Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[BroDeal]

Kimmage has become Sky fans' Greg LeMond. Like Armstrong fanboys of the past, they are looking for anything to smear him.

 

[Benotti69]

Don't know why all the Sky fans are posting Kimmage rugby stories in here?

Aint the thread for it!

But if that is all you got........

 

[Digger]

Kimmage has become Sky fans' Greg LeMond. Like Armstrong fanboys of the past, they are looking for anything to smear him.

this...........

 

[Netserk]

Is this the Walsh or Kimmage thread?

 

[jens_attacks]

Did Walsh really write that? It sounds scarily like this: Cecco swiftly diagnosed my main short coming: I lacked top end speed. Under Postal, my engine had been trained over the years to be a diesel, capable of producing long, steady power. What won big races, however was not diesels but turbos, riders capable of producing five minutes of top end power on the steepest of climbs, creating a gap, then riding steadily to the line. That's where I was lacking.
Tyler Hamilton, The Secret Race p209

scary ah? nice find

tyler should watch 2014, a thermonuclear war of epic proportions. 500 watts diesel then bang switch on turbo...ohlalala c'est parti, contador est lâché
tinkov should come armed to the teeth

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Nope. According to Walsh the people who question him and Sky are disappointed Armstrong faithful. It never occurred to him that the same people who called out Armstrong's obvious doping are the ones calling out Sky's obvious doping.

good points brodeal.

suprised that kimmage catching grief here from "The Train part 2" peeps.

 

[gooner]

Kimmage has become Sky fans' Greg LeMond. Like Armstrong fanboys of the past, they are looking for anything to smear him.

He does a good job of himself at that these days.

I often mention some around here with default position to a doping only view but there's one more. Constant comparison with Sky/USPS than to judge each scenario on its own merits.

You're king of the latter and you didn't exactly have to be Nostradamus to predict you were going to post like that once again here.

I get it, Walsh would have left Lance alone like he has done with Sky if he was more British.

I genuinely worry for you if you honestly think that tripe is true.

Don't know why all the Sky fans are posting Kimmage rugby stories in here?

Aint the thread for it!

But if that is all you got........

Comprehension skills are lacking. It's been linked in many posts on to the way he ditched his long term friendship with Walsh over his reporting on Sky something of which is a topic in this thread. I said he was a guy who goes way over the top on his beliefs and this was an example to prove that case even though it's in another sport.

Nothing got to do with defending Sky. Nothing at all in fact.

Interesting to see you bring Neil Francis's tweet into the other thread and bring a doping discussion on to rugby on all days like this. Very interesting indeed.

 

[Benotti69]

<snipped off topic>

Kimmage had a deal with BOD. BOB broke it. End of. No story except for those wishing to make hay out of thin air........


Walsh defends a doping team. Kimmage uses many of the things those with experience use to decide whether Wiggins, Froome et al are doping, things which Walsh used against Arsmtrong, Contador and Rasmussen to name 3 riders Walsh called out.

 

[BroDeal]

He does a good job of himself at that these days.

I often mention some around here with default position to a doping only view but there's one more. Constant comparison with Sky/USPS than to judge each scenario on its own merits.

You're king of the latter and you didn't exactly have to be Nostradamus to predict you were going to post like that once again here.

I get it, Walsh would have left Lance alone like he has done with Sky if he was more British.

I genuinely worry for you if you honestly think that tripe is true.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

 

[red_flanders]

Wow. That is possibly even more cringe worthy than Pauly
taking the film crew to the Tour and only filming him and
not any racing. What a wanna-be Reality Show loser.

What was cringe-worthy about that? He came out and simply stated what happened and allowed for the possibility that he was being unreasonable, while he felt the player was.

Non story.

Gooner's comments are equally over the top. Looking for reasons to hate on Kimmage because he called Walsh out on his obvious bull****.

Nothing to see here.

 

[red_flanders]

Kimmage has become Sky fans' Greg LeMond. Like Armstrong fanboys of the past, they are looking for anything to smear him.

Spot on. Sad.

 

[gooner]

Kimmage had a deal with BOD. BOB broke it. End of. No story except for those wishing to make hay out of thin air........

You don't know the first thing about autobiographies.

Unconditional love going on here. O'Driscoll broke nothing and even other journalists today are baffled by Kimmage's reasoning. I have read many sports autobiography in my time and I can safely say I have never heard an arrangement done like the one Kimmage wanted O'Driscoll to do.

This is entirely relevant for judging and assessing his character in the way he ditched Walsh over Sky. I said at the time he lost perspective by doing that to Walsh at the time. His ending of that friendship was a big topic up thread and one you brought in with the link to his Independent interview a few weeks back. Or do you forget.

First post on the matter.

Is it any surprise that Kimmage ended a 30 year friendship with Walsh over Sky when we see the reason today why he just resigned from ghost-writing Brian O'Driscoll's(rugby) book.

That's on topic.

 

[red_flanders]

There is no relationship to Kimmage's comments about this book and Walsh. None.

For those looking to craft a connection and ultimately vindicate Sky, here's the "logic" path.

Kimmage is a bad guy > Kimmage broke up with Walsh > That makes Walsh a good guy > That makes what he says true > Sky are cleans > Froome is cleans

It's tortured. The only true section is the second.

 

[gooner]

What was cringe-worthy about that? He came out and simply stated what happened and allowed for the possibility that he was being unreasonable, while he felt the player was.

Non story.

Gooner's comments are equally over the top. Looking for reasons to hate on Kimmage because he called Walsh out on his obvious bull****.

Nothing to see here.

Again read what I said throughout this thread.

Kimmage is more than entitled to his opinion and call out Sky in the process. He can take issue with Walsh's opinion if he wishes to. I disagree with the throwing of a long term friendship under the bus and his reasoning for it saying it "runs deeps with him." I think the issue is nowhere near worthy of losing a long term friendship due to a simple disagreement. I can't stand that mentality where it's absurdly deemed as some sort of principled privileged position if you do so.

 

[red_flanders]

Again read what I said throughout this thread.

Kimmage is more than entitled to his opinion and call out Sky in the process. He can take issue with Walsh's opinion if he wishes to. I disagree with the throwing of a long term friendship under the bus and his reasoning for it saying it "runs deeps with him." I think the issue is nowhere near worthy of losing a long term friendship due to a simple disagreement. I can't stand that mentality where it's absurdly deemed as some sort of principled privileged position if you do so.

Who cares about any of it? I don't. And it's a Walsh thread. There is no connection and no doping angle. Can't fathom why this rubbish is in the clinic on the Walsh thread.

 

[gooner]

There is no relationship to Kimmage's comments about this book and Walsh. None.

For those looking to craft a connection and ultimately vindicate Sky, here's the "logic" path.

Kimmage is a bad guy > Kimmage broke up with Walsh > That makes Walsh a good guy > That makes what he says true > Sky are cleans > Froome is cleans

It's tortured. The only true section is the second.

Show in the last few pages where I have tried to vindicate Sky. Don't dodge it now.

I have criticised Kimmage's behaviour to Walsh and the O'Driscoll episode is a character reference I believe to his over the top ways.

 

[the sceptic]

the Kimmage thread on BikeUnicorn is both scary and hillarious reading at the same time.

 

[sniper]

Show in the last few pages where I have tried to vindicate Sky. Don't dodge it now.

I have criticised Kimmage's behaviour to Walsh and the O'Driscoll episode is a character reference I believe to his over the top ways.

so you've been posting off topic the last few pages.
offtopic, nontopic.

 

[pmcg76]

so you've been posting off topic the last few pages.
offtopic, nontopic.

I don't think this is totally off-topic as it relates to the Walsh/Kimmage split. I too find it strange that Kimmage/Walsh would end a close friendship based on Walsh backing SKY. As I said before, sleeping with your wife, stealing money etc, those are the kind of things you end a 30 year friendship over, not whether you believe some cycling team dopes or not. There has to be more to the Walsh/Kimmage spat or at least one would hope so.

What seems to be the case with the O'Driscoll thing is that Kimmage expects O'Driscoll to show devout loyalty to him even when clearly that was never agreed with O'Driscoll, if Kimmage didn't agree an exclusive rights access deal with O'Driscoll, then of course O'Driscoll can talk to who he wants. On the surface Kimmage now seems to have a bad case of the 'with me or against me' syndrome. No room for a middle ground.

As Gooner said this latest episode gives a better idea of why the Walsh/Kimmage friendship ended and I agree.

 

[sittingbison]

I think the discussion of Kimmage has indeed veered off topic (Walsh/Bandwagon) even though it involved Walsh and Sky, and is better off in a Kimmage thread. If one doesnt suit, make a "Kimmage throws Walsh under the bus" thread

cheers
bison

 

[red_flanders]

Show in the last few pages where I have tried to vindicate Sky. Don't dodge it now.

I have criticised Kimmage's behaviour to Walsh and the O'Driscoll episode is a character reference I believe to his over the top ways.

Who said you tried to vindicate Sky in the last few pages? We all know where you're coming from.

 

[RownhamHill]

Who said you tried to vindicate Sky in the last few pages? We all know where you're coming from.

Ermm. It was you, wasn't it?

There is no relationship to Kimmage's comments about this book and Walsh. None.

For those looking to craft a connection and ultimately vindicate Sky, here's the "logic" path.

Since I think Gooner is seemingly the one person been posting about this at length, then it's hard to think who 'those people looking to craft a connection and ultimately vindicate Sky' are, if Gooner isn't one of them. Care to clarify who those people are?

 

[red_flanders]

Ermm. It was you, wasn't it?



Since I think Gooner is seemingly the one person been posting about this at length, then it's hard to think who 'those people looking to craft a connection and ultimately vindicate Sky' are, if Gooner isn't one of them. Care to clarify who those people are?

Groomer added the qualifier "in the last few pages", I did not. So no, I can't show that he claims to be doing this to vindicate Sky based on his statements about Sky of "the last few pages". I have to rely on the reams of pro-Sky posts over the last...months and years I guess. And now the attack on Kimmage for something having nothing to do with Walsh, and the attempt to link it to Walsh. Of course the point was to discredit Kimmage to vindicate Walsh, and of course the point do that is to vindicate Sky. Of course tortured logic like that wasn't openly stated, that's not how shooting the messenger is played.

If you don't buy my view, fine. I can't prove what people will deny or deflect. Simply my opinion.

 

[pmcg76]

Groomer added the qualifier "in the last few pages", I did not. So no, I can't show that he claims to be doing this to vindicate Sky based on his statements about Sky of "the last few pages". I have to rely on the reams of pro-Sky posts over the last...months and years I guess. And now the attack on Kimmage for something having nothing to do with Walsh, and the attempt to link it to Walsh. Of course the point was to discredit Kimmage to vindicate Walsh, and of course the point do that is to vindicate Sky. Of course tortured logic like that wasn't openly stated, that's not how shooting the messenger is played.

If you don't buy my view, fine. I can't prove what people will deny or deflect. Simply my opinion.

You do realise it is possible to discredit Kimmage without trying to big up Walsh. In the clinic, it passes as though Kimmage is above criticism just like LeMond.

What is sad is that if you dare to even question either of these clinic icons you are automatically labelled a SKY or Armstrong Fanboy. Now that is pathetic. I have been labelled as both in the past but anyone who knows my posting history would know I am far from either.

It is just another typical black or white situation that exists here. Trying to add balance to a one-sided debate is seen as blasphemous around here.

 

[Netserk]

You do realise it is possible to discredit Kimmage without trying to big up Walsh.

You do know which thread this is