Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Page 77 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
the sceptic said:
Sorry Bison. Since one poster had made similar aggressive posts for quite a while I thought it was within the rules.

Would it be ok to create a "speeds are up/down" thread so the topic could be discussed further?
its never ok to go over the line with aggression. Its determining where the line is thats the problem, especially if you are skirting it.

And YES that is exactly what you should do. Have a search and see if its done already first, if so then do a thehog and re-activate it ;)

Personally I think its of interest, as the heads of state are certainly as fast if not faster overall, in ITTs and climbing than EPO era, but what is the rest of the peleton up to?
 
the sceptic said:
Sorry Bison. Since one poster had made similar aggressive posts for quite a while I thought it was within the rules.

Would it be ok to create a "speeds are up/down" thread so the topic could be discussed further?
That would be good.

I think Martin has taken the 10th best climbing time of a given year and compared it to later dates.

Problem is if you compare the 10th best time of d'Huez in 1995 vs say 2005 or 2013 well it's been climbed by 200-400 more cyclists for a 20 year longer period.

Of course the guy coming 10th in 2003 based on placing alone may be down lower than the guy in 1994. Simply because 2000+ more pros have ridden the climb since that time.

At least that's what I think he was trying to do.

It didn't make a lot of sense.

He claims he used Veetoo figures but can't see a link to it so I don't think it exists.

So, yeah, a new thread would be good.

Go for it. It's a worthy and scientific discussion.
 
thehog said:
That would be good.

I think Martin has taken the 10th best climbing time of a given year and compared it to later dates.

Problem is if you compare the 10th best time of d'Huez in 1995 vs say 2005 or 2013 well it's been climbed by 200-400 more cyclists for a 20 year longer period.

Of course the guy coming 10th in 2003 based on placing alone may be down lower than the guy in 1994. Simply because 2000+ more pros have ridden the climb since that time.

At least that's what I think he was trying to do.

It didn't make a lot of sense.

He claims he used Veetoo figures but can't see a link to it so I don't think it exists.

So, yeah, a new thread would be good.

Go for it. It's a worthy and scientific discussion.
I think this is a link what he used http://www.fillarifoorumi.fi/forum/showthread.php?38129-Ammattilaispy%F6r%E4ilij%F6iden-nousutietoja-(aika-km-h-VAM-W-W-kg-etc-)&p=2041608#post2041608

ALPE D'HUEZ, ALL-TIME TOP 200 LIST
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
thehog said:
That would be good.

I think Martin has taken the 10th best climbing time of a given year and compared it to later dates.

Problem is if you compare the 10th best time of d'Huez in 1995 vs say 2005 or 2013 well it's been climbed by 200-400 more cyclists for a 20 year longer period.

Of course the guy coming 10th in 2003 based on placing alone may be down lower than the guy in 1994. Simply because 2000+ more pros have ridden the climb since that time.
Hog. This is simply mathematical nonsence. Why on earth should 200+ more riders since 1995 make it MORE likely those 90's times will dominate the top of the all time list? Either you really don't understand basic maths or you're flailing because you were wrong.

Its very very simple. The top 10 riders in 2013 rode the same climb in a slower time - I.e. they were slower- than the top ten in ANY of those years. It is clear, mathematical fact. You claimed a 'real study' said the opposite. Where is it. Link, please. Plus the conference, thanks.

Mods. Please feel free to move these three posts to another more appropriate thread.
 
Mar 12, 2009
2,521
0
0
martinvickers said:
Hog. This is simply mathematical nonsence. Why on earth should 200+ more riders since 1995 make it MORE likely those 90's times will dominate the top of the all time list? Either you really don't understand basic maths or you're flailing because you were wrong.

Its very very simple. The top 10 riders in 2013 rode the same climb in a slower time - I.e. they were slower- than the top ten in ANY of those years. It is clear, mathematical fact. You claimed a 'real study' said the opposite. Where is it. Link, please. Plus the conference, thanks.

Mods. Please feel free to move these three posts to another more appropriate thread.
There is more... (OT too)

http://www.fillarifoorumi.fi/forum/showthread.php?38129-Ammattilaispy%F6r%E4ilij%F6iden-nousutietoja-(aika-km-h-VAM-W-W-kg-etc-)&p=2061073#post2061073
 
okey doke,
leaving this lot here as the termination of that particular discussion - which has veered off topic. If you want to discuss it further please do so on the reactivated climbing speeds thread.

Time to get back to more specifically discuss David Walsh being on the SKy bandwagon...or not.

I'm not sure he has tweeted much about it lately or written any new articles for the ST? Until then waiting with baited breath for something new to discuss.......;)
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Walsh was in Johannesburg yesterday giving a talk on Lance, McQuaid and Froome/Sky.

Walsh asked the questions and spent almost three months with Team Sky and Chris Froome. What was it that made Walsh believe Froome’s Tour de France victory was clean?

“Lots of things. The team he is in and the culture of the team. I spent about 10 weeks inside Team Sky and saw zero doping culture.

“I think Chris Froome is a bit of a freak. I hope that he is clean, but the fact that I believe it doesn’t mean he is.

“I’d be very surprised if he turned out to not be clean.”
http://www.iol.co.za/sport/cycling/the-man-who-brought-down-armstrong-1.1597511?
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
heart_attack_man said:
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.
Because Walsh knows not a lot on cycling, he probably thinks Indurain was the real deal.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
1
0
gooner said:
Walsh was in Johannesburg yesterday giving a talk on Lance, McQuaid and Froome/Sky.



http://www.iol.co.za/sport/cycling/the-man-who-brought-down-armstrong-1.1597511?
“I was just a journalist doing my job. Anyone who had spent 10 minutes with Lance Armstrong, if they had looked at him seriously would have been able to see that he was obviously a cheat. When I wrote the book and went over the stuff from 1999, I think, ‘How did anybody believe this guy?’ But, they did. A lot of journalists need to look in the mirror because they were reflecting the mood instead of asking questions.”
Feels like he is just trolling the clinic now
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,270
2
0
Walsh said:
&#8220]

That David Walsh believes this is just amazing to me. Having seen Froome race at Barloworld (and the early days at Sky), I personally just don't believe there was anything to indicate that he was some massively exceptional freak of nature who could one day stomp all the other elite cyclists (many of whom may well be still doping) like this. I do not believe Bilharzia explains this either. I cannot fathom why Walsh isn't more skeptical about Froome (and also Wiggins and Porte, but especially Froome). Even if performances are within human limits, that still does not mean this particular guy is the pinnacle of human athletic potential. It's fanboy type belief, but does not reflect well on the man's investigative mind or skepticism.

I understand that Walsh is speaking in Johannesburg, and that could play a part in his desire not to throw accusations at Froome. But still, David Walsh is no Paul Kimmage. And some of that gets back to FGL's point about Walsh not knowing so much about cycling. This "reporting" he's done on Sky has shown that out, IMO. For me, I still don't believe Sky, but now I don't believe in Walsh so much either.
 
Beech Mtn said:
That David Walsh believes this is just amazing to me. Having seen Froome race at Barloworld (and the early days at Sky), I personally just don't believe there was anything to indicate that he was some massively exceptional freak of nature who could one day stomp all the other elite cyclists (many of whom may well be still doping) like this. I do not believe Bilharzia explains this either. I cannot fathom why Walsh isn't more skeptical about Froome (and also Wiggins and Porte, but especially Froome). Even if performances are within human limits, that still does not mean this particular guy is the pinnacle of human athletic potential. It's fanboy type belief, but does not reflect well on the man's investigative mind or skepticism.

I understand that Walsh is speaking in Johannesburg, and that could play a part in his desire not to throw accusations at Froome. But still, David Walsh is no Paul Kimmage. And some of that gets back to FGL's point about Walsh not knowing so much about cycling. This "reporting" he's done on Sky has shown that out, IMO. For me, I still don't believe Sky, but now I don't believe in Walsh so much either.
His choice of words are interesting.

"I don't see a doping culture".

"I don't know if he is clean".

Methink he is applying the Armstrong rule to Froome.

Being embedded I don't think they will be inhaling CO in front of him.

It would be good if he could look into the 2010/2011 period and why the change.

If guys here on an internet forum can pull numbers, with his access he could do a mighty good job.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
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.
The most recent Walsh statement appears to suggest that there's no "doping culture" at Sky therefore he "believes" they are clean.

Then he offsets this with "I don't know if Froome is clean".

So the sum of those parts is he doesn't know and he's looking for evidence of team wide systematic doping similar to USPS.

That I don't think he'll find.

Doping has moved on.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
thehog said:
The most recent Walsh statement appears to suggest that there's no "doping culture" at Sky therefore he "believes" they are clean.

Then he offsets this with "I don't know if Froome is clean".

So the sum of those parts is he doesn't know and he's looking for evidence of team wide systematic doping similar to USPS.

That I don't think he'll find.

Doping has moved on.
Indeed interesting to see Walsh providing disclaimers.

Btw, youre right, doping has moved on, its ridiculous to think it hasnt.
 
sniper said:
Indeed interesting to see Walsh providing disclaimers.

Btw, youre right, doping has moved on, its ridiculous to think it hasnt.
Yes.

Looking for hospital room incidents is just plain silly.

Armstrong had a fairly unique illness and at the time he was trying to save his life rather to worry about anti-doping. So yes he confessed to his then Doctor.

Froome or any other riders at Sky haven't been on a deathbed trying to stem the flow of tumours in their brains. So, no, they won't have confessed in the same manner.

You only have to look at the super skinny, super power ITT machines and climbers to see doping has gone to a new level.

Drug use evolves. History has shown us that.

The one take-away from the Armstrong era is dont brag about usage and don't talk about it.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
thehog said:
Yes.

Looking for hospital room incidents is just plain silly.

Armstrong had a fairly unique illness and at the time he was trying to save his life rather to worry about anti-doping. So yes he confessed to his then Doctor.

Froome or any other riders at Sky haven't been on a deathbed trying to stem the flow of tumours in their brains. So, no, they won't have confessed in the same manner.

You only have to look at the super skinny, super power ITT machines and climbers to see doping has gone to a new level.

Drug use evolves. History has shown us that.

The one take-away from the Armstrong era is dont brag about usage and don't talk about it.
yap. These are the haydays of the perception is reality axiom. Armstrong didnt care too much about perception, witness not only the hospital incident but also e.g. the simeoni incident. He thought he could afford himself the sloppy arrogance (after all he had hein and others covering his ***).
Such incidents are close to unthinkable in the sky/jv/brailsford era, though e.g. the hiring of leinders was remarkably sloppy.
Players with a vested interest in cycling including walsh and jv will continue to focus on the alleged advances made in antidoping and the alleged culture change within the peloton, but fail to provide any transparent evidence in favor of their arguments, and refuse to point out the obvious: doping still pays off massively (as abundantly shown e.g. by the loyalty of sponsors despite doping cases) and ped methods (including masking, evidently) evolve correspondingly.
 
sniper said:
yap. These are the haydays of the perception is reality axiom. Armstrong didnt care too much about perception, witness not only the hospital incident but also e.g. the simeoni incident. He thought he could afford himself the sloppy arrogance (after all he had hein and others covering his ***).
Such incidents are close to unthinkable in the sky/jv/brailsford era, though e.g. the hiring of leinders was remarkably sloppy.
Players with a vested interest in cycling including walsh and jv will continue to focus on the alleged advances made in antidoping and the alleged culture change within the peloton, but fail to provide any transparent evidence in favor of their arguments, and refuse to point out the obvious: doping still pays off massively (as abundantly shown e.g. by the loyalty of sponsors despite doping cases) and ped methods (including masking, evidently) evolve correspondingly.

And you had a governing body fully accepting of such behavior.

Not sure there's another workplace on the world that allows those not playing by the rules to spit and chastise one who is.

A very unique world.

In saying that and not on the same level the Dawg twice this year showed arrogance to lower level riders which I thought was inappropriate.

Might be one for the dot connectors in years to come.

Porte's aggression is on par with Wiggins.

Now this may be a defensive mechanism for the dope callers but they do appear to want to beat up on the world.

In American football it's called "white line fever".
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,112
0
0
thehog said:
In American football it's called "white line fever".
Leave Marco Pantani out of this!

Actually, Pantani would only have been a year older than Chris Horner if he didn't have "white line fever".
Imagine a 42 year old Pantani on Team Sky - he'd be taking off at the top of Alpe d'Huez and flying away into the sunset like Dumbo.
 

EnacheV

BANNED
Jul 7, 2013
1,441
0
0
thehog said:
In saying that and not on the same level the Dawg twice this year showed arrogance to lower level riders which I thought was inappropriate.

Might be one for the dot connectors in years to come.

Porte's aggression is on par with Wiggins.
What arrogance ? What aggression ? Are you ok?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY