Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

No, we're not in court. We're in a forum . With rules.

From those rules



Let's never worry about prettiness. Let's simply back up any assertions. As called for by the rules.

Omg. A lot of new mods coming up I notice.

 

[WonderLance]

Do you have an link to support these claims....or are you inventing things again?

Wiggins is addicted to CO? Really? You do realize the addictive part of smoking is the nicotine not the CO right?

BOOM BOOM! Winner winner chicken dinner! Once again proving that nobody knows more about cycling than me. Wiggans is after the nicotine because it is his secret to TDF victory. You think Frooome can get as skinny as a 90's model without smashing through a pack a day? Once again I call it right.

Now all the stories are comming out! http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=11689

YES!
...smoking is good for cyclists... its basically legal epo

 

[Cycle Chic]

Omg. A lot of new mods coming up I notice.

MartinVickers is NOT a Moderator - only been a member 12 months. I,ve reported his idiotic directing.

 

[martinvickers]

Omg. A lot of new mods coming up I notice.

This thread was shut down partially because it degenerated so much. People were directed to the new rules Dan put out. and as soon as the thread opened again, one of the 'tribes' seem to have decided these rules don't apply to them, and complain when they reminded of them.

I'm not modding, I'm not handing out warnings or infractions. I'm just trying to remind people that they aren't above the rules or nomrs of basic conduct. And it seems instructive how many people get angry or even absuive when they are reminded.

Now, my posting style is not on topic. Walsh and bandwagon, please...and source and verify those assertions ;-)

 

[Digger]

Within 5 minutes of writing that I posted links to more accurate calculations.... Of course you know this but would rather post nonsense in order to create conflicts.

One thing I will say here and fair enough if you changed the numbers...we all make mistakes...I think it's disingenuous to compare the 04 TT with this year's stage in the first place...just my opinion.

 

[Digger]

OK he has been now ditched.



Link? This needs to be substantiated more than to just throw it around a forum.



Outside of Lance, what known dopers has he defended?



Similar to what I said about Sutton. What stories has he bullied journos about on their reporting?



All you can get from that is a suspicion. Nothing definitive like the direct evidence implicating USPS.



That's just your own assumption.



I have seen it discussed but I have never heard someone with more direct knowledge of saying this being linked to Sky. It's just people suspecting this maybe a possibility.

You're clutching at straws in your comparison with USPS and you know it.



I would dismiss this too. Frankly not that important.

So I need to tell you the names of who told me, their background now...ok then

POint is this...just because people haven't been told this stuff, does not mean it isn't out there.
One example on De Vriese...Race is right, it did happen...but when push came to shove, what did he do?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

This thread was shut down partially because it degenerated so much. People were directed to the new rules Dan put out. and as soon as the thread opened again, one of the 'tribes' seem to have decided these rules don't apply to them, and complain when they reminded of them.

I'm not modding, I'm not handing out warnings or infractions. I'm just trying to remind people that they aren't above the rules or nomrs of basic conduct. And it seems instructive how many people get angry or even absuive when they are reminded.

Now, my posting style is not on topic. Walsh and bandwagon, please...and source and verify those assertions ;-)

Please link us up Martin.

We already have one docter in tha house. Thats quite enough Martin.

 

[Digger]

This thread was shut down partially because it degenerated so much. People were directed to the new rules Dan put out. and as soon as the thread opened again, one of the 'tribes' seem to have decided these rules don't apply to them, and complain when they reminded of them.

I'm not modding, I'm not handing out warnings or infractions. I'm just trying to remind people that they aren't above the rules or nomrs of basic conduct. And it seems instructive how many people get angry or even absuive when they are reminded.

Now, my posting style is not on topic. Walsh and bandwagon, please...and source and verify those assertions ;-)

..................................

 

[martinvickers]

Please link us up Martin.

I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you mean here.

We already have one docter in tha house. Thats quite enough Martin.

Again, my posting style isn't on topic, is it? Can we just get back to Walsh and bandwagons, please...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So I need to tell you the names of who told me, their background now...ok then

POint is this...just because people haven't been told this stuff, does not mean it isn't out there.
One example on De Vriese...Race is right, it did happen...but when push came to shove, what did he do?

No, you don't.
I like my links to things because I like to read what was said. Not a summary.

