Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Tinman]

what you are reading isn't the intro.

Quoting your earlier post Martin. Note the use of colon after "stand":

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

highlights :

Intro:

Quote:
I tell Brailsford where I stand:

Quote:
“If you put a gun to my head and said my life depended upon getting it right with Team Sky’s performance, I would say you won clean. But I’d still be relieved to hear the click of the empty chamber.”
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.

 

[Ferminal]

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.

Then what is your interpretation?

Jumping all over the place, at crazy speeds, let them dope

Looks to me like he's saying accelerations = dope... which is a fallacy as we all know.

 

[Froome19]

Good to see that Walsh trusts Vaughters.
More and more people seem to consider him trustworthy, what with him being elected to the Change Cycling board and all that. AFAIK not a single reliable source on anti doping has claimed that JV is spouting lies.

So true some people can go on claiming he is lying, but I would prefer to stick with the experts on that one.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Then what is your interpretation?



Looks to me like he's saying accelerations = dope... which is a fallacy as we all know.

Jumping all over the place, at crazy speeds, let them dope

I think many people in the clinic would take that kind of thing as enough evidence e.g. Col de Peyresourde 2007.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Don't think we do. Brailsford is clearly lying when he suggests 1.
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.

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.

My gut feeling is that your gut feeling was unlikely to change, whatever had been in the article.
He's clearly lying in your eyes, based upon a sensation heavily influenced by cynicism.
It's called being subjective.

You can "distrust" the idea that DB wasn't present at Leinder's interview, but again you have no clue to the circumstances.
Imo DB's biggest weakness is that he has to spread himself very thinly to engage in the overseeing all facets of Cycling GB.
He can't be everywhere and do everything at once.
The track programme remains an enormous drain on his personal resourses.

For instance, he was in the UK track champs in October, checking out the young talent.
He was in Glasgow throught out the whole weekend. A couple of 15 hour days, there.

It's not unreasonable to accept that he missed one interview, however crucial it became, with hindsight.

 

[sniper]

Good to see that Walsh trusts Vaughters.
More and more people seem to consider him trustworthy, what with him being elected to the Change Cycling board and all that. AFAIK not a single reliable source on anti doping has claimed that JV is spouting lies.

So true some people can go on claiming he is lying, but I would prefer to stick with the experts on that one.

With Vaughters, it's not about lying or telling the truth. It's about saying things that he simply cannot know. He vouchhes for Sky, but how can he know whether Sky are clean (as he didn't sleep with them)? Vaughters vouching for Sky is odd and smells like PR.

edit: you wouldn't expect any serious public person to accuse vaughters of lying, as there is no evidence for that. there is just gutfeeling/intuition. smart public persons won't express their gutfeeling/intuition that easily. expressing gutfeeling is what anonymous forums are for.

 

[Tinman]

My gut feeling is that your gut feeling was unlikely to change, whatever had been in the article.
He's clearly lying in your eyes, based upon a sensation heavily influenced by cynicism.
It's called being subjective.

No. it's called "intuitive". Check the "N" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator

 

[sniper]

I assume one of the main reasons why Walsh trusts Vaughters is because Vaughters is known to engage in online doping discussion forums.
Me and some others have always seen that as a clever PR move by Vaughters (otherwise why not come on here anonymously like everybody else?), even though he himself continues to stress how bad it is for him to be here (or to join the CCN movement) from a PR perspective.
yep, bad PR indeed.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

With Vaughters, it's not about lying or telling the truth. It's about saying things that he simply cannot know. He vouchhes for Sky, but how can he know whether Sky are clean (as he didn't sleep with them)? Vaughters vouching for Sky is odd and smells like PR.

Perhaps JV is going with his gut feeling?

 

[sniper]

Perhaps JV is going with his gut feeling?

that'd be an awkward gutfeeling at best, knowing what we know about cycling. PR seems more likely, you must agree.

