Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[martinvickers]

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.

Honest question. Did you hate it when nobody but hinault got within ten minutes of Lemond in 86? When nobody, Hinault and Lemond included, got within ten minutes of Fignon in 84?

Strikes me that close races are rather the exception than the norm. Contador won in 2007 by 23 secs by comparison. Where you happier with Contador than Lemond?

 

[red_flanders]

Honest question. Did you hate it when nobody but hinault got within ten minutes of Lemond in 86? When nobody, Hinault and Lemond included, got within ten minutes of Fignon in 84?

Strikes me that close races are rather the exception than the norm. Contador won in 2007 by 23 secs by comparison. Where you happier with Contador than Lemond?

Honest response. I didn't see all those on TV. I saw the 84 Tour, but was in the US in 86. Nevertheless, the differences are stark. In the case of Indurain and Armstrong, it was years of domination and I found it terribly boring. That Fignon, Hinault and eventually Lemond traded wins was what made it great. Like the Lakers and the Celtics. Froome may become like Armstrong and Indurain, maybe not. In all three cases it was and is absolutely clear that what they are doing is/was not possible without doping. It's akin to watching Bonds, Sosa and McGwire turn the home run record into comedy.

One never got the sense of that from watching Hinault, Fignon or Lemond. Certainly everyone in the US was more naive then, so this is a major difference as well.

 

[the sceptic]

Seriously? Are you this upset by being challenged?

And then people wonder that threads go to s***.

Jesus wept.

Im a bit upset that I havent been able to vortex you into getting banned yet but maybe one day.

How can you challenge anyone when you never have any opinions of your own? All you ever do is cry for evidence and facts

 

[martinvickers]

Honest response. I didn't see all those on TV. I saw the 84 Tour, but was in the US in 86. Nevertheless, the differences are stark. In the case of Indurain and Armstrong, it was years of domination and I found it terribly boring. That Fignon, Hinault and eventually Lemond traded wins was what made it great. Like the Lakers and the Celtics. Froome may become like Armstrong and Indurain, maybe not. In all three cases it was and is absolutely clear that what they are doing is/was not possible without doping. It's akin to watching Bonds, Sosa and McGwire turn the home run record into comedy.

One never got the sense of that from watching Hinault, Fignon or Lemond. Certainly everyone in the US was more naive then, so this is a major difference as well.

I suppose my point is only that 'impressions' can be unreliable, no matter how convinced we are of them.

My dad was an intense Sean Kelly fan. And he hated, I mean, hated Greg Lemond- brash, American, cocky...and my father was convinced...CONVINCED..he was on dope. And nothing would disuade him from that view. Hell, he might still believe it. And he thought Kelly was ...relatively...clean. He wasn't so stupid as to think he was a saint.

I watch cycling on and off with him from the early eighties at latest, but didn't really truly fall in love until La Plagne 87. A sham, as it turned out. But I was hooked.

My dad stopped watching cycling when he stopped riding casually - golf i his thing now, and he's a damn good oldie player, as it happens. Wished he found it decades earlier; he has a knack.

But not unconnected, he loathed Armstrong, from the word go. And that rubbed off on me - i was going through the classic hating all things american phase - apart oddly from the miami dolphins - more to the point, i didn't believe what i was watching - but not because of what armstrong actually did, but because, frankly, of Festina, and late for the bassons, simeoni stuff - that to me was RED FLAG ALERT ALERT!!! Clean riders don't bully other clean riders. But the performances alone?

I hadn't hated indurain, though i didn't like him either. I hadn't hated Pantani, or Ulrich, or god forgive me, even Riis. During the early nineties, as i read around, I knew the sport stank a bit, but probably not the sheer level of drowning in epo and then blood.

OF course, it would be great to say I 'saw through it all'. But I didn't. I had doubts, suspicions, i was reasonably clued in. Still am. Still do. But I know how much of the certainty of my dad, and then me, was driven by whether we 'liked' the rider - how hard it was to allow for the possiblity of being wrong. Not just that in fact e.g. Roche was a cheat. But also that e.g. Lemond wasn't.

It's Festina time again, really, at the moment. And everyone wants to be the smart kid who spots the new Emperor is naked. "you won't fool me again, Nah!"

Which is the reaction of the dumped adolesecent boyfriend down the decades. Embarresment at our 'stupidity', followed by anger with the 'cheat', followed by cycnism about the whole business, and an overdose of sarcasm.

Understandable, human...but ultimately just a wall. I choose to wait and try to keep an open mind. Your mileage may vary.

 

[red_flanders]

It's not an impression. What he's doing has never been done by clean riders, no matter what their pedigree. That's really all there is to it.

 

[oldcrank]

We know from Hamilton's and many others riders' statements that even riders on the team who aren't in the inner circle don't know what's going on RE: doping on a team.

I agree, my friend. That is pretty much what Fran
tweeted the other day as well.

 

[Havetts]

The thing is, I doubt anyone will be as stupid as Armstrong with regards to PR ever again. If DB or Froome or anyone starts bullying like that they should be sent to elementary school for impressive amounts of stupid.

The Armstrong standard for red flags, besides climbing times, will probably never be reached again. And to declare people clean because they arent as aggressive is in my opinion naive.

 

[mattghg]

smart move by sky. The Walsh shield is very strong.

Any doping question can now be brushed away since detective Walsh didnt find any dark secrets.

But clinic detectives who, unlike Walsh, have no anti-doping investigative pedigree and, unlike Walsh, didn't spend any time embedded with the team know better.

You're all sooo clever.

 

[timmers]

It's not an impression. What he's doing has never been done by clean riders, no matter what their pedigree. That's really all there is to it.

Well that not true is it? Every rider has been beaten by somebody no matter how good they are!

The supposition you are suggesting is that human performance has maximised and that the limits have been reached. Do you really believe that? I don't know if you race or have seen current pro riders but they are scary thin and I know that if you lose weight you climb faster!

I saw Lemond in 92 and he was fat compared to todays riders. VO2 is a function of weight as I understand it so if he had lost weight he would have ridden climbs faster! Does that mean he was taking drugs!

I agree that Walsh is unlikely to break a story of drugs and debauchery but only an idiot or a septic or hog/sow would think otherwise.

I note in the other thread you quoted percentages for Froomes performance. The question I would ask you is how do you know the percentages you quote are true?

Lastly Indurain won by time trialling and then limiting in the mountains through a strong team. I am surprised that you thought his wins were akin to Armstrongs!

 

[sniper]

The thing is, I doubt anyone will be as stupid as Armstrong with regards to PR ever again. If DB or Froome or anyone starts bullying like that they should be sent to elementary school for impressive amounts of stupid.

The Armstrong standard for red flags, besides climbing times, will probably never be reached again. And to declare people clean because they arent as aggressive is in my opinion naive.

well said.

an independent walsh should at best be agnostic wrt sky's cleanlihood.

 

[The Hitch]

But clinic detectives who, unlike Walsh, have no anti-doping investigative pedigree and, unlike Walsh, didn't spend any time embedded with the team know better.

You're all sooo clever.

You have any actual arguments or is argument from authority all you go on.

you perceive Walsh to be most qualified, therefore everything he says must be true. (ignoring the fact that he's massively discredited himself on sky).

Don't.for a second pretend that is an honest position. Or mock those who actually think for themselves.

not to mention that your way of thinking totally fails against logic when one considers there are plenty of well qualified antidopeurs who doubt sky or at least their - is all clean now story. Such as **** Pound, Paul Kimmage and Mike Adhenden. The latter of which has seen far more than Walsh.

But are you going to aknowledge that or shove your fingers in your ears?

 

[Benotti69]

But clinic detectives who, unlike Walsh, have no anti-doping investigative pedigree and, unlike Walsh, didn't spend any time embedded with the team know better.

You're all sooo clever.

Dont take it personal when the sport screws you over.

 

[MatParker117]

You have any actual arguments or is argument from authority all you go on.

you perceive Walsh to be most qualified, therefore everything he says must be true. (ignoring the fact that he's massively discredited himself on sky).

