Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Zam_Olyas]

Excuse me.

Me too. Something is wrong when dylan fans don't get it

 

[Puckfiend]

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.

I for one am really open to an explanation as to why Froome, Porte, Horner, et al are suddenly able to match and/or best the times of Armstrong, Ullrich, Mayo, Beloki, etc., who throughout the 90s and 00s blew away the times of the generation before. We know that this was because of oxygen vector doping. So how was this accomplished? It is going to take more than "sleeping on your own pillow" and "warming down" to persuade me.

 

[red_flanders]

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.

Performance is measurable to a great extent. If you can name me clean riders who have performed like Froome, or even riders who aren't 100% obviously and proven dopers, I'd like to hear about it. The performances aren't impressions.

What one does with that information is up to the individual. You can choose to believe there has been some breakthrough in training as team Sky says, or you can choose to believe that Froome has used some illegal method to arrive at his performances. That is the subjective part and you and Parker can choose whatever side of the fence you want to ride on that one. I have chosen mine. I am confident I am correct, as is Parker. You seem to have not made up your mind which is fine as well.

My opinions about the performances are my own, and I will argue for those opinions because I have arrived at them through my own observation and reasoning. If you have observations and reasoning which is counter to mine, just make your case. Calling me a fanatic or saying that measurable performance is an "impression" hasn't convinced me, and I doubt many readers. Like I said a while back, if someone has some explanation for how Froome has gotten to this level, I'd be interested to hear it. But I'm not buying balanced training and better mental approach as reasons for such dramatic changes.

 

[the sceptic]

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

Pretty much. Sky wouldnt have invited him or anyone else if they thought he might find something.

 

[thehog]

Performance is measurable to a great extent. If you can name me clean riders who have performed like Froome, or even riders who aren't 100% obviously and proven dopers, I'd like to hear about it. The performances aren't impressions.

What one does with that information is up to the individual. You can choose to believe there has been some breakthrough in training as team Sky says, or you can choose to believe that Froome has used some illegal method to arrive at his performances. That is the subjective part and you and Parker can choose whatever side of the fence you want to ride on that one. I have chosen mine. I am confident I am correct, as is Parker. You seem to have not made up your mind which is fine as well.

My opinions about the performances are my own, and I will argue for those opinions because I have arrived at them through my own observation and reasoning. If you have observations and reasoning which is counter to mine, just make your case. Calling me a fanatic or saying that measurable performance is an "impression" hasn't convinced me, and I doubt many readers. Like I said a while back, if someone has some explanation for how Froome has gotten to this level, I'd be interested to hear it. But I'm not buying balanced training and better mental approach as reasons for such dramatic changes.

You write well and I agree.

I'm open to understanding why the improvements in Froome and co.

I'd be interested to hear how they have done it. It can't just be Bahzhilla as Porte, Wiggins etc. have all shown dramatic improvements also.

If the cycling landscape has changed for the better as is suggested by Vaughters and Sky then I'm not seeing how or why this occurred. All I see is a lot of "clean era" and "it was a long time ago" but not actual reasoning to what has actually changed.

I look at Horner and then I look at his passport and think nothing has changed.

Knowing what we know and the history of cycling I'd say if you're giving Sky the leap of faith on being clean then that is more fanatical then suggesting that they are not.

 

[sniper]

I for one am really open to an explanation as to why Froome, Porte, Horner, et al are suddenly able to match and/or best the times of Armstrong, Ullrich, Mayo, Beloki, etc., who throughout the 90s and 00s blew away the times of the generation before. We know that this was because of oxygen vector doping. So how was this accomplished? It is going to take more than "sleeping on your own pillow" and "warming down" to persuade me.

but they've now also started paying attention to nutrition.
they didn't do that in the 80s, 90s, and 00s.

 

[Puckfiend]

but they've now also started paying attention to nutrition.
they didn't do that in the 80s, 90s, and 00s.

Facepalm!!
How could I have been so blind? It is documented that Horner use to live on a diet of McDonalds! Now he is taking care of himself. Silly me! Here I was thinking it was something insidious like PEDs, even though I new doping stopped in 2006! I feel so stoopid!

 

[Dazed and Confused]

when Walsh returns from Africa, the clean team headed by Froome will be all about hard work, training, dedication, perhaps a bit about the healthy African bush diet etc. Thats a given. Done deal.

However can Walsh spin the "white plastic Brit who won the TdF" in a way where African cycling will benefit hugely? If he can I will tip the hat.

Awaiting snippets from the articles.......

