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

Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 17, 2012
3,278
0
0
pmcg76 said:
Has anyone else on here been struggling to explain to their non-cycling friends why Armstrong was so much worse than other dopers.

One example, the Simeoni chase-down. Now every cycling fan knows why what Armstrong did went against the unwritten rules of the sport and was an incredible piece of nastiness and vindictiveness but try explaining that to those who don't understand cycling in a few sentences......it's not easy.

Or why the Vrijmen report didn't really clear Armstrong of doping!!

What we take for granted is not easily explained to the general public as they know so little about cycling. The general public think Armstrong is being treated unfairly because he is the first athlete to be convicted of doping without a positive test FFS.

I agree that Oprah is about getting the general public onside which has always been Armstrong's ruse. Get the masses on your side and you will be in a strong position.
It's all about rebuilding his persona in the eyes of the US public, to make him a marketable character again. He'll have squirreled away as much of his cash as possible to avoid it being claimed by the plethora of law suits any admittance will bring. The narrative will run about what a trememndously talented natural athlete he was, but having survived cancer and realising you only live once he arrived on a drug-riddled European tour where he had to dope to compete. Since everyone was doping he was still the best and deserves his wins. The bullying and intimidation will be glossed over and instead his charity legacy will be stressed. It will be stage managed, he'll know beforehand the questions he will be asked and will have rehearsed the answers.

It will be all about the good ol' boy from Texas who was corrupted by nasty cheating foreigners. A bit like Chris Brown the establishment will forgive him and encourage the public to do the same so everyone can start making money from him again.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,177
0
0
pmcg76 said:
Has anyone else on here been struggling to explain to their non-cycling friends why Armstrong was so much worse than other dopers.

One example, the Simeoni chase-down. Now every cycling fan knows why what Armstrong did went against the unwritten rules of the sport and was an incredible piece of nastiness and vindictiveness but try explaining that to those who don't understand cycling in a few sentences......it's not easy.

Or why the Vrijmen report didn't really clear Armstrong of doping!!

What we take for granted is not easily explained to the general public as they know so little about cycling. The general public think Armstrong is being treated unfairly because he is the first athlete to be convicted of doping without a positive test FFS.

I agree that Oprah is about getting the general public onside which has always been Armstrong's ruse. Get the masses on your side and you will be in a strong position.
Not just non-cycling friends, I know some cyclists who think that Armstrong wasn't really any worse than any of the others - level playing field and all that and that is from people who have raced at a reasonable amateur level. So imagine how easy non cycling people are to convince. Not everyone (even cyclists and fans) look into things in anywhere near as much detail as members of the clinic - analysing all the interviews, incidents over the years etc.
 
I don't come out and say Sky are clean, just that we can't know for certain either way andit depends on your opinion and analysis of the facts*which camp you fall into.

martinvickers said:
I think you might be being overly kind there.
So what you are saying is that -absolutely no " analysis of the facts" could possible lead anyone to come to the conclusion that cyclists might dope at the tour de France.

And we very much can "know for certain" that they dont dope. They are British afterall not Algerians like makhloufi.
 
Jul 17, 2012
3,278
0
0
The Hitch said:
So what you are saying is that -absolutely no " analysis of the facts" could possible lead anyone to come to the conclusion that cyclists might dope at the tour de France.

And we very much can "know for certain" that they dont dope. They are British afterall not Algerians like makhloufi.
Just to check, you know MV is Irish, right? Wrong person to play the Brit card to
 
Jul 17, 2012
1,288
0
0
pmcg76 said:
Has anyone else on here been struggling to explain to their non-cycling friends why Armstrong was so much worse than other dopers.
I think you'd be better off focusing on his treatment of Emma O'Reilly. If knowledge of this doesn't convince someone that Armstrong is a wrong 'un, then nothing will.

Trying to convince someone that his doping was worse/more serious than AN Other doper is nigh on impossible, as such an assessment cannot be entirely objective in nature, given the flagrant use of EPO prior to the introduction of Hct tests and EPO tests.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
pmcg76 said:
Has anyone else on here been struggling to explain to their non-cycling friends why Armstrong was so much worse than other dopers.

One example, the Simeoni chase-down. Now every cycling fan knows why what Armstrong did went against the unwritten rules of the sport and was an incredible piece of nastiness and vindictiveness but try explaining that to those who don't understand cycling in a few sentences......it's not easy.

Or why the Vrijmen report didn't really clear Armstrong of doping!!

What we take for granted is not easily explained to the general public as they know so little about cycling. The general public think Armstrong is being treated unfairly because he is the first athlete to be convicted of doping without a positive test FFS.

I agree that Oprah is about getting the general public onside which has always been Armstrong's ruse. Get the masses on your side and you will be in a strong position.
I have found the opposite.
One friend said it best when he said he could not get over what a bully Armstrong was.

I rarely bring up LA but obviously I would get asked for my opinion. To the non cycling friends I would not bring up cycling specific incidences. They assume everyone was doing it, but when you point out that LA was spending over a million bucks for doping while paying some of his teammates peanuts, or how he rang up LeMond and got all his buddies to ring LeMond and shut him down. That shows the type of personality he is.
 
Oct 15, 2012
3,064
0
0
SundayRider said:
Not just non-cycling friends, I know some cyclists who think that Armstrong wasn't really any worse than any of the others - level playing field and all that and that is from people who have raced at a reasonable amateur level. So imagine how easy non cycling people are to convince. Not everyone (even cyclists and fans) look into things in anywhere near as much detail as members of the clinic - analysing all the interviews, incidents over the years etc.
It's easy enough.

Lance doped. So did lots of others - Lance, is therefore, Barry Bonds.

Except he's also the Black Sox. He didn't just cheat at the sport. He corrupted it. And he went all Don Corleone on anybody in the peleton who was honest.

That is what sets him apart.
 
Oct 15, 2012
3,064
0
0
The Hitch said:
So what you are saying is that -absolutely no " analysis of the facts" could possible lead anyone to come to the conclusion that cyclists might dope at the tour de France.
If that was what I was saying, that's what i would have written. I didn't.

And we very much can "know for certain" that they dont dope. They are British afterall not Algerians like makhloufi.
You do know i'm Irish, yeah? - you know, je suis irlandais, ich bin irische, etc

funny how you seem to dislike Brits even when, you know, they aren't there...
 
Jul 17, 2012
1,288
0
0
martinvickers said:
It's easy enough.

Lance doped. So did lots of others - Lance, is therefore, Barry Bonds.

Except he's also the Black Sox. He didn't just cheat at the sport. He corrupted it. And he went all Don Corleone on anybody in the peleton who was honest.

That is what sets him apart.
I'm not sure the bold bit is completely true, as cycling was clearly corrupt before 1999. Lance may have killed off a genuine attempt by the sport to redeem itself post-Festina, but I think the natural order of things would soon have re-emerged, Lance or no Lance. The carnage of the pre-EPO testing era seems to kick off and fuel itself quite happily without him. Funds were also misuded and unfortunate test results made to "go away" during this pre Lance era.

What sets Lance apart is his treatment of people, which didn't really affect the sport in a lot of cases. For example, if he'd just sued Emma O'Reilly instead of launching his smear campaign then that would be one major offence off his rap-sheet, but cycling would have been unaffected on the grand scale of things. Similarly, Omerta could have been enforced on Simeoni, without the chasing down and throat-cutting gesture (or was it spitting?) so although the "Simeoni Incident" is one of the key events that sets Lance apart from others, it actually had little impact on cycling itself.
 
Oct 15, 2012
3,064
0
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
I'm not sure the bold bit is completely true, as cycling was clearly corrupt before 1999. Lance may have killed off a genuine attempt by the sport to redeem itself post-Festina, but I think the natural order of things would soon have re-emerged, Lance or no Lance. The carnage of the pre-EPO testing era seems to kick off and fuel itself quite happily without him. Funds were also misuded and unfortunate test results made to "go away" during this pre Lance era.

What sets Lance apart is his treatment of people, which didn't really affect the sport in a lot of cases. For example, if he'd just sued Emma O'Reilly instead of launching his smear campaign then that would be one major offence off his rap-sheet, but cycling would have been unaffected on the grand scale of things. Similarly, Omerta could have been enforced on Simeoni, without the chasing down and throat-cutting gesture (or was it spitting?) so although the "Simeoni Incident" is one of the key events that sets Lance apart from others, it actually had little impact on cycling itself.
One could spend a happy, and bizarrely Godwinish hour, on how the German Reich 33-45 was in fact the inevitable outworking of existing colonial landgrab european politics colliding with pan european post imperial dynamics.

Or in other words, the monstrous is usually borne of the mundane.
 
Jul 17, 2012
1,288
0
0
martinvickers said:
One could spend a happy, and bizarrely Godwinish hour, on how the German Reich 33-45 was in fact the inevitable outworking of existing colonial landgrab european politics colliding with pan european post imperial dynamics.

Or in other words, the monstrous is usually borne of the mundane.
I'll take your word for that. You have mistaken me for a philosopher. I think I am more like a Philistine. :D

If I had a spare hour, I'd spend it on the turbo, fantasising about "dishing it out" his season. :D
 
Mar 6, 2009
3,488
1
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
I think you'd be better off focusing on his treatment of Emma O'Reilly. If knowledge of this doesn't convince someone that Armstrong is a wrong 'un, then nothing will.

Trying to convince someone that his doping was worse/more serious than AN Other doper is nigh on impossible, as such an assessment cannot be entirely objective in nature, given the flagrant use of EPO prior to the introduction of Hct tests and EPO tests.
Apologies, I meant in the context of the bullying, the cosy relationship with the UCI and all the other stuff, not just the doping.
 
Mar 6, 2009
3,488
1
0
Maybe I have sent this thread off-topic but to bring it back on topic, I agree with others who have pointed out that the questions that Walsh asked in the Chicago paper have nothing to do with SKY . But then when you look at who the OP is, its not exactly going to be logical.
 
Jul 17, 2012
1,288
0
0
pmcg76 said:
Apologies, I meant in the context of the bullying, the cosy relationship with the UCI and all the other stuff, not just the doping.
Based on reported activities of the high profile sport governing bodies ie FIFA, UEFA, IOC etc, cosiness, backhanders etc are probably what folk would expect from the UCI. I doubt very much that Lance is the only cyclist to have exploited their connections with governing bodies.

I heard a great saying once: "Indurain was protected by the government but Merckx was protected by the King." It's a murky old world at the top level of sports administration, and doubtless was before we'd heard of Lance.

There were also strong rumours that the UCI's ban on Obree's bike in 1994 was at the behest of Pinarello, who by a massive coincidence provided bikes to Mig for his assault on the Hour record, at a time when Obree was active in that discipline as well.

One can see why Pinarello wouldn't want to be made to look like mugs in terms of bike design by a guy in his shed in Scotland. It was happy coincidence no doubt that the UCI changed the regulations so that bikes for the Hour record had to be production bikes, as Pinarello had the scale and distribution network to make "The Shark" (Mig's track bike) available to the masses. I guess the $1,000,000 price tag explains why only 6 were ever made.
 
Oct 15, 2012
3,064
0
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
Based on reported activities of the high profile sport governing bodies ie FIFA, UEFA, IOC etc, cosiness, backhanders etc are probably what folk would expect from the UCI. I doubt very much that Lance is the only cyclist to have exploited their connections with governing bodies.

I heard a great saying once: "Indurain was protected by the government but Merckx was protected by the King." It's a murky old world at the top level of sports administration, and doubtless was before we'd heard of Lance.

There were also strong rumours that the UCI's ban on Obree's bike in 1994 was at the behest of Pinarello, who by a massive coincidence provided bikes to Mig for his assault on the Hour record, at a time when Obree was active in that discipline as well.

One can see why Pinarello wouldn't want to be made to look like mugs in terms of bike design by a guy in his shed in Scotland. It was happy coincidence no doubt that the UCI changed the regulations so that bikes for the Hour record had to be production bikes, as Pinarello had the scale and distribution network to make "The Shark" (Mig's track bike) available to the masses. I guess the $1,000,000 price tag explains why only 6 were ever made.
And of course, the final irony is that British Cycling now use the same "for sale but not really" tactic on everybody else...
 
Mar 6, 2009
3,488
1
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
Based on reported activities of the high profile sport governing bodies ie FIFA, UEFA, IOC etc, cosiness, backhanders etc are probably what folk would expect from the UCI. I doubt very much that Lance is the only cyclist to have exploited their connections with governing bodies.

I heard a great saying once: "Indurain was protected by the government but Merckx was protected by the King." It's a murky old world at the top level of sports administration, and doubtless was before we'd heard of Lance.

There were also strong rumours that the UCI's ban on Obree's bike in 1994 was at the behest of Pinarello, who by a massive coincidence provided bikes to Mig for his assault on the Hour record, at a time when Obree was active in that discipline as well.

One can see why Pinarello wouldn't want to be made to look like mugs in terms of bike design by a guy in his shed in Scotland. It was happy coincidence no doubt that the UCI changed the regulations so that bikes for the Hour record had to be production bikes, as Pinarello had the scale and distribution network to make "The Shark" (Mig's track bike) available to the masses. I guess the $1,000,000 price tag explains why only 6 were ever made.
Ah, so we now enter the world of conjecture that you so despise when it is being directed in Wiggin's and SKY direction.
 
Oct 21, 2012
816
0
0
JV1973 said:
I'd say Walsh just isn't as infinitely intelligent as such geniuses like Blackfat, Snipehurl, and IwanttobejustlikeWiggo..... Just a guess.... Oh dear, I need to go back to my evil PR den now. CIAO!
That seems really infantile for someone of your reported intelligence and stature, JV. Banter etc. is expected from people like thehog and DearWiggo when the discussion goes a bit flat, but I'm surprised to see it coming from you.
 
Jul 17, 2012
1,288
0
0
pmcg76 said:
Ah, so we now enter the world of conjecture that you so despise when it is being directed in Wiggin's and SKY direction.
I like conjecture as much as most. Some I agree with. Some I don't. There's a lot of conjecture at the (in my view) less plausible end of the scale relating to Wiggo, hence I tend to comment on it. My basic point is that the UCI and cycling were dodgy long before Lance arrived on the scene.

So what do you think is the most likely reason for the UCI's rule change in 1994?

There were also rumours at the time that after Obree went "off message" following his very brief pro career in 1993 that the UCI were after him, as it was not good to have riders talking about doping. I'm not sure whether this portrays the UCI in a better or worse light than my "Pinarello Theory".
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS