Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Parker]

Have you ever raced? Coz it doesn't sound like it if you honestly think experience is something that holds back GT winning capable riders.

Ha, ha! Do you really think whatever half baked level of racing you have done gives you some special insight into the high echelons of GT racing? It's like claiming you have special knowledge of cinema because you've posted a cat video on YouTube.

 

[hrotha]

He didn't. In Poland Sky were chasing WT points for GB (to the point of chasing breaks to help Adam Blythe get a top 5 position on a stage). His and Stannard's job was to try and get into breaks or to help catch them. More puncheur type riders like Kennaugh and Cummings were the GC riders - this was a race won by Peter Sagan after all.

And yet, if he was as strong as his later Vuelta performance would suggest, he would have risen in the team hierarchy there just as he did at the Vuelta. As a puncheur, post-Vuelta Froome is miles ahead of Kennaugh and Cummings.

But OK, have it your way. How did Froome gain so much experience in a couple of months (since, say, Romandie, where he was deemed to have been very good at the time) compared to his previous 3 years at the top level, including one full year at Sky?

edit: hell, never mind that. What about the Brixia Tour, a tough stage race with some nice proper climbing just before Poland, where Froome came 45th?

 

[Parker]

And yet, if he was as strong as his later Vuelta performance would suggest, he would have risen in the team hierarchy there just as he did at the Vuelta. As a puncheur, post-Vuelta Froome is miles ahead of Kennaugh and Cummings.

Maybe if Sky had a hindsight machine they would have done things differently (although I'm still not sure he's much better than PK or SC on a short climb)

But OK, have it your way. How did Froome gain so much experience in a couple of months (since, say, Romandie, where he was deemed to have been very good at the time) compared to his previous 3 years at the top level, including one full year at Sky?

edit: hell, never mind that. What about the Brixia Tour, a tough stage race with some nice proper climbing just before Poland, where Froome came 45th?

I'm just pointing out that drawing conclusions from the Poland race without understanding what Sky's objectives were. Similarly I can't pass comment on what happened in Brixia as I didn't watch that race and a mere result sheet is unlikely to tell me.

As for experience, I wouldn't claim that was a sole reason for his improvement. As well as asking how is turnaround came about, maybe you should also ask why a rider who was tipped by his DS as a future GT contender in 2008 took so long to get there

 

[gooner]

So back on track why is there not a poll on whether Walsh, who is Irish but I am not sure if northern or Eire, is on the Sky bandwagon which would potentially end this thread.

The supplementary question I would have would be who cares? He is a newspaper journalist so is governed by his editors to some extent andwho really cares?

This is something I've said in the past. The story at times is way too much about Walsh and for that matter Kimmage.

There's too much of "I can't wait to hear what Walsh and Kimmage make of this" thinking. When I watch a football game, I can safely say I don't say anything of the sort of a similar notion about football journalists. I guarantee you rugby fans are the same as they are watching the current Autumn Internationals. The story is about the players and managers just like it should be about the cyclists themselves or the people who govern the sport that should be held to account.

I don't mind the disagreement of their opinions, but why get bogged down in it is beyond me. Walsh went over 8 years without covering the Tour before 2013 and this year he only was at the Tour. Kimmage as he said in the updated edition in Rough Ride went 13 years before he reported extensively one again on the Tour in 2006. He had no interest in doing it where he said he preferred covering other sporting events. Yet you see some on here and his acolytes try to say he was hugely on the case with Lance during his 7 Tour wins. I think he was only at the Giro for a couple of days and if that wasn't in Ireland, he probably wouldn't have been there.

I hugely respect both and it's not a criticism of them but I wouldn't say both are hugely in the ball game of the current goings on in the peloton. Walsh basically has his link to Sky and that's it in general to the wider peloton.

So what if Walsh might end up wrong on Sky. That won't be the first thing on my mind if Sky are exposed in the near future.

 

[thehog]

Maybe if Sky had a hindsight machine they would have done things differently (although I'm still not sure he's much better than PK or SC on a short climb)


I'm just pointing out that drawing conclusions from the Poland race without understanding what Sky's objectives were. Similarly I can't pass comment on what happened in Brixia as I didn't watch that race and a mere result sheet is unlikely to tell me.

As for experience, I wouldn't claim that was a sole reason for his improvement. As well as asking how is turnaround came about, maybe you should also ask why a rider who was tipped by his DS as a future GT contender in 2008 took so long to get there

Froome did beat Alberto Contador once on a mountain top finish

 

[hrotha]

As well as asking how is turnaround came about, maybe you should also ask why a rider who was tipped by his DS as a future GT contender in 2008 took so long to get there

I did, and found his explanation sorely lacking.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Ha, ha! Do you really think whatever half baked level of racing you have done gives you some special insight into the high echelons of GT racing? It's like claiming you have special knowledge of cinema because you've posted a cat video on YouTube.

Having raced gives you insight yes, but more importantly you see the good riders, the juniors, and the natural talent they have. They are inexperienced yes, and tactically naive, for sure, and they still win because they are physical specimens of superior strength and tenacity, and often mentally very strong.

Guys that go on to become junior world champions and the like. Or ride on the world tour. You end up racing against them before they make the leap, before they mature physically.

And you see it. You just know.

Now, yes I did question daveyt's experience, and yes that is personal, but I felt it was in line with the discussion. In contrast, your mocking tone and words are unnecessary and the mark of someone losing it emotionally.

I am sorry you are unable to put 2 + 2 together, but try not to make it personal and lash out at the people who can, ok?

Your fence sitting "I don't really know if they are doping" would be far more believable if you were balanced in your responses, but you are patently on the side of Sky = clean. I have not seen you defend Niballi as vociferously!

Perhaps you are lying to yourself, or perhaps you are genuinely unaware of your true feelings, which would also be a shame. Self awareness can be so useful in life.

Try to focus on the discussion and not drag the conversation down to mockery and insult, ok?

 

[Mellow Velo]

While the debate is more reasoned than the usual fare, it is still in the wrong thread.
Perhaps someone would be so bold as to start a continuation over in Mr Froome's domain?

 

[Parker]

Having raced gives you insight yes, but more importantly you see the good riders, the juniors, and the natural talent they have. They are inexperienced yes, and tactically naive, for sure, and they still win because they are physical specimens of superior strength and tenacity, and often mentally very strong.

Guys that go on to become junior world champions and the like. Or ride on the world tour. You end up racing against them before they make the leap, before they mature physically.

And you see it. You just know

You can keep believing that weekend warrior racing is just like the pros, but it doesn't make it true. You see when those kids who rode you off their wheel get to the pros, they find themselves alongside a few hundred riders who would have done just the same.

Now, yes I did question daveyt's experience, and yes that is personal, but I felt it was in line with the discussion. In contrast, your mocking tone and words are unnecessary and the mark of someone losing it emotionally.

I am sorry you are unable to put 2 + 2 together, but try not to make it personal and lash out at the people who can, ok?

Maybe you should take you're own advice on the personal stuff then

Your fence sitting "I don't really know if they are doping" would be far more believable if you were balanced in your responses, but you are patently on the side of Sky = clean. I have not seen you defend Niballi as vociferously!

Perhaps you are lying to yourself, or perhaps you are genuinely unaware of your true feelings, which would also be a shame. Self awareness can be so useful in life.?

I'm very self aware. I'm aware of my bias of giving all cyclists the benefit of the doubt, until I am given good reason to doubt. I don't defend Nibali as much as he not attacked as much. While I have not defended him, I have not accused him either (I don't think I've accused anyone without solid reasoning). And for what it's worth I tend towards Nibali being clean too.
My main theme is the horrible use of 'science' to construct a doping narrative and the dismissal of those that point it out. (Froome tends to be the focus for this faux science.) And the more general tendency for those that 'know' to hunt for 'evidence' to fit their pre-formed opinions rather than to inform a conclusion.

Try to focus on the discussion and not drag the conversation down to mockery and insult, ok?

Again try and follow your own advice on this (and the self-awareness part).

 

[The Hitch]

Fair one, I understand people thinking doping is still rife at the top of pro cycling. It's people who talk about it in certainties that make we want to punch a wall. .

Please do.

 

[The Hitch]

Now here's the thing. You don't actually know he's doping or not. You just think you know and convince yourself you know. The same applies to those who thing they know he's clean. But you don't know. And nor does anyone else who posts here.

You are wrong. I do know. And plenty of us know. You are like the child at school who can't solve a maths equation and then bitterly proclaims that it's too hard for everyone.

Just cos you can't solve it son, doesn't mean nobody can.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Derp de derp de derp derp. Derp.

 

[ebandit]

You don't know....and you can say you know as many times as you like and it won't move your belief any closer to knowledge......there are certain conditions that need to be satisfied in order for you to know......and you haven't satisfied them.....one of which is an agreed threshold for what constitutes a clean performance........what you propose is like a religious zealot who sees images of <insert chosen deity here> in his morning toast and concludes that God must exist.

Having said that......some of you arguments have value.....at the very least to be suspicious


Mark L

 

[red_flanders]

Quality contribution from you there, red flanders......personal attack and attempt to shut down debate.....adds nothing but a spiteful tone that has been pleasingly missing these last few pages.....maybe you shouldn't post if you've nothing to contribute

Mark L

I've made scores if not hundreds of well thought out posts explaining all the obvious reasons why it's obvious that Froome's doping is obvious.

There isn't any point. You two are in full denial/delusion mode.

Hope that works out for you.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You two are in full denial/delusion mode.

Or something else.

 

[ebandit]

I've made scores if not hundreds of well thought out posts explaining all the obvious reasons why it's obvious that Froome's doping is obvious.

There isn't any point. You two are in full denial/delusion mode.

Hope that works out for you.

Great.....more insults......quality posting well done

Mark L

 

[Parker]

You are wrong. I do know. And plenty of us know. You are like the child at school who can't solve a maths equation and then bitterly proclaims that it's too hard for everyone.

Just cos you can't solve it son, doesn't mean nobody can.

I've made scores if not hundreds of well thought out posts explaining all the obvious reasons why it's obvious that Froome's doping is obvious.

There isn't any point. You two are in full denial/delusion mode.

Hope that works out for you.

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. -Bertrand Russell

 

[Digger]

You don't know....and you can say you know as many times as you like and it won't move your belief any closer to knowledge......there are certain conditions that need to be satisfied in order for you to know......and you haven't satisfied them.....one of which is an agreed threshold for what constitutes a clean performance........what you propose is like a religious zealot who sees images of <insert chosen deity here> in his morning toast and concludes that God must exist.

Having said that......some of you arguments have value.....at the very least to be suspicious


Mark L

irony much........

 

[ebandit]

irony much........

I think you'll find I'm agnostic.......although im sure that with your fanatical mindset even that equates to heresy........burn the heretics!.......burn them!......burn them dead!!......for they speaketh something I don't agree with

Mark L

 

[The Hitch]

I think you'll find I'm agnostic.......although im sure that with your fanatical mindset even that equates to heresy........burn the heretics!.......burn them!......burn them dead!!......for they speaketh something I don't agree with

Mark L

And to think that just a few hours ago, you were complaining about meaningless posts that add nothing to the discussion.

 

[ebandit]

Perhaps my immediate reply to Digger was a bit too subtle?.....agnostic=open-minded....it was a direct refutation of Digger's veiled implication that I have some kind of Zealot's view of Froome....I don't........i am open to all possibilities.....do keep up

Mark L

 

[Digger]

i think you'll find i'm agnostic

mark l

:d
..........

 

[The fridge in the blue trees]

You are wrong. I do know. And plenty of us know. You are like the child at school who can't solve a maths equation and then bitterly proclaims that it's too hard for everyone.

Just cos you can't solve it son, doesn't mean nobody can.

Then tell us.
What is Froome taking. Dosage? When? Why is he responding so well to it? From where does he get it. Privately or team program?

 

[Benotti69]

Then tell us.
What is Froome taking. Dosage? When? Why is he responding so well to it? From where does he get it. Privately or team program?

Plenty knew Armstrong was doping when he went up Sestriere in 1999.

Plenty knew Ricco was on something when he mocked the peloton on mountains at the TdF.

That is 2 examples. Just because people who watch this sport and have watched it over the last few decades are not holding the syringe doesn't meant they dont recognise doping when they see it.

It is not up to the clinic to prove their doping, but we sure can post our opinion on it.

 

[ebandit]

What was it Inspector Callahan said about opinions??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVlYMctb7Y4

Mark L