sniper said:who's talking about evidence except you?.
Alas, the problem in a nutshell
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!
sniper said:who's talking about evidence except you?.
Kretch said:Maybe David should have chatted to this guy http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/yates-defends-armstrong-but-is-critical-of-team-sky
“To be brutally honest, there is no one at Sky who knows much about bike riding."
BradCantona said:I'm not a Sky fanboy, I'm not of the opinion Walsh is the greatest writer either, but I think the stick he's getting here is way over the top. As is the assumptive 'given' that Sky are doping according to some here. Some of his comments don't help his cause, Sky don't always help their own either. But how do you prove a negative, especially when it's possible the negative isn't even there to be proven?
Too many of the accusations are poorly thought out, and conveniently dropped or twisted when they don't suit. "Oh Sky deliberatly performed poorly today to avoid suspicion". Absolutely nonsensical
This will no doubt go down like a lead balloon, but don't for a second think your bitterness and contmpt is shared by all, or that anyone who gives them the benefit in the absence of hard evidence (and remember, Walsh had shed loads of evidence in persuit of Armstrong when no one else wanted to know) is a fanboy
BradCantona said:That horrible, dastardly 'lie' he tells about the Tour taking place late July eh... only goes to show Sky are doping right?
elduggo said:I think thats more a comment on Walsh as a journalist than it is on Sky. But hey, if it suits your argument to claim otherwise then go for it.
hrotha said:There's a massive difference between "I haven't personally seen any hard evidence of doping" and "These people wouldn't dope - I KNOW them, they're good people. Also, the Txema thing? Didn't happen." And dozens of other things I could include but which I don't feel like repeating because they've been said countless times in this thread.
How long did it take for Walsh to write about Kelly's doping?BradCantona said:I was convinced Armstrong doped by the evidence Walsh helped compile.
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.
In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding, as well as the quality and quantity of evidence that are necessary to fulfil the legal burden of proof. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence.
Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.
In philosophy, the study of evidence is closely tied to epistemology, which considers the nature of knowledge and how it can be acquired.
No, because he's not acknowledging it as a disclaimer about his possible bias, but directly as an argument about why Sky are clean.RownhamHill said:There is a massive difference between the two as you point out, but I don't really get this as a particular criticism of Walsh in this case, given that both conditions appear to be true.
Isn't the point that that Walsh now does know these people, and does trust them as good people, so what's he meant to do about that when reporting? Pretend that he doesn't really in order to 'protect' his journalistic objectivity (and potential future reputation)? Would that be more honest? Show more integrity? I can't see how.
Now, if he was staring in the face of some evidence like there was around Lance, and he ignored that in order to say 'I know him, he wouldn't dope, he's a good person' then yeah, it's a ridiculous argument.
But if you look, you don't find any evidence, and you form a positive value judgement along the way, then the least you can do is be honest about that, isn't it?
the sceptic said:This is what its come to. Find the least dumb thing Walsh has written in the book and pretend the rest doesnt exist.
the sceptic said:This should be stickied for all to read so I dont have to see the stupid "evidence" arguments anymore.
thank you.the sceptic said:This should be stickied for all to read so I dont have to see the stupid "evidence" arguments anymore.
CN: "I suppose the main issue with your book is that you take such a strong and explicit stance in stating that Sky are clean. I'm not sure if the evidence is there to make that call either way."
''There is an arresting theatrical drama about Ventoux when the riders get to the top of the tree line and come out into the blinding light of the moonscape beyond. It is a mountain built to stage final acts.
This final act begins with Froome attacking and leaving everybody for dead except Quintana.
Tactically it is a master class, and illustrates how much wisdom Team Sky have been able to plant in Froome’s head these past few years. The younger, straight out of Africa, Froome would have chased down every break of the day before finding himself out of gas.
Or on another day from the early years he would have looked around him, taking in all the big names, and decided his only chance was to attack from far out, when they weren’t paying much attention. They would think he was mad and do what bike riders have done since 1903: give him enough rope to hang himself.
He would often get a good placing on the stage but would have emptied his tank to do so. The next day, he would sleep with the fishes.
But here on Ventoux, he is calculating, waiting for the right moment. And his understanding of the perfect strategic climb is no coincidence. Froome has climbed Ventoux before. Twice..''
Has Walsh never been on a mountain before? The whole point of mountain tourism and half the appeal of the Tour is the beauty of the mountain ranges and the views from the top.riders get to the top of the tree line and come out into the blinding light of the moonscape beyond.
the most basic tactic in cycling - attack, is according to Walsh a tactical masterclass on sky's behalf.Tactically it is a master class, and illustrates how much wisdom Team Sky have been able to plant in Froome’s head these past few year
Pre 2011 Froome was always chasing down the leaders or losing by getting in breakaways that got reeled in. OMG this is such a massive fail. Even if the breakaway got reeled back in, if 2013 Froome got into a breakaway he would at the very least have turned heads all around the world by dropping his breakaway companions for minutes and being the last man reeled in. If Froome can drop Quintana Nibali and Contador surely he would have dropped the likes of Hoogerland, Chavanel, Voigt?The younger, straight out of Africa, Froome would have chased down every break of the day before finding himself out of gas.
