Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 57 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
JimmyFingers said:
Ah so Walsh joins the list of Sky 'fanboys', whose opinion can be dismissed out of hand as an irrelevance. Either that or he's on the payroll, like a few posters here apparently, me included (as has been accused in the past). You shouldn't have to go to such lengths to counter differing opinions, everyone's is valid, especially a seasoned and experienced journalist like Walsh.
His opinion is his opinion, there's no reason for it to have a bearing on anyone else unless they want it to. Why should anyone here be obliged to follow the reasoning process of David Walsh over anyone else?

I was hopeful that he may have been able to find out about a few of the mysteries and reveal information, so far that hasn't really happened?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
JimmyFingers said:
Ah so Walsh joins the list of Sky 'fanboys', whose opinion can be dismissed out of hand as an irrelevance. Either that or he's on the payroll, like a few posters here apparently, me included (as has been accused in the past). You shouldn't have to go to such lengths to counter differing opinions, everyone's is valid, especially a seasoned and experienced journalist like Walsh.
He is. Murdoch.

Walsh got 'journalistic' on Armstrong from the outside.

He is inside Sky and is being 'controlled' to a large extent.

He got a lucky break on Armstrong due to some people with integrity, Betsy, Emma and Swart. That these 3 could not be bought off by Armstrong was key to Walsh's success on Armstrong.

Sky have no doubt learned to keep everyone sweet to avoid similar. Their so called attention to detail is probably down to keeping as many in the dark about what others on the team are doing.

It will be hard to catch out Sky by being 'embedded' every so often.

If Cookson gets elected Sky will pedal off into the distance untouched.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Ferminal said:
His opinion is his opinion, there's no reason for it to have a bearing on anyone else unless they want it to. Why should anyone here be obliged to follow the reasoning process of David Walsh over anyone else?

I was hopeful that he may have been able to find out about a few of the mysteries and reveal information, so far that hasn't really happened?
I was just objecting to the use of the word 'fanboy' in reference to Walsh, seemed unfair and dismissive of someone with his histiry and contribution of the sport. Everyone can have their opinion on whether he's speaking the truth or in the pocket of Team Sky, just think he deserved more than being called that.

I don't deserve to be called that, let alone him :p
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Benotti69 said:
He is. Murdoch.

Walsh got 'journalistic' on Armstrong from the outside.

He is inside Sky and is being 'controlled' to a large extent.

He got a lucky break on Armstrong due to some people with integrity, Betsy, Emma and Swart. That these 3 could not be bought off by Armstrong was key to Walsh's success on Armstrong.

Sky have no doubt learned to keep everyone sweet to avoid similar. Their so called attention to detail is probably down to keeping as many in the dark about what others on the team are doing.

It will be hard to catch out Sky by being 'embedded' every so often.

If Cookson gets elected Sky will pedal off into the distance untouched.
Bennotti, don't ever change. See for me that's a better summation of Walsh's possible collusion than calling him a fanboy. No offense FGL
 
Aug 29, 2012
1,008
0
0
vrusimov said:
Even more impressive was this: http://youtu.be/UOH7gl3Nxgc

@ 3:24 the soon to be winner of the Giro Nibali with Contador in tow "under acceleration" and watch Froome nearly crashing into Contador on his way up the grade to easily gap them both! Ridiculous!
This sort of power - not seen it since Lance Armstrong was crushing the TdF. That clip is hilarious.
 
Race Radio said:
It is certainly possible Sky are doping. But so far we have seen none of what we saw 10 years ago

No teammates, staff, or wives talking about doping
No Ferrari......sorry, Leinders does not come close Ferrari


It is understandable that Walsh, and others, take this position.
Race, seriously?

Leinders injected the entire Rabobank squaid. He set up the blood program at Rabo.

Seriously? Doesn't matter if he wasnt as smart as Ferrari he stil injected young cyclists with EPO and told them it was for their "health".

And that's ok?

And people have been talking. A lot.
 
Dec 30, 2011
3,547
0
0
thehog said:
And people have been talking. A lot.
I asked this earlier in the thread or maybe another thread which is in reality the same thread as all these threads are about Sky and vague references not much else..

But what do you mean by that?

Saying generic phrases like that maybe fun but they look daft when they are utter rubbish.
 
Jun 9, 2012
766
0
0
thehog said:
Race, seriously?

Leinders injected the entire Rabobank squaid. He set up the blood program at Rabo.

Seriously? Doesn't matter if he wasnt as smart as Ferrari he stil injected young cyclists with EPO and told them it was for their "health".

And that's ok?

And people have been talking. A lot.
What people?

Thanks also for answering my question re Contador extracting the other day
 
Race Radio said:
It is certainly possible Sky are doping. But so far we have seen none of what we saw 10 years ago

No teammates, staff, or wives talking about doping
No bags of drugs and syringes being found
No positives
No 6.8 w/kg
No Ferrari......sorry, Leinders does not come close Ferrari
No Bruyneel

It is understandable that Walsh, and others, take this position.
You do realize that Denis menchov for example fills each and every one of your criteria?

No teammates, staff, or wives talking about doping
No bags of drugs and syringes being found
No positives
No 6.8 w/kg
No Ferrari......sorry, Leinders does not come close Ferrari
No Bruyneel

your emphasis on Ferrari and brunyeel is confusing. Were they the only people that ever got involved with doping :confused:
 
Oct 16, 2009
3,868
0
0
samerics said:
This. You guys are laughable. Walsh is a hero when he brings down Lance after digging the dirt. This time he can't find the dirt, and he's a lot closer than any of us and yet because he doesn't come up with it suddenly he's a shill? Pathetic, you have nothing at all other than half baked theories and prejudices and absolutely no inside knowledge. This is a forum. Even Race Radio, who was highly respected at the time because of his closer insight into Armstrong, is mocked. Read his last post, it simply uses common sense.
We're just not sure, and that's enough to diminish the experience.
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Dont you wonder what Walsh's thoughts were when he saw the Bradster riding alongside the Dopester in the 2009 Tour?
That's a myth, Wiggins never actually raced against Armstrong.
 
The Hitch said:
You do realize that Denis menchov fills each and every one of your criteria?

No teammates, staff, or wives talking about doping
No bags of drugs and syringes being found
No positives
No 6.8 w/kg
No Ferrari......sorry, Leinders does not come close Ferrari
No Bruyneel

your emphasis on Ferrari and brunyeel is confusing. Were they the only people that ever got involved with doping :confused:
Really?

So velo news made up Rasmussnes allegations http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/03/news/menchov-denies-blood-doping-accusations_277128
 
Dec 30, 2011
3,547
0
0
samerics said:
This. You guys are laughable. Walsh is a hero when he brings down Lance after digging the dirt. This time he can't find the dirt, and he's a lot closer than any of us and yet because he doesn't come up with it suddenly he's a shill? Pathetic, you have nothing at all other than half baked theories and prejudices and absolutely no inside knowledge. This is a forum. Even Race Radio, who was highly respected at the time because of his closer insight into Armstrong, is mocked. Read his last post, it simply uses common sense.
In groups and Out groups all that rubbish..
This is what this place has descended into.
 
Jul 12, 2012
62
0
0
Guys don't worry, Pat and the UCI have learnt from the past transgressions and wouldn't let history repeat itself. Pat has single handily abolished all doping from the sport, look at the tireless work and effort he's done over the last year to do so... All's good, SKY and Froome have been tested hundreds of times and never tested positive, so as we all know therefore are clean....
 
Oct 16, 2009
3,868
0
0
doolols said:
And my point about Busche? Yes, I did see the race. And the reason for mentioning him was the fact that he was in the breakaway, and presumably working harder than Froome with his whole team around him, so putting 4 seconds into a (presumably tired) breakaway member and an off-colour Contador makes it less of a superhuman feat.
Who was it who said Froome's perfomance at Tirreno-Adriatico wasn't suspicious because "he only put 6 seconds into a former winner of Tre Valli Varesine"? That one's looking pretty stupid now. Froome putting any amount of time into Contador is suspicious. Like when Horner outkicked him on that T-A MTF. Even when Contador's not in top shape, those guys belong about 5 minutes down the road from him.
 
The Hitch said:
You do realize that Denis menchov for example fills each and every one of your criteria?

No teammates, staff, or wives talking about doping
No bags of drugs and syringes being found
No positives
No 6.8 w/kg
No Ferrari......sorry, Leinders does not come close Ferrari
No Bruyneel

your emphasis on Ferrari and brunyeel is confusing. Were they the only people that ever got involved with doping :confused:
Menchov was named in the investigation of Bayern. He is one of the riders getting down his perfomance in the recent years.

But that is not the point, Menchov wasnt the reference this years, nor his teams.
Menchov, anyway, has his talent

He talk about comparison with US Postal. There are important differences, but haters talk about is look the same.

Well, I dont see in SKy climbers as Beltran doing spectaculars ITT... Rigo and Henao were always good time trialist
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
spalco said:
Try to keep up, this has been discussed a number of times here before. The actual placement of the riders on that graph was made by the Cycle Sport (or whatever magazine it was) journalist who wrote the article, not Brailsford.
Try to keep up, they used information from Brailsford to make the graph.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
spalco said:
A lot of things are suspicious, certainly Froome is extremely suspicious, no doubt about that. But suspicion is really all there is for now.
Suspicion has been enough to date! It has a 99% success rate.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
goggalor said:
That's a myth, Wiggins never actually raced against Armstrong.
Did you start watching cycling in July 2012?

Wiggins has been a pro since 2001. Armstrong retired in 2005, cameback in 2009 then retired in 2010.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
JimmyFingers said:
Bennotti, don't ever change. See for me that's a better summation of Walsh's possible collusion than calling him a fanboy. No offense FGL
Non taken but you should read better James, I did put 'fanboyish', gues you missed the '.....'?

Not important. To me Walsh looked like a little kid on a schooltrip, given his tweets from the Giro. Does that imply he has been suckered in by the evil empire? No, not immediately. What amazes me him questioning the performance of Nibali and not questioning equal/better performances by the Sky train, not even mentioning who is doing those performances.

Then, my friend, one has double standards and that is a problem from a journalistic point of view.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY