Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[gooner]

big fail.
the lequipe thing was in the summarized part that i had in fact read.

if you know my history of posting you know i'm not too stubborn or proud to say i missed something (unlike a certain doc here).
while i've missed a lot, in this case i hadn't missed anything.
i meant what i say i meant. wanna respond to that? had walsh read the lequipe article when it came out? or only after uci's letter to JTL?

You admitted you didn't read the article. All this shows is you have a preconceived stance on Walsh without reading his articles first on all this. A bit of a hint, it's a good idea to throw away the shovel now.

 

[Race Radio]

The lack of syringes in the dustbin are really no excuse for walsh to jump on the bandwagon and do a whole lot of PR for Sky.

So Walsh has evidence of Sky's doping, that would stand up to the scrutiny of a libel lawyer, and is sitting on it to protect his employer?

This may come as a surprise to some here but the Sunday Times is not the Clinic

 

[sniper]

Absolutely agree. While Walsh has covered these contradictions (Yates, Julich, Using Garmin tests for JTL) he has not made it a central theme of his work, as many here would like.

While it is fun to obsess over these contradictions none are the smoking gun we are looking for. By 2000 I knew the following about Armstrong and USPS

The Hospital room
The Cortisone positive, that Julian DeVries said involved a payoff
Chris Charmichel lawsuit for doping riders
The video of team staff dumping drugs and hundreds of syringes.
The commercial attachments with Verbruggen
the 15% increase in output
Bullying riders who spoke out against doping
Working with Ferrari, the most advanced and notorious doping doctor in the sport
Former riders telling me that USPS was "science experiment"

It is fun to pretend that the same level of evidence is available for Sky and Walsh is ignoring it.......but we all know that is not the case

who needs a smoking gun when you have common sense?
this is not about finding empirical evidence that walsh is a sky *****.
this is about reading into his current way of reporting. Most agree that it's way off the mark. Way too uncritical.
And if "walsh has covered" those contradictions, why isn't he a bit less vocal in supporting sky? why isn't he more skeptical of their lack of transparency? etc.
I won't hold my breath, RR. You are too smart to be saying the things you are saying wrt Froome/Walsh and Sky.

 

[sniper]

So Walsh has evidence of Sky's doping, that would stand up to the scrutiny of a libel lawyer, and is sitting on it to protect his employer?

This may come as a surprise to some here but the Sunday Times is not the Clinic

you're spinning the argument.
walsh has no reason and indeed no obligation to put sky forward as a team at the anti-doping forefront.
yet that's what he's doing.

 

[gooner]

So Walsh has evidence of Sky's doping, that would stand up to the scrutiny of a libel lawyer, and is sitting on it to protect his employer?

This may come as a surprise to some here but the Sunday Times is not the Clinic

I have said that exact same thing a few times today and it goes in one ear out the other of some around here.

 

[Race Radio]

who needs a smoking gun when you have common sense?

Libel lawyers.

 

[Von Mises]

who needs a smoking gun when you have common sense?

Well, he had a smoking gun and it cost 1,5 million pounds, okey, they got it back later, but still... You are demanding common sense, but are you ready to put your skin in the game?

 

[sniper]

Libel lawyers.

ok, i'm getting your drift a bit better now.
but again, the lack of a smoking gun doesn't oblige walsh to kiss sky's *** in print either, which he does appear to be doing.

and never mind that there was no smoking gun in the case of usps either.
at least the judge thought there wasn't (until recently of course)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I have said that exact same thing a few times today and it goes in one ear out the other of some around here.

And I have said the same.

It also goes to the crux of the issue. Walsh is often hailed as an "investigative journalist" - but this does not mean he is Heratio Cane and call on the honeys to run some DNA or hair tests and have it all tied up before the sun goes down.

He builds up a connection of sources, records all the quotes and information and puts that in to a column. He is not a judge so he must give some balance to the argument as well as a right to reply.

While much is made of his suspicions of Armstrong in 99, it took 2 years before he was in a position to write the Ferrari connection article.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

ok, i'm getting your drift a bit better now.
but again, the lack of a smoking gun doesn't oblige walsh to kiss sky's *** in print either, which he does appear to be doing.

and never mind that there was no smoking gun in the case of usps either.
at least the judge thought there wasn't (until recently of course)

Hi Sniper,
You're right there was no smoking gun about USPS in the early 00's (well there was but lets pretend) even then what was yesterdays headline re Sky and the headline re LA in the early 2000s?

 

[gooner]

Why doesn't Sniper and Benotti give David a call. He's love to hear from them. Notice the word "proper" guys.

"So, if anyone out there has proper evidence that Sky are cheating, well, I'm a journalist and I would love to hear it."

 

[Benotti69]

Sky didn't get their message out.
If they had someone would have gone on record and spun the story.

And the are plenty of British publications who would have covered any news release or comment word for word without following up.

I disagree.

What?
Either Leinders being dodgy before he was neared by de Rooy was common knowledge or it wasn't.
Which is it?

Neared?

Those in the sport don't know who the doping docs are? Really? I would've thought the way a lot of the riders move from teams every few seasons meant that which docs did what was common in the sport.

 

[Benotti69]

So Walsh has evidence of Sky's doping, that would stand up to the scrutiny of a libel lawyer, and is sitting on it to protect his employer?

This may come as a surprise to some here but the Sunday Times is not the Clinic

The Sunday Times is not expected to be the clinic but neither is Walsh expected to be an extension of Sky's PR team which this season he has practically been.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I disagree.



Neared?

Those in the sport don't know who the doping docs are? Really? I would've thought the way a lot of the riders move from teams every few seasons meant that which docs did what was common in the sport.

You didn't answer the question.
Was it common knowledge or not before de Rooy named Leinders early last year?

And this isn't about riders, or even Sky - but how would Walsh have know.

 

[Benotti69]

And I have said the same.

It also goes to the crux of the issue. Walsh is often hailed as an "investigative journalist" - but this does not mean he is Heratio Cane and call on the honeys to run some DNA or hair tests and have it all tied up before the sun goes down.

He builds up a connection of sources, records all the quotes and information and puts that in to a column. He is not a judge so he must give some balance to the argument as well as a right to reply.

While much is made of his suspicions of Armstrong in 99, it took 2 years before he was in a position to write the Ferrari connection article.

Walsh had no qualms about calling out Contador's performances while riding for Bruyneel. No smoking gun. Just what he was seeing coupled with the knowledge of riding for Bruyneel.

Walsh knows a lot about Sky that is questionable, but he seems to not want to put hard questions to them and question their pithy excuses.

 

[Benotti69]

You didn't answer the question.
Was it common knowledge or not before de Rooy named Leinders early last year?

I consider if a doctor's name is on the teams website and attending races wearing their team clothing then it is common knowledge. That he was the doctor at Rabo was common knowledge that doping is rife is common knowledge.

And this isn't about riders, or even Sky - but how would Walsh have know.

Walsh might have asked about Sky's docs. To take everything at face value as he has done is just regurgitating Sky's story. That aint journalism. Sloppy not to start there to find out who Sky have hired.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Walsh had no qualms about calling out Contador's performances while riding for Bruyneel. No smoking gun. Just what he was seeing coupled with the knowledge of riding for Bruyneel.

Walsh knows a lot about Sky that is questionable, but he seems to not want to put hard questions to them and question their pithy excuses.

In the Sunday Times? No.

Indeed Walsh knows that there is a lot about Sky that is questionable , that why he asks them questions. He does not get to make stuff up like you do.

 

[sniper]

have RR, gooner, and dr. Mas forgotten the "why i believe in Froome" article?
what does such wordings and such vocal sky support have to do with lible lawyers?
and where is Walsh asking for more transparency e.g. wrt Froome pre-vuelta data? again, wouldn't be lible for saying that.
it's a nobrainer, guys. an ABC.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I consider if a doctor's name is on the teams website and attending races wearing their team clothing then it is common knowledge. That he was the doctor at Rabo was common knowledge that doping is rife is common knowledge.



Walsh might have asked about Sky's docs. To take everything at face value as he has done is just regurgitating Sky's story. That aint journalism. Sloppy not to start there to find out who Sky have hired.

Its was a very easy question.
The fact you bring in other irrelevant stuff about Leinders being at Sky etc shows more deflection on your part.

So, rather than getting to 14 posts of you deflecting - I will just call it that "no" it was not common knowledge that Leinders was doping.

 

[sniper]

In the Sunday Times? No.

Indeed Walsh knows that there is a lot about Sky that is questionable , that why he asks them questions. He does not get to make stuff up like you do.

you're all over the place.

he's on twitter expressing support for froome and sky.

he's also on twitter calling out contador and horner, the latter without a shred of evidence.

 

[gooner]

I consider if a doctor's name is on the teams website and attending races wearing their team clothing then it is common knowledge. That he was the doctor at Rabo was common knowledge that doping is rife is common knowledge.

And yet I didn't see you say anything about Leinders before de Rooy's comments. In fact from my memory, I don't think he was even a topic of discussion on the forum before that. A quick search tells me the thread on his name started on him near the end of the 2012 Tour.

 

[gooner]

you're all over the place.

he's on twitter expressing support for froome and sky.

he's also on twitter calling out contador and horner, the latter without a shred of evidence.

For crying out loud, are Froome and Wiggins one of the redacted names in the USADA report?

 

[sniper]

For crying out loud, are Froome and Wiggins one of the redacted names in the USADA report?

did horner dope in the viuelta?
walsh doesn't have a shred of evidence for that, yet he called out that performance.
just goes to show that the whole lible issue is really not an issue for walsh.
he turned into a hypocrit, gooner, come to terms with it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

have RR, gooner, and dr. Mas forgotten the "why i believe in Froome" article?
what does such wordings and such vocal sky support have to do with lible lawyers?
and where is Walsh asking for more transparency e.g. wrt Froome pre-vuelta data? again, wouldn't be lible for saying that.
it's a nobrainer, guys. an ABC.

Interesting question - the correct answer is nothing as it was his opinion. One that I do not agree with, but one that I am happy to acknowledge that he is entitled to.

But the more interesting part is that it is entirely irrelevant and seems like more defection. I still await an answer to the 2 headlines I asked for earlier.

 

[gooner]

did horner dope in the viuelta?
walsh doesn't have a shred of evidence for that, yet he called out that performance.
just goes to show that the whole lible issue is really not an issue for walsh.

It's twitter.

David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST 13 Sep
Watched Vuelta today, Spanish TV coverage of pivotal moments inside final km was desperately inadequate but I wasn't sure I wanted to see.

We know what he's referring to but that;s not exactly a libel tweet either. If you think he can write an article and say Horner is rider 15 and so on, you're not living in the real word. This isn't cloud cuckoo land journalism at all.