Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Benotti69]

Freddy nailed it.

He is right, get a copy and keep it for future reference when Walsh is flogging the 'Seven Deadly Sky Sins' in 10 years and wave it in his face at the book signing!

 

[thehog]

I am not sure the papers or media will go toxic against Wiggins to be honest.

He seems to have alienated himself and kept his head down since all the allegations and fancy bears.

I am not on Twitter so I havent seen the Walsh / Millar love in recently.

Walsh appears to conveniently 'forgets' how US Postal Sky look at times and 'forget's that Froome is part of a team that has Leinders in its history, the who pull riders out rather than have a TUE stuff, the covering up of Edmondson etc.

The whole 'feeling sick' at Astana and Landa smashing it, the forgetting about it when Sky sign Landa. Even blocking people for asking genuine questions on Twitter.

The bloke is a clown.

Walsh actually responded on Twitter to the Landa to Sky issue. He said Brailsford had "looked in to it" and all was good :lol:

Too funny from Walsh.

 

[MartinGT]

I am not sure the papers or media will go toxic against Wiggins to be honest.

He seems to have alienated himself and kept his head down since all the allegations and fancy bears.

I am not on Twitter so I havent seen the Walsh / Millar love in recently.

Walsh appears to conveniently 'forgets' how US Postal Sky look at times and 'forget's that Froome is part of a team that has Leinders in its history, the who pull riders out rather than have a TUE stuff, the covering up of Edmondson etc.

The whole 'feeling sick' at Astana and Landa smashing it, the forgetting about it when Sky sign Landa. Even blocking people for asking genuine questions on Twitter.

The bloke is a clown.

Walsh actually responded on Twitter to the Landa to Sky issue. He said Brailsford had "looked in to it" and all was good :lol:

Too funny from Walsh.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Electress]

I am not sure the papers or media will go toxic against Wiggins to be honest.

He seems to have alienated himself and kept his head down since all the allegations and fancy bears.

I am not on Twitter so I havent seen the Walsh / Millar love in recently.

Walsh appears to conveniently 'forgets' how US Postal Sky look at times and 'forget's that Froome is part of a team that has Leinders in its history, the who pull riders out rather than have a TUE stuff, the covering up of Edmondson etc.

The whole 'feeling sick' at Astana and Landa smashing it, the forgetting about it when Sky sign Landa. Even blocking people for asking genuine questions on Twitter.

The bloke is a clown.

Walsh actually responded on Twitter to the Landa to Sky issue. He said Brailsford had "looked in to it" and all was good :lol:

Too funny from Walsh.

What, did Brailsfraud 'look him in the eye'?? FFS. That's a real 'trust me I'm a doctor' kind of crap. What an absolute shower.

 

[heart_attack_man]

I am not sure the papers or media will go toxic against Wiggins to be honest.

He seems to have alienated himself and kept his head down since all the allegations and fancy bears.

I am not on Twitter so I havent seen the Walsh / Millar love in recently.

Walsh appears to conveniently 'forgets' how US Postal Sky look at times and 'forget's that Froome is part of a team that has Leinders in its history, the who pull riders out rather than have a TUE stuff, the covering up of Edmondson etc.

The whole 'feeling sick' at Astana and Landa smashing it, the forgetting about it when Sky sign Landa. Even blocking people for asking genuine questions on Twitter.

The bloke is a clown.

Walsh actually responded on Twitter to the Landa to Sky issue. He said Brailsford had "looked in to it" and all was good :lol:

Too funny from Walsh.

 

[deeno1975]

Comic gold from the one and only David Walsh... I can't wait for his world tour... "The World is Flat"

The case against Chris Froome is powerful in so many ways, all it lacks is evidence

He argues if people think Dan Martin is clean, why not Chris Froome!!!! And conveniently leaves out Froomes Vuelta win and his medal in the World's TT etc etc etc


If Dan Martin isn’t doping why question Froome?
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/dan-martin-chris-froome-doping/

 

[ruamruam]

David Walsh is back in the news again.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/sunday-times-fails-to-say-if-it-supports-letter-for-humphries-36201967.html

 

[heart_attack_man]

Re:

Oh and hte lack of evidence ..........what we all see before our eyes - Ventoux 2013 and the rest - well, I never reaslied it before but Froome thrashes those times the dopers like Pantani and Lance did up the mountains because he is a physical outlier. And how did he work that out, who was the physiological expert who confirmed this to him - well it is St David again, the talents of the man know no bounds, take a bow St David, BC should promote you as soon as they can.

So David Walsh tells us we are wrong and he is right becasue St David told him..................Yeah. And they accuse some in the clinic of bending facts to suit a prejudiced narrative.

It is worth the money to keep the paper just for the historic record.

Not to mention, that SDB is the same man who had classified him as almost good enough for a Pro-conti podium. Physical outlier, wot?

Never forget.

 

[The Hitch]

Just noticed, on that line a cyclist should be falling off in their early 30's.

But Wiggins found his best form at 32 and their Old Major figure, Cadel Evans found his at 34.

Seems legit.

 

[ruamruam]

An interview David Walsh gave to an Irish radio station in 2012 about his support for a journalist who was being investigated for sexual abuse.

https://www.todayfm.com/The-Last-Word-with-Matt-Cooper/podcasts/78519/

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

An interview David Walsh gave to an Irish radio station in 2012 about his support for a journalist who was being investigated fro sexual abuse.

https://www.todayfm.com/The-Last-Word-with-Matt-Cooper/podcasts/78519/

Not listened to all of it but that's pretty damning. I'm not sure of all of the background but he needs to respond and clarify his position.

 

[fmk_RoI]

He clarified his position in the ST at the weekend.

The hits, however, keep on coming - Walsh tried to create a magazine that would keep Humphries earning after he was axed from the IT:

"He gave me to understand it [the magazine] was essentially for Tom's benefit as Tom couldn't work. And he asked me to write for it," [Paul Howard] said. "I was really, really shocked. I think from memory I just told David I was too busy and I wasn't interested. To be honest I just wanted to get him off the phone. I just felt really uncomfortable having a conversation like that.

"I am annoyed now that David would have tried to co-opt me into some kind of campaign to rehabilitate Tom."

 

[fmk_RoI]

On the unbroadcast 2012 interview for Matt Cooper's The Last Word, with visits to typical Walsh "I know things you don't" territory:

In the interview with Cooper five years ago, Walsh brought up Humphries as one of the journalists he admired most.

Speaking about Humphries’ work on the allegations against swimmer Michelle Smith, Walsh said:

"Tom Humphries was amazing. The work that Tom Humphries did on that story was probably the finest sports journalism I’ve even seen. So that had a big influence on me in this sense that this is the template, this is how you do it.

Cooper then raised the allegations against Humphries and asked Walsh whether his praise of him was “a bit provocative”.

“No I don’t believe it’s provocative at all,” Walsh said in response.

"I believe it’s a statement that I believe to be true. And we’re not really in a position here to discuss the minutiae of the case. That will be decided. I know Tom and I’ve known him for a long time, and he’s a great, great man. And as we know he’s an incredibly talented writer.

“I maybe know a bit more than most people about the charges and about the situation that Tom has found himself in, there’s no question in my mind that he is a fine man,” Walsh added.

Cooper then asked Walsh whether it was somewhat contradictory in defending allegations against Humphries after years of investigating allegations of doping against Lance Armstrong.

Walsh described this as an “odious” comparison.

“I think the comparison you’ve made is odious and completely inappropriate. And all I’m going to say about the Tom situation is, I know a damn sight more than most people and I believe Tom is a fine man and I believe that in the end that will come out and people will know Tom is a fine man,” he said.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Ewan McKenna on Twitter saying what a lot of people are thinking:

Walsh's words reek of usual ego. "I know more than you." Sadly wrong, by extension calling an abused child a liar.

and

As with Froome in incomparable case, we got Walsh saying, "I know more than you, I'm better than you, me saying I'm right should be enough"

Also

Curious why @DavidWalshST needs to big himself up for trying to influence child abuse charges as private citizen. But dragging colleagues in

and

And really @DavidWalshST the utter ego to use your paper as tool to try explain yourself is beyond me. Centre of f**king universe syndrome.

There's a lot more being said on Twitter, check out also Paul Howard and Ciaran Lennon

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

He clarified his position in the ST at the weekend.

On the unbroadcast 2012 interview [postedabove], with visits to typical Walsh "I know things you don't" territory

It was more with reference to this interview, (which only aired today?) and the point you pulled out here. I listened and heard the same arrogant, I know about this, you don't, so you better take my word as gospel, that many on twitter that you have highlighted are also hearing.

He definitely needs to explain that.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

He clarified his position in the ST at the weekend.

On the unbroadcast 2012 interview [postedabove], with visits to typical Walsh "I know things you don't" territory

It was more with reference to this interview, (which only aired today?) and the point you pulled out here. I listened and heard the same arrogant, I know about this, you don't, so you better take my word as gospel, that many on twitter that you have highlighted are also hearing.

He definitely needs to explain that.

