Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[thehog]

This, sadly, by 100. Look at this thread; Obvious trolling relying on mod inaction, hoping, it seems to start rows, presumably to have others banned. Constructive.

But I repeat, the Shaw quote is a well known saying, not a personal attack, however much certain posters want it to be.. It's so obvious it beggers belief it could be interpreted otherwise, except by malicious intent.

I don't understand you.

You start your stuff. I withdraw from the thread entirely.

And somehow I'm a pig trolling.

You're so odd at times.

And clearly seeing things they don't exist.

Sorry.

 

[martinvickers]

Good.

So out with it. Walsh? I've asked 3 times.

Do you have an opinion?

Mr. Vickers?

I'm sorry, Hog. Maybe I wasn't clear. You're done.

You ran away from the debate you trolled back into existence when you were cornered on a blatantly hypocritical position. You don't get to dive back in at convenience. You've lost the assumption of good faith in the discussion.

Your only task now is not to troll any more, and desist from personal attacks.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

He just likes to bait. That's Vicksers mission.

Very counter productive. And very angry.

But it is what it is.

But he constantly gets stuff wrong and has to be corrected.

Scots and the English language. Classic Vickers.

Mouth first, brain second.

This coming from you is rich.

But - so it isn't seen as a deliberate attempt to dismiss another poster as lying then let me allow you the opportunity to back it up, or withdraw it.

(Oh and Hog, yes, I can link yours)

 

[martinvickers]

This coming from you is rich.

But - so it isn't seen as a deliberate attempt to dismiss another poster as lying then let me allow you the opportunity to back it up, or withdraw it.

(Oh and Hog, yes, I can link yours)

Doc. I mistakenly implied Sam Johnston was a Scot, mixing him up in my head with his biographer, Boswell. I owned up to the error immediately. If that's the height of Hog's argument, you can understand my humour...

 

[the sceptic]

The forum in a nutshell.

Someone makes a personal remark, the other person makes a complaint.
The complaint is ignored or unseen - next time when someone gets a personal attack, they respond in kind.

Often they will regret it. But when the forum is not moderated the people who wish to discuss topics will be trolled by those who don't and eventually they stop posting.

The forum isnt moderated? I thought posts disappear and people get infractions for nothing all the time.

 

[sittingbison]

okey dokey,

I'm closing the thread for a bit while I hop in the tardis. This attack from several sides has got completely out of hand. I'll reopen in a little while, the landscape will probably look considerably different.

While the thread is being cleaned up, everyone posting for the last hour might want to stop and think about what they are writing, and contributing (or not).

cheers
bison

 

[sittingbison]

I have deleted all posts bar one dating back to ferrymans request last week. The thread restarted yesterday with a clear bait, some responded, it degenerated quickly into off topic personal attacks, or discussions about Kimmage (also OT).

I have sent some infractions to various posters explaining the situation in full.

Please keep it on topic, and refrain from directing your comments at another poster. And to be honest, until Walsh posts more Sky tweets or writes more Sky articles, I don't think there is much more to be said that has not been discussed already.

Thread re-opened.

 

[Big Doopie]

... and it's being done by people who don't seem to have the talent level of the champions of the previous decade.

red Flanders, I enjoy reading your posts. And you are certainly not alone in making the above comment... However, what exactly is the "talent level of the previous decade"? I am one who believes that the natural hierarchy has been completely turned on its head. I don't know how you would know who was naturally talented? Other than simple personal preference (something we all do).

I am pretty sure that Dan Martin is riding clean. He won LBL and a mountain stage in the Tour -- two things arguably impossible to do in the epo-fueled 90s and the blood bag 00s. He has also made comments about it being possible to compete year round as they used to back before o2 vector doping. However, is the fact that he has not been able to put 3 weeks together for a GC podium because of his lack of natural ability or because others are still getting their -albeit smaller - refills on the rest days?

That is what is so maddening about the 02 vector doping. Because you cannot be sure of anything. And even if things got really clean, we wouldn't immediately know it, because some riders would drop out of contention (to which we would all say "ah no drugs!") and others would suddenly start making surprising results (to which we would all scream: "What is he on now?").

20+ years of o2 vector doping has poisoned the well for the fan.

 

[red_flanders]

red Flanders, I enjoy reading your posts. And you are certainly not alone in making the above comment... However, what exactly is the "talent level of the previous decade"? I am one who believes that the natural hierarchy has been completely turned on its head. I don't know how you would know who was naturally talented? Other than simple personal preference (something we all do).

I am pretty sure that Dan Martin is riding clean. He won LBL and a mountain stage in the Tour -- two things arguably impossible to do in the epo-fueled 90s and the blood bag 00s. He has also made comments about it being possible to compete year round as they used to back before o2 vector doping. However, is the fact that he has not been able to put 3 weeks together for a GC podium because of his lack of natural ability or because others are still getting their -albeit smaller - refills on the rest days?

That is what is so maddening about the 02 vector doping. Because you cannot be sure of anything. And even if things got really clean, we wouldn't immediately know it, because some riders would drop out of contention (to which we would all say "ah no drugs!") and others would suddenly start making surprising results (to which we would all scream: "What is he on now?").

20+ years of o2 vector doping has poisoned the well for the fan.

Sorry, meant to say "decades". I'm going back a bit before o2 vector doping and thinking about guys who were not involved in that, but you make good points.

I would also be pretty surprised if Dan Martin weren't clean. Looks clean to me.

 

[Benotti69]

red Flanders, I enjoy reading your posts. And you are certainly not alone in making the above comment... However, what exactly is the "talent level of the previous decade"? I am one who believes that the natural hierarchy has been completely turned on its head. I don't know how you would know who was naturally talented? Other than simple personal preference (something we all do).

I am pretty sure that Dan Martin is riding clean. He won LBL and a mountain stage in the Tour -- two things arguably impossible to do in the epo-fueled 90s and the blood bag 00s. He has also made comments about it being possible to compete year round as they used to back before o2 vector doping. However, is the fact that he has not been able to put 3 weeks together for a GC podium because of his lack of natural ability or because others are still getting their -albeit smaller - refills on the rest days?

That is what is so maddening about the 02 vector doping. Because you cannot be sure of anything. And even if things got really clean, we wouldn't immediately know it, because some riders would drop out of contention (to which we would all say "ah no drugs!") and others would suddenly start making surprising results (to which we would all scream: "What is he on now?").

20+ years of o2 vector doping has poisoned the well for the fan.

What is so maddening is that the UCI dont have a robust anti doping testing regime so at the moment we cant look at a rider and say yep his progression has been what a fan could hope for so we can be pleased to see his win in a positive light.

Nope what we can say is that even in 2013 the anti doping tests are a joke and it takes a moron to get caught so why believe anyone won clean.

 

[coinneach]

What is so maddening is that the UCI dont have a robust anti doping testing regime so at the moment we cant look at a rider and say yep his progression has been what a fan could hope for so we can be pleased to see his win in a positive light.

Nope what we can say is that even in 2013 the anti doping tests are a joke and it takes a moron to get caught so why believe anyone won clean.

Do you really think Landis, Hamilton & Contador etc are morons?

 

[the sceptic]

Did Walsh ever write anything in his articles about how clean athletes can now climb faster than Armstrong?

I know he wrote "because Kerrison says so" on twitter but that is pretty meaningless.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Did Walsh ever write anything in his articles about how clean athletes can now climb faster than Armstrong?

I know he wrote "because Kerrison says so" on twitter but that is pretty meaningless.

I actually cannot remember - if it is of interest to you then why not just purchase a subscription and read what he wrote?

As for his twitter - well the exchange on Kerrison ends with this tweet:
"There is no doubt LA's times will be beaten by clean athletes which is not to say we shouldn't look closely when it happens."

 

[Ferminal]

Did Walsh ever write anything in his articles about how clean athletes can now climb faster than Armstrong?

I know he wrote "because Kerrison says so" on twitter but that is pretty meaningless.

Kerrison claiming credit for Brailsford's Law?

 

[sniper]

Sorry, meant to say "decades". I'm going back a bit before o2 vector doping and thinking about guys who were not involved in that, but you make good points.

I would also be pretty surprised if Dan Martin weren't clean. Looks clean to me.

Why exactly?
What percentage of riders who finished below martin in the world tour ranking do you think is clean?

If dan is clean, mustnt we conclude pat did a fantastic job of allowing clean riders to be highly competitive? Or is all credit to jv, for spotting the talent and marginal gains?

Why wasnt dan winning anything in 2012, which jv said was a goodt year for antidoping?
was 2013 a good year as well?

did dan release any complete set of bp or power files that would allow guys like ashenden to assess him? How transparent are clean riders these days?

Why isnt he more competitive in the gts? Of course, because sky are doping, nobrainer, but if sky are doping and dan is clean, where is dans outrage?

 

[martinvickers]

Why exactly?
What percentage of riders who finished below martin in the world tour ranking do you think is clean?

If dan is clean, mustnt we conclude pat did a fantastic job of allowing clean riders to be highly competitive? Or is all credit to jv, for spotting the talent and marginal gains?

Why wasnt dan winning anything in 2012, which jv said was a goodt year for antidoping?
was 2013 a good year as well?

did dan release any complete set of bp or power files that would allow guys like ashenden to assess him? How transparent are clean riders these days?

Why isnt he more competitive in the gts? Of course, because sky are doping, nobrainer, but if sky are doping and dan is clean, where is dans outrage?

Might these questions not be better on a Dan Martin/Irish Cycling/Garmin thread than this one? Don't really see how it how this affects walsh or sky?

 

[the sceptic]

I actually cannot remember - if it is of interest to you then why not just purchase a subscription and read what he wrote?

As for his twitter - well the exchange on Kerrison ends with this tweet:
"There is no doubt LA's times will be beaten by clean athletes which is not to say we shouldn't look closely when it happens."

I was just curious. I thought the Hog made a good point when he said Walsh works from the default position that sky are clean.

If he had "looked closely" at Kerrison he would at least ask how? instead of just repeating the sky propaganda?

 

[heart_attack_man]

I was just curious. I thought the Hog made a good point when he said Walsh works from the default position that sky are clean.

If he had "looked closely" at Kerrison he would at least ask how? instead of just repeating the sky propaganda?

But they've already answered the how... Marginal gains. Handwashing. Own pillows. You know the drill.

So he doesn't need to ask the question...

Same as USPS - they're just better than everybody else. Work harder.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I was just curious. I thought the Hog made a good point when he said Walsh works from the default position that sky are clean.

TheHog made a good point? You might want to link to that.

Of course DW does not work from the default - while he has stated that he "believes" they are clean, it comes with plenty of qualifiers.
But they are ignored because you cannot make hay from that.

If he had "looked closely" at Kerrison he would at least ask how? instead of just repeating the sky propaganda?

This I don't get.

What "how" is he supposed to ask? Kerrison is on record with Walsh - you appear to want an answer, not a question.
Again, all Walshs articles are there for anyone to read.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Again, all Walshs articles are there for anyone to read.

No they are not. His great journalistic skills are behind a paywall. So, we must rely on you to give us info, snippets even, or shall we just wait for Santa and ask him that Sky - book?

Sceptic was absolutely right, the who-what-where-when-why and how questions were not asked by Walsh. Since he did that with his golden goose - the Texas bikeshopowner - the question is WHY isnt Walsh so thorough when it comes to team SKY? Or is he saving all his smelly doping stories for that Santaclaus book?

 

[Digger]

TheHog made a good point? You might want to link to that.

Of course DW does not work from the default - while he has stated that he "believes" they are clean, it comes with plenty of qualifiers.
But they are ignored because you cannot make hay from that.


This I don't get.

What "how" is he supposed to ask? Kerrison is on record with Walsh - you appear to want an answer, not a question.
Again, all Walshs articles are there for anyone to read.

Before he met Sky this year he thought they were clean.

Also what are the plenty of qualifiers?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No they are not. His great journalistic skills are behind a paywall. So, we must rely on you to give us info, snippets even, or shall we just wait for Santa and ask him that Sky - book?

Yes, they are there.
It has nothing to do with me that you will not subscribe.

Sceptic was absolutely right, the who-what-where-when-why and how questions were not asked by Walsh. Since he did that with his golden goose - the Texas bikeshopowner - the question is WHY isnt Walsh so thorough when it comes to team SKY? Or is he saving all his smelly doping stories for that Santaclaus book?

You have no idea what was or was not asked.

Very simple - if you do want to know what he wrote and comment on it subscripe. If you dont and are relying on others, then don't comment.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Before he met Sky this year he thought they were clean.

Also what are the plenty of qualifiers?

Did he just say - "I think they are clean"...... and thats it?

Of course not - you throw up a quote from him and there will be a qualifier in it.

 

[sniper]

:

Did he just say - "I think they are clean"...... and thats it?

Of course not - you throw up a quote from him and there will be a qualifier in it.

Diggers first point, address it please. Dont deflect away from it. It goes to the core of your defense of walsh.
And link to those qualifiers would indeed be much appreciated.
You surely dont mean the "JV told me" kind of qualifiers, i assume?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

:
Diggers first point, address it please. Dont deflect away from it. It goes to the core of your defense of walsh.

....is a point (their point) , nothing more- so it cannot possibly address it.

And link to those qualifiers would indeed be much appreciated.
You surely dont mean the "JV told me" kind of qualifiers, i assume?

No, that in itself is not a qualifier - but perhaps what was said around it would make it clearer.

But since I am not sure what exactly you mean, as you didn't link to it I will just assume you are wrong again.