Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[sniper]

The talk he gave in Dublin, Ireland with Kimmage was 20euro. The theatre has a 2,111 seating capacity. Was not full but close to it. Well worth it.

Walsh worked damn hard going after Armstrong so I do not begrudge him earning from it.

Rather Walsh got rich exposing a doper than a doper getting rich cheating.

hard to swallow is that kimmage got fired over the same issue and is struggling with law suits and with no employer to protect him, whilst walsh is now cashing in big time, not only with the LA case but also with his lame sell-out reporting on sky.
i can't really be happy for walsh, though i agree with the bolded.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Me thinks people are overdoing the Walsh questioning. For all we know he might even be donating the money brought in to charity. And even IF he is milking the cow it would be fine, it is not like the ST are paying him big bucks

 

[sniper]

Me thinks people are overdoing the Walsh questioning. For all we know he might even be donating the money brought in to charity.

he'd be tweeting about it for sure.

And even IF he is milking the cow it would be fine, it is not like the ST are paying him big bucks

agreed.
but two factors (1. his puff pieces on sky and 2. the miserable situation that kimmage still finds himself in) make it hard, at least to me, to be really happy for walsh.

 

[gooner]

has anyone a link to this article? I looked it up before but couldn't find it.

It's behind a paywall.

 

[thehog]

I don't think theres any doubting where Walsh's loyalties lie - MAKING MONEY.

Now in the States doing talks about Armstrong ... GOD ! how much more can he squeeze this one for. Greed and narcissism spring to mind - ironic as this was Armstrong.

I've spoken about LA in many places. This evening I'm at Arizona State University which is particularly satisfying.

The story is worthy of the public speaking tour. I think it’s very normal for this to occur. Everyone has to make a living. It’s very normal for authors to do book tours at the request of their publishers. They have to pay back to the advance so this type of marketing and publicly is very necessary.

Writing books is not a profitable endeavor. I good friend of mine had a 100k advance for a science book on food. The book took 18 months to write and bring to print. The 100k was for his salary and any book related expenses. As it was a science book he spent a lot of obtain access to research papers and travel. The rest was taxed as income. So at the end of the day he worked on about 50k for 18 months.

When the book was released he had to first of all pay back the advance before he saw any profit. It took another 6 months to clear that down.

He ended up having to do a second book that was dumbed down from the first one to reach a big market. It was only extracts so the publisher did most of the work at their work but he saw no income from that until expenses were paid back for the production of the book.

SDS was fairly much this effort. A cash in on the remaining books.

Walsh clearly is now making good money. SDS, the film deal etc.

My only concern the ACTUAL players in the story are not profiting like Walsh. By that I mean Hamilton etc. That’s the part that’s not really fair.

 

[gooner]

It is possible they are still working with Leinders,

Substantiate it then. You can't just throw out a possibility with no backbone to it.

Froome became famine like overnight due to Sky. The dogs in the street could see he was doping.

No way is Froome's physical transformation anything like Smith. I watched her races in Barcelona and I couldn't believe my eyes at what I seen 3 years later at the European Championships. Gary O'Toole said he told her to her face it wasn't natural and he didn't see her for a lengthy period beforehand. She was getting hounded with questions in Atlanta about it. Has anyone ever spoke out in cycling in the same terms as Janet Evans did? All this while working with her doping discuss thrower of a husband in the process.

Smith was 25 when she won her European Championship medals and 26 in Atlanta. That's pensioners terms in swimming.

Kimmage said on stage at the 'Whistleblowers' talk that he believes he was let go from ST as he was questioning Sky.

Kimmage and Hawkey are not in the same league.

Kimmage is more renowned but Hawkey is an award winning journalist. He's respected. He's not some run of the mill journalist.

It wasn't just Sky articles. Lance and we now hear Evans and BMC. I don't know the details in these potential pieces but as they weren't Sky, you can't throw the compromised accusation at them. I would guess they were pulled totally on libel grounds. I know it's a popular mindset in the clinic to think all pieces should be printed and forget the drawbacks and consequences to it. That's not living in the real world. Le Monde did this about doping accusations against Barcelona and look at what happenned to them. I would pull them if I was in a position of the hierachy at a news outlet and they were wide open for legal repercussions. Stories have to stand up this I'm afraid and journalism works within these boundaries.

 

[thehog]

No way is Froome's physical transformation anything like Smith. I watched her races in Barcelona and I couldn't believe my eyes at what I seen 3 years later at the European Championships..

You're right. Froome was worse.

He went from grupetto in Poland and 3 weeks later he was sprinting up a mountain with Cobo!

This year he was attacking in the saddle and killing Contador.

Froome is the joke that just keeps on giving.

Pure comedy.

Undeniable.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

On the Walsh taking on Roche part:
http://www.independent.ie/sport/roche-named-in-drug-investigation-26252797.html

I might be mistaken but did Kimmage have the scoop here? Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Cycle Chic]

The story is worthy of the public speaking tour. I think it’s very normal for this to occur. Everyone has to make a living...

On the Sunday Times alone Walsh's salary will be high indeed and the bonus he received for the counter libel action could pay his 'book debts'.

IMO The whole Armstrong debacle leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Its not something that people want reminding of. The americans especially have been duped for all those years and a fraudulent charity scam isn't well received.

I bet my bottom dollar he's not 'welcomed' in the States. Its rubbing their noses in it. Be interesting to hear how its going down.

 

[gooner]

hard to swallow is that kimmage got fired over the same issue and is struggling with law suits and with no employer to protect him, whilst walsh is now cashing in big time, not only with the LA case but also with his lame sell-out reporting on sky.
i can't really be happy for walsh, though i agree with the bolded.

he'd be tweeting about it for sure.
agreed.
but two factors (1. his puff pieces on sky and 2. the miserable situation that kimmage still finds himself in) make it hard, at least to me, to be really happy for walsh.

Just because Kimmage was let go by the ST, doesn't mean you should hold it against Walsh.

As far as I know, I don't think Kimmage has much great dealing with Lance outside of the press conference in California. Walsh definitely has and it's only natural he would be in more demand to speak on the topic.

 

[gooner]

On the Walsh taking on Roche part:
http://www.independent.ie/sport/roche-named-in-drug-investigation-26252797.html

I might be mistaken but did Kimmage have the scoop here? Correct me if I am wrong.

Walsh spent a week in Italy getting the info and documentation behind it after it first broke out in the Italian media. He then wrote about it in the Sunday Times.

 

[Digger]

I agree with everything you say - but the last highlighted part seems odd.

Was that actually said? Or is this your logical assumption?

I have no doubt there are middle management who would believe it is in the corporate interest to pull pieces - but your implication is that journalists were told point blank, "write positive or go home". That would be a serious departure and is at odds with the piece published last week on JTL, which was not a puff piece.

One journalist was...and again it wasn't kimmage or walsh.

The original topic of the thread is 'is he on the bandwagon'...if that means is he getting paid to do good pieces...no...i would not go that far at all. And i feel he thnks he's being fair and objective. I asked him in may was he being dictated to by management to do positive pieces...he absolutely denied this...however, as i say, i have been told differently. And Ia m not the only one. It's something Kimmage alluded to in July.
Again I do know for afact, and many won't believe me, that Brailsford has personally contacted editors about not favourable pieces and basically blacklisted them...

 

[Race Radio]

I don't think theres any doubting where Walsh's loyalties lie - MAKING MONEY.

Now in the States doing talks about Armstrong ... GOD ! how much more can he squeeze this one for. Greed and narcissism spring to mind - ironic as this was Armstrong.

Entrance was free. You are entitled to your own opinion but Greed and narcissism are the last things that spring to mind when entrance is free

My reference to the staring contest was joke. David was telling a funny story about an encounter he had with lance one year at the Tour.

 

[Race Radio]

On the Sunday Times alone Walsh's salary will be high indeed and the bonus he received for the counter libel action could pay his 'book debts'.

IMO The whole Armstrong debacle leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Its not something that people want reminding of. The americans especially have been duped for all those years and a fraudulent charity scam isn't well received.

I bet my bottom dollar he's not 'welcomed' in the States. Its rubbing their noses in it. Be interesting to hear how its going down.

He was very welcome last night. Good crowd that responded well to his presentation. Lots of pictures and autographs afterward.

Do you have a link to support this claim that Walsh received a bonus from the ST settlement?

 

[Benotti69]

Substantiate it then. You can't just throw out a possibility with no backbone to it.

It is par for the sport. Plenty of examples of riders working with doping docs, secretly.

No way is Froome's physical transformation anything like Smith. I watched her races in Barcelona and I couldn't believe my eyes at what I seen 3 years later at the European Championships. Gary O'Toole said he told her to her face it wasn't natural and he didn't see her for a lengthy period beforehand. She was getting hounded with questions in Atlanta about it. Has anyone ever spoke out in cycling in the same terms as Janet Evans did? All this while working with her doping discuss thrower of a husband in the process.

Froome's transformation was equal or greater in terms of coming form nowhere to win the TdF and transforming his body to that of someone who was freed from Belsen with an increase in power!

Smith was 25 when she won her European Championship medals and 26 in Atlanta. That's pensioners terms in swimming.

showing GT promise at 26 is old. LeMond, Hinault, Fignon etc all showed GT promise in their early 20s. Froome showed he could hang on to motorbikes.

Kimmage is more renowned but Hawkey is an award winning journalist. He's respected. He's not some run of the mill journalist.

Kimmage was a former pro and in 2012 Kimmage was named among the top 10 most influential sportswriters in Britain by the trade publication, UK Press Gazette. While not deingrating Hawkey Kimmage is a level/s above.

<snipped>

This is a Walsh thread. Enough about Kimmage! We disagree.

 

[Digger]

Substantiate it then. You can't just throw out a possibility with no backbone to it.



No way is Froome's physical transformation anything like Smith. I watched her races in Barcelona and I couldn't believe my eyes at what I seen 3 years later at the European Championships. Gary O'Toole said he told her to her face it wasn't natural and he didn't see her for a lengthy period beforehand. She was getting hounded with questions in Atlanta about it. Has anyone ever spoke out in cycling in the same terms as Janet Evans did? All this while working with her doping discuss thrower of a husband in the process.

Smith was 25 when she won her European Championship medals and 26 in Atlanta. That's pensioners terms in swimming.



Kimmage is more renowned but Hawkey is an award winning journalist. He's respected. He's not some run of the mill journalist.

It wasn't just Sky articles. Lance and we now hear Evans and BMC. I don't know the details in these potential pieces but as they weren't Sky, you can't throw the compromised accusation at them. I would guess they were pulled totally on libel grounds. I know it's a popular mindset in the clinic to think all pieces should be printed and forget the drawbacks and consequences to it. That's not living in the real world. Le Monde did this about doping accusations against Barcelona and look at what happenned to them. I would pull them if I was in a position of the hierachy at a news outlet and they were wide open for legal repercussions. Stories have to stand up this I'm afraid and journalism works within these boundaries.

I am a nobody and i know of one current well known pro who doesn't believe in Froome.
Secondly you talk of a run of the mill journo - a multi award winning journo is run of the mill...really?!!!

 

[gooner]

I am a nobody and i know of one current well known pro who doesn't believe in Froome.
Secondly you talk of a run of the mill journo - a multi award winning journo is run of the mill...really?!!!

I said Hawkey wasn't a run of the mill journalist and that Kimmage was more renowned than him. You misinterpreted. I never said anything of the sort in regards to Kimmage.

Benotti was trying to play down Hawkey's journalistic credentials even though he was let go himself. I was just pointing out Hawkey is also an award winning journalist.

 

[Benotti69]

I said Hawkey wasn't a run of the mill journalist and that Kimmage was more renowned than him. You misinterpreted. I never said anything of the sort in regards to Kimmage.

Benotti was trying to play down Hawkey's journalistic credentials even though he was let go himself. I was just pointing out Hawkey is also an award winning journalist.

Not trying to downplay Hawkey. But he is not on the same level as Kimmage.

 

[gooner]

Not trying to downplay Hawkey. But he is not on the same level as Kimmage.

Agree. Just pointing out he was a very good journalist in his own right and an award winning one who was let go as well.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

wonder how much a ticket is to hear Walsh talking about staring at Armstrong. And are the proceeds going to Walsh ? either way Walsh is an embarrassment and I hope the americans give him some grief.

I think he's milked the Armstrong trail for long enough.

Why didn't you just check the ASU website?

This annual free public lecture, hosted by the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, is funded with a gift from Jonathan and Maxine Marshall.

The talk he gave in Dublin, Ireland with Kimmage was 20euro. The theatre has a 2,111 seating capacity. Was not full but close to it. Well worth it.

Walsh worked damn hard going after Armstrong so I do not begrudge him earning from it.

Rather Walsh got rich exposing a doper than a doper getting rich cheating.

They did a few talks in Ireland, in Dublin:

Alan English will moderate the event. Proceeds will go to charity.

and in Limerick.

The charity ‘Whistleblowers’ event is to be held in Limerick on February 25th with all proceeds in aid of Cycle 4 Sick Children and the Limerick Simon Community, which works with homeless people in the city.

 

[Benotti69]

<snipped>

They did a few talks in Ireland, in Dublin.

Which i attended one of and copies of SDS were for sale at the event.

While he didn't sell thousands of books, Walsh, Kimmage and English are to be commended for giving to a charity.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

One journalist was...and again it wasn't kimmage or walsh.

Ok, thanks.
"write positive or go home" - it just doesn't ring true for me. There seems to be something missing or slightly inaccurate.

If 'they' were asked to write about something else other than Team Sky, (sunflowers, wine, Tom Simpson, the French etc) it would seem plausible.

The original topic of the thread is 'is he on the bandwagon'...if that means is he getting paid to do good pieces...no...i would not go that far at all. And i feel he thnks he's being fair and objective. I asked him in may was he being dictated to by management to do positive pieces...he absolutely denied this...however, as i say, i have been told differently. And Ia m not the only one. It's something Kimmage alluded to in July.
Again I do know for afact, and many won't believe me, that Brailsford has personally contacted editors about not favorable pieces and basically blacklisted them...

Again not disputing the overall - and I can well believe Brailsford has contacted editors.

But, when you say, "I have been told different" - is this in relation to Walsh, or other areas? I am not trying to uncover people here and can see why you need to be vague - but again this seems to be something that happens in one area being attributed to all areas. That seems at odds with the releasing of the JTL piece.

 

[thehog]

One journalist was...and again it wasn't kimmage or walsh.

The original topic of the thread is 'is he on the bandwagon'...if that means is he getting paid to do good pieces...no...i would not go that far at all. And i feel he thnks he's being fair and objective. I asked him in may was he being dictated to by management to do positive pieces...he absolutely denied this...however, as i say, i have been told differently. And Ia m not the only one. It's something Kimmage alluded to in July.
Again I do know for afact, and many won't believe me, that Brailsford has personally contacted editors about not favourable pieces and basically blacklisted them...

I would believe this as well.

Interestingly after Froome's-comedy-in-saddle-acceleration on Ventoux a story was printed one day later.

It was explained that he trained to do that and Kerrison was the mastermind.

Clearly jaws dropped and there was laughter at Froome and the article was a "plant" to try level off the criticism.

 

[sniper]

Ok, thanks.
"write positive or go home" - it just doesn't ring true for me. There seems to be something missing or slightly inaccurate.

If 'they' were asked to write about something else other than Team Sky, (sunflowers, wine, Tom Simpson, the French etc) it would seem plausible.



Again not disputing the overall - and I can well believe Brailsford has contacted editors.

But, when you say, "I have been told different" - is this in relation to Walsh, or other areas? I am not trying to uncover people here and can see why you need to be vague - but again this seems to be something that happens in one area being attributed to all areas. That seems at odds with the releasing of the JTL piece.

how?
to many that piece looked like Limited Hangout.
may not have been, but point is we don't know.
may have been coordinated between sky, the leaker, and walsh. who knows.
in any case that piece wasn't at all damaging for sky.
rather it looked protective of sky.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

how?
to many that piece looked like Limited Hangout.
may not have been, but point is we don't know.
may have been coordinated between sky, the leaker, and walsh. who knows.
in any case that piece wasn't at all damaging for sky.
rather it looked protective of sky.

Is this the "many" i have asked you to name and that you refuse to do?

I know "limited hangout" (what happened the hashtag?) is your favorite new phrase - but can you explain then why Brailsford was angry that it was leaked?

And can you explain why a piece that shows Skys had not done due diligence in the hiring and monitoring of JTL is not damaging for Sky?