Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[sniper]

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

Mark L

many valid points.
more to the point is that you refuse to address them.
take your time.

 

[the sceptic]

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

lol. Do you really expect anyone to believe that.

 

[daveyt]

lol. Do you really expect anyone to believe that.

No... no I don't expect any of you to believe it. It's true, and I don't really think the difference between a comma and a full stop changes how stupid the start of that post was. But... whatever.

 

[thehog]

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.

Agreed. Hope you reported the post as well?

But on the matter of 'Jesus', Walsh did indeed liken Sky and Brailsford to Jesus. And Saxo/Contador were Barabbas.

But also I'm not sure if Walsh is in the best position to be reporting on Sky "ethics". His own are severely compromised and I get the feeling he writes whatever to keep his pay cheque. If you read Walsh's Twitter account on the TUE issue he was defending Sky/Froome and very defensive on the matter.

 

[del1962]

No... no I don't expect any of you to believe it. It's true, and I don't really think the difference between a comma and a full stop changes how stupid the start of that post was. But... whatever.

Complaining about the difference between a comma and a full stop in the context is an obvious case of trolling, however my advice to you, Mark, theSpud and others is try not to be sucked in by the trolling.

 

[The Hitch]

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

Perhaps you would highlight what you thought were exaggerations and insults, rather than acting as if you merely saying it makes it true?

 

[sniper]

Agreed. Hope you reported the post as well?

But on the matter of 'Jesus', Walsh did indeed liken Sky and Brailsford to Jesus. And Saxo/Contador were Barabbas.

But also I'm not sure if Walsh is in the best position to be reporting on Sky "ethics". His own are severely compromised and I get the feeling he writes whatever to keep his pay cheque. If you read Walsh's Twitter account on the TUE issue he was defending Sky/Froome and very defensive on the matter.

indeed.
You'd have expected Walsh to ring the alarmbells seeing how Cookson and Sky are on very similar footing as Verbruggen and USPS in 1999. (And I'm not even talking about Zorzoli.)
But no...

 

[the sceptic]

Agreed. Hope you reported the post as well?

But on the matter of 'Jesus', Walsh did indeed liken Sky and Brailsford to Jesus. And Saxo/Contador were Barabbas.

But also I'm not sure if Walsh is in the best position to be reporting on Sky "ethics". His own are severely compromised and I get the feeling he writes whatever to keep his pay cheque. If you read Walsh's Twitter account on the TUE issue he was defending Sky/Froome and very defensive on the matter.

I assume if Walsh writes anything negative about sky it has some sort og agenda.

Like when he "reported" the JTL letter after it got leaked to him.

 

[djpbaltimore]

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

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).

So, somehow only the premature period makes that sentence an exaggeration?

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

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.

That question does more to damage your credibility than anything else. A more moderate view is that ebandit suggested that Walsh has a more nuanced view of Sky than he is given credit for in this thread. He most definitely has not put their feet to the proverbial fire, but he also has not given them a lifetime free pass either.

 

[the sceptic]

Perhaps you would highlight what you thought were exaggerations and insults, rather than acting as if you merely saying it makes it true?

Why can't you dream big Hitch?

David Walsh @DavidWalshST · Jul 15

@domcollins24 Dom, it is odd. The questioning of Froome also reflected anti-Sky, anti-Murdoch, anti-English and anti-too much success bias.

 

[thehog]

Why can't you dream big Hitch?

David Walsh @DavidWalshST · Jul 15

@domcollins24 Dom, it is odd. The questioning of Froome also reflected anti-Sky, anti-Murdoch, anti-English and anti-too much success bias.

Anti-too much success bias?!!

Walsh wrote that?

 

[The Hitch]

So, somehow only the premature period makes that sentence an exaggeration?

Why is it that none of you guys are willing to actually explain what you thought was an exaggeration. I've noticed this tendency a lot recently, long posts or arguments dismissed with one word buzzwords for which the posters pat themselves on the back..
Make an argument, or don't. It's a discussion forum.

That question does more to damage your credibility than anything else. A more moderate view is that ebandit suggested that Walsh has a more nuanced view of Sky than he is given credit for in this thread. He most definitely has not put their feet to the proverbial fire, but he also has not given them a lifetime free pass either.

yes he has given them a free pass. When you take everything someone says as gospel without researching whether they are telling the truth, you are giving them a free pass.

If you aren't familiar with what Walsh has said (though if that is the case you shouldn't be taking a side on this) you should look through hogs library of quotations. Feel free to ask him for help.

 

[thehog]

I assume if Walsh writes anything negative about sky it has some sort og agenda.

Like when he "reported" the JTL letter after it got leaked to him.

Yes, Walsh made out he'd done some form of investigation into JTL. He was just working on behalf of Brailsford/Murdoch with the leaked letter. What a crock!

 

[sniper]

So, somehow only the premature period makes that sentence an exaggeration?

That question does more to damage your credibility than anything else. A more moderate view is that ebandit suggested that Walsh has a more nuanced view of Sky than he is given credit for in this thread. He most definitely has not put their feet to the proverbial fire, but he also has not given them a lifetime free pass either.

that's a moderate rewording of ebandit's post.
won't argue if that's what you think he meant to say.

 

[the sceptic]

Yes, Walsh made out he'd done some form of investigation into JTL. He was just working on behalf of Brailsford/Murdoch with the leaked letter. What a crock!

Smart move. Giving Walsh more cred on his other "digging" into sky as well. Having their pet journalist break the story also ensures they get the story they want out there. Much better than jealous french journalists writing anti-too much success-stories.

