- Jun 19, 2009
No - this is very simple, it is not about Walsh but it is what he wote is true or not - and I will get my issue of 'FLTL' and cite the piece.Mambo95 said:Yeah, but Walsh has an agenda, the same as anyone else*. He would hardly be the first journalist to ask make some supersitions to aid his cause. He's never been a football journalist (or a doctor). While a lot of his evidence has great weight, he does tend to overstretch at times. This is probably one of them.
*For example, see this analysis of his fanboy defences of Sean Kelly (and Maertens and Merckx) back in the day: http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/11/10/1805511/on-doping-and-david-walsh
You do not have to be a Doctor to understand the arguement that LAs cancer should have been noticed during any test he took in 1996.
You obviously have not read Walshs book on Kelly - as he went to great lengths to see why Kelly would take a drug that offered no enhancement for Kelly.
You can be sure that Walshs opinion on Kelly had changed when the full facts from Willy Voets book of the switched sample were released.