Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Digger]

It's mental watching this play out - the same rubbish we were fed from the lance side, is now being employed by walsh himself....amazing.

 

[Benotti69]

Love how some in the clinic are pushing the anti-Waslh agenda, they are giving Lance a hard on.

The only thing that gets Lance exited are girls that look like Mom.

As for Walsh, you are not happy that posters call it as they see it, whether "one has done too much good for too many" or not.

Walsh got personal at Armstrong. He is being unprofessional about Sky.

 

[the sceptic]

Walsh taking his botism to new heights

David Walsh @DavidWalshST
@wiseman_nadine Nadine, I don't know, I can't know, but seeing you've asked, my feeling is that he is clean.

How can Nibali be doping when there is no evidence? strange to be on the fence.

@GordonWallace6 Gordon people now see questions asked about Wiggins and Froome didn't just reflect doping concerns but also anti-Sky bias.

 

[Benotti69]

David Walsh @DavidWalshST · 22m
This year's dominant teams in TdF run by Alexandre Vinokourov and Bjarne Riis, yet little talk of doping. #extraordinary

@woodallc87 Charlie trust is the problem. It is very difficult to trust unrepentant former dopers.

He forgets Yates, Julich, De Jongh, Barry and current DS Knaven all worked for Sky.

 

[sniper]

He forgets Yates, Julich, De Jongh, Barry and current DS Knaven all worked for Sky.

now suddenly we can't trust vinokourov's team.
a day ago he told us he thinks nibbles is clean.
not that walsh contradicting himself is unusual.

 

[thehog]

He forgets Yates, Julich, De Jongh, Barry and current DS Knaven all worked for Sky.

Walsh clearly missing the point of his very own books. 'Inside Sky' outlined the premise that Sky were so strong because of the little things, the marginal agains, which culminate in significant gains when added together.

This year, you take away Froome and we are left with nothing. French guys who Sky wiped the floor with in 2012 and 2013 are dropping Sky riders on climb 1. Of course if Sky were strong because of all those gains added together surely they'd at least be on he wheel or Pinot and TVG?

But no. They can't keep up all of a sudden. Sure Nibali is probably doping but that's not the reason why Sky have be absent from his Tour. There's something else going on... Walsh is diverting attention away from the obvious and wants everyone to do what he so despised last year when Sky were questioned.

I think he might just be an idiot

 

[sittingbison]

He forgets Dodger, Yates, Julich, De Jongh, Barry and current DS Knaven all worked for Sky.

fixed it for you at no extra cost

 

[Digger]

An example here by Ross Tucker of what many of us have been saying for ages about Walsh - it's been one rule for lance and another for sky.
http://sportsscientists.com/2014/07...nce-implications-a-reflection-on-the-origins/

 

[thehog]

An example here by Ross Tucker of what many of us have been saying for ages about Walsh - it's been one rule for lance and another for sky.
http://sportsscientists.com/2014/07...nce-implications-a-reflection-on-the-origins/

Very good article.

David’s words to me then were that this method of performance analysis can be used to help show that Lance Armstrong doped to win 7 Tours de France. The idea was that performances have physiological implications, and at some point these implications become implausible, which leaves doping as the only possible explanation.

Physiologically, this is entirely true – the size of the engine (VO2max), the efficiency of the engine, and the ability of the engine to run near maximal intensities are clearly important factors determining performance, and so without bending the rules too much, we can, based on known physiology, construct a reasonable set of assumptions for each and therefore predict performance and its limits.

It’s not pseudoscience, though it does require some assumptions, all of which I readily acknowledged from the very first day when I analyzed performance, that of Alberto Contador on the Verbier in 2009 (only a month after meeting and talking with David Walsh)

Yet I read how the method is now ‘pseudoscience’, and dismissed as ineffective, presumably because riders other than Lance are winning, and I wonder, “what am I missing here?” Why was it valid years before, when Armstrong was the target, but when it was Froome or Wiggins, too many assumptions had to be made? What’s the difference, other than the flag beneath which a given rider competes?

I also read that the doping discussion has NOT happened in 2014 (again, from David Walsh), which is bemusing, because we’ve had the same discussion this year as last year. In fact, I could have posted the exact same articles from last year and just changed “Froome” to “Nibali” and left it there. The reasons I’ve been more silent now are a) work pressure and b) the realization that doing a stage-by-stage analysis invites people who don’t quite understand the method to make out-of-context comments about it. I wish to actively avoid the pixelation of the past.

 

[Digger]

http://sportsscientists.com/2014/07/the-physiology-at-the-front-of-the-tour/

 

[Zam_Olyas]

http://sportsscientists.com/2014/07/the-physiology-at-the-front-of-the-tour/

Cleaner, but not clean.

Hello bennoti! how you doing?

 

[Benotti69]

Hello bennoti! how you doing?

Doing Ok Zam, how's the wife?

the idea that things are cleanER because there are no HcTs at 60%+ is great, means no riders are dying in their sleep, but that riders are racing GTs or winning monuments clean is still a myth.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Doing Ok Zam, how's the wife?

the idea that things are cleanER because there are no HcTs at 60%+ is great, means no riders are dying in their sleep, but that riders are racing GTs or winning monuments clean is still a myth.

So you finally admit that it is cleaner?


btw....she is doing great, thanks, man.

 

[sniper]

So you finally admit that it is cleaner?


btw....she is doing great, thanks, man.

i think cleanER is a rather useless notion. (as are labels such as 'believable')

first, we don't really know if it's cleaner, do we? we have a big bunch of people with direct interests in cycling saying it is cleaner, but apart from that, there's not really anything to go by.
perhaps times have gone down, but that could simply mean the EPO replacement drugs are not as effective as EPO itself.
(apart from the fact that 'times gone down' is again an unproven statement)

secondly, even if it were the case, what's the use of admitting it's cleanER when the guys fighting it out for the podium spots are quite obviously still lying us in the face? how can anybody in their right state of mind consider cycling being cleanER now as opposed to the noughties to be an achievement? after the fallout caused by USADA and Pat's exit cycling should now be frigging clean. Well it clearly isn't.

 

[kingjr]

secondly, even if it were the case, what's the use of admitting it's cleanER when the guys fighting it out for the podium spots are quite obviously still lying us in the face? how can anybody in their right state of mind consider cycling being cleanER now as opposed to the noughties to be an achievement?

Because it is an achievement. As someone else posted somewhere in this forum, if you go from 500 riders taking 3 pills to 300 riders taking 2 pills, than that's a step forward, even if it's ever so tiny.

If these days riders are able to ride the Tour 'comfortably' without PED's (not even talking about GC, just in the sense that they have no trouble making the timecuts, no trouble in doing the jobs that are asked form them from the team, and maybe even being capable of going for a stagewin) then that's a big step forward from the nineties, and the noughties probably too.

 

[sniper]

Because it is an achievement. As someone else posted somewhere in this forum, if you go from 500 riders taking 3 pills to 300 riders taking 2 pills, than that's a step forward, even if it's ever so tiny.

If these days riders are able to ride the Tour 'comfortably' without PED's (not even talking about GC, just in the sense that they have no trouble making the timecuts, no trouble in doing the jobs that are asked form them from the team, and maybe even being capable of going for a stagewin) then that's a big step forward from the nineties, and the noughties probably too.

don't forget lance wasn't the first scandal to hit cycling.
so after the n-th scandal, cycling is back where it was before, maximally geared GT winners, lying DSs, and a UCI president condoning it.
in that light, 2 pills instead of 3 is not an achievement at all.
it's a farce.

 

[thehog]

According to Walsh the new clean generation will surpass the climbing times of doped era.

So I believe we are good.

 

[70kmph]

The wheels are falling off the wagon...

 

[thehog]

The wheels are falling off the wagon...

Just to think 'Inside Sky' told issues why they are so good. How did those pillows fail them now?

Word on the street is Sky & the UCI doesn't know who the TUE leaker is. So they've closed up shop. Funny.

 

[the sceptic]

According to Walsh the new clean generation will surpass the climbing times of doped era.

So I believe we are good.

As we know, the only way to beat the clean sky is to start doping. So now that Sky are riding in the gruppetto, it means that everyone has started doping again and the dark years are back. Thus, it is now impossible for Walsh to believe in cycling anymore and why he sounds so bitter on twitter lately.

 

[thehog]

As we know, the only way to beat the clean sky is to start doping. So now that Sky are riding in the gruppetto, it means that everyone has started doping again and the dark years are back. Thus, it is now impossible for Walsh to believe in cycling anymore and why he sounds so bitter on twitter lately.

I fell sorry for Walsh. He'd probably already had the next book written. He just needed to plug in the names into the 'random book generator" and he could send it off to the publishers.

What now? Richie Porte's compelling new story of 'Inside the Grupetto' ?

I would guess Froome's book has sold next to nothing and no further books to write about this Tour, Walsh might have to go back to the Hawaiian shirts and the slum it in the regular press room.

No more trips in the team Jaguar for Dave

 

[keeponrollin]

The Strategic Nuclear strategy during the Cold War, at least on the US side, was based on 'Game Theory'. The most famous example of some game theory is this:

One of the most famous game theory games was something developed by the Rand Corporation almost fifty years ago. It has two players, one has stolen a diamond, and the other player wants to buy it. The scenario is that the diamond is buried in a field 100 miles from another field in which the money is buried. Both players have phones, and at the same time, they have agreed to tell each other where to find the spoils. Mathematically speaking, it would be to the advantage of the diamond thief to cheat the buyer by lying. The buyer tells the thief where the money is, but the diamond has not been buried after all. It is in the pocket of the thief who gets the money and diamond.

So best case, is where the Diamond thief lies & the buyer tells the truth, & they get the diamond & the money, the worst case they tell the truth, but the buyer lies, & they lose both the diamond & the money.

Now in cycling this analogous to a cyclist who is deciding whether to dope, or not, & lives in hope that everyone else is clean. If he decides to dope, the worst that can happen is that everyone else dopes too, in which case, zero sum gain. If on the other hand he decides to be virtuous & clean, & everyone else dopes, he'll have a very short career of finishing in the bus !

If you're Lance in 1999 & decide to dope, & discover to your delight that everyone else actually believed the UCI when they said they'd clean up the sport; you end up on the Podium in Paris & with millions in sponsorship.

 

[Benotti69]

The Strategic Nuclear strategy during the Cold War, at least on the US side, was based on 'Game Theory'. The most famous example of some game theory is this:



So best case, is where the Diamond thief lies & the buyer tells the truth, & they get the diamond & the money, the worst case they tell the truth, but the buyer lies, & they lose both the diamond & the money.

Now in cycling this analogous to a cyclist who is deciding whether to dope, or not, & lives in hope that everyone else is clean. If he decides to dope, the worst that can happen is that everyone else dopes too, in which case, zero sum gain. If on the other hand he decides to be virtuous & clean, & everyone else dopes, he'll have a very short career of finishing in the bus !

If you're Lance in 1999 & decide to dope, & discover to your delight that everyone else actually believed the UCI when they said they'd clean up the sport; you end up on the Podium in Paris & with millions in sponsorship.

the thing is Lance was not the only one to dope. Pantani got thrown off the 99 Giro with a +50% HcT level. So if Pantani was doing so were others.

What was it Voight said about burying the PEDs along the 99 route???

 

[thehog]

David Walsh @DavidWalshST · 22m
This year's dominant teams in TdF run by Alexandre Vinokourov and Bjarne Riis, yet little talk of doping. #extraordinary

@woodallc87 Charlie trust is the problem. It is very difficult to trust unrepentant former dopers.

He forgets Yates, Julich, De Jongh, Barry and current DS Knaven all worked for Sky.

What about unrepentant TUE users?

 

[sniper]

What about unrepentant TUE users?

Unrepentant is an interesting word.
Riis came clean and explicitly apologized for his doping.

"I have taken doping. I have taken EPO," Riis said at a televised news conference. "I have made errors and I would like to apologize."http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=2882380

Walsh should explain why in his eyes Riis is any less repentant than, say, JV, let alone a guy like Johnny Weltz.