 

[thehog]

when Walsh returns from Africa, the clean team headed by Froome will be all about hard work, training, dedication, perhaps a bit about the healthy African bush diet etc. Thats a given. Done deal.

However can Walsh spin the "white plastic Brit who won the TdF" in a way where African cycling will benefit hugely? If he can I will tip the hat.

Awaiting snippets from the articles.......

Will the Sky book read like "might as well win"?

 

[sniper]

Will the Sky book read like "might as well win"?

the "well, they have the biggest budget" argument was one of the first walsh used to justify sky's usps-like dominance.

 

[mattghg]

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.

OK then I apologize. Plenty of people turned on Walsh as soon as he 'chose their side', but I now accept you weren't one of them.

I want to ask: did he really say that he could tell who was doping just from climbing time? Because IIRC there was always something else. I know he has often mentioned Armstrong going up to Sestriere in 1999, but that year there was also Bassons and the positive for corticosteroids.

The other thing to mention is that Walsh stood up for Nibali when people were saying that his ride in this year's Giro MTT was incredible. That suggests that if there was a 'switch', it didn't happen the second that Froome posted some time or other in the TdF.

 

[Benotti69]

OK then I apologize. Plenty of people turned on Walsh as soon as he 'chose their side', but I now accept you weren't one of them.

I want to ask: did he really say that he could tell who was doping just from climbing time? Because IIRC there was always something else. I know he has often mentioned Armstrong going up to Sestriere in 1999, but that year there was also Bassons and the positive for corticosteroids.

The other thing to mention is that Walsh stood up for Nibali when people were saying that his ride in this year's Giro MTT was incredible. That suggests that if there was a 'switch', it didn't happen the second that Froome posted some time or other in the TdF.

Walsh called out Rasmussen and Contador in 2007 and said something along the lines of there was no point in watching cycling anymore (i paraphrase) and it would be unlikely for him to return to the TdF.

 

[RownhamHill]

Walsh called out Rasmussen and Contador in 2007 and said something along the lines of there was no point in watching cycling anymore (i paraphrase) and it would be unlikely for him to return to the TdF.

Yeah, what an idiot, look how that worked out for him, eh?

 

[Benotti69]

Yeah, what an idiot, look how that worked out for him, eh?

Strange that he sees Rasmussen and Contador as doping by using his eyes, no facts just his eyes. He didn't do that for Armstrong and only called out Armstrong after Armstrong attacked Bassons.

Again Froome does a 'RasmussenContadorArmstrong' and Walsh sees nothing?

Hmmm, is it because he works for Murdoch?

So Ro, which Walsh is right, to wait till Froome slags of a clean rider or till Froome rides faster up hills than dopers?

 

[jens_attacks]

I want to ask: did he really say that he could tell who was doping just from climbing time? Because IIRC there was always something else. I know he has often mentioned Armstrong going up to Sestriere in 1999, but that year there was also Bassons and the positive for corticosteroids.

lance's watts on sestriere were not extraordinary...1999 tour remains the slowest on the climbs since 1993... oh the irony....2013 contenders would smash that race to pieces.

it was not about the watts but just about the emotional effect of seeing armstrong destroying everyone i guess. never did that until then.
but it actually was the one of the most normal uphill slaughters of the last 20 years. hautacam 2000 was totally another level

 

[sniper]

Walsh called out Rasmussen and Contador in 2007 and said something along the lines of there was no point in watching cycling anymore (i paraphrase) and it would be unlikely for him to return to the TdF.

Called out horner too. Zero evidence other than the eyes

 

[red_flanders]

lance's watts on sestriere were not extraordinary...1999 tour remains the slowest on the climbs since 1993... oh the irony....2013 contenders would smash that race to pieces.

it was not about the watts but just about the emotional effect of seeing armstrong destroying everyone i guess. never did that until then.
but it actually was the one of the most normal uphill slaughters of the last 20 years. hautacam 2000 was totally another level

So on the money. I had my doubts about Armstrong in '99, but was not ready to call BS for exactly those reasons, as well as the fact that I was rooting for him and willing to ignore the fact that he'd only been climbing since the previous Vuelta, and had been a total non-factor before that.

Hautacam was just absurd, and completely turned my view. I watched the video of it with a buddy who didn't follow cycling and he was aghast, and just laughing about how doped he thought LA was.

It's worth noting, and to bring this back to Sky, Armstrong's palmares and pedigree, as well as his previous placings were light years better than anything Froome did before his breakout Vuelta.

