Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[The Hitch]

good post.


in all seriousness, i appreciate this honesty.

The average Skybot would generally deny he/she was naive wrt Armstrong, which makes their naivity wrt Sky all the more inexplicable, to the point of pointing towards an agenda.

So I appreciate your honesty in this matter. Suggests that you're not driven by an agenda, even though I don't share your opinion on the matter.

That's true. It reminds me of a previous poster in here called Mambo 95 who was a big defender of both Wiggins and Armstrong. The Armstrong threads are littered with him taunting Armstrong's doubters, threatening to sue the clinic, he even tweeted riders including Wiggins asking them to sue the clinic and Wiggins responded saying that no one has the balls to make accusations to his face (implying that he would resort to.violence presumably). He was also notable for continuously insulting the clinic in a patronizinv way, acting like he could read everyone's mind and mocking posters for allegedly thinking they are important. Then Armstrong fell and he disappeared, but new extremely similar posters emerged acting in this exact same patronizing way, saying the same things. But these posters allegedly always new lance was doping. Hmm. Even when their heroes Wiggins was crying about how innocent and great lance was.

 

[ebandit]

And your problem is that you don't know much about doping (you think dopers won't learn from the mistakes that got their friends caught) you don't know enough about cycling (yo thought that distance has no relevance to the difficulty of a stage) and you either don't know or pretend not to know much about froome and brailsford and sky, ignoring all the extremely suspicious things they have done, acting like none of it happened and making out like we here were just making it all up.

Feel free to play the victim card all you like like you always resort to, but it's clear in many debates some people just don't know enough about the subject matter and you are presently filling that role.

How bizarre....what did you find in the post of mine that you quoted that was even about me.....let alone me playing the victim card??

I get that you think you know-it-all......and I get that that self-view is reinforced by you only choosing to swim in a tiny pond with a handful of acolytes......I also notice how twitchy it gets in here when somebody shakes the tree.........so you think you know about doping........so tell me.....what products did Froome use to win the Tour and how did he evade controls......details please since you know so much about doping....come on educate me....what is this magic dope he is using that no other rider seems to know about??

Mark L

 

[TheSpud]

fact of the matter is that pro's are talking - one pro in private who raced against froome in Poland and saw what he did in spain knew it was a farce.

Is there a link to all of this. I'm not trying to all you out here (as in "anonymoous man" type call) - I'd just be really interested in reading a story / report like this.

True / hearsay / whatever - I do really like reading stories / books / biographies thats all this request is. Thanks.

 

[TheSpud]

Sky and Astana not tested during training on Tenerife proving what a joke it is!

And when he posted that what was most peoples reaction on here? Was it to agree and say the UCI dont test, or was it to accuse him of trying to rub peoples noses in it?

 

[TheSpud]

Your problem is you treat assumptions as certainties.....and then you build arguments on them.....you use the word 'lying' many times....you seem blind to the possibility that there are many other possible explanations other than 'lying'....to give one succinct example is your claim that Sky are 'lying' about marginal gains......I just treat the whole marginal gains schtick as the same sort of PR trick all sorts of sports teams pull to both try and give themselves a psychological advantage as well as help sell ***......you know....like the sort of stuff sponsors sell ....that is after all the name of the game as far as the sponsors are concerned

Mark L

As I've said before - Marginal Gains is peddled as a kind of "look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves". I can understand the principle - and in track racing I can see it could make big gains on the competition. For road - I dont know.

Whos is the stupid one here though?

People lambast Sky for stories about pillows, pineapple juice, etc. Do you honestly think that is the big thing they are on to? Of course not. And actually a lot of that has been hearsay.

To me its all about minimising the noise from the small areas. Whatever they are doing for the big time gains (legal or not) will never come out.

Why? If its doping - they wont say anything because they would get banned.
If its not doping and is a new approach - they wont say anything because it is secret.

 

[red_flanders]

So is it fair to say you don't buy that Sky are doing anything radically different or that would make a big difference in performance with "marginal gains"?

If it's just PR, on which we all agree, how have they produced two Tour winners out of pack riders?

The thing is, they are using it to explain the performance gains. They have made it the core of the explanations on how they're able to do so well. If it's just PR, they are in fact lying about what is giving them performance gains. If not, what explanation is left?

Honest questions, Mark. Any answers?

 

[ebandit]

You only have to look to other sports where doping cannot be a decisive factor to recognise that some teams thrive whereas others don't.....why is this?.....some players only thrive on some teams...why?......and yet the standard sarcastic refrain here is "do Sky not think every one isn't doing the same as them"......which totally ignores the human element......in sport some groups of people do succeed whereas other fails and it isn't just down to genetically pre-determined physical characteristics

MarkL

 

[TheSpud]

You only have to look to other sports where doping cannot be a decisive factor to recognise that some teams thrive whereas others don't.....why is this?.....some players only thrive on some teams...why?......and yet the standard sarcastic refrain here is "do Sky not think every one isn't doing the same as them"......which totally ignores the human element......in sport some groups of people do succeed whereas other fails and it isn't just down to genetically pre-determined physical characteristics

MarkL

Well, clearly the other teams havent been doing what Sky have been doing until the last couple of years when people have left.

 

[ebandit]

Honest questions, Mark. Any answers?

Your central question is of the "have you stopped beating your wife?" variety....you load the question by calling them pack riders.

Marginal gains?......there is a very clear logic to it....and really it is just about good management.....of course Brailsford will be happy to laud it because he is in charge of management....it reflects well on him

Again....look to other sports where doping cannot be the decisive factor and ask yourself what is it that makes the difference between success and failure

Mark L

 

[thehog]

And when he posted that what was most peoples reaction on here? Was it to agree and say the UCI dont test, or was it to accuse him of trying to rub peoples noses in it?

Froome is stupid. There's a good reason the UCI doesn't test in Tenerife and Froome knows it. There's is so little gained from passport testing at altitude as the result is effectively nullified. The passport accounts for the periods the rider has been at altitude and the period shortly after.

The real test is when the rider maintains his levels weeks after leaving the island. But then again the constant returning to Tenerife makes the profiling even harder to map anything meaningful.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You only have to look to other sports where doping cannot be a decisive factor

Bahahahahha but they still dope.

Wheel chair curling, as an example. Go google it.

 

[red_flanders]

Your central question is of the "have you stopped beating your wife?" variety....you load the question by calling them pack riders.

Marginal gains?......there is a very clear logic to it....and really it is just about good management.....of course Brailsford will be happy to laud it because he is in charge of management....it reflects well on him

Again....look to other sports where doping cannot be the decisive factor and ask yourself what is it that makes the difference between success and failure

Mark L

Really? I can't believe anyone would dispute it, it's simple, verifiable fact that they were pack riders. Kind of a compliment for early Wiggins, to be honest.

You can't really have a discussion when people don't share an understanding of the facts. I feel like you're deflecting.

I guess that's as far as you're going to go, and then the goalposts will move again? Because if marginal gains is PR, you have to explain:

• Why are Sky using it to explain how they went from no results to unstoppable.

• How they're doing it if it's just PR.

The answer of course, is that Wiggins and Froome (and likely others, certainly Rogers, Porte) were doping. What other conclusion can one come to?

 

[TheSpud]

Froome is stupid. There's a good reason the UCI doesn't test in Tenerife and Froome knows it. There's is so little gained from passport testing at altitude as the result is effectively nullified. The passport accounts for the periods the rider has been at altitude and the period shortly after.

The real test is when the rider maintains his levels weeks after leaving the island. But then again the constant returning to Tenerife makes the profiling even harder to map anything meaningful.

if he knows why the UCI dont test there he clearly isnt stupid ...

 

[thehog]

if he knows why the UCI dont test there he clearly isnt stupid ...

He's stupid for pretending he was making some form of anti doping stance. To later be caught out on his asthma and dodgy TUE.

 

[heart_attack_man]

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 a quick question. If 2+2 = 4, are you convinced that it equals 4, or do you know that it equals 4?

Because with Froome, it's really as simples as that.

Froome ≠ cleans

To bring this slightly back on topic, the fact that Walsh is as blind to the truth as he is does indeed speak volumes to his motivations.

I'm assuming he wants the easy life leading up to retirement.

 

[The Hitch]

Honest questions, Mark. Any answers?

Of course not. Most of the beliebers in this thread have refused to respond to any of the solid observations about the actual subject of Froome doping, instead nitpicking and starting fights over digressions.

 

[Granville57]

Again....look to other sports where doping cannot be the decisive factor and ask yourself what is it that makes the difference between success and failure.

This is where you lost me. Is there a list somewhere of sports where doping could not be the decisive factor?

Serious question. Which sports would those be?

All sports can benefit from some sort of doping, which is why some sort of doping exists in all sports. And those very benefits are often quite "decisive."

Most athletes will benefit from an increase in strength, speed, endurance and/or recovery. At the other end of the spectrum one will find benefits from increased concentration/focus, and/or the ability to stay relaxed and calm (biathlon and archery immediately come to mind, not to mention chess and other activities not normally associated with "doping").

I'm unable to come up with one, single sport on the planet where doping "cannot be the decisive factor."

Are there other factors that contribute to success and failure in sports besides doping? Of course. But doping can be a factor in every sport that exists (and therefore often is).

 

[ebandit]

'm unable to come up with one, single sport on the planet where doping "cannot be the decisive factor."

Golf and cricket are a good place to start....golf is probably the sport with the least doping problem although F1 would probably claim that place......

....even then rather than setting people off on a frantic google posting links to golfers testing positive Im making a wider point......and that it that even in cycling people's performances are affected by factors other than physical fitness.....its just easier and more obvious to see that if you remove yourself from the crucible of cycling for a moment.....take cricket teams for example or even football teams (and yes, I know they cheat)....teams can have disasterous seasons.....look at Man U.......are you going to try and tell me that is because they stopped doping?

Mark L

 

[ebandit]

nitpicking and starting fights over digressions.

= actually holding you to account and examining what you say

I know you don't like it. Love the accusation of 'starting fights'.............. VERY revealing.

Mark L

 

[The fridge in the blue trees]

Of course not. Most of the beliebers in this thread have refused to respond to any of the solid observations about the actual subject of Froome doping, instead nitpicking and starting fights over digressions.

Good that you finally realize that, so now why don't you start to respond to parkers solid observations?

 

[sniper]

Good that you finally realize that, so now why don't you start to respond to parkers solid observations?

link please?
parker has done little else than repeating arguments that have been debunked ad infinitum on earlier pages of the thread.
so please read the thread, then come back.

 

[thehog]

Good that you finally realize that, so now why don't you start to respond to parkers solid observations?

What's the difference between an observation and a solid observation?

 

[Electress]

So a quick question. If 2+2 = 4, are you convinced that it equals 4, or do you know that it equals 4?

Because with Froome, it's really as simples as that.

Froome ≠ cleans

To bring this slightly back on topic, the fact that Walsh is as blind to the truth as he is does indeed speak volumes to his motivations.

I'm assuming he wants the easy life leading up to retirement.

Hope you don't mind my joining in and adding my thoughts, though I don't generally loiter in the Clinic.

Regarding Walsh, I believe his proximity to Sky and Froome have put him too close to Team Sky to allow him to be an unbiased 'witness'. This would be true of any team he was 'in-bed' with; he cannot be objective.

That doesn't mean to say I believe he'd hide something he'd seen outright; I am not saying he suddenly has zero integrity, but he's bound to be predisposed to believing in people he's invested this much time and energy with.

IMO, to get to the bottom of whether a team/rider is doping, you need to be willing to question everything. He quite clearly doesn't - otherwise he'd have written a better researched and objective biography of Chris Froome, not ghost-written Chris Froome's autobiography with its occasionally laughable / mendacious glossing of his early 'achievements'. Given this, I think Walsh has rendered himself obsolete as a voice against doping in cycling. I think he can no longer be bothered.

As for Team Sky, I have no insider knowledge, but there is at least something suspicious about them. I'm a long time cycling fan, who is sceptical rather than cynical, but I think there is enough dubious, contradictory and frankly incredible stuff to raise serious questions. Since I haven't seen credible responses - hello, bilharzia etc. - I shall continue to harbour serious doubts about their "purity". It's not that I don't harbour doubts about Tinkoff or Astana, but then these teams are not constantly bleating on about their unique approach; their holier than thou policies and hence ****ing me off with their sanctimoniousness and (potential) hypocrisy.

What no one seems ever to admit to in all this doping talk are the personal credibility / character aspects. I guess no one wants to admit that thinking a rider is an untrustworthy tool plays a part in whether or not you believe he's a cheater. I 'knew' nothing substantive about Armstrong other than rumours, but since I had the impression the guy was an arrogant, bullying a-hole who'd sell his grandmother to win, it by no means surprised me to find out he was also a flagrant cheater. Had I personally any objective evidence? Hell, no. But then I wasn't tasked with trying to convict him of anything. As a fan, however, it did make me question whether I could trust anything he did or said. So I didn't. And lo - turns out my instinct was pretty accurate.

I feel much the same about Froome, frankly, if not on the same scale. I 'know' nothing at all. However, I do harbour suspicions. What I have read in his autobiography, and heard of his doings with Wiggins etc. - whom I also don't particularly like, btw - gives me the impression of someone capable of considerable mendacity. Hence, it would not surprise me one bit if he was a doper.

Now, I don't know the guy. I am quite willing to accept that these are impressions and that I might have completely misread his character. But how he comes over to me means that I find it impossible to invest anything in any his 'clean' achievements.

This isn't merely a question of 'like' or 'dislike', though I'm obviously not a fan of Froome. I like Voigt but this doesn't require me to think he's a clean rider. Likewise Brailsford, though I loathe him with the burning passion of a thousand suns, I would nonetheless be very surprised to find was systematically cheating. I do believe, however, he might be very easy to lie to simply because he seems to believe so completely in his own omniscience.

 

[the sceptic]

What's the difference between an observation and a solid observation?

Why does this thread have hundreds of new posts in the last few days? Did Walsh test positive?

I have too many people on ignore to figure out what is going on in here.

 

[thehog]

Why does this thread have hundreds of new posts in the last few days? Did Walsh test positive?

I have too many people on ignore to figure out what is going on in here.

It stated with me showing Walsh in 2009 asking for Contador's Vo2 max and complaining about the speeds. Walsh thought it was indicative of doping.

5 years later as Mudoch is inserting another cheque into Walsh's account Vo2 max is not important for Froome, neither is the speed he is riding up Ventoux.

Money does strange things to strange people.