Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[BroDeal]

Just start a new thread to discuss the book specifically then. Jesus, some of you guys have a problem with everything.

Sorry, that is not the style of this forum. Everything must be put in giant mongo threads that are useless for everyone other than the few who read the newest posts a minimum of once a day.

We have already been warned to post discussion here instead of the Walsh book thread.

 

[mattghg]

Hey, look. Vickers is back to his usual explanation of vast conspiracies ...

What conspiracies???

 

[Benotti69]

Walsh interview tonight on 'off the ball'

http://newstalk.ie/player/home/Off_The_Ball/Off_The_Ball_Highlights/39272/david_walsh_on_team_sky


Brailsford said nothing to hide to Walsh......except Froome's numbers from pre vuelta'11


the sky mechanics work in the truck, this is cited as one of the marginal gains that makes the difference!!

 

[The Hitch]

Anyone remember the Walsh interview he gave last year just after (or before, can't remember) SDS was released? He was asked about the Vuelta result (-12) calling pretty much the whole podium dopers. (Purito has never tested positive, neither has Piti, for that matter).

Funny how Froome beat those said dopers by minutes at the Tour this year.

I remember that well (or at least an interview where Walsh said that).

The one I saw was "a conversation with" style interview with Walsh where Walsh and the interviewer sat at the front and an audience watched. One of the audience members asked if Walsh believes its still clean because 3 Spaniards just rode away from everyone in the Vuelta, and Walsh's response was that he doesn't trust the Vuelta one bit and believes that race is allowing Spaniards to dope. Which surprised me. How do the tests at the Vuelta work. Is uNipublic responsible for all the testing and has the power to turn positives into negatives?

If thats the case why would only the Vuelta do it?

 

[Benotti69]

I remember that well (or at least an interview where Walsh said that).

The one I saw was "a conversation with" style interview with Walsh where Walsh and the interviewer sat at the front and an audience watched. One of the audience members asked if Walsh believes its still clean because 3 Spaniards just rode away from everyone in the Vuelta, and Walsh's response was that he doesn't trust the Vuelta one bit and believes that race is allowing Spaniards to dope. Which surprised me. How do the tests at the Vuelta work. Is uNipublic responsible for all the testing and has the power to turn positives into negatives?

If thats the case why would only the Vuelta do it?

ASO now owns the Vuelta and before this year owned most of it.

 

[Benotti69]

Walsh interview tonight on 'off the ball'

http://newstalk.ie/player/home/Off_The_Ball/Off_The_Ball_Highlights/39272/david_walsh_on_team_sky


Brailsford said nothing to hide to Walsh......except Froome's numbers from pre vuelta'11


the sky mechanics work in the truck, this is cited as one of the marginal gains that makes the difference!!

Sky guys never went out for a drink during TdF, but other teams did!

Sky guys telling tales to Walsh about other teams during TdF!!!

Jeezus wept.

 

[LaFlorecita]

the sky mechanics work in the truck, this is cited as one of the marginal gains that makes the difference!!

Really?

 

[dolophonic]

I remember that well (or at least an interview where Walsh said that).

The one I saw was "a conversation with" style interview with Walsh where Walsh and the interviewer sat at the front and an audience watched. One of the audience members asked if Walsh believes its still clean because 3 Spaniards just rode away from everyone in the Vuelta, and Walsh's response was that he doesn't trust the Vuelta one bit and believes that race is allowing Spaniards to dope. Which surprised me. How do the tests at the Vuelta work. Is uNipublic responsible for all the testing and has the power to turn positives into negatives?

If thats the case why would only the Vuelta do it?

I have heard R Porte say almost exactly the same thing...
Funny when Sky ride away from everyone its ok

 

[Benotti69]

Walsh says no evidence on Froome doped. Absolutely zero evidence!

 

[High Octane]

Back again, BPC?

It does not take much to figure out that Froome is doping. A range of what VO2MAX is required to climb at the speed he climbed at during the Tour can be calculated. Using the amount of improvement that VO2MAX can change from training, it can be shown that when he was younger, even in a moderately trained state, he would have had a huge aerobic engine that would have been apparent when he first started racing. I have no doubt whatsoever that Froome is doping. No one can naturally make that huge of a performance gain.

That's a bit more subtle than your previous rant. I would advise on making that argument instead of accusing others of dishonourable behavior.

As to that argument, the trouble is, none of the experts who know about V02 calculations have concluded that Froome is doping. Not even LeMond who hugged him on the podium. Indeed, according to Vaughters', who had a very large VO2 max himself, it's a now quite a dated way to ascertain somebody's capabilities. But good for trying to be more constructive.

 

[Benotti69]

Basis of suspicion of Sky is ridiculous. Insult to intelligence.

 

[Benotti69]

Walsh would rather find Froome's doctor (forgetting Leinders) who might lead him to suspect Froome.

 

[LaFlorecita]

I have heard R Porte say almost exactly the same thing...
Funny when Sky ride away from everyone its ok

Porte raced on the same team as Contador. He even indicated he did not like he was told what to say to the press by the team (re the clen case)

Why doesn't he just spill the beans?

Oh that's right because Bjarne and Berto would bounce the ball right back at him.

 

[roundabout]

Walsh turned into WonderLance so gradually I didn't even notice.

 

[BroDeal]

That's a bit more subtle than your previous rant. I would advise on making that argument instead of accusing others of dishonourable behavior.

As to that argument, the trouble is, none of the experts who know about V02 calculations have concluded that Froome is doping. Not even LeMond who hugged him on the podium. Indeed, according to Vaughters', who had a very large VO2 max himself, it's a now quite a dated way to ascertain somebody's capabilities. But good for trying to be more constructive.

Back to your usual trolling, BPC? Stop trying to deflect. There has been plenty of questions from all quarters about Froome's climbing speeds. Those speeds are directly related to the amount of oxygen required to move his weight uphill at a calculated speed. The same performance can be expressed in multiple ways to compare to others.

Performance only increases so much from training. That is a fact. Anyone who had the capability of matching Armstrong's doped performance would have shown his potential as soon as he swung a leg over as top tube and toed a start line. That is a fact. Froome showed none of this.

Do you have an answer if Froome's miserable performance at a young age or will you continue to troll under your new name? Maybe if you try a little you could finally contribute something other than your typical disruption.

 

[the sceptic]

Walsh interview tonight on 'off the ball'

http://newstalk.ie/player/home/Off_The_Ball/Off_The_Ball_Highlights/39272/david_walsh_on_team_sky


Brailsford said nothing to hide to Walsh......except Froome's numbers from pre vuelta'11


the sky mechanics work in the truck, this is cited as one of the marginal gains that makes the difference!!

Reminds me of this old classic

"The aggregation of marginal gains," is Brailsford's catchphrase. When he first explained it, he was discussing the thorny topic of doping. "My personal take on it is that a lot of the guys who dope actually use it as such a crutch that they stop doing other things," said Brailsford.

"We've got this saying, 'performance by the aggregation of marginal gains,'" Brailsford continued. "It means taking the 1% from everything you do; finding a 1% margin for improvement in everything you do. That's what we try to do from the mechanics upwards.

"If a mechanic sticks a tyre on, and someone comes along and says it could be done better, it's not an insult - it's because we are always striving for improvement, for those 1% gains, in absolutely every single thing we do."

If you have a good mechanic you dont need doping.

 

[High Octane]

Stop trying to deflect. There has been plenty of questions from all quarters about Froome's climbing speeds. Those speeds are directly related to the amount of oxygen required to move his weight uphill at a calculated speed. The same performance can be expressed in multiple ways to compare to others.

Performance only increases so much from training. That is a fact. Anyone who had the capability of matching Armstrong's doped performance would have shown his potential as soon as he swung a leg over as top tube and toed a start line. That is a fact. Froome showed none of this.

Do you have an answer if Froome's miserable performance at a young age or will you continue to troll under your new name? Maybe if you try a little you could finally contribute something other than your typical disruption.

Yeah, I am trying to deflect? You made a trolling rant about Walsh that you know nobody in cycling would take seriously. Comparing one climb on one day, with different conditions and a different tour before it, is not something a serious cycling journalist like Walsh would use. This is very unlike the Postal case which had a long list of things to point to. I called you out with the facts. You then returned with your new claim that Walsh should know all out V02 max. Again, well done for trying to get substantive, but nobody in the field has raised alarm bells about Froome's V02 max. According to Vaughters, who has a large V02 max himself but could not match greats from previous eras with a lower v02 than he, it's not a very good way to judge a riders capabilities anyway. I'm not saying it's completely without merit - if there is some data on Froome's V02, that would be interesting to see. But it's rather ridiculous to accuse Walsh of dishonour because he hasn't performed a V02 max on Froome. Walsh has been unable to find anything in the team or around him that points to doping - very unlike the Armstrong case. They'd have to conceal their doping program right in front of him - it's light years way from Postal with the endless witnesses and scandal, things in the trash etc.

