Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[sniper]

So he should disregard the libel issue? That should be thought in universities the length and breadth of Britain that teach journalism. Come to the Clinic, we'll show how it's done.

no, but as his horner tweet shows, the lible issue doesn't prevent him from implying things. though that's what RR suggested.

 

[sniper]

The reason I refer to the earlier LA/Ferrari article which you have deflected on is because that headline was:

"Saddled with suspicion".
Was that piece on LA limited hangout too?

the reason i'm not bothering to look into much of what you suggest i should look into, is because this is an abc, and it was an abc from the onset. a nobrainer.
not sure why you try to make this look like a complex matter. it is not.
read back through this thread, and you find so many sky asslicking by walsh, it aint funny anymore.
you haven't successfully addressed any of that asslicking.
occams razor.
the hypothesis that walsh is sky's ***** satisfactorily explains everything we are seeing and reading from him.

 

[gooner]

There we have it, Walsh should write his columns based on coded language and on the back of a tweet saying "but I wasn't sure I wanted to see". That should be detailed.

 

[roundabout]

Rider 15 and whether it's him or not is enough to cast doubt.

No way would the Sunday Times or any other UK media outlet allow that to go to print.

Not really, no. It would be like casting doubt on Sky because they signed a doctor who facilitated doping at a previous team.

Horner may have doped in 2005. He was also 0 on the passport in 2010. Not the same as signing an affidavit saying that he stopped doping, but not really a sign of the person who kept doping all the way to present day.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Good to see Doc Mastercard again has hijacked a thread.

Why discuss David Walsh anymore? He is a double standard fan with a typewriter, who loves the most boring GT on the calendar - his 1999 assumption on the Tour de Renewal was so utterly naive it is even embarrassing, did he see the Giro/Vuelta that year? - , who sometimes get a good tip and subsequently writes an article on those tips. A man who states there is more doping in one day races than in Grand Tours is not to be taken seriously.

Thanks to Zam we could read - free - what Doc MasterCard [=joke] would not - and could not - provide, it was fluffy again. A Sky PR move. JTL is a goner, free of charge.

Good to see that you have ignored that I am asking questions about the subject of the thread and those I ask refuse to do so and deflect.
If you call my continued questions as "hijacking" feel free to hit the report button and bring it to the attention of a mod for consideration.

Likewise, if you make another ad hominen against me, I will report it.
Got it "brotha'?
Good.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

the reason i'm not bothering to look into much of what you suggest i should look into, is because this is an abc, and it was an abc from the onset. a nobrainer.
not sure why you try to make this look like a complex matter. it is not.
read back through this thread, and you find so many sky asslicking by walsh, it aint funny anymore.
you haven't successfully addressed any of that asslicking.
occams razor.
the hypothesis that walsh is sky's ***** satisfactorily explains everything we are seeing and reading from him.

It was a simple question that you have yet again defected on - "Was that piece on LA limited hangout too?"

But thanks for admitting you have "not bothered" looking in to much of what I suggest. Good to see you are open to having a rounded and informed view of what you say

 

[sniper]

It was a simple question that you have yet again defected on - "Was that piece on LA limited hangout too?"

But thanks for admitting you have "not bothered" looking in to much of what I suggest. Good to see you are open to having a rounded and informed view of what you say

what goes around comes around.
you don't bother addressing the bulk of the arguments the sum of which sketches a very compelling picture of a guy who did great work on lance, and then sadly ended up being on sky's payroll.

 

[gooner]

Not really, no. It would be like casting doubt on Sky because they signed a doctor who facilitated doping at a previous team.

Horner may have doped in 2005. He was also 0 on the passport in 2010. Not the same as signing an affidavit saying that he stopped doping, but not really a sign of the person who kept doping all the way to present day.

That's the thing. Between his named linked strongly with rider 15 and him chasing down riders at the Tour who spoke to USADA, Walsh would want to go full on in that article if he wanted to write it. He wouldn't want to dance around libel laws with some watered down piece when he knows full well the evidence against the rider. It just wouldn't be published.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

what goes around comes around.
you don't bother addressing the bulk of the arguments the sum of which sketches a very compelling picture of a guy who did great work on lance, and then sadly ended up being on the sky payroll.

I am addressing it - and you keep deflecting it.

How would you know Walsh did "great work" on LA when its obvious you have not read his pieces and that you dismissed Walsh yesterday before reading that article too?

 

[Von Mises]

no, but as his horner tweet shows, the lible issue doesn't prevent him from implying things. though that's what RR suggested.

You call it "horner tweet", but his tweet does not include name "horner", in fact his tweet is so vague, that you can read whatever you want from it.

 

[sniper]

I am addressing it - and you keep deflecting it.

How would you know Walsh did "great work" on LA when its obvious you have not read his pieces and that you dismissed Walsh yesterday before reading that article too?

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/dec/05/david-walsh-british-journalist-awards



anyway, to give one concrete example: walsh could at the very least have tweeted something "vague" about sky not giving froome's pre2011vuelta data. i mean, what sky did there is such an insult to everybody with a brain that it's just sad to see walsh swallow it like that.
just very sad.
nobrainer.

 

[sniper]

You call it "horner tweet", but his tweet does not include name "horner", in fact his tweet is so vague, that you can read whatever you want from it.

the point being?

vaughters "i don't know" tweet wrt froome on the ventoux was a vague tweet.
if walsh had tweeted something along those lines, just once, something vague, we wouldn't be in here calling him sky's *****.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/dec/05/david-walsh-british-journalist-awards

Well there you go. You know Walsh did "great work" because you read (or google threw up) an entirely different article about an award?

So, you have no understanding on what Walsh actually wrote and/or the differences?

anyway, to give one concrete example: walsh could at the very least have tweeted something "vague" about sky not giving froome's pre2011vuelta data. i mean, what sky did there is such an insult to everybody with a brain that it's just sad to see walsh swallow it like that.
just very sad.
nobrainer.

I respect Walsh and his work (even if sometimes I disagree with it).
One point where he looses out is he did not tweet even a vague reference to the Miley Cirus twearking thing, using your logic I assume this means he condones that behavior. This is unforgivable.

 

[Benotti69]

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.

Sadly i am not a sky fanboy. Wish i could live a life in denial. I would be all over Sky's website while wearing my rapha, riding a pina, talking like Wiggo "ya boneidle w@^kers"..............

 

[Von Mises]

if walsh had tweeted something along those lines, just once, something vague, we wouldn't be in here calling him sky's *****.

entirely relevant you mean.
in fact, we've finally come to the crux of the matter

my point was that we must assume he hadn't read it when it came out.
.

everything we are seeing and reading from him.

May I ask who is "we"? I admit I am not native in English, so maybe I do not understand linguistic nuances, but this "we" irritates me a bit - it sounds like you are presenting your personal opinion as universal knowledge/truth.

 

[sniper]

I respect Walsh and his work (even if sometimes I disagree with it). One point where he looses out is he did not tweet even a vague reference to the Miley Cirus twearking thing, using your logic I assume this means he condones that behavior. This is unforgivable.

nice off-topic deflection. that's what you call 'addressing' arguments. oh well.
so the point still stands: no pre2011vuelta data for froome, yet walsh believes.
nobrainer

 

[sniper]

May I ask who is "we"? I admit I am not native in English, so maybe I do not understand linguistic nuances, but this "we" irritates me a bit - it sounds like you are presenting your personal opinion as universal knowledge/truth.

it's called a pluralis modestiae.
Some find the overuse of "I" a bit arrogant. matter of taste. I try to vary it a bit.

 

[Benotti69]

Its was a very easy question.

Answered.

Your levels of pedantism must be a guinness record.

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.

I disagree. I disagreed ages ago but you get off on trying to nail me down to your pedantism. Aint gonna happen.

It was common knowledge in the sport and therefore cycling journalists (few and far between) would know.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

nice off-topic deflection. that's what you call 'addressing' arguments. oh well.
so the point still stands: no pre2011vuelta data for froome, yet walsh believes.
nobrainer

On topic - what has Walsh said on Froomes data?
(Please answer this simple question and do not deflect)

Because for me, the reason Miley is as relevant is, that you appear to be drawing conclusions on something he has not even referred to.

 

[sniper]

On topic - what has Walsh said on Froomes data?
(Please answer this simple question and do not deflect)

Because for me, the reason Miley is as relevant is, that you appear to be drawing conclusions on something he has not even referred to.

to be honest, i may have missed something and would be thankful if you'd point it out.
the thing i haven't missed is how he accepts Freeman's "theory" which isn't a theory, and at the same time accepts the Bilhardzia story, which is in direct conflict with Freeman's "theory". This was discussed three or four pages back. You never addressed it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Answered.

Your levels of pedantism must be a guinness record.

Thanks, thats a nice compliment - unfortunately there is no Guinness Record for being pedantic.
(see what I did there)

I disagree. I disagreed ages ago but you get off on trying to nail me down to your pedantism. Aint gonna happen.

It was common knowledge in the sport and therefore cycling journalists (few and far between) would know.

The advantage of being a pedant is that one would realize, Walsh is not a "cycling" journalist.

And as it was not 'common knowledge' he would not have known until everyone else read about it last year.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

to be honest, i may have missed something and would be thankful if you'd point it out.
the thing i haven't missed is how he accepts Freeman's "theory" which isn't a theory, and at the same time accepts the Bilhardzia story, which is in direct conflict with Freeman's "theory". This was discussed three or four pages back. You never addressed it.

More deflection - I did address it about 7 pages back, you have posted 24 times since I posted this:

I would be delighted to sniper.

Just one point - before I turn on the fan, you go about the "theory" spin. Can you point out where in the article that Walsh wrote does he mention this.
Thanks.

 

[sniper]

More deflection - I did address it about 7 pages back, you have posted 24 times since I posted this:

it's a nobrainer, get over it.

 

[Benotti69]

Thanks, thats a nice compliment - unfortunately there is no Guinness Record for being pedantic.

Only a compliment to a pedant and they are such fun.

The advantage of being a pedant is that one would realize, Walsh is not a "cycling" journalist.

And as it was not 'common knowledge' he would not have known until everyone else read about it last year.

I bet the commoner in the street with his knowledge would know Walsh only for his work on Armstrong. Considering Walsh has spent a lot of his career writing about cycling he is defo a specialist 'cycling fan with a typewriter'.

Pedant questions.

How many cycling books has Walsh written?

How many sports books has Walsh written in total?

I am guessing, as my pedant gene was removed at birth, he has written more cycling books.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Only a compliment to a pedant and they are such fun.




I bet the commoner in the street with his knowledge would know Walsh only for his work on Armstrong. Considering Walsh has spent a lot of his career writing about cycling he is defo a specialist 'cycling fan with a typewriter'.

Pedant questions.

How many cycling books has Walsh written?

How many sports books has Walsh written in total?

I am guessing, as my pedant gene was removed at birth, he has written more cycling books.

I am sure he has written more books about cycling- mostly on LA.
SDS, FLTL, LA Confidential. For the last 2 he took time away from ST to write.

None of that has to do with his day to day job as a journo for Sunday Times. He is not a cycling journalist, very simple.