Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[gooner]

Kimmage didn't ask to be sent to write about cycling and ST should've known Kimmage takes no prisoners, but they still sent him. Smart editors!

Blame the editors of course, they didn't come up with the libelous columns. There is a skill to sports journalism in this area and if there wasn't, we'd all be doing it. He is a journalist for over 20 years and he knows full well what can and can't get past the laws. What he says about Brailsford, can be applied to himself "Paul you're not naive". Having numerous columns pulled is nothing to boast about.

After screaming at Walsh he says they patched it up. It seems you cannot forgive, but Walsh could. Chip on your shoulder must be heavy.

Patched things up and went off on one after his article at the end of the Tour. The "bitter Armstrong fan" reference was wrong on Walsh's part but that wasn't in reference to Kimmage as Walsh knows that Kimmage never believed in Lance down the years. Don't think Kimmage doesn't know that. He just can't accept an alternative opinion to his own on a contentious issue. It was disgraceful how he went on the Second Captains interview and attacked Walsh personally on the back of it and I heard at the time that Walsh was deeply hurt by the whole thing. Contrast this with Walsh who when asked about Kimmage's differing view weeks back on RTE radio and just said he was entitled to his opinion and left it at that. Friends since 1982 and Kimmage throws it down the toilet because of Sky. Give me a break. Why am I not surprised when I look at who his idol is in the Irish Independent. It's the exact same mentality as him.

This is the sound of someone out for total personal vindication. From the Irish Indo piece:

You get the feeling that Kimmage is feeling the pain of the loss of Walsh from his life but, for better or worse, he has always been a hostage to his convictions and prepared to sacrifice writing gigs, friends and even the most important relationships of his life for them. At times he seems proud of his unbending mettle -- and he does have quite an ego -- at other times he seems weary of his own doughty nature.

I seen his true colours with Nico Roche this year calling him out for congratulating a teammate in Kreuziger after Amstel Gold and wanting him to write a column in his Irish Indo diary about his links to Ferrari. Roche wasn't even teammates with Kreuziger at the time. All this because of a long term feud with his old man and it was low on his part. Consider this that Kimmage refused to write a similar piece back in 1988 for the Sunday Tribune on Delgado's positive and told Walsh he would have gotten in trouble for it. All this with Roche while saying nothing to the likes of Martin and Deignan who have columns themselves in the past. What we see now is Kimmage taking it out on Sky because he was refused access for the first week(if this was how it was back then, I'm not surprised it was stopped). If he got the access for the extra week back then, he would have given them the all clear similar to Garmin irrespective of what has happened with Wiggins and Froome's performances since. Notice with Hesjedal winning the Giro and his dip since then. Has Kimmage opened his mouth about that? No and it would have been the same with Sky with their 2 Tour wins. I think it was very interesting and telling that his initial reaction to Hesjedal's confession was to bring up an old quote from Wiggins about Leinders.

The story isn't about Kimmage(nor Walsh for that matter) and his personal motives being vindicated and I'm tired of it revolving so much about journalists.

I'm out of this thread. Enjoy the show.

 

[bobbins]

the more kimmage is villified, the more people will dismiss his theories. Straight out of Bruyneel / Brailsford playbook.

If people think Kimmage is losing it, they won't pay attention to what he suspects. The sad thing is that between him and Digger I think they are on the right track but being dismissed out of hand will only hurt the sport in the long run.

 

[Benotti69]

Blame the editors of course, they didn't come up with the libelous columns. There is a skill to sports journalism in this area and if there wasn't, we'd all be doing it. He is a journalist for over 20 years and he knows full well what can and can't get past the laws. What he says about Brailsford, can be applied to himself "Paul you're not naive". Having numerous columns pulled is nothing to boast about.



Patched things up and went off on one after his article at the end of the Tour. The "bitter Armstrong fan" reference was wrong on Walsh's part but that wasn't in reference to Kimmage as Walsh knows that Kimmage never believed in Lance down the years. Don't think Kimmage doesn't know that. He just can't accept an alternative opinion to his own on a contentious issue. It was disgraceful how he went on the Second Captains interview and attacked Walsh personally on the back of it and I heard at the time that Walsh was deeply hurt by the whole thing. Contrast this with Walsh who when asked about Kimmage's differing view weeks back on RTE radio and just said he was entitled to his opinion and left it at that. Friends since 1982 and Kimmage throws it down the toilet because of Sky. Give me a break. Why am I not surprised when I look at who his idol is in the Irish Independent. It's the exact same mentality as him.

