David Walsh

mloc123

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

mikeoneill893

he has to acclaim sky and froomdawg without evidence of cheating

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

mloc123

mikeoneill893 wrote: »

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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?

Beasty

ROK ON wrote: »

Maybe have a read of the article?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

pelevin

gordongekko wrote: »

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.

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.

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!

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

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

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

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.

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...

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.

JacksonHeightsOwn

this whole "full access" thing irks me to a massive degree.

its basically a big charade.

lets be honest, if Team Sky where doing a US Postal and all their riders where doped up the gills, they'd hardly go around showing it off in public. So having a journalist travelling with you wouldnt make any difference.

its not like US Postal walked around their hotels with syringes hanging from their arms, and im sure David Walsh isnt just bursting into riders rooms like an SAS operative trying to catch them getting a blood transfusion. It means absolutely nothing.

If they're doping, they could just as easily do it with him there.

Stupid scenario in my opinion

Beasty

el tel wrote: »

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

Based on what was quoted it's quite clearly the case - Walsh does not claim to have been present (does he?)

Choochtown wrote: »

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.

I take it this is a direct quote from the article, as Stickybottle has a different "interpretation"

Walsh also reported that a number of members of an Irish cycling club sought out and found team principal Dave Brailsford and apologised, apparently for the behaviour of some of the Irish fans on the climb.

ie they were not apologising for their own behaviour, but for the behaviour of some Irish fans. I appreciate though that even this is disputed with the suggestion that the Mullingar Wheelers members did not offer any apology

Choochtown wrote: »

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.

This has been pointed out numerous times - again the SB article does not suggest Walsh indicated it was put there by Irish fans, merely that it was at Irish corner

On the question of Walsh apologising, I would ask again, other than the comments about the discussion between Brailsford and the Mullingar Wheelers, what did he say that was factually incorrect?

On a more general point, as I have already acknowledged I have not read the full article, and wonder how many others commenting here are in the same position. StickyBottle made selected quotes, but like Boards is unable to quote substantial parts due to copyright laws. So are posters here forming their views on the 2 SB articles (and indeed the reports here of the likes of elduggo, which I have already indicated I do not find in any way inconsistent with what was quoted on SB) or have they read the full article? (The only poster in this thread to indicate they have read the full article was C3PO)

And to be clear I am not trying to defend Walsh - based on what I'm hearing he could certainly have been a bit more tactful with his reporting. I'm also not talking about the general "deal" with Sky and whether that has affected in any way his ability to report objectively on the team and its members. It just seems to me that an awful lot seems to be being said about the "Irish corner" situation, but I cannot really see what all the fuss is about

el tel

I have the print article and would be happy to send it to anyone who wants.

Anyhow, he had two full pages to say what he liked but used it for a lightweight piece about ppineapple juice and hotel rooms and to have a bit of a wishy washy and slightly mixed up incoherent go at the Irish fans. I got the impression he wouldn't have even mentioned irish fans if it weren't for sky crying like babies to him about one or two experiences that are hardly unique in tour terms. Perhaps Sky expected a huge amount of love from Walsh's countrymen now that he is in with the team?

Choochtown

Beasty I have the article in front of me. The bit I've put in quotation marks in my post that begins "A little later..." is a direct quote.

Moreover it comes directly after (ie. it is the next sentence in the article) the quote from Dogsears that ends "there were tears in his eyes as he spoke".

At no stage is there even an attempt to acknowledge that it might only be hearsay. The Lakeside Cycling club are directly linked to the unacceptable behaviour in much the same way as my hypothetical example linking Froome to doping.

To summarise, Walsh details abuse given to Sky riders and team cars on Irish corner. He then says that Sky's chief doctor meets with Irish fans and tells them how disappointed he is with them "... and that's what we get from you guys". The very next sentence directly implicates the Lakeside Cycling Club in the abuse.

Russman

gordongekko wrote: »

Ben Johnson won the 100 meters on drugs, but people have gine faster than him clean.

:D:D

dedocdude

Beasty wrote: »

I cannot really see what all the fuss is about

agree with this - I think its media driven, stories generated on the back of a few words in an article and a bit of a campaign started against Walsh (I'm far from a Walsh fan - quite the opposite in fact)

I will say though that if you went to the organised meet up place on the alpe, then you were identifying urself with the group. The chances of anti-Sky sentiment feeling being expressed by someone in the group was always going high seeing as they seem to be so unpopular right now.

AnotherView

dedocdude wrote: »

agree with this - I think its media driven, stories generated on the back of a few words in an article and a bit of a campaign started against Walsh (I'm far from a Walsh fan - quite the opposite in fact)

I will say though that if you went to the organised meet up place on the alpe, then you were identifying urself with the group. The chances of anti-Sky sentiment feeling being expressed by someone in the group was always going high seeing as they seem to be so unpopular right now.

