• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Page 19 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 17, 2012
3,278
0
0
Ferminal said:
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.
Those that break rank always get the most criticism. Walsh was previously a hero of the anti-doping movement due to his fearless pursuit of Armstrong, and I suppose many hoped he would be equally fearless in his pursuit of Sky, they are UK Postal after all. When he came out generally in support of them (and he's stopped short of stating they are clean, just that he believes they are) he became a target instead, and this thread bears witness to that. They would have preferred he stay in attack dog mode like Kimmage has so now his legacy is being tainted and his opinion discredited.
 
JimmyFingers said:
Those that break rank always get the most criticism. Walsh was previously a hero of the anti-doping movement due to his fearless pursuit of Armstrong, and I suppose many hoped he would be equally fearless in his pursuit of Sky, they are UK Postal after all. When he came out generally in support of them (and he's stopped short of stating they are clean, just that he believes they are) he became a target instead, and this thread bears witness to that. They would have preferred he stay in attack dog mode like Kimmage has so now his legacy is being tainted and his opinion discredited.
Jimmy I think you might be right.

I propose we burn an effigy of Walsh.

Lets set up a hate website as well.

The Clinic's hate or Walsh shall be complete.

Anyway, what about the Dawg? Performances are no indication of cheating, right?

:rolleyes:
 
Jul 17, 2012
3,278
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Actually, the only thing you did or have done is discard it. One might call that consistent, I call it a closed mind.
Interesting you call it a closed mind then say this

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.
Which betrays the fact you think I have a closed mind because I don't agree with you. Which in turn I can say is you having a closed mind to my veiwpoint. People's opinions here are closed, very little that is said here changes the mind of the people reading it. The clinic is the proverbial dog chasing it's tail, it just goes round and round and round.

As for performance I haven't discarded it, I have attempted to discredit by citing the huge amount of unquantifiable variables when comparing historical performances. Even small variations in wind direction and speed can cause huge differences in speeds. It is a massive red herring.

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?
Strange thing that: I asked Kimmage why he was so obnoxious on Twitter, he didn't answer either. Colour me confused
 
Oct 6, 2009
4,660
0
0
JimmyFingers said:
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.
Yes, they can. Walsh can change his mind, and likewise Walsh's readers/clinic posters/general public/etc can also change their minds about his latest work. There is no holy decree to agree 100% with everything Walsh says. This is no cult of personality. He's just a journalist. They get some things right; they get some stuff wrong.

Walsh did some very good work in the past, particularly on Lance, to which a good deal of credit goes to people like Betsy Andreu and Pierre Ballester and others. That Walsh appears not to be as skeptical now, is naturally going to raise eyebrows. It's not like he's some lightweight apologist like Tan, Liggett, etc. If those guys declare Froome/Sky clean, it's no big deal. We don't expect any more skepticism or investigative reporting from them. With Walsh however, people naturally want to know what has changed.
 
JimmyFingers said:
Those that break rank always get the most criticism. Walsh was previously a hero of the anti-doping movement due to his fearless pursuit of Armstrong, and I suppose many hoped he would be equally fearless in his pursuit of Sky, they are UK Postal after all. When he came out generally in support of them (and he's stopped short of stating they are clean, just that he believes they are) he became a target instead, and this thread bears witness to that. They would have preferred he stay in attack dog mode like Kimmage has so now his legacy is being tainted and his opinion discredited.
So the disagreement is due to the nature of his opinion, nothing to do with the merit of his supporting arguments? And that all reasoning presented by Kimmage is rock solid?

No wonder it's impossible to have a discussion.
 
Jul 17, 2012
3,278
0
0
Ferminal said:
So the disagreement is due to the nature of his opinion, nothing to do with the merit of his supporting arguments? And that all reasoning presented by Kimmage is rock solid?

No wonder it's impossible to have a discussion.
Well if the shoe fits...

But seriously no I'm not saying that. I'm voicing an opinion, and every opinion I say is not some blanket pronouncement on everyone in the forum. There are plenty of nuances in it of course, but there is also a general vibe that he's switched sides, that he's been bought by Murdoch's money, that he's being used by Sky for PR and as a result his opinion's are now suspect.

You are saying it is the content and reasoning behind his opinions that you find suspect, fair enough. I'm not convinced you are in the majority however.
 
Fair enough, I guess I can give it a shot.

Can someone help explain to me why doping is more likely in one day races than Grand Tours, and why Cancellara does not deserve the same benefit of the doubt as comparable stage racers receive?
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Who was this fellow?
My recollection was he was an African, not Froome as he was black. It has been a while but only other thing I remember was the inference he could not ride, recover, last 5 hours, etc. I am also not sure if he was actually on the team or was just brought up there to train.
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
IndianCyclist said:
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?
Armstrong had a strong headwind, Froome had a strong tailwind.....which is why most look at the Semnoz climb as it had fewer variables.
 
Race Radio said:
Armstrong had a strong headwind, Froome had a strong tailwind.....which is why most look at the Semnoz climb as it had fewer variables.
Froome has a constant tailwind. It follows him where ever he goes.

What about Mayo? Did he have a headwind or a tailwind?

Froome got within 5% (not 12%) of his ITT time after 220km :eek:
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
Froome was actually riding in a permanent headwind for most of his career, thus only a keen cycling eye like Brailsford could see his talent when he came 35th in the commonwealth games ITT.

In 2011 Kerrison found a way to reverse the wind, so now he is riding in a permanent tailwind instead.
 
JimmyFingers said:
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.
There is no good explanation for Walsh's sudden change of opinion. It's hypocricy in the purest form no matter how you look at it, to call people out for performance, adament you don't need proof, then change your opinion the moment your favourite rider does it and not even aknowledge that he had not given the same benefit of the doubt to others.

the only way one can even try to escape being a hypocrite when you change your opinion so conveniently like that is to give a huge mea culpa with explanations why you were wrong before. Walsh hasn't done that. he pretends he never called out riders for performance in the first place.
 
Jul 17, 2012
3,278
0
0
The Hitch said:
this thread is a bit weird. Your making conclusions about Sky based on a letter he wrote about Armstrong?

Anyway i dont think Walsh is on the Sky bandwagon. For the faults i see in him, it must be remembered that he handled himself with immense honor and courage on the Armstrong thing for years. And i would not throw accusations at such a man lightly
See, you've also changed your mind
 
the sceptic said:
Froome was actually riding in a permanent headwind for most of his career, thus only a keen cycling eye like Brailsford could see his talent when he came 35th in the commonwealth games ITT.

In 2011 Kerrison found a way to reverse the wind, so now he is riding in a permanent tailwind instead.
Odd isn't it?

Look how far we've come.

We're explaining the reason Froome made Contador look like a junior athlete on Ventoux was because he and only he had a tailwind!

If he had a tailwind then it makes his attack on Contador simply and utterly insane!

Then did the same to Quintana.

Froome is stronger than we all thought! :eek:

Not even Contador can follow with the tailwind.
 
Race Radio said:
Armstrong had a strong headwind, Froome had a strong tailwind.....which is why most look at the Semnoz climb as it had fewer variables.
That's simply not true and you know it. It's like your original tweet after ventoux were you had a false time for froome and declared it was good for the sport that froome did ventoux so slow. Now you continue with the tailwind myth even though the evidence points to froome having had a headwind just like Armstrong.

ps you are not fooling anyone everytime you talk in the first person plural to explain why semnoz was somehow worse than ventoux and ax3. It is far from the unanimous opinion you sell it as. The stages were froome destroyed the competition in a manner only Contador verbier has managed at the tour since Armstrong, were the ones everyone raised their eyebrows.
 
JimmyFingers said:
Those that break rank always get the most criticism. Walsh was previously a hero of the anti-doping movement due to his fearless pursuit of Armstrong, and I suppose many hoped he would be equally fearless in his pursuit of Sky, they are UK Postal after all. When he came out generally in support of them (and he's stopped short of stating they are clean, just that he believes they are) he became a target instead, and this thread bears witness to that. They would have preferred he stay in attack dog mode like Kimmage has so now his legacy is being tainted and his opinion discredited.
no Walsh is not the victim here. he made imself a target by offering absolutely bs arguments such as that the people who suspect froome are the ones who defended Armstrong. That is slander, a total lie, and worse of all comes from someone who plays up an actual lance defender - wiggins, as a good guy.

and of course the hypocrisy of his opinion change on performances.

If people talk bs like that they are absolutely not off limits.

According to you politicians are also off.limits if they give bs excuses for bad policies and the people who complain about it are at fault?
 
JimmyFingers said:
Luigi?

....
Yes, however the link is "unverified" and in isolation would not convince many who require a higher level of confirmation. I mean Nibali has decent Ferrari links but there was no mention of it during the Giro (correct me if wrong), Knaven has fairly dark clouds around him but has that been looked at?
 
Apr 20, 2012
4,238
0
0
The Hitch said:
That's simply not true and you know it. It's like your original tweet after ventoux were you had a false time for froome and declared it was good for the sport that froome did ventoux so slow. Now you continue with the tailwind myth even though the evidence points to froome having had a headwind just like Armstrong.

ps you are not fooling anyone everytime you talk in the first person plural to explain why semnoz was somehow worse than ventoux and ax3. It is far from the unanimous opinion you sell it as. The stages were froome destroyed the competition in a manner only Contador verbier has managed at the tour since Armstrong, were the ones everyone who doesnr have **** for brains raised their eyebrows.
.
Do you want to see a tailwind on Ventoux?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tFM7wcMiPdI#t=3475

Froome had cross/headwind, that's why they all rode on the RIGHT side of the road. Maybe Walsh should compare the time of Big Mig on Ventoux with Froome's, tailwind Mig 47.27 minutes, cross/headwind Chris 48.35

Perfectly normal, r_EPO only gives a 10% boost, that should put clean Chris at around 51 minutes in a perfect world? Walsh should do some math.
 
Ferminal said:
Yes, however the link is "unverified" and in isolation would not convince many who require a higher level of confirmation. I mean Nibali has decent Ferrari links but there was no mention of it during the Giro (correct me if wrong), Knaven has fairly dark clouds around him but has that been looked at?
Done.

You were posting in that thread yourself, so you should know ;)
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
The Hitch said:
That's simply not true and you know it. It's like your original tweet after ventoux were you had a false time for froome and declared it was good for the sport that froome did ventoux so slow. Now you continue with the tailwind myth even though the evidence points to froome having had a headwind just like Armstrong.

ps you are not fooling anyone everytime you talk in the first person plural to explain why semnoz was somehow worse than ventoux and ax3. It is far from the unanimous opinion you sell it as. The stages were froome destroyed the competition in a manner only Contador verbier has managed at the tour since Armstrong, were the ones everyone who doesnr have **** for brains raised their eyebrows.
.

I must be imaging things then. When I watch this video and look at the flags and smoke the vast majority of the time I see a tailwind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eiN2vfGKhk

Add to this reports from riders and the media of a tailwind.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS