Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

We saw Walsh jump on the Sky/Garmin bandwagon a few weeks ago in that interview with Brailsford.
Now he conveniently avoids asking LAnce anything re: his ties with UCI. Something like: "Did the UCI help you avoid testing positive?", or something more specific e.g. wrt the donations, Vrijman, whatever.

Instead, Walsh throws in a couple of highly rethorical questions
("Did you have any sympathy for those rivals determined to race clean?")
and questions to which we already know the answer (e.g. "Did you tell doctors at the Indiana University Hospital on October 27, 1996 that you had taken EPO, human growth hormone, cortisone, steroids and testosterone?").

Really, the only relevant things to ask Lance concern his ties with the UCI, and Walsh omits that.
Walsh is either losing his touch, or he's on the Sky bandwagon.

Maybe you know those answers, the grand public doesn't. From Walsh's twitter:
''Oprah Winfrey is trying to get up to speed on LA. Her producer Jenna Kostelnik has spoken with Kathy LeMond, Betsy Andreu and yours truly.''

Ever heard of 'feeding the monkey'? Lol, we did have a certain JV here

 

[Mellow Velo]

It is interesting to read the comments section, underneath CN's article.
A lot of disagreement there and a fair bit of debate over what the 10 questions should be.
However, no one there seems interested in placing a UCI link question.
I would agree that on a cycling website, where the audience should have a broader knowledge,
this is a little surprising.

Sniper: Given that there are only 10 questions, how would you phrase a question that targeted both Lance's relationship with the UCI, nailed him for insider knowledge and drew a speculative parallel about Sky and the UCI?

 

[meat puppet]

Not saying that the key critical folks actually have a highly organised division of labour in this, but in politics it's pretty basic that not everyone goes all guns blazing. And to me, this has been politics from the get go. Someone has to be the good cop too. Also, perhaps they reckon this is not the time or place to push into that direction.

That said, I merely wish they have their moves and roles thought out.

On the other hand, based on what I've read I would not be too surprised if Walsh had jumped ship or whatever.

 

[ebandit]

sky

i bet walsh watches sky tv....................gotta join the dots...............

 

[Alphabet]

("Did you have any sympathy for those rivals determined to race clean?")

That seems a really inane question to ask, considering with the whole 'choad' thing Lance had which was revealed in Tyler's book. It's already been answered so why pursue it?

 

[neineinei]

We saw Walsh jump on the Sky/Garmin bandwagon a few weeks ago in that interview with Brailsford.
Now he conveniently avoids asking LAnce anything re: his ties with UCI. Something like: "Did the UCI help you avoid testing positive?", or something more specific e.g. wrt the donations, Vrijman, whatever.

Instead, Walsh throws in a couple of highly rethorical questions
("Did you have any sympathy for those rivals determined to race clean?")
and questions to which we already know the answer (e.g. "Did you tell doctors at the Indiana University Hospital on October 27, 1996 that you had taken EPO, human growth hormone, cortisone, steroids and testosterone?").

Really, the only relevant things to ask Lance concern his ties with the UCI, and Walsh omits that.
Walsh is either losing his touch, or he's on the Sky bandwagon.

The interview I have heard of is to be done by Oprah for the general American public. And the questions are those he want her to ask Armstrong. Most of Oprahs public, as well as Oprah herself, probably aren't very interested in the UCI. They would be very interested in hearing him tell the truth about his doping before he got cancer, and hear him tell why his doping wasn't detected in the doping tests and if he thinks his growth hormone use might have anything to do with how fast his cancer spread to his brain etc. They also would be interested in hearing the truth about how he treated Betsy Andreau for telling what he said in that hospital room, and how he harassed her and her husband. Of course he will not be telling the truth about this or much else, but assuming Oprah believes him when he says he will tell it all, this is a question she should ask.

If Welsh was to interview him himself the questions would be different.

 

[blackcat]

We saw Walsh jump on the Sky/Garmin bandwagon a few weeks ago in that interview with Brailsford.
Now he conveniently avoids asking LAnce anything re: his ties with UCI. Something like: "Did the UCI help you avoid testing positive?", or something more specific e.g. wrt the donations, Vrijman, whatever.

Instead, Walsh throws in a couple of highly rethorical questions
("Did you have any sympathy for those rivals determined to race clean?")
and questions to which we already know the answer (e.g. "Did you tell doctors at the Indiana University Hospital on October 27, 1996 that you had taken EPO, human growth hormone, cortisone, steroids and testosterone?").

