Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Netserk]

It's quite simple really. Anglophone riders get more attention from anglophone media. Good and bad.

 

[ebandit]

If you listen to the journalist trying it on with the V2o stuff in the DB clip......he isn't English

Mark L

 

[Netserk]

If you listen to the journalist trying it on with the V2o stuff in the DB clip......he isn't English

Mark L

So?

Interest generate interest. The anglophone media are the biggest.

 

[sniper]

Couldn't disagree more.....and the fact that this year Nibali and Contador faced so few questions in comparison is down to Armstrong-fatigue more than their performances being more believable/less unbelievable than Froome's

With regards to your Festina point.......Festina didn't win 7 consecutive tours....you are sharp enough to work out the significance of that for yourself but happy to expand if needs be

Mark L

wasn't Walsh calling them out repeatedly through twitter?
And not to mention Froome drawing attention through twitter to the lack of testing of Nibali and Contador whilst on Tenerife.
If they weren't facing questions initially, Froome and Walsh saw to it that they ended up getting lots of questions.

 

[The fridge in the blue trees]

I think it's safe to say the questions about Froome were wholly generated by his performance and Sky's claims of cleanliness and transparency. That they came after Armstrong means little.

That's like saying the questions Armstrong faced in '99 were because of Festina. No, they were because the performance was unbelievable. Less so than Froome's, but you get the point...

That they came after Armstrong means a lot.
Sky's whole team performance in the TdF 2012 was way way way way more unbelievable than Froome and some Porte in 2013.
Why was Froome 13 questioned so much more than Wiggins and his Skytrain 12? Very simple: First GT after Armstrong was banned.

 

[thehog]

I think it's safe to say the questions about Froome were wholly generated by his performance and Sky's claims of cleanliness and transparency. That they came after Armstrong means little.

That's like saying the questions Armstrong faced in '99 were because of Festina. No, they were because the performance was unbelievable. Less so than Froome's, but you get the point...

The Armstrong argument is dumb. Yes it opened up the common fan to the reality of doping. But Armstrong hadn't ridden since 09 as his 2010 was nothing. Prior to that is was 2005!

Froome 13 was all about him and going troppo on Ventoux. He stood alone and had nothing to do with Armstrong. Doping questions have been asked at the Tour since the beginning of time. Brailsford just couldn't help look like a guilty child with his hand in the cookie jar when asked about Dawgs Vo2 Max.

 

[ebandit]

The Armstrong argument is dumb. Yes it opened up the common fan to the reality of doping. But Armstrong hadn't ridden since 09 as his 2010 was nothing. Prior to that is was 2005!

Froome 13 was all about him and going troppo on Ventoux. He stood alone and had nothing to do with Armstrong. Doping questions have been asked at the Tour since the beginning of time. Brailsford just couldn't help look like a guilty child with his hand in the cookie jar when asked about Dawgs Vo2 Max.

He caught a journalist out....it looked great and he was justified

It is dumb to label the Armstrong argument as dumb....the Armstrong confession was one of THE BIGGEST SPORTING CONTROVERSIES EVER......and not only that but it happened in CYCLING.....not only that but it was all about the TOUR because Armstrong was all about the TOUR......it was more than predictable that the next TOUR would be a feeding frenzy of scandal-mongering journalists all over it......hoping to keep the Armstrong saga going in some way...to think otherwise is to have a zero understanding of the media

It is mildly amusing to note such a weak attempt to discount the Armstrong factor when 99% of the Skyphobics arguments are based upon some sort of equation involving Armstrong....the "because Armstrong" arguments.......and most of their posts are riven with attempts to apply Armstrong quotes to Sky (I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles....we like our credibility etc etc ad nauseam).....now they are trying to claim Armstrong's doping is irrelevant

Mark L

 

[thehog]

That they came after Armstrong means a lot.
Sky's whole team performance in the TdF 2012 was way way way way more unbelievable than Froome and some Porte in 2013.
Why was Froome 13 questioned so much more than Wiggins and his Skytrain 12? Very simple: First GT after Armstrong was banned.

Perhaps the journalists thought it would be good to ask questions because Froome decided to ride faster than Armstrong?

We know Armstrong was doped, therefore...

 

[ebandit]

Interesting how even Vayer went quiet when asked to provide his reference points for that claim

Mark L

 

[Benotti69]

Couldn't disagree more.....and the fact that this year Nibali and Contador faced so few questions in comparison is down to Armstrong-fatigue more than their performances being more believable/less unbelievable than Froome's

Did you read the Spanish and Italian media?

Nibali was asked about doping at this years TdF.

Nibali unlike Froome showed promise at a young rider. Froome showed zigzagging and hanging off motorbikes.

 

[thehog]

Vayer quiet? Anything but quiet.

More interesting is Walsh was quoting Vayer in terms of Contador and his "speed" / "vo2 max".

Then again Walsh wrote an entire book on how Froome is clean. Full of holes and inconsistencies as presented on this very forum.

The case for Froome & clean is embarrassing. The questions remain.

 

[ebandit]

Vayer quiet? Anything but quiet..

Agreed.

Except when asked for terms of reference. Then suddenly radio silence.

Anybody would think he had a book to sell.

 

[thehog]

Agreed.

Except when asked for terms of reference. Then suddenly radio silence.

Anybody would think he had a book to sell.

We have Walsh's book. Last time I checked it had fallen out of the top 1000 best sellers list

That and Kimmage pulled holes through Froome's backstory. Thank heavens for journalists with integrity.

 

[ebandit]

Why are you trying to change the subject?....we were talking about Vayer and how he went quiet when asked for terms of reference.....we were talking about Vayer because you brought up speed comparisons......now you seem to be going for a tit-for-tat thing.....odd

Mark L

 

[thehog]

If you listen to the journalist trying it on with the V2o stuff in the DB clip......he isn't English

Mark L

He isn't English?

You mean he might be European?

 

[Mellow Velo]

It's quite simple really. Anglophone riders get more attention from anglophone media. Good and bad.

Pretty much.
Add a few cynical Frenchies (rather quiet this year for some, strange reason.) into the mix and you've got it.

It didn't help that when Froome went bye bye to Bertie on Ventoux, no one could have figured how poor his form really was.

 

[ebandit]

He isn't English?

You mean he might be European?

I think you'll find the English are European

Besides....why have you dug up a quote from two pages ago?....are you hoping to misconstrue it in the hope that everybody will have forgotten the context in which it was made....is this to divert attention away from Vayer and his refusal to provide reference points so that his speed claims could be validated (or debunked )??

Mark L

 

[The Hitch]

Pretty much.
Add a few cynical Frenchies (rather quiet this year for some, strange reason.) into the mix and you've got it.

It didn't help that when Froome went bye bye to Bertie on Ventoux, no one could have figured how poor his form really was.

A) the French riders went nowhere near as fast as froome. They were destroyed by Nibali on every climb and by Majka on most of them.
B) In pinots case he was 50x the talent as a youth.
C) their domestiques didn't outclimb the entire rest of the field on the first mountain stage)

Those are the 2 main reasons why froome wasnt believed and the third one didn't help either.

None of those applied to the French riders this year so that's why they didn't receive the same questions as froome.

On your second point, contadors performance really isn't the reason for why froomes ventoux was doubted. Actually ir would have been even more ridiculous if he had been on form and they just attacked eachother all the way.
But the reason froomes ventoux was doubted was because he matched the time of Armstrong. Even if we allow for a tailwind (I don't want to have that whole flame war again so for the purposes of argument, let's pretend it was the biggest takin wind the 110 year history of the tour de France). He still matched the time of Armstrong on a mountain on a 200km +day that was ridden an hour ahead of schedule, 15 days into a gt and 2 days after what everyone said was one of the hardest days in their careers. I'm not the only one who believes no clean rider has any business matching lance - one of the most drugged up people in the history of mankind, in those circumstances. Even minus contador he still beat the nearest rider by 30, the 2nd nearest by over a minute, a week after beating the entire field minus his teammate by 1.20.

Saying that contador was off form really doesn't excuse froomes ventoux. Ir was so much beyond what any non tested positive rider has ever done. And beyond what many of the most successful dopers had ever done.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Hitch: Either you are missing my points, or I am missing yours.

I'm saying the French have tended to question most non-French performances, nothing more.
I'm not saying that Contador's lack of form was THE reason, just that it emphasized Froome's performance, still further.
That is all.

I'm not following your point "A" at all.

 

[thehog]

But the reason froomes ventoux was doubted was because he matched the time of Armstrong. Even if we allow for a tailwind (I don't want to have that whole flame war again so for the purposes of argument, let's pretend it was the biggest takin wind the 110 year history of the tour de France). He still matched the time of Armstrong on a mountain on a 200km +day that was ridden an hour ahead of schedule, 15 days into a gt and 2 days after what everyone said was one of the hardest days in their careers. I'm not the only one who believes no clean rider has any business matching lance - one of the most drugged up people in the history of mankind, in those circumstances. Even minus contador he still beat the nearest rider by 30, the 2nd nearest by over a minute, a week after beating the entire field minus his teammate by 1.20.
Saying that contador was off form really doesn't excuse froomes ventoux. Ir was so much beyond what any non tested positive rider has ever done. And beyond what many of the most successful dopers had ever done.

Agree on all parts and I'll just leave this here:

Mt Ventoux, last 7.1 km 7.53% :

2000 Armstrong 21'32
2002 Armstrong 20'22
2009 Contador 20'31
2013 Froome 20'04

 

[Parker]

But the reason froomes ventoux was doubted was because he matched the time of Armstrong. Even if we allow for a tailwind (I don't want to have that whole flame war again so for the purposes of argument, let's pretend it was the biggest takin wind the 110 year history of the tour de France). He still matched the time of Armstrong on a mountain on a 200km +day that was ridden an hour ahead of schedule, 15 days into a gt and 2 days after what everyone said was one of the hardest days in their careers. I'm not the only one who believes no clean rider has any business matching lance - one of the most drugged up people in the history of mankind, in those circumstances.

The races where completely different though. You'd be a fool to think that a climb that long is raced in the same way each time.

There's a video on YouTube which plays Froome's climb alongside Armstrong/Pantani (the last 45 minutes of the climb). The video maker thinks it's some sort of smoking gun, but it actually highlights the differences. The main difference being that after the point where Froome attacks, Armstrong spends another twelve minutes riding tempo in rivals wheels while the front group just looks at each other. (The front group actually gets bigger during this period).

Now don't you think that those twelve minutes at least may have a serious impact on the relative times?

These are not time trials.

 

[Netserk]

The races where completely different though. You'd be a fool to think that a climb that long is raced in the same way each time.

There's a video on YouTube which plays Froome's climb alongside Armstrong/Pantani (the last 45 minutes of the climb). The video maker thinks it's some sort of smoking gun, but it actually highlights the differences. The main difference being that after the point where Froome attacks, Armstrong spends another twelve minutes riding tempo in rivals wheels while the front group just looks at each other. (The front group actually gets bigger during this period).

Now don't you think that those twelve minutes at least may have a serious impact on the relative times?

These are not time trials.

The Armstrong time most are comparing Froome with is the one 2 years later.

 

[ebandit]

thehog is leaving it with this....

Agree on all parts and I'll just leave this here:
Mt Ventoux, last 7.1 km 7.53% :

2000 Armstrong 21'32
2002 Armstrong 20'22
2009 Contador 20'31
2013 Froome 20'04

...because he knows it tells the story that he wants it to....but he also knows full well it doesn't tell the full story as Parker points out......it is exactly the same reason why Vayer suddenly went very quiet when asked for his terms of reference.

Mark L

 

[Parker]

Agree on all parts and I'll just leave this here:

Mt Ventoux, last 7.1 km 7.53% :

2000 Armstrong 21'32
2002 Armstrong 20'22
2009 Contador 20'31
2013 Froome 20'04

7.1km from the end conveniently being the point at which Froome attacked Contador. While Armstrong in 2000 only attacks 8 minutes from the end. (He counter-attacked further out in 2002, but with no stage win up for grabs and a comfortable lead how hard did he go?)

 

[thehog]

7.1km from the end conveniently being the point at which Froome attacked Contador. While Armstrong in 2000 only attacks 8 minutes from the end.

Sure.

And the stage was 70km shorter in 2000.

Froome rode faster with an extra 70km! Yikes!

Then there's the great video of Froome side by side with Lance, beating Armstrong by 25secs on the climb as a whole, double yikes! :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbO_te8cv7c