Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[blackcat]

Oh, please teach me - but remember, I wasnt talking about Wiggins (his only consistencey is that he inconsistent) but i was responding to your comment about Walsh:
"Again nothing in there where Walsh....".

Which was wrong.

i think the "i love lance" is an attempt at hypoocritical rigour.

bear with me on this.
he sought to maintain the party line, and not start to move on larmstrong before it was unavoidable to engage in bus-throw-undery.

wiggins had a rational, sober, version of truth to toe the party line.

that is what the soundbite i luv lance was. if you read it as quoted and no context, you will be found wonting as to the real meaning.

 

[gooner]

Again nothing in there where Walsh asks him why he loved Lance. Or Walsh making a statement like: “Bradley Wiggins who wants stated he loved Lance Armstrong….” rather he glosses over that and puts the boots into a 24 year old who got his start in cycling on Armstrong’s feeder team!

And yes. Who is this mob? From memory only Millar, Wiggins and Boogard said something about Landis.

First of all Walsh isn't glossing over anything. The article I quoted from was The Sunday Times article bout Wiggins on the eve of the Giro and not the one he did yesterday on Dowsett. Two different pieces. With Dowsett he spoke about his defence of Lance and then said he changed position on all this at a later stage while saying he was at Sky last year. The Wiggins piece was done by first referring to his comments on Landis and defence of Armstrong. If Walsh was blinded by love, he could have easily ignored this topic and he knew from the answer that Wiggins gave, it was going to be jumped upon by critics. He's no fool, so a mouthpiece or sellout wouldn't put it to print if he was indeed that.

As for the mob comment, he's probably adding in McQuaid and Verbruggen and generalising riders in with them. Mob does make it out there is actually more than what there is but nevertheless it shows he takes issue with what was said about Landis and if he was glossing over it, he wouldn't have referred to Wiggins comment's at that time in that terminology. He would have just ignored the topic full stop.

Wiggins was defending Lance pure and simple. Walsh knows it as well.

Of course Walsh knows it. Didn't you just read The Sunday Times extract where he said Wiggins was defending Lance at the time.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Gee, it's almost as if there was an obvious follow-up question there that Walsh neglected to ask!

Here is an obvious follow up question for you -what is the question and how do you know Walsh neglected to ask it?

 

[hrotha]

You mean like why he didn't just keep silent?

Very obvious follow-up question.

Like that, yes. Or whether he knew the whole story at the time (he did). And why he should have any credibility now when we know he was lying back then.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Oh Vortex. Please stop trying to Vortex me.

I have a vortex shield.

The vortex is where I ask a question and people do anything but answer it, just like you did there.

This is a vortex free zone.

Most of your posts are as solid as a trailer park, a gust of wind would knock them over.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Gee, it's almost as if there was an obvious follow-up question there that Walsh neglected to ask!

You mean like why he didn't just keep silent?

Very obvious follow-up question.

Like that, yes. Or whether he knew the whole story at the time (he did). And why he should have any credibility now when we know he was lying back then.

No need to ask that as a follow up when it was addressed in the preceding paragraph:

Wiggins, who could have stayed clear of the debate, chose instead to run with the mob that attacked Landis, questioning the former Postal rider’s mental state and suggesting that only a crazed man would say the things Landis was saying. For someone watching from a distance, the obvious question was why would Wiggins, who most people considered clean, defend a cheat such as Armstrong?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

As I understand it, after the frst team meeting Dowsett had to convince Movistar management to let take a TT bike home, so he could train on it. Rather than just his normal road bike.

I think a few folk were making too much of the comment. I can't remember who said it, but one poster up thread concluded that the comment meant that no teams ever train on TT bikes and another questioning how Moveistar won anything before Dowsett taught them about marginal gains. I'm glad these folk aren't in the police - the jails would be getting very full very quickly with those deductive powers!

 

[hrotha]

No need to ask that as a follow up when it was addressed in the preceding paragraph:

No, that's where he went with the mob mentality thing and the "Landis was crazy" thing. Walsh didn't press him about the difference between "not attacking Armstrong" and "defending and publicly praising Armstrong", which is a very obvious difference that was pointed out here countless times.

 

[thehog]

First of all Walsh isn't glossing over anything. The article I quoted from was The Sunday Times article bout Wiggins on the eve of the Giro and not the one he did yesterday on Dowsett. Two different pieces. With Dowsett he spoke about his defence of Lance and then said he changed position on all this at a later stage while saying he was at Sky last year. The Wiggins piece was done by first referring to his comments on Landis and defence of Armstrong. If Walsh was blinded by love, he could have easily ignored this topic and he knew from the answer that Wiggins gave, it was going to be jumped upon by critics. He's no fool, so a mouthpiece or sellout wouldn't put it to print if he was indeed that.

As for the mob comment, he's probably adding in McQuaid and Verbruggen and generalising riders in with them. Mob does make it out there is actually more than what there is but nevertheless it shows he takes issue with what was said about Landis and if he was glossing over it, he wouldn't have referred to Wiggins comment's at that time in that terminology.


Of course Walsh knows it. Didn't you just read The Sunday Times extract where he said Wiggins was defending Lance at the time.

You still missed it.

Wiggins in the ST article stated the Landis comments were “throwaway” out the front of the team bus at the Tour where he was under pressure.

Program being. They weren’t made under pressure nor at the Tour. They were made in January 2011 and he offered them up.

Walsh should have picked this up. But that’s ok Walsh is just writing nice short stories on team Sky. Which makes the Dowsett story very unfair.

But anyway. Who gives a sh**. Walsh is in semi-retirement mode. I don’t blame him for cashing in. Armstrong didn’t pay for 10 years. Now is the time for Walsh to get some of it back.

 

[gooner]

You still missed it.

Wiggins in the ST article stated the Landis comments were “throwaway” out the front of the team bus at the Tour where he was under pressure.

Program being. They weren’t made under pressure nor at the Tour. They were made in January 2011 and he offered them up.

Walsh should have picked this up. But that’s ok Walsh is just writing nice short stories on team Sky. Which makes the Dowsett story very unfair.

But anyway. Who gives a sh**. Walsh is in semi-retirement mode. I don’t blame him for cashing in. Armstrong didn’t pay for 10 years. Now is the time for Walsh to get some of it back.

I have missed nothing. You said Walsh knows deep down that Wiggins was defending Lance as if Walsh was ignoring that very fact in the article. That has proved to be wrong on your part when it was pointed out that Walsh said that very thing that Wiggins defended Lance.

 

[Netserk]

No, that's where he went with the mob mentality thing and the "Landis was crazy" thing. Walsh didn't press him about the difference between "not attacking Armstrong" and "defending and publicly praising Armstrong", which is a very obvious difference that was pointed out here countless times.

Indeed it's not addressing it. Addressing it would be to ask it directly to Wiggo. Which he didn't.

 

[Granville57]

As regards Wiggins - he lay into Landis when he knew full well what the truth was. He could have said nothing if he really was afraid of lance.

Precisely. Wiggo could've made obscure statements about how he never rode on Lance's team, therefore he wasn't in a position to make statements about what may or may not have taken place on that team. Instead he chose to regurgitate the "most tested" line of BS.

Fast forward, and he takes the cowardly tack of blaming his Flandis comments on what Michael Barry and others had been saying. FFS, that was pathetic.

 

[thehog]

I have missed nothing. You said Walsh knows deep down that Wiggins was defending Lance as if Walsh was ignoring that very fact in the article. That has proved to be wrong on your part when it was pointed out that Walsh said that very thing that Wiggins defended Lance.

Get back to me when the penny drops.

You're Vortexing.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, that's where he went with the mob mentality thing and the "Landis was crazy" thing. Walsh didn't press him about the difference between "not attacking Armstrong" and "defending and publicly praising Armstrong", which is a very obvious difference that was pointed out here countless times.

One more time:
"For someone watching from a distance, the obvious question was why would Wiggins, who most people considered clean, defend a cheat such as Armstrong?"

 

[gooner]

No, that's where he went with the mob mentality thing and the "Landis was crazy" thing. Walsh didn't press him about the difference between "not attacking Armstrong" and "defending and publicly praising Armstrong", which is a very obvious difference that was pointed out here countless times.

But you accused him of being a sellout and mouthpiece. If he was, he would have ignored the topic in the first place. Walsh left the answer Wiggins gave open to the reader to accept or pour scorn at. And the answer was giving after first disclosing Wiggins's initial support of Lance and criticism of Floyd.

Whatever way you dress it up, a mouthpiece or sellout wouldn't have brought this issue up in the first place and certainly wouldn't have printed the answer giving on this all as it paints Wiggins in even more poor light. And this is why I think your argument on calling Walsh a sellout and mouthpiece doesn't stand up.

Just a question for yourself.

Would you in Walsh's shoes(as you see him as a sellout), bring up this topic in the first place and print the answer that was in response to the question?

My own answer is that this would be last topic to bring up in a conversation and take it to print in this case.

 

[The Hitch]

So are Walsh and Dowsett lying about Dowsett having to ask Moveistar to be able to train on his TT bike?

Maybe not, though its certainly extremely bizzare that Dowsett would have to ask for something like that, but the point is Dowsett's point has been exagerated (maybe not in this case but in others) to make it look like Sky are the only team in the world that does it.

Backsted was talking 3 years ago about how in the mid 2000's he would do an 3 hours on a road bike then go home and take out the tt bike for an hour. So if what Dowsett says is true, Movistar are decades behind everyone.

 

[gooner]

Fast forward, and he takes the cowardly tack of blaming his Flandis comments on what Michael Barry and others had been saying. FFS, that was pathetic.

