Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[gooner]

What tosh!

Armstrong spent years getting angry (an litigious) on people who called him a doper.

A drunk Richie Porte attacks a journo about the media writing doping stories about Sky is used as an anecdote to convince us that Sky are clean because the media (except Walsh who is earning big on the back of it) are not swallowing Froome climbing faster than the dopers. Oh well i am now convinced they are clean. More champange David?

the quote "TRYING to do it clean", what is TRYING? they either are clean or they are not, there is no TRYING. And i am more than ever convinced they are not.

He didn't say "trying to do it clean". He was on about getting cheesed off at accusations of doping from journos because "he has never done anything wrong".

 

[martinvickers]

What tosh!

Armstrong spent years getting angry (an litigious) on people who called him a doper.

He also spent years p!ssing standing up, and sh!tting sitting down - are all people that do that dopers too? He's not a f***ing template, B.

REGARDLESS OF ARMSTRONG, ordinary people tend to get ****ed off at people screaming insults at them. Many of those people will be abusive back. It's human f***** nature. Denying that is childishness.

A drunk Richie Porte attacks a journo about the media writing doping stories about Sky is used as an anecdote to convince us that Sky are clean because the media (except Walsh who is earning big on the back of it) are not swallowing Froome climbing faster than the dopers. Oh well i am now convinced they are clean. More champange David?

the quote "TRYING to do it clean", what is TRYING? they either are clean or they are not, there is no TRYING. And i am more than ever convinced they are not.

You haven't read the thread. I've already made it VERY clear that the wording was mine, not Porte's. He never used tat phrasing. It was my attempt to summarise, no more, no less.

Trying to fry him, and by extension Walsh and Sky, on MY wording is just...well, it just gives away your motive,B.

 

[martinvickers]

He didn't say "trying to do it clean". He was on about getting cheesed off at accusations of doping from journos because "he has never done anything wrong".

Thanks, gooner. I see trying, in good faith, to give a casual summary of certain parts of the book has turned out to be a thankless task, as several regulars run off trying to spin it as if they were direct quotes, and then parsing word for word sometihng that was never word for word quoted.

Because, hell, why read the book when you can just try and spin a (non) quote, eh?

 

[Benotti69]

He also spent years p!ssing standing up, and sh!tting sitting down - are all people that do that dopers too? He's not a f***ing template, B.

REGARDLESS OF ARMSTRONG, ordinary people tend to get ****ed off at people screaming insults at them. It's human nature. DEnying that is childishness.

Denial has always been part of the make up of cycling's dopers. Armstrong had the money to get litigious.

You haven't read the thread. I've already made it VERY clear that the wording was mine, not Porte's. He never used tat phrasing. It was my attempt to summarise, no more, no less.

Trying to fry him, and by extension Walsh and Sky, on MY wording is just...well, it just gives away your motive,B.

Stop misleading people with posts then.

 

[martinvickers]

Denial has always been part of the make up of cycling's dopers. Armstrong had the money to get litigious.

Irrelevant to the point. Are you denying that innocent people, if accused of something, will get angry at the accusation? Yes or no?

Stop misleading people with posts then.

No misleading. It was, and is, a brief and casual summary. I only inclded, quite clearly, one actual quote, from the end of the JTL chapter.

You just made a fool of yourself trying to make something out of nothing. Nobody's fault but your own.

 

[Benotti69]

Irrelevant to the point. Are you denying that innocent people, if accused of something, will get angry at the accusation? Yes or no?

Who is innocent, little Richie Porte? Of course he is, Walsh says so.

No misleading. It was, and is, a brief and casual summary. I only inclded, quite clearly, one actual quote, from the end of the JTL chapter.

You just made a fool of yourself trying to make something out of nothing. Nobody's fault but your own.

You called Walsh a fan with a typewriter.

Insults best you can do!

 

[martinvickers]

Who is innocent, little Richie Porte? Of course he is, Walsh says so.

Deflection again. I'm not talking about Porte, or any other specific rider, or even athlete. Simple question. IF an innocent person - any innocent person - is accused wrongly, and publicly - is it or is it not likely that they will get angry.

Yes. Or No. One word, no more bluff.

You called Walsh a fan with a typewriter.

Insults best you can do!

No, I didn't. I implied the last bit of the book reads like that, and in part it does, unquestionably - the last chapter is uncomfortable reading. As you will find out, if you have the balls to read the thing for yourself like a grown up should.

 

[Benotti69]

Does Walsh explain this

vetooo ‏@ammattipyoraily 8m
#TDF 2012, St.7. Belles Filles (5.90 km, 8.51 %, 502 m). Chris Froome ("67 kg"): 16 min 17 sec, 21.74 Kph, VAM 1850 m/h, 6.6 W/kg [CPL].

The guy who hung onto motorbikes in previous GTs up mountains was making 6.6 W/kg in 2012.

Walsh is a Sky fanboy.

 

[thehog]

Does Walsh explain this



The guy who hung onto motorbikes in previous GTs up mountains was making 6.6 W/kg in 2012.

Walsh is a Sky fanboy.

Add 2kgs and a tailwind and all is explained

 

[Benotti69]

Deflection again. I'm not talking about Porte, or any other specific rider, or even athlete. Simple question. IF an innocent person - any innocent person - is accused wrongly, and publicly - is it or is it not likely that they will get angry.

Yes. Or No. One word, no more bluff.

IF an innocent, wtf are you angling for?

We are talking about cycling, a sport where innocents are shelled out the backdoor very quickly.

So you want to talk about innocents get out of the clinic.

 

[martinvickers]

Does Walsh explain this



The guy who hung onto motorbikes in previous GTs up mountains was making 6.6 W/kg in 2012.

Walsh is a Sky fanboy.

Actually, he does. The motorbike bit, anyway, he goes into some signiificant detail. Suffice to say, by the end he has little but contempt for those trying to use it as stick - pretty clear he considers that basically dishonest.

AS for 6.6 - well, it's 16 minutes. What did Cadel do that day, out of curioisty?

 

[Benotti69]

So Walsh has not given a detailed account how Sky have revolutionised the sport where their so called 'marginal gains' ( a drop of pineapple juice in bidons!) can make a donkey and other assorted grupetto fodder into TdF winners.

No surprise there hey?

 

[martinvickers]

IF an innocent, wtf are you angling for?

We are talking about cycling, a sport where innocents are shelled out the backdoor very quickly.

So you want to talk about innocents get out of the clinic.

I'll take that as a refusal to answer, then.

And once more, therefore, we're back to the fact that your position isn't a conclusion, it's a religious persuasion.

 

[martinvickers]

So Walsh has not given a detailed account how Sky have revolutionised the sport where their so called 'marginal gains' ( a drop of pineapple juice in bidons!) can make a donkey and other assorted grupetto fodder into TdF winners.

No surprise there hey?

As I said, have the balls to read the book, and then maybe we can take you seriously on it. Pretty simple, really.

 

[Benotti69]

Actually, he does. The motorbike bit, anyway, he goes into some signiificant detail. Suffice to say, by the end he has little but contempt for those trying to use it as stick - pretty clear he considers that basically dishonest.

AS for 6.6 - well, it's 16 minutes. What did Cadel do that day, out of curioisty?

Cadel another Ferrari client, reduced to comparing Froome to another doper who won a TdF.

Good one. Soon have you admitting that Froome aint clean.

 

[Benotti69]

As I said, have the balls to read the book, and then maybe we can take you seriously on it. Pretty simple, really.

Keep talking about your balls.

I aint gonna fund a fan with a typewriter.

Will read it in my own good time.

 

[gooner]

Does Walsh explain this



The guy who hung onto motorbikes in previous GTs up mountains was making 6.6 W/kg in 2012.

Walsh does bring up hanging onto the motorbike but I'm not going to disclose. I'm not going to review or summarise something so arms and legs can be added to it to suit a certain theme. Go read the book yourself to give you a better context. If not, it's no skin off my back. Just don't speak about it knowingly. I don't go into the Rasmussen thread running my mouth about his book when I haven't read it.

Walsh is a Sky fanboy.

No doubt he admires them hugely but the JTL section and how he came to break that story assures me if the same was to arise with Froome/Porte or any of the big hitters, I see no reason why he wouldn't be on the case similiarly.

 

[martinvickers]

Cadel another Ferrari client, reduced to comparing Froome to another doper who won a TdF.

Good one. Soon have you admitting that Froome aint clean.

As I said. Religious persuasion. No point trying to debate with a fundamentalist. No point taking them too seriously either. When you bother to read it, do let me know, B. Until then, enjoy your prayers.

 

[ferryman]

OK you two - your constant bickering really is dragging this thread down and going round and round and round. Just think about it.

 

[Digger]

I know a pro who was in that Giro where Froome hung off the motorbike - and he did.
Second the same guy told me his transformation from Tour of Poland to the Vuelta a few weeks later was a 'joke'.

Finally I am led to believe that Walsh insinuated I was hiding behind an anonymous account...absolute rubbish...he knows where I live, my name, my profession and my mobile number.

 

[Bexon30]

I know a pro who was in that Giro where Froome hung off the motorbike - and he did.
Second the same guy told me his transformation from Tour of Poland to the Vuelta a few weeks later was a 'joke'.

Finally I am led to believe that Walsh insinuated I was hiding behind an anonymous account...absolute rubbish...he knows where I live, my name, my profession and my mobile number.

Good stuff. If that pro felt that way about him, then why has he not been outspoken about him? (on that situation?) if he has already I apologise. When pro's speak out in my mind it can be for the good of anti doping. We all have opinions if your inside and have a professional opinion then if worded correctly you could make your questioning or feelings known. Cycling needs more of that.

 

[Parker]

Finally I am led to believe that Walsh insinuated I was hiding behind an anonymous account...absolute rubbish...he knows where I live, my name, my profession and my mobile number.

Just because he knows who you are it doesn't mean everyone else does. Hence it's anonymous.
Anonymous sources are known to the journalists they speak to and their editors - but they're still anonymous.

Woodward & Bernstein knew Deep Throat was Mark Felt
The publishers of Primary Colors knew it was written by Joe Klein
Alfred knows that Bruce Wayne is Batman
Spot knows that Penry the mild mannered janitor is Hong Kong Phooey
I know that you are ********* - someone that google barely acknowledges.

But they are still all anonymous.

 

[gooner]

Good stuff. If that pro felt that way about him, then why has he not been outspoken about him? (on that situation?) if he has already I apologise. When pro's speak out in my mind it can be for the good of anti doping. We all have opinions if your inside and have a professional opinion then if worded correctly you could make your questioning or feelings known. Cycling needs more of that.

Because it's just based on one's hunch and gut feeling.

 

[Digger]

Just because he knows who you are it doesn't mean everyone else does. Hence it's anonymous.
Anonymous sources are known to the journalists they speak to and their editors - but they're still anonymous.

Woodward & Bernstein knew Deep Throat was Mark Felt
The publishers of Primary Colors knew it was written by Joe Klein
Alfred knows that Bruce Wayne is Batman
Spot knows that Penry the mild mannered janitor is Hong Kong Phooey
I know that you are ********* - someone that google barely acknowledges.

But they are still all anonymous.

you miss the point - the tweet in question was a criticism of walsh...so he was making the point that people who are anonymous sit behind computers while criticising...when the fact of the matter is that he knew who was criticising him.
If it was about me having a go at wiggins then the above would be relevant.

 

[Parker]

you miss the point - the tweet in question was a criticism of walsh...so he was making the point that people who are anonymous sit behind computers while criticising...when the fact of the matter is that he knew who was criticising him.
If it was about me having a go at wiggins then the above would be relevant.

No I don't miss the point. You responded to something that Walsh wrote that you haven't read. You have then specifically said that YOU, not 'people' are anonymous because he has your number. You have since taken his comment as you personally (probably correctly) and now extrapolated it to all anonymous posters.

You say that "he was making the point that people who are anonymous sit behind computers while criticising" while saying that they are not anonymous because he knows that who you are.

Here's your argument:

I tweet and post. I don't reveal my name
David Walsh knows who I am.
As one person knows who I am I am not anonymous
As I am an anonymous poster and someone knows who I am, then no anonymous poster is anonymous.

So Walsh knew one person, but did Sky? Do you think you are the only 'anonymous' critic of Sky? There must be at least ten of you. Do they know who Hitch, Benotti, Sniper & the rest are? Do they care?