Sky and David Walsh
Comments
-
Ignoring the UCI level politics (and am sure we all wish we could), having the links between Sky & BC is, in my humble and no more relevant than anyone else's opinion, actually a good thing.
General view is that Brailsford, for his sometimes overt seriousness and lack of humility / ability to admit to the odd error, is one sharp cookie. Am sure he could have (and indeed may have done - havent checked his past that much) made himself very successful in Business (with all the rewards) should that have been his motivation.
As it is he is smart enought to know that should he be committing the second greatest sporting fraud of all time (TM USADA) at Sky, and with the endless links to publically funded BC, he would be facing very awkward questions, possibly in front of a Judge or two, that could result in jail sentences for himself and the large team around him for fraud / mis-use of public funds.
I somehow suspect Sir Dave, for all his ambition to see winners under his leadership, isn't daft enough to risk that or indeed has it ever crossed his mind, because everything he says and (nearly always) does suggests he desperately wants to win the right way. It goes back to when he was with David Millar when the cops walked in, and from what Millar describes as DBs genuine shock / disgust at what pro RRing involved at the time, that has formed the basis for his whole subsequent approach with Sky. And in terms of BC - the policies / programmes that have delivered the '04, '08 and '12 success were all well under way by then and have been tweaked and upgraded since, but not in anyway that suggests non-linear, marginal gains type improvement. Esp. with the funding they have vs. the opposition.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:YorkshireRaw wrote:
Second this. Much clearer summary than mine.
I was actually thinking exactly the same about your summary.
How's that for mutual backslapping?
May I congratulate you both on the patience shown, battling spirit to get to the facts/evidence and comments that you made.0 -
micron wrote:There's an easy solution - stop whingeing and get out there. For right or wrong forums aren't where it's at. Twitter, love it or hate it, is where the 'cool kids' are. Fran millar is on twitter and she's happy to engage. She'd love to hear from you I'm sure. But don't sit around moaning about it, get out and change it. Make your voice heard - it's clearly far better informed than mine.
As for CCN - Scott and I had been working on a meeting of our own - we had Vroomen on board, a contact with Prudhomme (clang clang name drop alert). You see WE WERE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING. Instead of sitting around whining we got off our butts, made a few phone calls. Not sure what we hoped to achieve but we got gazumped by Fuller and his CCN agenda. He kindly invited us along - seeing as we had similar objectives. In retrospect, I wouldn't have gone given the shoot storm that ensued but you see I believe in standing up and fighting for what I believe in (why I stood as a councillor - because I believe passionately in things like social justice - I was not elected, unsurprising in a true blue constituency, but there's another failure of sky's due diligence for you).
The problem is all you are actually doing is perpetuating the idea that you can't be successful in cycling without racing. That cyclists need to dope. When someone wins a race, your natural instinct is to try and connect them to doping, when in reality it may be another honest rider winning. The perception that the only way is cheating must be maintained. You are contributing to what David Millar called the background noise of doping.
A young rider needs to be told that he can be successful without doping - and he definitely can - not presented with endless BS internet concoctions suggesting he can't.
I think the reality is you need doping, so you seek to encourage it, or rather the perception of its presence. Doping has brought you twitter followers and blog readers. Doping introduced you to LeMond and Vaughters and other interesting people. Doping defines your position (whatever it is) in cycling. Without doping you're just a mother from Sussex and no-one listens anymore.
That may be unfair, but I'm wary of the motives of people who seem to care more about doping scandals than actual racing. Questioning is important and necessary and the issue certainly shouldn't be ignored. But when you are trying to shoehorn every fact you receive about a team, or individual, into some sort of doping conspiracy, it's time to step back.Twitter: @RichN950 -
micron wrote:Not a doc: since you've already made up your mind, I'm guessing this is pointless but I'll take a deep breath and do my best.
I DMed ddraver because I wanted to make a point to him that was getting lost in the general noise. I wanted to DM FF because frankly I don't agree with cluttering up forums with personal nonsense. Then I remembered what this thread had fairly rapidly degenerated into and realised that no holds we're barred. Nothing to do with openness, transparency or honesty and everything to do with trying to be civil.
I wonder how often you have used twitter, or who you follow? Every users experience is different. I'm unsure where the assertion that one group of voices are amplified above the rest comes from. I'd be interested to know where that perception comes from. My own is that there are a hugely diverse range of voices on a hugely diverse range of topics. Many of my tweets are about politics, social justice, feminism, dogs, cute things my kid says. Most people I follow espouse equally diverse opinions. And I actively seek out opinions that diverge from my own. 'cliquey backslapping is about as far from my experience of twitter as is possible. But you couldn't possibly experience 'my twitter' unless you followed exactly who i follow and maybe your dislike of the medium comes from not understanding it correctly?
I'm engaged in local grassroots politics and activism - I also work with disadvantaged young people and young offenders - I'm more than well aware how democracy does (or more often doesn't) work. I appreciate your point about revolutionary councils, I don't think you take mine about wanting to act, to make a difference. I'm interested why you thought going to CCN was wrong - you obviously have strong views on the subject and I'd be interested to hear them.
I'm also interested to understand why I am not to take an extensive list of my perceived 'failures' as a personal criticism?
I've tried to answer your points as honestly as possible and would welcome a proper, civil discussion though, alas, knowing that I make you extremely angry, I'm also unsure whether you are either willing or capable.
Please give the facts - emotion and your personal feelings has nothing to do with this. Just the facts - you are happily making serious allegations over something that people devote their life and talent to - you owe them the decency of being clear and factual (and your own dignity needs it) - what are the facts? if you don't have any factual evidence then your posturing can only be assumed to be a need for self aggrandisement (though the idea that you want to be a councillor would already suggest this).0 -
micron wrote:I also work with disadvantaged young people and young offenders - .
!?! - works with offenders - Guilt by association surely! ;-)
Please take that in the right way - seperate from cycling, fair play for hopefully helping people onto the right track.0 -
micron wrote:I'm here to hear some different voices - I think there are strong arguments on both sides - I can also see why what proves one argument also proves the other (sorry for the inelegant phrasing). So my answer would probably be along the lines of - you all make very salient points about the 'believability' of Wiggins 2012 season, particularly in refuting the 'one long peak' theory. But no one has, as far as I'm aware addressed the 'what if' question - for example 'what if Wiggins was microdosing/ using CERA'?
I am enjoying the cut and thrust of debate here and I welcome micron's appearance. I think she intends to gather opinion and challenge. I am not sure that it is about facts, it appears to be all about theories and exploring inconsistencies.
I think the post above summaries it well. You could equally well take the whole paragraph and replace "was microdosing/using CERA?" with "using an undetectable electric motor?"
I use that example for emphasis, but feel free to discuss as a theory if you wish.Top Ten finisher - PTP Tour of Britain 20160 -
micron wrote:I'm interested why you thought going to CCN was wrong - you obviously have strong views on the subject and I'd be interested to hear them.
Micron - I don't think NAD did say that - you suggested it had blown up afterwards and they queried why you now thought that.0 -
To be fair to all concerned.
It is difficult if not inappropriate to provide 'hard evidence' on a forum such as this.
The best weapons in the armoury are logic/reason, circumstance/context and last but definitely not least, persuasion/passion (please excuse the clumsy coupling :oops: ). There are a lot of people here who demonstrate this quite easily. French Fighter in my view is a very good example.
The argument has been going around in circles and as somebody who is 'Sky neutral' I'm not finding anything informative in the debate any more.
Just sayin'.0 -
YorkshireRaw wrote:micron wrote:I'm interested why you thought going to CCN was wrong - you obviously have strong views on the subject and I'd be interested to hear them.
Micron - I don't think NAD did say that - you suggested it had blown up afterwards and they queried why you now thought that.
No, I did say exactly that.
Will get back to you in a mo micron.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
alanp23 wrote:micron wrote:I'm here to hear some different voices - I think there are strong arguments on both sides - I can also see why what proves one argument also proves the other (sorry for the inelegant phrasing). So my answer would probably be along the lines of - you all make very salient points about the 'believability' of Wiggins 2012 season, particularly in refuting the 'one long peak' theory. But no one has, as far as I'm aware addressed the 'what if' question - for example 'what if Wiggins was microdosing/ using CERA'?
I am enjoying the cut and thrust of debate here and I welcome micron's appearance. I think she intends to gather opinion and challenge. I am not sure that it is about facts, it appears to be all about theories and exploring inconsistencies.
I think the post above summaries it well. You could equally well take the whole paragraph and replace "was microdosing/using CERA?" with "using an undetectable electric motor?"
I use that example for emphasis, but feel free to discuss as a theory if you wish.
That's fine in theory but you might as well say 'What if Wiggins is a martian with warp-powered lungs and nuclear fuelled muscles, because we don't know he's not, do we?!"
The point most people (i think) are making is that it's somewhat unfair to put 'Wiggins' and 'CERA' in a sentence without a single shred of sensible evidence. Replace 'was Microdosing / using CERA' with 'abusing kids / beating his wife' and most reasonable people would call you out for making unfounded and outrageous allegations, no matter who you were referring to.
As one of the leading Cyclists in the world - and given the sports history - are fans / press fair in asking Wiggins / Cav / J-Rod / Tony Martin / Canc their opinion on doping and for them to re-assure us they are playing by the rules - I'd say yes, comes with the territory (sadly).
Should we , at present, and in the face of a complete lack of evidence to the contrary - no TUEs or any of the other issues that prompted doubt about USPS / Armstrong - take their statements, plus their actions, at face value and maybe show some level of belief - yes I think we should do that. (EDIT - until such time as actions / evidence suggest otherwise)
Should we be allowed to make baseless, non-fact based insinuations from the comfort of a keyboard, without comeback or being challenged to justify it, just because they win bike races (NEWSFLASH - it's a race, someone actually has to be the best) and not expect them to get a little bit wee-weed off - no I don't think it is reasonable to expect that.0 -
alanp23 wrote:I am enjoying the cut and thrust of debate here and I welcome micron's appearance. I think she intends to gather opinion and challenge. I am not sure that it is about facts, it appears to be all about theories and exploring inconsistencies.
Inconsistencies are facts in my opinion, if they are a significant % outside the norm, but they cannot be based on heresy. But what we seem to have is - he won therefore he is cheating. The thing is someone has to win, are we going to brand every bike race winner a cheat from now on?
I notice I have not had a response, therefore I can only assume micron is a gobshite - I shall not waste any more of my time on her, internet/twitter trolls should not be fed. If facts come out from somewhere else though I will always listen to them - and I will believe them if they can also be independently verified by a reputable source - otherwise heresy and the speaker of them are an irrelevance.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:YorkshireRaw wrote:micron wrote:No, I did say exactly that.
.
OK my error - therefore if you mean what I think you did then I agree - any credible voice for influencing the organisation of the sport needs to have some sort of official platform, otherwise it becomes a free-for-all.0 -
micron wrote:Been watching Qatar - cavendish majestic - he gets that great, low position in the sprint. Privilege to be watching cycling in an age where such a pure sprinter is in his pomp. Cav is also great value on twitter, funny & informative - suggest you follow him instead of eating your time on that gobshite festinagirl
Yep, he's all that but you'd think he would have been more successful rather than less successful at a team running a USPS style doping ring and with doped lead out men no?0 -
alanp23 wrote:micron wrote:I'm here to hear some different voices - I think there are strong arguments on both sides - I can also see why what proves one argument also proves the other (sorry for the inelegant phrasing). So my answer would probably be along the lines of - you all make very salient points about the 'believability' of Wiggins 2012 season, particularly in refuting the 'one long peak' theory. But no one has, as far as I'm aware addressed the 'what if' question - for example 'what if Wiggins was microdosing/ using CERA'?
I am enjoying the cut and thrust of debate here and I welcome micron's appearance. I think she intends to gather opinion and challenge. I am not sure that it is about facts, it appears to be all about theories and exploring inconsistencies.
I think the post above summaries it well. You could equally well take the whole paragraph and replace "was microdosing/using CERA?" with "using an undetectable electric motor?"
I use that example for emphasis, but feel free to discuss as a theory if you wish.
I was thinking along similar lines. The answer to the posed "what/if" question is not at issue: The answer is he would be cheating, he would go faster than would otherwise be the case, and he would deserve to be caught, sanctioned, ridiculed, banned and stripped of his Knighthood. Simply posing such a question is not helpful, as the issue is "if" not "what". We know the "what" and the whole debate is about the "if".
The key question is: Is Wiggins (micro)dosing with [insert any banned PED you want]?0 -
YorkshireRaw wrote:alanp23 wrote:micron wrote:I'm here to hear some different voices - I think there are strong arguments on both sides - I can also see why what proves one argument also proves the other (sorry for the inelegant phrasing). So my answer would probably be along the lines of - you all make very salient points about the 'believability' of Wiggins 2012 season, particularly in refuting the 'one long peak' theory. But no one has, as far as I'm aware addressed the 'what if' question - for example 'what if Wiggins was microdosing/ using CERA'?
I am enjoying the cut and thrust of debate here and I welcome micron's appearance. I think she intends to gather opinion and challenge. I am not sure that it is about facts, it appears to be all about theories and exploring inconsistencies.
I think the post above summaries it well. You could equally well take the whole paragraph and replace "was microdosing/using CERA?" with "using an undetectable electric motor?"
I use that example for emphasis, but feel free to discuss as a theory if you wish.
That's fine in theory but you might as well say 'What if Wiggins is a martian with warp-powered lungs and nuclear fuelled muscles, because we don't know he's not, do we?!"
The point most people (i think) are making is that it's somewhat unfair to put 'Wiggins' and 'CERA' in a sentence without a single shred of sensible evidence. Replace 'was Microdosing / using CERA' with 'abusing kids / beating his wife' and most reasonable people would call you out for making unfounded and outrageous allegations, no matter who you were referring to.
As one of the leading Cyclists in the world - and given the sports history - are fans / press fair in asking Wiggins / Cav / J-Rod / Tony Martin / Canc their opinion on doping and for them to re-assure us they are playing by the rules - I'd say yes, comes with the territory (sadly).
Should we , at present, and in the face of a complete lack of evidence to the contrary - no TUEs or any of the other issues that prompted doubt about USPS / Armstrong - take their statements, plus their actions, at face value and maybe show some level of belief - yes I think we should do that. (EDIT - until such time as actions / evidence suggest otherwise)
Should we be allowed to make baseless, non-fact based insinuations from the comfort of a keyboard, without comeback or being challenged to justify it, just because they win bike races (NEWSFLASH - it's a race, someone actually has to be the best) and not expect them to get a little bit wee-weed off - no I don't think it is reasonable to expect that.
Thats exactly my point. There is no fact involved in the "What if" question. It is purely a speculative question designed to generate debate. It can be positive or negative debate based on your own point of view (Personally, I think its negative) but there are no facts involved.Top Ten finisher - PTP Tour of Britain 20160 -
micron wrote:I'm engaged in local grassroots politics and activism - I also work with disadvantaged young people and young offenders - I'm more than well aware how democracy does (or more often doesn't) work. I appreciate your point about revolutionary councils, I don't think you take mine about wanting to act, to make a difference. I'm interested why you thought going to CCN was wrong - you obviously have strong views on the subject and I'd be interested to hear them.
As you do politics then you must be aware of the age old structure versus agency debate. That people's agency is constrained/conditioned by structure, that the structure can be usurped, changed or reproduced by people's agency but that agency is always conditional. This is at the heart I think of why people had a problem with the CCN as a whole.
It was attempting to change the structure of cycling yes but a lot of people were denied access to it through the limits of the CCN structure. Not everyone's agency is equal and many people's agency was constrained. Obviously people's agency differs depending on the context but in this instance with the CCN being so anglo-centric it denied a whole load of people a chance to contribute. There are structural constraints in everything, the key is to recognise them and acknowledge them. This didn't really happen with the CCN which made it worse.
This at least was my problem. The failure to acknowledge that the people that were there were: a) a select group, b) in no way representative and c) there because of their privileged place in the structure, caused an ill feeling amongst some fans. To then make claims to be 'changing cycling', well this just smacks of unrepresentative hubris and a chronic lack of reflexivity.Correlation is not causation.0 -
Apologies for the tedious point by point format, but I wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything.micron wrote:Not a doc: since you've already made up your mind, I'm guessing this is pointless but I'll take a deep breath and do my best.
I quite frequently change my mind on many things, as it goes.micron wrote:I DMed ddraver because I wanted to make a point to him that was getting lost in the general noise. I wanted to DM FF because frankly I don't agree with cluttering up forums with personal nonsense. Then I remembered what this thread had fairly rapidly degenerated into and realised that no holds we're barred. Nothing to do with openness, transparency or honesty and everything to do with trying to be civil.
The point is that if you dm someone with something that is relevant to the debate then you lose transparency. If you want to DM someone about a personal issue that isn't relevant to the debate then just do it. It's up to them how they receive it and what they do with it. If you announce you want to DM someone then you just raise everyone's hackles because it looks like you're taking the debate into a private arena and excluding them. It's really very simple.micron wrote:I wonder how often you have used twitter, or who you follow? Every users experience is different. I'm unsure where the assertion that one group of voices are amplified above the rest comes from. I'd be interested to know where that perception comes from. My own is that there are a hugely diverse range of voices on a hugely diverse range of topics. Many of my tweets are about politics, social justice, feminism, dogs, cute things my kid says. Most people I follow espouse equally diverse opinions. And I actively seek out opinions that diverge from my own. 'cliquey backslapping is about as far from my experience of twitter as is possible. But you couldn't possibly experience 'my twitter' unless you followed exactly who i follow and maybe your dislike of the medium comes from not understanding it correctly?
All this is public information. My twitter name @drheadgear is in my signature and has been referenced several times in this thread, and you've had conversations with me on twitter. You can see who I follow and how many posts I've made.
I followed you once, but the UKPOSTAL meme lost you a follower. I unfollowed a few others for the same reason. UCI_Overlord went after his "only having a laugh" tweets about sysmex donations from SKY. I fairly regularly interact with Dimspace, though usually to take the piss out of Liverpool.
I actually do follow quite a few of the accounts that get grouped under the unflattering name Twaliban. I read quite a lot of the conversations, I read a lot of the snark and find it cynical, self-affirming nonsense. And it's the sort of stuff that you have to join in with to be in with the in crowd - or the cool kids, as you put it yourself.
As a group you're exceptionally noisy, and pretty well connected. You have the ear of a few well known cycling journos as well as Vaughters himself and a few other cycling professionals. Because they engage with your group, you reach a wider audience, and are lent credibility by their names - even when making the more outrageous claims some of your group come out with (I'm making a point here not to hold you responsible for things you haven't said yourself).
That's the echo chamber. And that is a bone of contention for a few posters here, who are on twitter, though I doubt any could claim to be quite as active as you.
PS - I found your opening line there quite patronising, and I don't think I'm the first to have had that response to you.micron wrote:I'm engaged in local grassroots politics and activism - I also work with disadvantaged young people and young offenders - I'm more than well aware how democracy does (or more often doesn't) work. I appreciate your point about revolutionary councils, I don't think you take mine about wanting to act, to make a difference. I'm interested why you thought going to CCN was wrong - you obviously have strong views on the subject and I'd be interested to hear them.
Good for you on the grassroots activism.
Going to CCN was wrong for a vast amount of reasons. @Velocentric has outlined quite a few of them, mainly on the same themes that I've mentioned here and on twitter many times.
CCN is essentially a revolutionary council. It is self appointed and answers to no-one but itself. It's motives are unclear, and in the case of several participants, deeply questionable. It gathered considerable political power to itself extremely rapidly, and made a huge amount of noise. A lot of what it said (or maybe what Jaimie Fuller said, it wasn't easy to distinguish the man from the organisation - much like McQuaid and the UCI) was highly disagreeable - for instance knifing the UCIIC in the back before it had even started.
At no point in the creation or conference of CCN did the question of mandate or representation ever receive a satisfactory answer. As the peasant from Monty Python's Holy Grail sketch might have put it "Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical underwear salesman".
I've heard all the arguments that it had to be that way because it was put together so quickly, but they're poor excuses for what was a best a botched rush job.
Your participation in it was wrong because the organisation was wrong. It is undemocratic, unelected, unrepresentative, opaque and closed.
These aren't just minor flaws for an organisation like that, they're fatal to it's credibility. You simply cannot have a revolutionary council made up of people that decided they wanted to be on it without asking people if they wanted a revolution, what sort of revolution they would like, and who they'd like to lead it.
For someone involved in grassroots activism I would have hoped that you would have grasped that these things weren't just possible features of an organisation, they were essential to it, they had to be there from the very start, they cant be tacked on later.
Your participation on it looked like tokenism. Worse, it looked like favouritism. It also made clear to many of us clear exactly how much power the twaliban had found by being so noisy on twitter.
CCN helped kill off the UCIIC - now a costly non project. It was a flawed excercise, but not so deeply flawed that it couldn't have had some benefit (that's my opinion). We'll never know now. It looks from here like it was attacked because CCN preferred a T&R commission - despite this being a long way from the mandate of the UCIIC.
That was the power of an undemocratic, unelected, unanswerable organisation which you joined in with (though you weren't to know where it would lead, I'll grant you).
I'm not interested in the fact that you wouldn't have joined if you knew it would create such a shitstorm. Joining was wrong regardless of the shitstorm you got for it.micron wrote:I'm also interested to understand why I am not to take an extensive list of my perceived 'failures' as a personal criticism?
I've tried to answer your points as honestly as possible and would welcome a proper, civil discussion though, alas, knowing that I make you extremely angry, I'm also unsure whether you are either willing or capable.
You can take them personally if you like. Its up to you. I was just pointing out that I'm not attributing character flaws to you, I'm not commenting on your personality or motivation, I'm commenting purely and simply with how you've conducted yourself in the public sphere through your words and your actions.
Yes, you make me angry. But anger isn't always wrong.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Above The Cows wrote:micron wrote:I'm engaged in local grassroots politics and activism - I also work with disadvantaged young people and young offenders - I'm more than well aware how democracy does (or more often doesn't) work. I appreciate your point about revolutionary councils, I don't think you take mine about wanting to act, to make a difference. I'm interested why you thought going to CCN was wrong - you obviously have strong views on the subject and I'd be interested to hear them.
As you do politics then you must be aware of the age old structure versus agency debate. That people's agency is constrained/conditioned by structure, that the structure can be usurped, changed or reproduced by people's agency but that agency is always conditional. This is at the heart I think of why people had a problem with the CCN as a whole.
It was attempting to change the structure of cycling yes but a lot of people were denied access to it through the limits of the CCN structure. Not everyone's agency is equal and many people's agency was constrained. Obviously people's agency differs depending on the context but in this instance with the CCN being so anglo-centric it denied a whole load of people a chance to contribute. There are structural constraints in everything, the key is to recognise them and acknowledge them. This didn't really happen with the CCN which made it worse.
This at least was my problem. The failure to acknowledge that the people that were there were: a) a select group, b) in no way representative and c) there because of their privileged place in the structure, caused an ill feeling amongst some fans. To then make claims to be 'changing cycling', well this just smacks of unrepresentative hubris and a chronic lack of reflexivity.
Thanks. That was what I would have said if I'd known how to :-) Not all that well read on political theory....Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:
Thanks. That was what I would have said if I'd known how to :-) Not all that well read on political theory....
I thought your post summed it up well especially the Monty Python refs. I have a tendency - given my day job - to only be able to talk out of my posterior and end up sounding like a right windbag. :roll:
Anyway enough backslapping!
Correlation is not causation.0 -
No, without 'doping' I'm not 'just' anything, as none of us are. I don't 'need' doping anymore than you do. If I see patterns it's because I've been following the sport since the mid 80s and seen that pattern repeating time and again. And it pisses me off. It pissed me off to see clean riders getting shafted in the 80s and it pisses me off now. I remember being at a hotel in cholet in 1998 getting mario cipollinis autograph when the gendarmes turned up and carted Bruno Roussel away in handcuffs. it's why I asked you the question about PDM? So you're right, I saw doping then and have seen it time and again - even when it was attributed to 'food poisoning'. As another poster said, very eloquently, doping humanises the beautiful spectacle of the sport - I was delighted that Walsh quoted Barthes on 'the spark' and doping. He articulates it perfectly.
And it's not about the doping, is it? It's about the corruption, the money laundering, the trafficking, the malfeasance, the poor governance. If sky are clean, I'm delighted - am I wrong to want them to shout it from the rooftops, to show strong leadership for the sport, to share good practice? Isn't that one very positive way that they could show the way. After all these are extraordinary times that demand extraordinary solutions. There was talk after Festina - I'm sure you remember - of setting the clock back to year zero. It didn't happen then, perhaps it needs to now. With a clear template for a better, cleaner cycling. Because you're right, we need to break the chain - we need to stop cynics like me seeing the patterns repeating.
As for the 'self aggrandizement' bit? Believe me, no one reads my blog & you can guarantee that, if I tweet anything detrimental about wiggins and sky I shed followers like dandruff - if I cared about perpetuating 'doping' to build my following I'd keep my mouth shut and play nice. None of us is using social media to be a 'somebody' - or would be a 'nobody' - without it. We use forums and twitters and blogs because we're passionate about the sport we love. I see doping as a scourge upon that sport.0 -
Jon, I enjoyed yr post and thought you made a good point. After all, in 99 all people had were theory and conjecture. There were no facts just 'the evidence of your own eyes'. Sorry that commenting from work/getting kids tea/looking after my poorly mum and drinking wine stopped me from answering sooner and thus being branded a gobshite 0
-
This has been a very constructive thread for me. The discussion has been healthy and without serious personal insults.
What it has proven to me is how useless twitter is as an information tool. The ability to post comments, that if done in print press, would be seen as slander is just wrong. Spreading rumours and misinformation about people without any evidence, hard or otherwise, is disgusting and if i did the same in my work-life i would be justifiably dismissed for gross misconduct.
Cycling's record on doping stinks, but we have a UK team trying to do the right things and they are being falsely accused and slandered because of that... weird :?
I have seen people put across a lots of facts and evidence to suggest Sky are doing things right (and I agree we cannot be 100% sure) and dispel the slanderers, I have yet to see evidence from the other side to back up their slander.
Thus has been done largely like adults and in good debating manner, and both sides deserve credit for that.
So i now see twitter in its true light of irrelevance in the real world.0 -
micron wrote:Jon, I enjoyed yr post and thought you made a good point. After all, in 99 all people had were theory and conjecture. There were no facts just 'the evidence of your own eyes'. Sorry that commenting from work/getting kids tea/looking after my poorly mum and drinking wine stopped me from answering sooner and thus being branded a gobshite
But there were facts in '99- there was the speed of the race, the speed of the climbs, a backdated TUE and comment from within the Peleton (Bassons).
In '12 we can factualise 2 of those - speed of the race (2km/h slower than the Armstrong yrs, on arguably a less challenging route) and the climbing speeds / wattages - also lower.
The other 2 we have to point to as being absent in '12 so whilst not proof there isn't anything wrong - it isn't providing an argument that there is anything wrong either.
Stop making statements that aren't true, and stop ignoring glaring facts just to suit your own narrative.0 -
bockers wrote:What it has proven to me is how useless twitter is as an information tool. The ability to post comments, that if done in print press, would be seen as slander is just wrong. Spreading rumours and misinformation about people without any evidence, hard or otherwise, is disgusting and if i did the same in my work-life i would be justifiably dismissed for gross misconduct.
This is a good point and asks the question - if people can be arrested for racist / homophobic remarks made on Twitter, why is the same not occuring in cases of slander? Not saying Police intervention is correct as it does sometimes seem an OTT response when the service provider should simply be deleting and blocking the user, unless they are a genuine threat to someone's safety, but surely the same standards should apply?
In addition, my understanding (happy to be corrected) is that if you make an untrue allegation / statement about someone verbally, that is slander. As soon as that allegation / statement is recorded / repeated in media - print, TV or radio, it becomes libel. Does the same standard apply online? Appreciate it's harder to apportion responsibility as the open nature means there is a lack of editorial control from the media owner.0 -
Drheadgear you flatter me with all this talk of having the ear of vaughters and top journalists. Vaughters uses twitter because he's canny enough to know that engaging with people builds credibility for his brand of 'clean cycling' - you want his ear? Tweet him. He'll engage. He's a pragmatic, cool operator. He'll answer anybodys questions. As will seaton or rendell or fotheringham. They're all approachable - you too could 'have their ear' if that's what's important to you. Go on, make your opinion heard, drown out the empty vessels. Otherwise stop whingeing about it when there's a simple solution.
Now to revolutionary councils - Benjamin franklin, John Adams and all the founding fathers of the USA were part of a revolutionary council. Sometimes they get the job done. I take above's point but I repeat, extraordinary situations sometimes call for extraordinary solutions. Imagine, you have the invite, you care about trying to clean up the shit, what do you do? And what would you do to clean up the sport? The thing about CCN is that there is no structure. You want to be part of it you can be a part of it. Again, instead of moaning about disproportionate influence, exert some of your own. Unless you think that hein & pat are doing a dandy job of fecking the sport over?0 -
YR know what I tell my bad lads? Get on a bike. It gives you freedom, independence. I point to the success of GB/Sky/cav as something to aspire to - you know what? Turned a lot of them onto the sport, even had a few go up and see Hoy preview his new bike the other day. The thought that my home county will be hosting the TdF depart makes my heart sing. The thought of fireworks on the champs élysées for the centenary of the tour is thrilling. But I'm a fan of the sport first and foremost, not any team or rider. If I wanted to follow teams I'd watch football. Vaughters idea of franchises and the WSC - in which he was a prime mover - fills me with dread.
You say there was evidence against Armstrong in 99 - when did you acknowledge it? In 99? Or after USADA? Because in 99 there was rumour & suspicion & innuendo. Still, as Brailsford says, hindsight is a wonderful thing0 -
I didn't know which bit to quote, so that paragraph will have to do.micron wrote:And it's not about the doping, is it? It's about the corruption, the money laundering, the trafficking, the malfeasance, the poor governance. If sky are clean, I'm delighted - am I wrong to want them to shout it from the rooftops, to show strong leadership for the sport, to share good practice? Isn't that one very positive way that they could show the way. After all these are extraordinary times that demand extraordinary solutions. There was talk after Festina - I'm sure you remember - of setting the clock back to year zero. It didn't happen then, perhaps it needs to now. With a clear template for a better, cleaner cycling. Because you're right, we need to break the chain - we need to stop cynics like me seeing the patterns repeating.
The history of cycling demands a certain amount of scepticism, questions must be asked, but hope must not be excluded.
It's all well and good to have doubts over a team, but when you start trying to fit all the information to a doping plan without recourse to an objective mind, then you start to lose my respect and others.
For example, let's look at some of the 'evidence' levelled at Sky.
They look like US Postal. Yes, they ride on the front of the bunch to control the race. This is a blantantly obvious tactic. If you took four or five riders and asked them to get Wiggins (an unexplosive climber) from the bottom of mountain to the top in the shortest time possible, how would you do it? Sky have just boiled down stage racing to it's bare necessities - if you have a strong team and the best TTer then attacking becomes largely irrelevant. And they get the best team with money, not doping. They turned up at the Tour with six riders who had recently been top 20 in a GT, another WT top ten rider and the World Champ. Mostly that was done at other teams. Money talks, but is rarely mentioned in cycling circles.
And they didn't look like US Postal anyway. USP would demolish everyone. Riders hung on as long as they could until only Basso was left. With Sky, riders attack them -Evans, Nibali, Pinot. Eventually four beats one, but they still did it. And in the supposedly ET Dauphine performance, Peter Weening finished alongside them and Quintana took 40s out of them.
They go to Tenerife. Just like Armstrong and Vino. Apparently it's remote and inaccessible - difficult for doping testers. It's not. It has 12 million visitors a year and is accessible from a dozen airports in the UK alone. It is a perfect training facility - altitude, but not far from sea level either, quiet roads, great weather etc. But because Armstrong went there they're supposed to train on the Penines. (And if Vino wanted inaccesible - he'd go to Kazakhstan)
Rogers was better than ever. Rogers was the same as ever. In 2012 he was 23rd on CQ ranking, in 2010 he was 23rd on CQ ranking. At HTC he tried to ride for GC, got half way up the mountain, blew and lost 5 minutes, at Sky he rode for Wiggins, got half way up the mountain, blew and lost 10 minutes
Wiggins said this and then he said that. Yeah, he's an inconsistent person - doesn't make himn a doper.
Wiggins peaked for six months. No he didn't. He peaked every month enough to perform on two or three stages once a month - about three hours of full on effort - from February to June. For a pro sportsman on a seven figure salary this should be the bare minimum, not exceptional.
Then there's made up nonsense like Ferrari having Wiggins's SRM files, DSs riding for PDM.
Really, all there is against Sky is Leinders. It's not great but it seems far more likely that the screwed up than them hiring a doping doctor likely to be named in ongoing investigations, naming him on the website, and not taking him to the Tour and taking Danny Pate to the races he was at.
Sorry for rambling.Twitter: @RichN950 -
This thread has been well and truly hijacked.
Despite the massive majority that use their brain to reason, there is a loud voice spinning a load of old cobblers.
Its like I have just walked in to the cynic asylum's sky thread.
What happened to David Walsh getting all access of sky?
Did you know my mum is a lovely woman and is believed to be sane?
She goes about her life like all other people, goes to work and looks after the family.
But there is a secret side to her.
Its born out of wanting to know something secrete.
Add that to the wacky world of surfing the internet.
She is now totally convinced, without any shadow of doubt, shore as putting her life on it...etc
Wait for it drum roll ..dum dum dum.. believes that aliens are constantly watching us and that they are following her around were ever she goes!!
(don't worry she says they are not here to harm us!)
My point, if you truly want to believe in something no matter how unlikely or ridiculous. You can always find some codswallop on the internet to convince yourself that it is true.0 -
u say there was evidence against Armstrong in 99 - when did you acknowledge it? In 99? Or after USADA? Because in 99 there was rumour & suspicion & innuendo. Still, as Brailsford says, hindsight is a wonderful thing
Oh pleeeaaase, there is no rumour about Sky/Wiggins, and that is the point which has been ably voiced in this thread many times.
When there is it will be the cause of great debate and deservedly so. I and others have repeatedly asked for such evidence and yet to see a thing.
I thought Lance was doping after his first tour and that was without all the subsequent info on doping. i see no similarity with Bradley or Sky. A few cowards on twitter shouting unfounded accusations is not rumour it is just lies, jealousy and slander.
To get back on topic, shall we let Mr Walsh see what he can find and wait till then before muck spreading.0 -
