JimmyFingers said:
Ok but the chagrin being directed at Walsh is that he called out Michelle Smith and Contador on their performance, both of whom were subsequently popped, but doesn't see Froome/Sky's performance as suspicious, and that his reasoning is, as you put it I believe, 'fragile'? That he no longer judges athletes on performance alone?
I can't guess why he's changed his opinion, if in fact he has. What I will say is that he is closer to the sport and better informed that the vast majority of the people on this forum that have such a problem with him. He tweeted after that long interview he did with Brailsford a long time ago now that he believed Sky were on the level, so he has been consistent at least, and he had this viewpoint before he actually embedded with Sky.
A counter-argument must be why would such a consistent and out-spoken anti-doping journalist who has previously gone after sanctioned dopers like Smith, Contador and Armstrong do an about-turn and side with a team many hold to be suspicious, and more outright condemn?
Or, depending on your opinion, be entirely consistent by calling out dopers and not calling out a clean team in Sky?
It's a subjective call basically. Those that think Sky are doping think he is a hypocrite, those that give them the benefit of the doubt see him as being consistent. And perhaps the benefit of the doubt he affords Sky is the same reason he isn't suspicious of Nibali.
What I am saying is maybe he knows things we don't know. The same sort of things he knew about Lance. Maybe.
We must remember that while embedded at Garmin Kimmage was convinced by them and even pointed at Bernhard Kohl's suffering as an example of how cycling was cleaner.
My main issue with Walsh's stance on Sky is not that his opinion has changed, even regarding the talk on performance = evidence hypocrisy.
No, rather it's that David Walsh, who is a journalist, and historically at least a good one at that, has changed from being the go-to guy for an anti-doping voice, to commenting on Team Sky in such gushing, one-sided praise that we may as well have commissioned Auscyclefan94 and LaFlorecita to cover BMC in 2011 and Saxo at the 2012 Vuelta. Now, David Walsh may have good reason for doing that. There has been a lot of second-guessing of his motives, but there may be good reasons for that. He may have asked all the questions that have been being brought up in the Clinic, and he may have been satisfied by the responses. He may have seen the various training regimes and methods that apparently justify the changes in capabilities of the Sky riders, and felt that they made sense and therefore the improvements shown in the riders could indeed be made without recourse to doping. And so he may have found himself adequately convinced that the team is clean. But - and this is the important bit - if that was the case, then why hasn't he, you know,
done his job properly and reported on this? Report what he has been told and what he has seen that has convinced him of this? Because, if it's good enough for David Walsh with his historical reputation, surely it would be good enough for at least
some of us? It would be good for Team Sky in that it would remove some of the lingering questions, and it would be good for David Walsh in that it would show he's still asking the tough questions and isn't becoming a corporate mouthpiece as some suspect.
Now, it's possible that he hasn't asked those questions. But either way he's failing his role as a journalist, because he's either not asking the questions, or he's asking them but not reporting the answers. And if the answers are as convincing as he'd have us believe, I don't see what possible reason there could be for not reporting them. There were (non-Sky-related tangent) questions on Dr Íñigo San Millán a while back. He has teams like Astana and Saunier Duval on his record, then was working for Garmin. Questions were asked on what that really says about Garmin's repute. Vaughters promptly chastised many Clinicians for jumping to conclusions because San Millán had been kicked off teams or resigned positions because of refusing to be involved in doping programs, clashing with doping docs, etc.. But
we were not privy to this information. The insiders can hardly hold it against those without the same level of inside information for having opinions based on partial information - especially when
some key information is withheld from us. And again with RR's talk on Moncoutié - out of nowhere on a thread when his reputation as a clean cyclist is mentioned, RR popped up with a two word post that called this into question. But when asked, all we've got out of them is that they've "made it clear" how they came to their opinion, and that they talked to some people who told them things that led them to that. Now, that's all fine, but who are these people and what did they say? We simply don't know, because RR has, for whatever reason, of which many are valid, chosen not to divulge that. But then, how can they be angered if we do not share this opinion, when we have not been given access to the same information? How can you criticise the masses for their ignorance, when they thirst for the knowledge you are consciously hiding from them?
And so it is with Walsh and Sky. Without letting the fans know
why he has come to the conclusion he has, they cannot know
how he got there.
And let's not forget that all of this is predicated on the assumption that David Walsh is fully convinced by Team Sky, is fully honest in what he is saying and has done his job as a journalist thoroughly.