Inside Team Sky - David Walsh *Spoilers*

nic_77

No doubt FF has finished reading this already... but I'll post a few snippets in case anyone else is interested.

Reflections so far - DW is doing his best to demonstrate some distance between him and DB. The book also certainly gives some interesting insight on day-to-day details in the team during a grand tour. I've already enjoyed the first four chapters enough to warrant recommending this book.

Best gossip so far involves the story that BW failed to pay CF his share of the 2012 TdF prize pot. (I understand that BW did eventually make good on this at the World Championships in 2013).

DW also reveals how DB had intended to handle the leadership situation between CF and BW at the 2013 Tour. He planned to get them together and ask BW if he was committed to helping CF. Assuming BW said yes, he would then suggest a clause which meant that BW would be fined several months wages (>100K) if he broke the deal. Assuming BW said yes again. CF would be told that he would get to keep that money in this event.

Effectively DB was settling for "goal harmony" if not "team harmony". DB is also quoted as saying that "Money is important to Chris, he makes that clear which I think is good", so maybe the plan would have worked.

Richmond Racer

Yeah, it would have been a fair chunk of moolah

Pross

Based on that arrangement maybe Brad was applying it retrospectively to Froome for the 2012 Tour hence no payment of his prize cut

Richmond Racer

Pross wrote:

Based on that arrangement maybe Brad was applying it retrospectively to Froome for the 2012 Tour hence no payment of his prize cut

nic_77

[DB] "three or four months' wages"
[DW] "worth maybe as much as a few hundred thousand"

So not an accurate neans of calculating BW's salary... But even on 4M a year, take-home would be 160k a month so the max might be 640k....

Anyway it never happened this was DB's proposed plan, but the Giro and injury took it out of his hands.

RichN95.

There's a mistake six words into chapter one, which isn't a good start.

Richmond Racer

RichN95 wrote:

There's a mistake six words into chapter one, which isn't a good start.

What's a month between friends? He's also confused Conti with ProConti later on

Should have given it to BR to proof-read it first

mm1

No one has answered the critical question yet, are the folks over in the asylum go to wet themselves when they read it?

Crankbrother

[Mod Edited]if he needs to be financially penalised to carry out his job, especially when the teammate in question did the same job in reverse the year previous ...

Brailsford made the mistake of giving him the pay increase after the TdF win ... If he was refusing to play ball, put him out to pasture and tell him to ride more Olympic events ... If he thinks about refusing he tarnishes his own reputation via his own ego, so be it ...

At least Jim fixed it for a few folks ...

tailwindhome

mm1 wrote:

No one has answered the critical question yet, are the folks over in the asylum go to wet themselves when they read it?

The asylum is an extraordinary forum.

Some very special posters there.

RichN95.

mm1 wrote:

No one has answered the critical question yet, are the folks over in the asylum go to wet themselves when they read it?

They don't need to read it to wet themselves. They are already outraged about everything they haven't actually read. But hope is at hand - they are holding out for some genuine truth from the Kimmage film (seemingly ignoring that he rarely turned up and the articles he wrote were insipid).

nic_77

Crankbrother wrote:

[Mod Edited] if he needs to be financially penalised to carry out his job, especially when the teammate in question did the same job in reverse the year previous...

I think the point is that the teammate didn't exactly do his job previously. Or if he did it was whilst flicking the V's at his line manager.

Of course two wrongs don't make a right (as I'm tired of telling my two toddlers).

RichN95.

nic_77 wrote:

I think the point is that the teammate didn't exactly do his job previously. Or if he did it was whilst ******* the V's at his line manager.

Of course two wrongs don't make a right (as I'm tired of telling my two toddlers).

Having read that section of the book, Walsh says that some team members who like Wiggins said he was wrong. And he is. I don't think you can defend it.

However, the strange thing is that I thought the distribution of wealth these days was contracted.

As for your toddlers - you need to pitch them against each other. Put their fights on YouTube if necessary. I'll have a fiver on the smaller one.

nic_77

The mention of my children was deliberately metaphorical with respect to BW and CF.
The trouble is one minor provocation will often elicit a heavy-handed retaliation (which incurs greater parental condemnation).

RichN95 wrote:

As for your toddlers - you need to pitch them against each other... I'll have a fiver on the smaller one.

No bookie would take that bet - she's handy.

Macaloon

RichN95 wrote:

As for your toddlers - you need to pitch them against each other. Put their fights on YouTube if necessary. I'll have a fiver on the smaller one.

All of the Apollo astronauts were first born: learned obedience to parents overcoming their curiosity to find out what that button does. There's never been a conservative revolutionary who was a second born (of two). That said, birth-order effects may be less prevalent amongst elite athletes.

RichN95.

Macaloon wrote:

All of the Apollo astronauts were first born: learned obedience to parents overcoming their curiosity to find out what that button does.

Not actually true though. For example Buzz Aldrin had two elder sisters (maybe he still does). And besides, they knew exactly what all the buttons did.

Macaloon

RichN95 wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

All of the Apollo astronauts were first born: learned obedience to parents overcoming their curiosity to find out what that button does.

Not actually true though. For example Buzz Aldrin had two elder sisters (maybe he still does). And besides, they knew exactly what all the buttons did.

The effects are optional with more than one sibling Pretty sure it came from the extreme psychological tests NASA put Gemini and Apollo astronauts through and then 'social scientists' started looking for other examples.

rayjay

Wasn't Lance Armstrong the first man on the moon ?
Some school kid actually answered with Lance on a test paper.
We all know it was his dad Neil

Macaloon

rayjay wrote:

Wasn't Lance Armstrong the first man on the moon ?
Some school kid actually answered with Lance on a test paper.
We all know it was his dad Neil

Three of the biggest balls in history.

tailwindhome

I would have assumed that prize money would have been paid to the team rather than to the individual riders.

Does Walsh reveal how Wiggins actually split the money - there's a big difference between Wiggins splitting the money 7 ways (rather than 8 ) and Wiggins retaining Froome's share (which wouldn't be unreasonable if the latter held on to his 2nd place money and stage wins)

To me the whole incident says more about Brailsford than Wiggins....

Macaloon

^Correct. Nursing brittle Wiggins to first Brit winner of the Tour was miraculous.

antsmithmk

Wiggins got 650,000 for winning the tour
Froome 200,000 for finishing second

So if Brad splits it 9 ways, Froome ends up with 272,222 compared to Brads 72,222 doesn't seem right to me.

Maybe he split the money between the 8 others so that they all get 81,250 bar Froome who trousers 200,000. That seems more fair no?

RichN95.

rayjay wrote:

Wasn't Lance Armstrong the first man on the moon ?
Some school kid actually answered with Lance on a test paper.

It wasn't a school kid. It was a woman on a TV show. Watch from 0:50 in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Iy0R0bIZ68

RichN95.

antsmithmk wrote:

Wiggins got 650,000 for winning the tour
Froome 200,000 for finishing second

So if Brad splits it 9 ways, Froome ends up with 272,222 compared to Brads 72,222 doesn't seem right to me.

Maybe he split the money between the 8 others so that they all get 81,250 bar Froome who trousers 200,000. That seems more fair no?

All prizes get split between the team - not just the winner's. No Froome splits his too - as does Cavendish for his stage wins.

At least that's how it's meant to work.

mike6

RichN95 wrote:

antsmithmk wrote:

Wiggins got 650,000 for winning the tour
Froome 200,000 for finishing second

So if Brad splits it 9 ways, Froome ends up with 272,222 compared to Brads 72,222 doesn't seem right to me.

Maybe he split the money between the 8 others so that they all get 81,250 bar Froome who trousers 200,000. That seems more fair no?

All prizes get split between the team - not just the winner's. No Froome splits his too - as does Cavendish for his stage wins.

At least that's how it's meant to work.

That's been my understanding. The winner splits his prize money between the team, as the victor usually gains a lot more from sponsorship/promo and a bigger retainer. Its been like that since at least the Merckx era.

RichN95.

mike6 wrote:

Its been like that since at least the Merckx era.

Louison Bobet was the first to do it in 1953. It was national teams back then and riders often rode to their own agendas, so it was his way of getting them to ride for him.

rayjay

lets talk about how David Walsh only got to see what DB wanted him to see.
It's sugar coated nonsense with a few token gestures thrown in. "Where's the pooh"

Someone also said that Buzz Lightyear was the 2nd man on the moon.

blazing_saddles

rayjay wrote:

lets talk about how David Walsh only got to see what DB wanted him to see.
It's sugar coated nonsense with a few token gestures thrown in. "Where's the pooh"

Doesn't matter if you are looking for Walsh pooh, or Sky pooh, this convenience for the public is filled with it:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread ... ost1370189

Get yer waders on.

nic_77

rayjay wrote:

lets talk about how David Walsh only got to see what DB wanted him to see.
It's sugar coated nonsense with a few token gestures thrown in. "Where's the pooh"

How far through the book have you got? DW makes it pretty clear he had unlimited access.

mike6

nic_77 wrote:

rayjay wrote:

lets talk about how David Walsh only got to see what DB wanted him to see.
It's sugar coated nonsense with a few token gestures thrown in. "Where's the pooh"

How far through the book have you got? DW makes it pretty clear he had unlimited access.

Makes no difference Nic, people that have an anti Sky agenda only want there prejudice confirming, they are not interested in hearing what an un biased report or story has to say. :roll:

iainf72

mike6 wrote:

That's been my understanding. The winner splits his prize money between the team, as the victor usually gains a lot more from sponsorship/promo and a bigger retainer. Its been like that since at least the Merckx era.

Agreed. That's why I usually end up rolling my eyes when people talk about "prize money" when talking big races.

There is of course a pay day for winning, but that pay day isn't provided by prize money.

Didn't Savoldelli complain he didn't get his share of the winnings at the 2005 TdF?