Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Page 190 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
bobbins said:
Yes thanks, UKAD have been notified already. Doesn't him using Julich as a coach ring any alarm bells? I realise Julich falls into the 'nice doper' camp but he managed a carve a nice career for himself on the back of a doping program - can't think of a more suitable mentor some someone on the verge of being sacked due to poor performance.
So who do you think should be his trainer?.......give us an clean ex-pro experienced at racing at the highest level....

Tick......tick......tick

Mark L
 
red_flanders said:
What I find troubling is that the idea has been put out there that people are cynical because of Armstrong, and this is why Sky are subject to such skepticism. It is certainly a narrative which appeals to those wanting to find reason to believe Sky. Maybe it is true if some small number of people, who knows. What is certainly true is that Sky have played up, or maybe originally floated it in the first place. Who can say anymore? It has become part of the noise ariund Sky.

It's pretty silly overall and nonsense in the clinic, where a great many posters are about as far from being hurt by Armstrong as one could imagine.

Which is all to say that throwing this theory around and projecting it on to posters here looks dumb. It doesn't seem to add to one's cred.
The idea that the Froome-doping frenzy was NOT in large part fueled by Armstrong is preposterous.
Just look at at the amount of doping talk everywhere, not just the clinic during the Tour 2012 and the Tour 2013.
Which performance was more suspicious? 2012, by far. When was there more doping talk, Tour 12 or 13? 13. Clearly. And that is why exaclty? Ah, right, Armstrong.
Or if you find another reason.. what is it?

BTW Parker here has had the best posts in this thread or probably the whole paranoid mess here for a long time.

You guys know the difference between "evidence" and "proof" very well, unfortunately there are more words in the English language. For example, "know" and "think", not the same thing!! Even "I'm convinced that" and "I know that", not the same thing. Lots of evidence pointing to Froome doping? Enough to be convinced that he is? Ok. But that doesn't mean you KNOW it.

So between Parkers position, more or less "I don't know if Froome is doping, tend to think he isn't, but don't know" and the absolute "I know he is doping (everybody who doesn't is an idiot)"..... Parker is the winner. The "I know" crowd is wrong. Even if Froome is doping, the "I know" crowd is still wrong. Nobody here knows, we just have convictions.

My position btw is similar to Parker, just that I think it likely that he (Froome, not Parker) is doping. (And that in the end I don't really care if he's doping or not.) Armstrong's case was clearer (and even there I didn't know, just thought it very likely.)

Everybody that claims to "know" really disqualifies himself from the discussion.
 

daveyt

BANNED
Oct 23, 2014
162
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
And the doping doctor and all the ex-doper team staff and the doping Tenerife training grounds and the team domination in 2012 with 5 x Sky riders at the end of the big climbing days but other than that, yeah you're right. Absolutely different.
I don't buy that the doctor and staff having links to doping in the past is remotely damning, cause for concern and suspicion yes. But like most people they just do the job they are paid to do, previously that was doping, does not mean that us now the case.

Lol at Tenerife meaning anything, I have cycled there and it's a great place to train. I was gutted to find out that I can't help staring at my stem on big climbs though.

I counted 2 sky riders at the end of the big climbs in 2012?
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
ebandit said:
Did we need witnesses? It was a very open secret at that point

By late 90's we had Bassoons..........where is Sky's Bassoons?
Nice deflection.. On the defensive are we?

But okay, I'll adress your points in hope that you will do the same next time?

Yes it was an open secret that everyone was doping..
I clearly remember Riis toying with Indurain up Hautacam...
And Festina the following years... Just ridiculous!!
And that was what i thought of it then...

But where were the witnesses talking in the midst of things?
Try answer the quoestion as it was originally posted and in it's context..

You cling to Bassons as a witness and ask for a similar character today, But Armstrong wasn't the only one doping right?
And Froome hasn't yet run a 7-year regime has he?

Empiric data shows that a witness talking in the 90's about the 80% doping peleton were close to none...
Why should things be any different today?
Is it also not possible that the enablers/dopers learns from the past and keeps secrets in minor circles than earlier? look at Riis/Kreuziger..
Why do you think they are so supportive of a doped rider that is charged for doping in another team, before his arrival to Saxo/Tinkov?
Maybe because he knows things right?