Don't.for a second pretend that is an honest position. Or mock those who actually think for themselves.

not to mention that your way of thinking totally fails against logic when one considers there are plenty of well qualified antidopeurs who doubt sky or at least their - is all clean now story. Such as **** Pound, Paul Kimmage and Mike Adhenden. The latter of which has seen far more than Walsh.

But are you going to aknowledge that or shove your fingers in your ears?

Quick question why do people take Paul kimmage as gospel when it comes to the articles he wrote on Garmin but dismiss Walsh as "Sky's *****" when Walsh did the same thing this year?

 

[thehog]

Quick question why do people take Paul kimmage as gospel when it comes to the articles he wrote on Garmin but dismiss Walsh as "Sky's *****" when Walsh did the same thing this year?

Maybe because Garmin don't have a groupetto rider attacking in-saddle up mountains and smashing Contador?

That kinda gives away that you guys are doping.

Chris Froome?! Seriously? A Tour winner? LOL!

 

[Benotti69]

To summarise: "The man we used to say was brilliant is now rubbish because he says does not agree with our prejudices. He may well of talked to many people, but that means nothing against my entrenched opinion based on talking to no-one"

"Journalism is confirming what I already think. Opposing reports are public relations" - George Orwell.

Here we have the whole Sky modus to embed Walsh so they can claim the great journalist who "Slayed" the evil Armstrong only found Angels riding at team Sky.

The team whose 'camp refugees' were racing faster up mountains that past dopers and TTing better than all. This is all done on heavenly bread and water.

You want a cult, the fandom of teams like USPS and Sky.

 

[The Hitch]

Quick question why do people take Paul kimmage as gospel when it comes to the articles he wrote on Garmin but dismiss Walsh as "Sky's *****" when Walsh did the same thing this year?

Err no I don't take Kimmage as gospel. There are a lot of criticisms I have of Kimmage's articles.

I think for myself. Try it sometime.

 

[mattghg]

you perceive Walsh to be most qualified,

More qualified than any of us.

therefore everything he says must be true

I said this when? I think that

1 He is genuinely anti-doping
2 He has good investigative skills
3 He has had opportunity to investigate.

So he knows what he's talking about. Of course he might still be wrong. But I deny this:

he's massively discredited himself on sky

He's 'discredited himself' by disagreeing with you, hasn't he? All those years building credibility for himself, down the toilet.

Don't.for a second pretend that is an honest position. Or mock those who actually think for themselves.

Like I said, Hitch. You're sooo clever. Give yourself a pat on the back.

well qualified antidopeurs who doubt sky or at least their - is all clean now story

1 Those are two different things. Has Pound or Ashenden said they doubt Sky's cleanliness? NB their cleanliness, not the workability of ZTP (this is a genuine question--maybe they have and I missed it).
2 AFAICT no-one has said that 'it's all clean now'. What people have said is that it's possible to win clean now (this is not uniquely 'Sky's story', it's also e.g. Vaughters' story). Even Kimmage seems to think that it's possible to win clean now, given his evident admiration for Dan Martin.

 

[Benotti69]

<snip>

Has Pound or Ashenden said they doubt Sky's cleanliness? NB their cleanliness, not the workability of ZTP (this is a genuine question--maybe they have and I missed it).

Who is going to take on Murdoch without hard evidence?

Not someone who works for Murdoch!

It was hard enough for those taking on Armstrong, even when it was widely known he was doping!

Ashenden has spoken about doping on 'so called clean. teams. It does not take the 'oh so clever' to figure out he is looking at Sky as part of the 'so called clean' teams.

2 AFAICT no-one has said that 'it's all clean now'. What people have said is that it's possible to win clean now (this is not uniquely 'Sky's story', it's also e.g. Vaughters' story). Even Kimmage seems to think that it's possible to win clean now, given his evident admiration for Dan Martin.

So is it possible for 'clean' riders to beat the times of dopers on climbs? Especially riders skinny with almost 0% body fat with no loss of power and TTing like world champs.

This has not been seen in the modern era. How do they do this clean? Riders from the grupetto losing weight but gaining ability to beat everyone at will?

 

[sniper]

More qualified than any of us.

first, since you haven't got the slightest clue who any of us is, you're not in a position to say this.
second, nobody's saying walsh aint qalified.
on the contrary, most agree he's highly qualified to make a sound judgement. the argument, if you didn't get it yet, is that he's been persuaded by Sky to fabricate a nice story rather than to publish his qualified judgement.

 

[Ferminal]

I think he has accurately reported what he has observed... though his rationalising of his position is of little value.

 

[red_flanders]

I think he has accurately reported what he has observed... though his rationalising of his position is of little value.

Agreed. I think the main point that gets lost at times is that he's in a position to observe a lot...but not the things which are being discussed here.

He is in a position to hear the team's philosophies at some length and observe their training and management methods. Very interesting stuff, and certainly a great part of the appeal of what he writes. But ultimately not revealing of all the conclusions he tends to arrive at.

 

[Benotti69]

I think he has accurately reported what he has observed... though his rationalising of his position is of little value.

He has been accurate, yes.

His decision to ingnore what he did previously when reporting on the sport, using his eyes, rational, common sense and just take Team Sky at their word is what is being crticised.

Walsh started out as a sports fan with a typewriter and it seems he is determined to end his career in the exact same manner.

 

[The Hitch]

He's 'discredited himself' by disagreeing with you, hasn't he? All those years building credibility for himself, down the toilet.

No, unlike you I believe in arguments, not in a 2 d world in which there are those who agree with you and those who disagree with you.

Walsh has discredited himself not by taking a different position, I have NEVER ever criticised a single sky fan until they said somthing stupid, and that included Walsh for about a year after he chose their side. Walsh discredited himself by his hypocricy on the climbing times issue. He was fanboying Froome and Wiggins for a long time before that, but I barely made a post about him.

Anyone who goes around for a decade preaching that they know who is doping based on how fast they climb, then immediately switches position the second their friend posts Armstrongesque times, has in the eyes of any rational human being discredited themself on that issue. You can't promise "taxes won't rise if I get elected" then raise them the second you get into office.

There is right and there is wrong and Walsh in his behaviour there has shown himself quite clearly to be in the wrong.

But when he did that he discredited himself full stop and whether he agrees with my position or not has nothing to do with it.

We could also add his offensive and factually incorrect comment about Sky doubters being bitter Armstrong fanboys, when the evidence clearly shows that most of those who defend Sky were Armstrong's biggest fans and defenders including Wiggins himself, Ligget, Sherwen, Kirby, Brunyeel, etc.

See thats what "arguments" are. I make a case. I back it up. None of this - those who agree with me are right those who disagree are wrong, nonesence.

Has Pound or Ashenden said they doubt Sky's cleanliness? NB their cleanliness, not the workability of ZTP (this is a genuine question--maybe they have and I missed it).

**** Pound said a short while after the Tour that he simply isn't going to watch the Tour de France because its still as dirty as ever.
About the TDF that Froome won 3 stages in and won overall by 5 minutes. I doubt his comment was directed at the winner of the combativity award

Ashenden said this in September 2012 as wiggins and brailsfraud were announcing to the world how everyone ought to thank them for making cycling clean.

. Despite the self-serving data bending and associated propaganda to the contrary, I am led to believe that there are pockets of organised, highly sophisticated dopers even within ‘new age’ cycling teams. Personally, I don’t accept that the ‘dark era’ has ended, it has just morphed into a new guise.

 

[martinvickers]

It's not an impression. What he's doing has never been done by clean riders, no matter what their pedigree. That's really all there is to it.

Yes, it is, Red. It really is.

And entitled as you are tour opinions and impressions, it's the rigid denial of that basic truth that puts you into the church seats for Parker et al.

 

[veganrob]

Yes, it is, Red. It really is.

And entitled as you are tour opinions and impressions, it's the rigid denial of that basic truth that puts you into the church seats for Parker et al.

Excuse me.