Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Libertine Seguros]

Considering we dont know who and who is not doping and to what extentm who to you looks really talented then?

Alejandro Valverde was smashing fields to all parts as a child and a junior. I don't think he was doping when he was 11, therefore I believe he was a very talented rider. Who then doped as a pro. I would also say that the pros themselves are more clued up as to who is a talented rider taking the drugs and who is a chemically-created golem. Mario Cipollini when covering the Giro a couple of years ago said (paraphrasing here) "Basso was a big engine who doped, Danilo di Luca just doped", for example. The problem with Froome is that his background raises alarm bells because he wasn't even crushing the fields in mediocre races in South Africa before he got to Europe with Barloworld, so his promise was difficult to ascertain. The fact that he was only given a Sky contract because of his passport and about to be jettisoned, to pick up a minimum wage domestique salary at Garmin or Lampre because Sky didn't want him anymore, before the 2011 Vuelta, only serves to add fuel to the fire of suspicion on him, because if cycling was cleaning up, one would anticipate his results to steadily improve, whereas in fact his results were drying up prior to that sudden jump to the world's elite. And literally every other Cinderella story in recent memory had ended badly. It could end almost straight away (Bernhard Kohl) or take a few years (Ezequiel Mosquera, Santiago Pérez), but it always ended the same way. And none of them - NONE of them - had as little to show in the way of results prior to their breakout GTs as Chris Froome did (Bernhard Kohl had podiumed the Dauphiné, Mosquera had contended for the GC in the Volta a Portugal and almost every short stage race in Spain, even Santi had top 10ed Romandie). What did we have with Froome? A single stage breakaway in the 2008 Tour where he'd been in the break of the day and was dropped just after Johan van Summeren, but successfully rode with Denis Menchov for a couple of kilometres before eventually finishing 9 minutes behind the Humanplasma-affected Russian, and a solid ITT a few days later. After that, the only notable thing he did was the Taaramäe on San Luca in the 2009 Giro. Which has been mocked a lot since his breakout, but that's mostly because it's about the only noteworthy thing he did for three years.

So that's why he gets treated more with derision, as many more see him as a chemically-created Frankenstein's monster than see him as a major talent who's doping to make it. Admittedly that isn't helped at all by Sky's management style and robotic tactics, which exaggerate the effect, as it makes his "spider-on-a-bike" TT-position look all the more incongruous, as with all the science at their disposal, this guy with a TT position about 5% better than Andy Schleck's is demolishing riders built almost perfectly for TT and with textbook TT positions like Cancellara and Martin against the clock - then why wasn't he producing anything even remotely like that before? Hell, back in the 2011 Vuelta I was insisting that it would be idiotic for Sky to have him ride the TT at full speed as they'd need to keep him fresh to help Wiggins on La Manzaneda before Löfkvist took over as lead domestique in the final week. How naïve and stupid does that sound in retrospect?

You probably also see Cobo as a huge talent.

Cobo was seen as a pretty big talent as a Junior though. And what evidence is there of Cobo doping? Certainly not enough that anybody who defends Sky could possibly accuse Cobo without being hypocritical.

 

[The Hitch]

I'm not quite sure what problem you all have with nickhaliwels posts.

He's not saying froome is cleans, but that being a doper does not mean someone is not talented. Froome very well.might be talented.

 

[nickhalliwell]

I'm not quite sure what problem you all have with nickhaliwels posts.

He's not saying froome is cleans, but that being a doper does not mean someone is not talented. Froome very well.might be talented.

Nor do I, personally think my positions fairly reasonable.... feel a lot of the people skeptical about doping turn it into a bit of a vendetta against the individual rather than a fair analysis of the situation.

 

[roundabout]

Again, Froome had a decent 2007. Regioni and Tell are quite prestigious U23 races and he was pretty good in both.

 

[roundabout]

Compared to Froome he was huge before the two met in Vuelta. Anyway, since talent is brought into discussion it simply is beyond comprehension how a rider that hasn't shown any signs of greatness, I repeat not even a hint, can suddenly destroy the whole peloton. If some of the main contenders are still on the juice Froome's results seem even more ridiculous. He's now hitting the brakes when taking a turn on Ventoux.

Cobo = did nothing of note in his 3 first years as a pro

Froome = did nothing of note in his first 3 years a pro

 

[jens_attacks]

libertine, one of these days i'll ask you to come with the original quote of cipo about danilo? especially because cipo was at least on grande danilo's level when it came to charging. at least.



about nickhaliwels posts, i have the same opinion too regarding froomey.
even if he rather seems a santi perez who just keeps on giving, his story is quite unique. some bio hazard jokes, i'm the first to do them but seriously speaking, there is no way in hell he would have won the tour without talent. no way.

 

[LaFlorecita]

I agree Froome is talented, he has to be, but not extremely talented.

My main problem with Froome is that he is being pushed down our throats as a cycling god (or Jesus as this is the Walsh thread) while the others are just a bunch of filthy dopers (Contador = Barabbas).

Gag.

 

[nickhalliwell]

I agree Froome is talented, he has to be, but not extremely talented.

My main problem with Froome is that he is being pushed down our throats as a cycling god (or Jesus as this is the Walsh thread) while the others are just a bunch of filthy dopers (Contador = Barabbas).

Gag.

Oh year walsh is out his mind... Armstrongs clearly talented even though there is a lot of evidence it wasnt a level playing field he won the WC and the tdf 7 times. He clearly had to train really hard and have some talent this isnt something he acknowledges.
He also the doping issue is his fault... utter nonsense.
The fact is most cyclists who have won the tdf have doped its clear mercx doped and hes seen as the greatest. I therefore seems unfair to me to be overly critical of peoples talents just because we have a strong feeling they are doped. A position walsh also fails to really appreciate.

 

[sniper]

Sadly, there are currently no way of knowing who has "big race win" talent and who are just peloton fodder.

this of course.

at least with regards to Contador there seemed to exist some consensus even among clinicians that he was/is a natural talent. Vaughters also thinks so.
Now walsh is telling us differently. oh well.

If Vaughters was actually concerned about dopers beating his clean riders, he might want to start asking some questions about Sky's lack of transparency wrt Froome. Vaughters is also silent on the Walsh book. I bet he's read it though. Received a signed copy from Walsh no doubt.

 

[The Hitch]

this of course.

at least with regards to Contador there seemed to exist some consensus even among clinicians that he was/is a natural talent. Vaughters also thinks so.
Now walsh is telling us differently. oh well.

If Vaughters was actually concerned about dopers beating his clean riders, he might want to start asking some questions about Sky's lack of transparency wrt Froome. Vaughters is also silent on the Walsh book. I bet he's read it though. Received a signed copy from Walsh no doubt.

Its easy to tell if Vaughters believes what is in the Walsh book.

If he believes it, next year Hesjedal and Talansky and co will start training 2 hours more every day and stop drinking cofee. Also they will change their mechanics and make the wheels thinner.

If he doesn't, he will do nothing,

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Its easy to tell if Vaughters believes what is in the Walsh book.

If he believes it, ... make the wheels thinner.

If he doesn't, he will do nothing,

Make the wheels thinner? I must have missed that quote, what?

 

[Pentacycle]

Its easy to tell if Vaughters believes what is in the Walsh book.

If he believes it, next year Hesjedal and Talansky and co will start training 2 hours more every day and stop drinking cofee. Also they will change their mechanics and make the wheels thinner.

If he doesn't, he will do nothing,

Why stop there? He could force Farrar to play sudokus, as those are Cav's secret to sprinting succes.

C'mon if JV is a sane man he'll stick to his own plan, instead of running along with Sky's parade. He's never been the one to copy other team's training and techniques(AFAIK) and he's always had his own approach, which has been proven to be effective.

 

[rhubroma]

Oh year walsh is out his mind... Armstrongs clearly talented even though there is a lot of evidence it wasnt a level playing field he won the WC and the tdf 7 times. He clearly had to train really hard and have some talent this isnt something he acknowledges.
He also the doping issue is his fault... utter nonsense.
The fact is most cyclists who have won the tdf have doped its clear mercx doped and hes seen as the greatest. I therefore seems unfair to me to be overly critical of peoples talents just because we have a strong feeling they are doped. A position walsh also fails to really appreciate.

Though, yet again, this fails to take into account the efficaciousness of doping in the modern era, which has distorted everything. Thus the champions of 40 years ago operated on a different playing field. It will never be known, consequently - and this is the greatest crime of the scientific advancement of doping - whether or not they would have "responded" sufficiently to remain on top in this world, given all the other variables that we can decipher.

Today, all other things being equal (talent, hard work, drive, etc.), it rather boils down to chemicals vs. nature. But not only: how nature responds to the chemicals.

 

[The Hitch]

Why stop there? He could force Farrar to play sudokus, as those are Cav's secret to sprinting succes.

C'mon if JV is a sane man he'll stick to his own plan, instead of running along with Sky's parade. He's never been the one to copy other team's training and techniques(AFAIK) and he's always had his own approach, which has been proven to be effective.

According to Walsh, the Sky one guarantees vastly superior results. JV's team is a business, if he believes Walsh he will do what Walsh outlines and get massive accross the board improvements.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

libertine, one of these days i'll ask you to come with the original quote of cipo about danilo? especially because cipo was at least on grande danilo's level when it came to charging. at least.

Cipo's also way out of Danilo's league when it comes to narcissism. Cipo probably believed in his own natural talent even as he gobbled down more drugs than Iggy Pop.

 

[zlev11]

Cobo = did nothing of note in his 3 first years as a pro

Froome = did nothing of note in his first 3 years a pro

this is hilariously wrong. Cobo won Pais Vasco in his 3rd year as a pro in 2007 and rode very well in the mountains of his first Tour de France and finished 19th. hell, his 32nd place at Paris-Nice in 2006 is much better than any result Froome had before the 2011 Vuelta.

 

[Merckx index]

Thinking it over, what bothers me most about Walsh’s book is his approach. He says in the linked interview that he traveled with Sky specifically to investigate whether they were doping. At the outset, anyone could have predicted that even if they were, it would be very hard for a journalist to discover. But if you’re going to make the attempt, you try to observe riders when they don’t know you’re around; you follow them surreptiously; you ask trick questions, not about doping per se (of course they will deny), but questions on seemingly unrelated topics that may catch someone offguard and reveal insights relevant to his character. In other words, you make yourself a royal pain in the ***. While you try to maintain good relationships with everyone, in this situation they can't really be your friends.

This isn’t what Walsh did, or if he did, he sure doesn’t mention it. On the contrary, he did befriend the riders and staff, and discovered, lo and behold, that many of them are charming and intelligent. Then he fell for the oldest illusion in the world: that someone charming and intelligent cannot possibly be dishonest. Or that taking advantage of advances in science, technology and training can’t possibly be compatible with doping.

The situation with LA/USPS illustrates what a fallacy that is. Consider what someone could have written about them back in the day. A journalist could have pointed out several secrets to their success that had nothing to do with doping. First, LA focused completely on the TDF. Any races earlier in the season were used solely as preparation for the ultimate goal; they were never targeted as important to win for themselves. This was genuinely new in cycling, at least to the extent to which LA did it.

Second, the team was built entirely around LA and his goal of winning the GC. No sprinters. No other riders hunting stage wins, unless a chance presented itself without affecting LA’s GC position. Again, a fairly new approach. Most of the competing teams, including those of his biggest rivals, had multiple goals.

And third, tactics which involved tiring many potential GC contenders by setting a blistering pace on the early flat stages, and also on the flat portions of the stages leading up to MTFs. Climbs were won long before the road actually turned up.

All of these strategies were fairly new, they were real, they were devastatingly effective, and even the most diehard critics of LA will concede that they played a major role in his TDF wins. But the key point is, none of this has any bearing at all on whether the team doped. There is nothing at all inconsistent about making use of techniques that are within the rules and also ones that are outside the rules. On the contrary, a team that is so driven to win that it will strive to find new approaches within the rules that give it an edge is more likely, not less likely, to do the same with regard to doping. And any permitted technique that gives a rider an edge is likely to be even more effective when doping is added. Thus a doping program that might involve periodic blood withdrawals was much easier when there was only one big race you cared about. A fast pace on flat stages strategy was much more effective when your entire team was doped.

Walsh seems to miss this really obvious point entirely. Again and again he emphasizes the “new” things Sky does—though in fact most of them aren’t new, and look far less revolutionary than what Postal was doing—implying that because they are doing these things, they can’t be doping. He doesn’t seem to understand that pursuing marginal gains is not evidence against doping; if anything, it’s evidence of having the kind of attention to detail that makes teams better able to maximize doping benefits in the passport era. He talks about how Sky riders train two hours longer, apparently missing the irony that one of the major benefits of doping is that it allows a rider to recover faster and train longer.

None of this proves that Sky is doping. We can spend all day tearing Walsh to shreds, and as the sun sets, we are no closer to establishing this. But no one should be using this book as evidence that Sky is clean.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Seriously?

We're digging out (thanks to nick) the 'talent' arguments, even including the odd 'level playing field', to validate Froome's performances?

Of course he's 'talented'. He can ride a bike better than 99.9999% of the world population.

The 'fact' that he's the best, most naturally talented, rider in the history of humankind is what's at issue.

Not a f*cking chance.

Keep the debate simple.

 

[thehog]

Thinking it over, what bothers me most about Walsh’s book is his approach. He says in the linked interview that he traveled with Sky specifically to investigate whether they were doping. At the outset, anyone could have predicted that even if they were, it would be very hard for a journalist to discover. But if you’re going to make the attempt, you try to observe riders when they don’t know you’re around; you follow them surreptiously; you ask trick questions, not about doping per se (of course they will deny), but questions on seemingly unrelated topics that may catch someone offguard and reveal insights relevant to his character. In other words, you make yourself a royal pain in the ***. While you try to maintain good relationships with everyone, in this situation they can't really be your friends.

This isn’t what Walsh did, or if he did, he sure doesn’t mention it. On the contrary, he did befriend the riders and staff, and discovered, lo and behold, that many of them are charming and intelligent. Then he fell for the oldest illusion in the world: that someone charming and intelligent cannot possibly be dishonest. Or that taking advantage of advances in science, technology and training can’t possibly be compatible with doping.

The situation with LA/USPS illustrates what a fallacy that is. Consider what someone could have written about them back in the day. A journalist could have pointed out several secrets to their success that had nothing to do with doping. First, LA focused completely on the TDF. Any races earlier in the season were used solely as preparation for the ultimate goal; they were never targeted as important to win for themselves. This was genuinely new in cycling, at least to the extent to which LA did it.

Second, the team was built entirely around LA and his goal of winning the GC. No sprinters. No other riders hunting stage wins, unless a chance presented itself without affecting LA’s GC position. Again, a fairly new approach. Most of the competing teams, including those of his biggest rivals, had multiple goals.

And third, tactics which involved tiring many potential GC contenders by setting a blistering pace on the early flat stages, and also on the flat portions of the stages leading up to MTFs. Climbs were won long before the road actually turned up.

All of these strategies were fairly new, they were real, they were devastatingly effective, and even the most diehard critics of LA will concede that they played a major role in his TDF wins. But the key point is, none of this has any bearing at all on whether the team doped. There is nothing at all inconsistent about making use of techniques that are within the rules and also ones that are outside the rules. On the contrary, a team that is so driven to win that it will strive to find new approaches within the rules that give it an edge is more likely, not less likely, to do the same with regard to doping. And any permitted technique that gives a rider an edge is likely to be even more effective when doping is added. Thus a doping program that might involve periodic blood withdrawals was much easier when there was only one big race you cared about. A fast pace on flat stages strategy was much more effective when your entire team was doped.

Walsh seems to miss this really obvious point entirely. Again and again he emphasizes the “new” things Sky does—though in fact most of them aren’t new, and look far less revolutionary than what Postal was doing—implying that because they are doing these things, they can’t be doping. He doesn’t seem to understand that pursuing marginal gains is not evidence against doping; if anything, it’s evidence of having the kind of attention to detail that makes teams better able to maximize doping benefits in the passport era. He talks about how Sky riders train two hours longer, apparently missing the irony that one of the major benefits of doping is that it allows a rider to recover faster and train longer.

None of this proves that Sky is doping. We can spend all day tearing Walsh to shreds, and as the sun sets, we are no closer to establishing this. But no one should be using this book as evidence that Sky is clean.

Excellent post. And agree on training and recovery element to doping.

 

[Low Octane]

But no one should be using this book as evidence that Sky is clean.

I think you meant it's not conclusive evidence that Sky is clean. But lets face it, it's pretty impressive that they allowed such a switched on journalist with the integrity of Walsh to follow them around. They had no idea what he would say or how he would react to the situation. As much as we hate it, it does start to stretch credulity to believe they were running a huge conspiracy whilst he was spending all day behind the scenes with staff, management and riders. Do we really believe some kind of sophisticated doping program could operate in those circumstances?

We now know just how hard it was for Postal to keep it a secret for so many years - it left its trail everywhere. Huge intimidation was needed. There was a long list of former associates and riders who would give you and nudge and a wink. With Sky there is none of that, not even a whiff of a rumor from in or around the team. Knowing what we know now, it does start to beggar belief.

We can have a lot of fun by comparing times and trolling away about it - I understand the psychological need for some to recreate the whole Postal thing - but after the superficial comparisons are made, it's all left rather hollow in substance.

 

[the sceptic]

Youre right. It would be impossible to dope with detective Walsh around.

Are you really that dumb? Do you really think Sky would invite him if there was a chance he would discovery anything meaningful? If there is dopings going on, Walsh wasnt gonna discover it, so this whole thing was obviously just a scam from the beginning and sky invited him to get some cleans PR.

 

[Low Octane]

It is not my fault that he completely missed the point of that thread. Using the "Forza Horner" end line of posts, a line that was clearly facetious, as evidence of an agenda should be rather embarrassing.

Totally with you. He should have known you were trolling.

 

[Low Octane]

Youre right. It would be impossible to dope with detective Walsh around.

Are you really that dumb? Do you really think Sky would invite him if there was a chance he would discovery anything meaningful? If there is dopings going on, Walsh wasnt gonna discover it, so this whole thing was obviously just a scam from the beginning and sky invited him to get some cleans PR.

It's easy to make a quip about detective Walsh, but yes, it would be bloody difficult to conceal this type of huge doping conspiracy with an investigative anti doping journalist on the team bus every day. That's why the likes of Walsh were blacklisted by teams. We now know just how much team staff have to be involved to pull this off every day - running around hiding rubbish, making courier trips across borders, pulling over the bus on mountain bends, using makeup to hide injections, hiding drugs in the bus drivers underpants etc. We also know how difficult it is for many of these people to not let slip in body language or impression that something is up when you're working with them every day.

I'm not against quips, but....c'mon. Lets be honest. We can't just dimiss Walsh's presence with a quick "that's why they had him there".

 

[nickhalliwell]

Seriously?

We're digging out (thanks to nick) the 'talent' arguments, even including the odd 'level playing field', to validate Froome's performances?

Of course he's 'talented'. He can ride a bike better than 99.9999% of the world population.

The 'fact' that he's the best, most naturally talented, rider in the history of humankind is what's at issue.

Not a f*cking chance.

Keep the debate simple.

Sorry mate but actually that wasnt what was happening, people were basically suggesting froome is a mediocre rider who somehow is winnig the tdf.
You may not of but if you look at many of the posts they were.
I started reading this forum to get some info what was in walshs book and if it was worth a read despite its bias.... but the amount of nonsesnse on here suggesting froome is a average bike rider deserved a response in my opinion.

 

[the sceptic]

It's easy to make a quip about detective Walsh, but yes, it would be bloody difficult to conceal this type of huge doping conspiracy with an investigative anti doping journalist on the team bus every day. That's why the likes of Walsh were blacklisted by teams. We now know just how much team staff have to be involved to pull this off every day - running around hiding rubbish, making courier trips across borders, pulling over the bus on mountain bends, using makeup to hide injections, hiding drugs in the bus drivers underpants etc. We also know how difficult it is for many of these people to not let slip in body language or impression that something is up when you're working with them every day.

I'm not against quips, but....c'mon. Lets be honest. We can't just dimiss Walsh's presence with a quick "that's why they had him there".

If sky really wanted to show they had nothing to hide they could release Dawgzillas blood profiles, the pre 2011 tests, prove that the badzilla is real, maybe some power files from mt. Tailwind etc. That would be much more convincing than Walsh writing fairytales about how much he is in love with them.

But I have a feeling that isnt going to happen any time soon.