Of course you're entitled to ask the question about Froome, but a little more honesty and less trolling of Walsh would be desirable if you want to be taken seriously. You know very well the different circumstances between Froome and the Armstrong case. Don't play dumb.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Like a jilted lover left at the alter...

Funny, from the same team that gave us this:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=834036&postcount=1368

(Taken from an interview with Norwegian TV after a stage in País Vasco where they didn't study the roadbook enough to notice that the uncategorised climb with a couple of kilometres to go was actually a kilometre at 10%, and so toasted their puncheurs trying to lead a sprint out). Sounds like the roadbook at THAT point was more like the Bible you find in your hotel room.

They might have put Geraint Thomas on the program, which could explain why he weirdly was separated from the rest of the classics team during the entire winter (the rest were training in Mallorca, G was training in Australia with Porte). However, a program doesn't help when you crash out of every race.

Strangely though, Stannard was clearly the strongest of Team Sky's guys in the Classics. He's like a Duracell bunny though. He has no real weapons to win (there will almost always be someone who can outsprint him in a small group, he has no real kick to escape people), his biggest weapon is the ability to suffer. He'll be the one in the moves when the weather is at its absolute worst. He'll just keep grinding away at the same tempo at the head of the field. If anybody on Team Sky is going to win a Classic, by rights it ought to be EBH but I think at this point Stannard would be the most likely. EBH has all the necessary weapons, but doesn't seem to be able to be there when he needs to be; Stannard is always willing to get in the moves and pressure people.

 

[martinvickers]

The issue Martin isn't that Walsh believes sky and we don't. That was already the case a year ago but until a few days ago, many of the people who are going hard after Walsh here including myself left Walsh alone even at times gave him the benefit of the doubt.

But Walsh goes well.past agree and disagree here. He paints with a childlike innocence and naivety a black and white picture of heroic benevolent princes fighting evil witches and dragons.

And in a way not unfamiliar to those with an interest I history, he paints a clearly fabricated picture of what those who don't agree with him believe in order to make them look bad.

It's like the writers in medieval times who would always say the leader their monarch was fighting was ugly because in their eyes ugly=evil

Their king and all his family was always so handsome though. And charismatic and all the other qualities humans can possess.

And we have it here. Everything about everyone at sky is brilliant. They are all intelligent, funny, inspirational, super super hard working (more than anyone else), committed every second of every hour to integrity and fairness and so on and so on.
The doubters on the other hand supported lance (cursed to begin with) . They support contador. They are idiotic and impulsive. Their reasons to doubt Sky in the first place are mob like and totally unfounded and a result of their total inability to think things through like Walsh does. No matter how ridiculous it sounds they point at sky for absolutely any reason they can think of it and scream - doper.

I know you may think a few of the members of the clinic fit the above, but for Walsh holds it as the generic descritption for those who doubt Sky. It is totally not on and a clear case of him taking absolute liberties with the truth in order to present his own side. Michael Moore, Fox News style.

I think a lot of the above is very fair, so far as it goes. The Royal analogy is a good one, in a sense, and I have made it clear I think the book is too 'warm' towards Sky.

But I simply don't think one book, or one belief, even a really, really bad one (and I don't actually accept that this book is THAT bad yet - it's pretty mediocre, granted) undoes risking an entire career in terms of credibility. Not least because Walsh is one of the few journos already asking serious questions about Craig Reedie, new head of WADA and a Brit. He tore into him recently in a number of interviews. His basic spots have not changed.

He may be wrong. I have seen nothing remotely convincing that's he's corrupted, except some people WANTING to believe it.

Is some of the criticism of Sky unfair, given the facts and evidence we actually have? Absolutely. There's a fair number of people, well represented in the Clinic, who WANT them to be doping, to vindicate a more gutteral dislike. And it is what it is, you ain't gonna change it, neither am I.

Walsh clearly reacts to that type of criticism. Over-reacts, probably. But you ought to read his twitter time line from time to time. It attracts certifiable nutters; and I suspect the 'unhinged'part of the 'skyhate' may have been a bit of an eyeopener for him. How often does someone in Walsh's position get to see the battle from the other side of the glass?

Now, on the other hand is some of the criticism of Sky justified? Absolutely. 100%. The Leinders affair was a complete and almighty disaster. And in a sense, the book is useful here - it confirms that Leinders was PROPOSED, internally, by Steven de Jongh. Who must have known the truth about Leinders, google or no google.

HAS ANYONE QUIZZED HIM ON THIS YET??? There's a genuine criticism of Walsh - why has he not followed up by doing so.

I'm not defending the book. My very first review, before any of the rest of ye read it, makes it clear even then I had reservations. No-one forced me to state that, i did so entirely of my own volition, despite where I often stand on Clinic issues, (i.e. firmly agnostic)

But I do defend Walsh from some of the more...extreme...reactions.

I'm reading Wheelmen again, waiting for the Bruyneel hearing. The game goes on.

 

[gooner]

Well said, Martin.

 

[peloton]

I remember that well (or at least an interview where Walsh said that).

The one I saw was "a conversation with" style interview with Walsh where Walsh and the interviewer sat at the front and an audience watched. One of the audience members asked if Walsh believes its still clean because 3 Spaniards just rode away from everyone in the Vuelta, and Walsh's response was that he doesn't trust the Vuelta one bit and believes that race is allowing Spaniards to dope. Which surprised me. How do the tests at the Vuelta work. Is uNipublic responsible for all the testing and has the power to turn positives into negatives?

If thats the case why would only the Vuelta do it?

Yeah, that's the one I saw too.
Too funny that Froome was 4th

Walsh is so full of ****e it's embarrassing.

 

[the sceptic]

Well said, Martin.

 

[BroDeal]

...TROLL BABBLE FILLED WITH LIES AND MISREPRESENTATIONS....

Again BPC tries to deflect. Another poor attempt. Explain how Froome never showed potential when he was younger. Everyone who has had any sort of racing experience knows that guys who are good are good from the beginning. No clean rider races like a chump for ten years then suddenly turns in performances equal to a doped Armstrong.

Explain what Froome did to go from a nobody to the world's best climber, a gain in performance in an already trained cyclist that is only believable to simpletons.

Also stop lying. Your continual lying and misrepresentation is what got you into to trouble with your last one hundred usernames. No one is accusing Walsh of dishonor because he did not perform a VO2MAX test on Froome. They are accusing him of dishonor because of the fallacious reasoning he has used to defend Froome's ridiculous performance.

 

[maltiv]

Strangely though, Stannard was clearly the strongest of Team Sky's guys in the Classics. He's like a Duracell bunny though. He has no real weapons to win (there will almost always be someone who can outsprint him in a small group, he has no real kick to escape people), his biggest weapon is the ability to suffer. He'll be the one in the moves when the weather is at its absolute worst. He'll just keep grinding away at the same tempo at the head of the field. If anybody on Team Sky is going to win a Classic, by rights it ought to be EBH but I think at this point Stannard would be the most likely. EBH has all the necessary weapons, but doesn't seem to be able to be there when he needs to be; Stannard is always willing to get in the moves and pressure people.

This year he wasn't that good actually. In both PR and particularly RVV he was completely useless, being dropped long before the action started. Probably overtrained or peaked too early. But I agree he has far more potential than EBH for the cobbled classics.

 

[High Octane]

Again BPC tries to deflect. Another poor attempt. Explain how Froome never showed potential when he was younger. Everyone who has had any sort of racing experience knows that guys who are good are good from the beginning. No clean rider races like a chump for ten years then suddenly turns in performances equal to a doped Armstrong.

Explain what Froome did to go from a nobody to the world's best climber, a gain in performance in an already trained cyclist that is only believable to simpletons.

Also stop lying. Your continual lying and misrepresentation is what got you into to trouble with your last one hundred usernames. No one is accusing Walsh of dishonor because he did not perform a VO2MAX test on Froome. They are accusing him of dishonor because of the fallacious reasoning he has used to defend Froome's ridiculous performance.

Ho, ho. etc.
You think Walsh should treat Froome the same as Armstrong because of Froome's time on one climb in one set of conditions. That is fallacious reasoning my friend. And I'm afraid you did come back and cite V02 as your other clinching piece of evidence for why Walsh should treat Froome like Armstrong. That was after your trolling rant about people's nationalities and other silliness.

That's enough trolling now. Beat it, kid.