Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Page 81 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
1
0
Parker said:
And therein we have the views of a extremist fanatic.
Parker. Throught human history man has never climbed as fast as Froome without doping. I think you are the fanatic here.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
the sceptic said:
Parker. Throught human history man has never climbed as fast as Froome without doping. I think you are the fanatic here.
Throughout about 99.9% of human history, man hasn't ridden bikes. Indeed, there haven't been any.

This sort of hyperbolic rot doesn't help.

(Just for completeness. Anatomically correct humans - about 200,000 years.

Bicycles? 200 years. At a stretch.

1/1000 or 0.1% - so no bikes, for 99.9%)
 
the sceptic said:
Parker. Throught human history man has never climbed as fast as Froome without doping. I think you are the fanatic here.
So what were the best clean times? Were they back in the 80s when sports science was in it's infancy and there were barely any riders from outside the big five nations.

Seriously - give me a clean benchmark from the last ten years.
 
martinvickers said:
Ah, well, now I see where you're going wrong. And it's a very understandable mistake, because of where we are.

Walsh is not a policeman. I repeat, he is not a policeman. It's not his job to catch baddies. Nor is it his job to catch dopers - that's WADA and the ADO's and the Federations. And, in some places (the enlightened ones) the police.

It's Walsh's job to write and to report. Sometimes that takes him into catch the baddies territory; but it's not necessary. His job is to be honest. Not much more, not much less. Froome is not an 'antagonist' to Walsh. Given Armstrong's extraordinary relationship with Walsh and Kimmage it's easy to think that' the norm - the journo v's the sports cheat - but it isn't the norm. Not even close.

And it's slightly absurd to expect them to act as if it IS the norm. There's no conflict of interest in that sense. If Froome was wining and dining Craig Reedie. That would be a conflict, because they will soon be antagonists - Reedie trying to catch cheats, and Froome, fairly or unfairly, trying not to be caught.

Yes, walsh should question, of course he should - but the rider, any rider, is not 'the enemy' of the jouno - they are the 'enemy' of the anti-doping people.
100% agree. Same goes for Vaughters. They are not anti-doping policeman.

And as such like the Sky book from Walsh they need to stop parading these two jokers as leaders of the "clean era". Because they are not.

Especially Walsh.

He didn't uncover or do any heavy lifting in the Armstrong front.

The funny thing in American they think he's a hard hitting reporter. Walsh wears polyester slacks and floral shirts. He's a nerd.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
thehog said:
100% agree. Same goes for Vaughters. They are not anti-doping policeman.

And as such like the Sky book from Walsh they need to stop parading these two jokers as leaders of the "clean era". Because they are not.

Especially Walsh.

He didn't uncover or do any heavy lifting in the Armstrong front.

The funny thing in American they think he's a hard hitting reporter. Walsh wears polyester slacks and floral shirts. He's a nerd.
I don't make gods of any journo. Not Walsh. Not Kimmage. I hold the fourth estate in something close to the contempt I hold most of the first three.

You know my views on the riders and team in question, not that my uneducated hunches matter.

My brief on this subject was really just holding up the silliness of Walsh being thrown under the bus by parts of the 'clinic consensus' for one reason and one reason only - disagreeing.

Despite asking for, and getting, exactly the access that so enraged the fraternity when it was denied Kimmage, once he doesn't give the answers 'we' want, that access, so fought for, is dismissed as so much dross.

And look, it's fine - I wasn't particularly hung up on 'access' when Kimmage got it with Garmin, or got his knickers in a twist about it when he didn't get it with Sky,and I'm not hung up on now Walsh has got it with Sky. I may be a bit dismissive, but it's a consistent dismissiveness - not changing depending if I get the answers I want.

I just don't particularly respect the hypocrisy of it; but the consistency is the hobgoblin of a tiny mind.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
1
0
Parker said:
So what were the best clean times? Were they back in the 80s when sports science was in it's infancy and there were barely any riders from outside the big five nations.

Seriously - give me a clean benchmark from the last ten years.
Parker, how am I supposed to do that?

All I know is that Froome on his best performances climbed as fast as people that are known to have been dopers (with evidence)

I fail to see what sports science has to do with anything. It didnt help the clean riders beat the dopers in the 90s or the 2000s did it?
 
Parker said:
And therein we have the views of a extremist fanatic. Your opinion is correct because it is your opinion.

If you get a chance, pick up a copy of Cycling Anthology Vol. 3 and read the essay by Klaus Bellon. It's about you.
What the heck, man? I mean are you really this devoid of arguments that you need to post like this?

Of course I think my opinion is correct, as does everyone else. But the fact is that no one clean has ever ridden close to this level. I'm supposed to believe that this pack-fodder is now light years better than the greatest clean riders who ever lived? Really?

How. How has he done it? He's a mutant? A once in a century talent on the level of Merckx? I'm sorry, but that is what it would take for me to believe it, and there is NOTHING that supports that. Nothing.

For chrissakes. Believe what you want and make your case. But calling knowledgable cyclists fanatics because they look at Froome and think he's a doper is just dumb.
 
martinvickers said:
"I don't need no stinking facts"
.
What "facts":confused:

What facts has Walsh revealed since he embedded himself with sky to see if they are clean? A lot of very amateur stuff yes, like failing to ask wiggins why he was so strongly pro omerta for 3 years (failing to even know it was the case). Some very childish things like getting angry on ITV that people would dare doubt sky after his highness walsh had vouched for them. The bit about Armstrong fans being Sky haters was in fact clearly contrary to fact as was his claim about the Irish corner.

But I don't remember absolutely anything that would suggest Walsh's book will be informative in the slightest. Do you?

With that in mind, do you have any justification for mocking those who wont buy his book, or just your usual bias?:rolleyes:
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
The Hitch said:
What "facts":confused:

What facts has Walsh revealed since he embedded himself with sky to see if they are clean? A lot of very amateur stuff yes, like failing to ask wiggins why he was so strongly pro omerta for 3 years (failing to even know it was the case). Some very childish things like getting angry on ITV that people would dare doubt sky after his highness walsh had vouched for them. The bit about Armstrong fans being Sky haters was in fact clearly contrary to fact as was his claim about the Irish corner.

But I don't remember absolutely anything that would suggest Walsh's book will be informative in the slightest. Do you?

With that in mind, do you have any justification for mocking those who wont buy his book, or just your usual bias?:rolleyes:
Mend your tone and cut out the ad hominems. I've warned you about the tantrums before.
 
red_flanders said:
Of course I think my opinion is correct, as does everyone else.
Yes they do. But unlike you, they don't dismiss the opinions of those better positioned before they have even read them.

I'm not calling 'knowledgable cyclists' fanatics, just you. But, of course, the knowledgable ones are those that agree with you, while those that disagree are dumb fanboys.

My position is that I think Sky and their riders are clean. I may be wrong
Your position is that they are dirty and you can't possibly be wrong.

If that is not true then start listening to all opinions, not just those that massage your egio.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
1
0
martinvickers said:
Mend your tone and cut out the ad hominems. I've warned you about the tantrums before.
Martin. How about trying to address his points instead of deflecting?

And remember, balls. not man. How many times do I have to tell you that?
 
martinvickers said:
Mend your tone and cut out the ad hominems. I've warned you about the tantrums before.
Martin you and I are good.

But this is a stupid response.

Don't do it. Not nessacary.

Hitch raises a good point.

You're not here to police the ramble. Enjoy the debate and let it flow.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
the sceptic said:
Martin. How about trying to address his points instead of deflecting?

And remember, balls. not man. How many times do I have to tell you that?
He didn't really make any points; just a bit of a rant finished off with a personal attack, in a conversation he was no part of - he initiated the attack from nothing. I'm not playing that nonsense.

And reminding him to cut out the ad hominems is not 'man playing'. Its keeping the rules of the forum front and centre.

Now, if you'd like to make your own points...
 
martinvickers said:
I don't make gods of any journo. Not Walsh. Not Kimmage. I hold the fourth estate in something close to the contempt I hold most of the first three.

You know my views on the riders and team in question, not that my uneducated hunches matter.

My brief on this subject was really just holding up the silliness of Walsh being thrown under the bus by parts of the 'clinic consensus' for one reason and one reason only - disagreeing.

Despite asking for, and getting, exactly the access that so enraged the fraternity when it was denied Kimmage, once he doesn't give the answers 'we' want, that access, so fought for, is dismissed as so much dross.

And look, it's fine - I wasn't particularly hung up on 'access' when Kimmage got it with Garmin, or got his knickers in a twist about it when he didn't get it with Sky,and I'm not hung up on now Walsh has got it with Sky. I may be a bit dismissive, but it's a consistent dismissiveness - not changing depending if I get the answers I want.

I just don't particularly respect the hypocrisy of it; but the consistency is the hobgoblin of a tiny mind.

I just take one look at the Sky book and roll my eyes.

He's a marketing rep not an author. Or a journalist.

But the bio writing up as Detective Walsh is a joke. But you know they are targeting newbie Fred British riders who shop at Evans and one day aspire to wear Rapha.

Bunch of tools.

Walsh with his open neck floral shirts and chinos will fit right in.

:cool:
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
thehog said:
Martin you and I are good.

But this is a stupid response.

Don't do it. Not nessacary.

Hitch raises a good point.

You're not here to police the ramble. Enjoy the debate and let it flow.
I'm glad we're good, Hog. I think we've reached a good understanding, and our recent interactions have been good fun.

I don't mind playful. I will occasionally get a bit 'proper'about trolling, or what I perceive as trolling, as you know, but I can be talked down - I accept I can get a bit 'high horse'.

I do mind aggressive. A lot. I considered Hitch's intervention aggressive, not for the first time, and I won't accept that.

That said, it's off topic, and I'll say no more, out of deference to your own good manners ;)

Any thoughts on the subject?

Edit: just noticed you've responded. Please ignore previous sentence :)
 
martinvickers said:
Mend your tone .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRO7DPLlmQc


Funny though that you say that after mocking sceptic with the "I don't need no stinking facts" sentence.

Seems to me you are one of those uber hypocrites. You take a negative tone yourself, then when others match your stake you complain that they aren't playing nice.

Behave yourself then no?
I've warned you about the tantrums before
:confused:

Reply or don't. I made my point- that Walsh, has done absolutely nothing for you to justify your unpleasant comment to sceptic. You are defending his book, which you haven't even read, purely on your own pro sky bias, but don't actually have any arguments.

red_flanders said:
. But calling knowledgable cyclists fanatics because they look at Froome and think he's a doper is just dumb.
Parker's position is dumb to start with- to believe in the Froome and Wiggins water to wine miracles, over common sense.

To call people who doubt such an incredibly unlikely fairytale, "fanatics" is more than dumb, that's for sure.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
thehog said:
I just take one look at the Sky book and roll my eyes.

He's a marketing rep not an author. Or a journalist.

But the bio writing up as Detective Walsh is a joke. But you know they are targeting newbie Fred British riders who shop at Evans and one day aspire to wear Rapha.

Bunch of tools.

Walsh with his open neck floral shirts and chinos will fit right in.

:cool:
You may be right. I'll have to brave its pages before I decide for sure.
 
martinvickers said:
You may be right. I'll have to brave its pages before I decide for sure.
Don't do it! :eek: dooooon't! :)

On a serious note be interested if he goes into more details on their weight and Kerrison.

I may have a flick through the book.

I gave up on cycling books. Haven't read a good one since a breaking the chain.

I'm right into frame geometry, bike fitting these days to read books like this. I've moved on.
 
Parker said:
Yes they do. But unlike you, they don't dismiss the opinions of those better positioned before they have even read them.

I'm not calling 'knowledgable cyclists' fanatics, just you. But, of course, the knowledgable ones are those that agree with you, while those that disagree are dumb fanboys.

My position is that I think Sky and their riders are clean. I may be wrong
Your position is that they are dirty and you can't possibly be wrong.

If that is not true then start listening to all opinions, not just those that massage your egio.
Ridiculous. I simply said that Walsh will shed no light on the question of whether Sky are doping because he can't. No reporter could. It's silly to act like he's in a position to find out anything.

Knowledgeable cycling fans are people who have followed the sport for a long time, who understand the history, the characters and the forces that have shaped it. They understand what's happened to the sport, and are able to have nuanced opinions about the topic. They don't make blanket statements about entire groups of riders, they take each situation for what it is.

Very much unlike the ridiculous characterization of my words which you present. With nothing to back it up. I really don't care if you don't think I'm a knowledgeable fan, I know what I am. There are knowledgable fans who think Sky are clean. Walsh being exhibit one.

The point is that you're calling me a fanatic because I disagree with you. It's stupid. It's not an argument. It's name-calling and it makes your posts look foolish.

I think you can do better.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
thehog said:
Don't do it! :eek: dooooon't! :)

On a serious note be interested if he goes into more details on their weight and Kerrison.

I may have a flick through the book.

I gave up on cycling books. Haven't read a good one since a breaking the chain.

I'm right into frame geometry, bike fitting these days to read books like this. I've moved on.
Have to admit, still tend to read them. they amuse me. I doubt that's the intention, though.

Personally, I hve a hunch 'inside team sky' may be more about Walsh himself than Sky. Might be a more interesting read if it were...
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
1
0
martinvickers said:
He didn't really make any points; just a bit of a rant finished off with a personal attack, in a conversation he was no part of - he initiated the attack from nothing. I'm not playing that nonsense.

And reminding him to cut out the ad hominems is not 'man playing'. Its keeping the rules of the forum front and centre.

Now, if you'd like to make your own points...
Martin. Lets see how fast you can report this post so Bison can come and delete it.

You love to give snide remarks and troll, all the while having absolutely no opinion on anything. The "not sure" defense sure is neat, you can jump into any conversation you want and vortex away.

However no one is going to believe your little victim act when you get some well deserved trolling back at you.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
red_flanders said:
Ridiculous. I simply said that Walsh will shed no light on the question of whether Sky are doping because he can't. No reporter could. It's silly to act like he's in a position to find out anything.

Knowledgeable cycling fans are people who have followed the sport for a long time, who understand the history, the characters and the forces that have shaped it. They understand what's happened to the sport, and are able to have nuanced opinions about the topic. They don't make blanket statements about entire groups of riders, they take each situation for what it is.

Very much unlike the ridiculous characterization of my words which you present. With nothing to back it up. I really don't care if you don't think I'm a knowledgeable fan, I know what I am. There are knowledgable fans who think Sky are clean. Walsh being exhibit one.

The point is that you're calling me a fanatic because I disagree with you. It's stupid. It's not an argument. It's name-calling and it makes your posts look foolish.

I think you can do better.
I don't think that's an entirely fair reflection, Red. It's not that you have an opinion. It's that you've explicitly declared it as unalterable by evidence.
 
martinvickers said:
I don't think that's an entirely fair reflection, Red. It's not that you have an opinion. It's that you've explicitly declared it as unalterable by evidence.
And you can believe whatever you want, and come to whatever conclusion you want to. I have seen more than enough to come to a conclusion. You have come to your own...I guess.

If someone can explain to me how Froome is putting in the performances he's putting in, please do so. I have yet to hear anything remotely convincing.

It's not just Froome. Most of the top of the GT class is clearly outside the bounds. And he's killing them. It's not credible at all.

I really, really wish we didn't have someone destroying the field in the TdF. I hated it when Indurain was doing it, Armstrong and I see it again in Froome. It's boring and it's horrible for the sport on many levels.
 
red_flanders said:
And you can believe whatever you want, and come to whatever conclusion you want to. I have seen more than enough to come to a conclusion. You have come to your own...I guess.

If someone can explain to me how Froome is putting in the performances he's putting in, please do so. I have yet to hear anything remotely convincing.

It's not just Froome. Most of the top of the GT class is clearly outside the bounds. And he's killing them. It's not credible at all.

I really, really wish we didn't have someone destroying the field in the TdF. I hated it when Indurain was doing it, Armstrong and I see it again in Froome. It's boring and it's horrible for the sport on many levels.
This I agree with.

Problem you have is the local newbie audience loving it. Just like in the US with Armstrong, they have no historical reference to compare a froome against. 2012 was these UK fans first Tour.

We see it and shake our heads. But trust me there's many who think Froome is all natural.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS