Digger said:
Pineappple thing didn't even warrant mention - it's a nothing but he put it forth because it followed the narrative he wished to pursue.
As for TUE's, as Kimmage said, this is a question he should have asked at the start.
Well he said he knew lance was doping at Sestrieres...yet froome goes as fast and he believes him...there are alot of inconsistencies in his logic. He said he knew Ras and AC were doping in 2007 just by the speeds they were going. Again can we have some consistency here.
Sky are not a team that has come out just this year - you may disagree but the number of days leinders worked, something so small as that, he should have followed up and said 'you said x and now you are saying y.'
See, you think the pineapple thing is not worth mentioning (Id broadly agree) - and then add that it is done so "because it followed the narrative he wished to pursue.
No Dig - lets be clear, thats a strawman and a narrative you wish to pursue.
Walsh is writing for a main stream paper in their sports section, not a cycling publication.
Walsh has given his explanations on Sestriere, indeed I have often seen them twisted (did he in fact laugh, or not laugh) - for me its about up there with twearking/twerking.
Walsh has qualified his thoughts on Froome and qualified his thoughts on others, but many prefer to ignore that and paint in black and white.
I do not agree with his ultimate assessment of Froome - but ultimatley I have nothing to suggest that he is wrong let alone being part of some PR BS.
Digger said:
Why hasn't he asked for medical records on the TUE's? Or even say i asked bubt was refused...why hasn't he asked for blood values to be seen by him? He told me he would get anexpert to look at Wiggins' values from 2009, which many have an issue with...he failed to do so.
Do you know he hasn't asked, or are you assuming?
Regardless, he is not a medical expert, nor has he any way of verifying what he would get. I would not expect anything in the medical files to show outright doping.