Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Page 23 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Race Radio said:
You think you have the smoking gun. I suggest going to UKAD with your findings. Walsh, and many others, do not share such a solid conviction. It is that simple. That does not mean they have **** for brains
Walsh does share a solid conviction. He believes.
 
Race Radio said:
You think you have the smoking gun. I suggest going to UKAD with your findings. Walsh, and many others, do not share such a solid conviction. It is that simple. That does not mean they have **** for brains
que?

My post was about Walsh's credibility on Sky and Froome.

It had absolutely nothing to do with Sky doping or UKADA, and I have no idea where on earth you got any of that from.
 
Race Radio said:
Pretty easy to understand if you read my series of tweets from that day. There were a series of times flying around, some from 15km to go, some from 15.63, some from the bottom. At first it appeared Froomes time was 5 minutes slower then Mayo's (It was actually about 3:30 slower). As it became clear that it was better to wait for the final times I suggested people follow the SportsScientists and Vetoo on Twitter as they are much better analysis then I am and had written this great preview

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/mont-ventoux-preview-looking-forward-by.html

They followed up on the topic in the comments and on twitter. Note the comments about a tailwind.....guess I am not the only person who imaged it.

Understand where I am coming from on this. It is not that I think that Froome has not had some questionable performances, I have made it clear that I think this is the case. My point is that I can understand why Walsh, and many other journalists, have not attacked. They simply do not have as much to go on. There are still lots of questions
But you went and made a comparison between a TT and a 200 plus km stage, so as to show that there was encouraging signs...that's ridiculous.
 
Race Radio said:
You think you have the smoking gun. I suggest going to UKAD with your findings. Walsh, and many others, do not share such a solid conviction. It is that simple. That does not mean they have **** for brains
Come on Race. You love Sky. It's ok. You're in contact with Walsh and you want to impress him. That's cool. Just don't pretend you have inside information that Sky are clean. It's just a wee bit of man love.

Dim on VeloRooms has been talking about CO doping and cortisone. Apparently he's heard a few things. You're on the inside. What do you know?

Dim can't know more. Surely? :rolleyes:
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
Race Radio said:
It is pretty clear that 16 km of the climb had a tailwind, 2 km had a head wind, and 3-4km had a crosswind

You might be confused as you did not read what I wrote
It looks like that fits your narrative RR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1QSDfjw998

Chris, the tailwind tiger.

Good thing is we today learned Mont Ventoux is in a straight line and no forest.

Thanks for the lesson.

Pssst, Armstrong had a tailwind in 2002, check the video. I hope that doesnt spoil the cycling media party.
 
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
It looks like that fits your narrative RR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1QSDfjw998

Chris, the tailwind tiger.

Good thing is we today learned Mont Ventoux is in a straight line and no forest.

Thanks for the lesson.

Pssst, Armstrong had a tailwind in 2002, check the video. I hope that doesnt spoil the cycling media party.
Sad day when one has to make excuses why a rider was as fast as Armstrong.

On one hand we have a bunch of guys telling us about better training, lighter bikes etc. then you have RR telling us about tailwinds and all the dopers ten years ago had headwinds.

Would ya just listen to them! :rolleyes:
 
JimmyFingers said:
Ok but the chagrin being directed at Walsh is that he called out Michelle Smith and Contador on their performance, both of whom were subsequently popped, but doesn't see Froome/Sky's performance as suspicious, and that his reasoning is, as you put it I believe, 'fragile'? That he no longer judges athletes on performance alone?

I can't guess why he's changed his opinion, if in fact he has. What I will say is that he is closer to the sport and better informed that the vast majority of the people on this forum that have such a problem with him. He tweeted after that long interview he did with Brailsford a long time ago now that he believed Sky were on the level, so he has been consistent at least, and he had this viewpoint before he actually embedded with Sky.

A counter-argument must be why would such a consistent and out-spoken anti-doping journalist who has previously gone after sanctioned dopers like Smith, Contador and Armstrong do an about-turn and side with a team many hold to be suspicious, and more outright condemn?

Or, depending on your opinion, be entirely consistent by calling out dopers and not calling out a clean team in Sky?

It's a subjective call basically. Those that think Sky are doping think he is a hypocrite, those that give them the benefit of the doubt see him as being consistent. And perhaps the benefit of the doubt he affords Sky is the same reason he isn't suspicious of Nibali.

What I am saying is maybe he knows things we don't know. The same sort of things he knew about Lance. Maybe.
We must remember that while embedded at Garmin Kimmage was convinced by them and even pointed at Bernhard Kohl's suffering as an example of how cycling was cleaner.

My main issue with Walsh's stance on Sky is not that his opinion has changed, even regarding the talk on performance = evidence hypocrisy.

No, rather it's that David Walsh, who is a journalist, and historically at least a good one at that, has changed from being the go-to guy for an anti-doping voice, to commenting on Team Sky in such gushing, one-sided praise that we may as well have commissioned Auscyclefan94 and LaFlorecita to cover BMC in 2011 and Saxo at the 2012 Vuelta. Now, David Walsh may have good reason for doing that. There has been a lot of second-guessing of his motives, but there may be good reasons for that. He may have asked all the questions that have been being brought up in the Clinic, and he may have been satisfied by the responses. He may have seen the various training regimes and methods that apparently justify the changes in capabilities of the Sky riders, and felt that they made sense and therefore the improvements shown in the riders could indeed be made without recourse to doping. And so he may have found himself adequately convinced that the team is clean. But - and this is the important bit - if that was the case, then why hasn't he, you know, done his job properly and reported on this? Report what he has been told and what he has seen that has convinced him of this? Because, if it's good enough for David Walsh with his historical reputation, surely it would be good enough for at least some of us? It would be good for Team Sky in that it would remove some of the lingering questions, and it would be good for David Walsh in that it would show he's still asking the tough questions and isn't becoming a corporate mouthpiece as some suspect.

Now, it's possible that he hasn't asked those questions. But either way he's failing his role as a journalist, because he's either not asking the questions, or he's asking them but not reporting the answers. And if the answers are as convincing as he'd have us believe, I don't see what possible reason there could be for not reporting them. There were (non-Sky-related tangent) questions on Dr Íñigo San Millán a while back. He has teams like Astana and Saunier Duval on his record, then was working for Garmin. Questions were asked on what that really says about Garmin's repute. Vaughters promptly chastised many Clinicians for jumping to conclusions because San Millán had been kicked off teams or resigned positions because of refusing to be involved in doping programs, clashing with doping docs, etc.. But we were not privy to this information. The insiders can hardly hold it against those without the same level of inside information for having opinions based on partial information - especially when some key information is withheld from us. And again with RR's talk on Moncoutié - out of nowhere on a thread when his reputation as a clean cyclist is mentioned, RR popped up with a two word post that called this into question. But when asked, all we've got out of them is that they've "made it clear" how they came to their opinion, and that they talked to some people who told them things that led them to that. Now, that's all fine, but who are these people and what did they say? We simply don't know, because RR has, for whatever reason, of which many are valid, chosen not to divulge that. But then, how can they be angered if we do not share this opinion, when we have not been given access to the same information? How can you criticise the masses for their ignorance, when they thirst for the knowledge you are consciously hiding from them?

And so it is with Walsh and Sky. Without letting the fans know why he has come to the conclusion he has, they cannot know how he got there.

And let's not forget that all of this is predicated on the assumption that David Walsh is fully convinced by Team Sky, is fully honest in what he is saying and has done his job as a journalist thoroughly.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
We must remember that while embedded at Garmin Kimmage was convinced by them and even pointed at Bernhard Kohl's suffering as an example of how cycling was cleaner.

My main issue with Walsh's stance on Sky is not that his opinion has changed, even regarding the talk on performance = evidence hypocrisy.

No, rather it's that David Walsh, who is a journalist, and historically at least a good one at that, has changed from being the go-to guy for an anti-doping voice, to commenting on Team Sky in such gushing, one-sided praise that we may as well have commissioned Auscyclefan94 and LaFlorecita to cover BMC in 2011 and Saxo at the 2012 Vuelta. Now, David Walsh may have good reason for doing that. There has been a lot of second-guessing of his motives, but there may be good reasons for that. He may have asked all the questions that have been being brought up in the Clinic, and he may have been satisfied by the responses. He may have seen the various training regimes and methods that apparently justify the changes in capabilities of the Sky riders, and felt that they made sense and therefore the improvements shown in the riders could indeed be made without recourse to doping. And so he may have found himself adequately convinced that the team is clean. But - and this is the important bit - if that was the case, then why hasn't he, you know, done his job properly and reported on this? Report what he has been told and what he has seen that has convinced him of this? Because, if it's good enough for David Walsh with his historical reputation, surely it would be good enough for at least some of us? It would be good for Team Sky in that it would remove some of the lingering questions, and it would be good for David Walsh in that it would show he's still asking the tough questions and isn't becoming a corporate mouthpiece as some suspect.

Now, it's possible that he hasn't asked those questions. But either way he's failing his role as a journalist, because he's either not asking the questions, or he's asking them but not reporting the answers. And if the answers are as convincing as he'd have us believe, I don't see what possible reason there could be for not reporting them. There were (non-Sky-related tangent) questions on Dr Íñigo San Millán a while back. He has teams like Astana and Saunier Duval on his record, then was working for Garmin. Questions were asked on what that really says about Garmin's repute. Vaughters promptly chastised many Clinicians for jumping to conclusions because San Millán had been kicked off teams or resigned positions because of refusing to be involved in doping programs, clashing with doping docs, etc.. But we were not privy to this information. The insiders can hardly hold it against those without the same level of inside information for having opinions based on partial information - especially when some key information is withheld from us. And again with RR's talk on Moncoutié - out of nowhere on a thread when his reputation as a clean cyclist is mentioned, RR popped up with a two word post that called this into question. But when asked, all we've got out of them is that they've "made it clear" how they came to their opinion, and that they talked to some people who told them things that led them to that. Now, that's all fine, but who are these people and what did they say? We simply don't know, because RR has, for whatever reason, of which many are valid, chosen not to divulge that. But then, how can they be angered if we do not share this opinion, when we have not been given access to the same information? How can you criticise the masses for their ignorance, when they thirst for the knowledge you are consciously hiding from them?

And so it is with Walsh and Sky. Without letting the fans know why he has come to the conclusion he has, they cannot know how he got there.

And let's not forget that all of this is predicated on the assumption that David Walsh is fully convinced by Team Sky, is fully honest in what he is saying and has done his job as a journalist thoroughly.
One of the best posts I've read in here.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
We must remember that while embedded at Garmin Kimmage was convinced by them and even pointed at Bernhard Kohl's suffering as an example of how cycling was cleaner.

My main issue with Walsh's stance on Sky is not that his opinion has changed, even regarding the talk on performance = evidence hypocrisy.

No, rather it's that David Walsh, who is a journalist, and historically at least a good one at that, has changed from being the go-to guy for an anti-doping voice, to commenting on Team Sky in such gushing, one-sided praise that we may as well have commissioned Auscyclefan94 and LaFlorecita to cover BMC in 2011 and Saxo at the 2012 Vuelta. Now, David Walsh may have good reason for doing that. There has been a lot of second-guessing of his motives, but there may be good reasons for that. He may have asked all the questions that have been being brought up in the Clinic, and he may have been satisfied by the responses. He may have seen the various training regimes and methods that apparently justify the changes in capabilities of the Sky riders, and felt that they made sense and therefore the improvements shown in the riders could indeed be made without recourse to doping. And so he may have found himself adequately convinced that the team is clean. But - and this is the important bit - if that was the case, then why hasn't he, you know, done his job properly and reported on this? Report what he has been told and what he has seen that has convinced him of this? Because, if it's good enough for David Walsh with his historical reputation, surely it would be good enough for at least some of us? It would be good for Team Sky in that it would remove some of the lingering questions, and it would be good for David Walsh in that it would show he's still asking the tough questions and isn't becoming a corporate mouthpiece as some suspect.

Now, it's possible that he hasn't asked those questions. But either way he's failing his role as a journalist, because he's either not asking the questions, or he's asking them but not reporting the answers. And if the answers are as convincing as he'd have us believe, I don't see what possible reason there could be for not reporting them. There were (non-Sky-related tangent) questions on Dr Íñigo San Millán a while back. He has teams like Astana and Saunier Duval on his record, then was working for Garmin. Questions were asked on what that really says about Garmin's repute. Vaughters promptly chastised many Clinicians for jumping to conclusions because San Millán had been kicked off teams or resigned positions because of refusing to be involved in doping programs, clashing with doping docs, etc.. But we were not privy to this information. The insiders can hardly hold it against those without the same level of inside information for having opinions based on partial information - especially when some key information is withheld from us. And again with RR's talk on Moncoutié - out of nowhere on a thread when his reputation as a clean cyclist is mentioned, RR popped up with a two word post that called this into question. But when asked, all we've got out of them is that they've "made it clear" how they came to their opinion, and that they talked to some people who told them things that led them to that. Now, that's all fine, but who are these people and what did they say? We simply don't know, because RR has, for whatever reason, of which many are valid, chosen not to divulge that. But then, how can they be angered if we do not share this opinion, when we have not been given access to the same information? How can you criticise the masses for their ignorance, when they thirst for the knowledge you are consciously hiding from them?

And so it is with Walsh and Sky. Without letting the fans know why he has come to the conclusion he has, they cannot know how he got there.

And let's not forget that all of this is predicated on the assumption that David Walsh is fully convinced by Team Sky, is fully honest in what he is saying and has done his job as a journalist thoroughly.
You appear to have confused sports journalism with some sort of judicial inquiry.

Doing is job properly is to report on the team and race in a manner which is engaging for the reader. He will have asked many questions and got answers, but delving into the minutae of some doping lead is really, really boring - of interest only to a small handful who think they know it all anyway.

He addressed doping and reported on it, but he also reported on actual cycling too.

His two sins in the eyes of many on this forum seem to be:

1. By spending ten weeks with the team he came to a different conclusion than people who get their information from like minded posters on the internet

2. He actually enjoyed himself. Sport is supposed to be enjoyed. He became a sports reporter because he actually likes sport.

Maybe he should have stayed on a campsite drinking red wine, grinding thirty year old axes and trying to justify his prejudices. I suppose that's proper journalism is it?
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
The Hitch said:
Walsh should be given credit for begrudgingly admitting something even a chimpanzee can understand?
Did I say Walsh deserves credit? I said at least he admits this is a possibility in two separate interviews. The point has to be brought up because some people seem to forget he is open minded to this possibility.

Ferminal said:
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?
None of my arguments resort to personal basis. One point is his comments on C
 
Parker said:
You appear to have confused sports journalism with some sort of judicial inquiry.

Doing is job properly is to report on the team and race in a manner which is engaging for the reader. He will have asked many questions and got answers, but delving into the minutae of some doping lead is really, really boring - of interest only to a small handful who think they know it all anyway.

He addressed doping and reported on it, but he also reported on actual cycling too.

His two sins in the eyes of many on this forum seem to be:

1. By spending ten weeks with the team he came to a different conclusion than people who get their information from like minded posters on the internet

2. He actually enjoyed himself. Sport is supposed to be enjoyed. He became a sports reporter because he actually likes sport.

Maybe he should have stayed on a campsite drinking red wine, grinding thirty year old axes and trying to justify his prejudices. I suppose that's proper journalism is it?
Not a judicial inquiry, but investigative journalism. Now sports journalism admittedly isn't all that often predicated on that, but Walsh's reputation kind of implies that some level of investigative journalism ought to be going on if he's been doing his job as he has been in the past.

A lot of Walsh's reputation comes from his track record of anti-doping. Bearing in mind a lot of media - not just the Clinic - was casting doubt on Froome and Sky during the Tour, Walsh was in the best position of all to report on this. With his reputation and the suspicions flying, he was in the best position to assuage these doubts. And there was enough doping talk going on during the Tour that there WOULD have been interest in the answers to the questions he must surely have asked.

Tweets along the lines of "wow, Sky are doing great today!" do not assuage doubts in the same way, nor are they especially engaging insomuch as they contain no real substance. The possibilities of doping became a story in and of themselves during the Tour, and ignoring that is very incongruous with Walsh's career history. Having a journalist with Walsh's anti-doping credentials embedded at Team Sky at a time when the possibility of doping is a regular topic in the industry press is a massive, massive opportunity. I don't even have a problem with that he has not come out on my side. Because maybe he has asked the questions, has more information than I have and he's on the right side and I'm not. But Sky claim to be transparent and Walsh has the reputation of being an anti-doping crusader. If that information exists, then given that doping suspicions became a story during that Tour and Walsh would be in the position to offer a scoop on that front due to his level of access to the team, it is pretty significant that that information has not been shared. Because, like it or not, the threat of doping was a story at the Tour and the job of a journalist (at least in theory, as of course number one in reality is 'to sell copy') is to report a) what happens, and b) why.

And if he's pinned his colours to the "well, I'm writing to engage the audience and the audience isn't interested in knowing WHY I think Sky are clean, just that I do" argument, then that's fine too, but then he - and nobody else - should be surprised if people begrudge the fact that they're not being presented with the information to make their own decisions.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
thehog said:
Come on Race. You love Sky. It's ok. You're in contact with Walsh and you want to impress him. That's cool. Just don't pretend you have inside information that Sky are clean. It's just a wee bit of man love.

Dim on VeloRooms has been talking about CO doping and cortisone. Apparently he's heard a few things. You're on the inside. What do you know?

Dim can't know more. Surely? :rolleyes:
Next time you see David drop my name. I doubt he will have anything good to say

What ever happened to your claims of payoffs and TUE's? You were going to provide proof......or did you just make that up?
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
The Hitch said:
Walsh should be given credit for begrudgingly admitting something even a chimpanzee can understand?
Where did I say Walsh deserves credit for this? This point has to be brought up because it seems to be happily ignored at the moment where he said this very thing in two separate interviews. I wouldn't have to bring it up if this viewpoint was more acknowledged in the first place.

Ferminal said:
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?
I have no personal basis behind my argument. I have no vested interest whatsover on Sky and Walsh. Here is what I'm referring to when I say he's been thrown under the bus. An example is saying he's only had an obsession with Lance/USPS which is blatanly wrong. Another is saying he only called out Michelle Smith on the basis of her performances alone which is 100% false. Finally accusing him of being like La Florecita, AUSCF and of being a sellout. No way would a sellout or fanboy write pieces on Leinders by questioning Brailsford on it or an article on Wiggins asking him about his comments on Floyd in the past. You don't bring these topics up if you are some sort of mouthpiece or sellout like some seem to be accusing him of around here. In fact you ignore the subject altogether. It just when the criticism of him is on this level it seems like it's anything with a rod is used to hit him with at the moment because his reporting doesn't fit in with the narrative and agenda that some want done with on Sky.
 
I can't speak for every user here that doesn't believe in Sky, but I consider the implication that because somebody doesn't consider Sky to be doping that I must hate them to be an over-simplification of the very varying viewpoints on the subject on both sides of the discussion, and frankly if I'm honest I find it quite insulting. I don't dislike Greg LeMond. I don't dislike David Walsh. I don't dislike you. I don't even dislike Chris Froome, who comes across as personable and friendly in his interviews, and I've never met the man. I just don't necessarily agree with everything they have to say, at least based on what I know at the present time.

If people are satisfied that Sky are clean, then that's fine. I'd like to know how they came to that conclusion, because if it's based on information that I already know then I can say that I disagree with them, but I'll also accept that I'm not as in the loop as Walsh, or Lemond, or yourself, so if there is information that could potentially change my opinion, I'd like to know it so that my opinion can be better informed. Without that information, however, I can only judge on the information we outsiders have at our disposal.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
Not a judicial inquiry, but investigative journalism. Now sports journalism admittedly isn't all that often predicated on that, but Walsh's reputation kind of implies that some level of investigative journalism ought to be going on if he's been doing his job as he has been in the past.

A lot of Walsh's reputation comes from his track record of anti-doping. Bearing in mind a lot of media - not just the Clinic - was casting doubt on Froome and Sky during the Tour, Walsh was in the best position of all to report on this. With his reputation and the suspicions flying, he was in the best position to assuage these doubts. And there was enough doping talk going on during the Tour that there WOULD have been interest in the answers to the questions he must surely have asked.

Tweets along the lines of "wow, Sky are doing great today!" do not assuage doubts in the same way, nor are they especially engaging insomuch as they contain no real substance. The possibilities of doping became a story in and of themselves during the Tour, and ignoring that is very incongruous with Walsh's career history. Having a journalist with Walsh's anti-doping credentials embedded at Team Sky at a time when the possibility of doping is a regular topic in the industry press is a massive, massive opportunity. I don't even have a problem with that he has not come out on my side. Because maybe he has asked the questions, has more information than I have and he's on the right side and I'm not. But Sky claim to be transparent and Walsh has the reputation of being an anti-doping crusader. If that information exists, then given that doping suspicions became a story during that Tour and Walsh would be in the position to offer a scoop on that front due to his level of access to the team, it is pretty significant that that information has not been shared. Because, like it or not, the threat of doping was a story at the Tour and the job of a journalist (at least in theory, as of course number one in reality is 'to sell copy') is to report a) what happens, and b) why.
He's not an anti-doping crusader. He never has been. He doesn't write about doping all that much. Reporting on actual sport, often enthusiastically, is the vast bulk of what he does. Have a read of his reports on other sports sometime. He wrote about Armstrong primarily because it was a great story, not because of any 'crusade'.

Now maybe he could have filled the Sunday Times with graphs and tables of data and detailed analysis from scientists - but that is incredibly boring. He asked questions about the main points that have arisen and reported the answers. You have to understand that the Sunday Times isn't published solely for your benefit.

You also have to understand that journalists get told their a lot of best information 'off the record'.

I realise many of you are angry that he doesn't agree with the entrenched opinions you have formed from talking to nobody and observing nothing but you need to entertain the horrible, unthinkable possibility that he is right and you are wrong.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Race Radio said:
Next time you see David drop my name. I doubt he will have anything good to say

What ever happened to your claims of payoffs and TUE's? You were going to provide proof......or did you just make that up?
You forgot Leinders is still working freelance for
 
Parker said:
He's not an anti-doping crusader. He never has been. He doesn't write about doping all that much. Reporting on actual sport, often enthusiastically, is the vast bulk of what he does. Have a read of his reports on other sports sometime. He wrote about Armstrong primarily because it was a great story, not because of any 'crusade'.

Now maybe he could have filled the Sunday Times with graphs and tables of data and detailed analysis from scientists - but that is incredibly boring. He asked questions about the main points that have arisen and reported the answers. You have to understand that the Sunday Times isn't published solely for your benefit.

You also have to understand that journalists get told their a lot of best information 'off the record'.

I realise many of you are angry that he doesn't agree with the entrenched opinions you have formed from talking to nobody and observing nothing but you need to entertain the horrible, unthinkable possibility that he is right and you are wrong.
If you've read my posts, you will realise that I HAVE entertained the possibility that he is right and I am wrong. In fact, my posts today have ALL been based on the starting assumption that he is right and I am wrong, because I have made the starting assumption that he has asked the doping questions in his 10 weeks at Sky, and been given satisfactory answers that might change my opinion, if only I had the chance to hear them.

But that's my problem. Not that I don't agree with those arguments because I don't know whether I do or not, because I don't have the chance to hear them. Many people asking questions. David Walsh in a better position than any to answer them. David Walsh not answering any of them. That is my problem with David Walsh in July 2013. David Walsh did not need to be embedded at Team Sky to provide the type of sports journalism you discuss. By being at Team Sky and producing that type of sports journalism, a team which has claimed to be transparent and come under fire for not being had a golden opportunity to silence the doubters. That opportunity does not look like it was taken, hence the doubters still have doubts.

Is that really so wrong?
 
Libertine Seguros said:
If you've read my posts, you will realise that I HAVE entertained the possibility that he is right and I am wrong. In fact, my posts today have ALL been based on the starting assumption that he is right and I am wrong, because I have made the starting assumption that he has asked the doping questions in his 10 weeks at Sky, and been given satisfactory answers that might change my opinion, if only I had the chance to hear them.

But that's my problem. Not that I don't agree with those arguments because I don't know whether I do or not, because I don't have the chance to hear them. Many people asking questions. David Walsh in a better position than any to answer them. David Walsh not answering any of them. That is my problem with David Walsh in July 2013. David Walsh did not need to be embedded at Team Sky to provide the type of sports journalism you discuss. By being at Team Sky and producing that type of sports journalism, a team which has claimed to be transparent and come under fire for not being had a golden opportunity to silence the doubters. That opportunity does not look like it was taken, hence the doubters still have doubts.

Is that really so wrong?
OK. What questions should he have asked that he didn't (or a least didn't write about)?

What did he not do that you think he should have done?
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Parker said:
OK. What questions should he have asked that he didn't (or a least didn't write about)?

What did he not do that you think he should have done?
I would have like to read a lot more about Kerrison's training methods.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Race Radio said:
Again, I suggest watching the video.
Sorry, not trying to score a "win" here. Just the physicist in me trying to figure out the facts. Using the same weather site, I can confirm that Bedoin, Sault, and Malaucene were all experiencing N to NW winds at 20 km/hr the time of the race.

They nicely bracket Mont Ventoux and as such I have to conclude that Ventoux was also experiencing N-NW winds at that time. That makes for crosswinds on the lower slopes, and headwinds on the upper slopes.

Given the measured wind data, there's no possible way of reconciling that with a tailwind during the race. It would have required some very abnormal physical phenomena. So the choice is to accept that the winds on Ventoux are consistent with surrounding weather stations and the video was misleading, or that the winds on the roads of Ventoux were in exact contradiction of the prevailing winds at that time.

The physicist in me says that the measured data beats human perception 10 times out of 10. They riders raced in a crosswind/headwind that day.

John Swanson
 
Race Radio said:
I would have like to read a lot more about Kerrison's training methods.
Sure. So would other teams. However, I doubt he spent a year in a camper van gathering data to give it away for free. That's his intellectual property.
I'm sure lots of people would like to see the New England Patriots' playbook, but they're not going to - for good reason.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS