Sky and David Walsh

dish_dash

micron wrote:

First apologies for ducking out so abruptly - school run mum day.

Secondly apologies for doing something quite so dumb - unlike me to let frustration get the better of me. Always try to argue the point - whether I agree or not - calmly and rationally. I blew it. I put my hands up to being ridiculous - still, it played to your already low expectations of me so there you go

Funny how I could have put money on ddraver coming & blabbing a confidence - ah, well, tant pis as the French say - was only to be expected. Did enjoy your thoughts on how to reorganise the racing calendar in light of the demise of world series cycling, though. And thanks to the rat on tips for tackling a sticky situation at my kids school - much appreciated.

Perhaps we can now put aside misconceptions on both sides? Willing to find the common ground & the decent arguments if you are

I admire your chutzpah (and I mean that positively)! Welcome back and look forward to hearing your thoughts on all manner of cycling matters.

micron

Must be a glutton for punishment - but then if you dish it out you have to be able to take it. Besides me and ddraver actually agreed on something! On twitter! Whilst discussing something with vaughters! That kind of trifecta has to be an omen, right? :Wink:

nic_77

Hey, fair play FG. Let's fix this busted cycling thing now.

Here's where I am... and this is conjecture (mine), but what else does one have?

Sky have done some things that make me suspicious, but winning isn't one of them. I think they know more about doping than their (sponsor enforced) zero tolerance approach allows them to admit. I don't believe they have doped, but I'd be disappointed in their planning if they didn't know how, when and why it happens... they leave no other stone unturned, so why this one? To me that explains, and even justifies, the likes of Leinders, Yates and Barry.

That said, and I re-iterate that I don't think they have doped or had any intention of doing so, I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt until I see some firm evidence to the contrary.

You know, I even gave LA the benefit of the doubt... when did I change my opinion? For me, it was when David Walsh presented his evidence in LA Confidentiel. Why oh why didn't the world listen then?

The beef I have with 'your' (i.e. that of your twitter character, Kimmage and others) approach is that you are targeting the wrong people. Sky might be doping (I don't know they aren't for sure), and if they are (big if) they can't be the worst team. Surely? Also whether corrupt or not, the UCI have failed to police the sport correctly. Guilty as charged. If you have mud to throw... and the time and influence to do so (you seem to), please tackle these greater evils first.

Likewise, if Sky are dirty, you have to prove it conclusively - learn from the Armstrong story, the mud didn't stick, and if anything it just 'muddied' the waters. Evidence had to be compiled into a single undeniable volume to nail him once and for all. The likes of you and Kimmage need to play the long game if your suspicions are right.

Now, question time... I'd like to know what you consider to be the primary reasons for your suspicion, and why Sky in particular?

Pross

Perfectly put Nic, pretty much what I wanted to know but put in a literate and articulate way!

iainf72

RichN95 wrote:

I think he just sees them as evil in the same way as he saw HTC as evil - a team distilling the sport down to powermeters and spreadsheets.

They are a bit soulless but I just don't really like any of their riders. Geraint is about the only one I warm too.

I have a problem with the amount of lying they do though. But that doesn't mean I think they're doping. But at least they're trying to walk the walk at the moment, rather than refusing to talk about it or getting Fran to manage situations

above_the_cows

Richmond Racer wrote:

Perhaps time for me to say a few words myself?

I dont find this forum particularly sexist. There are a shoot load more environments/hubs/whatever that are really sexist. So Inky makes a crack in a post a couple of hours ago - Above the Crows and I both give him a cyber slap.

I post here because I absolutely love cycling and love discussing all things procycling-related. I'm really not ars*d about following up every time someone posts something that another woman could find sexist, cos generally its meant to be funny and/or not intended to be offensive. To my mind its important to be able to differentiate from the real offensive comments (and then I'll go in swinging).

So sometimes up go pics of podium girls...yeah, well, not my thing and I think the practice is rather outmoded but I'm not going to go on a rant about it.

Frenchie puts up a pic of Eddy Boss looking beefy and I enjoy. It cuts both ways, eh?

I could say something about the distinct lack of Bernie pics though...a severe disappointment. If any of you boys feel you'd like to be nice sometime, a Bernie photo extravaganza would work just fine.

Peace and all that jazz.

I second that. All of it, especially the Bernie pics. Ta for the ones so far. Please can we have a few more by the time I check back in this afternoon folks, I've got a boring meeting all morning now

Rodrego Hernandez

dish_dash wrote:

So Fran Millar is her source on her suspicions about Sky? rrrrright...

Her response to Pross was telling, this is about egos. It's got nothing to do with making cycling a cleaner sport.

She has fingers in many pies and is less than honest in her business dealings. Hardly the kind of person to take at face value.

disgruntledgoat

Rodrego Hernandez wrote:

dish_dash wrote:

So Fran Millar is her source on her suspicions about Sky? rrrrright...

Her response to Pross was telling, this is about egos. It's got nothing to do with making cycling a cleaner sport.

She has fingers in many pies and is less than honest in her business dealings. Hardly the kind of person to take at face value.

Evidence please, or you just libelled her.

bockers

EKIMIKE wrote:

mroli - well said! It is looking a lot like a back slapping exercise now she's gone IMO. She had some very good points and showed up a lot of people here on knowledge. I definitely learned a few things.

........

I just don’t see this. I cannot see any point she had that would smear Sky other than the Leinders connection and the fact that as a cycling team they are doing rather well, which is the whole point of their existence after all.

I thought the debate was healthy and informative, but she chose to ignore all the counter information and a good dose of common sense and pull the “I know something you don’t“ card, and then retract it. Last time I heard anything that childish was in 1976 and I was wearing shorts in winter, because you had to at school!
I thought the insults were minimal, far worse is thrown around on twitter.

She left because she had lost her argument and could not except the alternative viewpoint. This shows a lack of character IMHO, which maybe why she prefers twitter where there is a character limit

EDIT to add, well She is back, and that does alter my last paragraph, and kudos for admitting the secret stuff was silly, I can go back to long trouseres now

ddraver

I'm just going to say that there was nothing in the "confidential" posts for me to disclose. Plus you also told me to share with the forum, perhaps I took it too literally and assumed you meant the whole thing. I also assumed you were DMing as a longer form to twittering...

If you want something kept quiet, I'd suggest you make that loud and clear next time, especially on a micro-blogging site! I'd made it quite clear that I'm not, as the french wouldnt say, au fait with the unwritten rules of twitter, nor do I particularly intend to become so...

micron

I'm still unsure of what part of 'in confidence' you don't understand? Silly me. And we were getting on so well

LeicesterLad

Thanks for returning the favour you owed me Micron! Oh, and welcome back, sincerely hope your here for the long haul!

ddraver

micron wrote:

I'm still unsure of what part of 'in confidence' you don't understand? Silly me. And we were getting on so well

You said both sides had sworn you to confidentiality (I am a member of neither) and that you asked Fram Millar some questions that you promised not to disclose (I am not Fran Millar). You said nothing about me, and I ve actually not revealed any information there.

Maybe I ve been too long a scientist but when people don't say what they mean, or don't give out information then either it's because the information does nt show what they want it to, or it's because they have none.

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

I think he just sees them as evil in the same way as he saw HTC as evil - a team distilling the sport down to powermeters and spreadsheets.

They are a bit soulless but I just don't really like any of their riders. Geraint is about the only one I warm too.

I have a problem with the amount of lying they do though. But that doesn't mean I think they're doping. But at least they're trying to walk the walk at the moment, rather than refusing to talk about it or getting Fran to manage situations

I see what you mean. Brailsford does seem to have a problem to admitting to weakness or failings. He tends to revert to middle management gobbledigook. The whole Leiders thing would have far better dealt with by simply saying "Look, we fcuked up"

Richmond Racer

RichN95 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

I think he just sees them as evil in the same way as he saw HTC as evil - a team distilling the sport down to powermeters and spreadsheets.

They are a bit soulless but I just don't really like any of their riders. Geraint is about the only one I warm too.

I have a problem with the amount of lying they do though. But that doesn't mean I think they're doping. But at least they're trying to walk the walk at the moment, rather than refusing to talk about it or getting Fran to manage situations

I see what you mean. Brailsford does seem to have a problem to admitting to weakness or failings. He tends to revert to middle management gobbledigook. The whole Leiders thing would have far better dealt with by simply saying "Look, we fcuked up"

Cant disagree with you on that comment - should have been handled a lot better.

ddraver

Nor I...

r0bh

Micron - you said in one of your tweets that anyone who cared to Google could find information published in 2008 that implicated Leinders in doping at Rabo. Could you share this link please as I've not been able to find anything earlier than the Theo de Rooy stuff from 2012

dish_dash

micron wrote:

I'm still unsure of what part of 'in confidence' you don't understand? Silly me. And we were getting on so well

I still struggle with all this 'in confidence' stuff. Surely to maintain confidences then the discussion shouldn't be mentioned at all. And if we all agree that the ultimate objective is to achieve a cleaner sport then transparency is key...

Macaloon

Richmond Racer wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

I see what you mean. Brailsford does seem to have a problem to admitting to weakness or failings. He tends to revert to middle management gobbledigook. The whole Leiders thing would have far better dealt with by simply saying "Look, we fcuked up"

Cant disagree with you on that comment - should have been handled a lot better.

It's always the cover-up.

mroli

Brailsford in cycling weekly:

"Hindsight is a brilliant thing, and what we've all learnt is pretty horrific. Had we known then what we know now [about Leinders], we wouldn't have touched the guy for sure."

(and then a lot of gobbledigook!)

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/536612/david-brailsford-on-geert-leinders-and-why-telling-the-truth-is-only-part-of-the-process.html

micron

Nic, Pross, bockers: first, refuting the sky 'evidence' - short answer, what's the point? The problem with this entire 'argument' is that all of us rehash the same old same old. It's stale, it's tired, we all haggle over semantics, twist the available facts to our own narratives and viewpoints. So perhaps instead of going over the same tired old ground we need to be asking some new questions? I have a few that I'd be happy to get your thoughts on - for example, I noticed some of you engaging with veloclinic - he contends that wiggins season long peak is only achievable through doping. Not saying he's right or wrong but have similar 'season long' peaks been achieved? Or was there a season long peak at all? Veloclinic can be very persuasive :P but I'm interested in hearing your perspective.

Agreeable to all? Frank and open discussion of issues rather than demands for 'evidence' and making judgements on responses based on perceived like/dislike of poster?

disgruntledgoat

micron wrote:

Nic, Pross, bockers: first, refuting the sky 'evidence' - short answer, what's the point? The problem with this entire 'argument' is that all of us rehash the same old same old. It's stale, it's tired, we all haggle over semantics, twist the available facts to our own narratives and viewpoints. So perhaps instead of going over the same tired old ground we need to be asking some new questions? I have a few that I'd be happy to get your thoughts on - for example, I noticed some of you engaging with veloclinic - he contends that wiggins season long peak is only achievable through doping. Not saying he's right or wrong but have similar 'season long' peaks been achieved? Or was there a season long peak at all? Veloclinic can be very persuasive :P but I'm interested in hearing your perspective.

Agreeable to all? Frank and open discussion of issues rather than demands for 'evidence' and making judgements on responses based on perceived like/dislike of poster?

How can you discuss issues without evidence? And when have I made a judgement based on my opinion of you? I asked a lot of questions of you yesterday, both in terms of your viewpoint/opinion and whether you had evidence to back up your allegations but you chose to ignore nearly all of them.

mroli

Micron - I thought it was interesting that Wiggins' power outputs showed that a lot of racing he did was actually less beneficial to him than training - that in "racing", he was just rolling around. I'm not sure about this idea of "peaking" - but for instance, other sports require you to maintain a high level throughout the year and not to peak once or twice....

micron

Dish dash: me and my big mouth guess I met a bigger one though I take issue with ddraver claiming i told him to 'shariewith the forum' - if I intended to do that I would have done that, I had that chance and pulled back. If I'd wanted it to be shared I would have tweeted what I chose to DM. My mistake was in assuming a knowledge of DM etiquette - they're used to share info directly, that you may not wish to disclose more widely - and they're still only 140 characters

ddraver

Hee hee, Anyone remember Rundfahrt and his spectacular meltdown (on the same subject actually) where he went with "I don't care what the facts and evidence say, I just want to keep my own opinons!"

That was brilliant...

Macaloon

I'm 'investing' my 100th post to welcome Ambassador Micron. Hope your diplomatic immunity lasts a little longer this visit. The 'tantric peak' is certainly worthy of discussion. But we get hung up on whether it was actually much of a peak last year given competition and narrow victory margins. Can we first discuss the nature of the peak before looking for precedents?

Happy to expand a little later, but I need to fire off a quick soz to Cav. Promised him my 100th post not 5 mins ago.

Richmond Racer

I think the first thing to understand is that in the build up to the Tour Wiggins raced less days than is usually considered the norm, and all below the level that Sky were aiming for as peak:

Algarve (where he rode for Porte) - 5 days
P-N - 8 days
Cataluyna - 2.5 days (DNF)
Romandie - 6 days
Dauphine - 8 days

Total of 29.5 days.

Also worth bearing in mind that up to the Tour, in all of the races that he won (all of which had both a Prologue and a TT, in which he's undisputedly one of the world's best), he beat the rider in 2nd place by a matter of seconds - and all of these races has a prologue and and a TT where he's undisputedly one of the world's best. He hardly hammered the oppo into the ground.

ddraver

How good is he at Prologues and TT's though?

Richmond Racer

ddraver wrote:

How good is he at Prologues and TT's though?

Ah, maybe he rode those deliberately slowly so that the winning margin on GC wasnt too high

tailwindhome

micron wrote:

Veloclinic can be very persuasive :P

That may well be true but I can't make head nor tale of his website. Could you post a link to the article?

micron wrote:

he contends that wiggins season long peak is only achievable through doping.

Why didn't Armstrong win more then?