Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

David Walsh

  • 27-07-2013 08:47PM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,445 ✭✭✭


    I don't know if this worth a new thread as the Irish Corner one covers a lot of it but...

    Is Walsh starting to lose credibility by being SO defensive of Sky?
    I went to see himself and Kimmage a few months back and they laughed and said something along the lines of.. "if you want a reporter on side, compliment them"

    It seems to that since Sky let him tag along he can see no wrong with them. The Irish Corner fiasco is a perfect example.

    Anyone else finding him a little hard to take these days?


«134567

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,584 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    mloc123 wrote: »
    I don't know if this worth a new thread as the Irish Corner one covers a lot of it but...

    Is Walsh starting to lose credibility by being SO defensive of Sky?
    I went to see himself and Kimmage a few months back and they laughed and said something along the lines of.. "if you want a reporter on side, compliment them"

    It seems to that since Sky let him tag along he can see no wrong with them. The Irish Corner fiasco is a perfect example.

    Anyone else finding him a little hard to take these days?

    Who owns the paper Walsh writes for?
    Who knows Sky and bank rolls the team?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    mloc123 wrote: »
    Is Walsh starting to lose credibility by being SO defensive of Sky?

    You might just as well ask whether Kimmage loses credibility by being so critical of Sky. It's all very subjective, a person's view of anyone with a strongly held opinion is going to be heavily influenced by their own bias and if there is one thing that lends itself to bias it is the topic of doping in cycling. Well, that and the topics of appropriate length of cycling sock, the best groupset, the best training method, the best tyre pressure, etc., etc.

    We cyclists and cycling fans are an opinionated bunch, we'd argue with our own toenails if there was no-one else nearby.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭pelevin


    "starting to lose credibility"? I'd say the losing of credibility has to some considerable degree already happened. Thought the piece he wrote last week, titled "Why I Believe in Chris Froome" an absolute joke where he stayed as far from critical examination as possible, and saw crapping on his fellow Irish as a very convenient tool for gaining moral high-ground, which perhaps he's ended up thinking is his by right after the Armstrong chase.

    He previously directly accused riders of doping based on speed of mountain ascents, whereas now with Froome he has completely shirked the issue. Walsh did little more than equate scepticism with ugly mob behaviour, and as said avoid the issue of how fast Froome rode up mountains as it didn't suit him.

    Q: David Walsh 2007: "What is sad is that the guy who’s wearing the yellow jersey now, Alberto Contador, is definitely cheating. Q: How can you tell he’s cheating? DW: Michael Rasmussen went up the Gourette-Col d'Aubisque faster than Lance Armstrong ever went up it. Alberto Contador was alongside him the whole way. I’ve been at that race since the early 80s and I know what speeds they go up that mountain. The speeds the leaders go up at today are just illogical."

    To have been credible on the matter Walsh should have acknowledged what he had previously argued regarding ascending at impossible speed, and now tried to explain on what basis he was altering his viewpoint. To have instead completely avoided the issue as he did was intellectual cowardice and dishonest in my view, and very much self-serving in terms of his position within the British media.

    And to not even check with any Irish at Alpe d'Huez but simply take Sky members word as the be-all . . . Pretty shameful.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,445 ✭✭✭mloc123


    doozerie wrote: »
    You might just as well ask whether Kimmage loses credibility by being so critical of Sky.

    Kimmage lost all when he signed up twitter, IMO.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,445 ✭✭✭mloc123


    pelevin wrote: »
    And to not even check with any Irish at Alpe d'Huez but simply take Sky members word as the be-all . . . Pretty shameful.

    This is what gets me, how many of the people on that corner follow him on Twitter... he could easily have arranged to speak to them and get a balanced account... instead he is a mouth piece for Sky.


  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 52 ✭✭mikeoneill893


    he can't be in there with them....and then sniping on twitter

    neither can he print anything without evidence


    best ya can hope for.. if something turns up he calls it


    he does go on about his role in the LA downfall alright...boring at this stage


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,837 ✭✭✭C3PO


    I have a lot of time for Walsh and his writing and I thought his piece in the Sunday Times last week was pretty fair bearing in mind that it was written for a predominantly British readership!
    I sincerely hope he's right about Froome and Sky because if he's not I fear our sport will never recover from the fall-out!


