Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Libertine Seguros]

The answers are more important than the questions. Operating under the assumption that everything published is honest, then the answers to whatever questions were asked convinced David Walsh that Team Sky are clean. I want to know what information was presented to Walsh that convinced him. The questions that yielded the answers containing that information cease to be relevant, because I'm operating under the assumption that he asked enough relevant questions to come to his conclusion after careful consideration of the information presented, like the responsible journalist he has the reputation for being. I am just doubtful that the meagre amount of doping-related discussion that made it past the editing stage contains the full story on that one. Certainly given how much talk there was in the media about some of those performances I can't believe that that was all of the discussion of the subject that came up over ten weeks.

Which is kind of a cop-out answer, because I didn't actually specify any questions he should have asked, but as I'm operating under the assumption that Walsh knows what he's doing and has come to his conclusion honestly, I feel that what's important is to know what information caused this esteemed and for the most part well-trusted journalist to believe something that I, on the information I have, can't.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

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.

They could just grab a videocamera, I hear Belichick's good with one of those.

 

[martinvickers]

They could just grab a videocamera, I hear Belichick's good with one of those.

Several did. Richard Moore has some story about how the GB track team in London found the NZ team videoing them, I think. Apropos of nothing.

 

[Race Radio]

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

Well that directly contradicts this picture that has been posted again, and again, and again......

If you watch the long video of the entire climb is is pretty clear that the wind direction described in the picture is very valid. Hard to miss the flag directions.....which would mean that 80% of the climb had a tailwind

I suggest you battle it out with the folks who have posted the picture over and over in the misguided idea that it shows a headwind, when it actually shows a tailwind for 80% of the climb......as the picture is only the last 25% of the climb

 

[Parker]

The answers are more important than the questions. Operating under the assumption that everything published is honest, then the answers to whatever questions were asked convinced David Walsh that Team Sky are clean. I want to know what information was presented to Walsh that convinced him. The questions that yielded the answers containing that information cease to be relevant, because I'm operating under the assumption that he asked enough relevant questions to come to his conclusion after careful consideration of the information presented, like the responsible journalist he has the reputation for being. I am just doubtful that the meagre amount of doping-related discussion that made it past the editing stage contains the full story on that one. Certainly given how much talk there was in the media about some of those performances I can't believe that that was all of the discussion of the subject that came up over ten weeks.

Which is kind of a cop-out answer, because I didn't actually specify any questions he should have asked, but as I'm operating under the assumption that Walsh knows what he's doing and has come to his conclusion honestly, I feel that what's important is to know what information caused this esteemed and for the most part well-trusted journalist to believe something that I, on the information I have, can't.

I think the problem is that you want a depth of detail that is not really appropriate for a Sunday newspaper. His final Tour article saying why he believed in Sky was what? 3000 words maybe - I didn't count. It's going to be broad strokes. In the space he's given over the weeks he can't relate his full experience. It is only going to be the edited highlights. (As a parallel, the media didn't report every single thing Bradley Manning leaked - just the more interesting bits).

There wouldn't have been a lightbulb moment or a killer response where he realised they were clean - just an overall impression. Kind of like a parent realising their son is gay

What you are looking for is a book. Walsh wrote a book about Armstrong, not a report. Coyle wrote a book about Hamilton, not a report. Matt Rendell wrote a book about Pantani, not a report. But a book about something not happening isn't terribly compelling.

 

[red_flanders]

Do we have to hate LeMond too? I hope not

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond-there-can-be-spectacular-performances-without-doping

Even when he is critical, calling on them to release their power figures, he is supportive

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013...or-froome-others-to-release-power-data_295268

I'm struggling a bit to find the point here. What Lemond says (as usual) makes sense except where it's not explained why he likes what he's seeing about Froome and Sky (to my satisfaction anyway).

"We" don't "have to" "hate" anyone, and I'm not sure anyone is. I see a lot of people asking very valid and pointed questions about why we should buy these particular suspicious performances (to put it mildly) and why others were so in question.

And I think you're totally off the rails on the tailwind thing. Clearly a hard crosswind on the top where Froome turned on the jets. It's a red herring anyway. That performance was completely over the top and all too reminiscent of Armstrong 2000.

 

[red_flanders]

I think the problem is that you want a depth of detail that is not really appropriate for a Sunday newspaper. His final Tour article saying why he believed in Sky was what? 3000 words maybe - I didn't count. It's going to be broad strokes. In the space he's given over the weeks he can't relate his full experience. It is only going to be the edited highlights. (As a parallel, the media didn't report every single thing Bradley Manning leaked - just the more interesting bits).

There wouldn't have been a lightbulb moment or a killer response where he realised they were clean - just an overall impression. Kind of like a parent realising their son is gay

What you are looking for is a book. Walsh wrote a book about Armstrong, not a report. Coyle wrote a book about Hamilton, not a report. Matt Rendell wrote a book about Pantani, not a report. But a book about something not happening isn't terribly compelling.

I think it's pretty simple here. He doggedly pursued Armstrong. Clearly there was a ton to pursue. After doing what he did WRT Armstrong, for him to say he thinks a team is clean requires some explanation. The explanations he's given have been trite and irrelevant.

The questions about how he got there seem completely obvious and normal given his history with the sport. He is not just some reporter without context.

 

[Race Radio]

And I think you're totally off the rails on the tailwind thing. Clearly a hard crosswind on the top .

If you knew the mountain, or checked a map, you would understand that a hard crosswind on top means 80% of the climb has a tailwind.

the first 15.5km from Bedoin to Chalet Reynard would have a tailwind, as would most of the 2km past Chalet Reynard

80% of the climb with a tailwind.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I think the problem is that you want a depth of detail that is not really appropriate for a Sunday newspaper. His final Tour article saying why he believed in Sky was what? 3000 words maybe - I didn't count. It's going to be broad strokes. In the space he's given over the weeks he can't relate his full experience. It is only going to be the edited highlights. (As a parallel, the media didn't report every single thing Bradley Manning leaked - just the more interesting bits).

There wouldn't have been a lightbulb moment or a killer response where he realised they were clean - just an overall impression. Kind of like a parent realising their son is gay

What you are looking for is a book. Walsh wrote a book about Armstrong, not a report. Coyle wrote a book about Hamilton, not a report. Matt Rendell wrote a book about Pantani, not a report. But a book about something not happening isn't terribly compelling.

Problem is, then we just go round in circles more than the Sky megathread, as Walsh's reasons for believing never get elaborated on, and we're back where we were before he was embedded at the team, and not a great deal has been achieved, as little of what was actually published from Walsh's time with the team really required the level of embedding that he had.

But as I am not convinced by Team Sky, I can't in all honesty state what level of information it would take for me to be convinced, simply because I don't know. I'm also aware that personal bias will affect this too. However, JV was able to set the record comparatively straight on Íñigo San Millán in a few sentences, because vital information about his past - such as being fired from teams for refusing to go along with doping practices - had been withheld from us, so when this was provided many tunes were changed (with hrotha pointing out what I've been saying today, that it isn't fair for those with inside knowledge to complain about others judging without knowing the full facts, when some of those facts have not been disclosed to us).

 

[Race Radio]

"We" don't "have to" "hate" anyone, and I'm not sure anyone is. I see a lot of people asking very valid and pointed questions about why we should buy these particular suspicious performances (to put it mildly) and why others were so in question.

There is clearly a lot of hate here directed at those who do not share their level of skepticism. It makes it close to impossible to discuss the valid and pointed questions

 

[thehog]

If you knew the mountain, or checked a map, you would understand that a hard crosswind on top means 80% of the climb has a tailwind.

Is that similar Armstrong settlement with Walsh/Times you posted on here?

Now you're an expert in cross winds on volcanic mountains?

Seriously? Dare we ask for a link on such tripe?

Of course none of us Internet hacks know what the difference between clean cyclij game dirty cycling is. You have to be on the inside to know. Cyclists never lie...

 

[Race Radio]

Is that similar Armstrong settlement with Walsh/Times you posted on here?

Now you're an expert in cross winds on volcanic mountains?

Seriously? Dare we ask for a link on such tripe?

Of course none of us Internet hacks know what the difference between clean cyclij game dirty cycling is. You have to be on the inside to know. Cyclists never lie...

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[IndianCyclist]

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.

No, that would be Sky's intellectual property. He would have signed a non disclosure agreement about certain areas that he could see and ask questions but not report. Its standard procedure for data protection

 

[Parker]

I think it's pretty simple here. He doggedly pursued Armstrong. Clearly there was a ton to pursue. After doing what he did WRT Armstrong, for him to say he thinks a team is clean requires some explanation. The explanations he's given have been trite and irrelevant.

The questions about how he got there seem completely obvious and normal given his history with the sport. He is not just some reporter without context.

His explanation is he's a sports reporter. He's reporting sport - same as he's done for many, many years. If you've built him up to be some great investigator who will deliver a definitive verdict on Sky's virtuousness, then that's your doing not his.

I used to think the same as you, but then I read articles he wrote on other sports. He's a sports reporter. He is neither a investigator nor a cheerleader. He writes the story he feels will interest his readers.

Why, for example, is Antoine Vayer not subjected to the same scrutiny? His magazine was a monument to bad science, but his 'not normal' assessments are taken as read without challenge. Much of the internet is guilty of judging evidence and accounts based not on their own merits but whether they support preformed opinions.

Ultimately, none of you really know anything much about Sky (or any other team). You observe through proxies and from afar. You have no firm basis to make judgements one way or another. So to dismiss or smear Walsh or whoever because they do not fit the agenda is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

No, that would be Sky's intellectual property. He would have signed a non disclosure agreement about certain areas that he could see and ask questions but not report. Its standard procedure for data protection

Even if he had the freedom to report it outside of that, Sky wouldn't want him to report it as they clearly have an advantage over the rest of the péloton in one respect or another, and allowing Walsh to write about all their methods might show the other teams where they are doing something different and cause Sky to lose their competitive advantage. That was kind of the post's point.

 

[Parker]

No, that would be Sky's intellectual property. He would have signed a non disclosure agreement about certain areas that he could see and ask questions but not report. Its standard procedure for data protection

It depends on employment contracts. The actual data - yes that's probably Sky's. But the knowledge he's built up over many years, including at Sky - that's his own expertise. (Intellectual Property may not have been the best may to express it - although it does technically cover it).

 

[thehog]

Thanks for proving my point.

Thanks for proving mine

 

[Parker]

Problem is, then we just go round in circles more than the Sky megathread, as Walsh's reasons for believing never get elaborated on, and we're back where we were before he was embedded at the team, and not a great deal has been achieved, as little of what was actually published from Walsh's time with the team really required the level of embedding that he had.

But as I am not convinced by Team Sky, I can't in all honesty state what level of information it would take for me to be convinced, simply because I don't know. I'm also aware that personal bias will affect this too. However, JV was able to set the record comparatively straight on Íñigo San Millán in a few sentences, because vital information about his past - such as being fired from teams for refusing to go along with doping practices - had been withheld from us, so when this was provided many tunes were changed (with hrotha pointing out what I've been saying today, that it isn't fair for those with inside knowledge to complain about others judging without knowing the full facts, when some of those facts have not been disclosed to us).

It's very simple. Walsh is just a sports reporter. He is not a WADA investigator. His job is to report sport. He writes for the Sunday Times readership, not your personal whims.

He wrote that he thinks that Sky are clean because that's the impression he got. If he had doubts he wouldn't have written that. If he had severe doubts, he would probably write another book. Take or leave it.

You seem to expect some thesis from him to justify why his assessment is different than yours, when yours is based on very little itself. Why din't he? You're just a nobody on the internet. You probably don't even buy the Sunday Times.

It all goes back my intial point - you seem to be confusing sports reporting with a judicial inquiry

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Well that directly contradicts this picture that has been posted again, and again, and again......

<snip>

If you watch the long video of the entire climb is is pretty clear that the wind direction described in the picture is very valid. Hard to miss the flag directions.....which would mean that 80% of the climb had a tailwind

I suggest you battle it out with the folks who have posted the picture over and over in the misguided idea that it shows a headwind, when it actually shows a tailwind for 80% of the climb......as the picture is only the last 25% of the climb

No, I'm sorry, with all due respect the instrumentation from three independent weather stations (surrounding the course in question) say that the wind was coming from somewhere between north and northwest.

This is a fact that has to be dealt with, no matter how much it might interfere with our understanding of things.

John Swanson

 

[Race Radio]

No, I'm sorry, with all due respect the instrumentation from three independent weather stations (surrounding the course in question) say that the wind was coming from somewhere between north and northwest.

This is a fact that has to be dealt with, no matter how much it might interfere with our understanding of things.

John Swanson

So the video that shows the cross wind on top, which means a tailwind for most of the climb, is lying?

Where are those weather stations located?

 

[thehog]

So the video that shows the cross wind on top, which means a tailwind for most of the climb, is lying?

Where are those weather stations located?

You can see the wind?

Impressive.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Drawing lines on a photo does not change the video. It is clear that for 15 km prior to Chalet Reynard to several km after there is a tailwind, or a crosswind sheltered by RV's. The last 3km or so has a head, side, and tailwind as it is much more expose. Even the lines you draw on your picture support this as the climb from Bedoin would have solid tailwind.

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

Instead of bickering over one climb, perhaps you should check out veloclinics work, which compares Froome's performances with the 2002-2007 GT podium finisher baseline. Every ascent tells the same story, so did Froome have a tail wind on every finishing climb or what?

http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/56107398914/2013-tour-de-france-overall-analysis

 

[Libertine Seguros]

It's very simple. Walsh is just a sports reporter. He is not a WADA investigator. His job is to report sport. He writes for the Sunday Times readership, not your personal whims.

He wrote that he thinks that Sky are clean because that's the impression he got. If he had doubts he wouldn't have written that. If he had severe doubts, he would probably write another book. Take or leave it.

You seem to expect some thesis from him to justify why his assessment is different than yours, when yours is based on very little itself. Why din't he? You're just a nobody on the internet. You probably don't even buy the Sunday Times.

It all goes back my intial point - you seem to be confusing sports reporting with a judicial inquiry

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” ― George Orwell.

Is Kimmage doing a judicial enquiry? No, he's being an investigative journalist. I don't expect a thesis, and I don't expect a judicial enquiry. Perhaps I expect too much of him, but I expect a level of investigative journalism where the reasoning behind his decision is clarified. Kimmage is perhaps too aggressive to the point of being crass with his questioning, but the point stands: journalism isn't just trite reporting of what happened and "what a great day for Team Sky". David Walsh doesn't have to alienate people and be aggressive like Paul Kimmage, but he's a guy of too much repute for some of the bland nothingness that came out of his social media during the Tour.

For one thing, because accusations of Sky doping were common during the Tour, not just from "nobodies on the internet" (glad to know my reputation precedes me), but from other media sources. Walsh is a man with the reputation, and in the position, to make a statement to counteract that. Did he do that? Only inasmuch as we know Walsh felt they were clean. We don't know how or why. He hasn't given us a reason to believe him. Maybe he doesn't feel the need to, but that sells Sky short, if they are clean.

 

[thehog]

Instead of bickering over one climb, perhaps you should check out veloclinics work, which compares Froome's performances with the 2002-2007 GT podium finisher baseline. Every ascent tells the same story, so did Froome have a tail wind on every finishing climb or what?

http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/56107398914/2013-tour-de-france-overall-analysis

Correct. Froome rode faster than Armstrong on Ax3, did he not?

And Porte went full *** as well.

Tailwind that day?

I'm assume so...

 

[sittingbison]

I'll say this once only:

Stop with the wind direction discussion.

It's been done to death a month ago on several Froome thread's, and ended with taxus4a getting a weeks ban for continuing after my warning's at the time. The only reason I'm not banning race radio and others is because the warning was a month ago on another thread. However many people are aware of it.

It's is also completely off topic on this thread.

The next mention is out of here

Cheers
Bison