Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[red_flanders]

Plenty knew Armstrong was doping when he went up Sestriere in 1999.

Plenty knew Ricco was on something when he mocked the peloton on mountains at the TdF.

That is 2 examples. Just because people who watch this sport and have watched it over the last few decades are not holding the syringe doesn't meant they dont recognise doping when they see it.

Of course. Yet for over a decade there were always people shouting, "you have no proof". Where are those people now? Anyone cop to being clueless for all that time? Anyone admit they were totally wrong and learn from it? I can think of one person, but beyond that, no. They all just act like they were right to think he was clean until Armstrong admitted. It's self delusion or worse.

There is a difference between knowing something and being able to prove it. The police more often than not know when someone has committed a crime. Whether they can prove it has little to do with the fact that they do, in fact, "know".

 

[thehog]

Then tell us.
What is Froome taking. Dosage? When? Why is he responding so well to it? From where does he get it. Privately or team program?

Sure. 40mg of presidsone during races.

 

[ebandit]

Of course. Yet for over a decade there were always people shouting, "you have no proof".

Since you've gone for an Armstrong comparison lets take a closer look........Yes there were people who continued to support Armstrong....but those people became fewer and fewer over the decade

Walsh was penning LA confidentiel by 2003.....18 months later L'Equipe published a damning report on Armstrong's EPO use......Walsh's book wasn't just a collections of suspicions because he thought Armstrong was riding too fast....it was ACTUAL evidence....witness testimony etc....Walsh's move to write on Armstrong may have been motivated by initial suspicions but he went out and found the evidence...

....so where is the evidence on Sky? ....where is it? the ACTUAL evidence....the testimony etc......there must be loads of journalists out there hoping to emulate Walsh and help bring down Sky........how far have they got?....why do you think that is?....jeez there must be a bus lod of disgruntled ex-Sky staff who fell on the ZTP sword who would be willing to talk anonymously at the very least.....why haven't they?

It is nowhere near as cut and dried as a small handful of vociferous people in this forum think and you and them can keep repeating over and over again that it is but that won't make it so Im afraid

Mark L

 

[ebandit]

Sure. 40mg of presidsone during races.

Yeah....I go a lot faster when I take cough medicine too

Mark L

 

[daveyt]

Of course. Yet for over a decade there were always people shouting, "you have no proof". Where are those people now? Anyone cop to being clueless for all that time? Anyone admit they were totally wrong and learn from it? I can think of one person, but beyond that, no. They all just act like they were right to think he was clean until Armstrong admitted. It's self delusion or worse.

There is a difference between knowing something and being able to prove it. The police more often than not know when someone has committed a crime. Whether they can prove it has little to do with the fact that they do, in fact, "know".

What is different this time is the total lack of anything other than performance based " evidence " there were actual people saying they had heard Armstrong talk about doping or actually dope. How do you explain the difference to now? Surely it is harder to keep a secret now, more people digging and asking questions, internet helping information spread and be shared and yet there is squat diddley?

 

[red_flanders]

Armstrong believers were also confused about the definition of the word "evidence". I swear it's like a record skipping over and over and over. Uncanny.

I won't rehash the mountains of evidence again. Utterly pointless and you've heard it all already. Believe what you like, of course. I find it absurd, but that's my problem.

 

[ebandit]

You wanted to do a comparison with Armstrong so go on do one....where is the equivalent of the O'Reilly testimony???......anything will do....give us one witness....just one.....

Mark L

 

[daveyt]

Armstrong believers were also confused about the definition of the word "evidence". I swear it's like a record skipping over and over and over. Uncanny.

I won't rehash the mountains of evidence again. Utterly pointless and you've heard it all already. Believe what you like, of course. I find it absurd, but that's my problem.

Any non performance based evidence at all?

 

[red_flanders]

What is different this time is the total lack of anything other than performance based " evidence " there were actual people saying they had heard Armstrong talk about doping or actually dope. How do you explain the difference to now? Surely it is harder to keep a secret now, more people digging and asking questions, internet helping information spread and be shared and yet there is squat diddley?

One, it's not a secret. Two, that's not an argument, that "it's harder to keep a secret now". Totally without basis in fact. There are not more people digging now. Did you miss the pressers in the nineties? Fully packed rooms of reporters at the races with no it get agenda but doping.

As per the thread title, there is at least one less prominent journalist asking questions. Just cashing in.

I would argue there are far fewer people interested in getting at the truth now.

 

[thehog]

You wanted to do a comparison with Armstrong so go on do one....where is the equivalent of the O'Reilly testimony???......anything will do....give us one witness....just one.....

Mark L

One witness?

Massimiliano, he injected Froome, ie a witness for an illegal drug.

PK: What about recuperation? Did you have any injections during that Tour?

CF: No. On Barloworld they did do injectable . . . was it Fluimacil? It was an amino acid or something and the doctor would administer that at certain points. And I did have some Fluimacil. I don’t know if I had it on the Tour but there were . . . it’s possible once or twice.

PK: Who was the doctor?

CF: (Massimiliano) Mantovani. And before he’d do it he would show it to me and say: ‘This is Fluimacil, an amino acid. It will help you to recover.’

 

[ebandit]

Oh right..... I get it....there is no witness based evidence against Sky because nobody is interested in gathering it.....hyseterical


I'd love to see you try and develop and pursue that argument......the press love a downfall story.....the Armstrong downfall is probably the biggest sporting story ever....and it was about cycling....are you seriously going to try and pursue the line that the press wouldn't be interested in another one??????



Mark L

 

[Benotti69]

Since you've gone for an Armstrong comparison lets take a closer look........Yes there were people who continued to support Armstrong....but those people became fewer and fewer over the decade

Walsh was penning LA confidentiel by 2003.....18 months later L'Equipe published a damning report on Armstrong's EPO use......Walsh's book wasn't just a collections of suspicions because he thought Armstrong was riding too fast....it was ACTUAL evidence....witness testimony etc....Walsh's move to write on Armstrong may have been motivated by initial suspicions but he went out and found the evidence...

....so where is the evidence on Sky? ....where is it? the ACTUAL evidence...
Mark L

The biggest thing that Walsh pinned on Armstrong was working with Ferrari.

To compare?

Sky hired Geert Leinders.

Compare other things?

Armstrong was gruppetto fodder before Ferrari. After a TdF winner.

Froome working with Leinders also went from zig zagging and hanging onto mortorbikes to the Podium.

Those are 2 very strong comparisons.

Another? The unwillingess to release data?

Another? When they did release data, they got Grappe to analyse it. Grappe was wrong on Armstrong, Froome?

.........

........

 

[Benotti69]

Any non performance based evidence at all?

What would you like?

It is the performance that is the thing. The riders performance is what gets him his win.

 

[thehog]

Froome has injected illegal drugs, taken steroids to win races, had a world renowned blood doping doctor work for his team at the time of his transformation.

But of course there's no evidence...

Love is blind.

 

[daveyt]

Did you miss the pressers in the nineties? Fully packed rooms of reporters at the races with no it get agenda but doping.

As per the thread title, there is at least one less prominent journalist asking questions. Just cashing in.

I would argue there are far fewer people interested in getting at the truth now.

Where is your basis that fewer people are interested in the truth now? Where is your basis that journos are more interested in cashing in now?

Daniel Friend is another example of a journalist who attended what were basically conferences where doping was discussed but who now thinks doping is not rife among the top guys.

Your truth being wrong just looks like the more likely scenario.

 

[daveyt]

The biggest thing that Walsh pinned on Armstrong was working with Ferrari.

To compare?

Sky hired Geert Leinders.

Compare other things?

Armstrong was gruppetto fodder before Ferrari. After a TdF winner.

Froome working with Leinders also went from zig zagging and hanging onto mortorbikes to the Podium.

Those are 2 very strong comparisons.

Another? The unwillingess to release data?

Another? When they did release data, they got Grappe to analyse it. Grappe was wrong on Armstrong, Froome?

.........

........

The hanging on to a motorbike was because of a knee injury? So you know your case us week if you have to lie?

 

[ebandit]

Froome has injected illegal drugs, taken steroids to win races, had a world renowned blood doping doctor work for his team at the time of his transformation.

But of course there's no evidence...

Love is blind.

Wittness testimony...hog....not just a rehash of the same tired old rants....witness testimony.....where is Sky's O'Reilly...where is the witness testimony??????

Mark L

 

[thehog]

Calm down there Judge Judy

Froome has already confessed to injecting with illegal drugs and taking illegal steroids.

 

[Benotti69]

Wittness testimony...hog....not just a rehash of the same tired old rants....witness testimony.....where is Sky's O'Reilly...where is the witness testimony??????

Mark L

O'Reilly's witness testimony was not the straw that broke Armstrong's back.

It was widely discredited by Armstrong fanboys. It was not enough for the reasoned decision. It was important part of the RD.

I guess if a former Sky masseuse claimed to have carried some phials for Froome from Spain to Monaco most fanboys would be shouting bitter ex employee.........

 

[ebandit]

Calm down there Judge Judy

Froome has already confessed to injecting with illegal drugs and taking illegal steroids.

Where is the witness testimony, hog?

You are having to resort to weak sophistry now like some sort of 3rd rate law under-graduate.

Mark L

p.s. I'd delete the Judge Judy bait snark if I were you...I got banned for making comments that were much lesser

 

[ebandit]

O'Reilly's witness testimony was not the straw that broke Armstrong's back.

Who cares?........it was still witness testimony....doesn't matter who tried to deny it or discredit it......it was still witness testimony

So come on then.....where is the Sky witness testimony?

Mark L

 

[daveyt]

I guess if a former Sky masseuse claimed to have carried some phials for Froome from Spain to Monaco most fanboys would be shouting bitter ex employee.........

Some might, but it would seriously pee on my chips.

 

[thehog]

Where is the witness testimony, hog?

You are having to resort to weak sophistry now like some sort of 3rd rate law under-graduate.

Mark L

p.s. I'd delete the Judge Judy bait snark if I were you...I got banned for making comments that were much lesser

I'm not sure why you're so hung up on witness testimony. O'reiley never committed an affidavit for Armstrong. No one did until 2006.

Why do you keep the bar so high for Sky? You want someone to wander into a police station and give them a signed confession? LOL!

 

[Benotti69]

Who cares?.......

fanboys in a similar vein to you discredited her.

.it was still witness testimony....doesn't matter who tried to deny it or discredit it......it was still witness testimony

So come on then.....where is the Sky witness testimony?

Mark L

One thing Sky have learnt from the USPS story is to treat former employees generously.

I guess they also hired those with a low sense of sporting ideal of fair play.

The Sky thread is full of Sky's lies. Transparency. What happened to that? Where is Froome's Vo2max test?

 

[TailWindHome]

I'm not sure why you're so hung up on witness testimony. O'reiley never committed an affidavit for Armstrong. No one did until 2006.

Why do you keep the bar so high for Sky? You want someone to wander into a police station and give them a signed confession? LOL!

Witness testimony =/= confession

Silly Hog.