Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[martinvickers]

Hoped he asked Wiggins why he hates Kimmage.

Why, is it any great secret?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It is much safer to have a person who has stated his belief in your team like Walsh rather than a relatively loose cannon like Kimmage. After all the PR blunders I would imagine that Brailsford would be treading carefully atm.

Really - so Sky only invite people who "state belief" rather than allow someone do their job and publish what they observe?
Do you want to take a walk or go for a ride before you post again?!

 

[martinvickers]

So why are they happy to have Walsh within the team now (which is admirable nonetheless) but barred Kimmage the access he wanted? What's changed?

Brailsford was always happy to have Kimmage in the team, at least back when he invited him. It was Wiggins had the problem. And it's pretty clear the problem is specifically with Kimmage, not journo's per se.

It's pretty bloody clear they dislike each other, and the only question really is why, and for how long. They've both dropped hints, but that there is a personal issue between the two is crystal.

 

[cineteq]

But this isnt some ligget like journo who kissed lances **** for 10 years and thinks hisself above penance. Its 1 of the few who showed real integrity. One can disagree without calling him a sellout.

The guy still have my upmost respect for what he's done to help catch LA. But something it's not right, and I sense he has some kind of hidden agenda with Sky. Btw, I haven't called him a sell out just yet.

 

[martinvickers]

He sounds like a sell out, an enabler in the making - I hope I'm wrong.

Walsh has done more for clean cycling than anyone in this forum will ever do. Your comment is beyond parody.

 

[martinvickers]

Do you see Kimmage getting an invitation too?

I doubt it very much. I think Froome19 is wrong.

The question asked was "what's changed?"

The answers simple. The identity of the journo. Whatever is going on between Wiggins and Kimmage, it's nasty, and its personal. Since Walsh isn't Kimmage, issue simply doesn't arise in the same way.

 

[The Hitch]

Walsh has done more for clean cycling than anyone in this forum will ever do. Your comment is beyond parody.

Not even jv1973 ?

 

[martinvickers]

You really didn't mean to write that did you?
Because it reads like Davey boy only invites someone who is not cynical.

If DB was being sincere surely that is the person you invite.

But did you really meant to write that, Dr, because that's revealing in itself.

Because the sensible position to take is to sceptical, not cynical.

Scepticism can be countered with evidence. Cycnicism can't.

So no, you absolutely don't invite the cynic, you invite the sceptic. It sounds a bit pedantic, but it is an important difference

The reality is while its good that they have invited Walsh really it's too little too late - not necessarily their own fault but it sounds like damage limitation then genuine openness.

I suspect its both, DR, and I also suspect you are right about TLTL.

It should also be acknowledged just how deep the problem, whether perceived or real that the sport is now in that it requires journalists to be part of teams.

Amen, reverend, to that.

 

[martinvickers]

Not even jv1973 ?

Yes, without hesitation.

JV is redeeming past mistakes. walsh never polluted the sport in the first place, so he starts off several metres ahead.

And I say that having a lot of time for JV.

 

[cineteq]

Walsh has done more for clean cycling than anyone in this forum will ever do.

What I said and what you said, are not mutually exclusive, as I stated in my previous post.

 

[hrotha]

Walsh has done more for clean cycling than anyone in this forum will ever do. Your comment is beyond parody.

Walsh is fallible. While I respect him immensely, I'm a bit wary about his instance towards Sky too.

 

[martinvickers]

What I said and what you said, are not mutually exclusive, as I stated in my previous post.

Fair enough, I suppose.

 

[martinvickers]

Walsh is fallible. While I respect him immensely, I'm a bit wary about his instance towards Sky too.

Of course Walsh is fallible, as is Kimmage, as are we all. But fallibility is not measured on a "favourability to TeamSky scale" - that's just silly, frankly.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But did you really meant to write that, Dr, because that's revealing in itself.

Because the sensible position to take is to sceptical, not cynical.

Scepticism can be countered with evidence. Cycnicism can't.

So no, you absolutely don't invite the cynic, you invite the sceptic. It sounds a bit pedantic, but it is an important difference


I suspect its both, DR, and I also suspect you are right about TLTL.


Amen, reverend, to that.

I look at Walsh as the sceptic and Kimmage as the cynic.
Surely both should be appeased?

What's often overlooked is that both PK & DW are journalists, their job is to ask questions and write the responses given. They are not judge & jury, nor do I want them to be. They write it, we form opinions on the information they provide.
But Paul has been there, he would know more than anyone on what is real and what's BS.

 

[Caruut]

Good move by Sky, I think. As ever, it's just not quite as good as it could be, really. Why invite Walsh and not Kimmage?

Just feel like I should be glad that they're doing this but it could so easily be so much better. For a start Walsh is, to a degree, affiliated with Team Sky through the Murdoch connection. As somebody stated upthread, even if he isn't a sellout (I don't think he is), his editors easily could be.

Then the idea of "faith". Even the word itself starts ringing alarm bells - to me it's almost saying belief despite a lack of sufficient evidence. The worry is that for someone who does have "faith in Sky", you have an emotional investment as a fan and lack the objectivity needed to ask the uncomfortable questions and draw the awkward conclusions.

It feels like preaching to the choir a bit - they are trying to convince a man who wants to be convinced. Kimmage has the advantage of being outside of the same corporate sphere of influence and I don't think he is a fan of the team. Still, Walsh is better than no Walsh and it's hard to know what to think until we read exactly what happened.

 

[shades1]

i think sky having david come and stay at the training camp is obviously a very big move to convince the masses that all is above board . i just hope he will get this opportunity deeper in the season when the riders should be coming into peak fitness for the high profile races rather than a light january training regime .

i believe they are clean but the more they dominate the more questions will get asked .

 

[coinneach]

i think sky having david come and stay at the training camp is obviously a very big move to convince the masses that all is above board . i just hope he will get this opportunity deeper in the season when the riders should be coming into peak fitness for the high profile races rather than a light january training regime .

i believe they are clean but the more they dominate the more questions will get asked .

It won't convince everyone on this forum, though....too much belief, not enough open-mindedness (on both sides)

 

[Ferminal]

Why would someone invited to look at a clean team convince anyone (who does not already believe that to be the case) that said team is a clean team team?

 

[Rambo1970]

It depend who the person is. If Walsh maybe some credible. If Ligget maybe no.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Good move by Sky, I think. As ever, it's just not quite as good as it could be, really. Why invite Walsh and not Kimmage?

Just feel like I should be glad that they're doing this but it could so easily be so much better. For a start Walsh is, to a degree, affiliated with Team Sky through the Murdoch connection. As somebody stated upthread, even if he isn't a sellout (I don't think he is), his editors easily could be.

Then the idea of "faith". Even the word itself starts ringing alarm bells - to me it's almost saying belief despite a lack of sufficient evidence. The worry is that for someone who does have "faith in Sky", you have an emotional investment as a fan and lack the objectivity needed to ask the uncomfortable questions and draw the awkward conclusions.

It feels like preaching to the choir a bit - they are trying to convince a man who wants to be convinced. Kimmage has the advantage of being outside of the same corporate sphere of influence and I don't think he is a fan of the team. Still, Walsh is better than no Walsh and it's hard to know what to think until we read exactly what happened.

Quite:
Bottom line is that they have invited in, one of the best men for the job.
Kimmage has the greater "insider" knowledge, but Walsh has better investigative skills.
He may not be considered by some here, to be the very best, but they don't get to choose.

 

[martinvickers]

I look at Walsh as the sceptic and Kimmage as the cynic.
Surely both should be appeased?

Honestly? no. Neither should be 'appeased' exactly . But you should engage the sceptic. Scepticism is healthy. Cynicism is entirely understandable, especially given the crap Paul has been through, but it's not healthy.

So for myself, yes I'd invite Walsh and leave it at that. Especially given the last few onths, Paul's attitiude to Sky has moved to all-but-accusation.

And if we were absolutly honest? David's a better investigative journalist than Paul, in my view. He's more likely to 'find' stuff. Rough ride was a seminal book, by an insider, that blew the place apart. But Walsh's work since then has been far more forensic. Paul is more a polemicist. We need both, but Walsh is arguably better placed if an 'investigative' job is needed.

What's often overlooked is that both PK & DW are journalists, their job is to ask questions and write the responses given. They are not judge & jury, nor do I want them to be. They write it, we form opinions on the information they provide.
But Paul has been there, he would know more than anyone on what is real and what's BS.

As set out above, I don't agree. Paul is honest, incorruptible, intelligent and cycnical. All very attractive traits. But what he does is not the same as what David does - and I would argue right now we need what David does (LA confidential style stuff)

 

[SundayRider]

i think sky having david come and stay at the training camp is obviously a very big move to convince the masses that all is above board . i just hope he will get this opportunity deeper in the season when the riders should be coming into peak fitness for the high profile races rather than a light january training regime .

i believe they are clean but the more they dominate the more questions will get asked .

why do you believe they are clean? Wanting to them to be clean? Believing what they have said? Or some other reason?

 

[SundayRider]

Honestly? no. Neither should be 'appeased' exactly . But you should engage the sceptic. Scepticism is healthy. Cynicism is entirely understandable, especially given the crap Paul has been through, but it's not healthy.

So for myself, yes I'd invite Walsh and leave it at that. Especially given the last few onths, Paul's attitiude to Sky has moved to all-but-accusation.

And if we were absolutly honest? David's a better investigative journalist than Paul, in my view. He's more likely to 'find' stuff. Rough ride was a seminal book, by an insider, that blew the place apart. But Walsh's work since then has been far more forensic. Paul is more a polemicist. We need both, but Walsh is arguably better placed if an 'investigative' job is needed.



As set out above, I don't agree. Paul is honest, incorruptible, intelligent and cycnical. All very attractive traits. But what he does is not the same as what David does - and I would argue right now we need what David does (LA confidential style stuff)

Big difference between DW and PK IMO, DW had a massive vendetta/obsession (call it whatever you like) against Armstrong and pretty much Armstrong alone. Whereas Kimmage just wants cleaner cycling and isn't afraid to ask the right questions even if those he needs to question are British and cleaning to be clean as a whistle.

 

[Mellow Velo]

The article in question:

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto...e?shareToken=ccea51abc589211e28ad23ea10f8b076

 

[veganrob]

Big difference between DW and PK IMO, DW had a massive vendetta/obsession (call it whatever you like) against Armstrong and pretty much Armstrong alone. Whereas Kimmage just wants cleaner cycling and isn't afraid to ask the right questions even if those he needs to question are British and cleaning to be clean as a whistle.

I think you put that very well. Walsh seems to have done a bit of an about face in shifting his interest from Lance to Sky. He is acting more of a journalist/fan than truly trying to investigate the situation.
PK I think is mislabeled by some comments here. I don't see him as a cynic at all but as more as a sceptic. As well he has a right to. As you said, he is not afraid to ask the tough questions that some appear to be uncomfortable with.