Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Dear Wiggo]

Wigans only used the oval rings in TTs in 2013.

But not in training.

 

[Benotti69]

But not in training.

Dont know. Just saw what he used in races. Probably could find images of training to see, but i find Wigans an idiot so avoid him where possible.

 

[glenmalure]

From Seven deadly sins:

I looked at Paul, silently asking, ‘Did you hear that?’ He had. Then Kelly was gone and we were silent; kids who had got close to Father Christmas and seen the glue that held his beard in place.

‘Could it have been anything else?’

‘No, it was definitely the sound of pills.’

‘Why would he need those in a race?’

‘Don’t know.’

‘Me neither.’

Yeah I read the book too, and its not a case of did Kelly dope or not. He did.

Just this scenario painted by Walsh is all a bit fanciful, too perfect or simplistic for me, and its this style of writing that that has continued on into his latest book. Its as if his intended audience is 12 year olds.

I've thought about this scenario and cant seem to give it credit. To make a container with pills in it rattle, you need to give it a good shake, not just apply movement. It doesn't add up. They were outdoors, in a busy pre-race atmosphere, and the sound would have been muffled as they were inside a jersey, but through all this Walsh was able to search his noise database and come up with the perfect match, 'pills'. With no doubt, it couldn't have been anything else your honor.

Columbo would have a field day in court with this.

And we are then supposed to believe the two numskulls finished off the rhetoric by not having an iota as to why he would need pills in a race!!!

Gimme a break.

 

[gooner]

Ok I'm coming over on this one: find the fact Walsh is co-authoring Froome's autobiography most odd.

No different Jimmy to Walsh doing it with Gareth Southgate, Lawrence Dallaglio or Paula Radcliffe.

 

[gooner]

Well you're wrong there, so get your facts straight before accusing people of being hypocrites. For probably three years I'm pretty sure I haven't "decried" anyone for doping.

Just like when you said you wanted Contador to be doped to the gills for the excitement it brings. I couldn't careless if you're consistent or not, your logic and position is absurd.

 

[gooner]

One must look forward to the Kinmage movie being released soon.

He and others will give their views on Walsh, comedy oversized syringes and Froome going on the *** up Ventoux.

I don't know why people are hanging on every word that Kimmage says. This only just proves my point that the story is too much about the journalist than the sport itself. He uncovered and exposed nothing with regards to Lance. His hypocrisy was shown during the summer. On the Second Captains interview, he said he had stories pulled and accused all this of being an in house thing at the Sunday Times. Yet, this was the man who had his agent trying to get him a job as a pundit for Sky Sports during the Tour. If he feels it's an in house thing, why go for a job there then? It's says it all that he has dodged answering the question when it was posed to him by Richard Moore and at a later stage by another person on twitter. Forget waiting for the Rough Rider film, he has his job back at the Irish Independent. If he has anything to expose, share it. The same goes for Shane Stokes on the Irish Times where he writes.

While there are faults with Walsh's book like where he makes out some of their techniques are revolutionary, I more interested if he has somehow compromised himself reporting on any possible doping story with Sky. I have yet to see anyone caption the section with how he broke the JTL story. I gave a summary up thread and no one responded to it which was telling to me that some only want to see this through a one eyed view.

 

[Ferminal]

Just like when you said you wanted Contador to be doped to the gills for the excitement it brings. I couldn't careless if you're consistent or not, your logic and position is absurd.

lol, because it's not the same as yours?

Again, if you're going to throw stuff at me please provide an explanation, otherwise it's basic personal attacks.

I think my logic is very sound, so am looking forward to your thoughts.

 

[gooner]

lol, because it's not the same as yours?

Again, if you're going to throw stuff at me please provide an explanation, otherwise it's basic personal attacks.

I think my internal logic is very sound, so am looking forward to your thoughts.

It's lacking common sense with regards to the welfare of the sport going forward. I'm not going to help you if you can't grasp that, where people won't accept it for that very reason.

Simple really. It shouldn't need to be explained.

 

[Ferminal]

So Froome or Contador doping is going to destroy the welfare of the sport going forward? OK. If only Armstrong never recovered from his treatment well enough to ride again, then doping would have been solved long ago and the sport would be far "better".

 

[gooner]

So Froome or Contador doping is going to destroy the welfare of the sport going forward?

