Sky and David Walsh

mr_poll

Richmond Racer wrote:

after all. ddraver chap, we're apparently a 'cute little bunch' over here on BR

Who don't know how to use twitter properly and need condescending tweets to teach us.

Richmond Racer

mr_poll wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

after all. ddraver chap, we're apparently a 'cute little bunch' over here on BR

Who don't know how to use twitter properly and need condescending tweets to teach us.

I'm thinking of going old skool and using pigeons to carry my messages

micron

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Here's the thing about T&R for me. Why is Damiano Cunego going to tell the world he cheated for the most memorable win of his career?

I can understand a domestique who made his money in the service of others and felt coerced into endangering his health wanting to tell his story, but why are the people who made the money and reputational gains by winning races going to destroy their legacy and value in retirement?

Think about jaksche - he did the right thing, contacted the UCI, told them everything and for nothing. Had we had TRC after festina maybe he'd have been believed & not hushed up, his testimony - or one like it - believed and acted on. Instead the UCI prefer to shoot the messenger. And who says you need the testimony of the star riders to uncover the dirt and corruption?

MR_poll howman has indicated that amnesty is not a problem - did you read the USADA draft plan for TRC? Pretty good first thoughts. Fact is, time limited amnesty has to be in place - after that, lifetime ban

ddraver

micron wrote:

ddraver wrote:

micron wrote:

Aw, disappointed ddraver - came here in good faith to have a sensible debate and you start with the insults already - I wonder whose mind is really most immutable? Yours or mine?

Not aware I ve made any insults...

Perhaps you just need to tone it down with twaliban stuff? After all this isn't twitter

Nah sorry, when they stop, we ll stop. As it stands its a fantastic description

micron

Richmond Racer wrote:

mr_poll wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

after all. ddraver chap, we're apparently a 'cute little bunch' over here on BR

Who don't know how to use twitter properly and need condescending tweets to teach us.[/

Sorry you took my tweets as condescending - was genuinely trying to help as you seemed to be having some difficulty tracking conversations and using a twitter client is very helpful with that. Was given similar advice when I first started and found it very useful. Wouldn't dare to presume that you were using twitter to gang up on other users rather than try and shape the debate

disgruntledgoat

micron wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Here's the thing about T&R for me. Why is Damiano Cunego going to tell the world he cheated for the most memorable win of his career?

I can understand a domestique who made his money in the service of others and felt coerced into endangering his health wanting to tell his story, but why are the people who made the money and reputational gains by winning races going to destroy their legacy and value in retirement?

Think about jaksche - he did the right thing, contacted the UCI, told them everything and for nothing. Had we had TRC after festina maybe he'd have been believed & not hushed up, his testimony - or one like it - believed and acted on. Instead the UCI prefer to shoot the messenger. And who says you need the testimony of the star riders to uncover the dirt and corruption?

MR_poll howman has indicated that amnesty is not a problem - did you read the USADA draft plan for TRC? Pretty good first thoughts. Fact is, time limited amnesty has to be in place - after that, lifetime ban

Disagree.

I still think that the proposals put forward rely on an equal distribution of conciense and morality amongst a large population of professional athletes.

I also fundamentally disagree with lifetime bans. All they will serve to do is increase collusion between unscrupulous athletes, teams and federations towards covering up. Would Spain really issue a lifetime ban to Contador over his Clenbuterol? Should they for such a miniscule amount when no means of administration can be proven?

ddraver

micron wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Here's the thing about T&R for me. Why is Damiano Cunego going to tell the world he cheated for the most memorable win of his career?

I can understand a domestique who made his money in the service of others and felt coerced into endangering his health wanting to tell his story, but why are the people who made the money and reputational gains by winning races going to destroy their legacy and value in retirement?

Think about jaksche - he did the right thing, contacted the UCI, told them everything and for nothing. Had we had TRC after festina maybe he'd have been believed & not hushed up, his testimony - or one like it - believed and acted on. Instead the UCI prefer to shoot the messenger. And who says you need the testimony of the star riders to uncover the dirt and corruption?

MR_poll howman has indicated that amnesty is not a problem - did you read the USADA draft plan for TRC? Pretty good first thoughts. Fact is, time limited amnesty has to be in place - after that, lifetime ban

If Wiggins confessed to doping in 2012, wins in April/July and goes around saying he's won 2 GT's could you reconcile that?

If Boonen confessed to doping for all his classics victories and then refers to himself as the winner of the most Paris Roubaix's (or what ever record he has) Would you accept that?

For me the answer is very much No and No!

There is nothing for current cyclists to gain from a T&R process, it is a gossip gathering excercise for people to froth about. It won't do anything to help cycling stay/become/get clean in the future.

The only thing to gain (and I would nt say no to this) is that Pat and Hein are revealed as the dirty buggers we suspect they are - however, we would also have to "reconcile" them too presumably...

RichN95.

micron wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Here's the thing about T&R for me. Why is Damiano Cunego going to tell the world he cheated for the most memorable win of his career?

I can understand a domestique who made his money in the service of others and felt coerced into endangering his health wanting to tell his story, but why are the people who made the money and reputational gains by winning races going to destroy their legacy and value in retirement?

Think about jaksche - he did the right thing, contacted the UCI, told them everything and for nothing. Had we had TRC after festina maybe he'd have been believed & not hushed up, his testimony - or one like it - believed and acted on. Instead the UCI prefer to shoot the messenger. And who says you need the testimony of the star riders to uncover the dirt and corruption?

MR_poll howman has indicated that amnesty is not a problem - did you read the USADA draft plan for TRC? Pretty good first thoughts. Fact is, time limited amnesty has to be in place - after that, lifetime ban

Jaksche only said anything after he'd been caught in Puerto.

A rider who has been gambling with possibility of a two year ban is going to continue to take the same gamble.

Rather than blow a load of money on a commission that won't work it would be better spent on more testing - including retro testing. You'll get a hell of a lot more truth that way.

micron

Ddraver, isn't that a little bit sad? It's not gang warfare is it? Surely we all share one thing in common - were fans of the sport? Sure we all have our little bees in our bonnets but does that attitude helpfully move things forward? Constructive debate is great, but a gang warfare mentality is surely not particularly helpful? Sorry, just trying to understand why you find differences of opinion so upsetting? Or is it that you feel twitter has a disproportionate influence on the way cycling is reported? If so I couldn't agree more - think journos Reporting tweets as news is the height of laziness. It's one forum among many and I'd like all fans voices to get more of a hearing. So why not work with rather than against. Problem is, your attitude makes you seem as closed minded as that which you claim to abhor.

micron

Ddraver you learn from it and move the sport on - and impose lifetime bans if it happens again. Would we have had USADA if riders hadn't finally spoken out? Testing didn't catch Armstrong, testimony did. I have a lot of sympathy for rich's case about investing in more testing but in all the shitstorm currently engulfing cycling & other sports, it's not testing that has exposed the corruption, dirt & lies.

Remember the Boyer emails? That kind of stuff isn't exposed by testing but by people feeling free to come forward to testify.

ddraver

Can anyone remember the name of the blog that spawned the name Twitter Taliban for festina's pleasure?

If it makes you feel better you were cycling Twitterati before that

Your post would make great sense, but unfortunately I ve not seen anything approaching constructive debate from the Twaliban. I followed a great many of them when I started but one by one I ve stopped as theyve consistently failed to produce anything worthwhile in that time except a whole lot of noise. I suppose you could take it as a sort of compliment that you re still being followed...

Richmond Racer

micron wrote:

Ddraver, isn't that a little bit sad? It's not gang warfare is it? Surely we all share one thing in common - were fans of the sport? Sure we all have our little bees in our bonnets but does that attitude helpfully move things forward? Constructive debate is great, but a gang warfare mentality is surely not particularly helpful? Sorry, just trying to understand why you find differences of opinion so upsetting? Or is it that you feel twitter has a disproportionate influence on the way cycling is reported? If so I couldn't agree more - think journos Reporting tweets as news is the height of laziness. It's one forum among many and I'd like all fans voices to get more of a hearing. So why not work with rather than against. Problem is, your attitude makes you seem as closed minded as that which you claim to abhor.

Here's an idea. How about you stop calling people who challenge you 'fanboys' and 'fangirls'. It is lazy, it is patronising, and it does you no good at all except to send people in the opposite direction. Just how does it support what you articulate above? Frankly it just makes you look a to$$er.

disgruntledgoat

micron wrote:

Ddraver you learn from it and move the sport on - and impose lifetime bans if it happens again. Would we have had USADA if riders hadn't finally spoken out? Testing didn't catch Armstrong, testimony did. I have a lot of sympathy for rich's case about investing in more testing but in all the shitstorm currently engulfing cycling & other sports, it's not testing that has exposed the corruption, dirt & lies.

Remember the Boyer emails? That kind of stuff isn't exposed by testing but by people feeling free to come forward to testify.

Your argument in support of a T&R commission is that a bunch or riders testified under oath with the full wieght of the law hanging over them?

Who decides what riders get called? How far back do we go? What if somebody called declines to attend?

ddraver

micron wrote:

Ddraver you learn from it and move the sport on - and impose lifetime bans if it happens again. Would we have had USADA if riders hadn't finally spoken out? Testing didn't catch Armstrong, testimony did. I have a lot of sympathy for rich's case about investing in more testing but in all the shitstorm currently engulfing cycling & other sports, it's not testing that has exposed the corruption, dirt & lies.

Remember the Boyer emails? That kind of stuff isn't exposed by testing but by people feeling free to come forward to testify.

Would we have had USADA if the riders had nt been put in a position where continuing the 10/15yr long lie would have meant Jail time?

That's what got the riders talking, they all got 2 year bans (reduced to 6 month bans becasue of co-operation) and several got sacked from their teams. Not what I'd call reconciliation. Frank Schleck actually got less of a ban for a positive test!

LeicesterLad

Richmond Racer wrote:

micron wrote:

Ddraver, isn't that a little bit sad? It's not gang warfare is it? Surely we all share one thing in common - were fans of the sport? Sure we all have our little bees in our bonnets but does that attitude helpfully move things forward? Constructive debate is great, but a gang warfare mentality is surely not particularly helpful? Sorry, just trying to understand why you find differences of opinion so upsetting? Or is it that you feel twitter has a disproportionate influence on the way cycling is reported? If so I couldn't agree more - think journos Reporting tweets as news is the height of laziness. It's one forum among many and I'd like all fans voices to get more of a hearing. So why not work with rather than against. Problem is, your attitude makes you seem as closed minded as that which you claim to abhor.

Here's an idea. How about you stop calling people who challenge you 'fanboys' and 'fangirls'. It is lazy, it is patronising, and it does you no good at all except to send people in the opposite direction. Just how does it support what you articulate above? Frankly it just makes you look a to$$er.

Somebody left a nasty message on my blog yesterday calling me a 'Sky fanboy'. Now that really is something I have never been called before!

RichN95.

ddraver wrote:

Can anyone remember the name of the blog that spawned the name Twitter Taliban for festina's pleasure?

If it makes you feel better you were cycling Twitterati before that

Your post would make great sense, but unfortunately I ve not seen anything approaching constructive debate from the Twaliban. I followed a great many of them when I started but one by one I ve stopped as theyve consistently failed to produce anything worthwhile in that time except a whole lot of noise. I suppose you could take it as a sort of compliment that you re still being followed...

I think the Taliban term was coined by Kenny Pryde on his Biscuit Tin Media blog.

He also wrote a good piece on the cycling media in the Cycling Anthology

Macaloon

(@)micron I unfollowed you, and many others, for the first time ( ) in despair at the puerile UK Postal references during the TdF build-up races. In the light of the USADA report detailing a colossal conspiracy, do you think these were reasonable comparisons?

mr_poll

micron wrote:

Ddraver, isn't that a little bit sad? It's not gang warfare is it? Surely we all share one thing in common - were fans of the sport? Sure we all have our little bees in our bonnets but does that attitude helpfully move things forward? Constructive debate is great, but a gang warfare mentality is surely not particularly helpful? Sorry, just trying to understand why you find differences of opinion so upsetting? Or is it that you feel twitter has a disproportionate influence on the way cycling is reported? If so I couldn't agree more - think journos Reporting tweets as news is the height of laziness. It's one forum among many and I'd like all fans voices to get more of a hearing. So why not work with rather than against. Problem is, your attitude makes you seem as closed minded as that which you claim to abhor.

The issue with twitter is that he (or she) who shouts loudest and longest gets attention and poss plaudits. Additionally it doesnt provide context.

IMHO You're bee in the bonnet re Sky is the fact they rolled up with a load of cash and football style transferred Wiggins from Garmin. It goes against the tradition of the sport you love and every tweet is coloured by that.

You did a lot to shout about LA but so did others but because you shout most often you then become "voice of the fans" whilst others who perhaps dont share your passion/prejudice arent seen as being as worthy of an opinion - despite having very valid ones.

RichN95.

disgruntledgoat wrote:

micron wrote:

Ddraver you learn from it and move the sport on - and impose lifetime bans if it happens again. Would we have had USADA if riders hadn't finally spoken out? Testing didn't catch Armstrong, testimony did. I have a lot of sympathy for rich's case about investing in more testing but in all the shitstorm currently engulfing cycling & other sports, it's not testing that has exposed the corruption, dirt & lies.

Remember the Boyer emails? That kind of stuff isn't exposed by testing but by people feeling free to come forward to testify.

Your argument in support of a T&R commission is that a bunch or riders testified under oath with the full wieght of the law hanging over them?

Who decides what riders get called? How far back do we go? What if somebody called declines to attend?

They will have no legal standing beyond the WADA code. No-one can be made to appear. No-one can be made to swear an oath.

micron

Then try and shape the debate rather than bullying? You accuse the 'twaliban' of being closed minded etc yet your replies seem to offer more of the same. If you think it's important that other teams are scrutinised, start that conversation. Offer facts. Educate. Start the intelligent debate. If you think it's pointless then leave them alone to get on with it. But don't fall into the trap of doing that which you accuse others of.

Last night you mentioned that you had spoken to DB about leinders - that would be an interesting point to start. I'd be very interested to hear what he had to say from an eyewitness

tailwindhome

micron wrote:

Or is it that you feel twitter has a disproportionate influence on the way cycling is reported? If so I couldn't agree more - think journos Reporting tweets as news is the height of laziness.

bockers

The biggest issue for me what evidence doubter will need to be satisfied that Sky are not the organised doping outfit that USPostal/Discovery were.

I watched Armstrong win the stage after Cassarti had tragically died. He was not a GC rider back then. I then followed his return to Europe and the subsequent early tour wins. Now the first was a fairytale and I like other were wrapped up in this and post Festina we assumed doping was on the decline. But then on subsequent tours the doubts started and first signs of smoke, funnily enough it was not Armstrong raising those doubts but those around him. The likes of Jalabert going from a specialist spinter to polka dot wearer, Virenques continued collecting of Polka Dot jerseys. The fact that when Armstrong chose to he could crush these people at will just did not make sense.

The smoke started to thicken, people leave Armstongs team started to make noises. The arrogance and swagger of Armstrong started to grate. There were stories, lots of stories that were dismissed. At the time I did not realise the hounding these people endured from the Lance camp. There were stories in L’Equipe and such like too.

One thing I don’t remember is the accusations starting because of the Postal/Discovery team dominance. It was a combination of factors rubbing together that formed the smoke.

So fast forward to now to Bradley and Sky.

They have a similar philosophy of targeting a Tour win and building a team with that explicit aim, for Sky this meant even sacrificing a shot at the Green Jersey. They have a slick set up and in Brailsford have an organised set up that puts many teams to shame. This proved its worth for the GB track campaign too.

The key difference is that other than Bradley winning the tour, (and in not such a dominating style as Armstrong used to did), and having a team dedicated to just the one aim of that supported him, there is little to compare him to Lance.

Bradley has a long pedigree of track and road cycling. His recent work has been on his climbing but I have never seen the dominance that Lance showed when showing off his new found climbing legs. Bradley can be a bit truculent at times but he has always been that way, it is not arrogance. He does not surround himself with the same team America type set up that Lance has. So other than the fact that Bradley is riding well there are no other rumours that he is doping. He does not have a Cancer story to tout, and just seems to do his job in the way he wants to and remains, to me at least, to have kept a pretty level head.

Now I could be wrong and I will continue to check my reasoned judgment on him, but I can see no reason to assume he is anything but inncent at the moment.

Sky’s anti doping stance is good and tough for them, they should be applauded for this and their swift action over the Julich etc issues was prompt and decisive. Inviting David Walsh on an all access pass is just another step for them to show this. I can't see what else they could be expected to do.

So by all means keep an open mind if you are not convinced yet, but don’t accuse unless you have anything other than his results as suspicion.

One thing the Armstrong affair shows is that the truth always come out, even with his power in the end Lance could not stop this. Bradkey knows that and so does Brailsford, IMHO the stakes are just too high for them to cheat.

Mud sticks especially if thrown in that ammount, I fail to see what mud could be thrown at Bradley/Sky, is there any yet other than results?

If think Sky are clean as a team, else I would not continue to follow cycling. After all if they are not clean after all they are doing what does that say for the rest of the peleton.

tailwindhome

^

You should post more often.

50 posts in 10 years isn't enough if they could be of this quality.

disgruntledgoat

RichN95 wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

micron wrote:

Ddraver you learn from it and move the sport on - and impose lifetime bans if it happens again. Would we have had USADA if riders hadn't finally spoken out? Testing didn't catch Armstrong, testimony did. I have a lot of sympathy for rich's case about investing in more testing but in all the shitstorm currently engulfing cycling & other sports, it's not testing that has exposed the corruption, dirt & lies.

Remember the Boyer emails? That kind of stuff isn't exposed by testing but by people feeling free to come forward to testify.

Your argument in support of a T&R commission is that a bunch or riders testified under oath with the full wieght of the law hanging over them?

Who decides what riders get called? How far back do we go? What if somebody called declines to attend?

They will have no legal standing beyond the WADA code. No-one can be made to appear. No-one can be made to swear an oath.

@Micron

Can you explain, in light of the above, why you expect such a process to produce a bright new dawn?

micron

Mr poll, wanting a greater voice for fans in cycling should not be confused with having a voice as a fan. I would never seek to or presume to speak for all - cycling fans are too broad a church for that.

Hive minds exist everywhere - even here - but the trick s not how you tolerate the opinions of people you agree with but if you are simply intolerant of those you do not.

ddraver

micron wrote:

Then try and shape the debate rather than bullying? You accuse the 'twaliban' of being closed minded etc yet your replies seem to offer more of the same. If you think it's important that other teams are scrutinised, start that conversation. Offer facts. Educate. Start the intelligent debate. If you think it's pointless then leave them alone to get on with it. But don't fall into the trap of doing that which you accuse others of.

Last night you mentioned that you had spoken to DB about leinders - that would be an interesting point to start. I'd be very interested to hear what he had to say from an eyewitness

Assume, you re not talking to me - If so I was referring to the Cycle Sport Mag link I tweeted....

WRT to the top part - we do - we do it on here, which, as I'm sure you ve noticed is much more civilised that what happens on twitter. Unfortunately we are far from the only bike forum, and I'd hazard a guess that few Journos/Riders read the posts. I don't have the time to spend on twitter replying to every tweet and trying to talk sense in to people that clearly are uninterested in the truth, only their own standing in the e-world (these last few days have been very quiet). That means all we can do is stand back shaking our head at what cycling on twitter has become, and despair that people in high places in the sport are taking some of the people seriously!

AKA, what bockers wrote...

micron

Dg I don't think anybody claims that TRC will be a magic bullet. As far as I know there are no details set in stone to comment on either. My stance is simply that testimony - BALCO, USADA - has proved every bit as effective as testing in catching cheats, and moreso in bringing much murkier practices to light - bad governance, corruption, money laundering among them.

The idea of TRC isn't new but may be the best chance the sport has to clean up in every way.

disgruntledgoat

micron wrote:

Dg I don't think anybody claims that TRC will be a magic bullet. As far as I know there are no details set in stone to comment on either. My stance is simply that testimony - BALCO, USADA - has proved every bit as effective as testing in catching cheats, and moreso in bringing much murkier practices to light - bad governance, corruption, money laundering among them.

The idea of TRC isn't new but may be the best chance the sport has to clean up in every way.

I agree that catching cheats, however you do it, is the best way to clean up a sport.

However, you're conflating two different approaches. One (BALCO, USADA) is a process with its legitimacy in legislation, a defined jurisdiction and a threat of real (not just sporting) punishment, should witnesses perjure themselves.

The other is established under the auspices of either an antidoping authority or a governing body, it cannot compel people to testify or to tell the truth and any sanction imposed would probably be overturned in the CAS. You talk about corruption and money laundering, there are generally some very bad people benefitting from these, to the extent that, in my line of work, I've heard of a senior public official being killed for testifying in a court of law about a corrupt public body. Why on earth would an athlete with a short career put himself in the line of fire for no reason other than "doing the right thing"?

EKIMIKE

micron wrote:

Or is it that you feel twitter has a disproportionate influence on the way cycling is reported? If so I couldn't agree more - think journos Reporting tweets as news is the height of laziness. It's one forum among many and I'd like all fans voices to get more of a hearing. So why not work with rather than against. Problem is, your attitude makes you seem as closed minded as that which you claim to abhor.

Nice, salient point IMO. Especially the bold bits.

As others had alluded to, Twitter is fundamentally flawed. Not that it should be ignored, just that it should be viewed with such consideration of its flaws.

It's far more suited to mundane matters like celebrity culture, consumer culture e.t.c. Basically, nothing fact based. It's all about provocation (direct insults, innuendo's, false assimilations) and it promotes an absolutist mentality (black or white).

Because it has gained a (disproportionate) foothold in mainstream media then I would agree that there is an argument for joining them. Problem is you can't be effective in making a point without being 'the other side of the coin' so to speak. Predictably the 'Twitter coin' had a continuum of sides which sustains something that would have possibly (read preferably) been a short term fad.

David Millar made a nice point about Kimmage - "don't fuck with fanatics" - just let them be and appreciate their occasional brilliance. Twitter is a fanatic factory. It needs to be left alone.

RichN95.

micron wrote:

Dg I don't think anybody claims that TRC will be a magic bullet. As far as I know there are no details set in stone to comment on either. My stance is simply that testimony - BALCO, USADA - has proved every bit as effective as testing in catching cheats, and moreso in bringing much murkier practices to light - bad governance, corruption, money laundering among them.

The idea of TRC isn't new but may be the best chance the sport has to clean up in every way.

But BALCO and USADA had some federal involvement. Some actual legal clout. The TRC is like some glorified AA meeting. There is no incentive to turn up and no leverage.