Froome's transformation has been more dramatic to my view than Armstrong's, whose transformation was plenty shocking.

 

[gooner]

Called out horner too. Zero evidence other than the eyes

De Canio's comments, Rider 15(?) and chasing down Hincapie during the Tour is more than enough.

 

[red_flanders]

OK then I apologize. Plenty of people turned on Walsh as soon as he 'chose their side', but I now accept you weren't one of them.

I don't get the issue with changing one's view about Walsh. He doggedly pursued Armstrong for years, and obviously was barking up the right tree. He's called out other riders who were obviously doping, great, we agree.

Then he presents views on another rider who is doing exactly the same things, and he declares that he thinks they are clean...with caveats to be fair.

So...a lot of people think he is wrong this time. Why would one not object to his views when one thinks his views are wrong? Why would one not wonder why he believes one unbelievable performance when he didn't and doesn't (Horner) believe others?

One need not think Walsh is a bad guy to disagree with him. A lot of people think he's genuinely wrong, I personally think he has blinders on, and others think he's on the take.

None of those reactions seem surprising, even if I don't subscribe to the latter. Facts are not in evidence in that case in my view. Still, it wouldn't surprise me to find out (given his rather inconsistent views and rather cozy connections) that his views may have been obscured by the Pound sign.

Why would you frame changing one's mind about Walsh as a bad thing?

 

[The Hitch]

So on the money. I had my doubts about Armstrong in '99, but was not ready to call BS for exactly those reasons, as well as the fact that I was rooting for him and willing to ignore the fact that he'd only been climbing since the previous Vuelta, and had been a total non-factor before that.

Hautacam was just absurd, and completely turned my view. .

The parallel here is that Wiggins (allegedly) did the 2012 really really slow. It isn't true of course since they did Peyresoudes as fast as Contador Rasmussen but the Cycling media chickens got their wings in a flap about how it was slower, because they said so and then people over here and Walsh of course were saying its believable because they aren't going as fast.

Then of course, just like Pharmstrong Hautacam, Froome absolutely smashes all the arguments for Sky being clean out of the water by posting insane times up climbs.

Some people like you red saw Armstrong do that and realized you were probably wrong to believe in it. With Sky there are some people who belived sky till 2012 who like you back in 2000, when confronted with the facts, accepted that they were wrong, however much the truth hurt.

OK then I apologize. Plenty of people turned on Walsh as soon as he 'chose their side', but I now accept you weren't one of them.

I want to ask: did he really say that he could tell who was doping just from climbing time? Because IIRC there was always something else. I know he has often mentioned Armstrong going up to Sestriere in 1999, but that year there was also Bassons and the positive for corticosteroids.

The other thing to mention is that Walsh stood up for Nibali when people were saying that his ride in this year's Giro MTT was incredible. That suggests that if there was a 'switch', it didn't happen the second that Froome posted some time or other in the TdF.

Well I admire your ability to keep a respectful tone in these unpleasant discussions.

Yes Walsh called out Contador in 2007 purely on the basis of his speed

M: How can you tell he’s cheating?

DW: Michael Rasmussen went up the Gourette-Col d'Aubisque faster than Lance Armstrong ever went up it. Alberto Contador was alongside him the whole way. I’ve been at that race since the early 80s and I know what speeds they go up that mountain. The speeds the leaders go up at today are just illogical.

http://www.macleans.ca/canada/features/article.jsp?content=20070727_150415_8508

As I recall between 2012 and 2013, he also used it as an argument for why he believes in sky,

 

[martinvickers]

lance's watts on sestriere were not extraordinary...1999 tour remains the slowest on the climbs since 1993... oh the irony....2013 contenders would smash that race to pieces.

it was not about the watts but just about the emotional effect of seeing armstrong destroying everyone i guess. never did that until then.
but it actually was the one of the most normal uphill slaughters of the last 20 years. hautacam 2000 was totally another level

For Walsh, I think with Armstrong in '99 the 'imponderable' was he came back a better rider after something that should have killed him, or at very least diminished him as a rider for some time, if not permanantly. Instead it was like the cancer was performance enhancing - i vaguely remember crackpot theories about upper body weight loss specific to the cancer drugs, and other such nonsense. But I agree that the 2000 performaces were more 'eye-opening' from that pure stats point of view.

But one of the great unspokens is that armstrong's performances were NOT even really the most absolutely outrageous of the dark ages, when you think of the likes of Riis, or Indurain's utter ITT destruction of the entire peloton.

 

[Benotti69]

For Walsh, I think with Armstrong in '99 the 'imponderable' was he came back a better rider after something that should have killed him, or at very least diminished him as a rider for some time, if not permanantly. Instead it was like the cancer was performance enhancing - i vaguely remember crackpot theories about upper body weight loss specific to the cancer drugs, and other such nonsense. But I agree that the 2000 performaces were more 'eye-opening' from that pure stats point of view.

But one of the great unspokens is that armstrong's performances were NOT even really the most absolutely outrageous of the dark ages, when you think of the likes of Riis, or Indurain's utter ITT destruction of the entire peloton.

Walsh has stated that it was Armstrong's verbal attacks on clean Bassons that convinced him Armstrong was a doper nothing to do with cancer.

Check out competitor radio interview with Walsh.

 

[martinvickers]

I don't get the issue with changing one's view about Walsh. He doggedly pursued Armstrong for years, and obviously was barking up the right tree. He's called out other riders who were obviously doping, great, we agree.

Then he presents views on another rider who is doing exactly the same things, and he declares that he thinks they are clean...with caveats to be fair.

So...a lot of people think he is wrong this time. Why would one not object to his views when one thinks his views are wrong? Why would one not wonder why he believes one unbelievable performance when he didn't and doesn't (Horner) believe others?

One need not think Walsh is a bad guy to disagree with him. A lot of people think he's genuinely wrong, I personally think he has blinders on, and others think he's on the take.

None of those reactions seem surprising, even if I don't subscribe to the latter. Facts are not in evidence in that case in my view. Still, it wouldn't surprise me to find out (given his rather inconsistent views and rather cozy connections) that his views may have been obscured by the Pound sign.

Why would you frame changing one's mind about Walsh as a bad thing?

Thinking he's wrong or mistaken is absolutely fine. No problem. I have much time for that argument.

I think the blinders accusation rather ignores his record of diligence, and basically boils down to "well, i can see it, why can't he?"...which is no sensible position - but at the same time, it's not a position that's offensive either.

But on the take? is not the same, not the same at all - that's 'throwing under the bus-sery'. That's dismissing a lifetime of being vehemently anti-doping (up to and including the fact that he openly and publically challenged the appointment of GB's Craig Reedie as someone not dedicated to anti-doping this very morning on BBCRadio 5!) on little evidence except you don't agree with his conclusions. It's simply an unsupportable leap - thinking he's just wrong is no such leap.

IF you're in the blinders camp, I think you're placing a rather higher value on your own bliefs thanthy warrant, but I entirely accept it's an honestly held position.

On the take? That's just not worthy of discussion without a HELL of a lot more actual evidence.

 

[sniper]

De Canio's comments, Rider 15(?) and chasing down Hincapie during the Tour is more than enough.

As i said, zero evidence.
i agree with you fully, though. It is more than enough.

 

[red_flanders]

Thinking he's wrong or mistaken is absolutely fine. No problem. I have much time for that argument.

I think the blinders accusation rather ignores his record of diligence, and basically boils down to "well, i can see it, why can't he?"...which is no sensible position - but at the same time, it's not a position that's offensive either.

But on the take? is not the same, not the same at all - that's 'throwing under the bus-sery'. That's dismissing a lifetime of being vehemently anti-doping (up to and including the fact that he openly and publically challenged the appointment of GB's Craig Reedie as someone not dedicated to anti-doping this very morning on BBCRadio 5!) on little evidence except you don't agree with his conclusions. It's simply an unsupportable leap - thinking he's just wrong is no such leap.

IF you're in the blinders camp, I think you're placing a rather higher value on your own bliefs thanthy warrant, but I entirely accept it's an honestly held position.

On the take? That's just not worthy of discussion without a HELL of a lot more actual evidence.

Not totally unreasonable and I agree with you on the take bit. For the most part.

My blinders feeling is somewhat as you say, with a very important distinction. You're wrong to suggest it's all about whether he agrees with me, it's also VERY much about his inconsistent view of nearly identical situations. He looks at the same data for different riders and comes to different conclusions. One must ask "why?" and if one does not have a clear answer, you have to wonder if he's seeing clearly.

Unless someone can make a case for why Armstrong, Contador, Rasumussen and Horner are different than Froome in terms of performance. Unless it is to say that they all had better palmares before they started beating the world. Very strange.

EDIT: You also seem focused on the fact that I think I'm right. Again, we all think we're right. I'm open to compelling evidence to the contrary, but none exists. Can't really see how that's an argument against my position, that I stand behind it.