Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[thehog]

you know who loved to get out of the saddle...
it let him swagger and look tough on his bike with his neck chain swinging back and forth....



it is AMAZING that Froome never had to stand...just look down at his stem and keep a steady cadence

Check of this one of Sky-Gweiss.

Porte is utterly ridiculous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTwfbCL5NaE

Thankfully ASO told Porte to have a faux jour sans the next day.

 

[IndianCyclist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1EjdPk_YiU

Armstrong vs. Froome on Ventoux.

Sport the difference. I can't tell them apart

Armstrong's first attack 57 s
Froome's first attack <30 s
No. of attacks made by Armstrong > no. of attacks made by Froome
Total time of attacks made by Armstrong >> Total time of attacks made by Froome
Also Quintana has a long way to go before he becomes equal to Pantani.
What would be Walsh's comment after seeing those two side by side?

 

[gooner]

The hiring of Lienders was stupid and their response to the issue has been pathetic. It can be read many ways but I really can't see any team hiring Leinders to run a modern program. If they have a program today it isn't being done by somebody so obvious as Lienders. The higher likelihood is Froome, and a few other riders, have their own guy

That's pretty much what I said myself recently on this. I just couldn't see Brailsford ditching Leinders, calling him a liar and reinforcing the ZTP if he was running a full on doping program for him. Let's say for argument sake he was, imagine how he would feel now being kicked aside all the time while Sky and Brailsford carry on with a BS public relations campaign which is making them look whiter than white. Him being hung out to dry as this is going on is leaving a fair old risk that he might spill something out in open down the road. The same goes for Julich, de Jongh and Yates.

I have my doubts too about Leinders being the mastermind behind their victories and the success has carried on in his absence to add credence to it. In fairness to Walsh he even admitted that there was a possibility that a rider could be doing something on an individual basis away from the team.

 

[thehog]

That's pretty much what I said myself recently on this. I just couldn't see Brailsford ditching Leinders, calling him a liar and reinforcing the ZTP if he was running a full on doping program for him. Let's say for argument sake he was, imagine how he would feel now being kicked aside all the time while Sky and Brailsford carry on with a BS public relations campaign which is making them look whiter than white. Him being hung out to dry as this is going on is leaving a fair old risk that he might spill something out in open down the road. The same goes for Julich, de Jongh and Yates.

I have my doubts too about Leinders being the mastermind behind their victories and the success has carried on in his absence to add credence to it. In fairness to Walsh he even admitted that there was a possibility that a rider could be doing something on an individual basis away from the team.

Leindes spilling the beans? What ever for? His price just quadrupled. He not only took a track rider to victory in the Tour but gave him the best season since Gewiss and Ferrari. Leinders is working freelance and is charging his yearly salary at SKy per client.

As for Yates, Julich and co. They had a nice sweetener paid to them under the condition not to speak. You going to give up 400k to speak to the press and never work again?

Yates and Julich and most happy, trust me. Julich is back at work and had a 6 month holiday to spend his payout.

Do you think those guys were sacked with no money and no NDA?

Think, son. Think.

 

[thehog]

Armstrong's first attack 57 s
Froome's first attack <30 s
No. of attacks made by Armstrong > no. of attacks made by Froome
Total time of attacks made by Armstrong >> Total time of attacks made by Froome
Also Quintana has a long way to go before he becomes equal to Pantani.
What would be Walsh's comment after seeing those two side by side?

And finsihing times? Froome in the last 17km faster than Armstrong? Last 5km?

But the roads are better now Thats why.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Armstrong's first attack 57 s
Froome's first attack <30 s
No. of attacks made by Armstrong > no. of attacks made by Froome
Total time of attacks made by Armstrong >> Total time of attacks made by Froome

Not surprising when you consider the stage stats:

2000 - Lance
Ventoux stage: 12
Distance: 149km
Time: 4:15

2012 - Froome
Ventoux stage: 15
Distance: 242km
Time: 5:48

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Thanks for proving my point. More insults and baiting.

Actually it would have been 2007 when I ran into the UCI development squad in the Alps. They had just done the weekly time trial at Alp d'Huez. It has been a while but I do remember the mechanic talking about one of the riders, not Froome, riding 42 minutes.

Who was this fellow?

 

[blackcat]

Who was this fellow?

would have been a central/east europe rider, or maybe the chinese MA Haijun.

 

[blackcat]

Who was this fellow?

actually, i would put money on it being this guy Dalivier Ospina Navarro

http://www.cyclingarchives.com/coureurfiche.php?coureurid=27526

 

[JimmyFingers]

Not surprising when you consider the stage stats:

2000 - Lance
Ventoux stage: 12
Distance: 149km
Time: 4:15

2012 - Froome
Ventoux stage: 15
Distance: 242km
Time: 5:48

Wonder if those statistics had been the other way round you would have mentioned them. And if someone else had I wonder how vehemently people would be trying to debunk that. Performance is only proof when it suits the narrative.

 

[Ferminal]

No, performance is untraceable, unmeasurable. Every race is totally random and all runners have an equal probability of success with an average speed which will fall somewhere between zero and infinity. I am a chance of winning the Giro next year (and may even Pantani or Basso it), if only someone will give me a start.

 

[The Hitch]

In fairness to Walsh he even admitted that there was a possibility that a rider could be doing something on an individual basis away from the team.

Walsh should be given credit for begrudgingly admitting something even a chimpanzee can understand?

Wonder if those statistics had been the other way round you would have mentioned them. And if someone else had I wonder how vehemently people would be trying to debunk that. Performance is only proof when it suits the narrative.

That makes no sense. Almost all the posters you ate directing this at see all.performance as suspicious. All said armstrong was doping so I don't get the other foot ccomment. If it were Armstrong who did that ascent of ventoux these people wouldn't call it out? I think we both know that isn't the case.

Ironically the person to which your comment does actually apply is Walsh. He is the guy who argued performance was proof for everyone else but then changed his tune 100% the second it became impossible to deny sky were smashing out the most incredible performances ever.

You'd do well to direct this criticism at the actual hypocrite - Walsh, and not the people who on this issue actually are very consistant.

 

[bobbins]

I think Leinders was there to make sure all was negative and all controls would be passed. I heard on good authority that he told Dave B who was up to what so he was certainly a 'go to guy' to find out what Sky 2010 needed to do different.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Walsh should be given credit for begrudgingly admitting something even a chimpanzee can understand?



That makes no sense. Almost all the posters you ate directing this at see all.performance as suspicious. All said armstrong was doping so I don't get the other foot ccomment. If it were Armstrong who did that ascent of ventoux these people wouldn't call it out? I think we both know that isn't the case.

Ironically the person to which your comment does actually apply is Walsh. He is the guy who argued performance was proof for everyone else but then changed his tune 100% the second it became impossible to deny sky were smashing out the most incredible performances ever.

You'd do well to direct this criticism at the actual hypocrite - Walsh, and not the people who on this issue actually are very consistant.

It was directed at DW because we've had similar discussions going back a long time where historical performances were compared to present day one and conclusions drawn from that, and I've consistently said the huge number of variables make these sort of comparisons fallacious. Yet here I see him using similar variables to debunk another poster's analysis of the climbs in favour of Froome.

That is all.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Wonder if those statistics had been the other way round you would have mentioned them. And if someone else had I wonder how vehemently people would be trying to debunk that. Performance is only proof when it suits the narrative.

You mean how Walsh 'outed' Contador vs the Chicken in 2007?

[like cycling followers couldnt see for themselves what was going on there]

Looks like David lost his doping radar?

 

[JimmyFingers]

I've been very consistent with my opinion regarding performance as proof, I'm not changing that because of what Walsh has or hasn't said in the past. If you lot want to use it another reason to throw him under the bus be my guest. Virtually nothing said here changes anyone's opinion. Walsh is the new enemy, do your worse.

 

[JimmyFingers]

The irony being now he's championing Sky and you need to tear him down, you're using things he said in the past to discredit him when previously you were probably agreeing with him.

 

[Ferminal]

Is it possible to disagree with what someone says without "throwing them under the bus" or "tearing them down" ?

Or do all arguments resort to a personal basis, with no room for analysis of the details?

 

[Cycle Chic]

Is it possible to disagree with what someone says without "throwing them under the bus" or "tearing them down" ?

Or do all arguments resort to a personal basis, with no room for analysis of the details?

that's because Jimmy Fingers method to derail the thread is to personally target and attack the poster....quite boring.

 

[Netserk]

The irony being now he's championing Sky and you need to tear him down, you're using things he said in the past to discredit him when previously you were probably agreeing with him.

Is it possible that I agreed with him that Ras and AC were doping in '07 judged by their performances, and that I still think so. Is it possible that I criticize him not for what he said back then, but for the fact that he doesn't do the same now?

Is that ironic?

 

[JimmyFingers]

Is it possible to disagree with what someone says without "throwing them under the bus" or "tearing them down" ?

Or do all arguments resort to a personal basis, with no room for analysis of the details?

Do you not think the general theme of this thread is to discredit Walsh? Isn't the title 'Is he jumping on the Sky bandwagon'? There has been a concerted effort to demonise him since he has generally been endorsing Sky as riding clean, since it runs contrary to the desired narrative he was once part of.

Sorry but it's true.

 

[JimmyFingers]

that's because Jimmy Fingers method to derail the thread is to personally target and attack the poster....quite boring.

Really? Attack how? Engage them in debate, unlike you? Yes, quite deathly dull, maybe I should just troll my day away like you.

But I'd like to apologise to everyone for derailing this thread by talking about Walsh

 

[JimmyFingers]

Is it possible that I agreed with him that Ras and AC were doping in '07 judged by their performances, and that I still think so. Is it possible that I criticize him not for what he said back then, but for the fact that he doesn't do the same now?

Is that ironic?

Good that there are coherent and intelligent posters too. Yes, I take your point, it is a worthy one and no without substance. Personally I'd criticise for him using in it 2007 and laud him for not now, given that I believe it heavily flawed.

I guess the only defense is people can change their mind. I'm not in Walsh's head, I can't say why he has changed his tune, but I'd hope it's not because he has been bought, as is the popular opinion amongst a fair few.

 

[Ferminal]

Do you not think the general theme of this thread is to discredit Walsh? Isn't the title 'Is he jumping on the Sky bandwagon'? There has been a concerted effort to demonise him since he has generally been endorsing Sky as riding clean, since it runs contrary to the desired narrative he was once part of.

Sorry but it's true.

Demonise him? I have never had any opinion of the man. Surely I can say that some of the points he makes are highly debatable, or that he has been working in a position which sways him towards a particular outcome. I can do that without any of it being a reflection of the person in general or any of his work in the past or future (nor should anything in the past or future be relevant to anything said today).

I'd be surprised if normal people's intentions are to actually belittle Walsh but it may be due to the lack of substantive discussion of the details. Most of his arguments on the matter have been fragile (at least as far as I can tell given the lack of a rigorous discussion) so I don't see any reason for people to be attack dogs due to some sort of fear that their "narrative" as you call it is being torn apart. The whole Sky - Walsh - News thing is I think more to do with the other parties than the integrity of the individual.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I've been very consistent with my opinion regarding performance as proof, I'm not changing that because of what Walsh has or hasn't said in the past. If you lot want to use it another reason to throw him under the bus be my guest. Virtually nothing said here changes anyone's opinion. Walsh is the new enemy, do your worse.

Actually, the only thing you did or have done is discard it. One might call that consistent, I call it a closed mind.

Or should we all get in the David Brailsford Waltz[sh] and believe through evolution and hard work riders will be able to match and eventually better former doped up performances? Not little amphetamined performances but performances with extra volumes of blood, high on HGH, cortisone and r_EPO.

The irony being now he's championing Sky and you need to tear him down, you're using things he said in the past to discredit him when previously you were probably agreeing with him.

Perhaps it is a case of autism but there are certain things I appreciate very much, consistency being the biggest one. I confronted David Walsh on twotter with his lack of consistency, he didnt answer my question.

But who is discrediting David Walsh here? Isnt he himself responsible for this?