This is the sound of someone out for total personal vindication. From the Irish Indo piece:



I seen his true colours with Nico Roche this year calling him out for congratulating a teammate in Kreuziger after Amstel Gold and wanting him to write a column in his Irish Indo diary about his links to Ferrari. Roche wasn't even teammates with Kreuziger at the time. All this because of a long term feud with his old man and it was low on his part. Consider this that Kimmage refused to write a similar piece back in 1988 for the Sunday Tribune on Delgado's positive and told Walsh he would have gotten in trouble for it. All this with Roche while saying nothing to the likes of Martin and Deignan who have columns themselves in the past. What we see now is Kimmage taking it out on Sky because he was refused access for the first week(if this was how it was back then, I'm not surprised it was stopped). If he got the access for the extra week back then, he would have given them the all clear similar to Garmin irrespective of what has happened with Wiggins and Froome's performances since. Notice with Hesjedal winning the Giro and his dip since then. Has Kimmage opened his mouth about that? No and it would have been the same with Sky with their 2 Tour wins. I think it was very interesting and telling that his initial reaction to Hesjedal's confession was to bring up an old quote from Wiggins about Leinders.

The story isn't about Kimmage(nor Walsh for that matter) and his personal motives being vindicated and I'm tired of it revolving so much about journalists.

I'm out of this thread. Enjoy the show.

We have been watching epo fuelled cycling since the early 90s and it has not changed no matter what JV or Brailsford would like fans to believe. Antoine Vayer tweeted that Gas6 with microdosing of EPO plus HgH is the cocktail of choice in the peloton. We know Clen is also part of the mix.

That you got upset about Kimmage calling out Roche for congratulating a Ferrari client shows you dont really give a fig about doping in the sport.

He asked Armstrong the question "What is it that you like about these dopers?", so why not ask Nico? Is Nico above that when he congratulates a Ferrari client? I dont think so in a sport where the culture is to dope.

But then people have been believing the cleanER BS since JV spouted it and now Sky continue to talk the talk but do nothing about walking the walk when it comes to transparency.

I want someone, Walsh will do, to show us where the culture of doping stopped? Not with the BP, Armstrong's BP form '09/'10proves that? So what other testing has meant teams are relying on talent and not dope?

Kimmage is bang on. Some cant see it. Sadly

 

[martinvickers]

How can Lord Walsh say Indurain is a doper and say Froome is cleans? Where is the evidence against Indurain?

You mean apart from the positive for Salbutemol, the admission by omission (the 'next question' radio interview) and the Conconi investigation?

Sorry, stupid facts didn't mean to interrupt. Fire ahead...

 

[martinvickers]

the more kimmage is villified, the more people will dismiss his theories. Straight out of Bruyneel / Brailsford playbook.

If people think Kimmage is losing it, they won't pay attention to what he suspects. The sad thing is that between him and Digger I think they are on the right track but being dismissed out of hand will only hurt the sport in the long run.

I don't really think comparing Kimmage and Digger is entirely useful.

 

[gooner]

We have been watching epo fuelled cycling since the early 90s and it has not changed no matter what JV or Brailsford would like fans to believe. Antoine Vayer tweeted that Gas6 with microdosing of EPO plus HgH is the cocktail of choice in the peloton. We know Clen is also part of the mix.

Why doesn't he tell us who's using it? Floyd mentioned clen before.

I do know the history of the sport.

That you got upset about Kimmage calling out Roche for congratulating a Ferrari client shows you dont really give a fig about doping in the sport.

He asked Armstrong the question "What is it that you like about these dopers?", so why not ask Nico? Is Nico above that when he congratulates a Ferrari client? I dont think so in a sport where the culture is to dope.

Here we go again and that's the adding of arms and legs I have referred to in the past. The bolded is a classic example.

Final comment on this, I will refresh your memory and I stand by everything I said at the time in the thread below where I expressed my opinion multiple times on the topic. Take particular notice of what I said in regards to Kreuziger.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=20426&highlight=kimmage+roman

You're doing your best tabloid impression now.

 

[SundayRider]

Why doesn't he tell us who's using it? Floyd mentioned clen before.

I do know the history of the sport.



Here we go again and that's the adding of arms and legs I have referred to in the past. The bolded is a classic example.

Final comment on this, I will refresh your memory and I stand by everything I said at the time in the thread below where I expressed my opinion multiple times on the topic. Take particular notice of what I said in regards to Kreuziger.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=20426&highlight=kimmage+roman

You're doing your best tabloid impression now.

Wonder what Vayer's source is?

 

[Digger]

Why doesn't he tell us who's using it? Floyd mentioned clen before.

I do know the history of the sport.



Here we go again and that's the adding of arms and legs I have referred to in the past. The bolded is a classic example.

Final comment on this, I will refresh your memory and I stand by everything I said at the time in the thread below where I expressed my opinion multiple times on the topic. Take particular notice of what I said in regards to Kreuziger.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=20426&highlight=kimmage+roman

You're doing your best tabloid impression now.

It won't be though will it!!

Look don't be getting all hot and bothered about it just accept that Walsh has let himself down with a bang the last year...has not done his homework prior to interviews, has not shown enough knowledge to be able to ask secondary questions on many occasions. Has shown his cycling knowledge outside of lance to be extremely limited...has shown that his reasons for sky being so good are moronic. Once you accept these facts, you'll be calm!!


Anyway I look forward to your ongoing posting in this thread

 

[Digger]

I don't really think comparing Kimmage and Digger is entirely useful.

He loves it - Kimmage couldn't be happier about it.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Just finished Walsh's book.
(My wife arranged for ti to be shipped over the pond for a Christmas present).

I did learn some interesting snippets, such as Cookson's has a close relative working for Sky. I wasn't aware of this, adds to the appearance of possible conflict of interest. (not saying there is one, just that it certainly appears there could be one, and this is concerning.)

The fact that on Tenerife during their 8 visits there has been only a single OOC dope collection mission.

Froome was tested three times on the day on the Ventoux. Blood am, urine post race, blood evening.


I'm going back through in more detailed fashion and making more notes the second time through.

 

[thehog]

we have, Walsh thinks Sky is clean and Froome is the greatest cyclist ever......

He does think he's cleans. And he doesn't even need to see a vo2 max test. He was able to read Froome's passport and assert he is cleans.

 

[Digger]

Just finished Walsh's book.
(My wife arranged for ti to be shipped over the pond for a Christmas present).

I did learn some interesting snippets, such as Cookson's has a close relative working for Sky. I wasn't aware of this, adds to the appearance of possible conflict of interest. (not saying there is one, just that it certainly appears there could be one, and this is concerning.)

The fact that on Tenerife during their 8 visits there has been only a single OOC dope collection mission.

Froome was tested three times on the day on the Ventoux. Blood am, urine post race, blood evening.


I'm going back through in more detailed fashion and making more notes the second time through.

Yeah - his son.

 

[Catwhoorg]

I was struck by a moment of doubt. I recalled it being his son, but the book isn't in front of me.

 

[elduggo]

does anyone know if walsh has blocked Kimmage on twitter?

(along with the rest of us)

 

[Digger]

does anyone know if walsh has blocked Kimmage on twitter?

(along with the rest of us)

funny and true

 

[thehog]

I was struck by a moment of doubt. I recalled it being his son, but the book isn't in front of me.

The book is really good. Walsh’s attention to the details is second to none and you get a real insight into why Sky are so much better than the other teams.

The religious comparisons between Saxo and Sky are good also.

I also enjoyed knowing that Froome was only 23rd fastest up Ventoux and a doped up Mayo beat him by a “quite a difference”.

I also leant that Contador went down for a passport violation and not a positive test as I’d originally believed.

I also became aware that Froome is capable of “5 minute bursts” at top speed whilst climbing. Yes 5 minute bursts at top speed whilst climbing.

I also understood that Badzhila is a red blood cell eating disease.

When you finish the book you realise that Froome really is cleans.

 

[Digger]

The book is really good. Walsh’s attention to the details is second to none and you get a real insight into why Sky are so much better than the other teams.

The religious comparisons between Saxo and Sky are good also.

I also enjoyed knowing that Froome was only 23rd fastest up Ventoux and a doped up Mayo beat him by a “quite a difference”.

I also leant that Contador went down for a passport violation and not a positive test as I’d originally believed.

I also became aware that Froome is capable of “5 minute bursts” at top speed whilst climbing. Yes 5 minute bursts at top speed whilst climbing.

I also understood that Badzhila is a red blood cell eat disease.

When you finish the book you realise that Froome really is cleans.

What I liked about his writing style was him telling us there was nothing to see here...'nothing to see here Guv, move along.'

Or 'no flies on this guy.' Or 'he looks clean as a whistle'.

I love that stuff. I was undecided. Read those lines and decided you know what Sky really are clean.

 

[the sceptic]

You mean apart from the positive for Salbutemol, the admission by omission (the 'next question' radio interview) and the Conconi investigation?

Sorry, stupid facts didn't mean to interrupt. Fire ahead...

balls, not man.

Do you have any evidence what they paid Conconi for?

