Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[sniper]

Exactly

He didn't have to say anything.......and if he is what some of the more hysteric posters in here claim he is then he wouldnt have said what he did.....

But he did.


Mark L

so what he says there whipes out everything he's said before?
of course not.

ow, and have you found the link to that article yet? i'd be much obliged.
i think those hysteric posters have the right to see the whole article before revising their opinion on Walsh.

 

[sniper]

Paywall (of silence?) here:
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/sport/cycling/article1425341.ece

Se also digger's post here:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1498051&postcount=3999

Thanks!
As I figured, it does more to confirm Walsh is on the bandwagon. More apologizing for Sky, simply reproducing what they tell him as if it were fact.

He was still suffering from a chest infection that had caused him to pull out of the Liege-Bastogne-Liege classic two days earlier. Froome is asthmatic and inflammation in his respiratory channel led to these prolonged bouts of coughing. After the intense effort of the prologue the coughing was worse than ever and, facing five days of racing, Froome spoke with Richard Usher, the Team Sky doctor.

Unvelievable.
He never mentioned the asthma in the book, yet here presents it as something he knew about all along.
Sorry Spud/ebandit, to anybody with half a brain this case is pretty much closed.

 

[daveyt]

Thanks!
As I figured, it does more to confirm Walsh is on the bandwagon. More apologizing for Sky, simply reproducing what they tell him as if it were fact.
Unvelievable.
He never mentioned the asthma in the book, yet here presents it as something he knew about all along.
Sorry Spud/ebandit, to anybody with half a brain this case is pretty much closed.

How is saying he had a chest infection unbelievable?

 

[sniper]

How is saying he had a chest infection unbelievable?

 

[ebandit]

Thanks!
As I figured, it does more to confirm Walsh is on the bandwagon. More apologizing for Sky, simply reproducing what they tell him as if it were fact.
Unvelievable.
He never mentioned the asthma in the book, yet here presents it as something he knew about all along.
Sorry Spud/ebandit, to anybody with half a brain this case is pretty much closed.

I find it hilarious that you use what Walsh didn't say as a stick with which to beat him

You do realise that Walsh's book on Froome was intended as an enjoyable read for mildly interested members of the public don't you?..........you treat it as if it was intended to be some sort of Encyclopedia of the minutiae of Froome's life

Mark L

 

[the sceptic]

Paywall (of silence?) here:
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/sport/cycling/article1425341.ece

See also digger's post here:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1498051&postcount=3999

What evidence does Walsh have for this?

Seems like he makes the classic bot mistake of taking everything Sky say for granted.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Thanks!
As I figured, it does more to confirm Walsh is on the bandwagon. More apologizing for Sky, simply reproducing what they tell him as if it were fact.
Unvelievable.
He never mentioned the asthma in the book, yet here presents it as something he knew about all along.
Sorry Spud/ebandit, to anybody with half a brain this case is pretty much closed.

So, after the usual Clinic spin, lets have a look at an actual example of his bandwagon work on this:

"Team Sky talk the talk of high ethical standards but do not walk the walk."

"Team Sky like to portray themselves as the most ethical team in the peloton. The evidence says otherwise."

A pity he couldn't have slipped and asthma mention or two in there, somewhere, but there you go.
No wonder his books are so bad if that's how he writes an apology.

 

[TheSpud]

Paywall (of silence?) here:
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/sport/cycling/article1425341.ece

See also digger's post here:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1498051&postcount=3999

Non paywall versions / stories here:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/david-walsh-questions-team-skys-ethics-in-sunday-times

and here

http://www.givemesport.com/478575-david-walsh-accuses-team-sky-of-slipping-ethical-standards

although they are pretty much the same text.

 

[TheSpud]

being left in his underpants

Scary picture ...

 

[sniper]

So, after the usual Clinic spin, lets have a look at an actual example of his bandwagon work on this:



A pity he couldn't have slipped and asthma mention or two in there, somewhere, but there you go.
No wonder his books are so bad if that's how he writes an apology.

MV, you can do better than disguising as a bot. (unless you are one, but i wish to think you aren't.)
Yes, those statements are more in line with the Old Walsh (as i said previously already). But whilst he criticises them he uses the article to apologize for them at the same time. In isolation those statements look great. In context they appear shallow.
As Sceptic says, taking everything Sky throws at him for granted (e.g. the infection, the asthma) has nothing to do with independent journalism.
Not even a single "according to Sky" in there. Jeezus.
That has nothing to do with independent journalism but you knew that of course.
Any reasonable person is left with the taste that this article was an attempt by Walsh to save some face after the TUE leak left him **** naked.

 

[bobbins]

Agreed. And its not WADAs job to act as the committee the UCI should have had in place.

Sounds like Farrell had the process down and knew who to call to get it "arranged". Lucky it was leaked so we know what was going on.

I think it was Leinders that made the call to the UCI to get one backdated for cortisone.

 

[thehog]

I think it was Leinders that made the call to the UCI to get one backdated for cortisone.

For saddle sores no doubt

 

[Benotti69]

...snipped......

A pity he couldn't have slipped and asthma mention or two in there, somewhere, but there you go.
No wonder his books are so bad if that's how he writes an apology.

so now that Walsh has said the following

"Team Sky talk the talk of high ethical standards but do not walk the walk."

"Team Sky like to portray themselves as the most ethical team in the peloton. The evidence says otherwise."

