Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Digger]

No I don't miss the point. You responded to something that Walsh wrote that you haven't read. You have then specifically said that YOU, not 'people' are anonymous because he has your number. You have since taken his comment as you personally (probably correctly) and now extrapolated it to all anonymous posters.

You say that "he was making the point that people who are anonymous sit behind computers while criticising" while saying that they are not anonymous because he knows that who you are.

He mentions my twitter handle specifically.

 

[red_flanders]

Good stuff. If that pro felt that way about him, then why has he not been outspoken about him? (on that situation?) if he has already I apologise. When pro's speak out in my mind it can be for the good of anti doping. We all have opinions if your inside and have a professional opinion then if worded correctly you could make your questioning or feelings known. Cycling needs more of that.

Indeed, why hasn't he? Maybe the same reason dozens if not hundreds of riders in similar situations have not spoken out in the past? Because anyone who does loses contracts and is out of cycling in short order, after getting hammered in the press and in person.

He's undoubtably seen this happen more times than I have and that's quite a few. Certainly more than enough to get the picture.

 

[gooner]

you miss the point - the tweet in question was a criticism of walsh...so he was making the point that people who are anonymous sit behind computers while criticising...when the fact of the matter is that he knew who was criticising him.
If it was about me having a go at wiggins then the above would be relevant.

When Walsh referenced yourself and other tweeters, he didn't mention anything about anonymous people sitting behind a computer. In the lead up to mentioning yourself, he was bringing up the question whether Sky were controlling him. He then quoted yourself with some others who were accusing him of being compromised in his reporting. He said he was expecting this reaction in some quarters. He then went on to say:

If the organisation I worked for thought that I was easily purchased and influenced, I would never have been employed by them in the first place. If I sensed that such was their view I would have resigned and gone elsewhere long ago.

It's all in the context of this. Elsewhere in the book he did mention anonymous guys behind a computer but that wasn't here in reference to you.

 

[Parker]

He mentions my twitter handle specifically.

In your original post you said you were 'lead to believe'. You haven't read it then. Neither have I. Best not get arsey about it then.

Of course you like to name drop Walsh and Kimmage, but a google of your real name reveals absolutely nothing. Anonymity is important to you on twitter - real names can expose you horribly.

And as for your twitter handle: Do you say who you are on Twitter? No you don't. Therefore it is anonymous. Regardless of how many insiders know that you are an average bloke from Listowel with no actual connection to cycling at all. It's not Walsh's fault if you don't know what anonymous means.

 

[The Hitch]

If the organisation I worked for thought that I was easily purchased and influenced, I would never have been employed by them in the first place

.

If that was the case how did Ligget ever got employed? And how he then continued getting reemployed for decades after.

Or for that matter any of the dozens of sellouts in the Armstrong case, dozens of others in other doping cases, and thousands if we expand beyond sport.

Its a stupid argument from Walsh. Doesn't seem to have thought it through in the slightest. It is not uncommon at all for people who have been employed to sell out. Im not saying Walsh has sold out or not, just that the argument that he couldn't possibly sell out because otherwise he wouldn't have been hired in the first place, is ridiculous given the history of cycling.

So Walsh knew one person, but did Sky? Do you think you are the only 'anonymous' critic of Sky? There must be at least ten of you. Do they know who Hitch, Benotti, Sniper & the rest are? Do they care?

Ha, nice little try lumping me in deliberately with the 2 most conspiracy theory prone posters on here, and pretending like we are the only 3 critics of sky on the internet. Never mind the hundreds of other posters who regularly question them or people like **** Pound, Thomas Frei, Paul Kimmage, Mike Ashenden etc etc who have said their piece.

Google "**** Pound", lets see if you find nothing there too

 

[Parker]

Ha, nice little try lumping me in deliberately with the 2 most conspiracy theory prone posters on here, and pretending like we are the only 3 critics of sky on the internet. Never mind the hundreds of other posters who regularly question them or people like **** Pound, Thomas Frei, Paul Kimmage, Mike Ashenden etc etc who have said their piece.

Google "**** Pound", lets see if you find nothing there too

Go on then. Provide me a link to any quote from Pound, Frei or Ashenden that specifically mentions Sky - not something that you have interpreted as being about them. (Kimmage I'll give you - although he has only voiced cliched suspicions)

(I don't see how Frei is seen as an expert on anything though)

And it's interesting that despite your outburst about Walsh being a liar and Sky fanbois and all that you don't seem to see that you belong with sniper and Benotti.

And for those of you clinging on to the idea that the Kimmage film is going deliver the truth - he had carte blanche at the Independent - did he come up with anything then? No. So why do you thing he'll have anything now?

 

[the sceptic]

I didnt know sky interns worked in the off season too

 

[Parker]

I don't have anything intelligent to add so I'll reach for a generic insult

Fixed that for you.

 

[thehog]

Good stuff. If that pro felt that way about him, then why has he not been outspoken about him? (on that situation?) if he has already I apologise. When pro's speak out in my mind it can be for the good of anti doping. We all have opinions if your inside and have a professional opinion then if worded correctly you could make your questioning or feelings known. Cycling needs more of that.

Yes Pros should speak out more. That's a great idea. The UCI and cyclists are so supportive of each other when they publicly put the finger.

The way Wiggins supported Armstrong show cyclists are ready to stand alone against the dopers.

Cyclists know by calling another cyclist dirty it helps their own careers immensely

Sky are also leading the way in not just saying they are clean by showing why the are clean. They do this by turning grupetto riders into Tour champions and having their entire team ride off from the rest of the peloton.

Walsh's imbedding in Sky has also raised their image. He helps tell us they are clean because - JV said so, Had dinner worth the Froomes, they train, they ride up mountains, they have a ZTP written on the back of a napkin, Porte becomes an angry drunk, Leinders is not Ferrari and those who criticise are Armstrong fans whom have become bitter.

Without Walsh's input I'd think Sky might be a little dirty but no way now.

I'm reading the book for a second time now just in case I missed something.

 

[the sceptic]

Fixed that for you.

i prefer to keep my trolling short, because i know how annoying it is to scroll past huge essays that serve no purpose other than annoying everyone and vortexing away from the real topic.

 

[Granville57]

So Walsh knew one person, but did Sky?

Um, yeah they do. If you've been following along you would realize that.

Real names get thrown around on Twitter like so much ammunition, as if by "revealing" those names they've somehow disarmed the critics. Problem is, the inconvenient facts are still there whether or not they are put forward by pseudonyms or celebrities.

 

[gooner]

And for those of you clinging on to the idea that the Kimmage film is going deliver the truth - he had carte blanche at the Independent - did he come up with anything then? No. So why do you thing he'll have anything now?

Agree with this. Kimmage has just raised suspicion but he has dug nothing up of note which warrants attention. It's was the same on his coverage of Lance. One press conference and people think he played a big a part as Walsh did in exposing him. The Walsh/Ballester/Ressiot work on Lance is what I would like to see more of regarding Sky. For other areas where you might take issue with Walsh he does bring up in the book the work he and Ballester did and that this was the type of journalism that made a difference. I think this is a great point. I'm sick of journalists who just ask repetitive questions "did you dope?" where they are trying to give the image of learning from their mistakes from the Lance era. You ask the appropriate people. I will give the two Dutch journalists credit who put the question to Leinders about his time at Sky but where are the rest? Why hasn't anyone got hold of de Jongh? It's too easy to just say you have a strong suspicion on Sky and write a few columns about it. That hasn't made a difference as we have seen so far. It needs to go further than that.

To me, Kimmage in the Independent came across as hypocritical during the summer. On one of his videos he clearly said having a journalist embedded is a great way of showing transparency and compared his own experiences with Sky and Garmin. Yet, he doesn't recognise this with Walsh who was there longer at Sky than he was at Garmin back in 2010. He even told Walsh not to go in on the inside and report on them. It just gives the impression that it only seems good enough for him. If Kimmage feels he has something, share it, he's back at work with the Independent and has a platform to do so.

I hear people say Walsh made up his mind before joining them, but there is no doubt in my mind that Kimmage made up his mind back in the summer of 2010 even when there was little to be suspected of in comparison to the years after.

i prefer to keep my trolling short, because i know how annoying it is to scroll past huge essays that serve no purpose other than annoying everyone and vortexing away from the real topic.

Nothing wrong with the post you are responding to. I think it brings up an interesting point. Alternative opinions is not vortexing.

Um, yeah they do. If you've been following along you would realize that.

Real names get thrown around on Twitter like so much ammunition, as if by "revealing" those names they've somehow disarmed the critics. Problem is, the inconvenient facts are still there whether or not they are put forward by pseudonyms or celebrities.

I don't see why this is still being referred to. Walsh didn't mention anything here in this section about people hiding behind anonymous names. He brought up a few tweets to give an idea of the feeling to his journalism on Sky.

 

[Bexon30]

Yes Pros should speak out more. That's a great idea. The UCI and cyclists are so supportive of each other when they publicly put the finger.

The way Wiggins supported Armstrong show cyclists are ready to stand alone against the dopers.

Cyclists know by calling another cyclist dirty it helps their own careers immensely

Sky are also leading the way in not just saying they are clean by showing why the are clean. They do this by turning grupetto riders into Tour champions and having their entire team ride off from the rest of the peloton.

Walsh's imbedding in Sky has also raised their image. He helps tell us they are clean because - JV said so, Had dinner worth the Froomes, they train, they ride up mountains, they have a ZTP written on the back of a napkin, Porte becomes an angry drunk, Leinders is not Ferrari and those who criticise are Armstrong fans whom have become bitter.

Without Walsh's input I'd think Sky might be a little dirty but no way now.

I'm reading the book for a second time now just in case I missed something.

Yes Pros should speak out more. That's a great idea. The UCI and cyclists are so supportive of each other when they publicly put the finger.

The way Wiggins supported Armstrong show cyclists are ready to stand alone against the dopers.

Cyclists know by calling another cyclist dirty it helps their own careers immensely.

Didn't Evans and Basso say things or act in someway surprised...? They may not need future contracts but you get the point.
There's ways of insinuating or being genuinely shocked at a performance of the level of Porte/Froome without calling them the obvious. And I'm pretty sure as a professional cyclist if you had real talent and spoke of Froome's massive improvement then you could still get a contract.... Not with Sky but there would be teams that would sign you. Unless the Sport has regressed massively.

 

[Digger]

<Deleted by mod>

I have been told by someone who read it - clear?

My real name can expose me horribly? To what? Bulls--- - people know who I am....and it's been out there. I have even told my name on twitter.


As regards you saying I am from that place you just mentioned - that's a lie. So maybe the mods would want to delete that.

And what qualifies as a connection to cycling?!

 

[Libertine Seguros]

(I don't see how Frei is seen as an expert on anything though)

As a pro cyclist who has doped, and who told of certain sections of the péloton being much more open with him and accepting of him once it was known he was part of that crowd, I would suspect that he has some insight into rider protection (not as in UCI corruption, but as in how tests are evaded and how teams and staff play into that), substances that are going around the péloton at least up until the point where he tested positive, and also an idea of riders' "real" levels. He also still has friends in the péloton, and has alluded to things that he's heard from other riders in the past without outing them. Which is obviously thus anecdotal and can only be taken as such, but is still access which many of us do not have.

Also, while Thomas Frei has not necessarily stated "Team Sky is doping" publicly I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that he is of that opinion.

Fr&#233]http://bit.ly/160PL0Q[/url]**

1 other Tour Squad so far that dominates like @TeamSky does, it was #usps #dauphine

*this was posted almost immediately as soon as the Grappe analysis of Froome's test results (omitting all pre-2011 Vuelta) was publicised.

**this was posted with a link to the article where Froome talked about his results being proof that cycling had changed, and how people like him would previously not have been able to perform at the highest level. Thus proving that in fact, doping was rampant until August 2011, and since then it's the minority. Though what that says about Froome's cohorts Wiggins, Porte and Rogers, who had top results before August 2011, remains to be seen.

 

[martinvickers]

Um, yeah they do. If you've been following along you would realize that.

Real names get thrown around on Twitter like so much ammunition, as if by "revealing" those names they've somehow disarmed the critics. Problem is, the inconvenient facts are still there whether or not they are put forward by pseudonyms or celebrities.

That seems a little odd, because the name 'suggested' by 'Sky' - ****l *****K' is clealy different to the name Parker knows ****l *****N', so, with no particular esire to know which, if either is true, there's a clearly at least some ambiguity.

More generally, however, clearly the point of knowing and publishing a name is at least the possibility of accountability and legal action. Whether that's a good thing...

What I can say, categorically, is that Digger was NOT singled out - he was used, with 5 others, as an example of the excesses of social media in terms of the treatment of Walsh, and no particular mention was made at all of his anonymity.

 

[Digger]

Time and time again i said to david, without insult or whatever, that you are being inconsistent in your questioning of sky...ok believe they are not doping, but at least be consistent in your logic...that's the most frustrating thing.

 

[Benotti69]

As if teams are going to let journalists embed with them and let them find the doping!

I mean how many journalists have actually witnessed doping on a cycling team?

Kimmage was not a journalist when he saw riders doping.

It has always been other authorities that busted doping, ie Voet, Rumsas's wife, Millar etc.......

Walsh was never going to see doping. Not that Sky are clean, but they have their operational logistics flowing by the time Walsh was allowed join the party.


But that Walsh believes that Froome is the greatest cyclist ever really does take some swallowing!

 

[Benotti69]

Agree with this. Kimmage has just raised suspicion but he has dug nothing up of note which warrants attention. It's was the same on his coverage of Lance. One press conference and people think he played a big a part as Walsh did in exposing him. The Walsh/Ballester/Ressiot work on Lance is what I would like to see more of regarding Sky. For other areas where you might take issue with Walsh he does bring up in the book the work he and Ballester did and that this was the type of journalism that made a difference. I think this is a great point. I'm sick of journalists who just ask repetitive questions "did you dope?" where they are trying to give the image of learning from their mistakes from the Lance era. You ask the appropriate people. I will give the two Dutch journalists credit who put the question to Leinders about his time at Sky but where are the rest? Why hasn't anyone got hold of de Jongh? It's too easy to just say you have a strong suspicion on Sky and write a few columns about it. That hasn't made a difference as we have seen so far. It needs to go further than that.

To me, Kimmage in the Independent came across as hypocritical during the summer. On one of his videos he clearly said having a journalist embedded is a great way of showing transparency and compared his own experiences with Sky and Garmin. Yet, he doesn't recognise this with Walsh who was there longer at Sky than he was at Garmin back in 2010. He even told Walsh not to go in on the inside and report on them. It just gives the impression that it only seems good enough for him. If Kimmage feels he has something, share it, he's back at work with the Independent and has a platform to do so.

I hear people say Walsh made up his mind before joining them, but there is no doubt in my mind that Kimmage made up his mind back in the summer of 2010 even when there was little to be suspected of in comparison to the years after.



Nothing wrong with the post you are responding to. I think it brings up an interesting point. Alternative opinions is not vortexing.



I don't see why this is still being referred to. Walsh didn't mention anything here in this section about people hiding behind anonymous names. He brought up a few tweets to give an idea of the feeling to his journalism on Sky.

Kimmage spent a TdF with Garmin. Walsh spent a season with Sky. Slight difference.

But consistent with the Sky are clean BS.

 

[sniper]

i prefer to keep my trolling short, because i know how annoying it is to scroll past huge essays that serve no purpose other than annoying everyone and vortexing away from the real topic.

+1
10 chars

 

[blackcat]

As if teams are going to let journalists embed with them and let them find the doping!

damn straight!

its the limited hangout people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout


aim of doping is to win. test positive or let walsh see you putting the hypodermic into your ar$e = fail.

folks only dope, if they believe they can get away with it.

now, even tho the peloton has a collective IQ of that from a used prophylactic, they still manage to pass the IQ test.

peloton haiku
test dope unfortunately
ricco fail

 

[blackcat]

As if teams are going to let journalists embed with them and let them find the doping!

I mean how many journalists have actually witnessed doping on a cycling team?

Kimmage was not a journalist when he saw riders doping.

It has always been other authorities that busted doping, ie Voet, Rumsas's wife, Millar etc.......

Walsh was never going to see doping. Not that Sky are clean, but they have their operational logistics flowing by the time Walsh was allowed join the party.


But that Walsh believes that Froome is the greatest cyclist ever really does take some swallowing!

working for the man,
no,
working for the Times,
no,
working for Murdoch and anticipation of the Fox entertainment group getting 100% of BSkyB

 

[sniper]

Great posts, The Hitch. You get it and express it clearly.

Indeed.
10chars

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Hitch indeed has hitted the nail once again. Dont buy groupie crap.

 

[martinvickers]

Hitch indeed has hitted the nail once again. Dont buy groupie crap.

And so died irony, unmourned.