The salbutamol mistake was in 1994, but Walsh claims he was dopings already in 1992, when there was no evidence.

What do you make of that Martin?

 

[The Hitch]

Patched things up and went off on one after his article at the end of the Tour. The "bitter Armstrong fan" reference was wrong on Walsh's part but that wasn't in reference to Kimmage as Walsh knows that Kimmage never believed in Lance down the years. Don't think Kimmage doesn't know that.

I don't get that. The fact that Walsh knows it not to be true makes it worse.

He's making something up ( something very cheap and insulting at that) in order to give credence to an argument he isn't able to back up an honest way so he resorts to outright lying and slandering people in a way he knows to be false.

Kimmage had every right to be furious at that. And I'm glad he did speak up. He's one of the few in a position to stand up to Walsh on that. Because using the, "they can't question my bs if they don't work in the media" tactic that he has learnt from Brailsford, Walsh knows no one else will question him on these lies. It was kimmages duty as one of those that can.

 

[Netserk]

I'm out of this thread. Enjoy the show.

4h17' later:

Why doesn't he tell us who's using it? Floyd mentioned clen before.

I do know the history of the sport.



Here we go again and that's the adding of arms and legs I have referred to in the past. The bolded is a classic example.

Final comment on this, I will refresh your memory and I stand by everything I said at the time in the thread below where I expressed my opinion multiple times on the topic. Take particular notice of what I said in regards to Kreuziger.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=20426&highlight=kimmage+roman

You're doing your best tabloid impression now.

 

[Benotti69]

I'm out of this thread. Enjoy the show.

<snipped>

Cant help yourself.

 

[martinvickers]

balls, not man.

What man? Where have I made any comment on the 'man'?

Do you have any evidence what they paid Conconi for?

Judge Oliva's judgement is reasonably clear what Conconi provided, yes.

The salbutamol mistake was in 1994, but Walsh claims he was dopings already in 1992, when there was no evidence.

What do you make of that Martin?

Given the absence of a test, or even a 50% Haem test, or routine saving of samples for testing, and adding Conconi's long links to Indurain all the way back, and Walsh having significantly better sources than I, I don't find it a difficult claim to believe. But without the source to hand, I can't verify it. I doubt there was 'no evidence' - no positive, for sure, but given the non-existance of a test, that's fairly meaningless on it's own, n'est pas.

Facts. Stubbornly stupid things.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Personally, I don't see the problem if Walsh believes Sky to be clean. If he genuinely believes Sky to be clean and has put pen to paper (or committed characters to word processor, at least) in order to right what he perceives as the unfair criticism they have received, based on what he has seen and what he knows, then that's fair enough. I have plenty of respect for that, and bearing in mind his reputation was built in the cycling community based on his pursuit of Armstrong that made him seen as something of an anti-doping crusader, nailing his colours to the "Sky=clean" mast knowing that many will see it as selling out takes some cojones.

However, I do have a problem with him insulting his readers' intelligence by justifying that position with arguments so weak they are unbecoming for a journalist of his reputation and standing. The arguments presented in order to justify his belief that Sky are clean are not always but often riddled with holes (the most ridiculous of all being "Froome roomed with one of his teammates, what doper would do that?"), and some of the symbolism is so heavy-handed as to be comical (the worst offenders in that regard have been brought up in this thread a long time ago, like the butterfly moment).

I feel that if Sky are not clean, and Walsh has been kept in the dark, it has been a missed opportunity, whereas if he knows and is in on it then he's dishonest and deserves the stick he's getting.

If Sky are clean, then a great opportunity has still been missed, because the flimsy arguments do not succeed in convincing those that doubt them, and so many questions are left unanswered that Walsh could have answered for us that it does Sky a disservice.

 

[The Hitch]

balls, not man.

Do you have any evidence what they paid Conconi for?

The salbutamol mistake was in 1994, but Walsh claims he was dopings already in 1992, when there was no evidence.

What do you make of that Martin?

Tbf, as hrotha said calling Indurain a doper really wouldn't rank high on faults commuted by Walsh. Other than perhaps the hypocrisy of letting Wiggins off his hero worship of the guy, (while attacking others for the same) he was right on that.

If I was going to choose a guy who Walsh has gone after without proof, it's Horner. Or his comment that the 2012 vuelta organizers allowed doping.

 

[Clausfarre]

Walsh's defense of Sky would be excusable if it came from a naive outsider getting to do a report on "this cycling thing". As a seasoned velo journalist his whole approach and musings on what makes team Sky click is a fat joke. After what he did trying to bring Armstrong down I can't grasp why he has gone full ***, with regards to lack of critical thinking.