Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[sniper]

AVERAGE climbing speeds are down from the Festina heights. That's a simple verifiable fact.

More riders, both minnows and somebodies, have been caught in recent years, and dealt with relatively strictly. Again, it's recorded, black and white, verifiable.

If you don't believe me, tell me, how many GT winners were disqualified PRIOR to 1991 because of Drugs? How many life bans?

So actually, yes, we can have a pretty good clue, the sport is cleanER though not clean, and that the effectiveness of what can can get through the system is less.

You may not believe it, or wish to believe it. Doesn't make it less true.




That's patently absurd. Why must we assume any such thing? Twice the speed? How do you quantify that? What new doping methods are coming close to the effectiveness of EPO, full on blood doping?




So when lance says legs and bodies can evolve in that time period, we, of course mock him. But when you suggest brains can evolve at exactly the same pace, we have to take you seriously?

Yep, sure...



1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
2. you can't prove a negative. IT's a logical nonsense to expect it.

Thanks for proving my points.
Agnosticism (or skepticism, imo, but lets keep it friendly and stick to agnosticism) should be walshs default approach to sky, especially in a year where froome is beating armstrong times.

And dont insult your own intelligence, mv, the way walsh accepts brailsfords leinders story is right up there with phil liggets reporting on armstrong .

 

[the sceptic]

Riveting book vicar, sorry to interrupt.

Maybe Walsh saw the Secret Test, before it got locked away for all eternity in JVs safe? Maybe that is why he is so sure.

 

[martinvickers]

Thanks for proving my points.

I don't believe i did, I'm afraid. Please demonstrate how?

And p.s. Go to wikipedia and look up agnosticism. IT's very slightly, but rather importantly, different from what you think.

It's emphatically NOT just about keeping an open mind.

 

[martinvickers]

Riveting book vicar, sorry to interrupt.

You didn't, but go ahead.

Maybe Walsh saw the Secret Test, before it got locked away for all eternity in JVs safe? Maybe that is why he is so sure.

I don't know. Maybe. Have you asked him? He's on twitter, why don't you..

 

[heart_attack_man]

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.

See above.

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.

IN MY OPINION, 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.

 

[thehog]

AVERAGE climbing speeds are down from the Festina heights. That's a simple verifiable fact.

The problem with this statement is it’s not true. And is not fact.

It’s a nice statement, looks good on a UCI powerpoint at a doping conference I attend last year.

Like comparing total average speed of the Tour’s over the years. The Tour now is ridden at a faster speed than 1996, 1997, 1998 etc.

Nevertheless. A real study of the top 10 on each mountain stage from 2002 to 2013 shows climbing times are not down from 1998.

There is a dip in 2008 when the passport came into effect but show back up again over the course of 2009, 2010 but back to an all time high in 2012 and 2013.

Going further down than Top 10 or a 3 minute cut off skews the data. Domestiques work prior to the end climb and slow and come in late.

The grupetto slows overall average climbing times.

However for the Top 10, climbing times are around 2005 levels and with 1998.

A better number crunch would be comparing ITT with climbing times over the years. Right there you’ll note that ITT’er are climbing with the best and vice versa. Whereas outside of Armstrong this was not always the case. Indurain a Ferrari client was the last living ITT’er and climber.

If in 2014 Thomas becomes a strong ITT and climber then you’ll need to start worrying.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

...<snipped for brevity>

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.)

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

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.

Firstly - you have stated your opinion, and I broadly agree with most of your conclusions re Froome.

But - this does not mean in any way that others (including Walsh) have to share those opinions or the methods you used to form your opinion.

You have asked of Walsh some good pertinent questions.
But again cloak them in your conclusions using your methods.
As a quick example, I would agree with your conclusions more than I would MVs or even Walshs - but as long as they are reasonably consistent in their approach then my only disagreement is in their interpretation - which they are entitled to have.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The problem with this statement is it’s not true. And is not fact.

It’s a nice statement, looks good on a UCI powerpoint at a doping conference I attend last year.

Hmm, was it a 'doping conference' or an anti-doping conference you claim to have attended?

And as you felt the need to share this info - you can share when and where it was who presented it and the relevant data.

Like comparing total average speed of the Tour’s over the years. The Tour now is ridden at a faster speed than 1996, 1997, 1998 etc.

Nevertheless. A real study of the top 10 on each mountain stage from 2002 to 2013 shows climbing times are not down from 1998.

There is a dip in 2008 when the passport came into effect but show back up again over the course of 2009, 2010 but back to an all time high in 2012 and 2013.

Going further down than Top 10 or a 3 minute cut off skews the data. Domestiques work prior to the end climb and slow and come in late.

The grupetto slows overall average climbing times.

However for the Top 10, climbing times are around 2005 levels and with 1998.