NB: If we may believe JV (i.e. if the one all-dominating team of 2012 was clean), cycling imust be one of the cleanest of pro-sports at present. Which leads me to ask why JV joined the CCN movement

NB2: Vaughters' gutfeeling that cycling "is now so much cleaner" has already proven wrong (Padua, Armstrong 2009/10, Contador 2010, Fr. Schleck, etc., etc.). He also speaks of some sort of an anti-doping "truce" called for in 2008, but where is the evidence for that? I only see counterevidence. That doesn't spell much good for his gutfeeling re: Sky.

 

[Froome19]

I assume one of the main reasons why Walsh trusts Vaughters is because Vaughters is known to engage in online doping discussion forums.
Me and some others have always seen that as a clever PR move by Vaughters (otherwise why not come on here anonymously like everybody else?), even though he himself continues to stress how bad it is for him to be here (or to join the CCN movement) from a PR perspective.
yep, bad PR indeed.

In would assume that Walsh is more complex than that and I think you do to

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

that'd be an awkward gutfeeling at best, knowing what we know about cycling. PR seems more likely, you must agree.

Why must I agree? What benefit is there to JV to say that Wiggins would have won the Tour now? He had placed 4th so was a contender at some level.

NB: If we may believe JV (i.e. if the one all-dominating team of 2012 was clean), cycling imust be one of the cleanest of pro-sports at present. Which leads me to ask why JV joined the CCN movement

All dominating? How did they do in the classics, the Giro or the Vuelta?

 

[Froome19]

With Vaughters, it's not about lying or telling the truth. It's about saying things that he simply cannot know. He vouchhes for Sky, but how can he know whether Sky are clean (as he didn't sleep with them)? Vaughters vouching for Sky is odd and smells like PR.

edit: you wouldn't expect any serious public person to accuse vaughters of lying, as there is no evidence for that. there is just gutfeeling/intuition. smart public persons won't express their gutfeeling/intuition that easily. expressing gutfeeling is what anonymous forums are for.

Obviously Walsh disagrees as he would not base something on JV if he really believed it is a PR trick.

He evidently believes JV is in a position where he knows enough to be considered tangible proof when considering Sky. You evidently do not think so, I will take his word over yours and not only because you are known to be massively subjective and biased against Sky.

Has Walsh been taken in by some fancy "PR" trick, maybe? But certainly not a certainty and logically that makes me side with the former option

Not disagreeing with you, just stating what others may hold.

 

[bobbins]

My gut feeling is that your gut feeling was unlikely to change, whatever had been in the article.
He's clearly lying in your eyes, based upon a sensation heavily influenced by cynicism.
It's called being subjective.

You can "distrust" the idea that DB wasn't present at Leinder's interview, but again you have no clue to the circumstances.
Imo DB's biggest weakness is that he has to spread himself very thinly to engage in the overseeing all facets of Cycling GB.
He can't be everywhere and do everything at once.
The track programme remains an enormous drain on his personal resourses.

For instance, he was in the UK track champs in October, checking out the young talent.
He was in Glasgow throught out the whole weekend. A couple of 15 hour days, there.

It's not unreasonable to accept that he missed one interview, however crucial it became, with hindsight.

He's pretty much full time with Team Sky, dropping into major track events when he needs to but has little involvement in the track program outside of attending major events.

 

[sniper]

Obviously Walsh disagrees as he would not base something on JV if he really believed it is a PR trick.

He evidently believes JV is in a position where he knows enough to be considered tangible proof when considering Sky. You evidently do not think so, I will take his word over yours and not only because you are known to be massively subjective and biased against Sky.

Has Walsh been taken in by some fancy "PR" trick, maybe? But certainly not a certainty and logically that makes me side with the former option

Not disagreeing with you, just stating what others may hold.

it is rather well-recognized that until recently over 90% of all racers doped (the so-called 'dark era' ). Without evidence, am I to believe Sky has now dominated the 2012 season clean? The objective chances lie around 10%.
Biased and subjective is assuming Sky is clean when there is no evidence.