The interview wasn't broadcast in 2012 (or not in its entirety, the Humphries bits saw to that) and Cooper played it on his show yesterday evening. Walsh's explanation on Sunday is summarised here

My first instinct is to say he won't address his own arrogance but, you know what, I have to give the man this: he responded - eventually - to the digs about his coverage of Kelly's positive tests. So, who knows, maybe a few decades from now he'll explain how the Humphries defence "wasn't how a proper journalist would have reacted. At the time I knew what I was doing."

 

[King Boonen]

Yep, I read that somewhere. So he still needs to clarify his comments in that interview as, at least to me, he seemed to be implying that he knew the accusations were either false or trumped up. As you say though, it's unlikely he'll do this.

His explanation is pretty terrible anyway. He doesn't have to abandon him, although personally I would, but writing a reference is supporting him as far as I'm concerned.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Yep, I read that somewhere. So he still needs to clarify his comments in that interview as, at least to me, he seemed to be implying that he knew the accusations were either false or trumped up. As you say though, it's unlikely he'll do this.

His explanation is pretty terrible anyway. He doesn't have to abandon him, although personally I would, but writing a reference is supporting him as far as I'm concerned.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Over here, these things tend to fade away quickly. But the other referee, the unnamed GAA player, he's been named on Twitter by Ewan McKenna (the dogs in the street, as they say, knew who he was anyway), and that'll probably add legs to it.

On the notion of what he should/could have said, there was an article in the Examiner (free paywall) yesterday from Terry Prone, a popular PR consultant over here. Some of what she said:

Tom Humphries wrote so well about sport that aficionados would save items he had penned and force those of us who had no interest in sport to read them, and rightly rewarding they were, even if their context had to be explained a bit.

It was elegant, nuanced, thoughtful writing, filled with insight.

Those who loved the work the man produced couldn’t square their view of him, drawn from that work, with the possibility of his having defiled a teenager as young as — indeed, a peer of — his own daughter. It’s a cognitive circle we’re bad at squaring: Separating the work from the man and understanding that the one does not equate to the other.

She goes on to talk about Caravaggio - creator of great paintings, lousy human being - and comes back to Humphries:

But if the specialist writing is not stained by the man’s life, we must also recognise that the excellence of the work, in the cases of dozens of writers, painters, and sculptors down through the centuries, does not excuse the quotidian evil of what they did.

And yet two sports writers, presumably believing that a man who could write so beautifully and with such understanding of human character, or the lack of it, could never be guilty of grooming and sexually abusing a teenage girl, provided the courts with character references for Humphreys, and, as a result of their generosity and naïveté, are now being pursued by other media to justify their actions.

She ends - after criticising the whole system of references - with this defence of Walsh and Cusack which was written before that Last Word interview was broadcast

He is the guilty one. Not the two men who expressed their loyalty to him by writing letters they must both regret. When a much admired friend comes to you in extremis, asking for a written expression of your loyalty to the man you believed he once was, what do you do?

The wonder of their work is separate from, and in no way tainted by the horror of their actions.

I wonder if she'd reconsider that, in light of Walsh's words and what they tell us about his whole career...

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Yep, I read that somewhere. So he still needs to clarify his comments in that interview as, at least to me, he seemed to be implying that he knew the accusations were either false or trumped up. As you say though, it's unlikely he'll do this.

His explanation is pretty terrible anyway. He doesn't have to abandon him, although personally I would, but writing a reference is supporting him as far as I'm concerned.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Over here, these things tend to fade away quickly. But the other referee, the unnamed GAA player, he's been named on Twitter by Ewan McKenna (the dogs in the street, as they say, knew who he was anyway), and that'll probably add legs to it.

On the notion of what he should/could have said, there was an article in the Examiner (free paywall) yesterday from Terry Prone, a popular PR consultant over here. Some of what she said:

Tom Humphries wrote so well about sport that aficionados would save items he had penned and force those of us who had no interest in sport to read them, and rightly rewarding they were, even if their context had to be explained a bit.

It was elegant, nuanced, thoughtful writing, filled with insight.

Those who loved the work the man produced couldn’t square their view of him, drawn from that work, with the possibility of his having defiled a teenager as young as — indeed, a peer of — his own daughter. It’s a cognitive circle we’re bad at squaring: Separating the work from the man and understanding that the one does not equate to the other.

She goes on to talk about Caravaggio - creator of great paintings, lousy human being - and comes back to Humphries:

But if the specialist writing is not stained by the man’s life, we must also recognise that the excellence of the work, in the cases of dozens of writers, painters, and sculptors down through the centuries, does not excuse the quotidian evil of what they did.

And yet two sports writers, presumably believing that a man who could write so beautifully and with such understanding of human character, or the lack of it, could never be guilty of grooming and sexually abusing a teenage girl, provided the courts with character references for Humphreys, and, as a result of their generosity and naïveté, are now being pursued by other media to justify their actions.

She ends - after criticising the whole system of references - with this defence of Walsh and Cusack which was written before that Last Word interview was broadcast

He is the guilty one. Not the two men who expressed their loyalty to him by writing letters they must both regret. When a much admired friend comes to you in extremis, asking for a written expression of your loyalty to the man you believed he once was, what do you do?

The wonder of their work is separate from, and in no way tainted by the horror of their actions.

I wonder if she'd reconsider that, in light of Walsh's words and what they tell us about his whole career...

Prone is wrong. You cannot seperate the author from their works.

 

[fmk_RoI]

LA's listened to the interview. And has things to say to the Indo about DW:

"His position is appalling and totally inexcusable. Having said that, it's not surprising. David does what David wants.

Despite all of our differences, I say this knowing I have literally zero cred on issues regarding him."

And on DW saying the comparison of his support for Humphries and pursuit of LA was odious:

"Calling the comparison 'odious' when we're talking about a crime that has actual victims, versus an athlete who competed in a sport where the crime (doping) was pervasive just shows how dysfunctional he truly is."

 

[ruamruam]

Armstrong is being a *** in regard to the whole affair. He is using a girl who was sexually abused to get back at Walsh.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

and

As with Froome in incomparable case, we got Walsh saying, "I know more than you, I'm better than you, me saying I'm right should be enough"

Hell yes. Thats walsh to a t

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Armstrong is being a *** in regard to the whole affair. He is using a girl who was sexually abused to get back at Walsh.

Agreed, he's attempting to further his narrative of being unfairly treated too. Disgusting.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Yep, I read that somewhere. So he still needs to clarify his comments in that interview as, at least to me, he seemed to be implying that he knew the accusations were either false or trumped up. As you say though, it's unlikely he'll do this.

His explanation is pretty terrible anyway. He doesn't have to abandon him, although personally I would, but writing a reference is supporting him as far as I'm concerned.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Over here, these things tend to fade away quickly. But the other referee, the unnamed GAA player, he's been named on Twitter by Ewan McKenna (the dogs in the street, as they say, knew who he was anyway), and that'll probably add legs to it.

On the notion of what he should/could have said, there was an article in the Examiner (free paywall) yesterday from Terry Prone, a popular PR consultant over here. Some of what she said:

Tom Humphries wrote so well about sport that aficionados would save items he had penned and force those of us who had no interest in sport to read them, and rightly rewarding they were, even if their context had to be explained a bit.

It was elegant, nuanced, thoughtful writing, filled with insight.

Those who loved the work the man produced couldn’t square their view of him, drawn from that work, with the possibility of his having defiled a teenager as young as — indeed, a peer of — his own daughter. It’s a cognitive circle we’re bad at squaring: Separating the work from the man and understanding that the one does not equate to the other.

She goes on to talk about Caravaggio - creator of great paintings, lousy human being - and comes back to Humphries:

But if the specialist writing is not stained by the man’s life, we must also recognise that the excellence of the work, in the cases of dozens of writers, painters, and sculptors down through the centuries, does not excuse the quotidian evil of what they did.

And yet two sports writers, presumably believing that a man who could write so beautifully and with such understanding of human character, or the lack of it, could never be guilty of grooming and sexually abusing a teenage girl, provided the courts with character references for Humphreys, and, as a result of their generosity and naïveté, are now being pursued by other media to justify their actions.

She ends - after criticising the whole system of references - with this defence of Walsh and Cusack which was written before that Last Word interview was broadcast

He is the guilty one. Not the two men who expressed their loyalty to him by writing letters they must both regret. When a much admired friend comes to you in extremis, asking for a written expression of your loyalty to the man you believed he once was, what do you do?

The wonder of their work is separate from, and in no way tainted by the horror of their actions.

I wonder if she'd reconsider that, in light of Walsh's words and what they tell us about his whole career...

Prone is wrong. You cannot seperate the author from their works.

fmk_RoI, thanks, that was interesting.

Benotti, I'm not sure I agree there but it's certainly something I've thought about in the past.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Armstrong is being a *** in regard to the whole affair. He is using a girl who was sexually abused to get back at Walsh.

On that basis, one could ask, were you yourself not guilty of using the girl when you posted the link to the Last Word interview?

Armstrong is, at least, aware enough to acknowledge the difficulty people will have with him criticising Walsh. Five years ago Walsh could not see the problem of him defending Humphries (a man who did the state some service, with his writing) and his pursuit of Armstrong (a man who did the state some service, with his charity).

And - in defence of Armstrong's comments - he is not alone in what he said: some of Walsh's peers agree with the Texan, as do many of Walsh's readers.