A better number crunch would be comparing ITT with climbing times over the years. Right there you’ll note that ITT’er are climbing with the best and vice versa. Whereas outside of Armstrong this was not always the case. Indurain a Ferrari client was the last living ITT’er and climber.

If in 2014 Thomas becomes a strong ITT and climber then you’ll need to start worrying.

Indurain a Ferrari client? Was that mentioned at the conference?

I look forward to you sharing all the data from the 'doping conference' (any free samples?) in one of the other more appropriate threads.

 

[sniper]

Firstly - you have stated your opinion, and I broadly agree with most of your conclusions re Froome.

But - this does not mean in any way that others (including Walsh) have to share those opinions or the methods you used to form your opinion.

You have asked of Walsh some good pertinent questions.
But again cloak them in your conclusions using your methods.
As a quick example, I would agree with your conclusions more than I would MVs or even Walshs - but as long as they are reasonably consistent in their approach then my only disagreement is in their interpretation - which they are entitled to have.

could it be that your ongoing suggestion that walsh really believes sky are clean springs from a slight lack of insight into human nature?
Imo its rather insulting to walsh to suggest he went from brilliant journo to sky,s phill liggett without getting paid for it.

 

[thehog]

Hmm, was it a 'doping conference' or an anti-doping conference you claim to have attended?

And as you felt the need to share this info - you can share when and where it was who presented it and the relevant data.


Indurain a Ferrari client? Was that mentioned at the conference?

I look forward to you sharing all the data from the 'doping conference' (any free samples?) in one of the other more appropriate threads.

I think better if your friend Martin could provide the source of his "climbing averages are down" statement.

Then we can have a meaningful discussion.

Trust you agree.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

could it be that your ongoing suggestion that walsh really believes sky are clean springs from a slight lack of insight into human nature?
Imo its rather insulting to walsh to suggest he went from brilliant journo to sky,s phill liggett without getting paid for it.

I think it is more than slightly insulting to Walsh and everyone else that you continue to comment without reading all the articles he has written.

 

[sniper]

I think it is more than slightly insulting to Walsh and everyone else that you continue to comment without reading all the articles he has written.

If a discussion based on what people have read bothers you, ignore the discussion.

Besides, it is quite common in all domains of life to review or comment on a given text or piece of art or a song without having read/seen/heard everything of the respective author/artist. Not sure why on an internet discussion forum your urging posters to make an exception for walsh.

 

[the sceptic]

Dr Mas, you think sky are doping but you dont think Walsh is on the sky bandwagon is that correct?

If so, where do you think he went wrong?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If a discussion based on what people have read bothers you, ignore the discussion.

Besides, it is quite common in all domains of life to review or comment on a given text or piece of art or a song without having read/seen/heard everything of the respective author/artist. Not sure why on an internet discussion forum your urging posters to make an exception for walsh.

It is an internet forum - where we do indeed discuss things.

That is exactly why I will point out that your opinion is rarely based in anything remotely factual or accurate.

Dr Mas, you think sky are doping but you dont think Walsh is on the sky bandwagon is that correct?

If so, where do you think he went wrong?

To your first question, thats correct on both counts.

To the second question, thats trickier. I do not know if he is 'wrong' - we just have a difference of opinion on the ultimate conclusion.
And this is done acknowledging that he is in a far better position to judge the ongoings of Sky.

But - to attempt to speculate on where our opinions diverge, in as much as he is hailed as a great journalist (when it suits) and The Lance slayer, he was not up to speed on Sky as he reports on a wide variety of sports, so he keeps his recorder on and notes things. It is almost inevitable that sometime Sky will come under scrutiny for something specific (the JTL suspicion being an example) and Sky having to reveal more than it has - from that Walsh will be able to spot if they are indeed lying and inconsistent about something substantial.

 

[martinvickers]

The problem with this statement is it’s not true. And is not fact.

It’s a nice statement, looks good on a UCI powerpoint at a doping conference I attend last year.

Like comparing total average speed of the Tour’s over the years. The Tour now is ridden at a faster speed than 1996, 1997, 1998 etc.

Nevertheless. A real study of the top 10 on each mountain stage from 2002 to 2013 shows climbing times are not down from 1998.

There is a dip in 2008 when the passport came into effect but show back up again over the course of 2009, 2010 but back to an all time high in 2012 and 2013.


Going further down than Top 10 or a 3 minute cut off skews the data. Domestiques work prior to the end climb and slow and come in late.

The grupetto slows overall average climbing times.

However for the Top 10, climbing times are around 2005 levels and with 1998.

Really? Got a link for that?

Lets look at some of the summit finishes of 2013, then.

Alpe d'Huez. Top all time ascents per year according to vetooo

Leaving aside the winner of each stage/mountain argument. AS you said, top 10.

1994 Lino came 10th - which is also 80th all time - that means top 10 riders that year in top 80 of all time
1995 Jalabert came 10th - 55th All time - that means top 10 riders in 1995 all came in top 55
1997 Jalabert came 10th - 61st all time - that means top ten riders in 97 all in best 60 all time

So now 36 of top 80 filled by 'top ten riders' from those three years. Almost half of top 80 all time from those three years

Let's look at the later 2004 ish period

2004 10th Goubert - 48th all time
2006 10th Cadel Evans - 59th all time

To Those five years provide AT LEAST 60 'top ten' riders in top 80 of all time.

2013? Only 5 in top 200 all time. 5.

Only 2 in the top 90. 2.

In 1997, 10th is 55th all time
In 2004, 10th is 48th All time.

In 2013, 10th doesn't make top 200

No difference at all, Hog.

Now there may well be non performance reasons for this. Or there may not. But the 'top 10' times were slower. It's just a fact.


At Ax 3 Domains, fewer stats to use, but lets try.

in 2001, 10th got you 30th all time, in 2003 it got you 48th.
In 2013, it got you 66th, despite being the very first summit finish of the race. And of those, only 1 is in the top 20 of all time.

Only 2 in the top 30.

Looking forward to the link, Hog.

 

[martinvickers]

I think better if your friend Martin could provide the source of his "climbing averages are down" statement.

Then we can have a meaningful discussion.

Trust you agree.

Why am I not surprised that you won't just provide the evidence, and instead deflect, eh?

p.s.welcome back, Hog ;-)

 

[thehog]

Why am I not surprised that you won't just provide the evidence, and instead deflect, eh?

Thanks for the information.

Allow me some time to digest and review.

Cheers.

 

[martinvickers]

Thanks for the information.

Allow me some time to digest and review.

Cheers.

Of course. But one question; if you already know what you posted above, why not just link to it now?

 

[thehog]

Of course. But one question; if you already know what you posted above, why not just link to it now?

Slow down Mart.

One needs to consider the totality of the facts presented.

I wouldn't want to be rash and make premature statements in response to the information provided.

I feel the discussion would be much better for all with this approach.

Thanks.

Will come back to you.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Slow down Mart.

One needs to consider the totality of the facts presented.

I wouldn't want to be rash and make premature statements in response to the information provided.

I feel the discussion would be much better for all with this approach.

Thanks.

Will come back to you.

Hi Hog,
Well while you are off having some Hog time - perhaps you could share the info that you had no hesitation in saying was fact that contradicted the 'doping conference' you attended last year.

The problem with this statement is it’s not true. And is not fact.

It’s a nice statement, looks good on a UCI powerpoint at a doping conference I attend last year.
.......

If you can furnish us with the details of the conference I am sure we can find the relevant info and perhaps even the powerpoint display. It may assist you in remembering the 'facts'.

 

[thehog]

Hi Hog,
Well while you are off having some Hog time - perhaps you could share the info that you had no hesitation in saying was fact that contradicted the 'doping conference' you attended last year.



If you can furnish us with the details of the conference I am sure we can find the relevant info and perhaps even the powerpoint display. It may assist you in remembering the 'facts'.

One step at a time Doc.

Lets flesh out Big Martin's statements.

Then we'll move onto my counter.

Clear.

Good.

 

[thehog]

AVERAGE climbing speeds are down from the Festina heights. That's a simple verifiable fact.

More riders, both minnows and somebodies, have been caught in recent years, and dealt with relatively strictly. Again, it's recorded, black and white, verifiable.

If you don't believe me, tell me, how many GT winners were disqualified PRIOR to 1991 because of Drugs? How many life bans?

So actually, yes, we can have a pretty good clue, the sport is cleanER though not clean, and that the effectiveness of what can can get through the system is less.

You may not believe it, or wish to believe it. Doesn't make it less true.

Pre-91? GT winners caught doping?

Can I have a go?

Ummmm let me see...

Fignon (twice)
Delgado
Merckx
Zoteomelk
Kelly

After '91

Pantani
Ullrich
Landis
Armstrong
Contador

5-a-piece!

Seems like doping is right up there and still a prevailing theme.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

One step at a time Doc.

Lets flesh out Big Martin's statements.

Then we'll move onto my counter.

Clear.

Good.

You already stated as 'fact' that it was wrong - give us the facts while you are fleshing out Martins statements.

Also, since you are so enthusiastic about this subject then perhaps you should move it to an appropriate thread - to be fair, you are good at finding threads that have been inactive or forgotten about.

 

[weeniebeenie]

Pre-91? GT winners caught doping?

Can I have a go?

Ummmm let me see...

Fignon (twice)
Delgado
Merckx
Zoteomelk
Kelly

After '91

Pantani
Ullrich
Landis
Armstrong
Contador

5-a-piece!

Seems like doping is right up there and still a prevailing theme.

The question was how many pre-91 GT winners were disqualified.

 

[thehog]

The question was how many pre-91 GT winners were disqualified.

From racing?

All of them.