It's beyond comprehension if you think it helps. It's a pity McQuaid couldn't pull off the cover up with Contador. He'd be still smashing it today.

OK. If only Armstrong never recovered from his treatment well enough to ride again, then doping would have been solved long ago and the sport would be far "better".

This is ridiculous. As if I wished this with Lance, for the better of the sport. Some perspective when getting your point across. I'm sure Beloki, Zulle, Basso and Ullrich all doped because of Lance. Ferrari must have only helped with doping when he first came across Lance and stopped when he left the sport.

While we're at it, **** T&R, don't address the past, lets be defeatist about the future so it can satisfy your need for riders to go FR.

Maybe Hein was right about some fans in his conversation with Pound after all.

Yet you think you are in a priviliged position to call out Ellingworth(no evidence linking him with a doping program) for a bit of hypocrisy with Yates and Virenque but you're OK because you're consistent in wanting the top guns doped to gills smashing it. The problem with Ellingworth so is that he should have been consistent in praising both Yates and Virenque. Once you're consistent, your position is of no issue, no matter what it's in reference to.

It's reminds me of another "so called fan" on here who throws his weight around by saying he doesn't care about the doping in the sport, just the hypocrisy.

The Kittels of the world are the problem because he called out Sayar but not Froome to the satisfaction of some but the Riccos are OK because we know what we get, should be accepted.

Maybe Walsh should write his book along these lines next time. It might be accepted more by you.

 

[Franklin]

There might be some truth in that if he's talking about Sastre, who in general probably has better slightly better times on every climb than the record books say. I think I read somewhere that in actual climbing times, he should've been 2nd or 3rd behind Contador on Verbier in 2009, but he obviously started the climb at the very back of the peloton.

First off, I doubt Sastre was at the very tail of the peloton in important climbs, he would have been a tad smarter than that.

Also keep in mind that especially with the speeds pro use, moving through the peloton to the front during a climb probably isn't high exertion. Of course this is a different case if it's the last climb and a team goes (US) Postal at the first metres, but even Sastre would not have been able to close gaps like that.

All in all, the big problems with VAM aren't just the wind, but also drafting. It's already very noticable at 15 kmph (you can try this yourself^^), let alone at 25+ kmph the pro's get at most part of the standard cols.

In the end this makes VAM at best an indicator of which we should realize it's very inaccurate. OTOH, a consistent high scoring on VAM should filter the "noise".

 

[Ferminal]

Without bothering to explain why you misrepresent me:

I'm not in a privileged position at all, I'm a person who enjoys the sport posting anonymously discussing the sport (something I also enjoy). It's nice that you care so much though, personally I don't care about the way you nor anyone else views the sport, only the content presented in the discussion. Maybe you could even make a thread somewhere to discuss my views of the sport and how badly they irritate you.

None of that has anything to do with this discussion about someone writing a book about why the available information convinces one to come to a certain conclusion.

As it happens to be, much of the information presented is incorrect, misunderstood or lacks perspective. In the case of Ellingworth, the point which is supposedly made is completely invalidated due to lack of consistency in his behaviour (I'm not having a go at Ellingworth he can say what he likes, but Walsh is simply wrong to use it to make a point).

Let's talk about the above case further instead of just saying the points I present are worthless because I take a different view of the world.

 

[Tinman]

Has anyone considered Walsh may be slowly losing his marbles. Age related cognitive decline is common. Some people are lucky genomically and some not... It just strikes me as a different Walsh from the one 15 years ago. Not quite the sharpness and perhaps a bit more gullible.

 

[Ferminal]

Yet you think you are in a priviliged position to call out Ellingworth(no evidence linking him with a doping program) for a bit of hypocrisy with Yates and Virenque but you're OK because you're consistent in wanting the top guns doped to gills smashing it. The problem with Ellingworth so is that he should have been consistent in praising both Yates and Virenque.

Ellingworth can do what he likes (and I'm certainly not suggesting he's involved in doping), if he's happy with one doper and despises another then it doesn't bother me, I'm never going to talk to the bloke. But it's incorrect for Walsh to use his treatment of Virenque to try and make a point without even making note that he has worked alongside other dopers in the past. It may even be that he was very reluctant to work alongside them but who would let that get in the way of a good job. Walsh should have explored these themes, unless you show the full picture then there is a misrepresentation (be it deliberate or unintentional) and readers will be less informed as a result. I understand that probably wasn't the point of the book, maybe he has more material to publish for the paper which will make things more complete.

What I think about anything doesn't matter beyond the content I present in posts, you can ignore me or whatever but please don't use my views divert attention away from the content which I'm always more than happy to discuss and let live or die on its own merits.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Has anyone considered Walsh may be slowly losing his marbles. Age related cognitive decline is common. Some people are lucky genomically and some not... It just strikes me as a different Walsh from the one 15 years ago. Not quite the sharpness and perhaps a bit more gullible.

Yes.

Consider Liggett in his heyday vs today. He gets most rider's names wrong, and makes other gaffs as a mater of course.

I see parallels in their career arcs.

 

[Tinman]

Yes.

Consider Liggett in his heyday vs today. He gets most rider's names wrong, and makes other gaffs as a mater of course.

I see parallels in their career arcs.

Yes but Ligget was never gullible, instead on the bandwagon from the start, then lost his marbles along the way. Walsh's gullibility and marbles loss may have ended him up on the bandwagon.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Yes but Ligget was never gullible, instead on the bandwagon from the start, then lost his marbles along the way. Walsh's gullibility and marbles loss may have ended him up on the bandwagon.

I did say parallels, not exact replicas.

And we'll have to agree to disagree on Liggett's gullibility.

 

[Tinman]

I did say parallels, not exact replicas.

And we'll have to agree to disagree on Liggett's gullibility.

You saying Ligget as gullible on LA in his early years as Walsh is on Sky now?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Ellingworth can do what he likes (and I'm certainly not suggesting he's involved in doping), if he's happy with one doper and despises another then it doesn't bother me, I'm never going to talk to the bloke. But it's incorrect for Walsh to use his treatment of Virenque to try and make a point without even making note that he has worked alongside other dopers in the past. It may even be that he was very reluctant to work alongside them but who would let that get in the way of a good job. Walsh should have explored these themes, unless you show the full picture then there is a misrepresentation (be it deliberate or unintentional) and readers will be less informed as a result.

Well, Walsh gives that answer in SDS doesnt he?

:

Something was bothering Tom, however, and it wasn’t just his driving. This was unusual because unlike Paul and me, he’s not by nature contrary. When he got it off his chest, the three of us fell to arguing passionately and the sightseeing agenda was forgotten about. Tom had listened to a lot of our old Tour de France stories. The day Kelly did this, the day Kelly said that. Paul and I encouraged Tom to get to the Tour and see for himself.

What Tom couldn’t figure was the gap between the affection and the esteem in which myself and Paul still held Sean Kelly and the position we had taken on Michelle Smith.
‘Surely a doping offender is a doping offender?’ he said. ‘And Kelly twice tested positive?’
‘But, Tom, the difference between Kelly and Smith is that he was beating the world’s best from his first season with the pros. He was a genuine talent from day one; she was nowhere near.’
‘There are no degrees of guilt here. No good dopers and no bad dopers,’ he said.
‘It’s not as black and white as that. Cycling is a different sport to swimming. Virtually all the top guys do stuff in cycling.’
‘Look, both of you guys have written successful books on cycling. Paul, your book showed how much doping there is in cycling but neither of you has called out Kelly.’
‘Tom,’ said Paul, ‘I wanted to focus on the doping culture and how every rider was forced to make a choice: dope and have a career; don’t dope and watch your career go down the drain. If I’d pointed the finger at individuals, people would have missed the more important point. It’s the sport that corrupts the individual.’

‘But still, you both have had opportunities to remind people that Kelly twice tested positive, but because you like the guy you haven’t done it.’
It was true that we liked Kelly and when our questions about him weren’t soft, they were non-existent. That morning in Senlis, when he jumped on his bike and sent those pills rattling against the plastic, we knew exactly what we’d heard, and when he later tested positive for the urine sample he gave that day we didn’t tell about what we’d heard.
We’d rationalised it in a way that suited us and tried to tell Tom that he didn’t understand the context.
‘Tom, the people who knew swimming were the loudest in saying they didn’t believe Smith. Those inside professional cycling loved Sean Kelly and never expressed any suspicion about his status as champion. So there was no basis for anyone else to be suspicious.’
‘Weren’t two positive tests basis enough?’
‘Eddy Merckx twice tested positive and everyone accepts he was the greatest ever cyclist. So, should we say Merckx wasn’t a true champion?’
We told Tom about how the French and Belgians loved Kelly and if anyone knew the sport, it was them. To them he was a legendary hard man. We painted the picture of a world where, yes, most riders took drugs but in a kind of egalitarian way and the outcomes would still have been the same. Kelly would have been one of the patrons of the peloton no matter what.
And we told Tom some of our best stories, showing Kelly’s insatiable appetite for training, his need to win, the shyness that once made him nod in answer to a question on radio. I told about the times I’d seen him stick 20,000 French francs in small bills down his underpants after being paid for riding a criterium.
‘Tom, you’re just not getting the context.’
‘What I get is the effect. If the strongest guys dope, what effect does that have on guys down the food chain? Don’t they then have to dope to remain in the same world? Here is this sport of yours, so beautiful in its simplicity, so inspiring in its stories, and you’re telling young riders that in order to survive you need to put this and you need to put that into your body.’
We didn’t have an answer.
Paul had been one of those young riders, forced to make that choice.
‘****. **** you, Tom, you’re right. That’s what I wrote the book about, the choice, that’s the story I told in Rough Ride. That culture is why my career got screwed up; where you end up not knowing how good you could have been.’

Good doper, bad doper.

 

[martinvickers]

Well, Walsh gives that answer in SDS doesnt he?

:

Good doper, bad doper.

Whatever we may disagree on certain issues, FGL, I have to thank you for this - great extract, chapeau.

 

[Benotti69]

Yeah I read the book too, and its not a case of did Kelly dope or not. He did.

Just this scenario painted by Walsh is all a bit fanciful, too perfect or simplistic for me, and its this style of writing that that has continued on into his latest book. Its as if his intended audience is 12 year olds.

I've thought about this scenario and cant seem to give it credit. To make a container with pills in it rattle, you need to give it a good shake, not just apply movement. It doesn't add up. They were outdoors, in a busy pre-race atmosphere, and the sound would have been muffled as they were inside a jersey, but through all this Walsh was able to search his noise database and come up with the perfect match, 'pills'. With no doubt, it couldn't have been anything else your honor.

Columbo would have a field day in court with this.

And we are then supposed to believe the two numskulls finished off the rhetoric by not having an iota as to why he would need pills in a race!!!

Gimme a break.

You are forgetting how they heard the pills rattle! Kelly would jump up and down on his bike to check his tyres were ok. He did this coming right past Walsh and Kimmage. That is how they heard the pills rattle. Kelly would have only had a few pills not a full box, so 2,3, or 4 pills rattle quite a lot compared to a full box.

But you calling Walsh and Kimmage 'numskulls' paints a vivid picture of where you stand!

 

[Benotti69]

Well, Walsh gives that answer in SDS doesnt he?

:

Good doper, bad doper.

Paul Kimmage at the 'whistleblowers' this year called Kelly a bad doper. Walsh still has great admiration for Kelly.

 

[RownhamHill]

Well, Walsh gives that answer in SDS doesnt he?

:

Good doper, bad doper.

This is a great extract. And we're all guilty of this to a greater or lesser extent. I was so delighted that Lance went down for being a cheat, but gutted that Contador did, purely based on my own respective feelings for the riders. (And yep, I still feel there may have been something dodgy about Contador's Clen positive, even though I know rationally he almost certainly infused some contaminated blood).

It's pretty clear that lots of posters here have Sky down as 'bad' dopers - which is fair enough. But if you don't share that antipathy it can come across as hysteria.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Whatever we may disagree on certain issues, FGL, I have to thank you for this - great extract, chapeau.

If you ever want to hire me as an analist you let me know...

Paul Kimmage at the 'whistleblowers' this year called Kelly a bad doper. Walsh still has great admiration for Kelly.

I dont see it that way, Kelly was a very good cyclist who doped. But why did he dope?

It's pretty clear that lots of posters here have Sky down as 'bad' dopers - which is fair enough. But if you don't share that antipathy it can come across as hysteria.

Not at all, I like the riders - except for Kirienka, sorry -, I just dont like when I am told a fairytale. Or, should I say something that looks like a fairytale?

I have stated this before in the LA thread: get m all, the enablers foremost.

Sky just get lot of heat because of their mantra, at least for me.

 

[Benotti69]

Doping was the culture. Kelly was hungry to win.