Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Libertine Seguros]

Dowsett needed to be called out on that. Absolutely. I'm pretty sure we called him out here for what he said at the time.

But it can't come from someone who then fails to call out Wiggins in the same way. Yes, he asked Wiggins about it, but without follow-up questions. It was soft. He acted just as Wiggins's opportunity to change the narrative in his favour.

Imagine if Ekimov were to say Bruyneel is dodgy and should go. Is it the truth? Of course. Would it be alright for *Ekimov* to say it? No way.

Twice you said it was harsh, yet you don't explain why it was harsh. What was harsh about it?

It was accurate, and he put in that Dowsett had changed his opinion. And if it was all to do with Sky then he would have avoided mentioning it as Dowsett was with Sky at the time.

Because of what hrotha said, and also because it's only tangentially relevant to bring it up. By saying what he's said, he's ensuring that Dowsett - who the casual fan who reads the occasional article but doesn't sit glued to the screen through races - will be conflated in his audience's mind with Lance. And including the timing of it drops the hint that his change of mind may be insincere. Also, the ordering of the sentences leaves the implication that Dowsett (who we've just established defended Lance Armstrong) was easily 'tempted' away from Sky. It's an interesting choice of words - probably wholly innocent - but 'temptation' is loaded with imagery.

Dowsett's comments were stupid and he deserved to be called out for them. But when a guy is posting fawning material about another rider who made comments defending Armstrong far in excess of Dowsett, and we are not being reminded of this, then why shouldn't a guy like Dowsett be a bit miffed that he's being held to a higher standard? I'm sure Walsh can point out that he can't bring up Wiggins' many changes of opinion on Armstrong every time he mentions the guy, but I am reminded of another article in the British press, about when Vaughters queried the effectiveness of the Zero Tolerance Policy. It opened with (I'm paraphrasing here): "Jonathan Vaughters, who runs the Garmin-Sharp professional team, and who has admitted to his doping with the US Postal team, has criticised the zero tolerance policy of Team Sky". Yes, the article later put in the context of Garmin's standing in the sport, Vaughters' greater commitment than most to cleanliness or at least outward cleanliness, and the reasons behind his leaving USPS and retiring comparatively young. But, the opening gambit, which sticks to the facts, serves to instantly discredit him in the eyes of the audience ("that's a bit rich - a guy who's admitted to doping is critical of Sky's anti-doping policy?"). That wasn't a David Walsh article - Walsh is a better journalist than that, and even if he did want to discredit somebody he'd seldom do it as inelegantly as that - but the premise is similar.

Again, Walsh may have stuck to the facts, and some facts are more befitting of a positive write-up than others. But he never seems to mention the less sanguine facts about the likes of Wiggins. Certainly not as the opening gambit.

 

[JRTinMA]

Cool, since its "right there" it should be easy for you to point it out then.
Because Sherwen used to trot out all the Lance myths. Very different to giving opinions on twitter as a race unfolds.

Declaring a sky rider clean because he's breathing heavy on a climb? That's more insane than a lance myth, Walsh is worse than Sherwin in fact. You and Walsh keep burying your little fan girl heads in the sand, its ok.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It doesn't reach the lofty heights of arguing.

Thats because you don't give much to argue about.

You take exception to a journalist calling someones ride 'gutsy' yet you ignore his other tweets which lay out its context, of Wiggins poor descending, which you even agree with.

Selection of his relevant tweets:

Important day too for Bradley Wiggins who must show teammates he's not going to be undone on wet descents. Today got to stay with to Nibali.

The thing about weather Gods is that they're saying to Wiggins, "you think Friday was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet." Brutal mindgames.

Wiggins 35secs down on Nibali, likely to join up but two descents near Florence will be a problem. Henao and Uran have been told NOT to wait

Wiggins definitely back on looking comfortable on the climb, but he needs to move to the front to be in good position for start of descent.

On penultimate descent now, Wiggins again at back of peloton and in vulnerable position. Gaps appearing. Going to be tough last 14km.

Nibali, Evans, Scarponi all looking strong, Wiggins and Sky teammates too far back in group and are leaving themselves exposed.

Belkov has delivered great performance, 50km on his own, deserves to win. Final descent doesn't look too bad at all. No rain, no excuses.

On last descent, Wiggins at back but in touch. If he loses nothing, it turns into a good day. It was has been an engrossing stage.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Declaring a sky rider clean because he's breathing heavy on a climb? That's more insane than a lance myth, Walsh is worse than Sherwin in fact. You and Walsh keep burying your little fan girl heads in the sand, its ok.

Can you link to that?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Can you link to that?

You have a big agenda the coming weeks doc, be sure to breath properly.

 

[Benotti69]

Thats because you don't give much to argue about.

You take exception to a journalist calling someones ride 'gutsy' yet you ignore his other tweets which lay out its context, of Wiggins poor descending, which you even agree with.

Selection of his relevant tweets:

My intention is not to argue, least of all with you.

your pedantism is sometimes worth playing along with, other times not.

Gutsy was not an accurate description of Wiggins performance. But you dont want to argue that.

Wiggins is the current TdF champ barely able to hang on, due to the rain. He has not had an injury or suffring an illness, so no not in any context could it be described as gutsy.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You have a big agenda the coming weeks doc, be sure to breath properly.

What are you on about?

 

[JRTinMA]

Can you link to that?

David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST 24 Mar
Outstanding victory for Dan Martin in Catalunya good for the sport. Watching him climb and suffer is reassuring. Same with Chris Froome.

All Walsh needs is you commenting as a sidekick, you can be Paul and Walsh is Phil.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

All Walsh needs is you commenting as a sidekick, you can be Paul and Walsh is Phil.

He says "reassuring", nothing more - yet you spin it as declaring a Sky rider clean.
And even if Walsh had declared Froome clean (which he didn't) it does not reflect my view, so you are wrong on all counts.


Why do people constantly exaggerate what people say?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

What are you on about?

The question should be on what bandwagon you are jumping. David Walsh bandwagon looks obvious, yours seem to follow the same path.

Slash the full/busy agenda.

 

[thehog]

Good to see the Vortex back in full swing.

He's found a topic that gives him attention.

Give it another 300 posts and he runs out of gas.

Go the Vortex!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

My intention is not to argue, least of all with you.

Oh, but you are - and you are losing yet again.

your pedantism is sometimes worth playing along with, other times not.

Gutsy was not an accurate description of Wiggins performance. But you dont want to argue that.

Wiggins is the current TdF champ barely able to hang on, due to the rain. He has not had an injury or suffring an illness, so no not in any context could it be described as gutsy.

Thats your view. You are entitled to it, even though in your attempt to argue it you are inconsistent.

 

[andy1234]

Love is blind.

And hate is deaf...and dumb.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The question should be on what bandwagon you are jumping. David Walsh bandwagon looks obvious, yours seem to follow the same path.

Slash the full/busy agenda.

Ah, ok so you think I am a Sky fan?

Why not directly ask me, I am right here - of course then I actually might answer that "No, I am not a Sky fan - nor do I believe they are an anti-doping team" and that would show you to be wrong.

 

[Benotti69]

Oh, but you are - and you are losing yet again.

oh no i'm not.....

Thats your view. You are entitled to it, even though in your attempt to argue it you are inconsistent.

Not arguing. Expressing an opinion. You trying to make it into an argument for kicks.

 

[JRTinMA]

He says "reassuring", nothing more - yet you spin it as declaring a Sky rider clean.
And even if Walsh had declared Froome clean (which he didn't) it does not reflect my view, so you are wrong on all counts.


Why do people constantly exaggerate what people say?

Reassure - having confidence restored : freed from fear or anxiety.

No exaggeration doc, seems its just one fangirl covering for another. As the great hog says, love is blind. Carry on the Sky fight, just don't hurt yourself cheering and typing.

 

[martinvickers]

Ah, ok so you think I am a Sky fan?

Why not directly ask me, I am right here - of course then I actually might answer that "No, I am not a Sky fan - nor do I believe they are an anti-doping team" and that would show you to be wrong.

Circular firing squad, guys, not helpful.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Good to see the Vortex back in full swing.

He's found a topic that gives him attention.

Give it another 300 posts and he runs out of gas.

Go the Vortex!

Post counts in this thread:
The Hog 1187.
Dr Maserati 296.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Ah, ok so you think I am a Sky fan?

Why not directly ask me, I am right here - of course then I actually might answer that "No, I am not a Sky fan - nor do I believe they are an anti-doping team" and that would show you to be wrong.

Doccie, we all know why you are here.

And, to be frank, can I call you Frank, it is not very interesting. Its like the inner Brad chimp.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Doccie, we all know why you are here.

And, to be frank, can I call you Frank, it is not very interesting. Its like the inner Brad chimp.

No, you thought you did. I showed you were wrong.

You can call me whatever you like, it will be wrong, but it all you have to add.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

No, you thought you did. I showed you were wrong.

You showed nothing.

You only showed your agenda.

Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You showed nothing.

You only showed your agenda.

Nothing wrong with that.

You tried to guess my agenda - you got it wrong, nothing wrong with that.

 

[goggalor]

So it's harsh because you are assuming that Dowsett is "by all accounts a clean young rider" - surely bringing up his comments actually puts in context who Dowsett is and let the reader decide?

Not when you're only mentioning Dowsett's win in passing, and then end up dedicating most of the mention to his relationship to Lance Armstrong. It's not fair to Dowsett and puts him in a worse light than he deserves. However, I don't mind that as much as the double standard, that's what I have a real problem with.

 

[thehog]

Post counts in this thread:
The Hog 1187.
Dr Maserati 296.

Vortex in action. Spiralling. Don't look too long.

Vortex.

 

[Trace Elements]

Not when you're only mentioning Dowsett's win in passing, and then end up dedicating most of the mention to his relationship to Lance Armstrong. It's not fair to Dowsett and puts him in a worse light than he deserves. However, I don't mind that as much as the double standard, that's what I have a real problem with.

I haven't read the article but it sounds a bit off. It's unrealistic to believe riders would start hating one of their heroes over night. But the difference with Wiggins is that Dowsett made his remarks after the reasoned decision.