Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[glenmalure]

I just listened to Walsh's Newstalk interview.

He reasons that team Sky's superiority comes from employing 'strict standards on how everyone performs'.

But then says that Froomes superiority comes from ‘dedication levels different to everyone else at sky’, and gives an example of Froome being the only sky rider to go to the gym in the mornings at a particular training camp.

Weird no?

 

[maltiv]

I just listened to Walsh's Newstalk interview.

He reasons that team Sky's superiority comes from employing 'strict standards on how everyone performs'.

But then says that Froomes superiority comes from ‘dedication levels different to everyone else at sky’, and gives an example of Froome being the only sky rider to go to the gym in the mornings at a particular training camp.

Weird no?

Typical bull****, simplistic reasoning which will only cause aspiring athletes to get overtrained.

Another example of something similar: at Sky's training camp in Mallorca, EBH did 1 hour of motorpacing almost every day after their training ride (in order to improve for long races). Result? He had his worst season ever and was exhausted from start to end.

This idealistic, "barbaric" view that more training results in better results, at this level, is simply ridiculous. If it were that simple, everyone would do it.

 

[the sceptic]

Correct.

And the fact that Walsh had the Kerrison speech down word for word is worrying. Walsh doesn't understand it himself but allowed it to be printed.

And yes, data is a big part of the Sky machine. Walsh on one hand is telling us its not so important due to the variables but lists of the variables as a reason to why Sky went as fast as dopers, wasn't as fast as dopers.

It's also clear he has fact checked nothing. He has taken everything at face value. Badzhilla obvious of no cross referencing.

I can only assume Sky had a lot of fun feeding Walsh as he was willing to publish anything they told him.

What I gathered from the book is that if the data makes Froome look like a doper its garbage. Can we trust that the stopwatch of jens_attacks works at the same speed as other watches? can we trust that the time was taken from the same spot every time?

No we cant, because the data made Froome almost as fast as Armstrong so there must be something wrong here. Instead we must look at the data that made Froome only the 23rd(?) fastest overall and a comfortable 13% behind Mayo. That data is the only data that isnt garbage, because its so nice and clean.

And please remember that team sky invented tailwinds in 2013. Armstrong only had headwinds.

 

[RownhamHill]

Poor Bison. I can already see Vickers and Gooner furiously reporting that post.

I thought the brits were supposed to have a good sense of humor. Guess not.

I thought Martin Vickers and Gooner were both Irish?

 

[thehog]

What I gathered from the book is that if the data makes Froome look like a doper its garbage. Can we trust that the stopwatch of jens_attacks works at the same speed as other watches? can we trust that the time was taken from the same spot every time?

No we cant, because the data made Froome almost as fast as Armstrong so there must be something wrong here. Instead we must look at the data that made Froome only the 23rd(?) fastest overall and a comfortable 13% behind Mayo. That data is the only data that isnt garbage, because its so nice and clean.

And please remember that team sky invented tailwinds in 2013. Armstrong only had headwinds.

Oddly Walsh pulls out the Garate quote where he said he hit a headwind in the final kilometres of Ventoux in 2009.

Which is exactly what Froome said in 2013 but that part doesn't appear!

But you can't trust the data because of the variables. But here are some variables to let you know why Froome is legit.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

This idealistic, "barbaric" view that more training results in better results, at this level, is simply ridiculous. If it were that simple, everyone would do it.

The Italians said the same a few decades ago, we all know what that implied...

More training, harder training; more recuperation needed. Must be those of the Sky shelve vitamins.

 

[Benotti69]

Pills didn't fall out of Kelly's pocket, Walsh thinks he heard the noise of pills rattling in a pillbox, coming from the pocket in the back of Kelly's jersey.

Walsh didn't think he heard it, as Kimmage standing beside Walsh also heard it. No thinking. Kelly tested positive at that race.

 

[thehog]

What I gathered from the book is that if the data makes Froome look like a doper its garbage. Can we trust that the stopwatch of jens_attacks works at the same speed as other watches? can we trust that the time was taken from the same spot every time?

No we cant, because the data made Froome almost as fast as Armstrong so there must be something wrong here. Instead we must look at the data that made Froome only the 23rd(?) fastest overall and a comfortable 13% behind Mayo. That data is the only data that isnt garbage, because its so nice and clean.

And please remember that team sky invented tailwinds in 2013. Armstrong only had headwinds.

I'll give you one more from the book... you'll like this one.

Walsh is telling his readers that its difficult to get the official times on climbs because how do you know if Froome or anyone was at the back of the peloton when the first climbers crossed start of the climb!

Clearly he didn't think about what he wrote. Because that being the case. If Froome or anyone was at the back and the stopwatch starts it means he has climbed faster!

Yes Walsh wrote that.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Yeah but we compare Froome's time to Armstrong's. Maybe Lance was completely at the back of the peloton back then? It's not like anyone pays attention to the yellow jersey's location at the foot at the final climb of a tourstage.

 

[glenmalure]

Walsh didn't think he heard it, as Kimmage standing beside Walsh also heard it. No thinking. Kelly tested positive at that race.

No Walsh did 'think' he heard pills, Kimmage also 'thinks' he heard pills. Unless they can see through jerseys all they can do is speculate what the noise was.

 

[sideshadow]

No Walsh did 'think' he heard pills, Kimmage also 'thinks' he heard pills. Unless they can see through jerseys all they can do is speculate what the noise was.

From Seven deadly sins:

I looked at Paul, silently asking, ‘Did you hear that?’ He had. Then Kelly was gone and we were silent; kids who had got close to Father Christmas and seen the glue that held his beard in place.

‘Could it have been anything else?’

‘No, it was definitely the sound of pills.’

‘Why would he need those in a race?’

‘Don’t know.’

‘Me neither.’

 

[Benotti69]

No Walsh did 'think' he heard pills, Kimmage also 'thinks' he heard pills. Unless they can see through jerseys all they can do is speculate what the noise was.

Nope, the sound confirmed it was pills rattling and the positive test re confirmed it.

 

[LaFlorecita]

I'll give you one more from the book... you'll like this one.

Walsh is telling his readers that its difficult to get the official times on climbs because how do you know if Froome or anyone was at the back of the peloton when the first climbers crossed start of the climb!

Clearly he didn't think about what he wrote. Because that being the case. If Froome or anyone was at the back and the stopwatch starts it means he has climbed faster!

Yes Walsh wrote that.

 

[thehog]

Yeah but we compare Froome's time to Armstrong's. Maybe Lance was completely at the back of the peloton back then? It's not like anyone pays attention to the yellow jersey's location at the foot at the final climb of a tourstage.

Exactly. The rider is timed from the base. Walsh equals thickary.

 

[The Hitch]

lolol yeah.

In theory someone may be at the back of the peloton when the stopwatch starts. Therefore, even though we know for a fact that neither Froome nor Armstrong were at the back of the peloton when their times were measured, the comparison must be thrown out of the window.

Maybe Mayo was at the back of the peloton when he set the record. Bet you 10 squid if you tweet Walsh that it happened, it will be in the next book

 

[jens_attacks]

Yeah but we compare Froome's time to Armstrong's. Maybe Lance was completely at the back of the peloton back then? It's not like anyone pays attention to the yellow jersey's location at the foot at the final climb of a tourstage.

i don't do that.
but it rarely happens though...
in almost all the cases, all the big guns who want to do something on the climb are at the front of the peloton. the starting points are ALWAYS the same, usually crossroads.

but yeah if your name is igor anton, david moncoutie or carlito sastre, you probably did the climb 5-10 seconds faster then i said you did.
for a 40 minutes climb, 0,2-0,4% error. game changer.

 

[maltiv]

There might be some truth in that if he's talking about Sastre, who in general probably has better slightly better times on every climb than the record books say. I think I read somewhere that in actual climbing times, he should've been 2nd or 3rd behind Contador on Verbier in 2009, but he obviously started the climb at the very back of the peloton.

 

[Digger]

But as hog points out - even if froome was towards the back, the end result is that his time would be even quicker than the guys at the front anyway...this is actually getting embarrassing.

 

[thehog]

But as hog points out - even if froome was towards the back, the end result is that his time would be even quicker than the guys at the front anyway...this is actually getting embarrassing.

Correctomondo.

Walsh trying to waterdown Froome with "variables" actually makes out when applied Froome molto retardo.

 

[Nicko.]

All I can read out of that is Kerrison is bad at actually communicating a point, but good at talking confidently about a subject he hasn't quite gotten his head round, giving pushovers like Walsh the impression he knows what he's talking about. Is he saying that an SRM doesn't give reliable power output for a bike rigged with oval chain rings? If that's the case then why are the Skybots constantly staring at their handlebars?

I think Kerrison is confusing himself with a physicist! Surely all he needed to say was that a crank based power meter measures the average power per pedal stroke. You will still get a variation of power during a pedal stroke with round chainrings depending on how evenly the rider pushes the pedals.

Oval rings will likely exaggerate any peaks or troughs but this will be averaged out over a complete pedal stroke and certainly over an extended duration of measurement.

Yes this is an excuse - release data and caveat it with the assumptions used and error %s? Personally I would just maintain info is confidential for competitive reasons and no need for BS - as why bother with power data at all if it is so poor?

Haven't (and won't) read the book, Kerrison is right on this one.

I believe there was some confusion within Sky regarding PMs and oval rings but clearly it it understtod by now.

Side note: I think this was the reason for and background to the whole "Wiggins goes there: Cadence!"-thread. With this systematic measurement error (SRM+oval), the harder you grind and the more oval the rings - the greater the "power output" on the SRM...
Incompetence+non-sharp tool=funny talk in interviews

 

[Digger]

Haven't (and won't) read the book, Kerrison is right on this one.

I believe there was some confusion within Sky regarding PMs and oval rings but clearly it it understtod by now.

Side note: I think this was the reason for and background to the whole "Wiggins goes there: Cadence!"-thread. With this systematic measurement error (SRM+oval), the harder you grind and the more oval the rings - the greater the "power output" on the SRM...
Incompetence+non-sharp tool=funny talk in interviews

A pro this did tell me there was a ten percent over and above allowed for oval rings and measuring power...however he said over and ABOVE.

 

[Benotti69]

Haven't (and won't) read the book, Kerrison is right on this one.

I believe there was some confusion within Sky regarding PMs and oval rings but clearly it it understtod by now.

Side note: I think this was the reason for and background to the whole "Wiggins goes there: Cadence!"-thread. With this systematic measurement error (SRM+oval), the harder you grind and the more oval the rings - the greater the "power output" on the SRM...
Incompetence+non-sharp tool=funny talk in interviews

Wigans only used the oval rings in TTs in 2013.

 

[roundabout]

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.

Your lack of knowledge about your avatar is even more hilarious.

 

[thehog]

Wigans only used the oval rings in TTs in 2013.

Yes and Kerrison was trying to tell Walsh why they couldn't release the powerdata because it may not be accurate.

Super sleuth Walsh took it hook line and sinker.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

So it was back to Charles.
‘This is mad. Clean guy goes faster than the EPO generation? So what do you think, Charles? Smoother road surfaces? Tail winds every day? Lighter bikes? Or these leaders are doping, as Bassons says?

Who vixened Walsh?