And again, in the absence of actual evidence we are thrown back to personal feelings.
Tell me, HAM, in all gentleness. Do you think Gooner has eyes? JimmyFingers? The Doc?
Does Walsh have eyes?
Is there any particular, logical, reason we should favour what goes through your eyes, as to what goes through theirs?
It just seems to be the "well, I know what I saw" fallacy. AKA "i don't need no stinking facts". We've been down this cul de sac umpteen times. It becomes no more convincing.
I believe that they all have eyes - and some of them have come to the same conclusion as mine own. Some have not, and that's fine too - good on everyone for having an opinion.
Perhaps I should state this more clearly so there can be no confusion:
One last time - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE - I am ACUTELY and abundantly aware of that. That doesn't mean I can't be convinced in the same way Walsh was after Sestriere in 99, at which time there also was NO EVIDENCE.
IN MY OPINION
, the performance of Froome on Ax-3 was not dissimilar to the performance of LA in Sestriere.
So I would pose a question to Walsh (which I know will be argued that OMG everything is so clean now, so it's a whole different world....)
: All things being equal, what was the difference between Armstrong '99 and Froome '13 apart from Froome not being a ****** and 2013 being the holy grail of the cleanest ever years of cycling? (We are lucky that we live in such a world now, aren't we...? And just to make it clear - yes, I AM being facetious - I don't for a second believe that 2013 is especially clean, but also I am NOT trying to say 2013 is as bad as '99.)
@Martin - feel free to answer what YOUR OPINION is here too if you want.
1. Your impression of Walsh may well be honest and genuine, but it's meaningless. It still boils down to "walsh didn't say what i wanted him to. Under the bus with him!". No value beyond a good vent, which admittedly we all enjoy from time to time.
2. If you think Kimmage was level headed, after the bizarre Boassen Hagan confrontation BEFORE FROOME TURNED A PEDAL at the tour, you need to lay off the backy. I repeat, before Froome turned a pedal.
1. I am aware that my opinion of Walsh is meaningless. As is yours. I am still ALLOWED to have an opinion aren't I? And to be fair, as I said, if the conclusion that Walsh came to was that he though Sky were clean, I wouldn't want to throw him under the bus - I said before that the thing that irked me the most was the ridiculous way he went about coming to that conclusion.
2. Admittedly haven't seen the Kimmage / Boassen Hagan rant. Do you have a link - would love to watch it. I'll retract my Kimmage - level-headedness for now until I've viewed that. On another note, at least Kimmage hasn't been the number 1 ra-ra girl for Sky though - which Walsh IN MY OPINION
certainly looks like he was. The bull**** that came out of his keyboard was staggering. Also - who here didn't know Froome was going to win the tour before he had turned a pedal? Honestly Martin - did you HONESTLY think he was not going to win?
Kimmage is very honest, very genuine and very anti-doping. He may well be right about Sky. I repeat, he may well be right. But let's be honest folks, Kimmage's mind was all but made up before the tour began. Indeed, there's a very interesting and pointed video where he starts to get visibly upset when his friend Frankie Andreau does not agree with Kimmage about the suspiciousness of Froome.
Pesumably Frankie has eyes too.
IN MY OPINION
I would note only this other point. On the infamous Ventoux stage, Walsh's eyes were right there at the Ventoux - maybe clouded by bias, maybe not. But they were there, close up.
Kimmage's eyes, like the rest of him, was at L'Alpe d'Huez.
Now Kimmage emphatically isn't the point of the thread so we'll take it no further, and i apologise for the detail i've already gone into, but a very direct comparison was made, it had to be addressed.
I repeat, Kimmage is very honest, very genuine and very anti-doping. He's an admirable man in many ways. But he wasn't the devil when the world was siding with Armstrong. and he's not a saint now. He's a human, fallible, like Walsh, like us all. But to hold Kimmage out as an example of objectivity to Walsh, which you did, is risible. The idea that Walsh was 'out there' on bias compared to others, notably Kimmage, doesn't stack up to examination.
, Ventoux was as ridiculous as Ax-3, which also IN MY OPINION
was ridiculous. I'm surprised that this isn't almost universally accepted as truth, but meh. I'm glad for Walsh that he was able to look past this and cheerlead as well as he did. His cheerleading was lost on me, although I'm sure there's plenty of "true believers" that were happy to see Walsh declaring Froome clean. IT IS MY OPINION
that Walsh came across in a very disingenuous fashion regarding his tweets and articles and general conduct on this years TdF.
I'd respectfully disagree with you on this final point about Walsh being out there on bias and Kimmage not being. Even Kimmage himself took umbrage at Walsh's stance. I will watch the Kimmage link that you post about him RE: Boassen / Hagan though - I promise that. And I'm also happy for this not to continue OT.
no-one on this thread is unbiased. No-one. And very few journos are either. Everyone starts with instincts and feelings and thoughts and suspicions. The good journalist isn't bias free. the good journo knows how to set aside the bias and look for the evidence. And if we don't have enough yet, if ther is an absence of facts, the correct answer is not to make some up, or despense with the need - the answer is to start trying to get more facts - and reserving judgement till you do.
And that takes patience, and self control, and knowing the difference between scepticism and cynicism.
Which, to be honest, is hard to find here sometimes. and that's not good thing.
Be all that as it may, I'm certainly not trying to "make up facts". I'm explaining my perception of Walsh. MY OPINION
is that he went in with a perception bias, and confirmed that perception bias. MY OPINION
is also that this perception bias was very flawed in that there was very little difference between '99 LA domination and '13 Froome domination apart from Froome being a 'good bloke', and perhaps a difference in "doping culture" in the overall peloton.
It is also MY OPINION
that if someone who was a donkey like Froome became perhaps one of the greatest cyclists EVER (which, IN MY OPINION
he must be to be such an awesome TTer and Climber....), I don't think there's ever been a transformation like that in the history of cycling that I'm aware of, and I personally don't find that credible and I question why Walsh not only does, but does so with such vigour.