Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[ChewbaccaD]

 

[airstream]

How do you think on whether Sky has an extra doping plan for Giro and what chances the opponents have in this case? Zero?

 

[rhubroma]

Very interesting post. I was at CW during the 1960s. I was an apprentice. I attended the London College of Journalism. My in-depth feature (similar to a dissertation now) was entitled "Drugs in Sport". It included interviews with athletes and cyclists. The word "omerta" was not known to us. The work I did on my dissertation did not ignore doping.

Happily: the poster has proved my point. There are posters here who point fingers, make direct accusations and come to some amazing conclusions without any knowledge. Benotti has made a load of accusations about me without any knowledge whatsoever. Therefore he is incorrect.

It's not about what you think about British cycling, journalistically speaking, because nobody voluntarily admits to doping. In less ingenuous environments doping is a general praxis that has long since been recognized among the Continental public, even if sports journalism has a different interest in its reporting. For decades doping was a "story," now it has become "the story" (after everybody already knew about it) and this has now reluctantly become the great journalistic crusade.

Chemistry and sport go hand and hand and it was already beginning to be the case back in the 60's.

 

[Trudgin]

I am enjoying reading the comments regarding David Walsh, Wiggins, Sky and Dowsett.

Very amusing..

If you’ve seen anything I've said here regarding Walsh and Sky then you know where my thoughts lie.

But, the comments regarding Dowsett were uncalled for and completely unnecessary. Walsh could have praised the boy on his victory and left it at that.. But no, he had to point out how he had made mistakes in the past, all because it suits his current position. It also reminds folk that he was the one, the only one who could see what a lying sack of s#@t Armstrong was!

His ultimate claim to fame.

Without whom he would be writing for the Daily Fail.

While at the same time ignoring the same thing happened with the guy he is currently worshiping openly.

 

[thehog]

I am enjoying reading the comments regarding David Walsh, Wiggins, Sky and Dowsett.

Very amusing..

If you’ve seen anything I've said here regarding Walsh and Sky then you know where my thoughts lie.

But, the comments regarding Dowsett were uncalled for and completely unnecessary. Walsh could have praised the boy on his victory and left it at that.. But no, he had to point out how he had made mistakes in the past, all because it suits his current position. It also reminds folk that he was the one, the only one who could see what a lying sack of s#@t Armstrong was!

His ultimate claim to fame.

Without whom he would be writing for the Daily Fail.

While at the same time ignoring the same thing happened with the guy he is currently worshiping openly.

To be fair on Dowsett Armstrong’s feeder team gave him the start in cycling. Makes sense that he likes him. The guy is also young and was probably caught in the whole Livestrong thing. Wiggins knew better and his Garmin friends told him the game but he still loved Lance. But that is forgotten.

At the time around the USADA charges the status quo was to say that Armstrong was bad for doping and but good for charity work.

One should forgot not that Thomas was saying similar in regards to Armstrong.

"Back in the day it wasn't a very good sport on that front, but in the last decade or so it has improved massively and I think it is moving in the right direction.

"But [Armstrong] is such an iconic figure in cycling that whenever he gets dragged through the mud the whole of the sport does.

"He has had numerous allegations thrown at him through the years but hopefully he hasn't done anything wrong. Hopefully people can let it go."

 

[workingclasshero]

But, the comments regarding Dowsett were uncalled for and completely unnecessary. Walsh could have praised the boy on his victory and left it at that.. But no, he had to point out how he had made mistakes in the past, all because it suits his current position.

While at the same time ignoring the same thing happened with the guy he is currently worshiping openly.

disagree on it being uncalled for, we should always remember the past. If not people could walk around murdering people, saying sorry and everyone would just go "oh its in the past, get over it, dont judge him for it"

but i couldn't agree more on the last paragraph.

 

[gooner]

I am enjoying reading the comments regarding David Walsh, Wiggins, Sky and Dowsett.

Very amusing..

If you’ve seen anything I've said here regarding Walsh and Sky then you know where my thoughts lie.

But, the comments regarding Dowsett were uncalled for and completely unnecessary. Walsh could have praised the boy on his victory and left it at that.. But no, he had to point out how he had made mistakes in the past, all because it suits his current position. It also reminds folk that he was the one, the only one who could see what a lying sack of s#@t Armstrong was!

His ultimate claim to fame.

Without whom he would be writing for the Daily Fail.

While at the same time ignoring the same thing happened with the guy he is currently worshiping openly.

He didn't ignore it about Wiggins. Read the recent piece where he mentioned that Wiggins stood up for Lance and went on to ask him about his comments on Landis from back then. The quotes from Wiggins's answer were put out there and it was up to the reader to make up their mind and interpret if it was satisfactory. I don't remember exactly seeing a lot of journalists asking Wiggins about the comments on Landis over the last couple of years and when Walsh does, it's still not happy for some. The same thing was done with Dowsett. First mentioning his defense of Lance while also then saying he backtracked on them at a later stage as well as saying he rode for Sky before moving to Movistar. Again, up to the reader to interpret this after been giving the whole picture from his initial stance to the one he currently holds now.

And another thing, if you think Walsh is doing this to give himself a pat on the back to suit his current position, you obviously don't know the man considering his past work on Smith, Roche and being on Sky Sports News defending The Sunday Times investigative reporting into FIFA corruption and who were ridiculously accused of more or less self-sabotaging England's hopes of hosting the World Cup in 2018. Even if Lance never existed, Walsh would still be known to be a reporter who has covered doping and corruption in sport. Don't forget Walsh also has reported on athletics as well and I see comments being thrown around now calling the man a "sellout". Ridculous comment with no basis for it. All his tweets and reporting are done from his interviews and experiences from being around Sky at the moment and considering most of his readers and followers are of UK nationality, he is more in conversation with them when saying all of this. Remember this is what many in the clinic wanted and you can't complain now when a respected journalist is allowed around the environment.

 

[Ripper]

I am enjoying reading the comments regarding David Walsh, Wiggins, Sky and Dowsett.

Very amusing..

If you’ve seen anything I've said here regarding Walsh and Sky then you know where my thoughts lie.

But, the comments regarding Dowsett were uncalled for and completely unnecessary. Walsh could have praised the boy on his victory and left it at that.. But no, he had to point out how he had made mistakes in the past, all because it suits his current position. It also reminds folk that he was the one, the only one who could see what a lying sack of s#@t Armstrong was!

His ultimate claim to fame.

Without whom he would be writing for the Daily Fail.

While at the same time ignoring the same thing happened with the guy he is currently worshiping openly.

Good points ... well said.

 

[hrotha]

He didn't ignore it about Wiggins. Read the recent piece where he mentioned that Wiggins stood up for Lance and went on to ask him about his comments on Landis from back then.

He didn't ask any follow-up questions, some of which should have been pretty obvious to anyone who has followed the story. He was a mouthpiece.

I see comments being thrown around now calling the man a "sellout". Ridculous comment with no basis for it.

Of course there's basis for the sellout comments. You're allowed to disagree, but you don't get to dismiss those comments so easily.

Personally, with the info currently available to me, I feel perfectly justified to say this again: Walsh is a sellout.

 

[mattghg]

Walsh

Even if Lance never existed, Walsh would still be known to be a reporter who has covered doping and corruption in sport.

This

Just because he's running Sky PR on their racing doesn't mean he's going to actively lie or misreport things in other areas.

This too.

Fine, you may think that Walsh is wrong and/or hasn't asked the right questions (yet). But for some people it's not enough for him to be mistaken - he also has to be corrupt. Bizarre considering his journalistic palmares.

 

[The Hitch]

To be fair on Dowsett Armstrong’s feeder team gave him the start in cycling. Makes sense that he likes him. The guy is also young and was probably caught in the whole Livestrong thing. Wiggins knew better and his Garmin friends told him the game but he still loved Lance. But that is forgotten.

At the time around the USADA charges the status quo was to say that Armstrong was bad for doping and but good for charity work.

One should forgot not that Thomas was saying similar in regards to Armstrong.

Thomas also said when the USADA investigation was announced that they should just leave lance alone.

I await Walsh's article on thomas when G wins a stage.

 

[gooner]

He didn't ask any follow-up questions, some of which should have been pretty obvious to anyone who has followed the story. He was a mouthpiece.

Of course there's basis for the sellout comments. You're allowed to disagree, but you don't get to dismiss those comments so easily.

Personally, with the info currently available to me, I feel perfectly justified to say this again: Walsh is a sellout.

And from the info I currently have, I feel justified to say he's not a sellout. If Walsh was a mouthpiece, he wouldn't have asked about Wiggins's defence of Lance or his comments on Landis. That's the last thing you do if you're a mouthpiece for someone. A mouthpiece paints someone in a good light and panders to someone but by asking that, it most certainly did not in this case. The easier thing to do in that case if he was some sort of mouthpiece was to have the report entirely on the Giro and not initially bring up all this in the first place.

I am sure Walsh is asking the right questions away from and behind the scenes at Sky, like he did with Julich and he's coming up emptied handed. He can't be blamed for that. He has covered the Leinders story where he said it was a disaster for Sky. Sky have removed anyone who disclosed their previous doping from the team. Whether you like it or not, nothing new of note has come up since then to investigate and report accordingly and if it was to, I see no reason why Walsh wouldn't be all over it. He can only go on what he has. A sellout suggests he is going against everything he stands for, and unless people have something that suggests Walsh is turning a blind eye to things untoward, then "sellout" is the last word I would use for a journalist as esteemed as him.

 

[The Hitch]

And from the info I currently have, I feel justified to say he's not a sellout. If Walsh was a mouthpiece, he wouldn't have asked about Wiggins's defence of Lance or his comments on Landis. That's the last thing you do if you're a mouthpiece for someone. A mouthpiece paints someone in a good light and panders to someone but by asking that, it most certainly did not in this case. The easier thing to do in that case if he was some sort of mouthpiece was to have the report entirely on the Giro and not initially bring up all this in the first place.

I am sure Walsh is asking the right questions away from and behind the scenes at Sky, like he did with Julich and he's coming up emptied handed. He can't be blamed for that. He has covered the Leinders story where he said it was a disaster for Sky. Sky have removed anyone who disclosed their previous doping from the team. Whether you like it or not, nothing new of note has come up since then to investigate and report accordingly and if it was to, I see no reason why Walsh wouldn't be all over it. He can only go on what he has. A sellout suggests he is going against everything he stands for, and unless people have something that suggests Walsh is turning a blind eye to things untoward, then "sellout" is the last word I would use for a journalist as esteemed as him.

The way Walsh asked wiggins about lance is the same as the way the guardian asked ligget about lance.

Or for that matter the way the Spanish press ask Contador about doping.

Like Ligget and Contador, wiggins' answer was BS.

 

[blackcat]

And from the info I currently have, I feel justified to say he's not a sellout. If Walsh was a mouthpiece, he wouldn't have asked about Wiggins's defence of Lance or his comments on Landis. That's the last thing you do if you're a mouthpiece for someone. A mouthpiece paints someone in a good light and panders to someone but by asking that, it most certainly did not in this case.

in politics they call it a dorothy dixer. it was the elephant in the room, and if it was not asked, that came with a subtext.

by offering him an out, they could conveniently tell the fanboi's that all was well in denmark.

its a farking disgrace with the way that the finger was pointed at armstrong. it is manifest hypocrisy like you will never see

 

[badboygolf16v]

The way Walsh asked wiggins about lance is the same as the way the guardian asked ligget about lance.

Or for that matter the way the Spanish press ask Contador about doping.

Like Ligget and Contador, wiggins' answer was BS.