Really, the only relevant things to ask Lance concern his ties with the UCI, and Walsh omits that.
Walsh is either losing his touch, or he's on the Sky bandwagon.

off the wagon, on the prohibition bootleg'in' sly grog bandwagon of brailsford blue sky mining

 

[JV1973]

I'd say Walsh just isn't as infinitely intelligent as such geniuses like Blackfat, Snipehurl, and IwanttobejustlikeWiggo..... Just a guess.... Oh dear, I need to go back to my evil PR den now. CIAO!

 

[blackcat]

Not saying that the key critical folks actually have a highly organised division of labour in this, but in politics it's pretty basic that not everyone goes all guns blazing. And to me, this has been politics from the get go. Someone has to be the good cop too. Also, perhaps they reckon this is not the time or place to push into that direction.

That said, I merely wish they have their moves and roles thought out.

On the other hand, based on what I've read I would not be too surprised if Walsh had jumped ship or whatever.

Tygart plays this well. Whenever Fabiani or whoever leaks, Tygart counter sues, no, no counter-leak, he just offers up official releases.

Think Tygart might have a few more cudgels in his arsenal. well played sir

 

[blackcat]

I'd say Walsh just isn't as infinitely intelligent as such geniuses like Blackfat, Snipehurl, and IwanttobejustlikeWiggo..... Just a guess.... Oh dear, I need to go back to my evil PR den now. CIAO!

or yourself John

 

[weeniebeenie]

In Seven Deadly Sins (admittedly his book) Walsh recounts how he handed his notice in when The Sunday Times initially refused to publish his article on Armstrong. He only withdrew his resignation when the paper agreed to publish an amended version (although they still got sued).

The above story suggests to me that Walsh values his integrity more than his job. I therefore can't see him agreeing to either look the other way in relation to Sky.

 

[JimmyFingers]

this thread is a bit weird. Your making conclusions about Sky based on a letter he wrote about Armstrong?

Anyway i dont think Walsh is on the Sky bandwagon. For the faults i see in him, it must be remembered that he handled himself with immense honor and courage on the Armstrong thing for years. And i would not throw accusations at such a man lightly

This. As someone who doesn't assume Sky are drug cheats, or Garmin for that matter, I regularly get dismissed as fanboy, or most recently Sky-bot. Several times people here have accused me of being on Sky's payroll even, but this thread clearly demonstrates there are people who are the exact opposite of that, people determined to rope Sky into anything drug-related, particularly linking Sky to Lance. You have to get some perspective, this thread is utter drivel, desperation stakes really.

Interesting how quickly Walsh has gone from hero to zero, merely because after an interview with Brailsford he said he believes he and Sky are committed to clean racing. Not the narrative certain members of the clinic want, so he becomes a pariah, bought off or merely out of touch with cycling today, and his previous efforts ignored. At least there are some members like Hitch prepared to show more objectivity.

Silly, frivolous thread that just reeks of bias

 

[ebandit]

it is the clinic

This.
Silly, frivolous thread that just reeks of bias

well? here in the clinic...............a good story....reads better than fact

discussion is agreeing that subject of thread is doping

david walsh..............paid sky employee............just like me

 

[sniper]

This. As someone who doesn't assume Sky are drug cheats, or Garmin for that matter, I regularly get dismissed as fanboy, or most recently Sky-bot. Several times people here have accused me of being on Sky's payroll even, but this thread clearly demonstrates there are people who are the exact opposite of that, people determined to rope Sky into anything drug-related, particularly linking Sky to Lance. You have to get some perspective, this thread is utter drivel, desperation stakes really.

Interesting how quickly Walsh has gone from hero to zero, merely because after an interview with Brailsford he said he believes he and Sky are committed to clean racing. Not the narrative certain members of the clinic want, so he becomes a pariah, bought off or merely out of touch with cycling today, and his previous efforts ignored. At least there are some members like Hitch prepared to show more objectivity.

Silly, frivolous thread that just reeks of bias

Those are your words.

You're making rather sweaping statements, both wrt the clinic and wrt Walsh.
I asked a question, and I didn't see anybody (except myself) answering it in the positive. So the point you're making, if it applies to the clinic at large, is off.

In the meantime, Lance's contacts with UCI remain the most important point on the agenda (my agenda at least, apparently no so much that of others). I was surprised to see Walsh not asking about it, but thanks to the discussion in this thread I realize that there are other grounds for that and that, in any case, we shouldn't write Walsh off yet.

 

[SundayRider]

This. As someone who doesn't assume Sky are drug cheats, or Garmin for that matter, I regularly get dismissed as fanboy, or most recently Sky-bot. Several times people here have accused me of being on Sky's payroll even, but this thread clearly demonstrates there are people who are the exact opposite of that, people determined to rope Sky into anything drug-related, particularly linking Sky to Lance. You have to get some perspective, this thread is utter drivel, desperation stakes really.

Interesting how quickly Walsh has gone from hero to zero, merely because after an interview with Brailsford he said he believes he and Sky are committed to clean racing. Not the narrative certain members of the clinic want, so he becomes a pariah, bought off or merely out of touch with cycling today, and his previous efforts ignored. At least there are some members like Hitch prepared to show more objectivity.

Silly, frivolous thread that just reeks of bias

Sky maybe committed to clean racing, they just want to look after their riders health.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Those are your words.

You're making rather sweaping statements, both wrt the clinic and wrt Walsh.
I asked a question, and I didn't see anybody (except myself) answering it in the positive. So the point you're making, if it applies to the clinic at large, is off.

In the meantime, Lance's contacts with UCI remain the most important point on the agenda (my agenda at least, apparently no so much that of others). I was surprised to see Walsh not asking about it, but thanks to the discussion in this thread I realize that there are other grounds for that and that, in any case, we shouldn't write Walsh off yet.

It doesn't apply to the clinic, just a select few that come across as obsessed with Sky. Walsh is talking about Armstrong, and you try to tie in Sky to it. I quoted Hitch as a member who thinks Sky dope, but who questions the point of this thread, of which there is none. There is no question to answer: you are trying to make a square peg into a round hole. Walsh is a Armstrong whistle-blower, he is talking about him, not Sky. The fact he isn't talking about the UCI does not equate into him being in bed with Sky, and it is frivolous to suggest so.

It's basically tin foil hat territory. As I said, silly.

 

[sniper]

It doesn't apply to the clinic, just a select few that come across as obsessed with Sky. Walsh is talking about Armstrong, and you try to tie in Sky to it. I quoted Hitch as a member who thinks Sky dope, but who questions the point of this thread, of which there is none. There is no question to answer: you are trying to make a square peg into a round hole. Walsh is a Armstrong whistle-blower, he is talking about him, not Sky. The fact he isn't talking about the UCI does not equate into him being in bed with Sky, and it is frivolous to suggest so.

It's basically tin foil hat territory. As I said, silly.

Walsh praised Braislford in a recent interview and said he believes Sky are clean, whereas (you'll agree) there is no objective evidence to that extent. It's not what I'd expect of someone who was so investigative when it came to Lance.

Walsh is asking Lance about Ferrari, so I wonder why not ask him about other complicit parties, such as the UCI? Forget the Sky-bandwagon part. The question remains.

Note also that by not inquiring further into the Lance-UCI connection, Walsh isn't doing his friend(?) Kimmage a favor.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Sky maybe committed to clean racing, they just want to look after their riders health.

That is what Walsh said post his interview with Brailsford. He hasn't come out and said catagorically Sky are clean, just that he believes Brailsford is committed to clean cycling. He has also said 'if Sky are racing clean, and there is no reason to think they are not', which again falls short of a statement that Sky are clean. Kimmage of course has come out with a harder, more clinic-like line, and the distance between the two illustrates the divisions with the forum itself.

I don't come out and say Sky are clean, just that we can't know for certain either way and it depends on your opinion and analysis of the facts which camp you fall into.

 

[martinvickers]

Those are your words.

And here are yours

We saw Walsh jump on the Sky/Garmin bandwagon a few weeks ago in that interview with Brailsford.
Now he conveniently avoids asking LAnce anything re: his ties with UCI.

You're making rather sweaping statements, both wrt the clinic and wrt Walsh.

You presuppose a bandwagon, and then try and shoe-horn Walsh onto it based on a letter that had nothing to do with Sky.

What was that about sweaping (sic) statements?

I asked a question, and I didn't see anybody (except myself) answering it in the positive. So the point you're making, if it applies to the clinic at large, is off.

Actually, the first thing you did was make a statement - you called the absence 'striking'. and it isn't striking. not even remotely. Unless you wearing your tinfoil hat. Then, then maybe, it's striking.

In the meantime, Lance's contacts with UCI remain the most important point on the agenda (my agenda at least, apparently no so much that of others).

Some of us tend not to go to the butchers' and complain he has no apples. Even if we really want apples.

I was surprised to see Walsh not asking about it, but thanks to the discussion in this thread I realize that there are other grounds for that and that, in any case, we shouldn't write Walsh off yet.

I don't think WE were writing him off.

 

[martinvickers]

That is what Walsh said post his interview with Brailsford. He hasn't come out and said catagorically Sky are clean, just that he believes Brailsford is committed to clean cycling. He has also said 'if Sky are racing clean, and there is no reason to think they are not', which again falls short of a statement that Sky are clean. Kimmage of course has come out with a harder, more clinic-like line, and the distance between the two illustrates the divisions with the forum itself.

I don't come out and say Sky are clean, just that we can't know for certain either way and it depends on your opinion and analysis of the facts which camp you fall into.

I think you might be being overly kind there.

 

[martinvickers]

Walsh praised Braislford in a recent interview and said he believes Sky are clean, whereas (you'll agree) there is no objective evidence to that extent. It's not what I'd expect of someone who was so investigative when it came to Lance.

Walsh is asking Lance about Ferrari, so I wonder why not ask him about other complicit parties, such as the UCI? Forget the Sky-bandwagon part. The question remains.

Note also that by not inquiring further into the Lance-UCI connection, Walsh isn't doing his friend(?) Kimmage a favor.

Sniper

Read between the lines, please.

Please.

Walsh published an open letter to Oprah, in a mainstream US publication?

You think the intended audience actually was Oprah? You think he's actually trying to use this letter to give her questions to ask?

It's simple, if you think about it.

He sees the Oprah interview as an attempt by Lance and his people to rehabiliate Lance with the general US public. The open letter is written for THEM, for that public, not oprah.

It is a reminder to them, that public, of those facts that will most undermine Lance's attempted PR - he's a cheat, a fraud, a bully - not an attempt to help Oprah conduct a forensic questioning of Lance.

Because US Joe Public cares not a whit for UCI. Not yet. That's 'inside baseball'.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

We saw Walsh jump on the Sky/Garmin bandwagon .

I think you just jumped the shark. And given some of your previous posts that really takes some doing.

 

[SundayRider]

That is what Walsh said post his interview with Brailsford. He hasn't come out and said catagorically Sky are clean, just that he believes Brailsford is committed to clean cycling. He has also said 'if Sky are racing clean, and there is no reason to think they are not', which again falls short of a statement that Sky are clean. Kimmage of course has come out with a harder, more clinic-like line, and the distance between the two illustrates the divisions with the forum itself.

I don't come out and say Sky are clean, just that we can't know for certain either way and it depends on your opinion and analysis of the facts which camp you fall into.

I believe that it is extremely unlikely that they are racing clean, however there is no real evidence (at this time) other than a strong resemblance to USPS, riders becoming GT champions who were never even considered to be GT top 10 riders, and the hiring of a Dr with a rather dodgy history.

 

[Orvieto]

Sniper

Read between the lines, please.

Please.

Walsh published an open letter to Oprah, in a mainstream US publication?

You think the intended audience actually was Oprah? You think he's actually trying to use this letter to give her questions to ask?

It's simple, if you think about it.

He sees the Oprah interview as an attempt by Lance and his people to rehabiliate Lance with the general US public. The open letter is written for THEM, for that public, not oprah.

It is a reminder to them, that public, of those facts that will most undermine Lance's attempted PR - he's a cheat, a fraud, a bully - not an attempt to help Oprah conduct a forensic questioning of Lance.

Because US Joe Public cares not a whit for UCI. Not yet. That's 'inside baseball'.

This
I was about to reply, but see that you've summarized my opinion very succinctly. The audience is not Clinic obsessives like ourselves who want every detail uncovered.

 

[pmcg76]

This
I was about to reply, but see that you've summarized my opinion very succinctly. The audience is not Clinic obsessives like ourselves who want every detail uncovered.

Has anyone else on here been struggling to explain to their non-cycling friends why Armstrong was so much worse than other dopers.

One example, the Simeoni chase-down. Now every cycling fan knows why what Armstrong did went against the unwritten rules of the sport and was an incredible piece of nastiness and vindictiveness but try explaining that to those who don't understand cycling in a few sentences......it's not easy.

Or why the Vrijmen report didn't really clear Armstrong of doping!!

What we take for granted is not easily explained to the general public as they know so little about cycling. The general public think Armstrong is being treated unfairly because he is the first athlete to be convicted of doping without a positive test FFS.

I agree that Oprah is about getting the general public onside which has always been Armstrong's ruse. Get the masses on your side and you will be in a strong position.