-
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Re: Re:
Kerrison is 'fighting' to clean up cycling. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Ventoux Boar said:
Kerrison is 'fighting' to clean up cycling. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
It is all to clear that by now even the staunchest Sky defenders knows Sky are full on cheating. The butthurt tells the tale.
Re: Re:
Hello elduggo
I've nothing against Irish radio. It's just not very influential at all. I'd say the same about my home radio too (nz).
elduggo said:wendybnt said:As for Kimmage and getting Vayer onto Irish radio. Really
hello Wendy, can you please explain what you have against Ireland and/or Irish radio that would cause you to make a borderline xenophobic comment such as this?
Do you have extensive knowledge/experience of Ireland and its media? If so, can you please elaborate?
thanks.
Hello elduggo
I've nothing against Irish radio. It's just not very influential at all. I'd say the same about my home radio too (nz).
I love the Off the Ball and Second Captain shows but I'm not sure about their huge influence in McQuaid's downfall. McQuaid was refusing for months to go on Off the Ball and IIRC his grilling off Ger Gilroy came after he lost the nomination.
I would put it be mainly down to the active role of Anto Moran and Cillian Kelly. If anything a bigger media influence was the PrimeTime report which was broadcast before he lost the support of the Cycling Ireland.
I would put it be mainly down to the active role of Anto Moran and Cillian Kelly. If anything a bigger media influence was the PrimeTime report which was broadcast before he lost the support of the Cycling Ireland.
Re:
Anto Moran will probably disagree. Offtheball are pretty much the only sports programmed clued into cycling in any measure.
gooner said:
Anto Moran will probably disagree. Offtheball are pretty much the only sports programmed clued into cycling in any measure.
Problem with Kimmage is that he can't take anyone having a difference of opinion to him, it is like a religous zealotory with him you agree or you are the enemy, otherwise he would still be able to maitain a friendship with Walsh. Kimmage strikes me as someone who is not really able to see other peoples side of the story
The guy on offtheball who interviewed Walsh came across as a bit of an idiot wanting to obsess about power data when Walsh explained he wasn't an expert in it, sad litle man with his radio show really, I guess it gives him a platform for his narcism though
The guy on offtheball who interviewed Walsh came across as a bit of an idiot wanting to obsess about power data when Walsh explained he wasn't an expert in it, sad litle man with his radio show really, I guess it gives him a platform for his narcism though
Re:
In fairness I could see what he was going for and got it muddled. He was talking about Walsh comparing power data, when what I am guessing he was actually thinking about was Walsh's claim that he knew Contador was a doper because he matched a time of Armstrong on some climb and now that Froome was matching Armstrongs times why was if different. Asking about power let Walsh off the hook.
He clearly had done some background research but still not enough. What you need is someone like Libertine asking the questions.
del1962 said:
In fairness I could see what he was going for and got it muddled. He was talking about Walsh comparing power data, when what I am guessing he was actually thinking about was Walsh's claim that he knew Contador was a doper because he matched a time of Armstrong on some climb and now that Froome was matching Armstrongs times why was if different. Asking about power let Walsh off the hook.
He clearly had done some background research but still not enough. What you need is someone like Libertine asking the questions.
Re:
On one listen you proclaim a guy a narcissist! No wonder you proclaim Sky/Froome clean.
del1962 said:
On one listen you proclaim a guy a narcissist! No wonder you proclaim Sky/Froome clean.
The main point that Paul Kimmage missed to me is that Sky aren't going to give away their training methods to the press or rival teams, they have put big time and money into training their athletes so it's not free give away information. That is their competitive edge that they work hard to achieve!!! That applies to any team clean or a dirty, why aren't the press all over the Astana and Saxo teams after the Giro..they steam rolled the opposition and little was made of it during the race
Re:
I mean, in-race power data isn't going to give it away either, otherwise people like Gesink and Pinot wouldn't be releasing theirs either. In 2013, Movistar even released Valverde's, and you have to believe if all those kind of conclusions could be drawn about them, they wouldn't want to release it.
If they show us these apparently wonderful testing numbers from the UCI World Cycling Centre in 2006 that said Froome was a potential phenom, that will go a LONG WAY further towards dispelling doubts than if they keep pretending they can't let people know how many watts Froome was putting out until they've doctored the numbers "to prevent people finding out our competitive advantage".
Now, if they put out all of his training data, showing what watts he was doing when and how, you'd have a point, as other teams could interpret it and take some educated guesses at how Sky were training to get to that. But that's not what's being asked for. What's being asked for is some pre-2011 transformation data that shows Chris Froome had these potential high outputs, and genuinely is the freak of nature that we see somehow riding the best cyclists in the world - many of whom are also doping - off his wheel while still having energy to waste on an inefficient, seemingly implausible technique.
What Sky have been doing so far has been a classic politicians' gambit. They've not liked the questions asked or have not been able to answer them in the way they would like, so they've invented a similar question that they CAN answer, to deflect it. Context is key. There is plenty of data that people may want that Sky have legit reasons (and by that I mean competitive advantage type reasons, not "they legit want to stop people seeing it cos it shows they're doping hurr hurr" reasons) to suppress, but there is also data that COULD answer some of the questions that wouldn't hurt them the same way that they're still suppressing giving the same reasons, which makes people question why they won't show it. If they hadn't made such a song and dance of their transparency, they might not be facing the same scrutiny too, of course.
It takes us back to when Walsh was first embedded. Lots of questions were raised about Sky at the time, and Walsh was ignoring those questions to provide us such great insights as "wow, Team Sky are riding great today!" - I'm sure you will agree, a journalist does not need to be fully embedded within a team to provide that kind of insight. Walsh, at the time, was still riding the wave of credibility that his pursuit of Armstrong had lent him, and so there was interest to see what would come of his time embedded at Team Sky. As there were many questions about Sky at the time (lack of transparency, surprising transformation of Froome, Leinders' presence, people with obvious skeletons in their closet like Mick Rogers, dominance of whole racing calendar), David Walsh was in the perfect position to ask those questions. If he didn't ask those questions, then he failed in his role, because what was the point in his being embedded for the team to prove their cleanliness if they weren't going to actually need to do anything to prove it? If he did ask those questions, then why didn't he report on the answers he got?
At the end of the day, if he DID ask the difficult questions of Barry, of Rogers, of Leinders, of Brailsford, of Froome, and they gave him answers that meant that the man who baulked at Armstrong's riding in 1999 was able to reflect and say "yes, that makes sense, I can see how Sky are achieving this without recourse to doping and feel that it is unfair that they are being accused" then that is fair enough. But then, if those answers were good enough for Walsh (assuming his journalistic integrity is intact) then surely they would be good enough for at least some of us? If so, Walsh has done Sky a massive disservice by NOT advising the public of that, because those doubts have continued to snowball as further seemingly miraculous transformations take place that there is now such a sense of disbelief in the riders that fans are turning on the riders and the races, with the most aggressive minority going to the extent of spitting at them and throwing urine at them. Walsh has even gone to the extent of harming his own reputation by providing some laughably poor excuses (the nadir of this was suggesting that as Lance roomed alone like many team leaders, the fact that Froome and Porte roomed together pointed towards them being clean) unbecoming of a journalist of Walsh's standing.
The question then needs to be considered, how much is that competitive advantage worth?
Power data from the time BEFORE Froome was at Sky isn't going to give away Sky training information.cnc-it said:The main point that Paul Kimmage missed to me is that Sky aren't going to give away their training methods to the press or rival teams, they have put big time and money into training their athletes so it's not free give away information. That is their competitive edge that they work hard to achieve!!! That applies to any team clean or a dirty, why aren't the press all over the Astana and Saxo teams after the Giro..they steam rolled the race and little was made of it
I mean, in-race power data isn't going to give it away either, otherwise people like Gesink and Pinot wouldn't be releasing theirs either. In 2013, Movistar even released Valverde's, and you have to believe if all those kind of conclusions could be drawn about them, they wouldn't want to release it.
If they show us these apparently wonderful testing numbers from the UCI World Cycling Centre in 2006 that said Froome was a potential phenom, that will go a LONG WAY further towards dispelling doubts than if they keep pretending they can't let people know how many watts Froome was putting out until they've doctored the numbers "to prevent people finding out our competitive advantage".
Now, if they put out all of his training data, showing what watts he was doing when and how, you'd have a point, as other teams could interpret it and take some educated guesses at how Sky were training to get to that. But that's not what's being asked for. What's being asked for is some pre-2011 transformation data that shows Chris Froome had these potential high outputs, and genuinely is the freak of nature that we see somehow riding the best cyclists in the world - many of whom are also doping - off his wheel while still having energy to waste on an inefficient, seemingly implausible technique.
What Sky have been doing so far has been a classic politicians' gambit. They've not liked the questions asked or have not been able to answer them in the way they would like, so they've invented a similar question that they CAN answer, to deflect it. Context is key. There is plenty of data that people may want that Sky have legit reasons (and by that I mean competitive advantage type reasons, not "they legit want to stop people seeing it cos it shows they're doping hurr hurr" reasons) to suppress, but there is also data that COULD answer some of the questions that wouldn't hurt them the same way that they're still suppressing giving the same reasons, which makes people question why they won't show it. If they hadn't made such a song and dance of their transparency, they might not be facing the same scrutiny too, of course.
It takes us back to when Walsh was first embedded. Lots of questions were raised about Sky at the time, and Walsh was ignoring those questions to provide us such great insights as "wow, Team Sky are riding great today!" - I'm sure you will agree, a journalist does not need to be fully embedded within a team to provide that kind of insight. Walsh, at the time, was still riding the wave of credibility that his pursuit of Armstrong had lent him, and so there was interest to see what would come of his time embedded at Team Sky. As there were many questions about Sky at the time (lack of transparency, surprising transformation of Froome, Leinders' presence, people with obvious skeletons in their closet like Mick Rogers, dominance of whole racing calendar), David Walsh was in the perfect position to ask those questions. If he didn't ask those questions, then he failed in his role, because what was the point in his being embedded for the team to prove their cleanliness if they weren't going to actually need to do anything to prove it? If he did ask those questions, then why didn't he report on the answers he got?
At the end of the day, if he DID ask the difficult questions of Barry, of Rogers, of Leinders, of Brailsford, of Froome, and they gave him answers that meant that the man who baulked at Armstrong's riding in 1999 was able to reflect and say "yes, that makes sense, I can see how Sky are achieving this without recourse to doping and feel that it is unfair that they are being accused" then that is fair enough. But then, if those answers were good enough for Walsh (assuming his journalistic integrity is intact) then surely they would be good enough for at least some of us? If so, Walsh has done Sky a massive disservice by NOT advising the public of that, because those doubts have continued to snowball as further seemingly miraculous transformations take place that there is now such a sense of disbelief in the riders that fans are turning on the riders and the races, with the most aggressive minority going to the extent of spitting at them and throwing urine at them. Walsh has even gone to the extent of harming his own reputation by providing some laughably poor excuses (the nadir of this was suggesting that as Lance roomed alone like many team leaders, the fact that Froome and Porte roomed together pointed towards them being clean) unbecoming of a journalist of Walsh's standing.
The question then needs to be considered, how much is that competitive advantage worth?
Giving out data is complex issue for any team in any form of competitive sport..yes let the UCi have power meter data for each rider from the day they turn pro..maybe that's a good idea..but imagine an F1 team sitting at a press conference and even entertaining making technical data public ..I don't think so!
Paul Kimmage says let Team Sky open their doors and be completely transparent..it just doesn't work like that..no team in F1 will give away technical secrets to the public as that is their competitive edge..why should cycling teams be any different..
Paul Kimmage says let Team Sky open their doors and be completely transparent..it just doesn't work like that..no team in F1 will give away technical secrets to the public as that is their competitive edge..why should cycling teams be any different..
Re:
You said it yourself: technical secrets. Let Sky keep their technical secrets to themselves, because there are certainly no training secrets they could possibly have to give away that the competition doesn't know about already. To think that one team, and one team only, have some magical training secrets that only they know about is very naive and uninformed. Still, it is done all the time by the hopeful few.cnc-it said:
Re:
A bit like the zero tolerance policy, in fact. And the attention to detail mantra.
Lots of bits where Sky are being called out on their failure to meet the lofty standards they set for themselves in their PR, and are now getting annoyed at being singled out for.
In which case, they should never have said that they would be totally transparent, because they've set themselves up to fail at a goal that they could have achieved but it was unrealistic to expect them to.cnc-it said:
A bit like the zero tolerance policy, in fact. And the attention to detail mantra.
Lots of bits where Sky are being called out on their failure to meet the lofty standards they set for themselves in their PR, and are now getting annoyed at being singled out for.
Why dont Sky release someone else's data and change the name .....I suppose they would do if it were possible but this day and age I would think someone could easily manage that.
Sky don't have someone else's data because other teams have not released that sort of information to the public.
Technical secrets as I called them are kept "secret" so as not to give other teams an unfair advantage..it is competition after all..Sky hired Tim Kerrison because they thought it would give them the extra edge..he won't be coming to them cheap so why should they let anyone else benefit from that for free effectively...it's the basic principles of running a team in any sport no matter if they are clean or doping.
Technical secrets as I called them are kept "secret" so as not to give other teams an unfair advantage..it is competition after all..Sky hired Tim Kerrison because they thought it would give them the extra edge..he won't be coming to them cheap so why should they let anyone else benefit from that for free effectively...it's the basic principles of running a team in any sport no matter if they are clean or doping.
Re: Re:
Well done FDJ and Pinot. I can't see any massive, unnatural jumps in w/kg ability.Robert21 said:
Re:
so....armed with the fact that Lemond's VO2 max was 96 would mean any tom, *** or harry that passed through a team's door could beat him?
good work.......
cnc-it said:
so....armed with the fact that Lemond's VO2 max was 96 would mean any tom, *** or harry that passed through a team's door could beat him?
good work.......
Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero
It's time Lyon was tested, every post is getting past the sarcasm detector.
It's time Lyon was tested, every post is getting past the sarcasm detector.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Vuelta a España Vuelta a España 2024, stage 20: Villarcayo - Picón Blanco, 172.0k- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 663
-
Vuelta a España Vuelta a España 2024, stage 21: Madrid - Madrid, 24.6k (ITT)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 450
-
Vuelta a España Vuelta a España 2024, stage 9: Motril - Granada, 179.2k- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 782
-
Vuelta a España Vuelta a España 2024, stage 16: Luanco - Lagos de Covadonga, 181.3k- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 546
-
Vuelta a España Vuelta a España 2024, stage 15: Infiesto - Cuitu Negru, 142.9k- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 588
-
Vuelta a España Vuelta a España 2024, stage 18: Vitoria-Gasteiz - Maeztu, 179.3k- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 392
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 28K
Latest posts
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2025 Route: Speculation, Rumours and Announcements
- Latest: xuziqiangnuctech@outlook.
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram