Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Benotti69]

David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST 28m
@robertrayner Robert, if Rogers admitted he doped at Sky, it would diminish what they achieved last year. But Wiggins lose Tour title? No.

Walsh truly a fan. Diminish? it would erase everything Sky have done.

 

[SundayRider]

Walsh truly a fan. Diminish? it would erase everything Sky have done.

Sounds like Walsh maybe getting th excuses ready if the Sky starts to crumble.

 

[Benotti69]

Sounds like Walsh maybe getting th excuses ready if the Sky starts to crumble.

Walsh just refuses to see the writing on the wall, telling us he was inside and saw nothing. Sometimes being inside looking out is very very misleading.

 

[thehog]

Walsh truly a fan. Diminish? it would erase everything Sky have done.

Walsh's head is starting to implode.

Just when he thought it was all so simple.

His view will keep moving until he finds himself in a corner surrounded by his own contradictions.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

His view will keep moving until he finds himself in a corner surrounded by his own contradictions.

Like a doper cornered.

There have been many theories postulated as to why Walsh is backing Sky. Sometimes I wonder if Walsh let the hype just get to his head, like he has a sixth sense for telling if someone is doping that goes against all logic.

 

[RownhamHill]

Walsh's head is starting to implode.

Just when he thought it was all so simple.

His view will keep moving until he finds himself in a corner surrounded by his own contradictions.

I think he'll be OK if he reads the clinic.

 

[thehog]

Like a doper cornered.

There have been many theories postulated as to why Walsh is backing Sky. Sometimes I wonder if Walsh let the hype just get to his head, like he has a sixth sense for telling if someone is doping that goes against all logic.

There was that PowerPoint slide produced by the American military attempting to explain the conflicts in the Middle East and Iraq. It was put together to justify the reasons to go to war.

The slide became a running joke because there were so many lines and arrows pointing in all different directions and no clear visual of who was bad and who was good etc.

Similar here. Walsh has put Sky on a pedestal. The realities of cycling are coming through now. It's just impossible to provide a certification of a clean team. Way too many variables and dirty players involved.

And just when you think you've explained it you get a Rogers situation and you have move your goalposts again.

 

[sittingbison]

...The slide became a running joke because there were so many lines and arrows pointing in all different directions and no clear visual of who was bad and who was good etc.....

hows this one?

... there are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know.But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know....

 

[Berzin]

Rogers testing positive for clenbuterol isn't going to open the big, conspiratorial can of worms some of you think it will.

David Walsh isn't losing sleep over this, and neither is Brailsford.

Since some of you gentlemen are so convinced Sky are doped to the gills (whatever that means) I'm going to ask these questions yet again to see if I can get some sort of plausible answer-

1) If Sky are doping, what are they using?

2) How are they getting around the BioPassport?

Someone who is 100% sure Sky is doping would have this information and would not be afraid to post it, or would at the very least provide some semblance of their program.

I will be the first to throw my hat into the ring with my conjectures, based on what's being thrown around so far and a few things that I know of.

I have no idea what sort of traditional doping methods would not be detected at this stage of the game. The amount of testosterone and HgH needed to ride like Sky's top riders have, especially Froome and Wiggins at their weight, has to be in amounts that would trip up some type of test. How they are getting around this, I don't know. It would have to be microdosing on a scale that is monitored very closely by a doctor who knows what he's doing. As for blood transfusion, again, I don't see how they could be pulling that off but maybe they are.

I'm skeptical of this, simply because from all I've read they would have to be working with an excellent doctor, and as we've seen the drop-off in quality form the world's best (Dr. Ferrari) and second best (at the time, Fuentes) is tremendous.

AICAR or a similar drug has to be in the mix somewhere. The team has to have gotten their hands on it and are using it in conjunction with other products that is turning Wiggo and Froome into supermen.

Timing. Schleck and Contador have seen their best days, and there aren't any riders who can challenge the Sky team. Quintana will never win the Tour. He's not good enough and will never be good enough. In fact, last year is probably the best Tour he'll ever ride. Everyone else is riding for second.

The bike motor. It exists, and has been used for years by various riders. All that silly conjecture on the Mont Ventoux thread about Froome's acceleration when the answer was right in front of everyone's faces. I guess some people just love to argue because they have nothing better to do.

I believe the answer lies amongst some of my points, or all of them. Or like I said, maybe they caught the peloton in a weakened state where there isn't a rider out there that can challenge them. Nobody really knows, but I would love to hear from some of you experts who are so sure of yourselves exactly how they're pulling it off.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Offending portion of post edited, so let's move forward if it's possible.

-Berzin

 

[Berzin]

Wiggo-judging from the Sky and Walsh threads, I feel my comparison fits the bill. Key phrase "some", not all or most.

 

[The Hitch]

Wiggo-judging from the Sky and Walsh threads, I feel my comparison fits the bill. Key phrase "some", not all or most.

No. Key phrase - "some of". massive difference. "Some of" very much allows for "all" or "most".

I do find it funny though that someone who mocks those who say sky dope for not having evidence then proceeds to announce he has found the real conclusion - they have motors in their bikes.

It would be sort of like saying-there's no evidence oj killed his wife. The truth is out there in front of you all. Bill Clinton hired the kgb to do it to hide that he was having an affair(with her)

The offending portion of the post has been edited, so let's move forward from this.

-Berzin

 

[Berzin]

No. Key phrase - "some of". massive difference. "Some of" very much allows for "all" or "most".

Only for someone who wants to move the goalposts of the discussion instead answering any of the two questions I posted. I didn't expect that from you, Hitch.

I do find it funny though that someone who mocks those who say sky dope for not having evidence then proceeds to announce he has found the real conclusion - they have motors in their bikes.

I'm not mocking anybody. What I'm trying to do is guide the thread in a different direction, where someone can at least take a stab at what's going on at Sky as opposed to saying they know there's doping without providing any type of opinion as to what they are doing. I'm surprised that you've chosen to ignore this for the sake of making this about me.

It would be sort of like saying-there's no evidence oj killed his wife. The truth is out there in front of you all. Bill Clinton hired the kgb to do it to hide that he was having an affair(with her).

Specious and irrelevant correlation. This isn't "like" anything. I wrote what I wrote in plain enough English for all to understand without the need for comparisons.

I wrote some ideas that at the very least are more plausible than anything else I've heard from posters who have accused Sky of doping. I never said, as you've stated above, that I have "the real conclusion".

As for the motor, uh huh. Keep mocking. This contraption isn't going to remain a secret forever. And I stated, the motor is quite possibly one of a couple of things they are doing to cheat. Not the only thing.

So, instead of going sideways and making this about me, how about answering any of my two questions?

I will know which way you're going with this by your reply.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I have no idea...

You should have stopped right there.

Funny thing, Berzin is allowed to mock members but is not ready when he gets mocked back.

Enfin, Berzin, doping stopped when Armstrong fell aint it?

 

[elduggo]

R
I have no idea what sort of traditional doping methods would not be detected at this stage of the game. The amount of testosterone and HgH needed to ride like Sky's top riders have, especially Froome and Wiggins at their weight, has to be in amounts that would trip up some type of test. How they are getting around this, I don't know. It would have to be microdosing on a scale that is monitored very closely by a doctor who knows what he's doing. As for blood transfusion, again, I don't see how they could be pulling that off but maybe they are.

what proportion of those banned for doping offenses have actually tested positive for anything?

some have for sure, but pretty much all of the 'high profile' cases have either come forward themselves or have been exposed by a whistleblower. Or, such as in the case of Rogers, were possibly so preoccupied hiding the forest that they forgot about one or two trees.

given the majority of the high profile cases that we've heard about in the last 12-16 months refer to offenses that occurred up to and over a decade ago, and given the riders in question didn't test positive back then, what reason is there to think that doping methods aren't even further ahead of testing methods now?

Given that we now know about things such as AICAR and CERA, which (certainly in the case of CERA) riders took before drugs-testing bodies may even have been aware of their existence, why is it such a stretch to think that there may be something else out there that only 1 or 2 riders (via their doctors) know of that the rest of the world is blissfully ignorant of?

Its conjecture on both sides but I think the evidence is more damning than not. My personal belief is that there is not a systematic doping program at Sky, but that one or 2 riders have taken it upon themselves to pursue less than honourable means to improve themselves and their performances.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Berzin, you are a ridiculous mod. **** you.

 

[hrotha]

Berzin, you are a ridiculous mod. **** you.

Yup, pretty much this.

 

[Franklin]

Okay, let's answr this one.

Rogers testing positive for clenbuterol isn't going to open the big, conspiratorial can of worms some of you think it will.

David Walsh isn't losing sleep over this, and neither is Brailsford.

Agreed.

Since some of you gentlemen are so convinced Sky are doped to the gills (whatever that means) I'm going to ask these questions yet again to see if I can get some sort of plausible answer-

1) If Sky are doping, what are they using?

2) How are they getting around the BioPassport?

Blood Transfusions and perhaps some (undetectable) manipulation of values that are just not enough to trigger a Passport flag. Blood transfusions are AFAIK still undetectable.

I have no idea what sort of traditional doping methods would not be detected at this stage of the game.

Blood transfusions. And though I'm not an expert, everything indicates that not every doping agent is easily detected, though as you say, that net is probably getting awfully tight.

I'm skeptical of this, simply because from all I've read they would have to be working with an excellent doctor, and as we've seen the drop-off in quality form the world's best (Dr. Ferrari) and second best (at the time, Fuentes) is tremendous.

Who says they aren't working with the best doctor? They certainly did their best to hire one of the best (Leinders) who managed a respectable amount of GT wins. Leinders had a very good record of keeping Rabo riders on the good side even though the suspicions were huge (Equipe list/Mencov, Humanplamsa, all the stories about Chicken). Leinders might not be the best, but he sure ranks among the top if we look at his riders GT performances.

AICAR or a similar drug has to be in the mix somewhere. The team has to have gotten their hands on it and are using it in conjunction with other products that is turning Wiggo and Froome into supermen.

Or other more common methods (transfusion!)

I believe the answer lies amongst some of my points, or all of them. Or like I said, maybe they caught the peloton in a weakened state where there isn't a rider out there that can challenge them. Nobody really knows, but I would love to hear from some of you experts who are so sure of yourselves exactly how they're pulling it off.

Now I'm in the camp which is still unconvinced they are doping, but I do find this a bit of silly statement. Why would we have to know HOW they do it if there's a lot of circumstantial evidence triggering flags?

Your premise that it surely is hard to execute a doping program and not being found out is unproven. We absolutely have no idea how many dopers sail through tests (and that's not just cycling). To drive this one home: Lance 2.0 never got caught. And no, that's not ten years ago.

 

[Berzin]

Here is my point about blood transfusions. For a team like Sky, if they are engaging in this activity, how to explain Froome and many other riders on the team riding so well for most of the year before they got to the Tour?

We all know that blood transfusions require a lot of time to recover from.

Then there is the question of who is administering this regimen. As an example, I used the difference between Ferrari and Fuentes. Fuentes had riders testing positive for having other people's blood in their system, leading one to believe that his regimen was so incompetent that he couldn't even keep the bags in proper order. And he was supposedly the number 2 doping doctor around, judging from the number of high profile clients he had.

The BioPassport, if anything, makes things more difficult. Not foolproof of course, but more difficult.

To compare what happened with Armstrong and the current state of anti-doping isn't correct. Not only was there no BioPassport when he raced, but he had access to information about out of competition tests that he had time to either prepare for or outright miss. When he came back in 2009, his blood profiles reeked of blood transfusions. That he was never sanctioned for it is testimony to the culture at the UCI at the time, not the cleverness of his doctors.

I don't think, given the change at the UCI recently, that this can ever happen again to such a degree.

 

[manafana]

Walsh is just less begrudging that kimmage. No matter who you are in cycling he will struggle to trust probably needs to sleep with you to trust you.

I think Walsh has been slightly misunderstood yes he has been bought by sky but influenced by them i dont think so.

on the sky matter, I would like too see how they are doing blood tranfusions being such an easy to identify team, if done in tenerife, which doctor is doing it were are they being stored? its not blood doping if they are doing anything i tell you that much

 

[thehog]

Walsh is just less begrudging that kimmage. No matter who you are in cycling he will struggle to trust probably needs to sleep with you to trust you.