Do you still beleive them to be clean?

 

[Afrank]

I've cleaned up some of the recent postings in this thread and things seem to have gotten back on topic for now. Please keep it on topic and stop making accusations of other members and baiting each other. Thank you.

 

[daveyt]

Do you still beleive them to be clean?

Walsh appears to.

Fair to critisise them for not existing on some higher holier than though plain of existance, but that does not mean they are doing anything illegal.

I think this TUE was an act of desperation, had Froome not had other issues and missed so much racing they probably would have rested him.

 

[Mellow Velo]

so now that Walsh has said the following

Do you still beleive them to be clean?

On the contrary.
What I read in those brief, but succinct sentences is an expression of how many, myself included, feel over several issues; certainly the TUE episode.
It is the natural, moderate stance for those without an entrenched viewpoint, be it bot or sceptic.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Walsh appears to.

Fair to critisise them for not existing on some higher holier than though plain of existance, but that does not mean they are doing anything illegal.

I think this TUE was an act of desperation, had Froome not had other issues and missed so much racing they probably would have rested him.

Perhaps we too should avoid too much speculation, here.
Although tend to I agree that time wise, things were getting desperate.
Having had his racing programme badly effected and with little opportunity in the early May calendar to redress the situation, it is quite possible that Sky took an unpalatable option.
However, we have as much evidence that this is the case, as sceptics do when they employ theories that fit their conclusion.

 

[The Hitch]

So as I understand the last few pages, Walsh is neutral on sky because after 2 years of comparing them to Jesus, holding them up as the model of perfection and absolutely everything that is good about mankind, downplaying their doubters as the embodiment of everything that is wrong with mankind, and taking every single word that comes out of braiksfords mouth as the word of god, which requires no further research, even when brailsford is talking about things he can't actually know (e.g. other teams don't train hard). After 2 years of that he writes one sentence saying they may have been mildly dishonest on some minor issue, but they are still clean and those who doubt them still the devils army, that makes him neutral?

Even the sky fans can't actually defend the religious heroworship towards sky Walshs books contain and the clear as day factual mistakes / lies that appear on page after page after page. If you can try going at it with hoh and his army of quotations from the book.

Making any kind of a deal out of Walsh finally writing one bad thing about sky, in the face of all of that, is ridiculous. It's lime finding one quotation from ligget that doesn't praise lance and arguing that it meant liggett was never biased towards lance.

 

[ebandit]

If you had a valid point you wouldn't always need to resort to massive exagerration

Mark L

 

[the sceptic]

So as I understand the last few pages, Walsh is neutral on sky because after 2 years of comparing them to Jesus, holding them up as the model of perfection and absolutely everything that is good about mankind, downplaying their doubters as the embodiment of everything that is wrong with mankind, and taking every single word that comes out of braiksfords mouth as the word of god, which he requires no further research, even when brailsford is talking about things he can't actually know (e.g. other teams don't train hard). After 2 years of that he writes one sentence saying they may have been mildly dishonest on some minor issue, but they are still clean and those who doubt them still the devils army, that makes him neutral?

It's absurd that we still need to have this debate. Walsh being on the bandwagon is clear as day. To say otherwise is just blatant trolling and clearly those who say so either ignore or haven't been paying attention to all the *** licking he has done of Sky.

 

[daveyt]

So as I understand the last few pages, Walsh is neutral on sky because after 2 years of comparing them to Jesus.

You do exagerate a lot don't you?

 

[sniper]

You do exagerate a lot don't you?

it appears you have trouble understanding it otherwise.
Hitch's post is spot on.

Exactly

He didn't have to say anything.......and if he is what some of the more hysteric posters in here claim he is then he wouldnt have said what he did.....

But he did.

Mark L

isn't ebandit suggesting here that on the basis of two statements we should forget about the rubbish/half-truths Walsh has put on paper in the past two years or so? A yes/no answer will do.

 

[daveyt]

it appears you have trouble understanding it otherwise.
Hitch's post is spot on.

I stop reading after exagerations and personal digs, I assume if you had a point you wouldn't need them.

 

[The Hitch]

What I actually posted.

So as I understand the last few pages, Walsh is neutral on sky because after 2 years of comparing them to Jesus, holding them up as the model of perfection and absolutely everything that is good about mankind, downplaying their doubters as the embodiment of everything that is wrong with mankind, and taking every single word that comes out of braiksfords mouth as the word of god, which requires no further research, even when brailsford is talking about things he can't actually know (e.g. other teams don't train hard).

How the poster quoted me:

So as I understand the last few pages, Walsh is neutral on sky because after 2 years of comparing them to Jesus.

You do exagerate a lot don't you?

Notice that the comma symbol "," which serves to indicate that a list is being made and that the sentence ending in "Jesus" is just one example, has mysteriously changed itself to a full stop, which changes the meaning of the sentence.

The poster then, having subtly (and obviously not by accident) changed the meaning of what I posted, then attacks me for it.

Clear as day trolling.

 

[daveyt]

What I actually posted.



How the poster quoted me:



Notice that the comma symbol "," which serves to indicate that a list is being made and that the sentence ending in "Jesus" is just one example, has mysteriously changed itself to a full stop, which changes the meaning of the sentence.

The poster then, having subtly (and obviously not by accident) changed the meaning of what I posted, then attacks me for it.

Clear as day trolling.

Apoligies, that was an accident. Deleted too much and picked some new punctuation at random.