Walsh Rips on the Bio Passport!

[Bronstein]

it all sounds very official. still nothing is proved. if people say someone broke the rules, then find them guilty. until then,we go back and forth.
i mean, lance is not too big to fail. sports icons do. so far though just innuendo.

Scientific evidence isn't innuendo.

 

[usedtobefast]

Scientific evidence isn't innuendo.

look, if the evidence, is evidence, then lance tests positive. so far no positive.

 

[Allez! Allez! AUS!]

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.

Yeah, I agree. When Armstrong announced his comback I imagined it could have had something to do with his percieved view of the cycling world. No Vino/Ulrich/Basso etc. and the likes of Evans and Vande Velde were up there with Satre seemingly winning on account of excellent team tactics more than anything... There was a believability i thought... I thought maybe he'd chosen to come back and do it in a more-a-less clean peloton, as he would back himself on his genetic freakishness over other known freaks like Evans, who i've always imagined is clean as a whistle.

Contador though, give me a break! when you're beating Riis's records and overpowering Armstrong's best numbers in his glory days, its surely undeniable that something is not quite right.

 

[usedtobefast]

Yeah, I agree. When Armstrong announced his comback I imagined it could have had something to do with his percieved view of the cycling world. No Vino/Ulrich/Basso etc. and the likes of Evans and Vande Velde were up there with Satre seemingly winning on account of excellent team tactics more than anything... There was a believability i thought... I thought maybe he'd chosen to come back and do it in a more-a-less clean peloton, as he would back himself on his genetic freakishness over other known freaks like Evans, who i've always imagined is clean as a whistle.

Contador though, give me a break! when you're beating Riis's records and overpowering Armstrong's best numbers in his glory days, its surely undeniable that something is not quite right.

ac did time trial like a man on fire, his expression was suffering mightily. your points make sense.

 

[runninboy]

That means he does have credibility?

well you claimed this link showed "zero credibility" it shows he is an award winning journalist, zero cred ? no
sued by Lance, case thrown out, zero cred? again no
another suit by Lance, dropped.
gosh you would think a country with such strong libel laws as opposed to the USA, Lance could win against a guy with "zero credibility"
Obviously nothing in this link backs your position
try again

 

[runninboy]

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.

TDF is a different race, requiring different skills & abilities than the classics such as Paris Roubaix. It is like the difference between a marathon and a sprint. While the country of Kenya is always there at the end of the marathon they are nowhere to be found in a sprint.
A Three week tour is more about how you recover each day rather than how hard you can push yourself for a few hours without regard to recovery.

 

[TrudyTas]

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

Thanks for posting this, I hadn't seen it before. Even though it took me a couple of hours to read, it was worth it - filled in a few gaps.

 

[Digger]

he has no facts to back it up.
nothing. it is all speculation.

Firstly have you read his books?
Secondly are witness statements enough in a court of law?

 

[BigBoat]

http://www.cuttingedgemuscle.com/Forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20922&perpage=15&pagenumber=2

 

[53 x 11]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Sheltowee]

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.

Not. The Giro is usually more difficult.

 

[Eva Maria]

it all sounds very official. still nothing is proved. if people say someone broke the rules, then find them guilty.

Your faith in the UCI to sanction anyone from that era is misguided.

 

[Azdak6]

He is a reporter who writes books. His reporting career, which earns him his daily living, is sports, not just doping. And he is no different to anyone else earning a living, including Lance, especially one that is good at their job.

Sorry, he is now an "anti drug crusader", not a reporter.

 

[Eva Maria]

Sorry, he is now an "anti drug crusader", not a reporter.

He has won The UK's Sport Reporter of the Year award.....twice

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sorry, he is now an "anti drug crusader", not a reporter.

He is a journalist- thisis is his latest piece on Rugby from yesterday, with no mention of doping. He spends most of his time now reporting on Rugby.

Which is a shame as Pro Cycling needs someone to ask the tough and unpopular questions of the riders and the UCI or nothing will change.

 

[Digger]

Sorry, he is now an "anti drug crusader", not a reporter.

Read his work in the Sunday Times often? Because I do, every week, and your statement above is absolutely false.

 

[Azdak6]

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

Here's the last statement from the article (Walsh commenting on Contador):

"When he's asked a question at the Tour about his VO2 Max and doesn't answer, I just think, why? Why would you refuse to answer a question like that? It's something that a lot of cycling fans would like to know."

I can't take anyone seriously who would say something that stupid.

Two passages from Coyle's book, Lance Armstrong's War are also appropriate, IMO:

The first is Coyle's description of Walsh after his original criticism of swimmer Michelle Smith was justified by her subsequent drug suspension:

His writing took on the feel of an extended sermon, preaching in the wilderness. He sorted athletes into sheep and goats. They were either good, clean, and perfect ("A lovely, marvelous lad," he would say, "one of life's good guys"), or they were tainted, fallen.

One the next page, Walsh is quoted about his reaction to the 1998 Tour de France:

Nineteen ninety-eight was like two fingers that opened up our closed eyes...I became an activist then, after 1998.

Not every activist is incapable of objective observation, but what I have seen from Walsh (even independent of his writing about Armstrong) says that he can now only see the world through the distorted lens of his "crusade". Therefore, I cannot trust one word he has to say, any more than I can trust the words of the athletes protesting their innocence.

 

[Digger]

Here's the last statement from the article (Walsh commenting on Contador):



I can't take anyone seriously who would say something that stupid.

Two passages from Coyle's book, Lance Armstrong's War are also appropriate, IMO:

The first is Coyle's description of Walsh after his original criticism of swimmer Michelle Smith was justified by her subsequent drug suspension:



One the next page, Walsh is quoted about his reaction to the 1998 Tour de France:



Not every activist is incapable of objective observation, but what I have seen from Walsh (even independent of his writing about Armstrong) says that he can now only see the world through the distorted lens of his "crusade". Therefore, I cannot trust one word he has to say, any more than I can trust the words of the athletes protesting their innocence.

I'll ask again. Have you read his work, his columns, his books? Yet you blindly do not trust. Come back with a specific example from any of these which you feel to be factually inaccurate, and then maybe you can join the debate. Give me even one instance where Walsh bas been wrong.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

...
Not every activist is incapable of objective observation, but what I have seen from Walsh (even independent of his writing about Armstrong) says that he can now only see the world through the distorted lens of his "crusade". Therefore, I cannot trust one word he has to say, any more than I can trust the words of the athletes protesting their innocence.

While the theory behind the above article is sound - but in relation to Walsh he always backs up his claims and gets as many sources or background information.

FLTL has been out 2 years, in English - neither athlete has sued.

 

[Digger]

While the theory behind the above article is sound - but in relation to Walsh he always backs up his claims and gets as many sources or background information.

FLTL has been out 2 years, in English - neither athlete has sued.

Three athletes...Tyler also.

 

[Eva Maria]

Here's the last statement from the article (Walsh commenting on Contador):



I can't take anyone seriously who would say something that stupid.

Two passages from Coyle's book, Lance Armstrong's War are also appropriate, IMO:

The first is Coyle's description of Walsh after his original criticism of swimmer Michelle Smith was justified by her subsequent drug suspension:



One the next page, Walsh is quoted about his reaction to the 1998 Tour de France:



Not every activist is incapable of objective observation, but what I have seen from Walsh (even independent of his writing about Armstrong) says that he can now only see the world through the distorted lens of his "crusade". Therefore, I cannot trust one word he has to say, any more than I can trust the words of the athletes protesting their innocence.

It is hard NOT to question Contador's refusal to answer a simple question about V02. Basso posted his tests on his website, what does AC have to hide?

The sport needs more writers like Walsh who ask real questions.....and less fans who ignore the obvious.

You may want to actually read Walsh's books and not rely on Coyle's review of his writing style. Notice Coyle said nothing about the content of Walsh's book, just his style.

 

[euphrades]

Scribe and TheArbiter have rose colored glasses when it comes to Armstrong. Nothing you say to these to will change their opinion abour Armstrong which to me is completely sad because they apparently have wrapped themselves up into the fantasy.

This forum has opened up my eyes a bit more, showing me something I have seen for a long time; Armstrong doped during his entire career; past and present. I also believe Contador is doping today. The posters on this forum that bash Armstrong for doping and then say that Contador isn't are just not able to get past the fan thing.

EVERYONE LIES!!!! Especially when they have something to gain or something to lose.

When something smells like a duck and sounds like a duck then it is a duck. Armstrong and Contador have results that point to doping, have ties to teams/teamates that doped, ties to doctors that were scientific in doping programs. Sorry they doped. They may not have been declared positive due to the RULES surrounding what constitues a positive but that is a technicality and not getting a positive due to a technicality doesn't prove that you are clean.

I used to think Walsh was full of himself, but he may not always present solid facts but his job isn't to always to that. His job is to question the status quo, make others accountable and I think Betsy Andreu, Greg Lemond, and Walsh have all done that about cycling. I look forward to seeing it in other sports as well.

 

[Von Mises]

Your faith in the UCI to sanction anyone from that era is misguided.

my faith in the uci? i do not recall saying anyhting about the uci. i will now. they do seem
to be an arbitrary, confused organization. like they can not get out of there own way sometimes.
not to put to fine a point on things, but until you are a positive test for doping, you are not doping.
under the current regime.
that is the way it is. we guess and speculate about who did/does/will/won't, but is it not anything
but opinion(highly informed it may be). and my opinion is mine, so i say keep it going folks.

Thats correct.Only two things matter - confession or positive test. Everything else is just speculation.

 

[ggusta]

Here's the last statement from the article (Walsh commenting on Contador):



I can't take anyone seriously who would say something that stupid.

Two passages from Coyle's book, Lance Armstrong's War are also appropriate, IMO:

The first is Coyle's description of Walsh after his original criticism of swimmer Michelle Smith was justified by her subsequent drug suspension:

I am not sure I would use Coyle's statements as the foundation of my argument.

http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden (search the word 'Coyle')

Overall, the 'Lance' aspect of Doping is becoming a sideshow. I think the sport has a very long and systemic history of drug and performance enhancers and our energies are all better served by not focusing so much on individuals - and yes, it is not news to me which camp I fall into - as much as what, if anything could clean up cycling. I think the first step is forgiveness of anyone who has doped, especially if they are retired or very near to it.

Look at those who own up to it in Baseball (US). Almost instant forgiveness and a welcome back: Andy Pettite. The ones who deny? A long lonely road, Clemens, Bonds, McGuire.

Doping in cycling is like an arms race, the best clean guy ends up dirty because guys who he used to beat are now dropping him. In the end, they all end up more or less as they were before, but now they are all dirty.

Easy for me to say, I don't have a few million dollars a year riding on my ability to stay on top. Maybe if we paid them all nothing and made them beg for tips....

 

[Eva Maria]

Thats correct.Only two things matter - confession or positive test. Everything else is just speculation.

In Lance's case we have both, 7 positives and a confession.