  • Site Banned Posts: 52 ✭✭mikeoneill893


    he has to acclaim sky and froomdawg without evidence of cheating

    he's in a tricky position inbed with sky employed by murdawg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,445 ✭✭✭mloc123


    he can't be in there with them....and then sniping on twitter

    My understanding was they would give him full access and he could write whatever he liked, good or bad.

    I understand that he will not criticise or accuse anyone of cheating without proof, that is fine but...
    My main issue I guess is the Irish corner stuff... instead of doing any research he just towed the Sky line.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,299 ✭✭✭gordongekko


    pelevin wrote: »
    "starting to lose credibility"? I'd say the losing of credibility has to some considerable degree already happened. Thought the piece he wrote last week, titled "Why I Believe in Chris Froome" an absolute joke where he stayed as far from critical examination as possible, and saw crapping on his fellow Irish as a very convenient tool for gaining moral high-ground, which perhaps he's ended up thinking is his by right after the Armstrong chase.

    He previously directly accused riders of doping based on speed of mountain ascents, whereas now with Froome he has completely shirked the issue. Walsh did little more than equate scepticism with ugly mob behaviour, and as said avoid the issue of how fast Froome rode up mountains as it didn't suit him.

    Q: David Walsh 2007: "What is sad is that the guy who’s wearing the yellow jersey now, Alberto Contador, is definitely cheating. Q: How can you tell he’s cheating? DW: Michael Rasmussen went up the Gourette-Col d'Aubisque faster than Lance Armstrong ever went up it. Alberto Contador was alongside him the whole way. I’ve been at that race since the early 80s and I know what speeds they go up that mountain. The speeds the leaders go up at today are just illogical."

    To have been credible on the matter Walsh should have acknowledged what he had previously argued regarding ascending at impossible speed, and now tried to explain on what basis he was altering his viewpoint. To have instead completely avoided the issue as he did was intellectual cowardice and dishonest in my view, and very much self-serving in terms of his position within the British media.

    i thought the article last Sunday was terrible and was glad I dud not buy the paper. However using the time as a proof of drugs is not logical. Ben Johnson won the 100 meters on drugs, but people have gine faster than him clean.


  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 52 ✭✭mikeoneill893


    mloc123 wrote: »
    My understanding was they would give him full access and he could write whatever he liked, good or bad.

    maybe if he discovers something he call it..

    in the meantime lets play happy days.. god bless team sky, froome and british cycling


  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,483 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    I have not read the article and would appreciate it if someone could state exactly what Walsh said that caused the commotion? I know he indicated the worst parts of the climbs in terms of fan behaviour were Irish Corner and Dutch corner, but did he actually say Irish fans were responsible? Has he stated something that has since been shown to be incorrect (again I note his twitter comment apologising to any Irish fans who "behaved properly" and felt offended by his comments)

    Of course if he has access to the Sky riders he's going to report what they told him happened - that's surely part of his job.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,445 ✭✭✭mloc123


    Beasty wrote: »
    Of course if he has access to the Sky riders he's going to report what they told him happened - that's surely part of his job.

    Which is fair enough, but is it not his responsibility to check what he is told also?


  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,483 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    mloc123 wrote: »
    Which is fair enough, but is it not his responsibility to check what he is told also?

    Not if it's clear he's quoting someone else - indeed that's often what creates stories for journalists - they will play one quote off against another

    But I am still confused as to what exactly was said that has since been shown to be incorrect


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,831 ✭✭✭ROK ON


    Beasty wrote: »
    Not if it's clear he's quoting someone else - indeed that's often what creates stories for journalists - they will play one quote off against another

    But I am still confused as to what exactly was said that has since been shown to be incorrect


    Maybe have a read of the article?


  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,483 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    ROK ON wrote: »
    Maybe have a read of the article?