But, I have not asked you (nor have I seen anyone) ask you to name your sources. No-one asks you to post unverifiable info - that is up to the poster, but the reader is entitled to query it and come to their own conclusion.

 

[Digger]

No, you don't.
I like my links to things because I like to read what was said. Not a summary.

But, I have not asked you (nor have I seen anyone) ask you to name your sources. No-one asks you to post unverifiable info - that is up to the poster, but the reader is entitled to query it and come to their own conclusion.

Fair enough although I do remember a certain incident where you more or less said I invented that two people spoke to Steve Johnson in 2004 about USP doping...something I still stand by and know to be true....I think the point is that just because someone doesn't want to disclose who told them does not automatically make it lies.

 

[thehog]

Within 5 minutes of writing that I posted links to more accurate calculations.... Of course you know this but would rather post nonsense in order to create conflicts.

Not at all.

You are eternally contradicting yourself.

On one hand you don't like people comparing Froome's accent times to Armstrong.

But you were gushing to compare Froome to Mayo's time.

Failing to mention Mayo was an ITT and it wasn't 12% but 5%.

It's not a matter of accuracy in this case. It's just downright making up numbers to suit that Froome is not ***.

You're too quick to judge others and call them trolls etc. to see you're just as bad.

I used to like what you posted. It had quality, thought and depth.

Now it's just endless spiril of false datapoints to excuse Froome and Sky & full of contradictions.

Doesn't mean you don't have a point of view and are allowed to express it.

Please do. But drop the "I know better than everyone rhetoric".

This is constructive criticism. So I hope you take it in the spirit to which its was presented.

Cheers.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Fair enough although I do remember a certain incident where you more or less said I invented that two people spoke to Steve Johnson in 2004 about USP doping...something I still stand by and know to be true....I think the point is that just because someone doesn't want to disclose who told them does not automatically make it lies.

This is the difference.
You do not know it to be true - you believe it to be true.

 

[Digger]

This is the difference.
You do not know it to be true - you believe it to be true.

I know it to be true.
However you telling me what I know and what I don't know...that's amusing I must say....is there other stuff I don't know that I think I know!

 

[Race Radio]

One thing I will say here and fair enough if you changed the numbers...we all make mistakes...I think it's disingenuous to compare the 04 TT with this year's stage in the first place...just my opinion.

If you read what I wrote that day it is clear. When Froome attacked I wrote

Oh my

After many inaccurate numbers flew around I wrote this.

Completely confused. Some numbers say he set records others say he was slow.

Then this

https://twitter.com/TheRaceRadio/status/356513694420701184

Froome's time for the complete climb was 59:07, but time for the last 15k is 2nd fastest ever

How am I trying to excuse Froome by pointing out he has the 2nd fastest ever time? Of course the Hog knows this but ignores it as he loves to cause conflict.

Then I referred people to follow a few people who I think do excellent work and stepped away from the discussion

There will be lots of talk about Froome's time up Ventoux today. The best sources are @Scienceofsport @veloclinic and @ammattipyoraily
Expand

 

[thehog]

I an touchy with people who invent nonsense. You know exactly what you are trying to do. More nonsense as usual

If you read what I wrote that day it is clear. When Froome attacked I wrote



After many inaccurate numbers flew around I wrote this.



Then this

https://twitter.com/TheRaceRadio/status/356513694420701184


How am I trying to excuse Froome by pointing out he has the 2nd fastest ever time? Of course the Hog knows this but ignores it as he loves to cause conflict.

Then I referred people to follow a few people who I think do excellent work and stepped away from the discussion

Sure.

And just when it came apparent that Froome is ***....

Then you came up with the "windy mountain" theorem.

That's why you get called out.

Sorry. I'm just telling you like it is.

You can be humble and accept some criticism.

Or take it in and have a good think about it.

Cheers.

Have a think about it... and stop misquoting veetoo.

 

[Digger]

If you read what I wrote that day it is clear. When Froome attacked I wrote



After many inaccurate numbers flew around I wrote this.



Then this

https://twitter.com/TheRaceRadio/status/356513694420701184


How am I trying to excuse Froome by pointing out he has the 2nd fastest ever time? Of course the Hog knows this but ignores it as he loves to cause conflict.

Then I referred people to follow a few people who I think do excellent work and stepped away from the discussion

What I am saying is that you talked about it being slower than Mayo's time and that this was encouraging for the sport..and ok the calculations were out...I don't mind that part at all...what I thought was wrong was using Mayo's TT in the first place as a reference.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I know it to be true.
However you telling me what I know and what I don't know...that's amusing I must say....is there other stuff I don't know that I think I know!

Again, very simple - unless you are Johnson, or one of the other 2 people then you do not know.

 

[Digger]

Again, very simple - unless you are Johnson, or one of the other 2 people then you do not know.

My word - talk about being awkward...imagine you on a jury!

However...that line above is still a lot better than on twitter when you more or less said I was making it up and telling lies.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

My word - talk about being awkward...imagine you on a jury!

However...that line above is still a lot better than on twitter when you more or less said I was making it up and telling lies.

I don't remember the specifics - but the Johnson story made little sense.

I have no doubt he was aware, but the only people who could tell him there was doping on USPS for sure had to be insiders. Anyone else is hearsay. It might as well be you telling him.
The only one who may have was JV - who in the same conversation you were bashing for not coming forward to assist Floyd. So, it can't be him, right?

 

[Digger]

I don't remember the specifics - but the Johnson story made little sense.

I have no doubt he was aware, but the only people who could tell him there was doping on USPS for sure had to be insiders. Anyone else is hearsay. It might as well be you telling him.
The only one who may have was JV - who in the same conversation you were bashing for not coming forward to assist Floyd. So, it can't be him, right?

Just because it made little sense, to you, doesn't make it untrue.

 

[Benotti69]

If you read what I wrote that day it is clear. When Froome attacked I wrote



After many inaccurate numbers flew around I wrote this.



Then this

https://twitter.com/TheRaceRadio/status/356513694420701184


How am I trying to excuse Froome by pointing out he has the 2nd fastest ever time? Of course the Hog knows this but ignores it as he loves to cause conflict.

Then I referred people to follow a few people who I think do excellent work and stepped away from the discussion

So do you think Froome is the greatest talent on a bike since LeMond?

I think he is another doper who stood on the top of the podium in Paris, a unbroken line that goes all the way back to 1991 when Big Mig raced up mountains like a Colombian.

Now we have Froome the skinnyness of a camp victim climbing like a Colombian but also able to TT like Big Mig.

There is only one explanation for this. Doping. That Sky or Froome have not been caught is no surprise.

 

[gooner]

so what? he was there, and not for saddle sores.

I haven't defended this link. The OK in my sentence was acknowledging this.

who cares? he defended the biggest of all.

The comment made him out to be a serial defender of dopers. I have yet to see that.

it's been even worse.
as digger pointed out DB has been calling editors.
the hell with transparency.

And it's OK for you to take this at face value without further questioning.

but armstrong got called out for several reasons, one being his amazing transformation.

I know this. It's the same now with Froome but all you can get from that is big suspicion. It's still not more definitive in any way shape or form in the manner of USPS back then.

nd yours is that we should move on? nthing to see?

Where did I say this?

clutching at straws? if you haven't been living in some dark cave in the last 20 years it isn't clutching at straws. it's adding 1+1.

1+1 is it. I have heard two things today from the likes of you. Sky have hired Motoman and are doping or that him doing mechanical work on their bikes is proof of doping.

Good sense of humour.

 

[gooner]

So I need to tell you the names of who told me, their background now...ok then

Don't think you can throw something out there and we take it as face value without further questioning. No names then but tell us specifically what was in the articles which sparked Brailsford's response.

POint is this...just because people haven't been told this stuff, does not mean it isn't out there.

Like Carbon Monoxide. I have seen it mentioned but only the possibility that Sky are doing it. You tried to use it as something definitive against them. I haven't heard anyone say it like this.

 

[sniper]

I haven't defended this link. The OK in my sentence was acknowledging this.

ok, fair.

The comment made him out to be a serial defender of dopers. I have yet to see that.

so that was you splitting irrelevant hairs.

And it's OK for you to take this at face value without further questioning.

it completely fits the broader picture of a team that has something to hide. so no, I'm not necessarily questioning it.

I know this. It's the same now with Froome but all you can get from that is big suspicion. It's still not more definitive in any way shape or form in the manner of USPS back then.

walsh doesn't seem suspicious.

1+1 is it. I have heard two things today from the likes of you. Sky have hired Motoman and are doping or that him doing mechanical work on their bikes is proof of doping.

the motoman link is not proof of doping obviously. it is just another unsurprising fact.