Walsh Rips on the Bio Passport!

[usedtobefast]

Why do you say he has zero credibility. Specifically. Something other than "he thinks Lance doped."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Walsh_(sports_reporter)

 

[Anonymous]

Your theory is as lame. Can't you just accept that Lance was beaten by the better man? Can't you accept that Lance's results were excellent, and as good as it was going to get for him, consider his age, retirement, and collar bone fracture?

Better at the arms race perhaps.

This is where I'm at with cycling. Since Lance is clearly, well, you know, then AC is um, well, you know, better than Lance.

Pretty freaking disgusting to go down this road.

 

[runninboy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Walsh_(sports_reporter)

I see nothing that says he has "zero credibility" in this link.

 

[runninboy]

the passport may be flawed. walsh though, has zero credibility on the subject.
he needs to sell books. so much sports "journalism" is just speculation and innuendo.

Yeah that synthetic EPO in his 99 samples was pure speculation

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, it is code for sore loser.

Hmmm... someone is "better" than LA... at what, do you think?

 

[TheArbiter]

I got to admit, this made me laugh! If this isn't the perfect definition of a fanboy, I don't know what is..... "anyone who beat Lance must be doping because they beat Lance". Priceless!!

Armstrong did dominate the sport for seven years, in case you didn't notice. If someone is putting out better power numbers than him at his peak then it naturally does raise questions.

 

[TheArbiter]

Yeah, it is code for sore loser.

Or gracious loser.

 

[TheArbiter]

So why did he come back in '99?

He was 28, not 38.

 

[kiwirider]

I see nothing that says he has "zero credibility" in this link.

Quite the opposite in fact if the book won a French award for journalism ...

http://www.prix-litteraires.net/prix/994,prix-gondecourt.html

 

[TheArbiter]

Quite the opposite in fact if the book won a French award for journalism ...

http://www.prix-litteraires.net/prix/994,prix-gondecourt.html

That means he does have credibility?

 

[kiwirider]

Armstrong did dominate the sport for seven years, in case you didn't notice. If someone is putting out better power numbers than him at his peak then it naturally does raise questions.

No ... Armstrong didn't dominate the sport for seven years.

He won the Tour de France seven years in a row. As we all know, he built his season - in fact the majority of his career - on targeting that one race. Over that same period he was either absent or didn't figure in other such "minor races" as the spring classics, the autumn classics, the world champs, the shorter tours, the other grand tours ... Then there are the other codes that make up "the sport" - where he was equally absent. So, as far as I can tell, he sure as hell didn't "dominate" anything outside the Tour for seven years.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people don't seem to understand that one race - even if it is three weeks long and gets more coverage in the english speaking cycling media than the rest of the season put together - does not "the sport" make ...

As I said before, broaden your horizons and, if language allows, your media sources a little ...

 

[Cobber]

Armstrong did dominate the sport for seven years, in case you didn't notice. If someone is putting out better power numbers than him at his peak then it naturally does raise questions.

Oh, I completely agree that people putting out more power than Lance are probably doping because Lance himself was doping during his prime. I just thought it hilarious that you designated Lance as the absolute maximum of undoped human performance.

 

[ggusta]

I do have a theory about their being more to the bad blood at Astana than just who is supposed to be the team leader, but it is only speculation.

I think the only reason Lance came back to the sport is that he thought the passport scheme and the fact the authorities are working with the manufacturers on tests, meant he could still win in a fair fight. So everybody at the team were shocked and upset as hell with Contador for still beating the system so blatantly.

Wow....that's some kinda spin, there bossdaddy!

Nice job...




)
)

)


)
)

)



:
:
:


........(not)

 

[ggusta]

I got to admit, this made me laugh! If this isn't the perfect definition of a fanboy, I don't know what is..... "anyone who beat Lance must be doping because they beat Lance". Priceless!!

You left out the part that Lance is out to bring back cleanliness to the sport.

http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

6 positives in 1999

At some level, each of us has to care about our credibility with our fellows, even those with which we disagree. (Well .... ALMOST each of us....)

Sad, really.

 

[DonTickles]

Armstrong did dominate the sport for seven years, in case you didn't notice. If someone is putting out better power numbers than him at his peak then it naturally does raise questions.

http://biguglycouch.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/***.jpg

 

[ggusta]

Oh, I completely agree that people putting out more power than Lance are probably doping because Lance himself was doping during his prime. I just thought it hilarious that you designated Lance as the absolute maximum of undoped human performance.

+1. I love AC, but I'm not deluded. It is sad, but the present protocols haven't stopped anything. I just don't know if it will ever be clean enough to look at any of the top 20 as likely to be clean rather than likely to be dirty as I see it now.

 

[TheArbiter]

No ... Armstrong didn't dominate the sport for seven years.

He won the Tour de France seven years in a row. As we all know, he built his season - in fact the majority of his career - on targeting that one race. Over that same period he was either absent or didn't figure in other such "minor races" as the spring classics, the autumn classics, the world champs, the shorter tours, the other grand tours ... Then there are the other codes that make up "the sport" - where he was equally absent. So, as far as I can tell, he sure as hell didn't "dominate" anything outside the Tour for seven years.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people don't seem to understand that one race - even if it is three weeks long and gets more coverage in the english speaking cycling media than the rest of the season put together - does not "the sport" make ...

As I said before, broaden your horizons and, if language allows, your media sources a little ...

The ToF is the hardest Tour in the world. He won it seven years in a row. It's up to other riders if they want to enter the less hard races and use that as an excuse for not winning the Tof.

 

[TheArbiter]

Oh, I completely agree that people putting out more power than Lance are probably doping because Lance himself was doping during his prime. I just thought it hilarious that you designated Lance as the absolute maximum of undoped human performance.

It's my view that Armstrong didn't dope for at least half his tour wins. But even if he did, as you say, that puts Contador's performance in a very bad light. But we must be honest and say we just don't know - Contador could just be an amazing athlete.

 

[BigBoat]

David Walsh lost money writing "From Lance to Landis" due to taking time away from his main day job.

Lance doped for all his wins pre and post Chemo! If he did not dope for one of his Tours he would have DNF'd or been at best 50-75 places.

 

[Izoard]

I am happy to see that Walsh is talking about the passport. And I agree with him that at first it seemed to be a 'good idea', but the results just don't support that it is actually making things better (IMHO).

 

[ggusta]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Walsh_(sports_reporter)

27mb mp3 interview for download (must be pretty long). Hearing allows the listener to make a better assessment than just words on a screen.

http://www.competitorradio.com/download.php?filename=139Competitors-DavidWalsh-Part1.mp3

 

[Kennf1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Walsh_(sports_reporter)

Yeah, we know he thinks Lance doped. But again, why do you think Walsh has zero credibility?

 

[TheArbiter]

David Walsh lost money writing "From Lance to Landis" due to taking time away from his main day job.

Lance doped for all his wins pre and post Chemo! If he did not dope for one of his Tours he would have DNF'd or been at best 50-75 places.

Most people who write books lose money whilst they are writing it. But they see the big pay off when it comes out as worth it.

I don't personally think money has gott much to do with it. I think Walsh has now been landed with the 'anti doping man' tag and as such has to always be cynical about everything. It's what people expect and he is giving them what they want. What kind of twit would he look like if he said the passports have cleaned it up.

But going back to Lance. If we are to take your proposition that he doped for all his wins as fact for a second. Why would he still have beaten all the other top riders, especially in the early years before the EPO test, who were doping too? Doesn't make a lot of sense. And why wouldn't he win the Tour before kemo?

You can try that Ferrari crap, but these other guys had professional labs and clincs working for them too.

In the documentary that Frankie Andreu appeared in, who used EPO himself, he said it does NOT turn you into a champion.

 

[BigBoat]

Walsh is conservative and reserved. He does not really go into "detail." LOL LOL beavis laugh (LOL).

 

[elapid]

http://biguglycouch.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/***.jpg

Three posts and you come out with an absolute gem. That is up there with 53 x 11's graph. Well done. Sums up Kiwirider's and everyone else's views about Arbie very succinctly.