Win-win for everyone involved. (except poor JTL)

 

[Mellow Velo]

That question does more to damage your credibility than anything else. A more moderate view is that ebandit suggested that Walsh has a more nuanced view of Sky than he is given credit for in this thread. He most definitely has not put their feet to the proverbial fire, but he also has not given them a lifetime free pass either.

This is very much how I read Walsh's view of the TUE issue, as would most moderate, rational folk.

 

[Afrank]

I think it's reasonable for Hitch to question of editing of all but a very small part of a post of his. So everyone, lets try to avoid quoting other posters out of context.

Hopefully when I come back to this thread in 2 hours no more issues will have sprung up.

 

[daveyt]

Perhaps you would highlight what you thought were exaggerations and insults, rather than acting as if you merely saying it makes it true?

I think you misquoting and exagerating my position on another thread was pretty fresh in my mind

“He said that it's wrong to assume clean riders know anything about doping.” Referring to me asking if we should expect clean riders to be experts on doping.

I don't think you use it so much but all attempts to dismiss people who are unconvinced by the theories about the current generation being as bad as the the last as "Skybots" is just pathetic lashing out. Also I think someones constant use of the word "cleans" is supposed to imply that we are simple and/or children and/or have poor English? Correct me if I am being paranoid.

Edit - changed the word foriegn to have poor English

 

[djpbaltimore]

Why is it that none of you guys are willing to actually explain what you thought was an exaggeration. I've noticed this tendency a lot recently, long posts or arguments dismissed with one word buzzwords for which the posters pat themselves on the back..
Make an argument, or don't. It's a discussion forum.


yes he has given them a free pass. When you take everything someone says as gospel without researching whether they are telling the truth, you are giving them a free pass.

If you aren't familiar with what Walsh has said (though if that is the case you shouldn't be taking a side on this) you should look through hogs library of quotations. Feel free to ask him for help.

Please own the fact that your posting style is tinged with heaping dollops of hyperbole. And please don't cry foul and act aggrieved when a self-evident example is pointed out. Educate me on the quotes where Walsh held sky up as the 'model of perfection and absolutely everything that is good about mankind' and where Walsh was 'taking every single word that comes out of braiksfords mouth as the word of god'. You probably have a valid argument about the bias in Walsh's reporting, buried underneath all the rhetoric. Overall, he probably has been too much of a PR mouthpiece for sky and his financial gains are clearly a potential conflict of interest. But Walsh saying that Sky have not walked the walk or lived up to their vocal ideals suggests that his view is more nuanced than you are giving him credit for.

 

[ebandit]

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?
.

Every single clause in this paragraph is a distorted exaggeration......Has Walsh mentioned Jesus, perfection and mankind to name just three?

No.

.........Try rewriting it with some semblance to reality and you might look a little less ridiculous.

Mark L

Edit: Djbaltimore has just addressed it far more effectively than I did.

 

[thehog]

Every single clause in this paragraph is a distorted exaggeration......Has Walsh mentioned Jesus, perfection and mankind to name just three?

No.

.........Try rewriting it with some semblance to reality and you might look a little less ridiculous.

Mark L

Edit: Djbaltimore has just addressed it far more effectively than I did.....he was obviously prepared to spend more time on Hitch's utter dung than I am

Walsh does mention Jesus, yes. Brailsford is Jesus.

Haven't you read Walsh's book?

(please ignore Walsh's mistakes on Contador passport etc. David tends to make a lot of mistakes )

 

[ebandit]

Right.....so uses word 'Jesus' but not in context of comparing Sky to perfection as per Hitch's ridiculous post

Mark L

 

[TheSpud]

But also I'm not sure if Walsh is in the best position to be reporting on Sky "ethics". His own are severely compromised and I get the feeling he writes whatever to keep his pay cheque. If you read Walsh's Twitter account on the TUE issue he was defending Sky/Froome and very defensive on the matter.

Can you post the screen shots / dates of those? The ones I am looking at on 21/22 June say the following:

22 June: "... clear from rules Sky and UCI did nothing wrong. It's an ethical question: are TUEs in races okay? I'm with teams who say no"

21 June: "TUE question not suited to twitter. I've written about it in tomorrow's ST. Bottom line, Sky should not use TUEs in races."

21 June: "I wanted to look into Sky's use of TUE for CF at T of R. In my view team were wrong, should have pulled Froome from race."

Can't seem to find ones like you mention - can you point me to them?

 

[thehog]

Right.....so uses word 'Jesus' but not in context of comparing Sky to perfection as per Hitch's ridiculous post

Mark L

Well it can't be an exaggeration as you suggest if he does compare Brailsford to Jesus, can it? I think you've made an error, yes?

And Walsh doesn't just use the word "Jesus" he compares Brailsford to "Jesus". Walsh also compares Sky to perfection. Its in the above passage if you care enough to read it.

You also seem to be defending Walsh awfully hard for someone who hasn't read the book

 

[red_flanders]

So, somehow only the premature period makes that sentence an exaggeration?



That question does more to damage your credibility than anything else. A more moderate view is that ebandit suggested that Walsh has a more nuanced view of Sky than he is given credit for in this thread. He most definitely has not put their feet to the proverbial fire, but he also has not given them a lifetime free pass either.

So the answer to all the cogent, relevant and on-target points that Hitch makes is that he exaggerates for effect.

No ****.

How about someone getting over it and recognizing that what he is saying, that the overwhelming record of Walsh on this topic is to toss Sky's salad, and one feeble statement that could be construed as critical does not make up for that?

Why doesn't anyone address this?

Simple. It is wholly accurate and refutes about 95% of the BS spouted by Sky fans in this thread. You'd all have to admit you're totally and completely wrong.