Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[King Of The Wolds]

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

In what respect? He's tweeted half a dozen sentences. Let's read his article first. Of course, if he doesn't say what people here want him to say, he's going to get accused of that anyway...

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Do you see Kimmage getting an invitation too?

why would someone unemployed with no feat get to be invited?

 

[Benotti69]

Of course not. Walsh is a real journalist in the sense that he has an actual job and a paper to write for. Who else should he invite, thehog?

I think if Kimmage spent a week at Sky he would have no trouble getting it published and in many more places than the ST.

I think Walsh was asked because they have the same paymaster. Not that Walsh will be compromised but his editors maybe.

 

[Froome19]

Of course not. Walsh is a real journalist in the sense that he has an actual job and a paper to write for. Who else should he invite, thehog?

I wouldn't say so.

Brailsford is doing this in order to prove his innocence.
Therefore he would want to get the journalist who the doubters would believe the most. Walsh has a lot of prestige as the Armstrong's nemesis and he can publicise it in the Sunday Times. But at the same time after Walsh, Kimmage would be the next journalist in line who would be chosen in terms of the impact a statement of his about Sky's cleanness would make.

 

[Froome19]

I think if Kimmage spent a week at Sky he would have no trouble getting it published and in many more places than the ST.

I think Walsh was asked because they have the same paymaster. Not that Walsh will be compromised but his editors maybe.

Lol Murdoch doesn't have a clue what goes on within all his different media stuff. Just see a specific cartoon in last week's ST for an example. The Times/Sunday Times has published quite extensively over the past few months articles on Sky's zero tolerance policy and the doubt surrounding them including one highly critical article about their double standards.

 

[Benotti69]

Lol Murdoch doesn't have a clue what goes on within all his different media stuff. Just see a specific cartoon in last week's ST for an example. The Times/Sunday Times has published quite extensively over the past few months articles on Sky's zero tolerance policy and the doubt surrounding them including one highly critical article about their double standards.

Dont read it. Wouldn't put a penny near Murdoch. But his people know his mind. A guy like Murdoch is not going to out his own commercial interests is he, neither is anyone in his employment going to be allowed.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Walsh has been chosen carefully and correctly by Sky.

At the moment cycling is in the midst of big fallout from the Armstrong case.

Sky themselves have scored a few PR own goals with Rogers and Barry being involved in the Armstrong case, undermining their supposed zero tolerance policy, then some staff having to leave making it look like more than just a couple of bad apples, then the investigation beginning into Leinders which makes them look bad regardless of whether he did anything untoward while at Sky.

David Walsh's reputation on the other hand is riding on a high after being proven right about Armstrong, and being seen as one of the people who stood up to the bully and published some home truths long before they were accepted.

It's a win-win case. Walsh has shown in the recent past that he would like to believe with regards to Sky, and having this journalist who has received credit for his prying into Lance's lies verify that their marginal gains and attention to detail and all the other corporate mantras they spew have led to them becoming the superduper awesome happy friends Clean Team Domination 30, will, they hope, silence a lot of the doubt that surrounds them in the wake of the scandal with Armstrong and while the Leinders case surrounds them, so they'll give him the Tourist Special guide to the team, a bit like going on an official government-sponsored tour of Cuba.

It is true that the doubters as a percentage of audience amongst the casual punters are far fewer, and their doubts less tenaciously held on to, than most hardcore cycling fans, and even more so Clinic regulars. The latter may be more convincingly won over if they did the same piece with Kimmage, as Kimmage has been more cautious in his optimism about Team Sky's über-whiter-than-white image. But most will read a piece about marginal gains from David Walsh as the definitive statement that Sky are authentic, and a piece with Walsh will gain wider circulation faster than a Kimmage piece.

 

[Benotti69]

Walsh has been chosen carefully and correctly by Sky.

At the moment cycling is in the midst of big fallout from the Armstrong case.

Sky themselves have scored a few PR own goals with Rogers and Barry being involved in the Armstrong case, undermining their supposed zero tolerance policy, then some staff having to leave making it look like more than just a couple of bad apples, then the investigation beginning into Leinders which makes them look bad regardless of whether he did anything untoward while at Sky.

David Walsh's reputation on the other hand is riding on a high after being proven right about Armstrong, and being seen as one of the people who stood up to the bully and published some home truths long before they were accepted.

It's a win-win case. Walsh has shown in the recent past that he would like to believe with regards to Sky, and having this journalist who has received credit for his prying into Lance's lies verify that their marginal gains and attention to detail and all the other corporate mantras they spew have led to them becoming the superduper awesome happy friends Clean Team Domination 30, will, they hope, silence a lot of the doubt that surrounds them in the wake of the scandal with Armstrong and while the Leinders case surrounds them, so they'll give him the Tourist Special guide to the team, a bit like going on an official government-sponsored tour of Cuba.

It is true that the doubters as a percentage of audience amongst the casual punters are far fewer, and their doubts less tenaciously held on to, than most hardcore cycling fans, and even more so Clinic regulars. The latter may be more convincingly won over if they did the same piece with Kimmage, as Kimmage has been more cautious in his optimism about Team Sky's über-whiter-than-white image. But most will read a piece about marginal gains from David Walsh as the definitive statement that Sky are authentic, and a piece with Walsh will gain wider circulation faster than a Kimmage piece.

Kimmage was a rider, possibly would have a better insight than Walsh.

Well we have to wait till it hits the shelves.

 

[armchairclimber]

Kimmage would be fine but the historical antagonism gets in the way of the story. The danger is that Kimmage becomes the story...or part of it. That's less likely with Walsh. Frankly though, the cleanliness of otherwise of Sky becomes secondary to the mire that is Murdoch's empire when Walsh publishes a favourable story about one arm of Murdoch's empire in another.

It might sway some clinicians (I dount it) but it stinks anyway.

 

[will10]

Of course Kimmage has been rather provocative against Sky. I wouldn't be too happy having such a person viewing the team as who knows what he will come up with? But of course Brailsford will be more likely to invite someone like Walsh who he is on much better terms with than someone like Kimmage whom I would imagine he is not best pleased with atm.

But if Kimmage asked for permission to shadow the team I would not be surprised if it is granted.

It is plain to see from Kimmage's recent (over the last 2-3 months) comments on the subject that this would not be the case.

 

[Mellow Velo]

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

No, you really don't.

Do you see Kimmage getting an invitation too?

He's burnt his own bridge. Turns out he's got a fairly large ego, too.
A little more diplomacy and a little less of an antagonistic attitude and he
could have been through the door.

Besides, if he ended up saying nice things, he'd be viewed as a dirty sell out too, by the Clinician Sicilians.

Kimmage was a rider, possibly would have a better insight than Walsh.

Well we have to wait till it hits the shelves.

A much better point.

 

[armchairclimber]

On the "wiggins is win at all costs" debate, might I just point to the occasions in last year's tour when he was gunning it, leading Cav's sprint train and risking coming a cropper when he could easily have been having a safe and protected passage to the podium.

 

[Froome19]

It is plain to see from Kimmage's recent (over the last 2-3 months) comments on the subject that this would not be the case.

Not if it got leaked to the public.
The amount of bad publicity in the aftermath of that. The repercussions wouldn't be worth thinking about.

 

[will10]

He's burnt his own bridge. Turns out he's got a fairly large ego, too.
A little more diplomacy and a little less of an antagonistic attitude and he
could have been through the door.

Besides, if he ended up saying nice things, he'd be viewed as a dirty sell out too, by the Clinician Sicilians.

Did he? That is a serious question. My understanding was that Brailsford had approved Kimmage following Sky in the 2010 Tour but Bradley vetoed it and suggested Kimmage joined up with the team in the second week, which Kimmage understandably declined.

 

[cineteq]

In what respect? He's tweeted half a dozen sentences. Let's read his article first. Of course, if he doesn't say what people here want him to say, he's going to get accused of that anyway...

In this video Walsh talks about Wiggins after having talked about Lance for a while.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ4tyw3t-Pk#t=3m44s
However, he seems like a different guy when he talks about Wiggins/Sky.
- "Sky has the biggest budget, so, I think, it's natural they will get the best riders"
- Walsh believes Wiggins would have won with Garmin if he would've stayed with them"

How serious are those statements?

 

[will10]

Not if it got leaked to the public.
The amount of bad publicity in the aftermath of that. The repercussions wouldn't be worth thinking about.

I'm not following, sorry. Not if what got leaked? and bad publicity in the aftermath of...?

 

[Froome19]

I'm not following, sorry. Not if what got leaked? and bad publicity in the aftermath of...?

If Kimmage asked to shadow the Sky squad again.

 

[The Hitch]

On the "wiggins is win at all costs" debate, might I just point to the occasions in last year's tour when he was gunning it, leading Cav's sprint train and risking coming a cropper when he could easily have been having a safe and protected passage to the podium.

Was it really that big a risk when he has a 6 minute advantage to Nibali? Coming of as the guy who helped the sprint train was worth the risk (and yes it was also admirable)

 

[Mellow Velo]

Did he? That is a serious question. My understanding was that Brailsford had approved Kimmage following Sky in the 2010 Tour but Bradley vetoed it and suggested Kimmage joined up with the team in the second week, which Kimmage understandably declined.

He may not have burnt his bridge in 2010, but he certainly has in the past 6 months or so.
Hard luck, opportunity lost.

Besides, what would be the outcome if he gave Sky the "clean" endorsement"?
Would every sceptic on here say: "OK, Sky must be clean", or something along the lines of: "Another one bought off/Job offer" etc etc?

 

[roundabout]

Thinking that a team is clean *after* spending a week with them is not the same as thinking that a team is clean to get an invite to spend a week with them.

 

[The Hitch]

In this video Walsh talks about Wiggins after having talked about Lance for a while.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ4tyw3t-Pk#t=3m44s
However, he seems like a different guy when he talks about Wiggins/Sky.
- "Sky has the biggest budget, so, I think, it's natural they will get the best riders"
- Walsh believes Wiggins would have won with Garmin if he would've stayed with them"

How serious are those statements?

The big budget is certainly a fallacy, and a frustrating one since one thinks - if only walsh could lend us an ear for 2 seconds we can point out that a lot of their best guys were only average when they bought them, and only cav was a world beater.

Still, don't put down Walsh lightly. He earnt his respect. I disagree with him on some things and think he is very wrong, even lacking in knowledge (eg his comments on the Tour being clean but Vuelta being a doping free for all).

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.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Of course Kimmage has been rather provocative against Sky. I wouldn't be too happy having such a person viewing the team as who knows what he will come up with? But of course Brailsford will be more likely to invite someone like Walsh who he is on much better terms with than someone like Kimmage whom I would imagine he is not best pleased with atm.

But if Kimmage asked for permission to shadow the team I would not be surprised if it is granted.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Benotti69]

He's burnt his own bridge. Turns out he's got a fairly large ego, too.
A little more diplomacy and a little less of an antagonistic attitude and he
could have been through the door.

He asked hard questions about what lots have been suspicious about. If that is burning a bridge with Sky, it seems Sky has something to worry about, not Kimmage. I doubt he is shedding tears about not being asked.

If Brailsford had balls he would've invited both Walsh and Kimmage.

Besides, if he ended up saying nice things, he'd be viewed as a dirty sell out too, by the Clinician Sicilians.

A dig at me perchance. Failed.

 

[Froome19]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, you really don't.



He's burnt his own bridge. Turns out he's got a fairly large ego, too.
A little more diplomacy and a little less of an antagonistic attitude and he
could have been through the door.

Besides, if he ended up saying nice things, he'd be viewed as a dirty sell out too, by the Clinician Sicilians.



A much better point.

What complete nonsense.

What is Kimmages 'ego'? It seems the only ones who suggest this are Sky fans.
Which is only due to making it known that Brailsford broke a prior agreement.
Why would a journalist need to be diplomatic? Are you seriously suggesting a journalist needs to suck up to be allowed to their job?!