• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Page 108 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
the sceptic

snip

You're right at the top of the list of the posters who want Sky to be doping. A fan of the sport my ***. And that goes for a number of others around here.

Why don't you actually respond to the post? Why don't you respond to my post from earlier?

Can't form an opinion of your own maybe without resorting to babble and insults.

Some just love the circus.
 
Digger said:
BR forum - they are unbelievably clueless and naïve and is almost identical to roadbikereviewforum of five years ago - same level of wilful ignorance...so well done Martin!

Over at BikeRetard all is well:

I'm friends with the current technical director at BC. He's very familiar with Froome's power curve (that which Sky will not release) and he can vouch for it being well within the bounds of human potential, and entirely consistent with the numbers that he's been producing historically. Unless you have any evidence (or even hints of evidence, doesn't have to be a positive test) then you're just another armchair critic, and shall be suitably ignored
 
The Hitch said:
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.

Great post, really nails the problem IMO. The issue here is bigger than whether or not Sky riders dope. It's that someone who writes a fairy tale fantasy about the team has zero credibility when he asserts that they did not. I have no problem at all if Walsh wants to write a book like this. I do have a major problem if this book is cited as a reason for believing Sky didn't dope.

A writer who really, seriously wanted to get to the bottom of what's going on at Sky would never write like this. Even if he was able to track every rider and staff member on the team 24/7 and demonstrate it was virtually impossible for them to be doping, he still would not write about them in such glowing terms.

High Octane said:
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.

Kind of depends on who you consider experts, doesn’t it? The Science of Sport didn't conclude that Froome was definitely doping, but neither did they brush aside his climbing times as definite evidence of being clean.

The argument doesn't actually depend on V02. V02 is calculated from climbing speeds, and so is secondary to calculations of power. Froome's performance raises two questions: 1) is his power comparable to that of dopers of the past? and 2) is his power since the Vuelta 2011 compatible with his power in previous years?

You are correct that power comparisons are difficult when different climbs, weather conditions, racing strategies, etc., are involved, and I also agree with you that the evidence against Froome is considerably less than that against LA. But just as one might have difficulty concluding with certainty that Froome is doping because of all the statistical noise, one can’t point to his climbs, as Walsh does, and say they are well within the possible bounds of a clean performance. Walsh, who ought to know better, is just as guilty at jumping to unwarranted conclusions as any of Froome’s critics.

Worse, IMO, because while one can look at the climbing times and make an argument for either doping or not doping, the latter generally requires making more extreme and unlikely assumptions (body weight, tailwind, etc). Much like the passport in this respect. Just because the data do not reach the bar of slam dunk evidence of doping does not mean that they are much more likely to indicate being clean than doping, or even that the possibilities are equal. On this forum, where our conclusions do not result in sanctions, we are free to come to the more likely conclusion, not hindered by the extremely rigorous criteria needed to avoid an occasional false positive. This criterion--must be significant at the p < 0.001 level or whatever--is lurking in all the arguments by people who say Froome's climbing does not indicate doping, and necessarily slants all conclusions heavily in their favor, but is rarely if ever acknowledged.

But the really damaging criticism for Froome is 2), his unprecedented improvement. We might have a better idea of how much he really did improve if Sky would release some power data pre-2011, but to the best of my knowledge Sky hasn’t done that. Why? How can a team that claims they want to be transparent refuse to do this? The argument that the public at large, non-experts, will interpret it wrong doesn’t hold here. They could release the data to some select researcher as they did with the post-2011 data. So what’s the problem here?
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
3
0
Visit site
gooner said:
You're right at the top of the list of the posters who want Sky to be doping. A fan of the sport my ***. And that goes for a number of others around here.

Why don't you actually respond to the post? Why don't you respond to my post from earlier?

Can't form an opinion of your own maybe without resorting to babble and insults.

Some just love the circus.

Actually, I want sky to be clean. I want the sport to be competitive and unpredictable. But that is not going to happen any time soon.

Theres no point in responding to skyfans, because their only defense is to nitpick something that has little relevance and turn it into a vortex.

I have formed an opinion actually. Sky are dopings and Walsh is a bigger clown that anyone that was sucking Armstrongs ****.
 
High Octane said:
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.

Stop trolling, BPC. What was cited was a combination of two things: Froome's climbing performance rivaling the best performances of dopers and his implausible increase in performance from a young age. While conceivably an outlier could perform as well as the best doped performances, Froome is not an outlier. If he was then his talent would have been apparent at an early age. It does not matter how performance is measured. It only increases so much with training. VO2Max is just easy to calculate from climbing results if weight can be estimated and a range of efficiencies used to calculate a range of values. Any other performance measure can be used instead.

You continue too avoid the problem and elect to troll and misrepresent instead. Stop avoiding the problem and explain Froome huge increase in performance.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
the sceptic said:
Actually, I want sky to be clean. I want the sport to be competitive and unpredictable. But that is not going to happen any time soon.

Theres no point in responding to skyfans, because their only defense is to nitpick something that has little relevance and turn it into a vortex.

I have formed an opinion actually. Sky are dopings and Walsh is a bigger clown that anyone that was sucking Armstrongs ****.

Vortex is just a tiresome strawman thrown around by the likes of you to shoot down alternative opinion.

Twisting, baiting and in some cases lying just proves to me that some indeed want Sky to be doping. And it's done in cases like you and BroDeal with an anti-Brit vibe where it's constantly referred to along national lines. BroDeal saying he was glad Horner was doping at the Vuelta to stick it to the Brits. I rest my case, how can you take someone like that seriously? I remember one regular who has posted consistently in this thread say the day before the AX3 Domaines stage that he was so excited and couldn't wait for Froome to go full ***. Another here has the position that doping isn't the problem in the sport, just a bit of hypocrisy. These two know who they are and it's staggering that these opinions are held in some esteem. Imagine the reaction if Walsh said crap like that and fellows like them are throwing **** at him now. Just a couple of weeks ago, there was a suggestion on this forum that Txema Gonxalez was possibly doping. A sick disgusting thought and when the discussion is stooping to this level, people have lost all sense of reality and perspective. Another one is saying de Jongh, Yates and Leinders have been giving hush money to keep quiet. The one that took the biscuit and confirmed it for me is when there was a comparison with the evidence from USP and Sky and it being made up that Sky used Carbon Monoxide where there is zilch to support it. So when I see things like the above with fabrications and hatred to further agendas then yes, some around here do want Sky to be doping.

When I say this, I'm not doing a sweeping generalised comment on the clinic, this is just a select group whose BS needs to be addressed. This is the kind of nonsense I find hard to ignore. In fact maybe I should. There are plenty of others who think Sky maybe doping and criticise Walsh's reporting by putting up meaningful points and discussion and are well worth listening to. Walsh isn't flawless by any means. He was wrong to say the stuff about bitter Armstrong fans but tonight on Irish radio, he mentioned the criticism he has got has been vitriol. This has been gone on ever since the Giro where he didn't mention anything regarding bitter Armstrong fans and just tweeted mostly on a racing theme. His response to it wasn't the best to say the least, but don't think for a second he said that on a whim.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
3
0
Visit site
gooner said:
Sceptic, I'm still waiting for your response to the post in question(by MartinV) and to my own one here

Impressive amount of delusion in those posts.

No amount of vortexing, nitpicking minor points (JTL, where is the evidence, twitter haters, yada yada) is going to change the fact that Walsh has written a turd of a book that is designed to make sky look as good as possible. 99% of the thread agrees with me in this, so maybe you and Vickar should consider the possibility that you could be wrong.

Now, it is possible that he is so blinded by his love for sky that he has lost all capacity for logical thought, but in all likelyhood he is jumping on the bandwagon to cash in and doesnt care that he is looking like a clown to anyone with a brain.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
the sceptic said:
Impressive amount of delusion in those posts.

No amount of vortexing, nitpicking minor points (JTL, where is the evidence, twitter haters, yada yada) is going to change the fact that Walsh has written a turd of a book that is designed to make sky look as good as possible. 99% of the thread agrees with me in this, so maybe you and Vickar should consider the possibility that you could be wrong.

Now, it is possible that he is so blinded by his love for sky that he has lost all capacity for logical thought, but in all likelyhood he is jumping on the bandwagon to cash in and doesnt care that he is looking like a clown to anyone with a brain.

I said it all about the likes of you above.

Your response and deflection has been noted and taken on board.
 
gooner said:
I remember one regular who has posted consistently in this thread say the day before the AX3 Domaines stage that he was so excited and couldn't wait for Froome to go full ***.

That was me. I wanted full *** on AX3. And Froome delivered! So much so he broke the Clinic!

He needs to slow down next year to keep this forum up and running. Or CN needs to buy some new servers.

Then we have Porte at the Giro. Can CN handle it?
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
3
0
Visit site
gooner said:
I said it all about the likes of you above.

Your response and deflection has been noted and taken on board.

Youre the one deflecting with your whining about again mostly irrelevant things.

Bottom line, there is more evidences that Walsh is on the bandwagon than not.
 
Benotti69 said:
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!!

Interesting interview. Head is in the clouds and is in love.

Julich told him BMC are light years behind Sky.

Walsh was digusted that Ryder was seen having a beer over lunch on the rest day.

Miller was see sun tanning at the hotel to the dismay of team Sky.

Vaughters told Walsh that Wiggins would have also won the Tour at Garmin if he stayed.

Mechanics on other teams have to work in the rain. Team Sky have an indoor mechanics tent.

Walsh is not sure Froome will win again?!! Believes his body won't hold up!

Says Italains drink coffee when they ride. At Sky they practise attacks up climbs in training.
 
1. GBR FROOME Chris SKY 83h56'40" 600
2. COL QUINTANA ROJAS Nairo Alexander MOV 04'20" 450
3. ESP RODRIGUEZ OLIVER Joaquim KAT 05'04" 380
4. ESP CONTADOR VELASCO Alberto TST 06'27" 320
5. CZE KREUZIGER Roman TST 07'27" 290
6. NED MOLLEMA Bauke BEL 11'42" 260
7. DEN FUGLSANG Jakob AST 12'17" 230
8. ESP VALVERDE BELMONTE Alejandro MOV 15'26" 200
9. ESP NAVARRO GARCIA Daniel COF 15'52" 180
10. USA TALANSKY Andrew GRS 17'39" 160
11. POL KWIATKOWSKI Michal OPQ 18'59" 140
12. ESP NIEVE ITURRALDE Mikel EUS 20'01" 130
13. NED TEN DAM Laurens BEL 21'39" 120
14. BEL MONFORT Maxime RLT 23'38" 110
15. FRA BARDET Romain ALM 26'42" 100
16. AUS ROGERS Michael TST 26'51" 94
17. ESP MORENO FERNANDEZ Daniel KAT 32'34" 88
18. BEL BAKELANTS Jan RLT 35'51" 82
19. AUS PORTE Richie SKY 39'41" 77
20. LUX SCHLECK Andy RLT 41'46" 72
21. COL SERPA PEREZ Jose Rodolfo LAM 45'08" 67
22. FRA GADRET John ALM 46'00" 65
23. ESP ANTON HERNANDEZ Igor EUS 48'07" 63
24. FRA ROLLAND Pierre EUC 52'15" 61
25. SVK VELITS Peter OPQ 54'00" 59
26. NED GESINK Robert BEL 54'25" 57
27. POR COSTA Rui Alberto Faria MOV 54'34" 55
28. NED POELS Wout VCD 56'33" 53
29. FRA JEANNESSON Arnold FDJ 57'06" 51
30. GER KLÖDEN Andreas RLT 1h02'43" 49
31. FRA CHAVANEL Sylvain OPQ 1h03'41" 47
32. FRA GAUTIER Cyril EUC 1h12'42" 45
33. IRL MARTIN Daniel GRS 1h13'08" 43
34. FRA DUPONT Hubert ALM 1h14'59" 41
35. SUI MORABITO Steve BMC 1h20'39" 39
36. ESP ZUBELDIA AGIRRE Haimar RLT 1h24'22" 37
37. FRA RIBLON Christophe ALM 1h27'57" 35
38. BEL DE CLERCQ Bart LTB 1h28'06" 33
39. AUS EVANS Cadel BMC 1h30'14" 32
40. IRL ROCHE Nicolas TST 1h34'17" 31
41. NED DUMOULIN Tom ARG 1h34'30" 30
42. ESP ASTARLOZA CHAURREAU Mikel EUS 1h36'27" 29
43. ESP HERNANDEZ BLAZQUEZ Jesus TST 1h36'40" 28
44. FRA GENIEZ Alexandre FDJ 1h38'06" 27
45. USA VAN GARDEREN Tejay BMC 1h38'57" 26
46. FRA VUILLERMOZ Alexis SOJ 1h40'05" 25
47. ESP PLAZA MOLINA Ruben MOV 1h40'35" 24
48. RUS VORGANOV Eduard KAT 1h42'41" 23
49. ITA MALACARNE Davide EUC 1h44'50" 22
50. NOR NORDHAUG Lars Petter BEL 1h49'42" 21
51. RUS TROFIMOV Yury KAT 1h49'54" 20
52. FRA MEDEREL Maxime SOJ 1h53'01" 20
53. LUX DIDIER Laurent RLT 1h58'53" 20
54. CRC AMADOR BIKKAZAKOVA Andrey MOV 1h58'59" 20
55. ITA CUNEGO Damiano LAM 1h59'38" 20
56. FRA MOINARD Amaël BMC 2h00'03" 20
57. POL NIEMIEC Przemyslaw LAM 2h00'08" 20
58. FRA GALLOPIN Tony RLT 2h02'59" 20
59. FRA FEDRIGO Pierrick FDJ 2h04'19" 20
60. USA DANIELSON Tom GRS 2h05'08" 20
61. FRA LEVARLET Guillaume COF 2h07'01" 20
62. BEL GILBERT Philippe BMC 2h07'11" 20
63. FRA COPPEL Jérôme COF 2h09'13" 20
64. NED TANKINK Bram BEL 2h10'12" 20
65. FRA VOECKLER Thomas EUC 2h12'48" 20
66. FRA VICHOT Arthur FDJ 2h15'06" 20
67. GER VOIGT Jens RLT 2h15'09" 20
68. AUS CLARKE Simon OGE 2h20'14" 20
69. ESP IZAGIRRE INSAUSTI Ion EUS 2h21'32" 20
70. CAN HESJEDAL Ryder GRS 2h21'41" 20
71. ITA DE MARCHI Alessandro CAN 2h23'11" 20
72. AUS HANSEN Adam LTB 2h23'15" 20
73. FRA MOLARD Rudy COF 2h25'25" 20
74. RSA IMPEY Daryl OGE 2h26'37" 20
75. GER GESCHKE Simon ARG 2h27'42" 20
76. ITA MORI Manuele LAM 2h28'19" 20
77. GBR KENNAUGH Peter SKY 2h33'46" 20
78. ESP OROZ UGALDE Juan Jose EUS 2h33'55" 20
79. ESP ROJAS GIL Jose Joaquin MOV 2h34'05" 20
80. AUS GERRANS Simon OGE 2h34'36" 20
81. FRA EL FARES Julien SOJ 2h36'28" 20
82. SVK SAGAN Peter CAN 2h38'51" 20
83. UZB LAGUTIN Sergey VCD 2h38'55" 20
84. ITA GAVAZZI Francesco AST 2h39'08" 20
85. ITA QUINZIATO Manuel BMC 2h39'34" 20
86. SUI ALBASINI Michael OGE 2h40'22" 20
87. FRA SIMON Julien SOJ 2h41'24" 20
88. ESP MATE MARDONES Luis Angel COF 2h43'28" 20
89. FRA DELAPLACE Anthony SOJ 2h44'13" 20
90. BLR SIUTSOU Kanstantsin SKY 2h44'43" 20
91. USA BOOKWALTER Brent BMC 2h45'05" 20
92. ITA TOSATTO Matteo TST 2h47'39" 20
93. ESP FLECHA GIANNONI Juan Antonio VCD 2h48'03" 20
94. ITA MOSER Moreno CAN 2h53'27" 20
95. ITA GASPAROTTO Enrico AST 2h53'36" 20
96. BEL DE GENDT Thomas VCD 2h53'41" 20
97. ESP CASTROVIEJO NICOLAS Jonathan MOV 2h53'41" 20
98. GER BURGHARDT Marcus BMC 2h54'01" 20
99. JPN ARASHIRO Yukiya EUC 2h54'53" 20
100. SLO KOREN Kristjan CAN 2h57'03" 20
101. NED HOOGERLAND Johnny VCD 2h57'59" 20
102. EST TAARAMÄE Rein COF 2h59'09" 20
103. ESP IRIZAR ARANBURU Markel RLT 2h59'39" 20
104. FRA FEILLU Brice SOJ 2h59'45" 20
105. NED BOOM Lars BEL 3h02'52" 20
106. GER MARTIN Tony OPQ 3h05'25" 20
107. ITA BENNATI Daniele TST 3h05'55" 20
108. DEN BAK Lars Ytting LTB 3h07'12" 20
109. ESP LOSADA ALGUACIL Alberto KAT 3h07'26" 20
110. RUS BRUTT Pavel KAT 3h09'47" 20
111. ITA MARANGONI Alan CAN 3h10'01" 20
112. FRA LEMOINE Cyril SOJ 3h11'38" 20
113. GBR MILLAR David GRS 3h14'25" 20
114. POL BODNAR Maciej CAN 3h15'15" 20
115. ESP GARCIA ETXEGIBEL Egoitz COF 3h16'28" 20
116. FRA MARINO Jean-Marc SOJ 3h16'30" 20
117. ITA SABATINI Fabio CAN 3h18'40" 20
118. ESP ERVITI OLLO Imanol MOV 3h19'12" 20
119. LAT SMUKULIS Gatis KAT 3h21'06" 20
120. LTU NAVARDAUSKAS Ramunas GRS 3h21'29" 20
121. GER DEGENKOLB John ARG 3h23'23" 20
122. FRA SICARD Romain EUS 3h23'54" 20
123. CAN VEILLEUX David EUC 3h24'16" 20
124. FRA MINARD Sébastien ALM 3h24'28" 20
125. FRA KADRI Blel ALM 3h27'17" 20
126. FRA ROY Jérémy FDJ 3h28'39" 20
127. ESP LOPEZ GARCIA David SKY 3h28'47" 20
128. ITA FAVILLI Elia LAM 3h31'19" 20
129. GER GREIPEL André LTB 3h32'07" 20
130. AUS MEYER Cameron OGE 3h32'14" 20
131. BEL VANMARCKE Sep BEL 3h34'33" 20
132. BEL WYNANTS Maarten BEL 3h37'06" 20
133. BRA FISCHER Murilo Antonio FDJ 3h37'48" 20
134. FRA REZA Kévin EUC 3h38'31" 20
135. GBR STANNARD Ian SKY 3h38'49" 20
136. POR PAULINHO Sergio Miguel Moreira TST 3h38'58" 20
137. ITA CIMOLAI Davide LAM 3h40'31" 20
138. NED DE KORT Koen ARG 3h40'55" 20
139. ESP PEREZ MORENO Ruben EUS 3h43'15" 20
140. GBR THOMAS Geraint SKY 3h43'34" 20
141. BLR KUCHYNSKI Aliaksandr KAT 3h45'02" 20
142. ITA TRENTIN Matteo OPQ 3h45'30" 20
143. FRA DUMOULIN Samuel ALM 3h47'11" 20
144. NED VAN POPPEL Boy VCD 3h48'15" 20
145. NED CURVERS Roy ARG 3h48'30" 20
146. GER FRÖHLINGER Johannes ARG 3h49'02" 20
147. NOR KRISTOFF Alexander KAT 3h49'50" 20
148. GBR CAVENDISH Mark OPQ 3h52'04" 20
149. NED TERPSTRA Niki OPQ 3h52'05" 20
150. NED LEEZER Tom BEL 3h53'55" 20
151. FRA HIVERT Jonathan SOJ 3h57'09" 20
152. AUS GOSS Matthew OGE 3h57'24" 20
153. BEL STEEGMANS Gert OPQ 3h59'14" 20
154. AUS LANCASTER Brett OGE 4h00'19" 20
155. DEN VANDBORG Brian Bach CAN 4h00'21" 20
156. FRA COUSIN Jérôme EUC 4h01'10" 20
157. ITA FERRARI Roberto LAM 4h02'09" 20
158. FRA GENE Yohann EUC 4h03'06" 20
159. FRA PINEAU Jérôme OPQ 4h03'11" 20
160. BEL ROELANDTS Jürgen LTB 4h03'18" 20
161. AUS O'GRADY Stuart OGE 4h03'27" 20
162. NZL HENDERSON Gregory LTB 4h04'26" 20
163. BEL WILLEMS Frederik LTB 4h05'18" 20
164. NED TIMMER Albert ARG 4h07'19" 20
165. ESP LOBATO DEL VALLE Juan Jose EUS 4h07'59" 20
166. GER KITTEL Marcel ARG 4h10'08" 20
167. KAZ MURAVYEV Dmitriy AST 4h21'46" 20
168. KAZ BAZAYEV Assan AST 4h24'52" 20
169. CAN TUFT Svein OGE 4h27'55" 20
 
gooner said:
Vortex is just a tiresome strawman thrown around by the likes of you to shoot down alternative opinion.

Twisting, baiting and in some cases lying just proves to me that some indeed want Sky to be doping. And it's done in cases like you and BroDeal with an anti-Brit vibe where it's constantly referred to along national lines. BroDeal saying he was glad Horner was doping at the Vuelta to stick it to the Brits. I rest my case, how can you take someone like that seriously? I remember one regular who has posted consistently in this thread say the day before the AX3 Domaines stage that he was so excited and couldn't wait for Froome to go full ***. Another here has the position that doping isn't the problem in the sport, just a bit of hypocrisy. These two know who they are and it's staggering that these opinions are held in some esteem. Imagine the reaction if Walsh said crap like that and fellows like them are throwing **** at him now. Just a couple of weeks ago, there was a suggestion on this forum that Txema Gonxalez was possibly doping. A sick disgusting thought and when the discussion is stooping to this level, people have lost all sense of reality and perspective. Another one is saying de Jongh, Yates and Leinders have been giving hush money to keep quiet. The one that took the biscuit and confirmed it for me is when there was a comparison with the evidence from USP and Sky and it being made up that Sky used Carbon Monoxide where there is zilch to support it. So when I see things like the above with fabrications and hatred to further agendas then yes, some around here do want Sky to be doping.

When I say this, I'm not doing a sweeping generalised comment on the clinic, this is just a select group whose BS needs to be addressed. This is the kind of nonsense I find hard to ignore. In fact maybe I should. There are plenty of others who think Sky maybe doping and criticise Walsh's reporting by putting up meaningful points and discussion and are well worth listening to. Walsh isn't flawless by any means. He was wrong to say the stuff about bitter Armstrong fans but tonight on Irish radio, he mentioned the criticism he has got has been vitriol. This has been gone on ever since the Giro where he didn't mention anything regarding bitter Armstrong fans and just tweeted mostly on a racing theme. His response to it wasn't the best to say the least, but don't think for a second he said that on a whim.

This sounds like the tirade of a man who is overly sensitive about what little of the old empire remains. Your problem is that you cannot accept that the jingoistic British imbeciles who believe in Sky are just a new incarnation of the jingoistic American imbeciles who believed in U.S. Postal. In many cases Walsh simply dusted off Armstrong's lies and changed the American spelling to that archaic form of English that you guys use on your little island. Jeebus! He is actually using the "works harder" excuse. Really! Someone should do a side by side comparison of Sky's lies with Postal's. It could be made into a game where a list of excuses is given and you have to choose which team of liars used which excuse for their implausible performance.

It also looks like you have stooped to BPC's usual tactic of mis-stating other posters' positions. Somehow in your whacky world, amusement over Sky apologists being put between a rock and a hard place as they try to reconcile their belief in Froome and a new era of cycling with their disbelief in Horner becomes "glad Horner was doping to stick it to the Brits." There was comedy gold from the whirlwind of hypocrisy. The muppets at BikeRetard wrote some hilarious posts, and the usual suspects here hid under rocks for a month. If nothing else it sure made JV look like an asss after he spent the previous year telling everyone how much cleaner everything had to be because speeds were down.
 
thehog said:
Interesting interview. Head is in the clouds and is in love.

Julich told him BMC are light years behind Sky.

Walsh was digusted that Ryder was seen having a beer over lunch on the rest day.

Miller was see sun tanning at the hotel to the dismay of team Sky.

Vaughters told Walsh that Wiggins would have also won the Tour at Garmin if he stayed.

Mechanics on other teams have to work in the rain. Team Sky have an indoor mechanics tent.

Walsh is not sure Froome will win again?!! Believes his body won't hold up!

Says Italains drink coffee when they ride. At Sky they practise attacks up climbs in training.

Armstrong had a headwind on Ventoux. Froome a big tailwind.

Armstrong always had a headwind.

Ax3 Sky delivered Froome to the end of the stage.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
the sceptic said:
Youre the one deflecting with your whining about again mostly irrelevant things.

Bottom line, there is more evidences that Walsh is on the bandwagon than not.

Relax, you dodged responding to two posts. It's duly noted.

There's too much info on your posts to take in.

BroDeal said:
This sounds like the tirade of a man who is overly sensitive about what little of the old empire remains. Your problem is that you cannot accept that the jingoistic British imbeciles who believe in Sky are just a new incarnation of the jingoistic American imbeciles who believed in U.S. Postal. In many cases Walsh simply dusted off Armstrong's lies and changed the American spelling to that archaic form of English that you guys use on your little island. Jeebus! He is actually using the "works harder" excuse. Really! Someone should do a side by side comparison of Sky's lies with Postal's. It could be made into a game where a list of excuses is given and you have to choose which team of liars used which excuse for their implausible performance.

You do know you just proved my point about yourself. You have a serious problem with the British. Brits this and Brits that. That's all I ever here. Everything along national lines. I notice yourself and sceptic haven't denied it in your responses. Interesting.

It also looks like you have stooped to BPC's usual tactic of mis-stating other posters' positions. Somehow in your whacky world, amusement over Sky apologists being put between a rock and a hard place as they try to reconcile their belief in Froome and a new era of cycling with their disbelief in Horner becomes "glad Horner was doping to stick it to the Brits." There was comedy gold from the whirlwind of hypocrisy. The muppets at BikeRetard wrote some hilarious posts, and the usual suspects here hid under rocks for a month. If nothing else it sure made JV look like an asss after he spent the previous year telling everyone how much cleaner everything had to be because speeds were down.

No, the positions are accurate. Even hog stood up admitted it about himself. Lets see will the others admit also. They know who they are.

You clearly used the words "Forza Horner. Give those cheating Brits what for." You were delighted Horner won the Vuelta doping because you could happily further your agenda against Froome/Sky and British fans by starting that thread. Your delight was very evident.

On that thread, did Froome chase down anyone like Horner did with Hincapie? Is Froome one of the redacted names like Horner possibly is? Has anyone ever spoken about Froome like De Canio did about Horner?

And you're one of the guys dishing it out to Walsh. Like I said to sceptic, a fan of the sport, my ***.
 
gooner said:
You do know you just proved my point about yourself. You have a serious problem with the British. Brits this and Brits that. That's all I ever here. Everything along national lines. I notice yourself and sceptic haven't denied it in your responses. Interesting.

No, if you go back and read his post again you will see it's a load of cr@p. BroDeal is pointing out nationalistic tendencies in all cycling fans. It just happens that the worst offenders ATM are British. You are putting up a strawman argument, assuming the accusations are coming purely from a nationalist POV.

All BroDeal and many others here are pointing out is that the current crop of UK cycling fans are reacting to their countries success and criticism the same way that US fans reacted 10 years ago. That's all, no more.

Ask yourself this question: If the word Sky was replaced with Movistar, Cannondale, Lotto or Europcar would you be reacting with the same outrage? I'll happily put up a months wages that the answer is a resounding no.

This is why Sky threads here in the clinic are roughly 10x longer than any other, just like Armstrong threads were back in 08-11. Noone is levelling accusations at Sky that aren't being levelled at other teams, it's the defense that's drawing things out.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
42x16ss said:
No, if you go back and read his post again you will see it's a load of cr@p. BroDeal is pointing out nationalistic tendencies in all cycling fans. It just happens that the worst offenders ATM are British. You are putting up a strawman argument, assuming the accusations are coming purely from a nationalist POV.

All BroDeal and many others here are pointing out is that the current crop of UK cycling fans are reacting to their countries success and criticism the same way that US fans reacted 10 years ago. That's all, no more.

Ask yourself this question: If the word Sky was replaced with Movistar, Cannondale, Lotto or Europcar would you be reacting with the same outrage? I'll happily put up a months wages that the answer is a resounding no.

This is why Sky threads here in the clinic are roughly 10x longer than any other, just like Armstrong threads were back in 08-11. Noone is levelling accusations at Sky that aren't being levelled at other teams, it's the defense that's drawing things out.

The reason the Sky threads are so long because in comparison to the USP there is nowhere near the same evidence stacked against them. It's a lot more open to debate, no matter what people tell you around here. Another reason they are so busy is quite simple, they are the dominating team at the moment. Pretty natural they will get more scrutiny and discussion.

Please explain BroDeal's attack on Ireland last week and putting them in his reference with the British as well. Take issue with the individual person if you wish, not some BS sweeping comment in response to them. What has Ireland got to do with Sky anyway?

My opinion is not representative of some wider english speaking mindset or Ireland which BroDeal suggested. It's mine and mine only. The sceptic is also guilty. Just go into the football thread in the clinic and see his point about Bale and the Brits and baiting a poster who isn't even British but Irish. Then we had a mod in Parrulo accuse me of national bias towards Walsh but least did he know I have been critical of guys like Shane Stokes and Kimmage on a topic that didn't have anything got to do with Sky. It's tiresome to say the least. It's getting thrown around here quite a bit where it's a mantra, if you disagree, accuse of national bias and being a fanboy. This without addressing the points being made.

I think you will find there is a huge number over here who have big suspicions on Sky. All you had to do was listen to Walsh's interview last night and see the reaction from the Irish listeners. Ger Gilroy, the presenter who interviewed him said afterwards the majority were in disagreement with Walsh by the tweets and texts they received.
 
42x16ss said:
No, if you go back and read his post again you will see it's a load of cr@p. BroDeal is pointing out nationalistic tendencies in all cycling fans. It just happens that the worst offenders ATM are British. You are putting up a strawman argument, assuming the accusations are coming purely from a nationalist POV.

All BroDeal and many others here are pointing out is that the current crop of UK cycling fans are reacting to their countries success and criticism the same way that US fans reacted 10 years ago. That's all, no more.

Ask yourself this question: If the word Sky was replaced with Movistar, Cannondale, Lotto or Europcar would you be reacting with the same outrage? I'll happily put up a months wages that the answer is a resounding no.

This is why Sky threads here in the clinic are roughly 10x longer than any other, just like Armstrong threads were back in 08-11. Noone is levelling accusations at Sky that aren't being levelled at other teams, it's the defense that's drawing things out.

This is an accurate analysis of how patriotism plays a decisive factor in the epideictic oratory of praise-and-blame rhetoric, for which in this case doping tends to be part of another nations' moral character, but not mine. Although it must be said, and here to Bro's credit, that this is particularly an Anglo-American trait, or at least its more puritanical worldview has led to the worst examples of idiocy. By contrast the continentals, and particularly the Latin countries, have much less to feel insecure about, taking the world as they do for what it is rather than being bound to a standard of wholesome forms of life that are not their own.

Just the other day before a group ride outside of Rome, for instance, over a conversation about doping among US cyclists with my Italian friend and cycling reporter for la Repubblica, Eugenio Capodacqua - who has been so adamantly anti-doping from the beginning of his career that he has made many enemies within cycling - a 52 year-old guy (not the journalist) who can still hammer after a lifetime in the saddle exclaimed: "They're all doped from the first to the last! It's impossible to ride at certain speeds for that long on bread and water alone. 50 kph for 100k day in and day out! Come on! It's impossible without taking medicines! Let's not talk BS, shall we."

Now I don't necessarily agree that there are not some clean riders in the peloton, however thinking Sky is even remotely clean, when we know the other teams are still doping, is ingenuous to a degree that vivifies human capacity for the absurd.
 
gooner said:
The reason the Sky threads are so long because in comparison to the USP there is nowhere near the same evidence stacked against them. It's a lot more open to debate, no matter what people tell you around here. Another reason they are so busy is quite simple, they are the dominating team at the moment. Pretty natural they will get more scrutiny and discussion.

Please explain BroDeal's attack on Ireland last week and putting them in his reference with the British as well. Take issue with the individual person if you wish, not some BS sweeping comment in response to them. What has Ireland got to do with Sky anyway?

My opinion is not representative of some wider english speaking mindset or Ireland which BroDeal suggested. It's mine and mine only. The sceptic is also guilty. Just go into the football thread in the clinic and see his point about Bale and the Brits and baiting a poster who isn't even British but Irish. Then we had a mod in Parrulo accuse me of national bias towards Walsh but least did he know I have been critical of guys like Shane Stokes and Kimmage on a topic that didn't have anything got to do with Sky. It's tiresome to say the least. It's getting thrown around here quite a bit where it's a mantra, if you disagree, accuse of national bias and being a fanboy. This without addressing the points being made.

I think you will find there is a huge number over here who have big suspicions on Sky. All you had to do was listen to Walsh's interview last night and see the reaction from the Irish listeners. Ger Gilroy, the presenter who interviewed him said afterwards the majority were in disagreement with Walsh by the tweets and texts they received.
There you go again - The Sky threads now are just as long as the USPS/Armstrong threads were! Don't believe me? Do a forum search, it's all that was talked about until around 2011.

The only difference is that Sky defenders are now from the UK - NOT IRELAND (apart from Walsh) - whereas the USPS defenders were from the USA. You say that your opinion isn't indicative of a broader British mindset? Well, a quick scan of BikeRadar and a few other forums suggests otherwise. Your defense of Sky is actually relatively modest in comparison to some.

I don't read the football thread - my passion for the sport has waned greatly over the years, so wasn't aware of anything BroDeal may have said there. However, looking at UK football fans' difference in reactions to doping allogations at home and abroad (eg: Ferdinand) I'd say he's probably pointing the same thing out there too :rolleyes:
 
Impressions of the Walsh interview, linked upthread:

I will give him credit for sounding a little less starry-eyed than he comes across in the book, but that is about it.

Walsh really doesn’t explain the performance jump by Froome. He refers to the schistosomiasis, and then does a lot of hand-waving about how Froome learned to ride more strategically, but it really doesn’t add up to an explanation. Even I, who know far less about the typical rider’s development than some others here, can see that. And again, he never mentions the refusal of Sky to publish some pre-2011 power stats.

Comparing to LA, Walsh strongly implies that the backdated TUE made it obvious to journalists that LA was doping. But if it was so obvious, how come it never gained traction in the sporting media? LA was able to push the never tested positive mantra for years, and virtually none in the media ever brought up the TUE as evidence against. Why not, if it was so obvious?

The part about Sky working harder than everyone else rings phony to me. Anyone who has pursued a sport (or some other profession) seriously knows that progress is not linearly related to hours put in, that there can be such a thing as overtraining or overworking, and that taking a break and doing something entirely different can be very beneficial. Does he really, seriously believe that Sky has discovered that by working two hours a day more than other teams, they can get much better results? That if it were that simple, no one else would have ever figured that out?

The notion that someone drinking a beer once in a while is evidence of not being serious enough is BS. Frankly, I am really, really sick of the insinuation that any world class athlete gets there because he works harder than everyone else. Sometimes it’s easier to just keep training beyond the point that it has benefits, sometimes it’s actually harder to stop and break the routine. The book The Sports Gene, which I have discussed here on other threads, notes that some athletes benefit far more from the same amount of training than others. Some athletes have a very high natural untrained talent level, others have a very high natural response to training. But it definitely explodes the myth that “I work harder” is a sufficient explanation for success in sports. Walsh seriously implies that until Sky came along, professional cycling was dominated by riders and teams that trained only half-heartedly, ripe for the picking by people who were actually dedicated.

And sure, there are always talented athletes who are above everyone else. But Tiger Woods is not a very wise example, given the evidence that he has doped.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Visit site
Thanks hog, I think it is great Team Sky know what 'the bounds of human potential' are, even Andy Coggan doesnt know this. He really should give Kerrison a ring, within half an hour he will be a better scientist.