Sky and David Walsh

micron

Ddraver so your aim is to drive a group of people off twitter because you don't agree with them? Thanks for clarifying that.

I enjoyed blockers post too - having seen wiggins riding on the road in France a fair amount I think the picture is perhaps a bit more nuanced, but good points there. And yes, if they are on the jollop, then it's an extremely high risk game they're playing. But I am still troubled by leinders presence - would you be prepared to share what DB told you as you mentioned last night? I believe you said you'd asked him about this and he'd replied?

micron

Rich, seems like brailsford was right - silly Michael ashenden and jonathan vaughterstrying to clean up the sport how would you organise TRC or what would you do beyond testing? And what of Rasmussen finally coming forward, or the raft of Rabobank riders? What made them confess?

ddraver

micron wrote:

Ddraver so your aim is to drive a group of people off twitter because you don't agree with them? Thanks for clarifying that.

Yawn, now you re just making yourself look foolish.

ddraver

micron wrote:

Rich, seems like brailsford was right - silly Michael ashenden and jonathan vaughterstrying to clean up the sport how would you organise TRC or what would you do beyond testing? And what of Rasmussen finally coming forward, or the raft of Rabobank riders? What made them confess?

Well it certainly wasnt reconciliation was it - they ve taken their punishments. I'd hazard a guess at plain and simple guilt...

Richmond Racer

ddraver wrote:

micron wrote:

Ddraver so your aim is to drive a group of people off twitter because you don't agree with them? Thanks for clarifying that.

Yawn, now you re just making yourself look foolish.

Reading back, chap, I cant see where you've articulated that's your aim...

Confused of BR...

tailwindhome

I'm not sure why people think a TRC will help in anyway. Please explain.

disgruntledgoat

micron wrote:

Rich, seems like brailsford was right - silly Michael ashenden and jonathan vaughterstrying to clean up the sport how would you organise TRC or what would you do beyond testing? And what of Rasmussen finally coming forward, or the raft of Rabobank riders? What made them confess?

There are already many excellent laws to cover things like public health, sporting fraud, drug trafficking, money laundering etc etc. The police in various territories have an interest in catching those implicated in such matters, I would hazard.

micron

Ekimike: but this forum isn't fundamentally flawed? It seems to me there's a general mindset here and that, in your experience with twitter, you haven't found like minds there. Believe me, there are as many sides to the coin on twitter as there are opinions on cycling, you just have to find them. And 140 doesn't suit everybody, that's true. But you'd find like minds if that was your intention. Engaging with something with the intention of finding opinions to disagree with seems fundamentally flawed to me. Personally I follow all sorts of people - even ddraver - because I don't believe there is one way of looking at any issue & I'm always open to learning. I may still fundamentally disagree with the general mindset here - sky are clean, no questions asked - but I'd be willing to bet we have common ground on other things.

Have you ever followed a race live on twitter? You should try it, it really is terrific getting the impressions of thousands of fans all over the world - a proper sense of the massive fan community.

I think like anything, it depends on what you go looking for - if you want to hate it you will

Pross

A couple of points from me (both already touched on by others):-

1. Yes, I can understand that there might be less chance of selling a doping story to the papers if it involves some dodgy foreign team / riders no-one in this country has ever heard of but that doesn't apply on Twitter where by definition those who are following will generally have a good knowledge of the sport. Therefore, even if the professional media are concentrating on Sky why is that the point of focus for Twitter commentators as well? I'm not naiive enough to trust any team or rider to be clean beyond doubt but if I had to pick a team that was then it would be a toss up between Sky and Garmin. Yes, they were fools to go in with the 'clean team' mantra and they ended up backing themselves into a corner with the zero tolerance policy. However, I think sponsor pressure was what forced the initial 100% clean statements and the zero tolerance and that is the reason why I would be confident there is no team sanctioned doping policy there and I suspect their in-house testing will be more rigorous than the official testing to ensure no individuals go rogue. From a purely cycling point of view there are plenty of other high profile targets that are far more likely to bare fruit. In addition it would be good for a serious journalist with doping experience to get stuck into other sports but they seem to be happy hanging around the low hanging fruit of cycling rather than taking the brave approach to investigate more mainstream sports.

2. What would it take for Sky to satisfy you, on the balance of probablity, that Sky are a clean team? Will you be happy if Walsh has a full season of completely unfettered access as has apparently been offered him or would you need the same invitation extended to Kimmage? What if Kimmage did have that level of access and concurred that Sky are very probably clean? The problem is that there are people out there who for whatever reason are determined that Sky must be doping and will never be convinced otherwise as you can't prove a negative. I believe that in part some of these are people (and I'm not including you in this) who believed in Armstrong after the evidence was stacking against him and felt so let down that they want to make sure they are never in that position again.

Sorry, I'll add a third point.

3. Why are so many people so convinced that Sky are doping? It seems to be mainly because they rode with similar tactics to USPS but then that is hardly a surprise as they are sound tactics for a team with enough money to run a squad full of riders who could be GT contenders in their own right. Everything else (speed on climbs, power data, VAM etc.) show no similarity to the USPS days. I'd be far more cynical if Wiggins had won the Tour with a series of attacks and breaks in the mountains but basically Sky controlled the race to suit his style.

RichN95.

micron wrote:

Rich, seems like brailsford was right - silly Michael ashenden and jonathan vaughterstrying to clean up the sport how would you organise TRC or what would you do beyond testing? And what of Rasmussen finally coming forward, or the raft of Rabobank riders? What made them confess?

Rasmussen has already served his ban and is suing Rabobank. Dekker's already been caught. Others think they about to be - leverage.

Of course there are some from 1988. Let's spend a million Euros to find out if Teka or Systeme U took some pills.

What you want is a parade of people to confess so you can say 'I told you so', and 'look at these awful people'.
But few will come forward and nothing will be done with the information, most of which will be useless.

And just because Ashenden and Vaughters invited you to make their coffee for them, it doesn't make them the last word on anti-doping.

EKIMIKE

TailWindHome wrote:

I'm not sure why people think a TRC will help in anyway. Please explain.

This is my take...

It's a nice idea and in theory creates a clean break. It sets a strong new precedent once the time-limited amnesty ends - dope and your career as a cyclist is over.

However there needs to be caution in the approach. T&R is a much vaunted and hyped idea since post-apartheid South Africa. Thing is, the crack have appeared in that instance. It looked like a rainbow but there is seemingly a steaming pile of shit at the end of it instead of a pot of gold.

It has massive potential. Both good and bad.

tailwindhome

micron wrote:

I may still fundamentally disagree with the general mindset here - sky are clean, no questions asked - but I'd be willing to bet we have common ground on other things.

I think you are wrong in your perception of the mindset.

Generally the mindset is that there is no 'evidence' that Sky have or are doping and that Kimmage's rants on Twitter don't constitute evidence however often they are retweeted.


Interesting the generally mindset of the 'established' posters is that they don't like Sky, Murdoch, Brailsford or how Sky choked the life out of 2012.

disgruntledgoat

TailWindHome wrote:

micron wrote:

I may still fundamentally disagree with the general mindset here - sky are clean, no questions asked - but I'd be willing to bet we have common ground on other things.

I think you are wrong in your perception of the mindset.

Amen, my mindset is that I'm not prepared to condemn somebody or sling mud at them without some compelling testimony or evidence. Neither exists for Sky.

ddraver

TailWindHome wrote:

micron wrote:

I may still fundamentally disagree with the general mindset here - sky are clean, no questions asked - but I'd be willing to bet we have common ground on other things.

I think you are wrong in your perception of the mindset.

Generally the mindset is that there is no 'evidence' that Sky have or are doping and that Kimmage's rants on Twitter don't constitute evidence however often they are retweeted.


Interesting the generally mindset of the 'established' posters is that they don't like Sky, Murdoch, Brailsford or how Sky choked the life out of 2012.

+1. I consider Sky one of the best Anti doping teams in the Pro TOur (Garmin and 2013 OGE since you ask) and if it was revealed they were doping in the style of USPS or even Riis/Tinkoff (ie dont tell me but I won't ask) then that would be me out of Pro-cycling as I'm just not interested in watching a bunch of cheats and liars, now matter how exciting they are or how pretty the scenery is

Only exception to TWH is that I think it was a great Tour, but then I'm interested in more than just the GC battle, to be honest, that's actually of fairly minor importance stage to stage for me...

EKIMIKE

micron wrote:

Ekimike: but this forum isn't fundamentally flawed? It seems to me there's a general mindset here and that, in your experience with twitter, you haven't found like minds there. Believe me, there are as many sides to the coin on twitter as there are opinions on cycling, you just have to find them. And 140 doesn't suit everybody, that's true. But you'd find like minds if that was your intention. Engaging with something with the intention of finding opinions to disagree with seems fundamentally flawed to me. Personally I follow all sorts of people - even ddraver - because I don't believe there is one way of looking at any issue & I'm always open to learning. I may still fundamentally disagree with the general mindset here - sky are clean, no questions asked - but I'd be willing to bet we have common ground on other things.

Have you ever followed a race live on twitter? You should try it, it really is terrific getting the impressions of thousands of fans all over the world - a proper sense of the massive fan community.

I think like anything, it depends on what you go looking for - if you want to hate it you will

No, no. This forum is fundamentally flawed too! It's just Twitter super-concentrates things. You end up with a race to the bottom. At least here that is tempered by there being no limit on your words. You can favour reason over impact. There is a certain inevitability about trying to achieve maximum impact with 140 characters.

I've never actually signed up or used it 'properly' (in the sense of making my opinions known, or at least trying). So in that sense I am not embittered like many people on here. I'm not one for recognition, adulation or plaudits - i find it embarrassing. In short, vis-a-vis Twitter - I take it or leave it.

Using Twitter to follow a race is the perfect example of why it's great. Following a race is one of the only things i've ever engaged with Twitter for. The facts are easy obtained and evaluated. A race is unequivocal. More importantly it's not a big issue. It's relatively mundane, but for the emotions it sparks and everyone understands those emotions. You don't have to rationalise those emotions with analysis and debate. For example, no-one got excited about Wiggins winning the Tour because on balance Walsh is a better journalist than Kimmage (that's a hypothetical example not an opinion!).

slim_boy_fat

I'll add my +1 to this. Not got my head stuck in the sand but until someone puts some decent evidence in front of me then I'm not going to accuse them. If that evidence is put in front of me and it's compelling enough then I'll condemn them as quick as anyone. And from what I've seen this place in not pro or anti Sky just a bunch of people with varying opinion discussing in much better detail a subject that seems to be discussed on twitter in headlines. All headlines and not too much discussion, and those who churn out the most tweets tend to get heard and heralded as 'the great white hope'.

Richmond Racer

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

I'll add my +1 to this. Not got my head stuck in the sand but until someone puts some decent evidence in front of me then I'm not going to accuse them. If that evidence is put in front of me and it's compelling enough then I'll condemn them as quick as anyone. And from what I've seen this place in not pro or anti Sky just a bunch of people with varying opinion discussing in much better detail a subject that seems to be discussed on twitter in headlines. All headlines and not too much discussion, and those who churn out the most tweets tend to get heard and heralded as 'the great white hope'.

+1. Well said.

Macaloon

DD adding the mental to sentiment, right there^. Despite the inevitable anglo-bias of most contributors, I don't see anybody getting away with acting the hysterical fan-boy here denying the validity of questions. Similarly, if no evidence is produced, allegations are called-out as baseless. Sane and informative.

Pross

micron wrote:

I may still fundamentally disagree with the general mindset here - sky are clean, no questions asked - but I'd be willing to bet we have common ground on other things.

Now there's the problem for me - you assume that because people on here are pointing out there is no evidence to back up the mud slinging that occurs in Sky's direction from some on Twitter together with certain other cycling forums that we believe Sky are clean, no questions asked. I think the point of view is more "why are Sky the primary target when there are plenty of teams and riders out there who are far more suspicious". Unfortunately the response to anyone who queries this seems to be to scream 'fanboy' and ask why people haven't learned from Armstrong.

I'll ask again - why is it Sky that get the bulk of the flak both from Kimmage and nobodys with loud voices on Twitter?

EKIMIKE

Same for me. There will always be that lingering caveat - they could be slurping the sauce. But i take the same view with all teams not just Sky.

For me it's more about the spectacle instead of the teams a riders. 'Supportership' has an inherent naivety about it and it always becomes tedious eventually.

The reason I find doping wrong (setting aside morality and integrity, briefly) is that it normalises the spectacle. Supehuman performances every year, every race, every day eventually becomes an average spectacle. You need the rise and fall, the peaks and troughs, the excitement and the disappointment.

ddraver

Macaloon wrote:

DD adding the mental to sentiment, right there^.

Ouch! What did I say?!?

mroli

Add one to that - Sky is not the favoured BR team. You'll see criticism of them being automatons, power meter monkeys, corporate lackeys and lacking in grace and charm.

There has also been criticism of their recruitment policy, the 0 percent tolerance thing, their tactics and their PR. I generally think though that people want an element of proof before a team is damned for doping.

For instance - I find Dowsett's move to Movistar REALLY interesting - from conversations that mates have had with him around the country lanes of Essex, he is anti-doping. How he'll fit into a team like Movistar which isn't the whitest of white will be revealing.

Macaloon

ddraver wrote:

AKA, what bockers wrote...

Seemed like a sentimental moment, possibly caused by prolonged immersion in the irrational.

Richmond Racer

mroli wrote:

Add one to that - Sky is not the favoured BR team. You'll see criticism of them being automatons, power meter monkeys, corporate lackeys and lacking in grace and charm.

There has also been criticism of their recruitment policy, the 0 percent tolerance thing, their tactics and their PR. I generally think though that people want an element of proof before a team is damned for doping.

For instance - I find Dowsett's move to Movistar REALLY interesting - from conversations that mates have had with him around the country lanes of Essex, he is anti-doping. How he'll fit into a team like Movistar which isn't the whitest of white will be revealing.

One of the cycling journos asked him what questions he'd asked MOV about their AD policies before joining, and Dowsett replied that he hadnt. His approach seems to be 'I know my ethics and how I've been brought up and along through the sport, and I'm confident in my own ethics.'

micron

Rich, that was a great post until the personal insult. I make great coffee, but not on that occasion

Again, given that testing didn't catch Armstrong, how would you clean up the sport?

Not quite sure I get the general bitterness towards twitter as being all about personal adulation etc. I couldn't give as hit if I had 1 follower or a million - in fact you'll be delighted to know I only have to so much as mention wiggins/sky & I shed followers like a shedding thing.

I applaud your wanting evidence but then, as I've been asked many times, what would convince you? After all, Armstrong sailed through 200+ tests without a positive I've heard some compelling evidence but not on twitter (confidential face to face conversations - key word being confidential) that raises major red flags for me. I wouldn't share it there so won't share it here. But don't assume that people a) get all their 'evidence' from twitter and b) that there aren't red flags

tailwindhome

micron wrote:

I've heard some compelling evidence but not on twitter (confidential face to face conversations - key word being confidential) that raises major red flags for me. I wouldn't share it there so won't share it here. But don't assume that people a) get all their 'evidence' from twitter and b) that there aren't red flags

Dear God why didn't you say you had secret compelling evidence from the start.

I feel so foolish now.

If only there was a crusading journalist you could pass this secret evidence onto

disgruntledgoat

TailWindHome wrote:

micron wrote:

I've heard some compelling evidence but not on twitter (confidential face to face conversations - key word being confidential) that raises major red flags for me. I wouldn't share it there so won't share it here. But don't assume that people a) get all their 'evidence' from twitter and b) that there aren't red flags

Dear God why didn't you say you had secret compelling evidence from the start.

I feel so foolish now.

If only there was a crusading journalist you could pass this secret evidence onto

Anyone can say this. Unless you are prepared to back it up, there is no point raising it.

Richmond Racer

'micron': one more thing to add. For you and your 'gang' its got really personal with Wiggins and Sky, stemming from two things:

1. Wiggins presser after stage 8 of the Tour when he called you all out
2. Brailsford's quotes when he said that they knew who you guys are, and even - I might not have this exactly right - mentioning that one of you was/is as a local councillor.

Sound familiar?

Richmond Racer

micron wrote:

Rich, that was a great post until the personal insult. I make great coffee, but not on that occasion

Again, given that testing didn't catch Armstrong, how would you clean up the sport?

Not quite sure I get the general bitterness towards twitter as being all about personal adulation etc. I couldn't give as hit if I had 1 follower or a million - in fact you'll be delighted to know I only have to so much as mention wiggins/sky & I shed followers like a shedding thing.

I applaud your wanting evidence but then, as I've been asked many times, what would convince you? After all, Armstrong sailed through 200+ tests without a positive I've heard some compelling evidence but not on twitter (confidential face to face conversations - key word being confidential) that raises major red flags for me. I wouldn't share it there so won't share it here. But don't assume that people a) get all their 'evidence' from twitter and b) that there aren't red flags

Then you - or your source - should take report it to UKAD. Otherwise you're enforcing omerta.

micron

Mroli - interesting must investigate further

Pross - excellent points all. I think the 'evidence' problem cuts both ways in that both the 'pro' and 'anti' camps either expect or demand something absolutely concrete of the other. Yet with Armstrong it was the accretion of detail and, for some, there is a similar accretion of detail around sky that raises red flags which the other side is quick to dismiss and vice versa. Thus we end up with that awful Armstrong formulation that extraordinary accusations need extraordinary proof when really accusations need proof that both sides are willing to discuss without insults and name calling.

Example, leinders - brailsford was either naive or cunning and you can argue it both ways.