Parrulo said:
Your not Irish? Your IP suggested otherwise but who cares anyway? My point stands. How can you still defend walsh even after this book? Can you answer me that?
I am Irish but your theory was dispelled in my original post. Parrulo, I have no problem with you disagreeing me but bringing this along national lines is not the way to go about this. I'm prepared to forget about it and move on.
gooner said:
Secondly regarding Walsh, I have been critical of Kimmage a few times on this forum and the biggest time was on a subject that isn't even linked with Sky. I also criticised Shane Stokes up thread. Two Irish journalists, if you don't know that.
If I was biased to Walsh, why not those two?
I don't agree with everything Walsh says and I have said in this thread fans give too much attention to journalists in the sport(Kimmage and Walsh) in comparison to what their counterparts get in other sports. Journalists aren't to be religious followed as if they are some sporting institution. Regarding the book, he talks about the stage on the descent where Voeckler went into the garden of the house in the Tour in 2011 and used this as an example of Kerrison's genius where he recced it numerous times and played a video of it before the stage. Walsh was more or less saying because of what Kerrison did here, it was the reason which mainly helped EBH win the stage. Another is wind tunnels and adjusting position where riders were knocking seconds off here and there. He was giving the impression it was revolutionary which we all know it's clearly not. His analysis of tactics and racing scenarios isn't great but it has to be remembered he is not a designated cycling journalist, he is a sports journalist who covers many other events like in rugby and golf.
Where I defend Walsh is that he has somehow compromised himself to the point where he won't report on anything that he feels suspicious about. On the JTL story, he had his suspicions after his tweet saying he didn't have the form to start the worlds. Later, he spoke to 3 cycling fans who were also talking about it and afterwards he rang up Brailsford who didn't answer his phone when he was about to ask him on the subject. He then says he enquired around contacting various people in anti-doping and other teams and found out there was a story in all this. He again rings up Brailsford to ask him about it and say he was running it on the Sunday Times. Now if he's a sellout, why act on the suspicion? Wouldn't he ignore it? Instead he criticises the team and Brailsford for not knowing about the l'Equipe article which questioned JTL in early 2012.
Remember as well, he wrote books on Roche and Kelly and in the case of Roche, it didn't stop him going to Italy for a week to get the details behind his link to Conconi when it first came out. He was a lot closer to Roche and Kelly back then compared to Froome now. Similar with Lance who he was eulogising about back in 1993 after he interviewed him. He spoke glowingly to Kimmage about Lance afterwards on the back of it. Did that stop him later? Take the Lance and Michelle de Bruijn success, those were tough times for him and he also was taken to task during the Roche/Conconi story on national TV for daring to question. In the UK, the Sunday Times, including Walsh were heavily criticised for investigating and uncovering FIFA corruption all during the World Cup nomination process which many felt sabotaged England's hopes of hosting the World Cup in 2018. He was on Sky Sports News after that failed bid defending the ST investigation under tough questioning of their role and specifically their timing of it.
I just don't buy the bandwagon claim that he's taking it easy now and cashing in turning a blind eye when I take this history into account. He has gone for the difficult story even when it wouldn't be popular and at some stages it affected his family life(Kimmage told him to back off at one and forget about Lance due to it). No doubt he has been hugely impressed by what he has seen at Sky but I see no reason to say he won't report on anything untoward with substance if he comes across it in the future. He has done it before even after admiring initially in the first place. The JTL story reassures me with his reporting on Sky now.
I have no issue if someone disagrees with Walsh's reporting(he's not flawless)but what I won't accept is the under the bus job where there is lying, baiting and twisting of his words. Examples like someone saying Walsh said JTL isn't doping because he doesn't like needles. It's a blatant lie to push a certain narrative to people who mightn't have read the book. I even see someone on here say he was sanctimonious after Lance got busted but that was never thrown at him when he was doing multiple interviews, appearances and penning SDS last year. It all fits in now after his year with Sky and writing of this book which means lets just treat him like a piece of meat and forget what he has done in the past.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram