Sky and David Walsh

iainf72

ddraver wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Ahhh, people using things made by Americans to say that Americans are good for nothing. I love the internet.

I'm using a Toshiba Laptop on an internet developed by a british bloke - can I play?

Which kind of processor and OS are you running there sonny?

Berners Lee did a good job, but the foundations of the internet were payed for and developed by the 'mericans.

And as for the cheese, yes. Completely agreed. It's not even cheese.

slim_boy_fat

RichN95 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Ahhh, people using things made by Americans to say that Americans are good for nothing. I love the internet.

You should judge a nation by its cheese. And their cheese is bad.

Yeah but they have lots of it and stick it on anything. Surely that means they win?

Richmond Racer

andyp wrote:

Calling it cheese is being generous.

Monterey Jack? Bleurgh...

America's cheese board - now THAT would be a suitable target for TRC.

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Ahhh, people using things made by Americans to say that Americans are good for nothing. I love the internet.

You should judge a nation by its cheese. And their cheese is bad.

Beer is the true measure of a nation.

They've just about started getting it together the last ten years.

RichN95.

A N Poster wrote:

Noam Chomski.

Mods. This is the red flag that a thread has disappeared up its own arse.


(I like Chomsky (y not i), but he tends to get brought up frequently in internet threads that don't concern him)

above_the_cows

Regarding Chomsky: http://www.justsaygnome.net/gnome-chomsky-i---additional-views.html

I can't do images sorry.

blazing_saddles

Richmond Racer wrote:

Rich, you're following the fine tradition of Winston Churchill - wrote many of his finest speeches after a few libations.

Performance Enchancing Drinks.

This thread has become very heavy going.(nowhere)

LeicesterLad

I agree with Blazing - can we close this now? it's been nothing but trouble.

RichN95.

ocdupalais

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Ahhh, people using things made by Americans to say that Americans are good for nothing. I love the internet.

You should judge a nation by its cheese. And their cheese is bad.

Yeah but they have lots of it and stick it on anything. Surely that means they win?

I was being ironic, Iain. You'll tell me they invented that, next...

Macaloon

Above The Cows wrote:

OK you totally didn't understand what I was getting at with structure and agency.

Only pro-cycling can do this ^. Jaw-dropper of a post. :shock:

ddraver

iainf72 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Ahhh, people using things made by Americans to say that Americans are good for nothing. I love the internet.

I'm using a Toshiba Laptop on an internet developed by a british bloke - can I play?

Which kind of processor and OS are you running there sonny?

Berners Lee did a good job, but the foundations of the internet were payed for and developed by the 'mericans.

And as for the cheese, yes. Completely agreed. It's not even cheese.

Dunno, it's black....?

philbar72

LeicesterLad wrote:

I agree with Blazing - can we close this now? it's been nothing but trouble.

Exactly. Terrible.

ratsbeyfus

Rather than close the thread, people who are enjoying it and want to read more should just visit this one:

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12903463

ocdupalais

philbar72 wrote:

LeicesterLad wrote:

I agree with Blazing - can we close this now? it's been nothing but trouble.

Exactly. Terrible.

How much of it have you read, though?

Macaloon

This has been an amazing thread from the start. Almost every page has a post from the heart that made me think. Change the topic to something more appropriate by all means, but why wouldn't we want more people to read this stuff?

yorkshireraw

micron wrote:

YR know what I tell my bad lads? Get on a bike. It gives you freedom, independence. I point to the success of GB/Sky/cav as something to aspire to - you know what? Turned a lot of them onto the sport, even had a few go up and see Hoy preview his new bike the other day. The thought that my home county will be hosting the TdF depart makes my heart sing. The thought of fireworks on the champs élysées for the centenary of the tour is thrilling. But I'm a fan of the sport first and foremost, not any team or rider. If I wanted to follow teams I'd watch football. Vaughters idea of franchises and the WSC - in which he was a prime mover - fills me with dread.

You say there was evidence against Armstrong in 99 - when did you acknowledge it? In 99? Or after USADA? Because in 99 there was rumour & suspicion & innuendo. Still, as Brailsford says, hindsight is a wonderful thing

Yes '99. Because I could remember him being utter tripe in the tour pre-cancer, and because they were going faster post Festina. Plus the Cortisone issue. And the bullying of Bassons. In other words some of those pesky facts you still seem to ignore vs. the current situation.
I was at Uni at the time and involved in an Endurance sport - average level myself but there were guys there who were internationals and had seen some unpleasant stuff going on in Europe - didn't take much to convince us there was something afoot with the LA fairy story. (EDIT duplicated line)

Good work on the bad lads - truly mean that. But I'm sure you'd be appalled if people went round saying you must be a burgalar / mugger / drug dealer just because you associate with them. And that's through choice. Wiggins had no say in who his employer also hired (Leinders) and AFAIK there is no evidence they every worked together or attended the same events. Do you know different?

Macaloon

For example, this caught my eye from far up-thread:

iainf72 wrote:

The biggest problem with this is that in the grand scheme of things, Sky and Walsh have the same employers.

No way there are only 2 trustworthy/credible/literate... cycling journalists: Walsh or Kimmage?

yorkshireraw

Ref. Sky & Walsh being the same company. I thought the Murdochs didnt have control of Sky and that was what all the Jeremy-whatsit (Culture sec) who-ha texts were about? Obviously I'm sure they have a big influence.
Sky news didn't exactly shy away from covering all the goings on to do with Phone hacking and the NOTW though, so give them some editorial credit, and grant the same to Walsh & The ST.
If you read Walsh's book he comes across as clear in his own mind and doesn't look like he'll take editorial direction he doesn't agree with. His current status is Sky (!) high so am sure he could easily walk to the Telegraph or wherever if he felt undue editorial pressure.
DO wish he'd turn his interest in exposing 'I don't believe what I'm seeing' to one of his other sporting loves though, and dig into how those Rugby Union backs have got so big and much quicker....

frenchfighter

ddraver wrote:

Ok, you re a d1ck then

Your original post.

"He who angers you, conquers you"

"He who resorts to violence or insults has already lost"

Have a good weekend. Maybe use it to give your blog an update as it is looking a little old to have linked to on your sig.

No_Ta_Doctor

iainf72 wrote:

The biggest problem with this is that in the grand scheme of things, Sky and Walsh have the same employers.

I might be alone in not thinking this is a problem.

The assumption is that the Murdochs will want to protect their investment in Team Sky and could do this by exercising editorial influence on Walsh.

Firstly, I don't think Walsh is so easily swayed that he'll allow that to happen, secondly, if he really did find something truly suspicious then even blocking it in The Times isn't going to stop it coming out.

But if we dig a little deeper, then the idea that the Murdochs would want to cover up any nasty business in the team isn't really supportable.

Sky were launched and funded as a clean British team. This went to the extent of the Murdoch imposed (so we're told, I'm happy to believe it, can't remember if I've seen it documented) zero tolerance policy. It's a policy that has drawn scorn from many, not for its intended purpose of creating a clean team but for the method it uses to do so. The argument is that zero tolerance encourages riders and staff to lie, when actually we want them to be honest and open about doping. Its actually a very good argument, there clearly are problems with zero tolerance.

But somehow, along the way, we've gone from the idea that zero tolerance is a misguided but well intentioned policy to the idea that zero tolerance is some sort of evil harm against cycling that's been imposed by a megalomaniac evil owner. It isn't, though the owner may well be as described...

Zero tolerance was necessary for Sky. They needed it to sell the team to a wider British audience who know little about cycling other than the doping headlines that occasionally make the front pages. These aren't people who you can explain the nuances of the situation to, they're not that involved and they're not that interested. They just want an assurance that if they cheer for someone then they won't be embarrassed by a doping headline later.

Now given Julich, Barry etc. it may not have played out that way, and questions can certainly be asked about due diligence when hiring them, but lets face it, you have to set the evidential bar somewhere and neither had an actual suspension.

But to get to the point, if there was doping on Sky, and Walsh found it, then what would Murdoch do - cover it up, or publish (assuming an all powerful editorial ability to do either)?

He'd publish. Here's why:

He can cut his losses and get out. The project requires the team is clean, he cant sell it otherwise. If there's doping then it will come out at some point and he'd have to pull the plug then. Better to have some influence in managing the information, uncovering the problem, and being seen to be proactive in tackling it. Last time they tried a cover up they had to close a newspaper.

Murdoch can use Walsh as an internal audit, it's a win-win situation. If Walsh comes back with "I'm impressed, I really do think they're clean" then everybody bar a few tin-foil hats will be reasonably satisfied. If he comes back with "I saw Wiggins looking a like a porcupine, needles hanging out of every square inch of his body" then it will be easy to play it as a massive betrayal of Murdoch personally, and Sky the sponsors, by the team. "We are shocked and appalled, we entered this in good faith, blah blah blah". That is the least worst case for uncovering doping on a team: we investigated, we found it, we won't allow it.

That's what you get for having a media owner as sponsor, they're at least media savvy. Saxo-Tinkoff are showing sponsors the world over how not to handle possible doping on their team.

ddraver

frenchfighter wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Ok, you re a d1ck then

Your original post.

"He who angers you, conquers you"

"He who resorts to violence or insults has already lost"

Have a good weekend. Maybe use it to give your blog an update as it is looking a little old to have linked to on your sig.

Reality isnt a competition Frenchie...I know you may struggle to believe this.

(if it was, i could point out that you started with the insults Waaaaaayy earlier than I, but it isn t so I wont)

ocdupalais

^^Totally agree, NotADoc - splendid appraisal.

As an aside (and at the risk of being yet another internet tosspot asking meddlesome questions), I didn't really see much comment on the "stepping down" of Shane Sutton. OK, I know he had that accident on the bike, and I may have totally missed it - but I didn't see any other (believable) reason for this: the implication is clear, no?

Why else would you leave the No1 team in the World whilst at the height of it's success?

rob churchill

No tA Doctor wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

The biggest problem with this is that in the grand scheme of things, Sky and Walsh have the same employers.

I might be alone in not thinking this is a problem.

<snip>

Agree with all of that, but we're going round in circles here. This was said earlier in the thread.

rob churchill

OCDuPalais wrote:

^^Totally agree, NotADoc - splendid appraisal.

As an aside (and at the risk of being yet another internet tosspot asking meddlesome questions), I didn't really see much comment on the "stepping down" of Shane Sutton. OK, I know he had that accident on the bike, and I may have totally missed it - but I didn't see any other (believable) reason for this: the implication is clear, no?

Why else would you leave the No1 team in the World whilst at the height of it's success?

Sutton remains on the Sky payroll, and was at the Majorca training camp. He hasn't left the team. The only clear implication is that whatever the reason for the change in role, it's not related to the zero tolerance policy.

No_Ta_Doctor

OCDuPalais wrote:

^^Totally agree, NotADoc - splendid appraisal.

As an aside (and at the risk of being yet another internet tosspot asking meddlesome questions), I didn't really see much comment on the "stepping down" of Shane Sutton. OK, I know he had that accident on the bike, and I may have totally missed it - but I didn't see any other (believable) reason for this: the implication is clear, no?

Why else would you leave the No1 team in the World whilst at the height of it's success?

Well he hasn't actually quit, he's been kicked upstairs (as they say in football). As he's still on the payroll then I don't think that can be put down to the zero-tolerance policy, though could be interpreted as Sky distancing themselves just in case.

Just as likely is that DB looks for continual improvement through continual change. If he has a winning formula then it's "don't stick with a winning formula". And he is utterly dispassionate and objective, there are no sacred cows. That's why he manages to deliver what he promises time after time. If he wasn't in cycling he could be managing pretty much anything else in the world - IT projects, product development, whatever. The archetypal successful project manager.

No_Ta_Doctor

rob churchill wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

The biggest problem with this is that in the grand scheme of things, Sky and Walsh have the same employers.

I might be alone in not thinking this is a problem.

<snip>

Agree with all of that, but we're going round in circles here. This was said earlier in the thread.

Just spelling it out. At least it was on-topic again

iainf72

No tA Doctor wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

The biggest problem with this is that in the grand scheme of things, Sky and Walsh have the same employers.

I might be alone in not thinking this is a problem.

Your edit changed the context somewhat.

What I meant was, considering the circumstances (same employer) would Walsh let it lie if it wasn't him? I didn't read the article so perhaps he addressed it or had a caveat, but he's not open about it doesn't it make him an enormous hypocrite?

I'd expect him to apply the same standard to himself as he would to others.

No_Ta_Doctor

iainf72 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

The biggest problem with this is that in the grand scheme of things, Sky and Walsh have the same employers.

I might be alone in not thinking this is a problem.

Your edit changed the context somewhat.

What I meant was, considering the circumstances (same employer) would Walsh let it lie if it wasn't him? I didn't read the article so perhaps he addressed it or had a caveat, but he's not open about it doesn't it make him an enormous hypocrite?

I'd expect him to apply the same standard to himself as he would to others.

Sorry, wasn't aware of an edit - I scrolled back looking for your original post and couldn't find it, so copied the quote from someone else quoting you. Apologies.

Frankly you've just confused the hell out of me.

This bit:
"would Walsh let it lie if it wasn't him? "

Would he let what lie? That Sky have given a journalist access all areas? Or that Sky have given a journalist connected by "same employers" access all areas?

I would imagine and hope that on either issue he'd take into account the journalist's reputation, background etc. before passing any judgement. In the hypothetical situation that Kimmage still worked for ST, Walsh didn't, and Kimmage got the drop-in-any-time invite I wouldn't have expected Walsh to react as Kimmage did.

The main problem I have with this whole thing is that anything he does write will be behind a bloody firewall and I don't have access to the paper edition.

ddraver

To be fair iain the paper he wrote it in has THE SUNDAY TIMES written across the front of it....