Sky and David Walsh

disgruntledgoat

Richmond Racer wrote:

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.

Also this.

r0bh

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

If this is really the case then you/the person who told you should inform UKAD so they can investigate it, not make insinuations on here/Twitter.

Richmond Racer

You or your source, take your 'compelling evidence' to UKAD. This cannot be said louder or clearer.

micron

Richmond Racer wrote:

'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?

Haven't seen the brailsford quote - do you have a link? Alas, I didn't get elected but then as a red in a sea of Tory blue to come as close as I did was quite an achievement. Since I made no secret of my candidacy or where I live on twitter that hardly feels like being called out - why, mrs wiggins herself chose to tweet my name and intimate that she had my address.

I'm a bit disappointed to be honest - id been led to believe this was a forum based on measured and reasonable debate, not name calling and personal insults. I get less of that on twitter

But I still haven't fathomed why it makes you all quite so damned angry ?

Oh and as for going to UKAD, info was confidential - maybe I should call the UCI hotline eh

disgruntledgoat

micron wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

'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?

Haven't seen the brailsford quote - do you have a link? Alas, I didn't get elected but then as a red in a sea of Tory blue to come as close as I did was quite an achievement. Since I made no secret of my candidacy or where I live on twitter that hardly feels like being called out - why, mrs wiggins herself chose to tweet my name and intimate that she had my address.

I'm a bit disappointed to be honest - id been led to believe this was a forum based on measured and reasonable debate, not name calling and personal insults. I get less of that on twitter

But I still haven't fathomed why it makes you all quite so damned angry ?

Oh and as for going to UKAD, info was confidential - maybe I should call the UCI hotline eh

I have not insulted you, or been angry.

Seriously, why did you not urge your source to take what they allege to somebody in a poisition to do something with it?

EKIMIKE

micron wrote:

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...

Not quite how I meant it. Certainly not a personal slight. More that things get lionised (or vilified) too easily on Twitter - it's simply the only way you can formulate an identifiable, unequivocal opinion in 140 characters. Be extreme, vivid, exaggerated or provocative endorse something extreme, exaggerated or provocative. I just don't like that kind of black/white environment. And it's definitely the environment, not the people. Otherwise reasonable people with reasonable viewpoints come across as fanatical, fundamentalist and absolutist bigots on Twitter simply because the form of expression it so limited.

Those who are most extreme, vivid, exaggerated or provocative become lionised and become the centre of attention, showered in adulation by those not willing to be extreme, vivid, exaggerated or provocative themselves but who will endorse another user in that respect.

If you try and be reasonable in 140 characters you come across as vague - no-one can then identify your opinion or viewpoint which negates the purpose of posting anything at all.

Richmond Racer

Not good enough. If your source wont report it then clearly its not robust and wouldnt stand up. Therefore you proliferate 'I know something you dont, its suss and it throws up red flags' relating to something that your source wont take to the relevant AD agency.

Please.

bompington

micron wrote:

...for some, there is a similar accretion of detail around sky ...

Oh, the good old weasel words "for some"...

I would be interested to see a quick summation of the evidence that has accreted around sky. We could perhaps leave out
1. They have employed some people who had probably been involved in doping
and
2. They seem to have done rather well

as these are well known, and have been frequently refuted (or at least it has often been shown that they can very easily be accounted for by other theories, Occam's razor style).

Perhaps some of your compelling secret evidence would help here? ;-)

micron

EKIMIKE wrote:

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.

Agree, absolutely - particularly your point about supportership - have never been a team fan, just a lover of the sport in all its filth and beauty. Vaughters has tried to build that kind of partisanship, goes with his love of US sports franchises :roll:

Your points about twitter are interesting - very far from my personal experience, but then the best convos are usually 1 to 1 on DM. Really I think it's a bit marmite - I got bored with forums, with the endless pomposity and disappearing up yr own arseholeness of some forum voices. I like the immediacy. But that's very much a personal viewpoint.

micron

I knew that would get you all going of course I don't have any secret compelling evidence! But you were all ready to dismiss it out of hand simply because of the messenger. Like I say, that pesky open mindedness - cuts both ways

feltkuota

micron wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

'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?

Haven't seen the brailsford quote - do you have a link? Alas, I didn't get elected but then as a red in a sea of Tory blue to come as close as I did was quite an achievement. Since I made no secret of my candidacy or where I live on twitter that hardly feels like being called out - why, mrs wiggins herself chose to tweet my name and intimate that she had my address.

I'm a bit disappointed to be honest - id been led to believe this was a forum based on measured and reasonable debate, not name calling and personal insults. I get less of that on twitter

But I still haven't fathomed why it makes you all quite so damned angry ?

Oh and as for going to UKAD, info was confidential - maybe I should call the UCI hotline eh

Can't answer for anyone else but the reasons, in no particular order, it makes me "angry" are:

1 Accusations are easy to sling at anyone,
2 Should one be supportive of a team or a rider there is an all to often "fanboy" thrown at them
3 The likeness to LA and USP in the way they ride/train/focus is voiced as reason for suspicion
4 Trying to do things the right way from the start, getting things wrong but being vilified for their good intentions
5 Hearing the same stuff over and over again doesn't make it right however how much energy and time is taking up fighting the good fight with reponses.

"angry" is a relative term

disgruntledgoat

micron wrote:

I knew that would get you all going of course I don't have any secret compelling evidence! But you were all ready to dismiss it out of hand simply because of the messenger. Like I say, that pesky open mindedness - cuts both ways

No... we dismissed it out of hand because you didn't produce any evidence and we've been saying all along that we will only condemn based on evidence. You seem to be seeing what you want to here.

Richmond Racer

^this

Have you thought about taking up cycling in reverse, because you're clearly cut out for back-pedalling? As fond as you also are for changing the direction of an argument if you dont have an answer or dont like the one you've have to give if you were truthful.

disgruntledgoat

disgruntledgoat wrote:

micron wrote:

I knew that would get you all going of course I don't have any secret compelling evidence! But you were all ready to dismiss it out of hand simply because of the messenger. Like I say, that pesky open mindedness - cuts both ways

No... we dismissed it out of hand because you didn't produce any evidence and we've been saying all along that we will only condemn based on evidence. You seem to be seeing what you want to here.

I've thought about it and I honestly cannot identify an inconsistency in anybody's position and their reaction to your ruse. Can you assist?

RichN95.

micron wrote:

I knew that would get you all going of course I don't have any secret compelling evidence! But you were all ready to dismiss it out of hand simply because of the messenger. Like I say, that pesky open mindedness - cuts both ways

It's not because of the messenger at all. It's because people on here aren't nearly as stupid as you think they are. People have been pulling 'I've got a secret' stunt on the internet for ever. People can see that BS a mile off.

tailwindhome

micron wrote:

I knew that would get you all going of course I don't have any secret compelling evidence! But you were all ready to dismiss it out of hand simply because of the messenger. Like I say, that pesky open mindedness - cuts both ways

I'm out.

ddraver

Macaloon wrote:

ddraver wrote:

AKA, what bockers wrote...

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

Ah ok, well I ll accept that. It was a beautifully written, well balanced post based on facts! It's always good to remember people can do that. Perhaps I'm still scarred from Trev the Rev's idiocy

ddraver

TailWindHome wrote:

micron wrote:

I knew that would get you all going of course I don't have any secret compelling evidence! But you were all ready to dismiss it out of hand simply because of the messenger. Like I say, that pesky open mindedness - cuts both ways

I'm out.

Well you ve neatly proved our point about the Twaliban there...

Richmond Racer

I'm following TWH's lead. What an utter waste of time and energy this has been.

Pross

micron wrote:

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.

This is what I want to hear about though, I've seen nothing other than Sky use similar race tactics and they had a few ex?-dopers on the team and management (what team doesn't?). And please don't hide behind the 'information I was told in person that's confidential' line as anyone can say that. At least give us an idea of the 'red flags' I still think the Leinders thing was simply taking on a specialist cycling doctor without due diligence rather than anything more sinister but I will concede that with hindsight it was a big mistake on the other hand though no-one batted an eyelid when he was first appointed and then when De Looy? mentioned it that it suddenly became this huge issue and Brailsford should have known all along. Unfortunately those on the pro side can't put forward evidence to show a rider or team are clean so providing open access to a cynical journalist and possibly publishing blood data etc. is the most that can be done.

I like to think I'm a realist and certainly don't subscribe to the 'he's British so must be clean' school of thought. I will also freely admit to not believing the LA doping rumours at first but then as people like Betsy started to speak out and things such as the UCI donation came to light I started to believe the truth. Maybe this will be seen to show I'm gullible but it also shows I'm prepared to change my mind when the evidence convinces me.

EKIMIKE

True about Twitter being one of those marmite things. Tbh I love it and hate it in equal measure (much like forums). Ultimately, I don't think it is cut out for serious media. However it is great for 'trivial' media for want of a better word.

I have to agree the 'I have knowledge but it's a secret' trick is just a worthless absurdity. Until you can articulate why it is important (i.e. source, content, context) then it is worthless and entirely unpersuasive.

EDIT: just saw the admission of B/S. Point still stands though. It's proves nothing. It is impossible to dismiss 'nothing' out of hand. There was nothing to dismiss and no-one dismissed anything. Of course you 'shoot the messenger' if the messenger delivers no message - the messenger isn't doing their job!

Jez mon

micron wrote:

I knew that would get you all going of course I don't have any secret compelling evidence! But you were all ready to dismiss it out of hand simply because of the messenger. Like I say, that pesky open mindedness - cuts both ways

If anything, posters actually thought you may have valid evidence, rather than dismissing it straight away. See the go to the valid people with this evidence posts...

But really you win either way, because if people had bit, you can go oh ha ha, you're so stupid, or if posters don't bite, you can claim it's simply because of who you are.

nic_77

micron wrote:

I knew that would get you all going of course I don't have any secret compelling evidence! But you were all ready to dismiss it out of hand simply because of the messenger. Like I say, that pesky open mindedness - cuts both ways

I was going to post my own balanced perspective, but have just deleted that... I fear you may be beyond reasoned discussion, or that reasoned discussion may be beyond you.

Likewise, you seem to have no interest in curing cycling.

I'll return to my original opinion that, for you (or at least the character that you play), this is all about your 'ego'.

Good luck in your quest.

micron

Ok, let's try this another way: you don't like the endless suspicion focused on sky because they employed a couple of doping doctors and ex-dopers whilst zero tolerance was in place yet you would have the focus turned on other teams for, um, employing dodgy doctors and ex-dopers without having a zero tolerance policy?

Question is, why is there more evidence against Ibarguren than Leinders? Or are there degrees of dodginess?

Btw RR did you dig out the link where DB 'called me out' personally or we're you just making that up to see if I'd run away?

disgruntledgoat

micron wrote:

Ok, let's try this another way: you don't like the endless suspicion focused on sky because they employed a couple of doping doctors and ex-dopers whilst zero tolerance was in place yet you would have the focus turned on other teams for, um, employing dodgy doctors and ex-dopers without having a zero tolerance policy?

Question is, why is there more evidence against Ibarguren than Leinders? Or are there degrees of dodginess?

Btw RR did you dig out the link where DB 'called me out' personally or we're you just making that up to see if I'd run away?

It's not a competition is it? You've been asked to provide basis for your suspicion beyond guilt by association and conjecture. You've failed to do so beyond a ruse around "secret evidence" and making comparisons. It's quite simple, put up evidence of Sky cheating to win races or turn similar scrutiny on a team like Lampre who have continued to employ a guy who's been busted twice and had multiple riders caught up in the Padua investigation

greeny12

Meanwhile... in the real world... there's some bike racing going on.

And it's less than a month to Paris-Nice!!!

Perhaps it's time to take the hairshirts off for a minute, leave the anti-doping crusade to the people who can actually do something about it and just enjoy the sport for the riot of fun, danger and colour that it is...

Pross

Richmond Racer wrote:

I'm following TWH's lead. What an utter waste of time and energy this has been.

I'm tempted to agree. I don't follow @festinagirl and with micron's first few posts on here I thought you lot had been wrong and she was prepared to enter into rational debate and consider other views / back up her own point-of-view with some form of evidence when not confined to character limits. I'm always keen to learn and re-consider my own view if presented with material to convince me (or even just get me thinking along a different route) but there has been nothing new here. I was hoping we might get something about having seen blood values or power figures that are consistent with dopers but no, it's still just that the team dominated a few races and rode similar tactics to USPS.

nic_77

micron wrote:

Btw RR did you dig out the link where DB 'called me out' personally...?

Why, do you need it for your scrapbook?

ddraver

feltkuota wrote:

micron wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

'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?

Haven't seen the brailsford quote - do you have a link? Alas, I didn't get elected but then as a red in a sea of Tory blue to come as close as I did was quite an achievement. Since I made no secret of my candidacy or where I live on twitter that hardly feels like being called out - why, mrs wiggins herself chose to tweet my name and intimate that she had my address.

I'm a bit disappointed to be honest - id been led to believe this was a forum based on measured and reasonable debate, not name calling and personal insults. I get less of that on twitter

But I still haven't fathomed why it makes you all quite so damned angry ?

Oh and as for going to UKAD, info was confidential - maybe I should call the UCI hotline eh

Can't answer for anyone else but the reasons, in no particular order, it makes me "angry" are:

1 Accusations are easy to sling at anyone,
2 Should one be supportive of a team or a rider there is an all to often "fanboy" thrown at them
3 The likeness to LA and USP in the way they ride/train/focus is voiced as reason for suspicion
4 Trying to do things the right way from the start, getting things wrong but being vilified for their good intentions
5 Hearing the same stuff over and over again doesn't make it right however how much energy and time is taking up fighting the good fight with reponses.

"angry" is a relative term

+1 - Michele Ferrari was 100% right to focues on getting the most out of training. Best example being his absolute obsession with the riders weight. Sky/Wiggisn are also 100% correct to make sure that their riders are as light as they can possibly be. Its a bit of a simplification (but not much of one) to say that cycling is purely a game of who has the best Power to weight ratio.

Michele Ferrari was 100% WRONG to inject his riders with EPO or transfused blood (even though it's the best way to make a rider go faster).

The Twaliban appear to be of the opinion that the 2 must automatically go together, that if a rider concentrates on getting as much weight as possible off, that he must also be doping "because that's what Armstrong did"

(I'm trying not be be insulting here but I can't) The total idiocy of that is mind boggling!

ddraver

Pross wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

I'm following TWH's lead. What an utter waste of time and energy this has been.

I'm tempted to agree. I don't follow @festinagirl and with micron's first few posts on here I thought you lot had been wrong and she was prepared to enter into rational debate and consider other views / back up her own point-of-view with some form of evidence when not confined to character limits. I'm always keen to learn and re-consider my own view if presented with material to convince me (or even just get me thinking along a different route) but there has been nothing new here. I was hoping we might get something about having seen blood values or power figures that are consistent with dopers but no, it's still just that the team dominated a few races and rode similar tactics to USPS.

+1 again....shame