Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[sniper]

Do people want a new thread for the walsh brailsford interview - it's now online

highlights :

Intro:

On Geert :

On 'attacking' riders

Have at it, you animals!

thanks. and goodness me.
Walsh back to zero.

Walsh: "I believe the team is clean partly because Jonathan Vaughters, Brailsford’s counterpart at the Garmin team, says if Bradley Wiggins had stayed at his team, he would have won the Tour there, and there are plenty of reasons for believing Vaughters runs a clean programme."

Congrats Jonathan. Your bad PR is paying off.

 

[sniper]

From what martinvickers has published, this interview is of the type: "here, Dave, go ahead, score a few goals."
Typical of most cycling journalism, but I had hoped for a bit more from Walsh.

 

[Mellow Velo]

My biggest fear is that the Brailsford interview would only ask more questions than provide answers.

This was a major concern of mine and its appears to now be bearing fruit.

He really needs to provide full disclosure. Until that time the jury is out on Sky.

They need to come clean, pardon the pun.

I posted two days ago something along the same lines.
Folks holding a negative opinion towards Sky will brush over what is in the article and concentrate upon what isn't.
Unfortunately, précised info tends to be the norm in newspaper pieces, given column inches caps.

However, trying to spin the article into something that depicts Sky in an even worse light, (around here) won't wash.

We all know your "coming clean" is simply a euphemism for confessing to the big D.

 

[Mellow Velo]

From what martinvickers has published, this interview is of the type: "here, Dave, go ahead, score a few goals."
Typical of most cycling journalism, but I had hoped for a bit more from Walsh.

I fear that this article won't give a full and clear explanation of the Leinder's affair, and will be seen here as cover up, with Walsh as a willing participant, regardless of any possible reason.

Bingo.
Already we have a winner.

 

[coinneach]

I assume this is sarcasm?

If Sky isn't as good next year you can probably put a fair amount of that down the effects of this little British inquisition on team moral (assuming certain medical staff were doing only what is claimed).


However, you can take all the legal (including grey) steps you need to prepare and get the maximum out of your riders, but by far the largest legal improvement comes with team spirit, moral, security, and trust in the leadership and your team mates.

Anyone who has followed the roller coaster at Saxo since 2010 will tell you how quickly and with what volatility team spirit can change and just how big an impact finally having stability, security and leaders on two wheels has been.

If Mick has moved to Saxo, and we assume Sky has run a clean team, his form will largely depend on how he settles, and the tasks set for him, and not a lack of the mythical 'marginal gains'.

An excellent post: I hope it doesn't get lost amongst all the other stuff on the clinic, and posts proving that whatever happens next season is proof of historical doping in 2012 (and no doubt current doping in 13)

 

[Tinman]

Walsh: "I believe the team is clean partly because Jonathan Vaughters, Brailsford’s counterpart at the Garmin team, says if Bradley Wiggins had stayed at his team, he would have won the Tour there, and there are plenty of reasons for believing Vaughters runs a clean programme."

So lets get this structured. DW says
1. Brailsford has a colleague, JV, who used to manage Wiggins
2. this colleague, JV, says Wiggins would have won the tour when he managed him
3. the colleague, JV, states plenty of believable reasons for running a clean program
4. therefore Brailsford's team must be clean

And based on this logic would then do the Russian roulette.

Pretty ordinary article intro DW. Why?

Why not introduce the real questions? Put it on the table. The clean policy, the many tainted staff. The lack of transparency. The PR and media relationship. Etc, many angles to intro the article.

Or if you want to start the article like you did then take a truly personal stance (eg "I'd like to believe Sky is clean and if my life depended on it I would state so, as the evidence, if it can even be called that, appears circumstantial", etc etc, instead of hanging it on JV...

Personal career concerns? Pressure from above? Back to the team access issue? Do not understand... but am not in your shoes...

 

[sniper]

Bingo.
Already we have a winner.

well yes, I told you yesterday, if the narrative stays as friendly as in walsh's tweets, I'll be massively disappointed.
until now I've only seen what martinvickers posted, and that's indeed disappointing. Hopefully the full interview has more critical metacomments by Walsh.

 

[sniper]

So lets get this structured. DW says
1. Brailsford has a colleague, JV, who used to manage Wiggins
2. this colleague, JV, says Wiggins would have won the tour when he managed him
3. the colleague, JV, states plenty of believable reasons for running a clean program
4. therefore Brailsford's team must be clean

And based on this logic would then do the Russian roulette.

Indeed, pretty naive argumentation by Walsh. Has he been on the phone with Phill Liggett?

 

[Mellow Velo]

So lets get this structured. DW says
1. Brailsford has a colleague, JV, who used to manage Wiggins
2. this colleague, JV, says Wiggins would have won the tour when he managed him
3. the colleague, JV, states plenty of believable reasons for running a clean program
4. therefore Brailsford's team must be clean

And based on this logic would then do the Russian roulette.

As a join the dots exercise, it's more credible than the Tenerife-Ferrari-Wiggins-dope one, used as proof of the nefarious act.

As proof of cleanliness, it falls some way short.

I'm not sure what earth shattering info folks were expecting, but I'm not surprised there is little in the way of conclusive evidence.

At least we have a slightly better picture of the "Leinder's process".

 

[sniper]

As a join the dots exercise, it's more credible than the Tenerife-Ferrari-Wiggins-dope one, used as proof of the nefarious act.

As proof of cleanliness, it falls some way short.

I'm not sure what earth shattering info folks were expecting, but I'm not surprised there is little in the way of conclusive evidence.

At least we have a slightly better picture of the "Leinder's process".

Don't think we do. Brailsford is clearly lying when he suggests 1. he wasn't there during the interviews and 2. anti-doping was a central issue in the interviews.

Brailsford's use of the word "sure" imo sounds rather unsure.

What folks were expecting? Well, some more critical (meta)comments by Walsh, at the very least. But they might be there in the full length version.

 

[martinvickers]

Thanks for publishing. I've not read the full article. Will do so in the morning.

One comment re: attacking riders. Has he not seem Froome at he Vuelta in 2011? or his attempts at the 2012 Tour.

Strange.

Anyway look forward to reading off all it in the morning.

I'll be honest, that thought occurred to me too. But then, all things are relative, I suppose - there's probably a difference between Armstrong/Pantani style lunacy, and say, Nibili putting down the hammer for 30 secs/1 min - the question becomes where on that scale does Froome go. This years tour might tell a story...

 

[martinvickers]

So lets get this structured. DW says
1. Brailsford has a colleague, JV, who used to manage Wiggins
2. this colleague, JV, says Wiggins would have won the tour when he managed him
3. the colleague, JV, states plenty of believable reasons for running a clean program
4. therefore Brailsford's team must be clean

And based on this logic would then do the Russian roulette.

1. I'm not sure that Walsh is making a 'logical argument', so much as giving an impression - one notably at odds with his first impression of Armstrong. That's going to disappoint some clinicians.
2. I think, will all gentleness, you misunderstood the Russian Roulette point - the remark on being relieved to hear the empty chamber shos that he is taking a "trust but verify" approach. which most people would consider sensible.

Pretty ordinary article intro DW. Why?

Why not introduce the real questions? Put it on the table. The clean policy, the many tainted staff. The lack of transparency. The PR and media relationship. Etc, many angles to intro the article.

Or if you want to start the article like you did then take a truly personal stance (eg "I'd like to believe Sky is clean and if my life depended on it I would state so, as the evidence, if it can even be called that, appears circumstantial", etc etc, instead of hanging it on JV...

Personal career concerns? Pressure from above? Back to the team access issue? Do not understand... but am not in your shoes...

Go read the whole article first, those questions are raised, front and centre. You just don't to seem to like the answers.

 

[martinvickers]

Is Brailsford saying that only dopers have very high one-two minute power relative to their average for the whole climb?

em, no, i don't think he his. i think you may be reading what you want into that rather than what was actually, you know, said.

 

[martinvickers]

From what martinvickers has published, this interview is of the type: "here, Dave, go ahead, score a few goals."
Typical of most cycling journalism, but I had hoped for a bit more from Walsh.

It isn't, sniper. go read it yourself.

And, really, just because something doesn't tell you what you want to believe - and let's be honest, loy's of you WANT to believe they're doped - doesn't render it worthless.

A mere interview was never going to have much 'evidential' value. But it is 'interesting' to see how quickly David Walsh, the single greatest journo who 'got' LA, is thrown off the bus when he doesn't give you what you want now...

 

[martinvickers]

Don't think we do. Brailsford is clearly lying when he suggests 1. he wasn't there during the interviews and 2. anti-doping was a central issue in the interviews.

Proof?

Brailsford's use of the word "sure" imo sounds rather unsure.

Wow, that's hanging a lot of your argument on pop psychology.

What folks were expecting? Well, some more critical (meta)comments by Walsh, at the very least. But they might be there in the full length version.

Walsh does raise those worries, front and centre - problem for some of the clinicians is, honestly or not, Brailsford seems to have taken time to give Walsh quite a lot of answers - unlike Armstrong, back in the day.

Can't help but wonder if Kimmage had done an interview with them, and came out and said, 'guys' still have worries, but my instinct is they're pretty clean' how quickly Paul would meet the wheels of the bus...

 

[martinvickers]

Guy's i left one interesting line out - at the end, when he's discussing 'exciting' riding v 'non-doped' riding, Brailsford does one line about 'fan' education.

He said

“If you want spectacular, jumping all over the place, at crazy speeds, let them dope. You can’t have your cake and eat it. That’s the reality. Therein lies the dilemma for the spectator as well, the entertainment against the reality.”

Interestingly frank view of what 'fans' like; he doesn't seem ready to oblige...

 

[sniper]

It isn't, sniper. go read it yourself.

And, really, just because something doesn't tell you what you want to believe - and let's be honest, loy's of you WANT to believe they're doped - doesn't render it worthless.

A mere interview was never going to have much 'evidential' value. But it is 'interesting' to see how quickly David Walsh, the single greatest journo who 'got' LA, is thrown off the bus when he doesn't give you what you want now...

i've said and thought that of kimmage, who's really has gone all the way.
walsh I've been less certain about. for instance, i personally thought that walsh's public support of kimmage (who lost his job under the same employer as walsh) has been mediocre in the last few months.
but yes, walsh called it right on armstrong and deserves a lot of credit for that. So as i said it would simply be disappointing to see him fall for and adhere to the perception-is-reality / marginal-gains dogma that vaughters and brailsford now thrive on. Though I'm not sure whether Walsh has any choice. As i suggested previously, I'd be surprised to see Walsh pick a fight with Sky. It'd be a loose-loose situation for Walsh. Nothing to gain. A lot to loose. He was lucky to come out on top in his fight with Lance, and he's still counting his blessings.
So Walsh being uncritical of Sky: disappointing? yes. surprising? hardly.

 

[sniper]

Proof?



Wow, that's hanging a lot of your argument on pop psychology.



Walsh does raise those worries, front and centre - problem for some of the clinicians is, honestly or not, Brailsford seems to have taken time to give Walsh quite a lot of answers - unlike Armstrong, back in the day.

Can't help but wonder if Kimmage had done an interview with them, and came out and said, 'guys' still have worries, but my instinct is they're pretty clean' how quickly Paul would meet the wheels of the bus...

proof? there is none (as you already said, the interview has "no evidential value"). this is just speculation based on common sense and/or gutfeeling. Mine says he's lying out of his ****.

but tell me why brailsford wouldn't have been there during the interviews? the boss is usually there when new guys in key positions are hired.

pop psychology? well, yes. what else can we go by?
"sure" simply sounds unconvincing to me. it's what i'd say if i felt uncomfortable about a question.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

So Walsh being uncritical of Sky: disappointing? yes. surprising? hardly.

So, as a hypothetical question... if Kimmage were to come out and say something similar to Walsh would you reconsider or just assume that he too had sold out to some extent?

 

[Tinman]

Brailsford does one line about 'fan' education.

He said

Quote:
“If you want spectacular, jumping all over the place, at crazy speeds, let them dope. You can’t have your cake and eat it. That’s the reality. Therein lies the dilemma for the spectator as well, the entertainment against the reality.”

And therein lies the problem. It's BS, and presumably Brailsford knows it too. The grand tours were designed for 3 weeks for a reason. With the mountains and TTs in weeks 2 & 3. And that was for exactly that reason, ie to have real action in weeks 2 & 3. The rest day blood bags and microdoping have changed all of that. We now have 20 or so days of one day races in a 3 week calendar. It's BS. But naive fans don't seem to know any better. Go back to the pre EPO era and see what grand tours looked like.

Yes there was some spectacular action in the full on EPO days (Pantani, Landis, Rasmussen, etc), but the rest day blood bags and microdosing era are boring as hell. Combine that doping regime with race radio feeds and the DS calling the shots (often after doing deals with other DS's) and you have a real controlled bore.

Nothing to do with doping per se.

 

[martinvickers]

proof? there is none (as you already said, the interview has "no evidential value"). this is just speculation based on common sense and/or gutfeeling. Mine says he's lying out of his ****.

but tell me why brailsford wouldn't have been there during the interviews? the boss is usually there when new guys in key positions are hired.

Erm, no he's not - head of HR/Clerk is nearly always there - I know, I've done a hell of a lot of interviews on both sides of the table. Smaller orgs, maybe.

pop psychology? well, yes. what else can we go by?

Evidence?

"sure" simply sounds unconvincing to me. it's what i'd say if i felt uncomfortable about a question.

Well, it's a hell of a lot of vitriol and accusation to hang up on nothing much more than personal impressions and pesonal dislike...

 

[martinvickers]

And therein lies the problem. It's BS, and presumably Brailsford knows it too. The grand tours were designed for 3 weeks for a reason.

Yep. To sell newspapers - the design of Grand tours has damn all to do with cyclists - they were invented by, and for newspapers.

 

[Tinman]

Go read the whole article first, those questions are raised, front and centre. You just don't to seem to like the answers.

How can I not like the answers if I haven't read the article yet.

It's the intro section I commented on.

Smart a**e.

 

[martinvickers]

How can I not like the answers if I haven't read the article yet.

It's the intro section I commented on.

Smart a**e.

I didn't publish the intro - what you are reading isn't the intro.

And yes, i am a smart*rse, sue me!

 

[sniper]

Well, it's a hell of a lot of vitriol and accusation to hang up on nothing much more than personal impressions and pesonal dislike...

Accusation? this is discussion forum last time i checked, not a court of law.

Personal impressions, yes, but personal dislike? that's straight from the lance armstrong defense book. Good luck with that.