Brits don't dope?

[ChewbaccaD]

So more or less an express admission of trolling? Come on, Chewie...

I can't help it. A dog always returns to his vomit.

 

[fmk_RoI]

"I'll be pursuing a fantastic story of corruption in British sport. It will appal people and I know it will be incredibly difficult to get into print."

I'd look to the gee-gees and a subject Walsh has recently become a talking head on: Godolphin one year on.

The other major topic is that hoary old staple: doping and the Commie Games. Since gene doping is so 2010, bet for someone looking at the issue of TUEs.

 

[gooner]

Love the way Lance has manipulated your thought process

+1

Notice that wasn't said at the time of his work with Lance. Fast forward now to his reporting on Sky and now it gets said. Interesting.

1. Put your fingers in your ears and yell it really loudly and it still doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. Something you should be used to.

I'm right, you're wrong la la la.

You can keep saying this, shaking your head in disagreement with me but your nose will still be in the same place.

2. Your question was ridiculous, and answering that he went to Italy serves no purpose to me as it doesn't really affect my point (a point you seem too thick to understand).

It's entirely relevant because you said ghost writing a book on Froome has completely compromised him.

Yea, because every "journalist" ghost writes a book for the subject of scrutiny...Walsh has become Sally Jenkins.

Again, why wasn't Walsh compromised so with Roche and Conconi after that book? He didn't have to travel to Italy if he was.

From earlier.

Did Walsh write a book with Roche (who he was a lot closer to than Froome) and then travel to Italy for a week for the Conconi story?

Yes or no.

I'm still waiting.

Saying the question was ridiculous is another way of copping out from answering it.

I can think of other examples in sport where journalists haven't been conflicted in their reporting afterwards. Eamon Dunphy with Roy Keane don't speak anymore after he criticised him when he was manager at Sunderland. More recently Paul Newman said Kevin Pietersen should never play cricket for England again. He ghost wrote his autobiography.

3. I only hoist Horner's flag because I like to see people like you foam at the mouth. The guys is a POS lying doper, but I sure would have loved to see him go at Froomedog. Fortunately, we have another POS lying doper who will challenge him (well, maybe not considering today's news, but we can all hope anyway) this July. Good to see the dogs all running together again. Pip pip, chereo old chap...

PS: Learn to read.
PPS: Have fun with your denial

I remember your Horner nonsense and your response to me at the time about it. You were serious and come full circle now when you get pulled up on it.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

+1

Notice that wasn't said at the time of his work with Lance. Fast forward now to his reporting on Sky and now it gets said. Interesting.



I'm right, you're wrong la la la.

You can keep saying this, shaking your head in disagreement with me but your nose will still be in the same place.



It's entirely relevant because you said ghost writing a book on Froome has completely compromised him.



Again, why wasn't Walsh compromised so with Roche and Conconi after that book? He didn't have to travel to Italy if he was.

From earlier.



I'm still waiting.

Saying the question was ridiculous is another way of copping out from answering it.

I can think of other examples in sport where journalists haven't been conflicted in their reporting afterwards. Eamon Dunphy with Roy Keane don't speak anymore after he criticised him when he was manager at Sunderland. More recently Paul Newman said Kevin Pietersen should never play cricket for England again. He ghost wrote his autobiography.



I remember your Horner nonsense and your response to me at the time about it. You were serious and come full circle now when you get pulled up on it.

Wow, you really can't read.

Anyway, Walsh was compromised well before he got to Froome. He writes flowing, flowery pieces first, and then does the research when he is shown to have been a fool for sniffing so much a$$. Sure it happens to other journalists now and then. All your Italy crap does is show Walsh is making a career of it. No wonder someone like you lionizes him.

Fly your flag doping apologist, fly your flag.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Actually, let me prove you wrong:

My first post on the Chris Squared thread, which is when I began talking about the hypocrisy of people like you, and my thoughts on Horner: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1332877&postcount=52

Here is a post from the same day on Walsh: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1332901&postcount=66

 

[gooner]

Wow, you really can't read.

Anyway, Walsh was compromised well before he got to Froome. He writes flowing, flowery pieces first, and then does the research when he is shown to have been a fool for sniffing so much a$$. Sure it happens to other journalists now and then. All your Italy crap does is show Walsh is making a career of it. No wonder someone like you lionizes him.

Fly your flag doping apologist, fly your flag.

Walsh flying to Italy to get more detail on the Conconi link clearly showed he didn't allow a book with Roche to compromise him.

You didn't answer the question posed because it blows your argument apart.

Actually, let me prove you wrong:

My first post on the Chris Squared thread, which is when I began talking about the hypocrisy of people like you, and my thoughts on Horner: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1332877&postcount=52

Here is a post from the same day on Walsh: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1332901&postcount=66

No relevance whatsoever to what I said.

As for the second one, what are you implying, Walsh went after Armstrong because he was American? And you expect me to take your position seriously.

No hypocrisy with me, Froome would get the same reaction from me to Horner, if he was a redacted name or had a rider or someone in the sport say something similar about him in the past like De Canio did. I don't just say "this rider is doping, I'm know I'm right" and anyone who disagrees with me is a "Skybot" or "doping apologist" as you like to repeat now. It's a regular tactic on your part to shoot down alternative opinion. You can think someone is doped and argue your point accordingly with respecting all sides. Whatever way you try to dress it up, you think they're doping, you don't know it. I'd suggest debating more along these lines in the future and we might get somewhere more constructive on the forum.

This is what I was referring to about your Horner comments.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1391424&postcount=2918
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1394821&postcount=23550

And when I responded to it, you had this to say.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1395168&postcount=23633

 

[martinvickers]

kettles shouldn't call pots black..........

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Walsh flying to Italy to get more detail on the Conconi link clearly showed he didn't allow a book with Roche to compromise him.

You didn't answer the question posed because it blows your argument apart.



No relevance whatsoever to what I said.

As for the second one, what are you implying, Walsh went after Armstrong because he was American? And you expect me to take your position seriously.

No hypocrisy with me, Froome would get the same reaction from me to Horner, if he was a redacted name or had a rider or someone in the sport say something similar about him in the past like De Canio did. I don't just say "this rider is doping, I'm know I'm right" and anyone who disagrees with me is a "Skybot" or "doping apologist" as you like to repeat now. It's a regular tactic on your part to shoot down alternative opinion. You can think someone is doped and argue your point accordingly with respecting all sides. Whatever way you try to dress it up, you think they're doping, you don't know it. I'd suggest debating more along these lines in the future and we might get somewhere more constructive on the forum.

This is what I was referring to about your Horner comments.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1391424&postcount=2918
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1394821&postcount=23550

And when I responded to it, you had this to say.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1395168&postcount=23633

Thanks for posting proof of what I've always said about Horner. If you can read (you have a history of showing you can't), then you will see that I have remained consistent in what I've said about him. I accept your apology.

I've also remained consistent in what I've said about Walsh. And yes, his stance on Armstrong is completely different than the way he sniffs the a$$es of people from the islands. Make of it what you will, I will make of it what I will. He has never gone after anyone like he went after the American...maybe if he'd ghost written "It's not about the Bike," and then when he found out that he was in idiot for believing Armstrong was clean, and finally done the homework he should have done beforehand, he would have fit into his normal pattern with dopers. Here's the thing you seem incapable of understanding: Walsh was compromised well before Italy. He allowed his desire to earn money, and to sniff the a$$ of Roche to override his need to be objective, and thorough BEFORE he wrote the flowing, effusively positive words he gave him. That you don't seem to understand that the time to be a "journalist" is before compromising yourself is evident. That you are too blind to recognize that Walsh is repeating that pattern again is also evident.

And you are the worst kind of doping apologist. You claim to be anti-doping, but spend hours and hours defending performances that, in light of what we know about doping in cycling, are extremely suspicious. Like I said, it's little wonder a compromised, unethical journalist like Walsh is your hero. Me, I much prefer those who will admit they don't care if a rider is doping, and support him anyway. They are miles ahead in honesty compared to someone like you. As for having a constructive conversation with people like you, it is impossible and completely pointless. You are blind and willfully remain so.

Carry on.

EDIT: You know what, you're right about one thing, I was wrong to say that David Walsh has become Sally Jenkins. What I should have said is that Sally Jenkins became David Walsh...

 

[gooner]

Thanks for posting proof of what I've always said about Horner. If you can read (you have a history of showing you can't), then you will see that I have remained consistent in what I've said about him. I accept your apology.

Yeah, you wanted Horner doping. It clearly shows it and you didn't pull up the trolling card that you do now when you were questioned on it back then. You only backtrack on it here to save face for when/if Sky are busted so you can somehow then come from a position of strength in expressing your opinion on it. It doesn't wash.

I've also remained consistent in what I've said about Walsh. And yes, his stance on Armstrong is completely different than the way he sniffs the a$$es of people from the islands. Make of it what you will, I will make of it what I will. He has never gone after anyone like he went after the American...maybe if he'd ghost written "It's not about the Bike," and then when he found out that he was in idiot for believing Armstrong was clean, and finally done the homework he should have done beforehand, he would have fit into his normal pattern with dopers. Here's the thing you seem incapable of understanding: Walsh was compromised well before Italy. He allowed his desire to earn money, and to sniff the a$$ of Roche to override his need to be objective, and thorough BEFORE he wrote the flowing, effusively positive words he gave him. That you don't seem to understand that the time to be a "journalist" is before compromising yourself is evident. That you are too blind to recognize that Walsh is repeating that pattern again is also evident.

Revisionist nonsense.

If you had a problem with Walsh and Roche, why didn't you say it before his reporting with Sky started? All of sudden now he was never a great journalist, something that wasn't said by you on the forum before that period and certainly not before the fall of Lance. It's quite clear too, you don't have the slightest clue about Walsh's history and his journalism outside of Lance. I already gave examples of Roche, Linford Christie, Michelle Smith and FIFA corruption. He has a story coming out on Sunday about corruption of some sort in British sport which has threatened libel laws by the sound of the things. These stories have been within both "islands" and I suggest check your geography before spouting the talk above.

This is the essence of your thinking, Armstrong's problem was he is American, if he was British or Irish Walsh would have gone a lot easier on him. Are you reading what you're posting?

As for the Walsh compromised stuff with Roche you posted, answer the question already posed.

And you are the worst kind of doping apologist. You claim to be anti-doping, but spend hours and hours defending performances that, in light of what we know about doping in cycling, are extremely suspicious. Like I said, it's little wonder a compromised, unethical journalist like Walsh is your hero. Me, I much prefer those who will admit they don't care if a rider is doping, and support him anyway. They are miles ahead in honesty compared to someone like you. As for having a constructive conversation with people like you, it is impossible and completely pointless. You are blind and willfully remain so.

Carry on.

There you go again. This is what I mean.

Where have I defended suspicious performances? Where have I said Froome's performances on AX3 Domaines and Ventoux were clean? I have strong reservations like most on here with regards to the times posted there. That's the thing too, it's a big suspicion, not like you who says they are definitely doping and anyone who is even more reserved is a "Skybot" or "doping apologist". You may think of me as a "doping apologist" or whatever suits you but I don't take kind to guys who have a doping only view to sport in the face of no concrete evidence of what's being discussed at the time. I will respond here and correct them if I feel it appropriate to do so. In referring to Froome's times on the two climbs mentioned, I have no problem with posters pulling that up to further their argument and saying they think(not know) he is doping as a result. What I won't accept is the spinning of it, to say things are as bad as they were at the height of the Lance era due to the time for instance on AX3 Domaines. Most on here just focused on Froome's time, but if they analysed it further you would see that peloton was in general a fair bit slower than in 2001. The same can be said for Alpe d'Huez. If we are going to pull times out, why not do it when it's encouraging as well. I remember one respected poster on the forum mentioned Costa's MTT winning time in Suisse where it was significantly slower than other years. There was barely recognition of it. You are your like don't like to see the bigger picture and only see things through one mirror of thought and aren't one bit open minded on any of this. The sport deserves it's big criticism and scepticism at times, but I will stick up for it when I see it can be done and will do so with facts at hand.

To get back to your comments on Walsh, I just think you've spat the dummy out because he hasn't come to the opinion that you WANTED him to come to and now come up with your revisionist nonsense disregarding his previous work. This same previous work you never questioned once before the fall of Lance or his Sky reporting. That's what's interesting and telling to me about your motives.

Walsh is no hero of mine, I don't have any heroes in sport and prefer to keep that level of feeling for people of far more important walks of life. I do respect him as a journalist.

EDIT: You know what, you're right about one thing, I was wrong to say that David Walsh has become Sally Jenkins. What I should have said is that Sally Jenkins became David Walsh...

I wonder did you say that at the time of "It's not about the Bike" being published. Somehow I doubt it.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Yeah, you wanted Horner doping. It clearly shows it and you didn't pull up the trolling card that you do now when you were questioned on it back then. You only backtrack on it here to save face for when/if Sky are busted so you can somehow then come from a position of strength in expressing your opinion on it. It doesn't wash.

From the post YOU linked to: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1391424&postcount=2918

"I'm rooting for Horner to p!ss off the Skybots."

I'm honestly concerned that you can't read. But again, your history shows that this is a continuing problem. Again, I accept your apology.

Revisionist nonsense.

If you had a problem with Walsh and Roche, why didn't you say it before his reporting with Sky started? All of sudden now he was never a great journalist, something that wasn't said by you on the forum before that period and certainly not before the fall of Lance. It's quite clear too, you don't have the slightest clue about Walsh's history and his journalism outside of Lance. I already gave examples of Roche, Linford Christie, Michelle Smith and FIFA corruption. He has a story coming out on Sunday about corruption of some sort in British sport which has threatened libel laws by the sound of the things. These stories have been within both "islands" and I suggest check your geography before spouting the talk above.

This is the essence of your thinking, Armstrong's problem was he is American, if he was British or Irish Walsh would have gone a lot easier on him. Are you reading what you're posting?

As for the Walsh compromised stuff with Roche you posted, answer the question already posed.

Didn't read it, don't care.

EDIT: In fairness, I should read and respond.

That Walsh has a pattern of sniffing Islander's a$$es, and then has to double back and do the work he should have done BEFORE taking the money and writing the words is not compromised in the slightest by when I discovered the pattern. That you are trying to make this about when I observed the pattern is not going to change reality. Sorry. Fail.

As to Armstrong, anyone can see the difference in tone and fervor that Walsh took when it came to Armstrong versus when he writes about those from the island. In the video where he confronts Roche, he still says he thinks they're "friends," etc, etc, etc. Then there's Kelly, Sky, Froome. What he does in relation to FIFA or anything else doesn't alter the disturbing pattern with cyclists, nor the manner by which he went after Armstrong as it relates to his doping. I don't know, maybe Walsh has erotic fantasies about only cyclists? I see a marked difference however in the way Walsh treats cyclists from the islands, and the way he went after Armstrong. Anyone with any modicum of a critical eye can see it. This is a cycling forum. If you want to talk about FIFA, go to a soccer...sorry, football forum.

There you go again. This is what I mean.

Where have I defended suspicious performances? Where have I said Froome's performances on AX3 Domaines and Ventoux were clean? I have strong reservations like most on here with regards to the times posted there. That's the thing too, it's a big suspicion, not like you who says they are definitely doping and anyone who is even more reserved is a "Skybot" or "doping apologist". You may think of me as a "doping apologist" or whatever suits you but I don't take kind to guys who have a doping only view to sport in the face of no concrete evidence of what's being discussed at the time. I will respond here and correct them if I feel it appropriate to do so. In referring to Froome's times on the two climbs mentioned, I have no problem with posters pulling that up to further their argument and saying they think(not know) he is doping as a result. What I won't accept is the spinning of it, to say things are as bad as they were at the height of the Lance era due to the time for instance on AX3 Domaines. Most on here just focused on Froome's time, but if they analysed it further you would see that peloton was in general a fair bit slower than in 2001. The same can be said for Alpe d'Huez. If we are going to pull times out, why not do it when it's encouraging as well. I remember one respected poster on the forum mentioned Costa's MTT winning time in Suisse where it was significantly slower than other years. There was barely recognition of it. You are your like don't like to see the bigger picture and only see things through one mirror of thought and aren't one bit open minded on any of this. The sport deserves it's big criticism and scepticism at times, but I will stick up for it when I see it can be done and will do so with facts at hand.

To get back to your comments on Walsh, I just think you've spat the dummy out because he hasn't come to the opinion that you WANTED him to come to and now come up with your revisionist nonsense disregarding his previous work. This same previous work you never questioned once before the fall of Lance or his Sky reporting. That's what's interesting and telling to me about your motives.

Walsh is no hero of mine, I don't have any heroes in sport and prefer to keep that level of feeling for people of far more important walks of life. I do respect him as a journalist.

See George ask a queston. See George answer that question without even an inkling of the irony of said answer.

As I said, you are the worst kind of doping apologist.

I wonder did you say that at the time of "It's not about the Bike" being published. Somehow I doubt it.

No, I just wrote that yesterday. Assessment of anyone is generally done after a time long enough to have seen the pattern/s of their lives. Walsh has a pattern of sniffing the a$$ of people from the islands, and then being proven to have been a self-serving, ignorant writer who parades himself as a "journalist." I bought the book and read it. I had concerns about his grandiosity, but didn't know if the doping accusations were true. It wasn't until he chased down Simeoni that I knew for a fact he was a doper. I've written about that many times. Thus, it wasn't until that point that I realized the length to which Jenkins had compromised her integrity. And more recently, in light of Walsh's pattern of being a PR lackey for the third time, I have come to the conclusion that Jenkins became Walsh.

Now, apologize away doping apologist and Walsh apologist. Your clanging gong only has one tune, but you keep flogging it dude.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Walsh is Irish, right? And a journalist

 

[Mortimer]

It didn't stop him with Roche at all - there is youtube of a chat show meeting between him and Roche where the subject is Conconi. Very frosty.

Just watched this, and a few things come to mind:
1. A chat show doesn't seem the best way to discuss what is very detailed evidence;
2. I'm not familiar with the documents they discussed, but it seems to me that the study as aimed at developing a test for EPO? if so, the numbers indicate what level of dose/ time after dose taken, can be reliably detected. In this case, Roche's assertion that they don't stack up as doping evidence is nonsense.
3. The document shown doesn't map HCT/Hgb levels against the test data. The transfer receptor numbers are indicative of a dose taken, not the longer lasting effects of Hct/Hgb levels;

The main defence seems to be that Roche is an Irish icon, so gets a pass.

Cheers,
Mort

 

[Justinr]

Just watched this, and a few things come to mind:
1. A chat show doesn't seem the best way to discuss what is very detailed evidence;
2. I'm not familiar with the documents they discussed, but it seems to me that the study as aimed at developing a test for EPO? if so, the numbers indicate what level of dose/ time after dose taken, can be reliably detected. In this case, Roche's assertion that they don't stack up as doping evidence is nonsense.
3. The document shown doesn't map HCT/Hgb levels against the test data. The transfer receptor numbers are indicative of a dose taken, not the longer lasting effects of Hct/Hgb levels;

The main defence seems to be that Roche is an Irish icon, so gets a pass.

Cheers,
Mort

Youre right it is just a chat show, but Walsh didnt have to do it and didnt have to link Roche to the Conconi tests. He could have just stayed quiet.

 

[Benotti69]

Youre right it is just a chat show, but Walsh didnt have to do it and didnt have to link Roche to the Conconi tests. He could have just stayed quiet.

Yes and Roche probably orchestrated it, hence the plant of a doctor in the audience who tried to make the evidence look ridiculous, but an Italian Judge in Italy said it was doping and would handed down charges but it went outside SOL.

Roche doped, no 2 ways about it.

 

[Nathan12]

https://twitter.com/TeamSky/status/459083435995590657/photo/1

Lol. It's like they don't even bother to hide it any more.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Yes and Roche probably orchestrated it

This was The Late Late Show, wasn't it? TBF, Roche didn't have to orchestrate an awful lot there, the show's producers loved him. For sure, I've no doubt he insisted on being given a headstart over Walsh, allowed to warn the audience up before Walsh appeared, but planting someone in the audience? Remember, this is the same programme (different host) on which Kimmage appeared when his book came out and tried to get him to say that the other Irish riders - Kelly + Roche - hadn't doped, even though Kelly had three strikes on his record. Even in more recent years, when Junior appeared on the programme, it was still playing softball, basically giving Pappa Roche a platform to plug his businesses.

And to be fair to Roche, if he was to orchestrate it I think he would have picked a better person than Bill Tormey to go in to bat for him. The producers actually did him no real favours there, the sort of people who accepted Tormey's argument that night were the sort of people who already firmly believed that Roche never doped, cause Irish heroes don't dope. Don't forget, those same people - The Late Late Show's producers among them - even believed that Kelly hadn't doped. But, in fairness, on that one that were partly relying on the evidence of Walsh in his biography of the man from Carrick-on-Suir.

 

[Benotti69]

This was The Late Late Show, wasn't it? TBF, Roche didn't have to orchestrate an awful lot there, the show's producers loved him. For sure, I've no doubt he insisted on being given a headstart over Walsh, allowed to warn the audience up before Walsh appeared, but planting someone in the audience? Remember, this is the same programme (different host) on which Kimmage appeared when his book came out and tried to get him to say that the other Irish riders - Kelly + Roche - hadn't doped, even though Kelly had three strikes on his record. Even in more recent years, when Junior appeared on the programme, it was still playing softball, basically giving Pappa Roche a platform to plug his businesses.

And to be fair to Roche, if he was to orchestrate it I think he would have picked a better person than Bill Tormey to go in to bat for him. The producers actually did him no real favours there, the sort of people who accepted Tormey's argument that night were the sort of people who already firmly believed that Roche never doped, cause Irish heroes don't dope. Don't forget, those same people - The Late Late Show's producers among them - even believed that Kelly hadn't doped. But, in fairness, on that one that were partly relying on the evidence of Walsh in his biography of the man from Carrick-on-Suir.

RTE are a shower of C#nts, always were and always will be.

 

[Benotti69]

http://www.independent.ie/sport/oth...mmage-navigating-the-rocky-road-30242027.html

"The next day Liam (Horner, the other Irish selection) arrives and there's nothing booked for him, either, so they put a tent in your woman's garden. So I'm in a bunk bed, Liam's in a tent and we're about to ride the World Championships! Then Simpson and big Vin Denson arrive and we go with them for a (training) ride around the circuit and Tommy says: 'I think I'll have a little stimulant in me for this lap'. That was the way he talked."

A year later, he was dead. "It was devastating," Kane says.

I dont think it is much different in today's peloton.......

 

[JimmyFingers]

2 British riders going to the Tour, 1 adopted British rider. Out of 200 of the finest road racers in the world.

6 pro-tour riders in the selection at the British Champs, not one going to the Tour (unless OGE take one of the neo-pro Yates bros). The National jersey not going to the Tour. Dowsett, Cummings, Rowe, Edmondson, Kennaugh, Wiggins and either or both of the Yates brothers. And Millar too.

Just feeling the irony of this thread, and the idea of British 'dominance' in cycling.

 

[the sceptic]

2 British riders going to the Tour, 1 adopted British rider. Out of 200 of the finest road racers in the world.

6 pro-tour riders in the selection at the British Champs, not one going to the Tour (unless OGE take one of the neo-pro Yates bros). The National jersey not going to the Tour. Dowsett, Cummings, Rowe, Edmondson, Kennaugh, Wiggins and either or both of the Yates brothers. And Millar too.

Just feeling the irony of this thread, and the idea of British 'dominance' in cycling.

Nothing lasts forever Jimmy. You had a good couple of years, and even got Cookson in office but it seems things are starting to fall apart now.

 

[Hawkwood]

2 British riders going to the Tour, 1 adopted British rider. Out of 200 of the finest road racers in the world.

6 pro-tour riders in the selection at the British Champs, not one going to the Tour (unless OGE take one of the neo-pro Yates bros). The National jersey not going to the Tour. Dowsett, Cummings, Rowe, Edmondson, Kennaugh, Wiggins and either or both of the Yates brothers. And Millar too.

Just feeling the irony of this thread, and the idea of British 'dominance' in cycling.

Don't you mean Cav, plus one half British, half Australian rider born in Belgium, and one adopted rider?

 

[42x16ss]

2 British riders going to the Tour, 1 adopted British rider. Out of 200 of the finest road racers in the world.

6 pro-tour riders in the selection at the British Champs, not one going to the Tour (unless OGE take one of the neo-pro Yates bros). The National jersey not going to the Tour. Dowsett, Cummings, Rowe, Edmondson, Kennaugh, Wiggins and either or both of the Yates brothers. And Millar too.

Just feeling the irony of this thread, and the idea of British 'dominance' in cycling.

Let's be honest here - Dowsett was unlucky, just look at the press conference Unzue did the other day, it sounds like he's genuinely disappointed that Dowsett can't ride. The Yates boys will certainly get their chances but it's probably best they wait a year at least.

Wigans, Millar and Kennaugh got shafted big time but should get a shot at La Vuelta.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Millar is unwell. He had to pull out of National TT champs due to the coughing, a few days before the Tour.

Not the rider I'd be taking.

 

[barn yard]

Millar is unwell. He had to pull out of National TT champs due to the coughing, a few days before the Tour.

are all the TUEs reserved for sky these days?

 

[42x16ss]

are all the TUEs reserved for sky these days?

Seems so. TBF, Cookson can only have so many sons