Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[RownhamHill]

Not at all, I like the riders - except for Kirienka, sorry -, I just dont like when I am told a fairytale. Or, should I say something that looks like a fairytale?

I have stated this before in the LA thread: get m all, the enablers foremost.

Sky just get lot of heat because of their mantra, at least for me.

Yeah, fair enough. I guess I'm just using the term 'bad dopers' with regards to Team Sky as 'dopers/riders/team* that attract particularly vociferous comment'. If you're a) not that bothered/offended by team sky, and/or b) not already convinced that Sky dope, then all these Clinic threads come across as hysterical; notwithstanding your own views on whether Sky are/could be/probably aren't* doping.

Not having a go at anyone here, just making a passing comment based on that dichotomy - and you're right, what's interesting is not whether someone is a good or bad doper, but why they doped in the first place.

*delete as applicable according to your own judgement

 

[GJB123]

Doping was the culture. Kelly was hungry to win.

I beg to differ. Sure he was hungry to win, but more importantly he was hungry to win as much as possible and at apparently at any cost. We all know that in that era it was still possible to win clean as the dope used wasn't as much of a game changer like EPO or blood transfusions later on.

So if Kelly was that good (and I think he was remarkably multi-talented) why wasn't it enough for him to have (perhaps) lesser wins without doping? That is a pertinent question to ask.

 

[the sceptic]

Just like when you said you wanted Contador to be doped to the gills for the excitement it brings. I couldn't careless if you're consistent or not, your logic and position is absurd.

Would it have been better if he said he wanted Contador to be clean and sprint up mountains alongside Froome?

 

[thehog]

Appears Irish and British riders get a pass on doping. And the PDM affair was 'nothing'.

Maybe be just doesn't like Americans? Or Spanish?

Two years earlier, in 1991, at the height of the Intralipid affair, Walsh had leaped to the defence of Kelly and Earley, almost taking over Jock Boyer's role as PDM's official apologist, insisting to all who would listen that this ‘bad fish' episode was not a doping story.

In 1986, when he published a biography of Kelly, Walsh had to confront the issue of doping head-on by addressing Kelly's bust for Stimul use in the 1984 edition of the late-season Paris-Brussels race. How he reported that story is what I want to look at here.

Before getting to the story of Paris-Brussels, it's necessary to consider how, earlier in Kelly, Walsh had talked about the Flandria squad, where Kelly rode his first two seasons in the pro peloton. Flandria in 1977 and 1978 was the home of Freddy Maertens and Michel Pollentier. It was the team of the moment. But there was a big cloud over Flandria: "Suspicions existed that both Freddy and Michel traded on more than the strength of their legs. After the Tour of Belgium in 1977 six riders were alleged to have illicit substances in their systems. Three of the six were the biggest names in Belgian cycling: Merckx, Maertens and Pollentier. A few weeks later Freddy won the Flèche Wallonne, a classic he would later have taken away from him because of an alleged doping offence."

Those positives proved little for Walsh. He saw doping as a story with two sides and his choice of language - ‘victims,' ‘alleged' - suggests which side he most leaned toward: "Another perspective on how the victims view the laboratory findings was provided by the declining star, Merckx: ‘I do not believe any more in these controls; it is all becoming ridiculous and hypocritical. I haven't even asked for a second analysis. I am going to make a list of all that is wrong with these controls. As things are nobody could have confidence in them.'" Surely if Eddy Merckx - the cyclist even God wanted to be, according to the old joke - was questioning the dope controls, then there must be a problem with them?

Walsh proceeded to explain what Stimul, the drug Kelly had tested positive for, was. How it was easily available from pharmacies and commonly used by students prepping for exams. He spoke to Robert Millar: "I can't imagine that Kelly took this. As a drug it is about ten years out of date and is not something that a rider, who wanted to avail of artificial help, would turn to." He spoke to Stephen Roche: "How can they do this to Sean - he has easily been the best rider in the world this season and they accuse him of taking something in a race like Paris-Brussels. I know Sean well enough to know that it is nonsense."

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/11/10/1805511/on-doping-and-david-walsh

 

[Digger]

“I tried to make the case that it was hard to believe Kelly had used a substance so easily detectable. I chose to see the ridiculous leniency of the authorities as proof that, at worst, it was a minor infraction. It wasn’t how a proper journalist would have reacted”

Walsh defended Kelly in his book. He suggested that because Stimul is a drug which always shows up in tests, surely Kelly would not have taken this drug for a relatively minor race like Paris-Brussels. At the time the top three finishers in a race were guaranteed to face the drug testers, Kelly finished third in that 1984 edition of Paris-Brussels, so Walsh also suggested that if Kelly had actually taken the drug that he would surely have made certain he did not finish in the top three.

didn’t glaze over it” said Walsh with a self-deprecating chuckle, “I completely ignored it. I didn’t want to contribute to the story that Kelly was doping.

“At that time, I still found a way of thinking to myself that if I interview guys and I ask about doping, I will not question their answers. I didn’t want to go there”.

Walsh - you haven't changed one bit.

 

[rainman]

Appears Irish and British riders get a pass on doping. And the PDM affair was 'nothing'.

Although rivals on the bike they would back each other up when it came to doping questions. The average sports fan in Ireland is still convinced that Kelly and Roche were clean. Walsh has probably always bowed to that sentiment in Ireland and UK. Remember when Kimmage confronted the myth on live Irish tv he was given a torrid time by the host and the general public.

 

[martinvickers]

Appears Irish and British riders get a pass on doping. And the PDM affair was 'nothing'.

Although rivals on the bike they would back each other up when it came to doping questions. The average sports fan in Ireland is still convinced that Kelly and Roche were clean. Walsh has probably always bowed to that sentiment in Ireland and UK. Remember when Kimmage confronted the myth on live Irish tv he was given a torrid time by the host and the general public.

Jesus, if your going to damn Walsh, and a whole nation to boot, you ought to know a bit more than that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y2wlKENW-M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v0qlliFq8U

The Walsh-Roche confrontation is infamous in Irish television history. No-one was under a doubt from that point, for goodness sake.

 

[martinvickers]

Would it have been better if he said he wanted Contador to be clean and sprint up mountains alongside Froome?

It would be better if he said he wanted Contador to be clean. Full stop. Froome too, for that matter. That being the only semi-decent moral position to take.

He doesn't need to THINK they are currently clean - that's a valid matter of personal opinion. But anyone who care's about this sport, or any sport, ought to WANT them to be clean.

edited by mod

 

[rainman]

Jesus, if your going to damn Walsh, and a whole nation to boot, you ought to know a bit more than that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y2wlKENW-M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v0qlliFq8U

The Walsh-Roche confrontation is infamous in Irish television history. No-one was under a doubt from that point, for goodness sake.

Ok sorry it came across like that. I was influenced by a conversation in Ireland only yesterday, they were more into football than cycling but wouldn't hear of any impropriety of 'the boys'. btw. I think they were brilliant despite any pill rattling etc. Walsh, I can't dam but I dont like what he's done with this book. It sickened me frankly.

 

[Netserk]

He doesn't need to THINK they are currently clean - that's a valid matter of personal opinion. But anyone who care's about this sport, or any sport, ought to WANT them to be clean.

edited by mod

What a load of tripe.

 

[the sceptic]

It would be better if he said he wanted Contador to be clean. Full stop. Froome too, for that matter. That being the only semi-decent moral position to take.

He doesn't need to THINK they are currently clean - that's a valid matter of personal opinion. But anyone who care's about this sport, or any sport, ought to WANT them to be clean..

Ball not man Martin. Take a step down from your moral high horse.

I know you want everyone, and especially the brits, to be clean Martin. But the real world doesnt work the same way as your fantasy world.

If you really cared about the sport Martin, you would be calling out obvious doped up performances like your team sky. And you would also call out Walsh for being a sellout and a blind hero worshipper.

Otherwise Martin, your ignorance is what makes the dopers get away with what they are doing, just for your own personal amusement.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

If you ever want to hire me as an analist you let me know...

I hope you meant analyst, otherwise things are getting a bit too cozy around here...

 

[LaFlorecita]

I hope you meant analyst, otherwise things are getting a bit too cozy around here...

Lmao! Awkward...

 

[the sceptic]

edited by mod

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

edited by mod

 

[sniper]

Walsh - you haven't changed one bit.

good find. puts things in perspective.
but in fact he has changed. back then at least he admitted to a lack of interest in doping.
he could've played the same card ("not gonna dig into doping") this time round, i.e. write a book on sky without touching on doping issues, but then again it seems sky hired him with very specific PR purposes.

 

[Benotti69]

Armstrong must be fuming that USPS didn't give Walsh the embed gig! If only Walsh was blonde.........

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Stay on topic, folks.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Not at all, I like the riders - except for Kirienka, sorry -, I just dont like when I am told a fairytale. Or, should I say something that looks like a fairytale?

Damn you to hell! Vasya became a king on May 28th, 2011. Just wish he'd not been so proud he put his sunglasses on even though they were obviously not needed. It would have been an even more epic moment otherwise.

Sky just get lot of heat because of their mantra, at least for me.

And that.

What struck me the most about Hog's quote from SDS was this:

‘Surely a doping offender is a doping offender?’ he said. ‘And Kelly twice tested positive?’
‘But, Tom, the difference between Kelly and Smith is that he was beating the world’s best from his first season with the pros. He was a genuine talent from day one; she was nowhere near.’

That's David Walsh defending a doper against another doper by pointing out that he was a genuine talent from day one, and separating them out from another doper who showed few results then became a star very suddenly.

That's the same man who now goes to such lengths to defend Chris Froome. Let that sink in for a minute.

 

[martinvickers]

What a load of tripe.

Ok, you explain to me the morality of a pro-doping position, or a don't care position.

 

[martinvickers]

Ball not man Martin. Take a step down from your moral high horse.

I know you want everyone, and especially the brits, to be clean Martin. But the real world doesnt work the same way as your fantasy world.

If you really cared about the sport Martin, you would be calling out obvious doped up performances like your team sky. And you would also call out Walsh for being a sellout and a blind hero worshipper.

Otherwise Martin, your ignorance is what makes the dopers get away with what they are doing, just for your own personal amusement.

What utter balderdash. You don't have a ******* clue, do you?

First of all, look up generic you. It's quite clearly not a personal attack, and no man was played. You ought to understand the rule before you quote it. And tha you is not a generic you. That's a comment on you personally.

2nd - what is the especially the brits nonsense about. Why this incessent need to bring your own bigotries in all the time? Did they steel your ice cream as a child or something? Did a nasty london boy beat you up and steel your hairbands? What is your problem?

In the real world, as you so quaintly put it, you don't stop wanting clean sport because it's hard to get. Your response clearly completely fails to understand that. You clearly don't give a **** about sport - the only joy you get is sneering at the dopers and would-be dopers. It's a morally vacuous and frankly disgusting position. And entirely to be expected given the source.

Dopers don't dope because of me, or anyone ese on this board; that kind of *** nonsense is the posionous cant that makes contributions worthless. More to the point, it's just a point blank stupid argument to try and make.

 

[sniper]

...
What struck me the most about Hog's quote from SDS was this:


That's David Walsh defending a doper against another doper by pointing out that he was a genuine talent from day one, and separating them out from another doper who showed few results then became a star very suddenly.

That's the same man who now goes to such lengths to defend Chris Froome. Let that sink in for a minute.

this is one such part where he seems to hint at the reader: "sorry guys, i know what time it is, but hey, i got sold out"
somebody (hitch?) previously said some parts in the book suggest walsh is crying out for help.

i don't know.
walsh may or may not be happy in this role, but there is no way he seriously believes in sky.

 

[Netserk]

Ok, you explain to me the morality of a pro-doping position, or a don't care position.

Ever heard of the difference between amoral and immoral?

 

[Netserk]

What utter balderdash. You don't have a ******* clue, do you?

First of all, look up generic you. It's quite clearly not a personal attack, and no man was played. You ought to understand the rule before you quote it. And tha you is not a generic you. That's a comment on you personally.

2nd - what is the especially the brits nonsense about. Why this incessent need to bring your own bigotries in all the time? Did they steel your ice cream as a child or something? Did a nasty london boy beat you up and steel your hairbands? What is your problem?

In the real world, as you so quaintly put it, you don't stop wanting clean sport because it's hard to get. Your response clearly completely fails to understand that. You clearly don't give a **** about sport - the only joy you get is sneering at the dopers and would-be dopers. It's a morally vacuous and frankly disgusting position. And entirely to be expected given the source.

Dopers don't dope because of me, or anyone ese on this board; that kind of *** nonsense is the posionous cant that makes contributions worthless. More to the point, it's just a point blank stupid argument to try and make.

 

[martinvickers]

Ever heard of the difference between amoral and immoral?

Absolutely. The former is just like the latter, without the courage to admit the turdishness of their position.