Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Mellow Velo]

so what line are we taking, that Walsh has been bought?

The problem the cynics are having to wrestle is that Walsh is pretty unimpeachable.
His gradual "realisation" of Lance mirrors that of many on here.
His subsequent dealings and unrelenting pursuit of Mr Most Wanted,
makes the idea that he can now, suddenly be bought, look ludicrous.

Hence, the deafening silence, here.

 

[thehog]

The problem the cynics are having to wrestle is that Walsh is pretty unimpeachable.
His gradual "realisation" of Lance mirrors that of many on here.
His subsequent dealings and unrelenting pursuit of Mr Most Wanted,
makes the idea that he can now, suddenly be bought, look ludicrous.

Hence, the deafening silence, here.

I think people are waiting to read the actual article before making detailed comment.

Sounds prudent to me.

You're trying to drum up some drama citing that the Sky-cynics are stark raving mad and they all go quiet where's 3 tweets from Walsh.

You're also trying to connect dots between Lance and Sky. That link has already been well established by Wiggins himself. Despite him jumping on the "kick Lance whilst down" bandwagon thats going on now.

I want to read the article. You should read it as well before jumping to conclusions.

 

[badboygolf16v]

The problem the cynics are having to wrestle is that Walsh is pretty unimpeachable.
His gradual "realisation" of Lance mirrors that of many on here.
His subsequent dealings and unrelenting pursuit of Mr Most Wanted,
makes the idea that he can now, suddenly be bought, look ludicrous.

Hence, the deafening silence, here.

Let's see what Walsh's chat with Kimmage was about first shall we.

For reference Paul Kimmage was bigging up Bernhard Kohl. We all know what happened there.

For a Sky doping story to be written someone needs to speak on the record to a journalist about it. This isn't happening at the moment. One could infer that people are speaking to Mike Ashenden about these kind of things but they're not in a position to do so publicly.

 

[sniper]

David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST
Yesterday's meeting with Dave Brailsford? We spoke for 4 hours; he is bright, interesting and, I believe, committed to clean programme

Cat among the pigeons, although I await the cries of 'he's on Murdoch's payroll'

well yes, if his narrative stays like this, the only reasonable explanation is that he's on Murdoch's payroll. Walsh has suffered alot from his battle against Lance, and he knows he's lucky to have come out on top in the end. He's counting his blessings. He might not be as lucky a second time.

 

[thehog]

well yes, if his narrative stays like this, the only reasonable explanation is that he's on Murdoch's payroll. Walsh has suffered alot from his battle against Lance, and he knows he's lucky to have come out on top in the end. He's counting his blessings. He might not be as lucky a second time.

I don't think he's a on the payroll! Thats not Walsh's style at all and wholly unethical. Probably illegal since the Leveson inquiry.

Walsh is in a good place right now. He's not going to be accepting money for to say nice things about Sky.

He can only go on what he's told. If he has interviewed Kimmidge as well then he might have some alternate information re: other leaks from Sky. He may present these in the article to show balance.

I'm looking forward to the article. I like Walsh. I look forward in reading his take on Sky successes.

 

[JimmyFingers]

well yes, if his narrative stays like this, the only reasonable explanation is that he's on Murdoch's payroll. Walsh has suffered alot from his battle against Lance, and he knows he's lucky to have come out on top in the end. He's counting his blessings. He might not be as lucky a second time.

Murdoch doesn't interfere with the way the Sunday Times conducts itself, given it free reign to report as its editors see fit to preserve its reputation and standing supposedly. And I'm sure Walsh will tell things as he sees things, pulling no punches.

For once me and Hoggo are in accord: it will be an interesting article

 

[thehog]

Murdoch doesn't interfere with the way the Sunday Times conducts itself, given it free reign to report as its editors see fit to preserve its reputation and standing supposedly. And I'm sure Walsh will tell things as he sees things, pulling no punches.

For once me and Hoggo are in accord: it will be an interesting article

Walsh won't suffer fools lightly. If he thinks "BS" then he'll call it.

Of course he'll never know 100% but I think he's probably the best journalist at the moment to be asking the right questions sans Kimmidge.

I agree. I'm looking forward to a good article from Walsh and not a puff piece.

 

[Mellow Velo]

The problem the cynics are having to wrestle is that Walsh is pretty unimpeachable.
His gradual "realisation" of Lance mirrors that of many on here.
His subsequent dealings and unrelenting pursuit of Mr Most Wanted,
makes the idea that he can now, suddenly be bought, look ludicrous.

Hence, the deafening silence, here.

I think people are waiting to read the actual article before making detailed comment.

Sounds prudent to me.

You're trying to drum up some drama citing that the Sky-cynics are stark raving mad and they all go quiet where's 3 tweets from Walsh.

You're also trying to connect dots between Lance and Sky. That link has already been well established by Wiggins himself. Despite him jumping on the "kick Lance whilst down" bandwagon thats going on now.

I want to read the article. You should read it as well before jumping to conclusions.

I don't think he's a on the payroll! Thats not Walsh's style at all and wholly unethical. Probably illegal since the Leveson inquiry.

Walsh is in a good place right now. He's not going to be accepting money for to say nice things about Sky.

He can only go on what he's told. If he has interviewed Kimmidge as well then he might have some alternate information re: other leaks from Sky. He may present these in the article to show balance.

I'm looking forward to the article. I like Walsh. I look forward in reading his take on Sky successes.

Believe it on not, Hog it sounds like we are actually saying the same thing.
i.e. that DW is not for sale.

Other than that, all I'm saying is that it has silenced speculation for the time being. Just that the defensive shoe is on the other foot for a change.
No dot connecting between LA and Sky.

Everybody awaits the article.

 

[MatParker117]

I don't think he's a on the payroll! Thats not Walsh's style at all and wholly unethical. Probably illegal since the Leveson inquiry.

Walsh is in a good place right now. He's not going to be accepting money for to say nice things about Sky.

He can only go on what he's told. If he has interviewed Kimmidge as well then he might have some alternate information re: other leaks from Sky. He may present these in the article to show balance.

I'm looking forward to the article. I like Walsh. I look forward in reading his take on Sky successes.

There are very strict media impartiality laws here in the UK.

 

[thehog]

There are very strict media impartiality laws here in the UK.

Matt there's "stroking it" then there's "STROKING IT" !

British media is anything but impartial.

Let's be realistic.

 

[WinterRider]

There are very strict media impartiality laws here in the UK.

Ha, I just heard an interview last night extolling the fact that there are NO (count them 0) media laws in the UK. Their hope is that the remains the case after the fallout from the phone hacking scandal.

 

[BroDeal]

There are very strict media impartiality laws here in the UK.

This has to be one of the funniest things I have read today.

 

[JimmyFingers]

There are very strict media impartiality laws here in the UK.

I'm hoping this is supposed to be ironic

 

[del1962]

The British Media is certainly not impartial, but if a paper like the Daily Mail got a whiff of any wrongdoing (real or imagined) at sky, they would be putting the boot in, the Mail loves a conspiracy.

 

[martinvickers]

The British Media is certainly not impartial, but if a paper like the Daily Mail got a whiff of any wrongdoing (real or imagined) at sky, they would be putting the boot in, the Mail loves a conspiracy.

The mail got somewhat more than a whiff of one a while back. Wiggo will fill you in.

Lawyers at Mail stopped it dead in its tracks. Make of that what you will.

 

[MatParker117]

Confused broadcast news with print journalism my bad.

 

[thehog]

Confused broadcast news with print journalism my bad.

Sure you did Matt. Sure you did.

You should get Sky to issue a press statement that all media in Britain is protect by the marginal gains act of 1652

 

[MatParker117]

The mail got somewhat more than a whiff of one a while back. Wiggo will fill you in.

Lawyers at Mail stopped it dead in its tracks. Make of that what you will.

The Mail would of been dragged through the courts for Libel?

 

[martinvickers]

The Mail would of been dragged through the courts for Libel?

The Lawyers stopped it. That's what they are saying. Anything else is assumption on my part, though i doubt you're far from the truth.

Apparently the inside press term is "standing the story up", but I'm afraid that area of life remains a bit of a mystery to me. Thank god.

 

[sniper]

I don't think he's a on the payroll! Thats not Walsh's style at all and wholly unethical. Probably illegal since the Leveson inquiry.

Walsh is in a good place right now. He's not going to be accepting money for to say nice things about Sky.

He can only go on what he's told. If he has interviewed Kimmidge as well then he might have some alternate information re: other leaks from Sky. He may present these in the article to show balance.

I'm looking forward to the article. I like Walsh. I look forward in reading his take on Sky successes.

You're optimistic. I like that.
But what if Walsh is tired of fighting? Doesn't he have wife and kids to look after? Of course he'll continue to criticise Lance and the UCI clowns, but does he have the energy and nerves to pick a new fight, with Sky? I doubt it. Much to loose, little to gain.

But I don't really know, you may have a better gutfeeling here, and I surely hope the artilce will prove me wrong.

 

[Parker]

Apparently the inside press term is "standing the story up", but I'm afraid that area of life remains a bit of a mystery to me. Thank god.

Generally, it means they've only got one source. And that source isn't very reliable.

If all they have is person A said person B did this - then that's not printable and they'll get crushed in court. (That's why Coyle made sure he had a second source for everything Hamilton said or he left it out.)

 

[Darryl Webster]

"@DavidWalshST - The whole Leinders affair was shocking. He talked about it at length, pointed out his mistake and his willingness to explain was admirable."

And this is were Brailsfords credibility is, for me at least, in tatters. Leinders and another of there doctors pasts were very well known..and the past of at least two DS,s ( Yates being one) is equally common knowledge within the tight knit and small world of pro cycling.
Is Brailsford really claiming to be , like the proverbial mushroom, have been kept in the dark and fed bull $hat?....the very idea I find impossible to accept.

 

[martinvickers]

Generally, it means they've only got one source. And that source isn't very reliable.

If all they have is person A said person B did this - then that's not printable and they'll get crushed in court. (That's why Coyle made sure he had a second source for everything Hamilton said or he left it out.)

Figured as much. Surprised I was found out what I did, to be honest.

 

[Mellow Velo]

I fear that this article won't give a full and clear explanation of the Leinder's affair, and will be seen here as cover up, with Walsh as a willing participant, regardless of any possible reason.

 

[thehog]

I fear that this article won't give a full and clear explanation of the Leinder's affair, and will be seen here as cover up, with Walsh as a willing participant, regardless of any possible reason.

Yes I'm very sure that's what you fear and keeps you up at night!

Just imagine all the hungry children in the world if Walsh participates in a cover-up with Brailsford. Who can we turn to then? Who can we trust if not David Walsh?

Who can save Sky? They're just trying to be open and honest but David Walsh might not do his job properly and make them look bad in front of the children.

Please stop the overacting. You're like a art version of a Police Academy movie!