The part about Sky working harder than everyone else rings phony to me. Anyone who has pursued a sport (or some other profession) seriously knows that progress is not linearly related to hours put in, that there can be such a thing as overtraining or overworking, and that taking a break and doing something entirely different can be very beneficial. Does he really, seriously believe that Sky has discovered that by working two hours a day more than other teams, they can get much better results? That if it were that simple, no one else would have ever figured that out?
The notion that someone drinking a beer once in a while is evidence of not being serious enough is BS. Frankly, I am really, really sick of the insinuation that any world class athlete gets there because he works harder than everyone else. Sometimes it’s easier to just keep training beyond the point that it has benefits, sometimes it’s actually harder to stop and break the routine. The book The Sports Gene, which I have discussed here on other threads, notes that some athletes benefit far more from the same amount of training than others. Some athletes have a very high natural untrained talent level, others have a very high natural response to training. But it definitely explodes the myth that “I work harder” is a sufficient explanation for success in sports. Walsh seriously implies that until Sky came along, professional cycling was dominated by riders and teams that trained only half-heartedly, ripe for the picking by people who were actually dedicated.
And sure, there are always talented athletes who are above everyone else. But Tiger Woods is not a very wise example, given the evidence that he has doped.