Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[roundabout]

7 w/kg for 20 minutes would indeed be alarming

 

[The Hitch]

So sky do monitor the riders power outputs to see if they get suspicious but they have the three riders with the highest non doped power outputs ever, so will end up winning every race anyway without the need to increase them

What a coincidence.

What a fantastic situation for sky. Don't dope because you will be the best anyway.

Funny how the darlings of anti doping are always those who are so talented they win everything anyway, even against dopers.

The sacrifice of giving up your dreams to stay clean never seems to figure.

 

[thehog]

So sky do monitor the riders power outputs to see if they get suspicious but they have the three riders with the highest non doped power outputs ever, so will end up winning every race anyway without the need to increase them

What a coincidence.

What a fantastic situation for sky. Don't dope because you will be the best anyway.

Funny how the darlings of anti doping are always who are so talented they win everything anyway, even against dopers.

The sacrifice of giving up your dreams to stay clean never seems to figure.

And of course you just tell your riders to ride at 400w and you'll win.

Simple as that

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

And of course you just tell your riders to ride at 400w and you'll win.

Simple as that

Someone should ask JV why he didn't tell Talansky to ride at 400W

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

We are being asked to believe that Froome is a Greg LeMond like athlete or better. Well LeMond showed it from an early age and in a cycling back water that USA was compared to Europe. Froome did nothing at an early age and all the excuses about being in Kenya, no proper cycling shoes, tactically inept are a smoke screen.

According to the book of Walsh he even went onto an altitude training camp, we dont know if he had cycling shoes by then, prior to his tests at Aigle and that famous Giro della Regione of 2007. That altitude training must have been ineffective a few weeks later when he lost minutes to Fransesco Masciarelli in a mountain TT at mount Fuji?

When you take into account Masciarelli was a very promising rider - top 20 Giro age 23 - could this mean anything on Froome's abilities?

Uhh, good post Hog.

''Yes, but at the same time we have the biological passport, reduced speeds....so there are some positive signs.

Yep, and when those speeds pick up there is always the excuse of a tailwind on the climbs when some riders go mental.

On the 400 watts of Porte. At Paris Nice he was 62.5kg, in a test prior to the Tour he equalled this weighing 61 kg. That would mean ~ 2&#37]http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/skys-the-limit-as-wingman-porte-shows-his-top-gun-ability-20130628-2p2n9.html[/url]

It is known that when Porte won the 9.4km time trial up the Col d'Eze in a little more than 19 minutes to win Paris-Nice in March, he averaged 400 watts. He was then 62.5kg, against his 61kg when he rode his time trial up the Col de la Madone last Sunday. He is still 61kg.
Kerrison did not elaborate on Porte's training data, including his Col de la Madone time]''is now averaging the same or more at a lower weight, which is only going to translate into significantly more impressive climbing than what we saw earlier in the season''[/B].
Kerrison did not hide how impressed he was by Porte's time trial up the Col de la Madone, especially considering he flew on a standard training road bike. Whereas Froome raced up the climb on a bike set up for a mountain time trial, this including the addition of aero ''tri-bars''.
Kerrison added that Porte's ride was ''probably in the top three most impressive training efforts I've ever seen any athlete do.
''I have witnessed Bradley and Chris do some impressive things, but [with] Richie … that effort was on a par with anything I have seen from these guys. I can't say he is going better than Chris. Chris went faster, but on a different set-up, a mountain time-trial set-up. So we can't compare performances.''
Kerrison says Porte, who came to Sky's attention when he placed seventh overall in the 2010 Giro d'Italia and won the white jersey as best young rider, has three key qualities needed for a rider to become an overall contender in a three-week grand tour such as the Tour.
''You need to be a great time trialist and we know Richie, at his best, is a great time trialist. You need to be a great climber, and we know at his best … he now is.
''You need to be robust and consistent over a three-week tour, as he showed in 2010 in his first grand tour [the Giro]. Porte has three of the most important things … it is a matter of putting them all together.''

I lolled at the underlined part, sorry.

Walsh's last sentence is a tell all in my book:
http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2013/04/24/david-walsh-interview2/

So, if anyone out there has proper evidence about Sky cheating, wll, I am a journalist and I would love to hear it.

Walsh needs sources, well, he aint going to find them inside/around the team. Can you blaime him for that? No, course not, but he shouldnt be proclaiming Sky are clean because he thinks so while at the same time accusing dirty Spaniards of doping, yep, the ones who didnt have a change against his Anglo Saxon Puritanical language collegues or should we just say friends, or new Kelly's?

 

[roundabout]

Masciarelli was very likely fueled by Ferrari already then.

 

[Benotti69]

Masciarelli was very likely fueled by Ferrari already then.

Yes, Masciarelli was no doubt an 'enhanced' junior.

an aside, I was once walking along the sea front in Italy one morning just after a night of heavy snow when 3 riders on MTBs came by using the beach covered in snow as a track as the road was pure slippy. It was the 3 Masciarelli bros out getting the miles into their legs. No one told them that only Sky do the 'hard' training.

 

[The Hitch]

According to the book of Walsh he even went onto an altitude training camp, we dont know if he had cycling shoes by then, prior to his tests at Aigle and that famous Giro della Regione of 2007. That altitude training must have been ineffective a few weeks later when he lost minutes to Fransesco Masciarelli in a mountain TT at mount Fuji?

When you take into account Masciarelli was a very promising rider - top 20 Giro age 23 - could this mean anything on Froome's abilities?

Uhh, good post Hog.
Yep, and when those speeds pick up there is always the excuse of a tailwind on the climbs when some riders go mental.

On the 400 watts of Porte. At Paris Nice he was 62.5kg, in a test prior to the Tour he equalled this weighing 61 kg. That would mean ~ 2% gain in power, making 6.55w/k for Ritchie. The length of the climb is not mentioned but if it was the Madone we know enough.

Oops, it looks like it was on the Madone:
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling...shows-his-top-gun-ability-20130628-2p2n9.html
I lolled at the underlined part, sorry.

Walsh's last sentence is a tell all in my book:
http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2013/04/24/david-walsh-interview2/
Walsh needs sources, well, he aint going to find them inside/around the team. Can you blaime him for that? No, course not, but he shouldnt be proclaiming Sky are clean because he thinks so while at the same time accusing dirty Spaniards of doping, yep, the ones who didnt have a change against his Anglo Saxon Puritanical language collegues or should we just say friends, or new Kelly's?

that bit you quote in the middle is really bad for Walsh

'Yes, but at the same time we have the biological passport, reduced speeds....so there are some positive signs.

I see its from April 2013.

http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2013/04/24/david-walsh-interview2/

So as recently as April 2013, Walsh is still saying its believable because speeds are (allegedly) down.

But only 3 months later, July 2013, suddenly he is saying they mean nothing, even if the top performances go all the way back to Armstrong (Froome) or later Heras (Horner)

 

[thehog]

that bit you quote in the middle is really bad for Walsh



I see its from April 2013.

http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2013/04/24/david-walsh-interview2/

So as recently as April 2013, Walsh is still saying its believable because speeds are (allegedly) down.

But only 3 months later, July 2013, suddenly he is saying they mean nothing, even if the top performances go all the way back to Armstrong (Froome) or later Heras (Horner)

Yes it's odd.

Walsh reminds me of a creationist. When presented with fact that go beyond the belief system he creates a new rule to explain the anomaly.

I do believe that believes what he says and that they are clean. I don't think he is hiding knowledge of doping. But I do believe his judgment is clouded by the fact that he wants them to be clean. And that they are all nice people.

The Nutella story holds true on this. It comes across as a bit of a joke but if those events actually happened I think his interpretation on what occurred has been skewed.

If Lopez really did pull out Nutella and the team did tell him it was banned then you'd think this was team policy and Lopez would know.

My feeling is the team was teasing or making fun of the Spanish guy who wants to spread Nutella on everything. Walsh's interpretation wasn't that it was a gag but it was serious and Sky are so dedicated to even ban Nutella and that's why they're better.

The beer story is the same. He's interpreted this as Sky are super smart and have a alcohol ban but never drawing a correlation that champagne at dinners was regular practise and he actually writes about it. Which part of Brian decided to block this detail out?

I honestly believe he wants to believe. And by that he has modifies the events perhaps unknowingly, when presented with facts that don't fit the clean theory.

Ventoux is your classic example. He searched for all the reasons why Ventoux could be explained as normal and even dismissed the shock and awe statement by Kimmidge. He suspended his belief on what he saw and wrote a description much different than actually occurred.

He truly wants to believe.

 

[elduggo]

I think the point is that Walsh isn't an investigative journalist. He's a sports reporter that did one piece of good investigation on Lance. He reports the races and gives his opinion, previously he has been more forthcoming on calling riders out than other reporters, expecting lightening to strike twice and for him to bring down Sky after turning up the heat on Lance is unrealistic.

theres probably something in this. But the perception was out there that Walsh very much is/was an investigative journalist and it is for this reason alone that Sky brought him in to try and help with the PR debacle they created for themselves.

agreed, he was probably the wrong person for this job, by a long shot.

 

[elduggo]

brailsford perhaps?

not a hope in hell this story would have seen the light of day had the alleged transgressions not happened at JTL's 'previous' team.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Yes it's odd.

Walsh reminds me of a creationist. When presented with fact that go beyond the belief system he creates a new rule to explain the anomaly.

I do believe that believes what he says and that they are clean. I don't think he is hiding knowledge of doping. But I do believe his judgment is clouded by the fact that he wants them to be clean. And that they are all nice people.

The Nutella story holds true on this. It comes across as a bit of a joke but if those events actually happened I think his interpretation on what occurred has been skewed.

If Lopez really did pull out Nutella and the team did tell him it was banned then you'd think this was team policy and Lopez would know.

My feeling is the team was teasing or making fun of the Spanish guy who wants to spread Nutella on everything. Walsh's interpretation wasn't that it was a gag but it was serious and Sky are so dedicated to even ban Nutella and that's why they're better.

The beer story is the same. He's interpreted this as Sky are super smart and have a alcohol ban but never drawing a correlation that champagne at dinners was regular practise and he actually writes about it. Which part of Brian decided to block this detail out?

I honestly believe he wants to believe. And by that he has modifies the events perhaps unknowingly, when presented with facts that don't fit the clean theory.

Ventoux is your classic example. He searched for all the reasons why Ventoux could be explained as normal and even dismissed the shock and awe statement by Kimmidge. He suspended his belief on what he saw and wrote a description much different than actually occurred.

He truly wants to believe.

good post hoagie

 

[sniper]

Yes it's odd.

Walsh reminds me of a creationist. When presented with fact that go beyond the belief system he creates a new rule to explain the anomaly.

I do believe that believes what he says and that they are clean. I don't think he is hiding knowledge of doping. But I do believe his judgment is clouded by the fact that he wants them to be clean. And that they are all nice people.

The Nutella story holds true on this. It comes across as a bit of a joke but if those events actually happened I think his interpretation on what occurred has been skewed.

If Lopez really did pull out Nutella and the team did tell him it was banned then you'd think this was team policy and Lopez would know.

My feeling is the team was teasing or making fun of the Spanish guy who wants to spread Nutella on everything. Walsh's interpretation wasn't that it was a gag but it was serious and Sky are so dedicated to even ban Nutella and that's why they're better.

The beer story is the same. He's interpreted this as Sky are super smart and have a alcohol ban but never drawing a correlation that champagne at dinners was regular practise and he actually writes about it. Which part of Brian decided to block this detail out?

I honestly believe he wants to believe. And by that he has modifies the events perhaps unknowingly, when presented with facts that don't fit the clean theory.

Ventoux is your classic example. He searched for all the reasons why Ventoux could be explained as normal and even dismissed the shock and awe statement by Kimmidge. He suspended his belief on what he saw and wrote a description much different than actually occurred.

He truly wants to believe.

sounds rather far fetched to me, the "he wants to believe" theory. why would he want to believe? he threw arguments out there which he cannot possibly believe in (e.g. froome+porte in one room equals clean), and he's taking recourse to usps rethorics ("where's the evidence, barry"). All what for? Because he 'wants to believe'? What does that mean in the first place. It sounds rather obscure to me. What's the benefit, if not money, of believeing in Sky?

The hypothesis that he's getting paid to make Sky look clean is simple, economic, plausible, and explains everything we hear/see coming out of his mouth and pen lately.

 

[proffate]

sounds rather far fetched to me, the "he wants to believe" theory. why would he want to believe?

Perhaps he wants to think he's had a dramatic positive effect on the sport by exposing Armstrong and overthrowing the doping empire, supplanting it with a courageous new generation of clean riders. In reality it's more of a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" scenario but clearly that's too depressing for him to contemplate as it trivializes the historical importance of his deeds.

 

[sniper]

Perhaps he wants to think he's had a dramatic positive effect on the sport by exposing Armstrong and overthrowing the doping empire, supplanting it with a courageous new generation of clean riders. In reality it's more of a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" scenario but clearly that's too depressing for him to contemplate as it trivializes the historical importance of his deeds.

He doesn't need the Sky story for his deeds to have historical importance, does he? He's been awarded, lauded, praised all over the place.
He's been doing the 7DS tour, and that is being a great success in and by itself.

His Sky story is merely jeopardizing his reputation, and i think the Barry Ryan interview and also Stokes comments are good signs to that extent.

I fail to see why he'd be going to such lengths to portray Sky as clean for anything other than good money.

As for walsh really believing, i don't think so. Look at Stokes, he needed 5 minutes to poke a whole series of holes in Walsh's story.

a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" scenario

lol, right on.

 

[AcademyCC]

It must be for the money. Its the most biased book ive ever read. Every single story is bursting praise and compliments.

Even if they are clean all value is lost from the book because of this.

Hes a completely different person from the journalist that chased Armstrong.

It comes across like hes trying to impress Brailsford. It so over the top though that it is just fueling the skeptics

 

[thehog]

sounds rather far fetched to me, the "he wants to believe" theory. why would he want to believe? he threw arguments out there which he cannot possibly believe in (e.g. froome+porte in one room equals clean), and he's taking recourse to usps rethorics ("where's the evidence, barry"). All what for? Because he 'wants to believe'? What does that mean in the first place. It sounds rather obscure to me. What's the benefit, if not money, of believeing in Sky?

The hypothesis that he's getting paid to make Sky look clean is simple, economic, plausible, and explains everything we hear/see coming out of his mouth and pen lately.

Maybe I didn't explain very well.

What I mean it's like a parent who can see no wrong in their delinquent child.

Walsh is the same. He's so in love and feels part of the team. He just can't see past some of the stupidity he is making up along the way.

I don't for minute think Walsh is concealing doping. I do believe he is avoiding asking questions or looking in the right doors which might tell him the answer.

The family vacation is too much fun & well paid to upset the apple cart.

 

[sniper]

Maybe I didn't explain very well.

What I mean it's like a parent who can see no wrong in their delinquent child.

Walsh is the same. He's so in love and feels part of the team. He just can't see past some of the stupidity he is making up along the way.

I don't for minute think Walsh is concealing doping. I do believe he is avoiding asking questions or looking in the right doors which might tell him the answer.

The family vacation is too much fun & well paid to upset the apple cart.

yeah, i see what you mean and i think we're on the same level to a large extent.
the issue whether he's been willfully making up *** arguments or not is an intriguing issue, but i guess to some extent a moot issue as well. Some arguments may indeed simply result from his (unconscious) bias, others he may have come up with simply to fill that book.

What I find striking is his new mode of defense, displayed in his latest CN interview. He appears to be uncomfortable, to feel cornered.
People who feel cornered often do and say crazy stuff.

I mean, did Geert Leinders leave the team and say that he did things at Sky that weren't ethical? Has he said that?

 

[romnom]

Some of the latest interviews have made me think that he has been made painfully aware of all the unfairness of the accusations and overall treatment the current 'clean generation' has to deal with and is sort of going all the way to make sure he isn't contributing anything more into it. At least I'd imagine that watching some of the over the top reactions in the Tour from the teams perspective might make someone who thinks they might be clean defend them as if he's sure that they are clean. After all it's really really hard to know for sure whether the team is clean or not but really easy to see if they are good people getting at times really bad treatment from people who really can't know for sure that they are dirty. Or something like that.

 

[thehog]

yeah, i see what you mean and i think we're on the same level to a large extent.
the issue whether he's been willfully making up *** arguments or not is an intriguing issue, but i guess to some extent a moot issue as well. Some arguments may indeed simply result from his (unconscious) bias, others he may have come up with simply to fill that book.

What I find striking is his new mode of defense, displayed in his latest CN interview. He appears to be uncomfortable, to feel cornered.
People who feel cornered often do and say crazy stuff.

Oh yes completely mental logic going on there. I'm not sure he actually thought that one through but if he did then I'd question absolutely everything he did and said as insanity.

My parallel with a parent is a fairly good one. He appears to be so in love and so enamored with Sky that everything he sees he translates it into some form of scientific edge over other teams. Even though he has no idea what other teams are doing.

This year I saw FDJ strap video game sensors to their riders and bikes in preparation for Roubaix. They were trying to find the the right position to ride the bike and over what line of cobbles in addition to choosing the right wheel sets and frame types.

Genius stuff. No other team is doing it. Didn't mean they smashed up Roubaix but its a really good use of technology and science.

So goes the logic of the use of science etc. means instant results. Nutella bans do not add up to riding at 440w and breaking the peloton in half.

Doping generally allows you to do that. Not just instructing riders to ride at 450 all day.

But you know. Derny is a English word, yes?

 

[The Hitch]

Some of the latest interviews have made me think that he has been made painfully aware of all the unfairness of the accusations and overall treatment the current 'clean generation' has to deal with and is sort of going all the way to make sure he isn't contributing anything more into it. At least I'd imagine that watching some of the over the top reactions in the Tour from the teams perspective might make someone who thinks they might be clean defend them as if he's sure that they are clean. After all it's really really hard to know for sure whether the team is clean or not but really easy to see if they are good people getting at times really bad treatment from people who really can't know for sure that they are dirty. Or something like that.

I know for sure that Brailsford lied about Txema and lied about not hiring doped riders and staff, has refused to admit he did so and deliberately distorts the truth all the time with his offensive narrative about how little everyone else involved in sport actually does (basically nothing).

I also know for sure Wiggins lied in public to defend Lance, multiple times, lied to humiliate and bully those who were on the side of justice vs lance and has lied since then in order to create a fake hero media image of himself.

These people deserve everything they get. If Walsh wants to defend them from that then he is on the wrong side here.

Let alone invent lies himself eg that Froome doubters were Armstrong's fans.

 

[sniper]

This year I saw FDJ strap video game sensors to their riders and bikes in preparation for Roubaix. They were trying to find the the right position to ride the bike and over what line of cobbles in addition to choosing the right wheel sets and frame types.

Genius stuff. No other team is doing it. Didn't mean they smashed up Roubaix but its a really good use of technology and science.

So goes the logic of the use of science etc. means instant results. Nutella bans do not add up to riding at 440w and breaking the peloton in half.

Doping generally allows you to do that. Not just instructing riders to ride at 450 all day.

nice point.

My parallel with a parent is a fairly good one. He appears to be so in love and so enamored with Sky that everything he sees he translates it into some form of scientific edge over other teams. Even though he has no idea what other teams are doing.

But what did walsh fall in love with?
Brailsford is a widely acknowledged ***, Froome looks like an average uninteresting dork, Wiggins is a ****, etc...
Sky must have properly pampered our david.

 

[thehog]

nice point.


But what did walsh fall in love with?
Brailsford is a widely acknowledged ***, Froome looks like an average uninteresting dork, Wiggins is a ****, etc...
Sky must have properly pampered our david.

True. I think it's more being part of a team. Being a journalist is actually a sh1tty job. It's not glamour gig in the slightest. Long hours, crap money, deadlines and complete and utter loss of any editorial control on content.

Writing sports pages is hack work.

So now Walsh is in the gang, being paid a lot more, respected and has an expense account to fly into Mallorca at a moments notice and go to the Tour with the team and not have to sleep in a car, means he's not going to mess with what he's got going now. Subconsciously or consciously.

Agree those guys are hard work but nothing compared to Armstrong.

Walsh's interviews with Wiggins this year was lunacy. Wiggins has since prove he's still a ****.

Walsh's book towards the end attempts to drum up that Wiggins may challenge for the Tour next year and that he might beat Froome! That's how far gone Walsh has gone. He's in a love-nested orgy of all things Sky.

Everyone else is the devil. Only a Sky exist.

 

[romnom]

I know for sure that Brailsford lied about Txema and lied about not hiring doped riders and staff, has refused to admit he did so and deliberately distorts the truth all the time with his offensive narrative about how little everyone else involved in sport actually does (basically nothing).

I also know for sure Wiggins lied in public to defend Lance, multiple times, lied to humiliate and bully those who were on the side of justice vs lance and has lied since then in order to create a fake hero media image of himself.

These people deserve everything they get. If Walsh wants to defend them from that then he is on the wrong side here.

Let alone invent lies himself eg that Froome doubters were Armstrong's fans.

I don't really disagree with any of that. I'm just assuming that if I spent a few months with the good people of team Sky I might end up on the 'wrong' side as well. Just seems unlikely to me that all the people working for the team deserve everything that they get. It's easy enough to say that the big names deserve everything they get for all the lies and PR-spin they've done, but for someone spending time with them and the rest of the people working in the team it might all seem a little less obvious. And once you know the people, seeing them treated badly might actually make you want to defend them. Even if you really weren't 100% sure that they are clean.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I don't really disagree with any of that. I'm just assuming that if I spent a few months with the good people of team Sky I might end up on the 'wrong' side as well. Just seems unlikely to me that all the people working for the team deserve everything that they get. It's easy enough to say that the big names deserve everything they get for all the lies and PR-spin they've done, but for someone spending time with them and the rest of the people working in the team it might all seem a little less obvious. And once you know the people, seeing them treated badly might actually make you want to defend them. Even if you really weren't 100% sure that they are clean.

That is a very good post. That is what 'in bed with' will do with a lot of people.

Was it the same with Kimmago in 2008?