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.
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Parker said:And therein we have the views of a extremist fanatic.
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.the sceptic said:Parker. Throught human history man has never climbed as fast as Froome without doping. I think you are the fanatic here.
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.
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.
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 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.
martinvickers said:"I don't need no stinking facts"
.
The Hitch said:What "facts"
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?
Yes they do. But unlike you, they don't dismiss the opinions of those better positioned before they have even read them.red_flanders said:Of course I think my opinion is correct, as does everyone else.
martinvickers said:Mend your tone and cut out the ad hominems. I've warned you about the tantrums before.
martinvickers said:Mend your tone and cut out the ad hominems. I've warned you about the tantrums before.
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?
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.
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.
martinvickers said:Mend your tone .
I've warned you about the tantrums before
red_flanders said:. But calling knowledgable cyclists fanatics because they look at Froome and think he's a doper is just dumb.
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.
martinvickers said:You may be right. I'll have to brave its pages before I decide for sure.
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.
thehog said:Don't do it! 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.
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...
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.
the sceptic said:<snipped for trolling nonsense>
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.
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.