Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Dear Wiggo]

The transparency thing is disappointing. I don't think the hiring of ex dopers and the Dr was done knowingly.

Ignored. Nothing like dredging up arguments that have been debunked a million times already as if it's some fresh, new insight into the pristine white cleanness of Team Sky . ffs.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

One last post for Daveyt before I leave you in the dark for good. See if you can join some dots:


2009 - Wiggo comes 4th, 3rd etc at Tour. Trained by BC (ie Sky) coaches. Not Ellingworth. Not Garmin, no.
2010 - Wiggo is crap, complains about too much oversight. Sky are crap, very poor season and desperate to pull something out of the bag. Instead, they pull the entire team out of the Vuelta due to some mysterious virus 5 days into the race. A similar virus to the one Hamilton discusses in his biography.

2011 - Brailsford says

Team Sky boss Dave Brailsford has admitted that he may be forced to relax the British outfit's "zero tolerance" policy towards doping as he looks to hire staff who will lift the squad's success rate in 2011.

2011 - They hire Leinders. You know, a doping doctor. Who could not have been hired unless they had relaxed their zero tolerance policy.

ffs.

Oh look, here's Froome and Wiggins stomping the living snot out of the Vuelta in 2011.

Fancy that. etc.

 

[thehog]

You can only connect the dots looking backwards

 

[Dear Wiggo]

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.

Richard Moore, employed / subcontracted by Sky Sports? http://www1.skysports.com/cycling/opinion

Author of books about Team Sky?

Subject to UK libel laws?

Wouldn't cover anything up?

Good grief.

 

[heart_attack_man]

...no clean riders have ever ridden as fast as Froome has since the Vuelta in 2011. Therefore, Froome is either doping or the best clean rider ever. In his entire career, until 2011, Froome never rode at a level which even remotely indicated he was the fastest clean rider ever. Therefore, he's doping.

THIS.

This is the most succinct, logical and accurate post I have read in these hallowed halls.

Chapeau.

 

[heart_attack_man]

Testimony against Lenders was for his work at Rabo........give me a witness from Sky.......
Mark L

Lol wut?

So doping doctor becomes not a doping doctor by changing teams? Mmmhmm....

By that measure, whoever Ferrari is working with these days isn't doping, because he's changed clients.

 

[red_flanders]

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.

True, I have no idea how long Hitch has been watching, that was a guess on my part. What I do know is that Hitch knows what he's talking about and he's 180 degrees from being hurt by Armstrong.

What I find troubling is that the idea has been put out there that people are cynical because of Armstrong, and this is why Sky are subject to such skepticism. It is certainly a narrative which appeals to those wanting to find reason to believe Sky. Maybe it is true if some small number of people, who knows. What is certainly true is that Sky have played up, or maybe originally floated it in the first place. Who can say anymore? It has become part of the noise ariund Sky.

It's pretty silly overall and nonsense in the clinic, where a great many posters are about as far from being hurt by Armstrong as one could imagine.

Which is all to say that throwing this theory around and projecting it on to posters here looks dumb. It doesn't seem to add to one's cred.

 

[red_flanders]

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

14,700 posts and counting. Really?

 

[red_flanders]

THIS.

This is the most succinct, logical and accurate post I have read in these hallowed halls.

Chapeau.

Much appreciated. I enjoyed writing it.

 

[42x16ss]

True, I have no idea how long Hitch has been watching, that was a guess on my part. What I do know is that Hitch knows what he's talking about and he's 180 degrees from being hurt by Armstrong.

What I find troubling is that the idea has been put out there that people are cynical because of Armstrong, and this is why Sky are subject to such skepticism. It is certainly a narrative which appeals to those wanting to find reason to believe Sky. Maybe it is true if some small number of people, who knows. What is certainly true is that Sky have played up, or maybe originally floated it in the first place. Who can say anymore? It has become part of the noise ariund Sky.

It's pretty silly overall and nonsense in the clinic, where a great many posters are about as far from being hurt by Armstrong as one could imagine.

Which is all to say that throwing this theory around and projecting it on to posters here looks dumb. It doesn't seem to add to one's cred.

Bingo. Also, the Skyborgs don't realise how much they sound like the old USPS fans, who also tried to imply that Armstrong was only subjected to so much scrutiny because of the Festina Affair

The more things change....

 

[red_flanders]

Bingo. Also, the Skyborgs don't realise how much they sound like the old USPS fans, who also tried to imply that Armstrong was only subjected to so much scrutiny because of the Festina Affair

The more things change....

Spot on. It's uncanny.

 

[LaFlorecita]

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.

I laughed

 

[ebandit]

Bingo. Also, the Skyborgs don't realise how much they sound like the old USPS fans, who also tried to imply that Armstrong was only subjected to so much scrutiny because of the Festina Affair

The more things change....

With all this scrutiny you'd have thought there would be some actual evidence by now rather than just a bunch of internet users coming up with an ad hoc limit on what is humanly possible.......you can't have it both ways guys.......if you want to relate everything back to Armstrong you have to do it completely and not just cherry pick the bits that support your case.........its been interesting to observe how quickly you've all fallen apart when subjected to a little more focussed scrutiny.......not one of you could supply anything other than a rehash of your own beliefs ........not one witness........hogs derisory attempts went through all sorts of contortions to try and turn black into white....

........and still not one example of a witness...

......what really makes me giggle is that you are now all reduced to citing yourselves and each other as witnesses

......Even funnier when people are lauding the incisive powers of The Hitch who watched Armstrong in '99 and just knew he was doping......amazing preceptory powers for somebody who was...what?....6 years of age at the time

You guys are too funny

Mark L

 

[mrhender]

@Mark L

You are asking for a witness...

How many witnesses stepped forward in the very dirty 90's?

How many witnesses has stepped forward in the midst of things?

Not many right?
But we know there were heeps to tell right?

Sometimes it all starts with some anomynous guy starting to blow a minor whistle.
This guy may not know everything and sure as hell is not going to risk getting his name out there at a point were his sources are not ready to step forward or are close friends etc..

Say this guy start posting some of his knowledge in a cycling forum..
What does he get in response...
This:

Anonymous man on the internet claims to have heard direct evidence of doping at Sky........well that's it then....case closed...obviously very well connected Anonymous Internet Man won't be able to name sources in order to protect them

Sarcasm is fine, but what if he is right...?

Are you not enforcing omerta then?

And this is from the guy who is wanting for a witness....

Do you even care about it, or is this just a game for you?

 

[sniper]

With all this scrutiny you'd have thought there would be some actual evidence by now rather than just a bunch of internet users coming up with an ad hoc limit on what is humanly possible.......you can't have it both ways guys.......if you want to relate everything back to Armstrong you have to do it completely and not just cherry pick the bits that support your case.........its been interesting to observe how quickly you've all fallen apart when subjected to a little more focussed scrutiny.......not one of you could supply anything other than a rehash of your own beliefs ........not one witness........hogs derisory attempts went through all sorts of contortions to try and turn black into white....

........and still not one example of a witness...

......what really makes me giggle is that you are now all reduced to citing yourselves and each other as witnesses

......Even funnier when people are lauding the incisive powers of The Hitch who watched Armstrong in '99 and just knew he was doping......amazing preceptory powers for somebody who was...what?....6 years of age at the time

You guys are too funny

Mark

why don't you return the favor once? Make us giggle, at least.
You make me reminisce posters like Martin Vickers and Jimmy Finger! Those guys were witty.

 

[Digger]

still waiting for you guys to give reasons why he improved so dramatically and has pushed watts/kg faster than known dopers...speeds faster than known dopers...has raced against and beaten known epo dopers...

 

[bobbins]

So?

Interest generate interest. The anglophone media are the biggest.

The English media are all aboard the Sky bul**** bus and won't be asking any difficult questions of the team or Dave B for fear of being put on a blacklist by Daves rottweiler Fran. the clues are out there as are the people who know but currently no now is interested in doing any digging. USPS mk2.

 

[Granville57]

Instead, they pull the entire team out of the Vuelta due to some mysterious virus 5 days into the race. A similar virus to the one Hamilton discusses in his biography.

Oh, didn't you get the memo?

We're not allowed to talk about that. The death of Txema Gonzalez was tragic, and not be made light of, but because of the tragedy, the topic was deemed to be too sensitive to even discuss. The twisted irony in all of that, of course, is that the very fact that someone did die is all the more reason to look closer, and with more scrutiny, at that entire episode.

But we're not allowed to do that...because someone died.

The official word from the team should be enough though.

Three Sky riders - John Lee Augustyn, Ben Swift and Juan Antonia Flecha - have withdrawn from the race with a virus but the team said that there was no link with Gonzalez's death.

 

[Digger]

The English media are all aboard the Sky bul**** bus and won't be asking any difficult questions of the team or Dave B for fear of being put on a blacklist by Daves rottweiler Fran. the clues are out there as are the people who know but currently no now is interested in doing any digging. USPS mk2.

I totally agree - from the media, to the reaction of the fans, the whole thing is almost identical to USP...

fact is that brailsford has already blacklisted and bullied journalists.

 

[ebandit]

@Mark L

You are asking for a witness...

How many witnesses stepped up in the 90's

Did we need witnesses? It was a very open secret at that point

By late 90's we had Bassoons..........where is Sky's Bassoons?

Say this guy start posting some of his knowledge in a cycling forum..
What does he get in response...
This:
Sarcasm is fine, but what if he is right...?

Are you not enforcing omerta then?

And this is from the guy who is wanting for a witness....

Do you even care about it, or is this just a game for you?

On that basis if the hog posted that he had heard directly from Sky staff that Sky dope would you give that credibility? ..........

Mark L

 

[bobbins]

I totally agree - from the media, to the reaction of the fans, the whole thing is almost identical to USP...

fact is that brailsford has already blacklisted and bullied journalists.

It's funny that a certain member of team managements cortisone use is widely known both by senior staff at Sky and by people at BC yet the media haven't picked this up. Current team staff past misdemeanours have been raised to people on the board of the team and ignored. Until the tide changes as it did with USPS they will see themselves as untouchable.

 

[TailWindHome]

If you had a blank sheet of paper and were about to type up the Reasoned Decision of UKAD on Christopher Froome's Disqualification and Ineligibity would you have anything to put in it?

No?
ok then.

 

[bobbins]

If you had a blank sheet of paper and were about to type up the Reasoned Decision of UKAD on Christopher Froome's Disqualification and Ineligibity would you have anything to put in it?

No?
ok then.

Yes thanks, UKAD have been notified already. Doesn't him using Julich as a coach ring any alarm bells? I realise Julich falls into the 'nice doper' camp but he managed a carve a nice career for himself on the back of a doping program - can't think of a more suitable mentor some someone on the verge of being sacked due to poor performance.

 

[TailWindHome]

Yes thanks, UKAD have been notified already. Doesn't him using Julich as a coach ring any alarm bells? I realise Julich falls into the 'nice doper' camp but he managed a carve a nice career for himself on the back of a doping program - can't think of a more suitable mentor some someone on the verge of being sacked due to poor performance.

That's what you're going to write?

 

[TailWindHome]

Yes thanks, UKAD have been notified already.

The question wasn't specifically directed towards your post