I think Walsh has been slightly misunderstood yes he has been bought by sky but influenced by them i dont think so.

on the sky matter, I would like too see how they are doing blood tranfusions being such an easy to identify team, if done in tenerife, which doctor is doing it were are they being stored? its not blood doping if they are doing anything i tell you that much

I think by very essence of the engagement that is in fact being paid by Sky he is in fact been "bought".

I don't think that would suggest that he's part of a cover-up but it's very easy to suggest that he is "influenced".

He's made no declaration in relation to the relationship between The Sunday Time, Sky and News Corporation.

That is of concern.

 

[Franklin]

Here is my point about blood transfusions. For a team like Sky, if they are engaging in this activity, how to explain Froome and many other riders on the team riding so well for most of the year before they got to the Tour?

We all know that blood transfusions require a lot of time to recover from.

We do?

Then there is the question of who is administering this regimen. As an example, I used the difference between Ferrari and Fuentes. Fuentes had riders testing positive for having other people's blood in their system, leading one to believe that his regimen was so incompetent that he couldn't even keep the bags in proper order. And he was supposedly the number 2 doping doctor around, judging from the number of high profile clients he had.

Oh come on, let's not act like a comedian please.

1. When did riders test positive due to blood bag mix ups by Fuentes?
2. Why do you think a competent medic/orderly at Sky can't store and order blood for a few riders? Not only is the scale much easier, it's also logistically easier as it's just a few riders who are in your team, your hotel, your bus, your training camp. No need to book a ticket to Madrid and sneak into a dodgy clinic.

It's absolutely ridiculous to imply that people say Fuentes is the blueprint for what happens at Sky.

No Strawman please, especially not from an Admin.

To compare what happened with Armstrong and the current state of anti-doping isn't correct. Not only was there no BioPassport when he raced, but he had access to information about out of competition tests that he had time to either prepare for or outright miss. When he came back in 2009, his blood profiles reeked of blood transfusions. That he was never sanctioned for it is testimony to the culture at the UCI at the time, not the cleverness of his doctors. I don't think, given the change at the UCI recently, that this can ever happen again to such a degree.

Nonsense. Especially with the piling up that we witnessed this would have been added on the pile post haste. LA 2.0 was not caught because the Bio-passport evidence was not good enough. And this is clear because of the distinct lack of passport cases versus the still present recurring amount of positives.

Consider the amount of passport positives versus the direct positives found. You would have to agree that the Bio-Passport only plays a very small role in rooting out positives.

Sorry, try again please, but now with positions people actually are taking instead of this caricature of what people imply.

 

[Benotti69]

Walsh is just less begrudging that kimmage. No matter who you are in cycling he will struggle to trust probably needs to sleep with you to trust you.

I think Walsh has been slightly misunderstood yes he has been bought by sky but influenced by them i dont think so.

on the sky matter, I would like too see how they are doing blood tranfusions being such an easy to identify team, if done in tenerife, which doctor is doing it were are they being stored? its not blood doping if they are doing anything i tell you that much

How did all those teams manage to transfuse their way around France in July with so much media, anti doping, police and fans in attendance?

I would say doping high up a Volcano in a secluded Hotel on an island is pretty easy.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

The bike motor. It exists, and has been used for years by various riders. All that silly conjecture on the Mont Ventoux thread about Froome's acceleration when the answer was right in front of everyone's faces. I guess some people just love to argue because they have nothing better to do.

Link? Or something other than the played out video of Cancellara?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

To compare what happened with Armstrong and the current state of anti-doping isn't correct. Not only was there no BioPassport when he raced, but he had access to information about out of competition tests that he had time to either prepare for or outright miss. When he came back in 2009, his blood profiles reeked of blood transfusions. That he was never sanctioned for it is testimony to the culture at the UCI at the time, not the cleverness of his doctors.

You are as obsessed with Armstrong as the man on the Skybandwagon. Welcome to the topic.

When exactly did the culture of the UCI change? Prior to Walsh joining the Sky party or after? Just a question.

Question for you: how come Alberto Contador's CAS appeal also had a lot of proof pointing to AC doing transfusions in the 2010 Tour de France, yet his bio passport is still okay? Have you seen him climb lately in comparison to 2007/2010/Giro 2011? Wouldnt he be flagged by now?

Yes, that beloved BP is indeed working like clockwork.