narrative of press conferences. No doubt to me, he asked questions and got convinced over time by them to the point he now admires them. He does praise Brailsford but for me, he seemed more in awe of the work that Kerrison and Ellingworth do. He is fully convinced on them just as he is with Farrell. With Farrell he mentions the way he became doctor for the Tour in 2012 after Leinders was removed, saying if the team were running a doping programme a doctor wouldn't be changed just like that a couple of weeks before the Tour.

They bring up the Nieve signing where more stringent testing and background checks are done on the back of what happened with Leinders and JTL.

MartinV already said this, but the "Flawed Fairytale" article about Lance in 99 is an interesting section.
 
Oct 15, 2012
3,064
0
0
red_flanders said:
Nothing Walsh says, or how Wiggo reacts means anything WRT whether Sky are doping, or members of the team are doping. Everyone has potential incentive to lie, and negatives can't be proven.

That Walsh is on the bandwagon is and has been clear for a while, but it doesn't mean Sky are doping and it doesn't mean they are clean.

It's all just noise to keep the ink flowing while the show goes on.
I think bandwagon is maybe a little strong - I'd say he is now clearly convinced, and leave it at that; as for the rest of what you've written - 110% - I couldn't agree more, and you put it much better than I could, chapeau.

If we all admitted the general uselessness of this 'impressionistic' stuff for proving either guilt or innocence, we'd maybe be quicker getting down to investigating facts and leads, which actually might prove something.

For one - has ANYONE asked De Jongh specifically about Leinders yet??
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
martinvickers said:
<snip>
4. While we're about it. Why would clean riders 'NOT' be aggrieved if they were treated as dopers?

Seems bizarrely catch 22 to me - if you don't care about being called a doper, it's because you're a doper - but if you DO care about being called a doper, it's also because you're a doper. That's just ridiculous and self-serving.
What tosh!

Armstrong spent years getting angry (an litigious) on people who called him a doper.

A drunk Richie Porte attacks a journo about the media writing doping stories about Sky is used as an anecdote to convince us that Sky are clean because the media (except Walsh who is earning big on the back of it) are not swallowing Froome climbing faster than the dopers. Oh well i am now convinced they are clean. More champange David?

the quote "TRYING to do it clean", what is TRYING? they either are clean or they are not, there is no TRYING. And i am more than ever convinced they are not.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS