Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Netserk]

Of course it is BS that Froome did not impress much before 2011 because of his continuous attacking. He was a very inefficient rider, who only had a few good days.

Then again, coming in 6th on the San Luca after a hard stage is not that bad of an effort, it's just that his zigzagging is all people remembered. But he still finished in front of guys Kiryienka and Reda.

In the 2008 TdF on the Alpe d'Huez stage he went over the top of the Croix de Fer in a 25-man elite group. This means he could do something, especially if he was clean at the time, if you look at the names he was keeping up with then. he blew up though and finished just in front of LTD.

He's now evolved beyond that, and has caught up with what his opponents were doing at that time, it's not a surprise he's now a top rider.

It's just Sky who are making him look bad with their effort to be considered a clean team, and Froome is even himself buying into it. I wish he'd have gone to Astana in 2012, then his doping wouldn't even be discussed. People would assume he does, just like Purito, Valverde, Nibali etc.

Please stop with this.

Or are you telling me that it wouldn't have been a surprise if it was Herrada who had a breakthrough like Froome in the 2011 Vuelta?

 

[RownhamHill]

lol. perhaps.

@skidmark: great post. your posts (and also some of thehitch's posts) in this thread contain objective, well-worded, detailed yet consise criticism of walsh's recent journalistic endeavors.
Those who think Walsh is unfairly criticised should perhaps take issue with those posts.

Yay, I get to agree with you on something! It is a great post by Skidmark (sorry I skimmed the hitch's so can't comment).

But, if you thought that Walsh was being unfairly criticised on this thread, why would you take issue with one of the few posts that was well-worded, detailed and concise? Wouldn't that be like criticising apples by holding up an orange as an example?

 

[RownhamHill]

look, the discussion is simple:
walsh has a set of arguments for why he believes sky/froome are clean.
the soundness of these arguments is being weighed here in this thread.
most posters including me label the arguments with adjectives ranging from ridiculous and laughable to plain stupid and ignorant.
there seems no better way to insult walsh by suggesting, like you do, that he genuinely believes in those arguments.

Yeah, I get what you feel on Walsh, I've read ad infinitum your views on it.

But equally I've seen no evidence (yep, that word again) that Walsh doesn't genuinely believe in his own ability to form judgements based on his own experience (indeed, it would be an odd (and I dare say unhappy) person who truly didn't believe in their own experience).

There's a lot of certainty on these boards, and I get that, but sometimes when other people don't share your own certainty, it's worth remembering that they don't actually think they're wrong.

 

[Pentacycle]

Please stop with this.

Or are you telling me that it wouldn't have been a surprise if it was Herrada who had a breakthrough like Froome in the 2011 Vuelta?

The point I tried to make was that if Froome was clean in 2008, and still somewhat able to follow the supercharged CSC-train, then it is logical for him to become a top rider when EPO is used less and Froome himself also starts using a perhaps more up to date PED he responds well to. The latter explains the climbing records.

Herrada btw could show some pretty good riding next year if he continues his progress. But not really comparable riders.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Innocent until proven guilty just means you don't sanction someone without full proof, a process, etc. It does not mean you are required to fully believe in, or profess to, their innocence in the absence of enough proof to sanction. And this is just a forum thread, not the CAS. Trying to figure out what we're seeing on the road is basically par for the course for being a cycling fan.

 

[sniper]

Yeah, I get what you feel on Walsh, I've read ad infinitum your views on it.

But equally I've seen no evidence (yep, that word again) that Walsh doesn't genuinely believe in his own ability to form judgements based on his own experience (indeed, it would be an odd (and I dare say unhappy) person who truly didn't believe in their own experience).

There's a lot of certainty on these boards, and I get that, but sometimes when other people don't share your own certainty, it's worth remembering that they don't actually think they're wrong.

Why don't you take one step back and tell us honestly what you think of the quality of walsh's arguments. Why are you skipping that part? There are several pages with quality posts taking apart those arguments. Address those posts. Address walsh's arguments.

After you've done that, come back and tell us whether or not a man of walsh's caliber is likely to really believe in those arguments.

 

[Benotti69]

I believe in innocent until proven guilty ... everything I've seen supports that proposition of innocence - but Walsh clearly isn't that sceptical anymore, he thinks that everything he's seen suggests more than just a proposition of innocence, but the actuality of it.

Walsh went after plenty of athletes who were not guilty!!! Armstrong, Smith De Bruin, Contador, Rasmussen, Roche.........

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The point I tried to make was that if Froome was clean in 2008, and still somewhat able to follow the supercharged CSC-train, then it is logical for him to become a top rider when EPO is used less and Froome himself also starts using a perhaps more up to date PED he responds well to. The latter explains the climbing records.

Herrada btw could show some pretty good riding next year if he continues his progress. But not really comparable riders.

Wasn't Froome in the break that day? Either way, the last man detached from the heads of state group before him was Johan van Summeren.

There were FAR too many riders in the void between the superchargers of 2008 (Riccò, Piepoli, Schumacher, Kohl obviously, and to this we can add the likes of Menchov) and the young and raw Froome who wasn't even the most impressive young African rider on his team (which wasn't exactly known for its cleanliness either), for us to accept it being logical for him to become a top rider without, as you say, some kind of assistance. He was not the total schmuck that he sometimes gets made out to be, and yes he showed signs of moderate promise that suggested he could one day be a pretty decent mountain domestique. But nothing that suggested this. Compare his impressive showing in the Alpe d'Huez stage with, say, Jakob Fuglsang in the 2009 Dauphiné or Roman Kreuziger's first tilts at the Tour. Both of those guys are now at Astana, so if you wanted to accuse them of doping I don't think you'd come up against much opposition. Why aren't THEY totally smiting the field, having shown way more promise than Froome?

Froome's 2008 Tour and 2009 Giro showed promise. It showed that he would be likely to be a worthwhile mountain domestique or maybe strong breakaway guy for the future. If you want me to pin somebody down as an example, I'd have thought he could be around the level of a Chris Anker Sørensen or Egoí Martínez. Augustyn looked more impressive, and was younger. Did I ever miscalculate or what.

 

[Digger]

http://www.newstalk.ie/mobile/index.php?id=17741

 

[Grupetto1]

oooh fwend

 

[Parrulo]

http://www.newstalk.ie/mobile/index.php?id=17741

Wow this seems to be very interesting!!!

 

[the sceptic]

http://www.newstalk.ie/mobile/index.php?id=17741

Shane Stokes speaks a lot of sense.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Wow this seems to be very interesting!!!

Yep! Would love to know what teams have expressed reservations about Sky

 

[thehog]

It was good. Agreed.

Of note that cyclists in the peloton have raised skepticism to Stokes in regards to Sky.

Shane offered to Sky Ashenden to go over their numbers and offer independent analysis. Sky never came back to him.

This is despite Brailsford asking the media what they want.

Reading the 2007 speeds quote was a nice touch.

 

[Berzin]

Holding the moral high ground gets extremely grating at times, as we have seen in this thread. I can't even follow some of the arguments here, or why some of you guys are going to such lengths over it.

I don't know why cycling as a sport brings out this type of fundamentalist outrage, but now that Armstrong has been brought down some of you guys don't seem to be able to turn it off.

Team Sky hasn't, from what I can ascertain, suffered from any disgruntled ex-employees ratting out their alleged doping program. No positive tests for any of their riders, and no dodgy Biopassport issues. They worked with a doctor who had a dodgy past and was let go. That's basically been it.

Whether some of you like it or not, these are the only things we have to go by in terms of coming anywhere near any doping issues with Sky. It's not perfect, it's not all-encompassing, and as we've seen the testing has been in the past very easy to divert.

The rest is speculation, which at this point has also run its' course. How many ways can you call Walsh the same names for being a Sky supporter?

 

[sniper]

http://www.newstalk.ie/mobile/index.php?id=17741

good stuff indeed.
"cautiously positive" was unnecessary imo.
should've sticked to "cautious".

good question from the interviewer: "why aren't those teams [who have concerns] more vociferous?"

 

[Netserk]

Holding the moral high ground gets extremely grating at times, as we have seen in this thread. I can't even follow some of the arguments here, or why some of you guys are going to such lengths over it.

I don't know why cycling as a sport brings out this type of fundamentalist outrage, but now that Armstrong has been brought down some of you guys don't seem to be able to turn it off.

Team Sky hasn't, from what I can ascertain, suffered from any disgruntled ex-employees ratting out their alleged doping program. No positive tests for any of their riders, and no dodgy Biopassport issues. They worked with a doctor who had a dodgy past and was let go. That's basically been it.

Whether some of you like it or not, these are the only things we have to go by in terms of coming anywhere near any doping issues with Sky. It's not perfect, it's not all-encompassing, and as we've seen the testing has been in the past very easy to divert.

The rest is speculation, which at this point has also run its' course. How many ways can you call Walsh the same names for being a Sky supporter?

JTL????

Btw I don't remember any positives from Postal either...

edit: and IIRC Ferrari was also "a doctor who had a dodgy past and was let go" from USPS...

 

[BroDeal]

Team Sky hasn't, from what I can ascertain, suffered from any disgruntled ex-employees ratting out their alleged doping program. No positive tests for any of their riders, and no dodgy Biopassport issues. They worked with a doctor who had a dodgy past and was let go. That's basically been it.

You mean aside from several seasoned pros on the same team having mid career, or even late career in the case of Wigans, transformations that allow them to match the performance of dopers even though none of the riders showed they had that potential in their early years and the best of them now could be aptly described pre-transformation as a chump who was barely good enough to get a pro contract?

 

[sniper]

They worked with a doctor who had a dodgy past and was let go. That's basically been it.

hadn't armstrong also cut all ties with ferrari before his comeback

type of fundamentalist outrage

i haven't seen any of that in this thread tbh.

now that Armstrong has been brought down some of you guys don't seem to be able to turn it off.

if the topic were as unimportant as you suggest, then why is walsh writing all that stuff in the first place? why isn't walsh turning it off?
walsh's and his sky engagement go to the very heart of the problems cycling is facing. i think we should scrutinize that engagement and the arguments walsh is putting forth.

 

[sniper]

It was good. Agreed.

Of note that cyclists in the peloton have raised skepticism to Stokes in regards to Sky.

Shane offered to Sky Ashenden to go over their numbers and offer independent analysis. Sky never came back to him.

This is despite Brailsford asking the media what they want.

Reading the 2007 speeds quote was a nice touch.

good summary. those were the three important points.
i wonder if we'll hear some reaction from walsh.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Who else reads this thread and sees "fundamentalist outrage"?

The escalation of ludicrous happenings generated by Sky has continued from ASO meetings to Txema's death to Leindeers to Wiggins to Froome, a sprinkle of JTL and now Walsh's book. It's not like there was a spike and then it's been put through the grinder since 2009. This discussion is all new material.

 

[hrotha]

Who reads this thread and sees "fundamentalist outrage"?

Berzin. Probably because he can relate to Walsh. After all, just like Walsh, Berzin was only about Armstrong.

 

[the sceptic]

this thread is a witch hunt

 

[Pentacycle]

Wasn't Froome in the break that day? Either way, the last man detached from the heads of state group before him was Johan van Summeren.

There were FAR too many riders in the void between the superchargers of 2008 (Riccò, Piepoli, Schumacher, Kohl obviously, and to this we can add the likes of Menchov) and the young and raw Froome who wasn't even the most impressive young African rider on his team (which wasn't exactly known for its cleanliness either), for us to accept it being logical for him to become a top rider without, as you say, some kind of assistance. He was not the total schmuck that he sometimes gets made out to be, and yes he showed signs of moderate promise that suggested he could one day be a pretty decent mountain domestique. But nothing that suggested this. Compare his impressive showing in the Alpe d'Huez stage with, say, Jakob Fuglsang in the 2009 Dauphiné or Roman Kreuziger's first tilts at the Tour. Both of those guys are now at Astana, so if you wanted to accuse them of doping I don't think you'd come up against much opposition. Why aren't THEY totally smiting the field, having shown way more promise than Froome?

Froome's 2008 Tour and 2009 Giro showed promise. It showed that he would be likely to be a worthwhile mountain domestique or maybe strong breakaway guy for the future. If you want me to pin somebody down as an example, I'd have thought he could be around the level of a Chris Anker Sørensen or Egoí Martínez. Augustyn looked more impressive, and was younger. Did I ever miscalculate or what.

Yeah I think he looked to be a good guy to make some tempo. Genre Tiralongo or indeed CAS. Also guys like Fuglsang, Gesink, Kreuziger show that early promise isn't everything. The Dauphiné, Suisse and Vuelta results they showed were good, but of course the promise always requires some extra room for growth to be fulfilled, to become a GT podium rider. This didn't happen to any of them. They're now good domestiques who can either get a good top 10 or sacrifice their chances for a real GT rider. Right now there are probably some youngsters from 1990 or something who haven't shown much, but they're bound to have their breakthrough ride the coming seasons. Who knows who they are? Steve Bekaert? Very hard to determine, since there are load s of riders who have been impressive in one or two occasions.

 

[Netserk]

Yeah I think he looked to be a good guy to make some tempo. Genre Tiralongo or indeed CAS. Also guys like Fuglsang, Gesink, Kreuziger show that early promise isn't everything. The Dauphiné, Suisse and Vuelta results they showed were good, but of course the promise always requires some extra room for growth to be fulfilled, to become a GT podium rider. This didn't happen to any of them. They're now good domestiques who can either get a good top 10 or sacrifice their chances for a real GT rider. Right now there are probably some youngsters from 1990 or something who haven't shown much, but they're bound to have their breakthrough ride the coming seasons. Who knows who they are? Steve Bekaert? Very hard to determine, since there are load s of riders who have been impressive in one or two occasions.

The sad truth is that even CAS showed more early promise and had far better results than Froome pre-transformation.

Froome was on a(/at least one) level lower than CAS.