Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Electress]

It stated with me showing Walsh in 2009 asking for Contador's Vo2 max and complaining about the speeds. Walsh thought it was indicative of doping.

5 years later as Mudoch is inserting another cheque into Walsh's account Vo2 max is not important for Froome, neither is the speed he is riding up Ventoux.

Money does strange things to strange people.

Just curious - has anyone asked Walsh about this kind of inconsistency ? If so, how does he respond?

 

[the sceptic]

Just curious - has anyone asked Walsh about this kind of inconsistency ? If so, how does he respond?

Walsh only responds if you start by praising his work on Armstrong and tell him how great you thought seven deadly sins was.

But if by some miracle your message gets through, he will respond by getting defensive and vortexing on to another topic.

Much like sky fans in this thread.

 

[Electress]

Walsh only responds if you start by praising his work on Armstrong and tell him how great you thought seven deadly sins was.

But if by some miracle your message gets through, he will respond by getting defensive and vortexing on to another topic.

Much like sky fans in this thread.

I see. So 'openness' and 'transparency' are for other people? Doesn't he realise just how much that undermines his opinions on anything?

 

[thehog]

Just curious - has anyone asked Walsh about this kind of inconsistency ? If so, how does he respond?

Yes, he stopped talking to Kimmidge and the infamous "tailwind" became the new cancer shield.

 

[Digger]

Just curious - has anyone asked Walsh about this kind of inconsistency ? If so, how does he respond?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/interview-david-walsh-on-inside-team-sky

 

[Parker]

It stated with me showing Walsh in 2009 asking for Contador's Vo2 max and complaining about the speeds. Walsh thought it was indicative of doping.

5 years later as Mudoch is inserting another cheque into Walsh's account Vo2 max is not important for Froome, neither is the speed he is riding up Ventoux.

Money does strange things to strange people.

Or maybe he realised, having talked to people who know what their talking about, that his original reasoning was faulty. Namely that speeds (or more correctly times) have to be taken in race context and VO2 max, while a good indicator of potential, does not correlate to performance at elite level.

Having said that, his data analysis to support Froome was just as bad as that of those who use it to condemn him.

 

[the sceptic]

I see. So 'openness' and 'transparency' are for other people? Doesn't he realise just how much that undermines his opinions on anything?

Walsh is selling books to the church of sky. The only thing that matters is to write exactly what the true believers want to hear.

 

[thehog]

Or maybe he realised, having talked to people who know what their talking about, that his original reasoning was faulty. Namely that speeds (or more correctly times) have to be taken in race context and VO2 max, while a good indicator of potential, does not correlate to performance at elite level.

Having said that, his data analysis to support Froome was just as bad as that of those who use it to condemn him.

Yes, you're right. Having talked to Mudoch be realised he had to pretend Froome is clean and that he was slower than Mayo.

And that there was a tailwind. And that he once beat Contador on a mountain in 2011

Come on Parker. You're a smart guy. Surely you're not falling for this shtick?

 

[Parker]

Yes, you're right. Having talked to Mudoch be realised he had to pretend Froome is clean and that he was slower than Mayo.

And that there was a tailwind. And that he once beat Contador on a mountain in 2011

Come on Parker. You're a smart guy. Surely you're not falling for this shtick?

Like I said. His analysis of the data was just as bad as those that show he's doping. But then's he's not someone with any background in science - journalists telling us what data means or hand-picking people to tell us what data means is the biggest argument against releasing data.

And I am a smart guy. Too smart to fall for your shtick (when sober)

 

[Electress]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/interview-david-walsh-on-inside-team-sky

Thank you for this. What's interesting is how he criticises the interviewer for having a biased opinion on Sky whilst not acknowledging that his own is biased in the opposite direction.

So much of that article seems to come down to 'I met the guys, liked them and believed what they were telling me'. Which I'm not saying shouldn't weigh into things, but is hardly testing a hypothesis to destruction. It seems, reading that, that he went with the view to being objective and then fell under the spell - he acknowledges - of wanting to believe the mantra. I used to be an auditor and we were constantly warned of this kind of thing. Trusting you'd hear about stuff if you hung out with people long enough to 'see the cut of their jib' is not exactly being a terrier to sniff out anything suspicious.

Or maybe he realised, having talked to people who know what their talking about, that his original reasoning was faulty. Namely that speeds (or more correctly times) have to be taken in race context and VO2 max, while a good indicator of potential, does not correlate to performance at elite level.

Having said that, his data analysis to support Froome was just as bad as that of those who use it to condemn him.

If he has changed his view, he should be open about it and its implications. He should be willing to admit he condemned people in the past for things which now he believes aren't valid. Fine, he can still believe Contador is a cheat; he just can't expect people to accept that climbing speeds are good justification for his view if Froome's aren't subject to the same question. Opinions change, there's no shame in admitting you've learnt a thing or two.

 

[red_flanders]

Thank you for this. What's interesting is how he criticises the interviewer for having a biased opinion on Sky whilst not acknowledging that his own is biased in the opposite direction.

So much of that article seems to come down to 'I met the guys, liked them and believed what they were telling me'. Which I'm not saying shouldn't weigh into things, but is hardly testing a hypothesis to destruction. It seems, reading that, that he went with the view to being objective and then fell under the spell - he acknowledges - of wanting to believe the mantra. I used to be an auditor and we were constantly warned of this kind of thing. Trusting you'd hear about stuff if you hung out with people long enough to 'see the cut of their jib' is not exactly being a terrier to sniff out anything suspicious.



If he has changed his view, he should be open about it and its implications. He should be willing to admit he condemned people in the past for things which now he believes aren't valid. Fine, he can still believe Contador is a cheat; he just can't expect people to accept that climbing speeds are good justification for his view if Froome's aren't subject to the same question. Opinions change, there's no shame in admitting you've learnt a thing or two.

Good post. I would only say that he actually was right, that Contador was ridiculous and the speeds definitely indicated doping, just as Froome was ridiculous and the speeds definitely indicated doping. Or rather made it obvious in both cases.

The only difference is his interpretation and his obvious, admitted bias.

He's not alone.

 

[Electress]

Good post. I would only say that he actually was right, that Contador was ridiculous and the speeds definitely indicated doping, just as Froome was ridiculous and the speeds definitely indicated doping. Or rather made it obvious in both cases.

The only difference is his interpretation and his obvious, admitted bias.

He's not alone.

THe trouble is everyone likes to think they're objective, when it is virtually impossible to be so.

People cite statistics as objective truth, but as you say, they are open to many and varied - and sometimes apparently equally valid - interpretations.

 

[red_flanders]

THe trouble is everyone likes to think they're objective, when it is virtually impossible to be so.

People cite statistics as objective truth, but as you say, they are open to many and varied - and sometimes apparently equally valid - interpretations.

That no one is perfect isn't in doubt. It's also not in doubt that some people are able to be far more objective than others. Can be their nature, specific education or training, or both.

 

[Electress]

That no one is perfect isn't in doubt. It's also not in doubt that some people are able to be far more objective than others. Can be their nature, specific education or training, or both.

True enough. But complacency has a way of sneaking up on people, until you suddenly realise that you, too, have stopped questioning your prejudices.

I guess I think it is almost inevitable that someone who sets themselves up -or who is set up - as some kind of 'crusader' for truth is at risk from falling for their own image. Cuts both ways - you can turn into a cynic who sees doping at every turn and likes nothing better than casting aspersions left right and centre, or becoming so assured in your own objectivity that you don't realise when you've fallen victim to your own preferences. That's why it serves to entertain questions about your views, not to refuse to engage with them.

I don't blame Walsh for embedding with Team Sky (though I do blame him for The Climb, which seemed to show a somewhat lax attitude to fact checking; the function of ghost writing, I guess, in which you can hide behind merely writing up your subject's memories / views etc.). But since he did, I don't think he can be even a tiny bit miffed that people no longer trust his objectivity.

 

[ebandit]

True enough. But complacency has a way of sneaking up on people, until you suddenly realise that you, too, have stopped questioning your prejudices.

Prejudices? .......do you think there are people who arrive here with prejudices????.......and they don't examine them??????

I'm shocked!!!!!



Mark L

 

[The Hitch]

Or maybe he realised, having talked to people who know what their talking about, that his original reasoning was faulty. Namely that speeds (or more correctly times) have to be taken in race context and VO2 max, while a good indicator of potential, does not correlate to performance at elite level.

Having said that, his data analysis to support Froome was just as bad as that of those who use it to condemn him.

Do you have a link for where Walsh admits he had been wrong all along and explains the reasons why he changed his mind and why he no longer thinks beating Armstrongs speed is evidence of doping.

You know, the way someone who feels they have been spreading wrong information and feels as if they have understood the error of their ways generally does?

Or did Walsh never offer any aknowledgment or explanation and proceed to insult people for saying the same things he used to say, becuase he is a person who like you bases their decisions on allegiances rather than on trying to figure out right and wrong.

 

[red_flanders]

Prejudices? .......do you think there are people who arrive here with prejudices????.......and they don't examine them??????

I'm shocked!!!!!



Mark L

Break the word down. It means to "pre judge".

Find a post of mine about Froome which was made before I watched him ride. No pre judging. I'd never heard of him. I'll wager most of his critics are the same.

 

[Digger]

This is farcical but true. Walsh didn't even go in with an open mind. He went in believing. And here is an example. He believes in jv. He believed wiggins was clean in 09...he then thought it wasn't a big leap for wiggins to win in 2012....ergo sky are clean.
Few examples. He said that sky are clean because they are bad In classics! He said it's too difficult logistically to dope in a GT. He said wiggins might not necessarily have known for certain from his former Garmin teammates about lance....yet later said Floyd should have known in 02 when he joined USP that lance was doping. Floyd wasn't sure until he got on the team what was going on.
Walsh never once asked about the asthma and why he had never been told. Never asked to see vo2, never asked to see blood values. He spent half of a two thousand word article, which had the headline why froome is clean, telling us about Brailsford taking an iPhone picture, and pineapple flavored water. He said froome always had talent. Rubbish. Absolute tripe.
When he was going to interview wiggins, he had to be reminded of the lance love in and his comments on Floyd. This should have been first because it's so damning. Why would a clean rider say this stuff?
In 99 himself and pelkey said this is a farce because the average speeds are faster than last year when we know they were doping...in 07 he said ac is definitely doping because he's going faster than la ever did.
Dario cioni...when asked why he wasn't bothered if he might have doped? He said it's not worth ruining someone's life when he's not high up at sky. Last year he dismissed speeds and watts etc as a cottage industry. This year with nibali he was back citing it and sports of science guys.
Simple fact is this: sky are following their plan to the hilt. Wine and dine a select few journos, let them stay at hotels, collect them, impress them...it's been their Plan all along. Ironically USP did the same.
Walsh tells us it's down to marginal gains. Yet accepts he doesn't know how other teams prepare, thus negating the very definition of then being gains.
Re: wiggins it was said there was a spike in 09 values, Walsh said it wasn't a spike but a small increase! Said he'd get an independent haemogologist to view the data. He never did.


To anyone who says he went in with an open mind...rubbish. He went in to find ways of showing his conclusion to be correct. It was the opposite of investigation with an open mind.

By the way, there are numerous chapters about lance and his transformation being a red flag...regardless of whether you like or hate lance, how can anyone not agree that froome's transformation was far more dramatic...

I think Walsh has disgraced himself and it's unfortunate because like many others who shamed themselves with lance, this will be what he's remembered for when it all goes belly up.

Note: typed this from a phone with predictive text so please save the grammar police.