    It's behind a paywall, which is why I was asking


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 535 ✭✭✭dogsears


    Beasty wrote: »
    I have not read the article and would appreciate it if someone could state exactly what Walsh said that caused the commotion? I know he indicated the worst parts of the climbs in terms of fan behaviour were Irish Corner and Dutch corner, but did he actually say Irish fans were responsible? Has he stated something that has since been shown to be incorrect (again I note his twitter comment apologising to any Irish fans who "behaved properly" and felt offended by his comments)

    Of course if he has access to the Sky riders he's going to report what they told him happened - that's surely part of his job.

    He said "Eggs smashed against the car, beer too, and when a car slowed enough for the jeering mob to rock it from side to side, that's what they did. The abuse was worst at those parts of the climb populated by Irish and Dutch fans. "Froome Dope" was one of the bigger signs at the Irish corner. All the way up to the top there were fans screaming at Sky riders while mimicking the act of injecting into their arms."

    A couple of paras later he says "Farrell met some Irish fans the next morning in Bourg d'Oisans and told his compatriots how disappointed he'd been by the reaction to Froome and Sky. "Our team is doing this sport the right way," he said "and that's what we get from you guys". There were tears in his eyes as he spoke."

    In strictness he'd could wriggle away from some of those comments i.e. yes I said the Froome Dope sign was at the Irish corner, but I didn't actually say the Irish put it there.

    But its pretty undeniable what conclusions he was inviting readers to draw, (in that English paper).

    He also said Lakeside CC Mullingar apologised which I think was forcefully disputed elsewhere here.


  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,483 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    So other that the Lakeside Wheelers point, what did he say that is factually incorrect?

    EDIT - I've also re-read elduggo's excellent account of what happened in the other thread and have not noted any inconsistencies


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,063 ✭✭✭on_the_nickel


    dogsears wrote: »
    A couple of paras later he says "There were tears in his eyes as he spoke."
    Do me a f*cking favour...
    dogsears wrote: »
    He also said Lakeside CC Mullingar apologised which I think was forcefully disputed elsewhere here.
    I think that's enough. He took the word of Team Sky without bothering to cross-check, very poor journalism in my book.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,991 ✭✭✭el tel


    In the article he appeared to be stating the various sky opinions as fact e.g. see 2nd para of dogsears post below.

    David Walsh could easily have prefixed it "according to Farrell...".

    maybit's just a case of DW having bagged his big quarry with LA and got a **** load of mileage out of it. And now that head is mounted on the wall theres no need to put his balls on the line anymore, but just toe the line and submit a handy non contentious article every week, like the way product reviews often just read like press releases.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,977 ✭✭✭wav1


    Big problem with Walsh is that he swings both ways.In the early eighties he adored Kelly and Roche and then more or less turned on them.Now he is writing articles which are very complimentary of Sky and Froome.If i were Froome i would be watching over both shoulders.At least Kimmage [love him or hate him] is consistent in his arguements.IMO he is swayed by the income that could be made from his writing.At the end of last yr he rushed out Seven Deadly Sins for the Christmas market,and you know there wasn't all that much new in it anyway.So maybe next Christmas it will be something like ''From Keyna to Paris[via GB] by David Walsh that we'll be looking for in the stocking.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭letape


    Beasty wrote: »
    Of course if he has access to the Sky riders he's going to report what they told him happened - that's surely part of his job.

    No, as a journalist, I would expect that he would independently verify the accuracy of what he is being told, regardless of the source, before he would report it as fact.

    Surely that it too much to expect from an award winning journalist. In my mind, from what I have read, he had lost his objectivity and independence.

    As someone already posted, just by being with the team, there is no way he would know if they are doping or not. There were riders in US Postal were unaware of what was going on.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭pelevin


    i thought the article last Sunday was terrible and was glad I dud not buy the paper. However using the time as a proof of drugs is not logical. Ben Johnson won the 100 meters on drugs, but people have gine faster than him clean.

    But I'm not arguing Froome is guilty based on times or that he is guilty at all, but given what Walsh has clearly previously stated regarding such ascents and how they compare to Armstrong's times - well then what I would consider in any sense a balanced examination of 'Why I Believe in Chris Froome' would necessitate confronting the issue, not blatantly and very conveniently avoiding it.

    Walsh's piece as a whole was in no sense an argument to persuade people who perhaps even want to believe in Froome, but who want to do so based on a proper look at things. He chose a route instead of, by obvious inference, equating scepticism with ugly 'mob' behaviour, & feeding his main audience's sense of self-worth, using basically a blanket condemnation of his own people to help effect this.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,299 ✭✭✭gordongekko


    Anyone read it today. Mentions that he deals with the whole Irish corner on twitter.

    deals today with porte but glosses over portes past dealings with tafi riis and contador. I'm not suggesting ports was involved in anything dodgy but if you were interviewing someone who worked with these people it seems a logical question to ask them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    I'm a little conflicted on the whole thing.

    On the one hand, I respect both Kimmage and Walsh as journos, and think they've done great work in the past on doping (as well as other things), but it seems this year that they're both losing it!

    Kimmage wanted access to Sky, didn't get it so will keep going on that there's a load of smoke coming from them (and he comes across as increasingly bitter about the whole thing). Walsh got the access he (and possibly Kimmage) wanted, and has come from the Tour saying that he's totally satisfied that Sky are doing the right things the right way.

    Now, if Kimmage had the access Walsh has, and was saying the same things, would there be a total non story here, or is it yet another case of Sky not being allowed to win, or something else entirely!

    I don't know which bastion of great cycling journalism to believe in now, it's wrecking my head!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    Sunday Times sh1t canned Kimmage, but kept Walsh.
    He now stikes me as what Malcom X called an Uncle Tom Negro. In house, not applying same inquisitive standards to Froome/sky as Contador Armstrong etc.
    With cycling's past he needs to explain what sky are doing different that allows Fromme to be the only clean rider that can compete with cheaters times on AX3 Ventoux etc


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 141 ✭✭jr22


    I wonder if he reckons that his work is done with the Armstrong exposé? Exposing Froome or Sky as crooked would be anticlimactic now relative to the whole Lance saga.

    Walsh is pushing on now and probably has an eye on the pension plan and keeping the household/wife happy by not bringing more grief and potential defamation cases on himself.

    I seriously doubt it but maybe, just maybe he's risking his credibility in the short term by playing a waiting game, keeping Sky, Brailsford, Froome etc. sweet, gaining access and trust until they slip up in the future :D

    He'd have VIP access to a major scoop then.

    I don't think that for a second though, I'd say it's the handy money that's motivating him at the moment unfortunately :(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭Choochtown


    Re. Last Sunday's article: After outlining the "abuse" at the Irish Corner (including the Froome Dope banner and stuff being sprayed directly into Froome's face) he writes: "A little later four cyclists from Lakeside Cycling Club in Mullingar found Brailsford and told him they were sorry".

    This is an extremely strong implication that these 4 cyclists were in some way responsible for the abuse. I think that a lack of apology for this implication in today's paper is disgraceful.

    Also as I wrote on another thread the sign was not "Froome Dope" but "Froome Dopé" which would make it highly unlikely that it was written by Irish fans.

    If I was to write that a cyclist has admitted using performance enhancing drugs during this year's tour and immediately followed that with " Chris Froome found his team and told them he was sorry" it's fairly obvious what I would be implying.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,336 ✭✭✭EC1000


    Choochtown wrote: »
    : "A little later four cyclists from Lakeside Cycling Club in Mullingar found Brailsford and told him they were sorry".

    .

    This is the problem..... There is a clear implication here deserving of an apology...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,699 ✭✭✭thesimpsons


    EC1000 wrote: »
    This is the problem..... There is a clear implication here deserving of an apology...

    stating that he is dealing with the whole Irish corner on twitter is not enough imo. whatever he has said on twitter should be in the newspaper same as the original article was. very disappointed with this.


Advertisement