A pair of David Walsh interviews - Clinic Edition

[Dazed and Confused]

Sastre? and basso was clean in 2010 if Evans is clean.

Sastre may have sad puppy eyes, but he wasn't clean.

And these days Journalists can be persuaded to rewrite a press release over a nice dinner at the Ritz. I don't know who picks up the tab, but in the end Murdoch will have reimburse it one way or another.

 

[Netserk]

Sastre may have sad puppy eyes, but he wasn't clean.

And these days Journalists can be persuaded to rewrite a press release over a nice dinner at the Ritz. I don't know who picks up the tab, but in the end Murdoch will have reimburse it one way or another.

I agree that Sastre wasn't clean, but he isn't any dirtier (from what we know) than Evans and Wiggo.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

I agree that Sastre wasn't clean, but he isn't any dirtier (from what we know) than Evans and Wiggo.

^^^ What he said.

 

[Ferminal]

http://sportmagazine.knack.be/sport...n-voor-eendagskoers/article-4000290199866.htm

Grand synthesis.

 

[del1962]

He certainly has doubts about Spartacus

 

[weeniebeenie]

He certainly has doubts about Spartacus

Me too. Kirk Douglas is 96 and still producing 6.7 watts per kilogram.

 

[martinvickers]

Ofc all of them Anglo

Perilously close to a comment that would earn otherd a telling off.

Clearly the evidence v Sastre is no worse than v Evans or wiggins, but to be fair to Walsh , armstrong was 'anglo', was he not? Which rather renders the insinuation foolish.

 

[del1962]

Perilously close to a comment that would earn otherd a telling off.

Clearly the evidence v Sastre is no worse than v Evans or wiggins, but to be fair to Walsh , armstrong was 'anglo', was he not? Which rather renders the insinuation foolish.

+1

To add to this, he didn't spare S Roche his fellow countryman in the past.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

At least he is not accusing Sayar...

Walsh: That's too strong a word, but I've heard things about him that make me very concerned. Of the Tour of Flanders and Paris-Roubaix I did not enjoy at least. I can not enjoy course when I think they are deceiving me.

Good to see clean Brad is beating this fraud, not to forget clean Chris is losing by just 3 seconds at Tirreno.

Dope does not work.

 

[Ferminal]

FGL are you able to translate the bit where he talks about doping in GTs vs classics?

Cheers!

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

FGL are you able to translate the bit where he talks about doping in GTs vs classics?

Cheers!

''Sky domineert de rittenkoersen, maar mijn inschatting is dat het tegenwoordig veel moeilijker is om je te doperen voor een grote ronde dan voor een eendagskoers.

Journalist: Dat gaat in tegen de wielerlogica. Grote rondes zijn veel zwaarder.

Walsh: Ja, maar je moet er vooral voor zorgen dat je op de dag van de wedstrijd clean bent, want het systeem van tests buiten competitie is lang niet waterdicht. In een grote ronde moet je in principe tijdens de koers verder doperen, en dat is nu toch wel lastig geworden, vermoed ik.

=

Sky dominates the stage races but to my estimate it is much harder to dope for a GT than to a one day race.

Journalist: that contradicts to all cycling logic, GT's are much harder.

Walsh: Yes but you mostly have to make sure you are clean the day before the race because the system of OOC testing is still not waterproof. In a GT you will have to dope throughout the race, and that has become hard, I suspect.

tttttttttttttttttten chars

 

[Ferminal]

Thanks, maybe GT riders only withdraw blood for the "health benefits" Ferrari claims... not to reinfuse at a later date.

 

[hrotha]

So the only reason why Sky doesn't completely dominate the whole racing calendar is that other people still dope for the classics.

****ing sellout.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Brilliant! Walsh goes on the naughty list

 

[Schwartzchov]

1 right out of 3 aint a good score

The reality is Walsh may be wrong about all three of these guys. For the life of me I cannot comprehend why people find it so hard to fathom that Greg Lemond may have also doped. Just because there is no evidence against Lemond, who is also an outspoken advocate against the use of performance enhancing drugs, proves absolutely nothing. Like, you would have to ask the question "why would Lemond be the only clean rider to have won the Tour in the last thirty odd years"?. It is possible Lemond also doped. After all he won the Tour three times, against athletes who were doped up with all the pharmaceuticals that they could get there hands on at the time. Now over the course of a three week grand tour it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Lemond to beat all these dopers clean. I am not buying all that Vo2 Max of 92.5 myth. I know that there are many who will defend Lemond. But be very careful for you may be in reality perpetuating a myth.

 

[kingjr]

The reality is Walsh may be wrong about all three of these guys. For the life of me I cannot comprehend why people find it so hard to fathom that Greg Lemond may have also doped. Just because there is no evidence against Lemond, who is also an outspoken advocate against the use of performance enhancing drugs, proves absolutely nothing. Like, you would have to ask the question "why would Lemond be the only clean rider to have won the Tour in the last thirty odd years"?. It is possible Lemond also doped. After all he won the Tour three times, against athletes who were doped up with all the pharmaceuticals that they could get there hands on at the time. Now over the course of a three week grand tour it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Lemond to beat all these dopers clean. I am not buying all that Vo2 Max of 92.5 myth. I know that there are many who will defend Lemond. But be very careful for you may be in reality perpetuating a myth.

See that's the problem. Who are you to know what's possible or not.

 

[Benotti69]

The reality is Walsh may be wrong about all three of these guys. For the life of me I cannot comprehend why people find it so hard to fathom that Greg Lemond may have also doped. Just because there is no evidence against Lemond, who is also an outspoken advocate against the use of performance enhancing drugs, proves absolutely nothing. Like, you would have to ask the question "why would Lemond be the only clean rider to have won the Tour in the last thirty odd years"?. It is possible Lemond also doped. After all he won the Tour three times, against athletes who were doped up with all the pharmaceuticals that they could get there hands on at the time. Now over the course of a three week grand tour it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Lemond to beat all these dopers clean. I am not buying all that Vo2 Max of 92.5 myth. I know that there are many who will defend Lemond. But be very careful for you may be in reality perpetuating a myth.

With LeMond it is very easy. He at the time of cycling's height of popularity took a shot at the golden goose and has been doing consistently until USADA effectively buried that goose. Now if LeMond had doped someone would crawled out fo the woodwork and told us, expecially as there was a 300,000dollar incentive put up by the golden goose to do so.

So on that simple basis (but there are many that weigh in his favour) he is the last clean winner of the TdF, not that there were ever many.

 

[del1962]

Brilliant! Walsh goes on the naughty list

Lol - people turn on Walsh because he does not follow the herd mentality around here.

 

[armchairclimber]

So Walsh says he believes in Wiggins and he's a "wrong 'un". What happens when Kimmage comes to the same conclusions?...which he probably will, ultimately. Will he be put in the "corrupt/sell out" box too?

Funny as hell. It's quite simple, Walsh believes in Wiggins because there's nothing to indicate otherwise to him...and that is because he IS clean. In the end some of the clinic will get it....others will cling onto their beliefs regardless.

 

[Benotti69]

So Walsh says he believes in Wiggins and he's a "wrong 'un". What happens when Kimmage comes to the same conclusions?...which he probably will, ultimately. Will he be put in the "corrupt/sell out" box too?

Funny as hell. It's quite simple, Walsh believes in Wiggins because there's nothing to indicate otherwise to him...and that is because he IS clean. In the end some of the clinic will get it....others will cling onto their beliefs regardless.

The simplicity is that Walsh has not seen any evidence to make him beleive Sky or Wiggins are doping. Remember Walsh did not think of Armstrong as a doper and in fact had a lot of admiration for him in the beginning.

Kimmage lost his job for taking the opposite stance. Maybe Walsh is erring on the side of employment

 

[Libertine Seguros]

It's nice of you to share your knowledge with the group. In capital letters, no less, to ensure that everybody drew the correct conclusion.

To be able to say with such certainty that Bradley is clean, however, I am assuming you must be either the man himself or somebody else extremely close to him (as stalking is kind of a problem).

 

[hrotha]

Lol - people turn on Walsh because he does not follow the herd mentality around here.

No, I turn on Walsh because what he's saying sounds ridiculous to me and it's not consistent with what I'm seeing during and after the races. Should I take everything he says as gospel just because he's Walsh?

 

[Froome19]

To be able to say with such certainty that Bradley is dirty, however, I am assuming you must be either the man himself or somebody else extremely close to him (as stalking is kind of a problem).

Fixed it

Other side of the coin and the above quote could apply to many posters in the clinic.

 

[armchairclimber]

It's nice of you to share your knowledge with the group. In capital letters, no less, to ensure that everybody drew the correct conclusion.

To be able to say with such certainty that Bradley is clean, however, I am assuming you must be either the man himself or somebody else extremely close to him (as stalking is kind of a problem).

Well, that's for me to know and I certainly won't be explaining how I know in the clinic. KnoworrImeanlike.

 

[del1962]

No, I turn on Walsh because what he's saying sounds ridiculous to me and it's not consistent with what I'm seeing during and after the races. Should I take everything he says as gospel just because he's Walsh?

Why turn on him though, just accept he has a different position to you and his might be as informed as yours.