 

[sniper]

This is farcical but true. Walsh didn't even go in with an open mind. He went in believing. And here is an example. He believes in jv. He believed wiggins was clean in 09...he then thought it wasn't a big leap for wiggins to win in 2012....ergo sky are clean.
Few examples. He said that sky are clean because they are bad In classics! He said it's too difficult logistically to dope in a GT. He said wiggins might not necessarily have known for certain from his former Garmin teammates about lance....yet later said Floyd should have known in 02 when he joined USP that lance was doping. Floyd wasn't sure until he got on the team what was going on.
Walsh never once asked about the asthma and why he had never been told. Never asked to see vo2, never asked to see blood values. He spent half of a two thousand word article, which had the headline why froome is clean, telling us about Brailsford taking an iPhone picture, and pineapple flavored water. He said froome always had talent. Rubbish. Absolute tripe.
When he was going to interview wiggins, he had to be reminded of the lance love in and his comments on Floyd. This should have been first because it's so damning. Why would a clean rider say this stuff?
In 99 himself and pelkey said this is a farce because the average speeds are faster than last year when we know they were doping...in 07 he said ac is definitely doping because he's going faster than la ever did.
Dario cioni...when asked why he wasn't bothered if he might have doped? He said it's not worth ruining someone's life when he's not high up at sky. Last year he dismissed speeds and watts etc as a cottage industry. This year with nibali he was back citing it and sports of science guys.
Simple fact is this: sky are following their plan to the hilt. Wine and dine a select few journos, let them stay at hotels, collect them, impress them...it's been their Plan all along. Ironically USP did the same.
Walsh tells us it's down to marginal gains. Yet accepts he doesn't know how other teams prepare, thus negating the very definition of then being gains.
Re: wiggins it was said there was a spike in 09 values, Walsh said it wasn't a spike but a small increase! Said he'd get an independent haemogologist to view the data. He never did.


To anyone who says he went in with an open mind...rubbish. He went in to find ways of showing his conclusion to be correct. It was the opposite of investigation with an open mind.

By the way, there are numerous chapters about lance and his transformation being a red flag...regardless of whether you like or hate lance, how can anyone not agree that froome's transformation was far more dramatic...

I think Walsh has disgraced himself and it's unfortunate because like many others who shamed themselves with lance, this will be what he's remembered for when it all goes belly up.

Note: typed this from a phone with predictive text so please save the grammar police.

thanks for this excellent concise summary which should be obligatory reading for those in denial.
Walsh has sold out and it's so friggin obvious that anybody who denies it must be either dilusional or, more likely, driven by some pro-Sky agenda, just like Walsh.

 

[Mellow Velo]

thanks for this excellent concise summary which should be obligatory reading for those in denial.
Walsh has sold out and it's so friggin obvious that anybody who denies it must be either dilusional or, more likely, driven by some pro-Sky agenda, just like Walsh.

I read it. Digger talking about open minds. Excellent stuff.

 

[sniper]

I read it. Digger talking about open minds. Excellent stuff.

ball not man, MV.
i know it's hard but let's try to stay on topic.

 

[gooner]

Yes, he stopped talking to Kimmidge and the infamous "tailwind" became the new cancer shield.

Wrong, he didn't stop talking to Kimmage. I know for a fact Walsh was deeply hurt when his friendship was strained by all this.

Still can't get my head around to this day why someone would end a long term frienship on the basis of a differing opinion on Sky.

 

[Benotti69]

Still can't get my head around to this day why someone would end a long term frienship on the basis of a differing opinion on Sky.

Families fall out over less.

Kimmage knows Sky are full shyte. Walsh spouts Sky shyte. Easy.

 

[thehog]

Wrong, he didn't stop talking to Kimmage. I know for a fact Walsh was deeply hurt when his friendship was strained by all this.

Still can't get my head around to this day why someone would end a long term frienship on the basis of a differing opinion on Sky.

I'm glad you know the personal difference between two people. You know Walsh's side, not Kinmidge. Stop trying to sugarcoat it. Walsh abandoned his ideals and his personal friend for a pay cheque. Simple.

 

[gooner]

Families fall out over less.

Kimmage knows Sky are full shyte. Walsh spouts Sky shyte. Easy.

On a sporting perspective, no problem with a disagreement on that.

Of course you can fall out with someone like that in life, but I tell you this on my part, it would be for a lot more serious personal reasons than some contentious sporting issue that really isn't that important in the context of a close friendship so long.