There is no proof of anything untoward at Team Sky. No discarded Actovegin, no backdated TUE, no whistle-blowing soigneur. Nothing.

Whilst the circumstantial evidence is compelling, there is nothing to write a story about that would stand up to Sky's libel QCs of choice.

Accusing David Walsh of being a sell out is not the correct assessment of the situation in my opinion.

As gooner says, I'm sure that all avenues are being explored.

Mike Ashenden clearly knows someone who knows something as evidenced by his article last year. Why this hasn't led to anything emerging into the public domain God only knows.

 

[blackcat]

how about the fraud of going into the hq of amaury sport and getting them to tailor a race route to suit the strengths of sky and wiggins?

how about that circumstantial evidence?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

He didn't ask any follow-up questions, some of which should have been pretty obvious to anyone who has followed the story. He was a mouthpiece.

He asked him to explain his comments - what "obvious" follow up questions should have been asked?

Of course there's basis for the sellout comments. You're allowed to disagree, but you don't get to dismiss those comments so easily.

Personally, with the info currently available to me, I feel perfectly justified to say this again: Walsh is a sellout.

And you're allowed to say he is a "sellout" - but all you do is make comments, so that's easy to dismiss - why not share the 'information' that you have and let others decide?

 

[hrotha]

The Hitch and blackcat explained it well.

And no chance in hell I'm falling into the vortex, thank you.

 

[del1962]

how about the fraud of going into the hq of amaury sport and getting them to tailor a race route to suit the strengths of sky and wiggins?

how about that circumstantial evidence?

I have to laugh at this taillor made stuff, if the TDF routes now where similar to the early eighties they would all be tailored for Wiggo

 

[DirtyWorks]

It's not about what you think about British cycling, journalistically speaking, because nobody voluntarily admits to doping.

Just a reminder there is no line between British Cycling, the rules enforcement organization, and the UCI professional cycling team Sky. The organization that is supposed to enforce rules is secondary to the goals of Team Sky. Remarkably similar to the relationship between USA Cycling, and Tailwind/USPS.

In that environment, is there any possibility that BC would enforce a positive, if they even bothered testing Sky?

 

[badboygolf16v]

how about the fraud of going into the hq of amaury sport and getting them to tailor a race route to suit the strengths of sky and wiggins?

how about that circumstantial evidence?

Like I said. The circumstancial evidence is compelling.

"Where's the beef?"

 

[DirtyWorks]

There is no proof of anything untoward at Team Sky. No discarded Actovegin, no backdated TUE, no whistle-blowing soigneur. Nothing.

We had all that corroborating evidence and that did nothing. Armstrong loyalists would declare these "no proof" and offer implausible what-ifs. Kind of like this thread.

Mike Ashenden clearly knows someone who knows something as evidenced by his article last year. Why this hasn't led to anything emerging into the public domain God only knows.

It's a different, more closed environment now. Everyone involved with Sky seems to have moved on and stayed in cycling. I think things might change if one of the insiders has some hard luck, or gets abandoned by the sport despite supporting the doping. Kind of like a Landis situation. Until then, or when the statute of limitations kick-in for the doping and managers at Sky have angered former employees, we won't know.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The Hitch and blackcat explained it well.

And no chance in hell I'm falling into the vortex, thank you.

You're already in the vortex, when people have poor arguments I allow them play for free.

I would have put you as one of the more reasoned voices here, so quite frankly I don't understand why you don't back up your view and why you feel the need to ignore it with personal comments.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

No I think the reason behind the thread not having a large amount of posts is because there are limited Astana fans, but primarily because they can not match the stage racing success which Sky have managed to attain in the recent past.

Like a movie we have seen large number of fans who believe.

 

[badboygolf16v]

We had all that corroborating evidence and that did nothing. Armstrong loyalists would declare these "no proof" and offer implausible what-ifs. Kind of like this thread.

Until such proof is available cycling hacks of all persuasions from Wilcockson to Kimmage aren't going to be able to publish anything, whether they would be inclined to or not.