Granville57 said:
Walsh was openly mocked by plenty of people for the obvious rush job and lack of compelling narrative behind Seven Deadly Sins. I never read the book, and that was in part due to the overwhelmingly negative reaction to the content and the manner in which it was delivered (not to mention that I was more interested in the USADA report at that time than self-congatulatory gestures by Walsh).
Re: Lance to Landis
Most people were concentrating on sorting out the content, much of it being new to many people at the time, and most of which demanded further investigation. Had Walsh delivered anything of the sort with recent Sky love affair, people would likely be more focused on the content and less on the messenger.
Read my response to the hog above.
thehog said:
Correct re: Lance to Landis. It was a rehash of LA Confidential and in sections it jumped text and topic from one paragraph to the next. It was terribly put together. But like you say at the time it was the only non-Lance-loving book in circulation so we all took what we could.
I never read SDS for the same reason. Just more of the same regurgitated stories from Walsh.
His fact checking has never been good. So many mistakes in all of his books. They always appear rushed.
If you can't be bothered to read the book, then don't comment on his style of writing. You're not credible on it.
It reminds me at the time of the JTL story and we had guys judging the article he wrote on it without even reading it in the first place.
I have read 4 books in relation to Walsh (Seven Deadly Sins, From Lance to Landis, Sky book and the Gareth Southgate autobiography he ghost wrote) and only the Sky book comes off as mixed.
In the case of the Southgate one which Froome's will be done in the same format as it's ghost written, I didn't find any problems with the style of writing.