And that's the purpose in this section of the article. You took Wiggins's response in that context and Walsh is no fool and would have seen many people would have thought along those lines at what he said. But we hear that Walsh is now doing PR. Come on, this is the last thing you would do if you were some PR representative of Wiggins.

 

[The Hitch]

As for the mob comment, he's probably adding in McQuaid and Verbruggen and generalising riders in with them.
.

Mcquaid - in on it
Verbrugen - in on it/ masterminded the whole thing
Ligget - in on it
David Millar - doper.
Boogerd - doper
Brunyeel - in on it, doper, doping supplier, mastermind
Lance - in on it, doper, doping suplier, mastermind

bradley wiggins- clean?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And that's the purpose in this section of the article. You took Wiggins's response in that context and Walsh is no fool and would have seen many people would have thought along those lines at what he said. But we hear that Walsh is now doing PR. Come on, this is the last thing you would do if you were some PR representative of Wiggins.

Bingo.
In the Wiggins piece Walsh writes down Wiggins comments about how he could or would never dope - then puts in the 'hold on, explain this' part.

Does Wiggins look well in the piece? Up for people to make their own mind, but IMO, no.

 

[hrotha]

But you accused him of being a sellout and mouthpiece. If he was, he would have ignored the topic in the first place. Walsh left the answer Wiggins gave open to the reader to accept or pour scorn at. And the answer was giving after first disclosing Wiggins's initial support of Lance and criticism of Floyd.

That's already been addressed by blackcat. The Dorothy Dixer thing.

And when you know you've been given a BS answer, I think journalistic integrity demands you press for a clarification and call the guy out.

Would you in Walsh's shoes(as you see him as a sellout), bring up this topic in the first place and print the answer that was in response to the question?

My own answer is that this would be last topic to bring up in a conversation and take it to print in this case.

If I (the person I currently am) got a (supposedly) no holds barred interview with Wiggins? Absolutely, I would have. But I'm not a journalist. My living doesn't depend on Wiggins not calling the interview over. I can afford it.

Maybe Walsh couldn't, but then that's pretty much the definition of "sellout".

 

[Benotti69]

Bingo.
In the Wiggins piece Walsh writes down Wiggins comments about how he could or would never dope - then puts in the 'hold on, explain this' part.

Does Wiggins look well in the piece? Up for people to make their own mind, but IMO, no.

If that is the case, why doesn't Wiggins ban Walsh like he did Kimmage?

Also not to many of Sky's fans can make up their own mind, just have to read their ignorance in here daily.

 

[thehog]

Mcquaid - in on it
Verbrugen - in on it/ masterminded the whole thing
Ligget - in on it
David Millar - doper.
Boogerd - doper
Brunyeel - in on it, doper, doping supplier, mastermind
Lance - in on it, doper, doping suplier, mastermind

bradley wiggins- clean?

"I love him," Wiggins said. "I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense. Even his strongest critics have benefitted from him. I don't think this sport will ever realise what he's brought it or how big he's made it

"Cycling was in the dark ages before he came along, in many ways. You only have to look at the support along the roads, compared to what it was 20 years ago. The majority of that is because of Lance Armstrong. Obviously he has his enemies and people among the fans who don't like him, but they've all benefitted from him and his existence on the Tour."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/jul/25/tour-de-france-2010-lance-armstrong

The mob.

“I’ve always been a bit of a fan of Lance and have sided on the side of innocent until proven guilty with him. There isn’t an athlete or a cyclist out there that isn’t more tested than he is, certainly since his comeback, he’s probably been the most tested cyclist in the pro peloton and you take that on face value and that he’s never failed a drugs test and until he does he’s clean. That’s how I’ve always had as a stance on Lance.”

“I think you have to question Landis’ credibility because he lied under oath before and the stories that you hear about him drinking and things like that and you know, [making] telephone calls to people I know, threatening them with things, you just think that the guy appears to not all be there. So when you see these kinds of claims in the press you have to question his credibility because it’s almost like it’s coming from a mad man, but at the same time maybe that’s all borne out of frustration and things.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-calls-for-biological-passport-data-to-be-made-public

Throw-away comments.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If that is the case, why doesn't Wiggins ban Walsh like he did Kimmage?

What?

Also not to many of Sky's fans can make up their own mind, just have to read their ignorance in here daily.

Fans of individuals or teams by their very nature are going to have a bias - Walsh (or any journo) cannot change that, all he can do is put forth good questions and put forth the facts.

 

[Netserk]

What?


Fans of individuals or teams by their very nature are going to have a bias - Walsh (or any journo) cannot change that, all he can do is put forth good questions and put forth the facts.

In that case he isn't a very good journalist.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

In that case he isn't a very good journalist.

How would you know? You havent even read the piece.

You think a journalist role is to tell people how to think?
Ask the tough questions, report the facts.

Was he supposed to disregard what Wiggins said and just put in his own opinions?