But that is not what the article and follow up texts are accusing people on Irish Corner with....Irsih corner has been linked with ABUSE no less
An irish doctor had tears in his eyes FFS , cyclists from mulligar apologised,(or didn't as the case maybe) Richie Porte engaged in along conversation with Walsh about it all ( probably some sort of post traumatic debreifing ) ....this is bigger than Anti Sky sentiment....:eek:

Twitter from walsh
"The abuse was worst at those parts of the climb populated by Irish and Dutch fans."

"Just spent an hour and a half with Richie Porte in San Sebastien, he says the guys who abused him at Corner 10 were not French."

Beasty

AnotherView wrote: »

But that is not what the article and follow up texts are accusing people on Irish Corner with....Irsih corner has been linked with ABUSE no less
An irish doctor had tears in his eyes FFS , cyclists from mulligar apologised,(or didn't as the case maybe) Richie Porte engaged in along conversation with Walsh about it all ( probably some sort of post traumatic debreifing ) ....this is bigger than Anti Sky sentiment....:eek:

And it's been made absolutely clear that there was abuse (and pretty extreme abuse) at Irish corner, with only "Dutch corner" worse.

It's also been made absolutely clear that the main perpetrators of that abuse were not Irish

Check elduggo's report in the other thread for an eyewitness account

AnotherView

Beasty wrote: »

And it's been made absolutely clear that there was abuse (and pretty extreme abuse) at Irish corner, with only "Dutch corner" worse.

It's also been made absolutely clear that the main perpetrators of that abuse were not Irish

Check elduggo's report in the other thread for an eyewitness account

But that is my point ...IT has NOT BEEN made clear by Walsh

All he seems clear that there was abuse at Irish corner and they weren't French ( after discussion with R Porte)
No where does he say they were not Irish ..... He does conceed that Dutch corner was worse but that is daming with feint praise

By naming Irish Corner as place of Abuse and using emotive words about crying doctors and apologising Irish cyclists he is implying that IRISH fans on IRISH corner have soemthing to be ashamed of and apoligise for

No mention of French, Australina or Korean fans for that matter.....the article is biased and no apology has been published that redresses the original accusations

Beasty

AnotherView wrote: »

But that is my point ...IT has NOT BEEN made clear by Walsh

What he said on Twitter the other day

David Walsh wrote:

From emails and chats with Irish people at Corner 10, I realise worst offenders were group of French fans who could be classed as thugs. I apologise to the many Irish fans who behaved properly at Corner 10 and felt offended by my generalisation.

Couldn't be much clearer tbh.

AnotherView

Theny why did he tweet this yesterday then (after he said they were French earlier) and after poster here said they were French

"Just spent an hour and a half with Richie Porte in San Sebastien, he says the guys who abused him at Corner 10 were not French."

dedocdude

AnotherView wrote: »

Theny why did he tweet this yesterday then (after he said they were French earlier) and after poster here said they were French

"Just spent an hour and a half with Richie Porte in San Sebastien, he says the guys who abused him at Corner 10 were not French."

Jaysus, wonder has DW or any of team sky ever gone to a football match in England - put half a million people, some drinking, on a mountain to watch a sports event, u think they are all going to be polite?

Like i said, there's no story here, it's been sensationalized by media. Sooner we stop talking about it the better

ROK ON

An issue with all of this is that other than obvious hatred (racial/religious/gender) based abuse then alleged abuse by spectators at a sports events is almost impossible to define.

Almost anyone taking the effort to attend sporting events are emotionally involved. The athletes and their teams are emotionally involved.

So very few people at an event are capable of being dispassionate about what occurred - certainly not logical IMHO.

So in the heat of battle if someone boos a team or throws a few fuc*s at an athlete is that abuse?
I've been at rugby matches in the cauldrons of Thomand Park and Stade Ame Giral in Perpignan. Very intimidating grounds. All sorts of crap being shouted at the refs or opposing teams. Is it intimidating. Yep - it's meant to be.
Is it abusive - I'm not so sure. As long as hatred or violence isn't threatened I think it's part of the theatre of sport. In that regard I have no sympathy for athletes b1tching and moaning about fans roaring at them.

Don't like it, then don't be an athlete. You have no right to expect that all spectators will give you any easy time.

You do have a right to expect that you will not be threatened or subject to hateful verbal abuse. You do have a right to expect that there will be nothing thrown at you, or ghat you will be impeded in any way.

Porte and the Sky doc reckon they were abused and they are implying that it may have been Irish people.

What was the abuse.

I think that the lads dressed as doctors and trying to wave syringes of liquid at the riders is abusive. That does cross the line. But from my reading several English fans tried to prevent that from happening. Good on them - common sense prevails.

I would love to know what if anything else occured, because between the Times articles, the letter from Wheelers to StickyBottle and detailed posts here from actual eyewitnesses I can't imagine that anything other than the water tossed at the car and the threat of syringes at the riders.

On the video clip shown the front riders (Porte included) passed at a fair clip and it appeared that they passed unheeded.

elduggo

Beasty wrote: »

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

thank you. Much appreciated.

Beasty

AnotherView wrote: »

"Just spent an hour and a half with Richie Porte in San Sebastien, he says the guys who abused him at Corner 10 were not French."

Presumably because Porte believes they were not French

Walsh indicated the worst perpetrators on that corner were French - no-one has suggested they were the only ones who gave out abuse (although they appear to be the only ones that it's suggested resorted to physical abuse, hurling stuff at (and in) team cars and the like)

mitosis

Beasty wrote: »

What he said on Twitter the other day


Couldn't be much clearer tbh.

Except he should have used the same medium, the Times column. I read the ST, but do not follow him on twitter, so his retraction did not exist for me though his accusation did.

Dermot Illogical

I don't have any opinion on Sky, and haven't been following closely, but reading DW on twitter I got the impression he was implicating the Irish fans. Then he accepted it may not have been them (it may have been the French), followed by implicating them again (no, it wasn't the French).
I think any casual observer would probably have come away with the impression that the Irish fans had disgraced themselves. If that isn't actually the case then he's lived down to the standards of his employers.

AnotherView

Beasty wrote: »

Presumably because Porte believes they were not French

Walsh indicated the worst perpetrators on that corner were French - no-one has suggested they were the only ones who gave out abuse (although they appear to be the only ones that it's suggested resorted to physical abuse, hurling stuff at (and in) team cars and the like)

Firstly Walsh did not indicate in his Paper that they were French...he agreed on Twitter that "From emails and chats with Irish people at Corner 10, I realise worst offenders were group of French fans who could be classed as thugs."

then he spoke to Richie Porter who said they weren't French ( but not who they were) and Walsh then tweeted that intelligence making what point I am not sure

You are making a point about Walsh not reporting inconsistencies
I could give you a report on my mother without one inconsistency that could paint her a terrible person and likewise another report that could paint her as a saint. The job of a reporter is to be accurate but also balanced and unbiased and check their facts before publishing and later i these facts are found to be incorrect ...they PUBLISH an apology

I didn't want to enter this debate but I do not have much regard for this type of journalism

elduggo

AnotherView wrote: »

By naming Irish Corner as place of Abuse and using emotive words about crying doctors and apologising Irish cyclists he is implying that IRISH fans on IRISH corner have soemthing to be ashamed of and apoligise for

I can also see how this might not be that big a deal to people who were not there, and to whom the allegations (or inferences) in no way apply. I was disgusted personally though, as what he wrote, though open to interpretation, left the most obvious and easy interpretations to be taken that it was Irish people who were involved.

3 English people prevented 6 French guys carrying out whatever plan they had. This was 1 guy and 2 girls. There was an ensuing fight which 2 Irish people took great personal risks to act as peacemaker. No mention of this by Walsh.

There were also many English people on Corner 10. In the SB article mention was made of a Sky car stopping at the corner at one point. It mentions it stopped because the driver wanted to remonstrate with people there. The only time I saw a Sky car stop was because there were 2 guys bedecked head to toe in Sky gear and they pulled up alongside to say hello, shake hands, and possibly hand them hats or whatever.

No mention of this by Walsh.

In the video clip on SB there are several members of the Pontypool cycling club freely mingling with Irish people. I spoke to these myself - sound bunch of lads. Not sure where in the UK they were from but from somewhere over there.

I was with 3 friends. People there may remember our party as we set up 3 camping chairs to the rear of the gendarme's car. On the wall behind us were 3 English guys (one wearing a 'Look Mum No Hands' cycling cap). We got friendly with these lads and hung out with them for the day. In the video they can be seen (one of them wearing a light wooly jumper).

I guess I only mention this because the sentiment at corner 10 was more than just a group of Irish people being friendly and enjoying themselves. There were people from everywhere there. The car on the inside of the bend was owned by 2 lads from Ivory Coast (you can see they have their flag in their front window, and its reversed from ours).

Walsh wrote vaguely enough to avoid making direct allegations that atrocity X was carried out at corner 10 by Irish people. But his wording lefts things such that the most obvious and easy assumption to make was that Irish people were involved. Not only is this not true but it couldn't be further from the truth.

However offended I felt personally, I was more offended for the Lakeside lads. What they did to deserve what Walsh wrote about them I do not know. Those lads feature prominently in the video and, unless wearing silly hats can be termed 'abusive' (in which case colour me abusive also), they did nothing to warrant that treatment.

pelevin

mitosis wrote: »

Except he should have used the same medium, the Times column. I read the ST, but do not follow him on twitter, so his retraction did not exist for me though his accusation did.

Agree fully with the gist of this. His Twitter account is a very different affair with a comparatively miniscule audience compared to a major article in the Sunday Times. Maybe next time he could try posting a dishonest, intelligence insulting article on Twitter and using the Sunday Times to do the apology - see how that works for him.