 

[Froome19]

it is rather well-recognized that until recently over 90% of all racers doped (the so-called 'dark era' ). Without evidence, am I to believe Sky has now dominated the 2012 season clean?
Biased and subjective is assuming Sky is clean when there is no evidence.

So? Ok then I will admit: You are not biased and subjective..
A) It does not change reality
B) It does not really change my post.

 

[sniper]

My gut feeling is that your gut feeling was unlikely to change, whatever had been in the article.
He's clearly lying in your eyes, based upon a sensation heavily influenced by cynicism.
It's called being subjective.

You can "distrust" the idea that DB wasn't present at Leinder's interview, but again you have no clue to the circumstances.
Imo DB's biggest weakness is that he has to spread himself very thinly to engage in the overseeing all facets of Cycling GB.
He can't be everywhere and do everything at once.
The track programme remains an enormous drain on his personal resourses.

For instance, he was in the UK track champs in October, checking out the young talent.
He was in Glasgow throught out the whole weekend. A couple of 15 hour days, there.

It's not unreasonable to accept that he missed one interview, however crucial it became, with hindsight.

I agree, he may not have been there at the interview. Still, I don't buy his assertion that anti-doping was a major issue during the interview.

 

[Froome19]

I agree, he may not have been there at the interview. Still, I don't buy his assertion that anti-doping was a major issue during the interview.

You do not need to.

But you can not ask for reasonable proof that Sky are not doping if you are not going to pay heed to any of his assertions..

 

[ebandit]

i'm not good at maths

it is rather well-recognized that until recently over 90% of all racers doped (the so-called 'dark era' ). Without evidence, am I to believe Sky has now dominated the 2012 season clean? The objective chances lie around 10%.
Biased and subjective is assuming Sky is clean when there is no evidence.

a simple sum.............100% ( no doping ) less 90% ( used to dope )

= 10% chance of a successful team being clean

right! except it's more meaningless bs while sounding good it means nowt

 

[martinvickers]

Quoting your earlier post Martin. Note the use of colon after "stand":

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

highlights :

Intro:

Quote:
I tell Brailsford where I stand:

Quote:
“If you put a gun to my head and said my life depended upon getting it right with Team Sky’s performance, I would say you won clean. But I’d still be relieved to hear the click of the empty chamber.”
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.

my intro, not walsh's

 

[martinvickers]

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.

any chance we can get a specialist revision of godwins' law - as a thread progresses the probability that someone will be compared to lance armstrong approaches one?

 

[sniper]

my intro, not walsh's

The real intro (which is the only bit I can read online) is more Sky-sweettalk by Walsh.

 

[martinvickers]

Then what is your interpretation?



Looks to me like he's saying accelerations = dope... which is a fallacy as we all know.

Compare nibili's attacks in the tour, with contador's in the Vuelta - particularly that oen stage he attacked seven times. The same?

 

[Ferminal]

Compare nibili's attacks in the tour, with contador's in the Vuelta - particularly that oen stage he attacked seven times. The same?

So he is saying that "jumping around" is doping?

What does climbing style have to do with PEDs?

I think many people in the clinic would take that kind of thing as enough evidence e.g. Col de Peyresourde 2007.

Then people spend too much time in the Clinic relative to their time actually watching pro cyclists.

 

[martinvickers]

it is rather well-recognized that until recently over 90% of all racers doped (the so-called 'dark era' ). Without evidence, am I to believe Sky has now dominated the 2012 season clean? The objective chances lie around 10%.
Biased and subjective is assuming Sky is clean when there is no evidence.

You are of course entitled to your intuitions, but it doesn't help when you throw around numbers which are just meaningless given you a) have no evidence for them, and b) don't appear to really 'get' statistics.

This 10% in particular, that's just a whimsical invention, it has no merit whatsoever.

Numbers are quantatative things, measurable, objective, verifable - your '10%' is none of these.

You know, as iI've said before (countless times) - if Sky are doping, i hope their caught and f***ed out. I have no skin in this fight.

But the bias in these discussion forums is occasionally so overwhelming, it's not discussion at all; it's pure cult mantra.