Or on another day from the early years he would have looked around him, taking in all the big names, and decided his only chance was to attack from far out, when they weren’t paying much attention. They would think he was mad and do what bike riders have done since 1903: give him enough rope to hang himself.
He rode Armstrongs time because he climbed Ventoux twice before (once with Sean Kelly, did Froomie tell how he had to spend the night ripping up kelly posters to feel better about what he had done?). And his understanding of the perfect strategic climb is no coincidence. Froome has climbed Ventoux before. Twice..''
on the ventoux, mollema raced arguably his best MTF ever, but had never raced the ventoux before. No doubt Walsh would have been able to spin that as a tactical mastermove as well.The Hitch said:...
He rode Armstrongs time because he climbed Ventoux twice before (once with Sean Kelly, did Froomie tell how he had to spend the night ripping up kelly posters to feel better about what he had done?)
veganrob said:Yes, absolutely. They should have to read it, check the agree box before being able to post here.
hrotha said:No, because he's not acknowledging it as a disclaimer about his possible bias, but directly as an argument about why Sky are clean.
RownhamHill said:There is a massive difference between the two as you point out, but I don't really get this as a particular criticism of Walsh in this case, given that both conditions appear to be true.
Isn't the point that that Walsh now does know these people, and does trust them as good people, so what's he meant to do about that when reporting? Pretend that he doesn't really in order to 'protect' his journalistic objectivity (and potential future reputation)? Would that be more honest? Show more integrity? I can't see how.
Now, if he was staring in the face of some evidence like there was around Lance, and he ignored that in order to say 'I know him, he wouldn't dope, he's a good person' then yeah, it's a ridiculous argument.
But if you look, you don't find any evidence, and you form a positive value judgement along the way, then the least you can do is be honest about that, isn't it?
sniper said:thank you.
two additional points wrt evidence:
1. there is plenty of it according to walsh's own usps-standard of evidence (fastest times uphill, team dominance, dodgy doc, sudden transformation)
2. even if we dismiss those issues as evidence (which sky fans including walsh are obviously doing), the point to make then is that there is no evidence either way. Which is what Barry Ryan referred to
lol. perhaps.Pentacycle said:...
It's just Sky who are making him look bad with their effort to be considered a clean team, and Froome is even himself buying into it. I wish he'd have gone to Astana in 2012, then his doping wouldn't even be discussed. People would assume he does, just like Purito, Valverde, Nibali etc.
look, the discussion is simple:RownhamHill said:So you understand the points made in Sceptic's post about different types of evidence, and different strengths of evidence, right? And you understand that two different people can view the same evidence with varying levels of trust, right?
Now then, what's the point you're making?
skidmark said:I understand what you're saying, and agree that journalists shouldn't hide their bias, but I disagree that this is what Walsh is guilty of. His interview didn't rankle me because I have a hate-on for Team Sky and glory in anything I can make fun of them for (I don't and I don't), it annoyed me because it sounded fawning and obsequious. I would expect an investigative journalist who's 'blown the lid' off of a myth as big as Armstrong to have stricter standards, or at least more restraint. Saying garbage like it's an 'absolute lie' to suggest his buddy in Sky might be involved with doping is just an insult. Anyone who's relatively inquisitive and skeptical, MUCH LESS someone who's followed the peloton since the 80s, MUCH LESS someone who dug through the muck of the Armstrong era in such a crucial way, should really understand how ludicrous it sounds to shut down any opposition or skepticism with a blithe 'oh well, I know them so there's no stone I left unturned'.
Even if he showed up with this poor-quality, overwrought book, even if it came out that he was ghosting Froome's autobio and so it seems like he's not trying to upset the applecart and spill the cash cow (how you like them mixed metaphors?), I'd be willing to forgive him if he showed at least some veil of open-mindedness about the whole affair.
Something like "well, I've talked to everyone on the team and there doesn't seem to be a culture of doping. I've talked to Froome and he's a nice guy but then again Tyler Hamilton was too. I find the 'zero-tolerance' thing a bit stifling and encouraging of people to keep their past under wraps, but I get the sense that this doesn't affect how the team employees act in the current day. At the end of the day, it's hard even as an embedded journalist to know what people do in their most private time, and people will always have their suspicions of successful athletes. But I believe in innocent until proven
guilty, and everything I've seen, from the testing in cycling to the ethos of the team to the anecdotes of the riders I've spoken to about doping... everything I've seen supports that proposition of innocence."
Those would all be things that it seems David Walsh believes, and stated like that, I'd be willing to listen to him and reason with his points. But this garbage about 'oh, it's not fair! People don't even pay attention to the facts! People spit on Richie Porte, how awful!' David - that has fuccing NOTHING to do with whether or not they are ACTUALLY doping, and your defensiveness and deflection and fawning are insulting to our intelligence, and step well over a reasonable line of subjectivity to which any journalist worth their salt should be held. You sound like a corporate shill, and do more to create more uncertainty about Team Sky to any skeptical fan of cycling (read: anyone who has followed it closely and cared about it for years).
Grrr.
edit: I realize I maybe strayed from the original point, which succinctly put, was to say that I don't think he should be hiding his bias, I think he's just shown far too much bias for a source that we're supposed to consider trustworthy.