Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[gooner]

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".

Since you keep on saying Walsh is a sellout, why then does he ask the question in the first place and publish the response to it all which puts Wiggins in even more poor light?

A sellout wouldn't do any of this and would dodge the topic totally and probably not even go with the quotes in the article in the end. A sellout journalist would paint it's interviewer in a very good image and wouldn't open up this section of the article by bringing up Wiggins's defence of Lance and vilifying of Landis. It would be totally avoided whatsoever.

 

[hrotha]

Since you keep on saying Walsh is a sellout, why then does he ask the question in the first place and publish the response to it all which puts Wiggins in even more poor light?

A sellout wouldn't do any of this and would dodge the topic totally and probably not even go with the quotes in the article in the end. A sellout journalist would paint it's interviewer in a very good image and wouldn't open up this section of the article by bringing up Wiggins's defence of Lance and vilifying of Landis. It would be totally avoided whatsoever.

The answer is in the bit you left out from my post.

It couldn't be ignored. Wiggins's comments were too explicit and notorious for that. It had to be addressed, with a reasonable spin. Walsh's failure to follow up ensured that Wiggins's BS reply could be swallowed by the vast majority of their audience.

 

[BroDeal]

A sellout wouldn't do any of this and would dodge the topic totally and probably not even go with the quotes in the article in the end. A sellout journalist would paint it's interviewer in a very good image and wouldn't open up this section of the article by bringing up Wiggins's defence of Lance and vilifying of Landis. It would be totally avoided whatsoever.

A journalist exploring the truth would have done more than pass Wiggins' disgusting behavior off as going along with the crowd. He would have asked why Wiggins dumped on Landis even though he knew Landis was telling the truth. Wiggins was on a team filled with ex-dopers from Armstrong's team. That team's manager has repeatedly said he was completely honest about his past with his riders. Wiggins was undoubtedly told several first hand accounts of doping on Postal/Discovery. Beyond that, any pro (or any cycling fan for that matter) with an IQ above his weight in kilos knew that Armstrong was doping. Even so, Wiggins chose to maintain the Armstrong lie. Why?

 

[JRTinMA]

I have been beating you for 2 years - no mercy rule here.

Do you want me to start linking the times I have owned you? I thought not. Run along and test your wits on the mindless, you will end up crying to the mods again if you take me on.

 

[Ferminal]

I'm glad after 4 years The Clinic has gone full circle and we are back to never tested positive. I guess that means another Landis is only 12 months away (almost to the day?).

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Do you want me to start linking the times I have owned you? I thought not. Run along and test your wits on the mindless, you will end up crying to the mods again if you take me on.

As usual, you thought wrong - link away, we might not hear from you for another few months.

 

[thehog]

Crikey! A link off!

Things have got serious!

 

[thehog]

A journalist exploring the truth would have done more than pass Wiggins' disgusting behavior off as going along with the crowd. He would have asked why Wiggins dumped on Landis even though he knew Landis was telling the truth. Wiggins was on a team filled with ex-dopers from Armstrong's team. That team's manager has repeatedly said he was completely honest about his past with his riders. Wiggins was undoubtedly told several first hand accounts of doping on Postal/Discovery. Beyond that, any pro (or any cycling fan for that matter) with an IQ above his weight in kilos knew that Armstrong was doping. Even so, Wiggins chose to maintain the Armstrong lie. Why?

He didn't just maintain the lie. He enforced it.

 

[gooner]

The answer is in the bit you left out from my post.

It couldn't be ignored. Wiggins's comments were too explicit and notorious for that. It had to be addressed, with a reasonable spin. Walsh's failure to follow up ensured that Wiggins's BS reply could be swallowed by the vast majority of their audience.

A sellout journalist would have no problem in ignoring this if he indeed was that at all. Again Walsh would have just kept the article fully on the Giro if that was the case and it would have been good enough for the vast majority of the British reading public.

 

[Mr. McQ]

This thread is an insult to truly intelligent people

It should be shut down

Jokerville

 

[DirtyWorks]

Vebruggen: possibly paid off by LA, but not a mastermind
Liggett: Naive - loves the sport so much won't hear a word against it, not in on it at all. Phil wouldn't know!
Millar: ex-doper, came clean and open and is a campaigner, just like you; he's on the right side
Brunyeel: You are probably correct
Lance: ditto but the real mastermind as a socio-pathic controller and bully
McQuaid: The least said the better - a rude and awful man in my opinion
Bradley: A clean breath of fresh air

This is not the right thread for this, but don't count Hein and Thom Wiesel with Tailwind out.

 

[mattghg]

The answer is in the bit you left out from my post.

It couldn't be ignored. Wiggins's comments were too explicit and notorious for that. It had to be addressed, with a reasonable spin. Walsh's failure to follow up ensured that Wiggins's BS reply could be swallowed by the vast majority of their audience.

It couldn't be ignored by people on this forum. However, the vast majority of newspaper readers probably never heard those Lance comments in the first place or if they did, had forgotten them. So Walsh didn't have to bring it up at all.

 

[ianfra]

This is not the right thread for this, but don't count Hein and Thom Wiesel with Tailwind out.

I was replying to another post.

 

[ianfra]

Since you keep on saying Walsh is a sellout, why then does he ask the question in the first place and publish the response to it all which puts Wiggins in even more poor light?

A sellout wouldn't do any of this and would dodge the topic totally and probably not even go with the quotes in the article in the end. A sellout journalist would paint it's interviewer in a very good image and wouldn't open up this section of the article by bringing up Wiggins's defence of Lance and vilifying of Landis. It would be totally avoided whatsoever.

I think Walsh has earned his stripes. He has been on the doping case for more years than some here have been riding a bicycle!

 

[Armchaircyclist]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gir...kes-vicioso-hospitalised-no-surgery-for-basso

Liked this one: "I've been a saint all my life"

Do you have to be a saint to ride clean now ? Beer drinking pot-smoking saint then ? Interesting.

It seems like mr.Wiggins thinks that if the media is not talking about doping, that is how we decide if the peloton is clean or not. Funny.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

It couldn't be ignored by people on this forum. However, the vast majority of newspaper readers probably never heard those Lance comments in the first place or if they did, had forgotten them. So Walsh didn't have to bring it up at all.

So you admit he is not being very journalistic?

It seems like mr.Wiggins thinks that if the media is not talking about doping, that is how we decide if the peloton is clean or not. Funny.

He is already caving in on his loss. All eyes on the Tour for Brad.

I think Walsh has earned his stripes. He has been on the doping case for more years than some here have been riding a bicycle!

Does that relieve him from his journalistic 'duties'? Writing fluffy SKY - PR thingies?

 

[Avoriaz]

Mick Rogers is sitting 5th in the Tour of California

#justsaying

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Mick Rogers is sitting 5th in the Tour of California

#justsaying

How strong is the competition? Chris "6.8W/kg for 15 minutes" Horner is "missing" due to "injury".

 

[Netserk]

He was beaten by Mathias Frank

He would've won that stage last year.

 

[Benotti69]

No answer from BW would be acceptable to you unless he confessed to doping.

What facts (your choice of word) do you have that would show that BWs answers are unacceptable.

Nope, wrong. Some realistic answers from Wiggins and transparency about how he went about going from Grupetto would be a help to understanding how he did it.

Ok, what was Wiggins starting weight at last years Tour.

How would i know? I expect Walsh to find out. I expect Walsh to talk to people who would've known Wiggins weight at Cofidis, Eric boyer for example, then JVs' team of crack sports quacks, Rod Ellingworth, Wiggins himself and even TeamGB when he rode track. Might help put together a progression of Wiggins weight timeline. THese people would also be helpful to talk about Wiggins.

Maybe Walsh has done this and more and it will be in the coffee table Sky 2013 book.

But your questioning of my opinion and my questions serve only 2 purposes, to deflect and flagilate your pedantism.

 

[SundayRider]

'I've been a saint all my life' I felt a little bit sick reading that...

 

[mattghg]

So you admit he is not being very journalistic?

No. I don't understand how you took my comment that way.

 

[mattghg]

I'm glad after 4 years The Clinic has gone full circle and we are back to never tested positive. I guess that means another Landis is only 12 months away (almost to the day?).

Come on. Just think about the evidence there was against LA four years ago, compared to what you think there is against Sky now.

 

[ebandit]

too much

'I've been a saint all my life' I felt a little bit sick reading that...

it's not the first time that a cycling life has been compared with being
a monk

............mine is another trippel

Mark L

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

No. I don't understand how you took my comment that way.

No?

It couldn't be ignored by people on this forum. However, the vast majority of newspaper readers probably never heard those Lance comments in the first place or if they did, had forgotten them. So Walsh didn't have to bring it up at all.

Arent journo's supposed to be truthseekers? Otherwise every reporter could be called journalist. He surely didnt have any problems to out Dowsett last weekend, I just missed that part in the fluffy Brad interview.