Sky and David Walsh

Talk about competitive road cycling in all its forms
User avatar
frenchfighter
Posts: 30000
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 17:35 pm

Re: Sky and David Walsh

Postby frenchfighter » Sat Feb 09, 2013 11:09 am

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.
Last edited by frenchfighter on Sat Feb 09, 2013 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Contador is the Greatest

User avatar
No tA Doctor
Posts: 5484
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 11:37 am
Contact:

Re: Sky and David Walsh

Postby No tA Doctor » Sat Feb 09, 2013 11:09 am

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.
“Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

@DrHeadgear

Steve Abraham's attempt at the year record

User avatar
ddraver
Posts: 17380
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 15:57 pm

Re: Sky and David Walsh

Postby ddraver » Sat Feb 09, 2013 11:13 am

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)
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver
- Blog-http://davekio.wordpress.com/

User avatar
OCDuPalais
Posts: 2230
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 23:10 pm

Re: Sky and David Walsh

Postby OCDuPalais » Sat Feb 09, 2013 11:42 am

^^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?

User avatar
rob churchill
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 20:05 pm

Re: Sky and David Walsh

Postby rob churchill » Sat Feb 09, 2013 11:45 am

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.
I have a policy of only posting comment on the internet under my real name. This is to moderate my natural instinct to flame your fatuous, ill-informed, irrational, credulous, bigoted, semi-literate opinions to carbon, you knuckle-dragging f***wits.

User avatar
rob churchill
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 20:05 pm

Re: Sky and David Walsh

Postby rob churchill » Sat Feb 09, 2013 11:52 am

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.
I have a policy of only posting comment on the internet under my real name. This is to moderate my natural instinct to flame your fatuous, ill-informed, irrational, credulous, bigoted, semi-literate opinions to carbon, you knuckle-dragging f***wits.

User avatar
No tA Doctor
Posts: 5484
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 11:37 am
Contact:

Re: Sky and David Walsh

Postby No tA Doctor » Sat Feb 09, 2013 11:59 am

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.
“Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

@DrHeadgear

Steve Abraham's attempt at the year record

User avatar
No tA Doctor
Posts: 5484
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 11:37 am
Contact:

Re: Sky and David Walsh

Postby No tA Doctor » Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:00 pm

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 :wink:
“Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

@DrHeadgear

Steve Abraham's attempt at the year record

User avatar
iainf72
Posts: 15162
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Sky and David Walsh

Postby iainf72 » Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:25 pm

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.
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.

User avatar
No tA Doctor
Posts: 5484
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 11:37 am
Contact:

Re: Sky and David Walsh

Postby No tA Doctor » Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:57 pm

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.
“Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

@DrHeadgear

Steve Abraham's attempt at the year record

User avatar
ddraver
Posts: 17380
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 15:57 pm

Re: Sky and David Walsh

Postby ddraver » Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:58 pm

To be fair iain the paper he wrote it in has THE SUNDAY TIMES written across the front of it....
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver
- Blog-http://davekio.wordpress.com/

User avatar
Blazing Saddles
Posts: 7718
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 13:11 pm

Re: Sky and David Walsh

Postby Blazing Saddles » Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:59 pm

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.


Were that the only universal forum rule, the world would be a much saner place.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.

User avatar
iainf72
Posts: 15162
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Sky and David Walsh

Postby iainf72 » Sat Feb 09, 2013 13:10 pm

No tA Doctor wrote:
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?


Forget journalism - Anything. So if the UCI, or an athlete had a financial connection to someone that could be perceived as a conflict of interest, would he call it out? I believe he would.

Especially as the new fluffy Sky where they're open and let journos have a poke around is allowing access to someone from News Corp.
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.

User avatar
No tA Doctor
Posts: 5484
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 11:37 am
Contact:

Re: Sky and David Walsh

Postby No tA Doctor » Sat Feb 09, 2013 13:26 pm

iainf72 wrote:
No tA Doctor wrote:
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?


Forget journalism - Anything. So if the UCI, or an athlete had a financial connection to someone that could be perceived as a conflict of interest, would he call it out? I believe he would.

Especially as the new fluffy Sky where they're open and let journos have a poke around is allowing access to someone from News Corp.


OK, I'm with you now.

I think he would ask questions if it wasn't him, and I think he should answer the questions he would have asked seeing as it is him.

I think pointing out potential conflicts of interest is valuable wherever it occurs, though I'm not keen to jump from that to "it's a fishy business" without some further context (e.g. in this case, journalistic reputation etc.). I may be more forgiving than Walsh himself is here. It's a typical tactic in journalism to let an open question hang in the air until it becomes a rhetorical statement. It's fair that Walsh himself is held accountable, but that's a very long way from pre-judging him.
“Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

@DrHeadgear

Steve Abraham's attempt at the year record

User avatar
rob churchill
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 20:05 pm

Re: Sky and David Walsh

Postby rob churchill » Sat Feb 09, 2013 14:23 pm

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.


Ok, so how many journalists have called foul about this supposed conflict? None? Then I think we can reasonably infer that Walsh would also 'let it lie if it wasn't him'.
I have a policy of only posting comment on the internet under my real name. This is to moderate my natural instinct to flame your fatuous, ill-informed, irrational, credulous, bigoted, semi-literate opinions to carbon, you knuckle-dragging f***wits.

User avatar
Macaloon
Posts: 5503
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 09:38 am

Re: Sky and David Walsh

Postby Macaloon » Sat Feb 09, 2013 15:34 pm

rob churchill wrote:Ok, so how many journalists have called foul about this supposed conflict? None? Then I think we can reasonably infer that Walsh would also 'let it lie if it wasn't him'.


No journalists, one Kimmage.
Ninja edit to note that I'm reading between the lines. Don't know if there's a direct PK quote on this.
...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.

User avatar
iainf72
Posts: 15162
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Sky and David Walsh

Postby iainf72 » Sat Feb 09, 2013 15:48 pm

rob churchill wrote:
Ok, so how many journalists have called foul about this supposed conflict? None? Then I think we can reasonably infer that Walsh would also 'let it lie if it wasn't him'.


I don't believe he would.

I don't think Walsh is just writing fluff pieces for what it's worth. I think Brailsford has realised the way they were dealing with things (not discussing, removing access to riders etc) was a mistake and they're trying to rectify it. I think letting Kimmage near your team is a recipe for disaster though, but there are many competent journos out there not just DW
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.

User avatar
No tA Doctor
Posts: 5484
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 11:37 am
Contact:

Re: Sky and David Walsh

Postby No tA Doctor » Sat Feb 09, 2013 15:55 pm

iainf72 wrote:
rob churchill wrote:
Ok, so how many journalists have called foul about this supposed conflict? None? Then I think we can reasonably infer that Walsh would also 'let it lie if it wasn't him'.


I don't believe he would.

I don't think Walsh is just writing fluff pieces for what it's worth. I think Brailsford has realised the way they were dealing with things (not discussing, removing access to riders etc) was a mistake and they're trying to rectify it. I think letting Kimmage near your team is a recipe for disaster though, but there are many competent journos out there not just DW


They need a broadsheet journalist for maximum coverage (is there a tabloid that actually has a cycling journo?).

Fotheringham can't do it as he's written Brad's book.
Gallagher at the Telegraph? He's not really tuned in to cycling really, I'd be disappointed if it were him.
Who have the Independent got?

They aren't actually spoilt for choice, and Walsh has the perfect CV otherwise.
“Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

@DrHeadgear

Steve Abraham's attempt at the year record

User avatar
iainf72
Posts: 15162
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Sky and David Walsh

Postby iainf72 » Sat Feb 09, 2013 16:03 pm

No tA Doctor wrote:Gallagher at the Telegraph? He's not really tuned in to cycling really, I'd be disappointed if it were him.



Bren tweeted about the Sky transparency and how they've always been brilliant, despite Brailsford saying they hadn't. Which says it all really.
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.

User avatar
rob churchill
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 20:05 pm

Re: Sky and David Walsh

Postby rob churchill » Sat Feb 09, 2013 16:07 pm

Also, when Kimmage said he'd been offered unrestricted access and then they immediately started restricting the access, my initial response was that I'd like to hear Brailsford's version, and specifically whether anyone had ever said access would be unlimited.
I have a policy of only posting comment on the internet under my real name. This is to moderate my natural instinct to flame your fatuous, ill-informed, irrational, credulous, bigoted, semi-literate opinions to carbon, you knuckle-dragging f***wits.


Return to “Pro Race”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dabber and 6 guests