I believe fewer are doping (because it is smarter for the top-guns this way) but for 10-15 years it has been impossible to establish a credible top-ten in a GT... The point is that you claim one thing as evidence now that you very well know might not surface for the next 5-8 years...
Or??? You think the GT-Podiums are clean, only defending TeamSky of course.


On that basis if the hog posted that he had heard directly from Sky staff that Sky dope would you give that credibility? ..........:rolleyes:

Mark L
I ask you questions, and right away you bring Armostrong and thehog into it...
Why?

thehog has as far as i know never claimed insider knowledge to TeamSky..
I asked you: what if the poster is right?
And you refuse to answer, only to sideline him with your fave-snatch-buddy..

I don't care about your little in-fights, but please leave it out of this...
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Spencer the Half Wit said:
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell
good quote.
Applies splendidly to the topic of this thread.
David Walsh, once full of doubts about Armstrong, now certain that Froome is clean. Once a wise man, turned into a fanatic fool.
 
Oct 17, 2012
331
0
0
sniper said:
good quote.
Applies splendidly to the topic of this thread.
David Walsh, once full of doubts about Armstrong, now certain that Froome is clean. Once a wise man, turned into a fanatic fool.
It is a good quote and applies both ways. That's not to say that when evidence either way mounts you cannot come to a conclusion, but one should always have doubts.
 

daveyt

BANNED
Oct 23, 2014
162
0
0
sniper said:
good quote.
Applies splendidly to the topic of this thread.
David Walsh, once full of doubts about Armstrong, now certain that Froome is clean. Once a wise man, turned into a fanatic fool.
I've only ever heard him say he believes Sky and Froome are clean, not that he knows.

And he has had a lot more access to the team than anyone else.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
daveyt said:
I've only ever heard him say he believes Sky and Froome are clean, not that he knows.
i didn't say he did, did I? starting to twist my words now?

And he has had a lot more access to the team than anyone else.
and with the desired result. win win.
 

daveyt

BANNED
Oct 23, 2014
162
0
0
sniper said:
David Walsh, once full of doubts about Armstrong, now certain that Froome is clean.

i didn't say he did, did I? starting to twist my words now?
Sorry, let me use your word

I've only ever heard him say he believes Sky and Froome are clean, not that he is certain.

Not sure the meaning is any different.
 
ebandit said:
So who do you think should be his trainer?.......give us an clean ex-pro experienced at racing at the highest level....

Tick......tick......tick

Mark L
Let's start with say, Marco Pinotti - about as credible as someone prominent racing at WT level gets during that period. Linda Villumsen has certainly benefited from working with him. There are other former WT and Pro Conti riders without heavy doping histories who also coach such as Brad McGee.

Also, many prominent riders don't have former pros as coaches, they work with physiologists or, like Denis Menchov, have no coach at all. This line of thought that a prominent pro needs a former pro as a coach is completely erroneous.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
daveyt said:
Sorry, let me use your word

I've only ever heard him say he believes Sky and Froome are clean, not that he is certain.

Not sure the meaning is any different.
good. doubts are good.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
ebandit said:
Did we need witnesses? It was a very open secret at that point

By late 90's we had Bassoons..........where is Sky's Bassoons?

Mark L
Bassons said in his famous article that there were 2 speeds in the peloton. He did not name any of his team mates as dopers.

Basso said in 2012 a quote similar about Sky.

So it would appear to Basso it was an open secret.
 
Spencer the Half Wit said:
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell
A good quote which can't be applied to every situation. If I hold a ball in my hand and drop it, should I doubt it will fall?

Some things are simple and obvious. Not many, but this one is easy.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Spencer the Half Wit said:
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell
He sure wasn't talking about pro cycling :D
 
red_flanders said:
A good quote which can't be applied to every situation. If I hold a ball in my hand and drop it, should I doubt it will fall?

Some things are simple and obvious. Not many, but this one is easy.
Your analogy is some way wide of the mark, both in the meaning of the quote and as a comparison.
It stands as a good example of what Mr Russell was implying, though.
 
Mellow Velo said:
Your analogy is some way wide of the mark, both in the meaning of the quote and as a comparison.
It stands as a good example of what Mr Russell was implying, though.
As are most analogies. It would be more convincing if you explained how instead of just declaring it so, but the point is that it establishes that the quote doesn't apply in all situations, which any fool can see.

I think it's a great quote and contains a ton of truth. I also think the same of
None are so blind as those who will not see.
But I'll bet many won't think that applies to them, in this case, eh?
 
daveyt said:
You... you really have got so hurt in the past that you'll never be able to take the blinkers off? Poor thing.

At least you are good at chat room put downs!
Well I don know one person who was hurt by Armstrong. And that's Bradley Wiggins who cheerled lance like not even his lawyers did. He defended him from allegations, praised him as his hero, attacked the credibility of witnesses on his behalf, even contacted him post retirement to get advice on how to win tdfs and praised his contribution in helping Wiggins make the lanceesque transformation to gt god.

It was particularly sad because Wiggins was told lance doped years earlier by his teammates. But apparently he chose to ignore it. It's a sad story and reminds me of those European women who write to murderers and convicts in the us and ask to marry them.

Well either that, or Wiggins defended and lied on the behalf of lance and all the other dopers -Basso pantani contador, because he is one of them.
 
"none so blind as those that won't see"

What that fails to take into account is that there are many who aren't blind and can see but require a different burden of proof to others. I'm not satisfied that rider X riding quickly is evidence of cheating. Mainly because I'm extrememly uncomfortable with the idea, that many on here seem to believe, that doping is the only determining factor in who wins a bike race.

I can see what's in front of me and I can question it. I might believe to a reasonable level of certainty that rider X is a cheat. I might believe that rider Y is not a cheat. But I don't know this. The reality isn't as black a white as many on here seem to make out (i.e. where winning = cheating). Where the true situation is on the grey spectrum is a moot point and I can't see how anyone can make such a strong judgement in either direction.
 
ebandit said:
Did we need witnesses? It was a very open secret at that point

By late 90's we had Bassoons..........where is Sky's Bassoons?



On that basis if the hog posted that he had heard directly from Sky staff that Sky dope would you give that credibility? ..........:rolleyes:

Mark L
Again you are an evolution denier. If the evdience you demand is the exact same evidence as was around 15 years ago then you are totally ignorant of the fact that dopers like all criminals learn from the mistakes of the previous generation.

And you may take rhis as an insult and cryy the victim card again but if you really expect that dopers won't ever learn from previous mistakes then you simply know far less about how doping works than many of the posters participating in the discussion.

The flip side of dopers being discovered is that while they won't make the same mistakes as the previous generation, other bits of knowledge open up and it becomes easier to tie new riders to doping from other angles. For example if they ally themselves with and hire people who have been deeply involved with doping.

Originally -2 years ago, sky fans claimed there were no such people. Now their heroes at us postal have fallen. Leinders has been outed as a doping doctor. Michael Barry was found to have doped. Rodgers is known to have worked with Ferrari. There's de jongh and Yates and Sutton.

So there may not be the witnesses that there were for lance (not that they mattered at the time, since they were just dismissed as liars). But in the other hand, there wasn't to hold against lance, the evidence of doping experts and thereby doping continuity that we have with sky.


But of course only the exact same evidence that was used against lance counts. Human beings don't evolve. Nobody does. Everything always remains the same :rolleyes:
 
TailWindHome said:
If you had a blank sheet of paper and were about to type up the Reasoned Decision of UKAD on Christopher Froome's Disqualification and Ineligibity would you have anything to put in it?

No?
ok then.


And what would you put in the usada decision paper in 2001?

Bare in mind that witnesses don't count since they are probably doing it to sell books.
 
The Hitch said:
Well I don know one person who was hurt by Armstrong. And that's Bradley Wiggins who cheerled lance like not even his lawyers did. He defended him from allegations, praised him as his hero, attacked the credibility of witnesses on his behalf, even contacted him post retirement to get advice on how to win tdfs and praised his contribution in helping Wiggins make the lanceesque transformation to gt god.

It was particularly sad because Wiggins was told lance doped years earlier by his teammates. But apparently he chose to ignore it. It's a sad story and reminds me of those European women who write to murderers and convicts in the us and ask to marry them.

Well either that, or Wiggins defended and lied on the behalf of lance and all the other dopers -Basso pantani contador, because he is one of them.
Good post.

"I love him," Wiggins said. "I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense. Even his strongest critics have benefitted from him. I don't think this sport will ever realise what he's brought it or how big he's made it.
Never a truer word spoken! :rolleyes: :cool: :p
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts