Walsh talks Chinny
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
0
Comments
-
After Flanders he had this exchange on his TL
Rob Ricketts @robricketts29 31 Mar:
@PaulKimmage @DavidWalshST as a lifelong cycling fan with recent doping knowledge am i right in being suspicious of flanders performance?
David Walsh @DavidWalshST 31 Mar
@robricketts29 in my view you are 100% right.0 -
Interesting. Walsh doesn't tend to bandy accusations about without some hard evidence.Richmond Racer wrote:After Flanders he had this exchange on his TL
Rob Ricketts @robricketts29 31 Mar:
@PaulKimmage @DavidWalshST as a lifelong cycling fan with recent doping knowledge am i right in being suspicious of flanders performance?
David Walsh @DavidWalshST 31 Mar
@robricketts29 in my view you are 100% right.0 -
Not that either of these guys have a vested interest in rumour mongering ...
Fab wins, story in Belgium, Italy, maybe Switzerland ...
Fab dopes ... Generic doping story in UK press with a proven winner to back up what is essentially a puff piece ...
These two arseholes can just f' off in my opinion ... adding nothing to the sport at all ... in it for the money more so than any doper ...0 -
DeadCalm wrote:
Interesting. Walsh doesn't tend to bandy accusations about without some hard evidence.Richmond Racer wrote:After Flanders he had this exchange on his TL
Rob Ricketts @robricketts29 31 Mar:
@PaulKimmage @DavidWalshST as a lifelong cycling fan with recent doping knowledge am i right in being suspicious of flanders performance?
David Walsh @DavidWalshST 31 Mar
@robricketts29 in my view you are 100% right.
No, but despite my own reservations about Chinny I won't be accepting Walsh as an authority until he can back things up with some evidence. I don't think it's fair on any rider to say "I've heard things" unless you tell us a) what things you've heard and b) how you can verify they're true. That's the bare minimum, all else is just mud-flinging and rumour-mongering.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Why should anyone listen to Walsh? All he does is bandy about detailed allegations backed up by eye witness testimony in a thoroughly researched book which turn out to be correct.
What we want is opinion, not facts0 -
oneof1982 wrote:Why should anyone listen to Walsh? All he does is bandy about detailed allegations backed up by eye witness testimony in a thoroughly researched book which turn out to be correct.
What we want is opinion, not facts
Trouble is the testimony comes from those with failed business deals, dopers looking for a short-cut back to,the peleton or a book to promote ...
As I mentioned above, hardly a lack of motivation to point the finger ...0 -
Crankbrother wrote:oneof1982 wrote:Why should anyone listen to Walsh? All he does is bandy about detailed allegations backed up by eye witness testimony in a thoroughly researched book which turn out to be correct.
What we want is opinion, not facts
Trouble is the testimony comes from those with failed business deals, dopers looking for a short-cut back to,the peloton or a book to promote ...
As I mentioned above, hardly a lack of motivation to point the finger ...
My point was simply that on the big one, Walsh was right. There was nothing that came out in the UCI report, other than the crushed cole can that Walsh hadn't already documented.
Now of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't expect the same level of evidence should he be making other serious allegations0 -
I despair of you lot, all this time on the Internet and none of you has realised the obvious real point of what Walsh is doing - trying to deflect attention from his paymasters at Sky.
the above may not be my real opinion0 -
Erm... could the Walsh reply not also be construed to mean that he believes we should be suspicious of all winning performances and that @robricketts29 is "100% right" to be suspicious based on cycling's history, rather than FC's performance in particular? Along the lines of "don't trust, then verify"?0
-
OCDuPalais wrote:Erm... could the Walsh reply not also be construed to mean that he believes we should be suspicious of all winning performances and that @robricketts29 is "100% right" to be suspicious based on cycling's history, rather than FC's performance in particular? Along the lines of "don't trust, then verify"?
No. Not according to a google translate on the article linked above at any rate.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
So I've heard a couple of bits. As have a lot of others.
Trained by Cecchini
Ferreti, Riis and Bruyneel teams. Would anyone really be surprised?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:So I've heard a couple of bits. As have a lot of others.
Trained by Cecchini
Ferreti, Riis and Bruyneel teams. Would anyone really be surprised?
To be honest, I'd be surprised if he was clean. There's a difference between me saying that and Walsh doing so though.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No way was Fabian (Or should we call him Luigi?..
) clean at CSC. He has been mentioned enough in various stories that Walsh is in every right to be suspicious. 0 -
I'd hope that he would be certain before making accusations but on re-reading the tweets and the article it seems as though he is saying no more than there are grounds for suspicion which, given what is out there in the public domain, is probably reasonable. It looks as though he may have gone on to clarify things in the interview but they didn't print the follow up in the teaser which, with my cynical head on, suggests to me that it was a lot less controversial than the initial statement and thus less likely to result in sales for the magazine.No tA Doctor wrote:iainf72 wrote:So I've heard a couple of bits. As have a lot of others.
Trained by Cecchini
Ferreti, Riis and Bruyneel teams. Would anyone really be surprised?
To be honest, I'd be surprised if he was clean. There's a difference between me saying that and Walsh doing so though.0 -
fabian got a big fat 0 in the uci index of suspicion from tdf 2010
which presumably means his blood profile is beyond reproof
maybe he's genuine.0 -
dave milne wrote:fabian got a big fat 0 in the uci index of suspicion from tdf 2010
which presumably means his blood profile is beyond reproof
maybe he's genuine.
I can spot at least 3 other confirmed dopers in the 0 bracket with him. Bearing in mind that's also a race that's not one of his big targets, I would expect his values wouldn't be wildly off his baseline. Be dim if they were...
Journalists have I'm sure access to a great deal more "off-the-record" information that they can't publish, but all of which will colour their perceptions of certain riders. Looks like Walsh has heard stuff that he doesn't like.0 -
Just read the story but via Google translate& it suggests that he does say he has heard things. Not sure what I feel as if he has no evidence he could end up sounding like his former colleague if he goes down the route of 'well everyone knows it and you need to prove your not". I know there have been rumours surrounding him before but nothing has come of it (yet) so guess time will tell if this gains any momentum or just remains as is.Pain hurts much less if its topped off with beating your mates to top of a climb.0
-
Go Cancellara. If my photosite was working I would post some incredible photos. Photogenic to the extreme.Contador is the Greatest0
-
frenchfighter wrote:Go Cancellara. If my photosite was working I would post some incredible photos. Photogenic to the extreme.
Therefore he must be clean 0
