Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[thehog]

L'equipe gave the data to Grappe not Sky

Whilst managing to not supply anything pre Vuelta 2011.

Anything to hide?

 

[thehog]

The drug your harping on about is perfectly legal

http://www.dopingautoriteit.nl/wat_is_doping/dopinglijst/toegestane-geneesmiddelen#hoesten-keelpijn

It is? Then why the need for a TUE?

You are a strange one.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Wow.
Almost 3 pages of crap in under 2 hours.

 

[red_flanders]

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?

I said one was cashing in, and that's David Walsh, the thread topic...as I said. As for fewer being interested, it's simply an opinion, as is yours that it's harder to get away with it. I see very few hard questions being asked, and obvious lies and falsehoods being glossed over. It's the Armstrong hangover. Few in the sport want to go through it again.

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.

Is "not rife" a direct quote? I ask because I think there is less doping in the group...overall. At the top, they're clearly doing it differently, but they're also clearly all doping. IMO. I don't know who Daniel Friend is, but would be interested in the details of exactly what he said. I'll go see what I can find at some point.

 

[thehog]

I said one was cashing in, and that's David Walsh, the thread topic...as I said. As for fewer being interested, it's simply an opinion, as is yours that it's harder to get away with it. I see very few hard questions being asked, and obvious lies and falsehoods being glossed over. It's the Armstrong hangover. Few in the sport want to go through it again.



Is "not rife" a direct quote? I ask because I think there is less doping in the group...overall. At the top, they're clearly doing it differently, but they're also clearly all doping. IMO. I don't know who Daniel Friend is, but would be interested in the details of exactly what he said. I'll go see what I can find at some point.

I think he means "Daniel Friebe", written books on Wiggins et al.

Has vested financial interest. Conflicted. Speaks resonable Italian. Non-native level.

 

[Parker]

I think he means "Daniel Friebe", written books on Wiggins et al.

Cavendish. He was Cavendish's ghost writer.

 

[thehog]

Cavendish. He was Cavendish's ghost writer.

Heard him on a podcast once. With Walsh. That's where the infamous Nutella story came from. And the Garmin drinking on a rest day BS.

Thick as thrives those two. I think you'll agree, scary stuff. Cult like.

 

[daveyt]

I said one was cashing in, and that's David Walsh, the thread topic...as I said. As for fewer being interested, it's simply an opinion, as is yours that it's harder to get away with it. I see very few hard questions being asked, and obvious lies and falsehoods being glossed over. It's the Armstrong hangover. Few in the sport want to go through it again.



Is "not rife" a direct quote? I ask because I think there is less doping in the group...overall. At the top, they're clearly doing it differently, but they're also clearly all doping. IMO. I don't know who Daniel Friend is, but would be interested in the details of exactly what he said. I'll go see what I can find at some point.

Daniel Friebe, not friend, stupid autocorrect. The podcast with Richard Moore and Lionel Burnie is excellent, don't talk about cycling too much (thank god) but when they do it is very eloquent.

http://audioboom.com/channel/thecyclingpodcast

Well worth a listen, interviews with Walsh, Cookson, Vaughters and Brailsford are in the archive.

I do understand that these guys careers rest on the popularity of cycling in the UK, but I don't rekon they are covering stuff up, and would know if those within cycling really suspected a top cyclist of doping.

 

[The Hitch]

Phil Ligget, not legion stupid autocorrect. The podcast with Sally Jenkins and Mark Fabiani is excellent, don't talk about cycling too much (thank god) but when they do it is very eloquent.*

http://audioboom.com/channel/thecyclingpodcast

Well worth a listen, interviews with , Mcquaid, Roll, Moore and Brunyeel are in the archive.

I do understand that these guys careers rest on the popularity of cycling in the USA, but I don't rekon they are covering stuff up, and would know if those within cycling really suspected a top cyclist of doping.

Don't know why but this post feels so familiar. But I just can't place where from. I think this is what they call that dejavu thing.

 

[thehog]

Wow.
Almost 3 pages of crap in under 2 hours.

I tend to agree. Ebandit is looking for formal affidavit and witness testimony. Someone better call the grand jury, JTL is about to flip!

Hopefully we'll get some video footage of Froome doping as well to satisfy him.

 

[The Hitch]

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

The fans always move the goalposts for their riders. Back in the early days they argued that even a + test wasn't enough you had to hear the rider confess. Then after guys fell for positive tests it changed to -ok if they test positive then you can say they are doping - but NOTHING else counts. Not even witness testimony. It's +test or bust. That was the case for Armstrong. No one was allowed to say Armstrong doped unless lance tested + doesn't matter how much evidence there was. And now that lance fell on witness testimony, without a + test they move the goalposts again. Now all of a sudden it's perfectly fine to have witness testimony, but having several proven doping enablers on your team including one of the sports most successful doping doctors, means nothing.

Many of the very same people who 4 years ago were arguing that witness testimony is inadmissible since the witnesses would do it for money, are now pretending that witness testimony is perfectly fine. It's always the evidence that their favourite dopers have covered up, that they demand. How convenient. And of course 10 years down the line the next doper will merely have fast times, and the same people who now claim that leinders is meaningless , will ask - where is (new teams) leinders. As if dopers didn't evolve and learn from previous people's mistakes.

Idk maybe the beliebers in this thread really don't know what evolution is and haven't considered the fact that doping like everything else in human life, evolves as one generation irons out the slip ups of the previous one.

Years down the line after the doping process evolves further and riders and teams become even more smart in covering it up, people will look at the froome and Wiggins cases with absolute shock at how people were able to believe in riders that was offering clear falsifications about their training, had been caught secretly employing a bunch of proven doping enablers while claiming to do no such thing, who bad been caught straight up lying about an illness and the riders activities in treating it and which had produced the most obvious doped performances and transformations in the history of sport.

They will compare to other cases were the doping was far less obvious but where the riders were nevertheless outed as having been nothing but ped engineered robots, and wonder how on earth it was there was a small % of people who actually believed it.

 

[daveyt]

Don't know why but this post feels so familiar. But I just can't place where from. I think this is what they call that dejavu thing.

You... you really have got so hurt in the past that you'll never be able to take the blinkers off? Poor thing.

At least you are good at chat room put downs!

 

[peloton]

Daniel Friebe, not friend, stupid autocorrect. The podcast with Richard Moore and Lionel Burnie is excellent, don't talk about cycling too much (thank god) but when they do it is very eloquent.

http://audioboom.com/channel/thecyclingpodcast

Well worth a listen, interviews with Walsh, Cookson, Vaughters and Brailsford are in the archive.

I do understand that these guys careers rest on the popularity of cycling in the UK, but I don't rekon they are covering stuff up, and would know if those within cycling really suspected a top cyclist of doping.

Not really, a waste of time listening that. It's a deja-vu, just with a British accent.

 

[red_flanders]

You... you really have got so hurt in the past that you'll never be able to take the blinkers off? Poor thing.

At least you are good at chat room put downs!

Do you really, actually believe Hitch was burned by Armstrong? What is this clownish take some bring? Hitch has a brain. I would guess he figured out Armstrong within 3 days (maybe that's an insult) of Sestriere in '99.

Come on.

 

[Parker]

Do you really, actually believe Hitch was burned by Armstrong? What is this clownish take some bring? Hitch has a brain. I would guess he figured out Armstrong within 3 days (maybe that's an insult) of Sestriere in '99.

Come on.

My bet is he wasn't even watching cycling back in 1999. He seems a bit more new. My guess is mid 2000s as a starting point. Generally, the newer people are the more knowing they claim to be.

 

[thehog]

My bet is he wasn't even watching cycling back in 1999. He seems a bit more new. My guess is mid 2000s as a starting point. Generally, the newer people are the more knowing they claim to be.

To think, Hitch might remember way back to the mid-2000's when Wiggins was a track rider and Froome won the Atomic Jock Race

You are a clown.

 

[Parker]

To think, Hitch might remember way back to the mid-2000's when Wiggins was a track rider and Froome won the Atomic Jock Race

You are a clown.

Did you have a point or was that just a random insult?

 

[thehog]

Did you have a point or was that just a random insult?

No, not random, I was responding to your general ineptness by pointing out where Wiggins & Froome came from. Back stories are important. Especially when it comes to doping.

 

[Parker]

No, not random, I was responding to your general ineptness by pointing out where Wiggins & Froome came from. Back stories are important. Especially when it comes to doping.

But my post had nothing to do with them. I was just speculating that The Hitch didn't have doubts about Armstrong in 99 as he wasn't watching cycling then.

 

[thehog]

But my post had nothing to do with them. I was just speculating that The Hitch didn't have doubts about Armstrong in 99 as he wasn't watching cycling then.

??

So your claim is someone might not know about doping for something they didn't see? That was the sum of your post.

Brilliant. You are the logic master.

 

[Parker]

??

So your claim is someone might not know about doping for something they didn't see? That was the sum of your post.

Brilliant. You are the logic master.

No. Someone was guessing that a particular poster would have known that Armstrong was doping in 1999 within days, while my guess is that he wasn't watching cycling until years. They're just two guesses.

My guess actually goes against the original point by ebandit that The Hitch was hurt by the Armstrong stuff - I think he was too late for that. But you just got too blinded by my username to notice that.

 

[thehog]

No. Someone was guessing that a particular poster would have known that Armstrong was doping in 1999 within days, while my guess is that he wasn't watching cycling until years. They're just two guesses.

My guess actually goes against the original point by ebandit that The Hitch was hurt by the Armstrong stuff - I think he was too late for that. But you just got too blinded by my username to notice that.

You actually bothered to type all that out?! That's some theory.

There's more chance of a track rider winning the Tour than what you've detailed playing out!

Now stop clowning about and act sensible.

 

[Parker]

You actually bothered to type all that out?! That's some theory.

There's more chance of a track rider winning the Tour than what you've detailed playing out!

Now stop clowning about and act sensible.

Oh just grow up will you. It's not even a theory. I haven't detailed anything to play out. But troll away - what will your next ban be? Your 15th? 16th? That's some clowning.

 

[thehog]

Oh just grow up will you. It's not even a theory. I haven't detailed anything to play out. But troll away - what will your next ban be? Your 15th? 16th? That's some clowning.

It's not a theory? So it's fact then? Ummmm not sure about that! You're just engaging in mindless ranting which has no basis per the topic of the thread. Lay off the personal stuff, especially when it's of the 'conspiracy theory' kind, like you've unsuccessfully attempted to detail.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

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?

And the doping doctor and all the ex-doper team staff and the doping Tenerife training grounds and the team domination in 2012 with 5 x Sky riders at the end of the big climbing days but other than that, yeah you're right. Absolutely different.

The only reason people heard Armstrong talk about doping is because he got cancer. So if you remove the cancer-related revelation, given noone on Sky or pretty much the pro peloton at all has contracted it recently, what do you have?