Inside Team Sky - David Walsh *Spoilers*
Comments
-
whiteboytrash wrote:ddraver wrote:I think this has become my new favourite thread of the year....
Seriously someone doesnt understand the meaning of attack or someday then accuses other people of not grasping the english language?!?!?
Outstanding!
I didn't realise this forum was exclusive only to a few?
Am I not allowed to post my thoughts on the book with actual references from the book?
Your welcome to contribute also. You're not being stopped.
Have you read the book? Care to provide your own views on Walsh's work?
I see a lot of holes in the book. Limited fact checking and he appears to distort actual events.
The passages on Bharzhila for instances have some glaring holes and misinformation. Then Walsh says:"My feeling with this condition is that it’s a case of move along folks, there is nothing to see here."
Really?
This is a glaring inaccuracy, the disease in question is Bilharzia. What you have written is probably the name of some distant cousin of Godzilla.0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:ddraver wrote:I think this has become my new favourite thread of the year....
Seriously someone doesnt understand the meaning of attack or someday then accuses other people of not grasping the english language?!?!?
Outstanding!
I didn't realise this forum was exclusive only to a few?
Am I not allowed to post my thoughts on the book with actual references from the book?
Your welcome to contribute also. You're not being stopped.
Have you read the book? Care to provide your own views on Walsh's work?
I see a lot of holes in the book. Limited fact checking and he appears to distort actual events.
The passages on Bharzhila for instances have some glaring holes and misinformation. Then Walsh says:"My feeling with this condition is that it’s a case of move along folks, there is nothing to see here."
Really?
Don't think it exclusive at all. You'd probably find though that more people would engage if they didn't have to wade through a dozen or so pages of he said/you said guff to concentrate on the original intention of the thread.0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:ddraver wrote:I think this has become my new favourite thread of the year....
Seriously someone doesnt understand the meaning of attack or someday then accuses other people of not grasping the english language?!?!?
Outstanding!
I didn't realise this forum was exclusive only to a few?
Am I not allowed to post my thoughts on the book with actual references from the book?
Your welcome to contribute also. You're not being stopped.
Have you read the book? Care to provide your own views on Walsh's work?
I see a lot of holes in the book. Limited fact checking and he appears to distort actual events.
The passages on Bharzhila for instances have some glaring holes and misinformation. Then Walsh says:"My feeling with this condition is that it’s a case of move along folks, there is nothing to see here."
Really?
This is a glaring inaccuracy, the disease in question is Bilharzia. What you have written is probably the name of some distant cousin of Godzilla.
Thanks for the correction. Be good if someone could have done similar for Walsh.
There's another part in the book where Walsh tells the story of Rod Ellingworth reading the tour "road book" or the "bible" as its referred for the mornings stage.
There is an advertisement for Festina Watches with a smiling picture of Richard Virenque (que evil horror music)!
Rod disgusted by the evil doper in Virenque because he wouldn't admit to his sins, can't take it anymore. Why do the French celebrate their dopers? So Rod tears the page from the book and throws it in the bin! Yes rips it out of the book and throws it into the bin.
Later on in the book Rod happily visits the Tommy Simpson's museum and borrows a WC jersey from the Simpson memorial to give to Cav in preparation for his World Title bid. Dopers who top themselves on Ventoux and carry their drugs in their back pocket are ok?
Walsh and Ellingworth then speak glowingly of Julich he apparently never doped beyond his "once or twice" in 1998!
So French dopers are bad. British dopers appear to be ok, and dopers who only partially admit whom are Canadian but worked for team Sky and Froome are ok also.
I'm sure all this is good fun. But you get the jist of the book. Its for fans only. For the British to reveal in their successes. You get the feeling through the entire book that Walsh didn't actually ask any questions. Just took everything he was told at face value.
The passages on Kerrison are beyond belief. Yes Italian riders drink too much coffee and Sky riders practicing attacking in training!
The book is that simple.0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:This is a glaring inaccuracy, the disease in question is Bilharzia. What you have written is probably the name of some distant cousin of Godzilla.
I dont know....limited fact checking, glaring inaccuracies. You have to wonder why, what motive could he have0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:This is a glaring inaccuracy, the disease in question is Bilharzia. What you have written is probably the name of some distant cousin of Godzilla.
Limited fact checking, glaring inaccuracies. You have to wonder why, what motive could he have
I'm a lone guy with a keyboard. Walsh is an award wining journalist for a national newspaper and book publisher with a team of editors.
You'd expect better, yes? Or at least he'd bother to ask more questions.
He didn't. Why?0 -
People react to different dopers in different ways. Largely because they are different people. Our willingness to forgive and condemn can depend on may factors The Giro celebrates Pantani, yet Armstrong is reviled. Those that condemn Julich may praise Vaughters. We all do it.whiteboytrash wrote:[
There's another part in the book where Walsh tells the story of Rod Ellingworth reading the tour "road book" or the "bible" as its referred for the mornings stage.
There is an advertisement for Festina Watches with a smiling picture of Richard Virenque (que evil horror music)!
Rod disgusted by the evil doper in Virenque because he wouldn't admit to his sins, can't take it anymore. Why do the French celebrate their dopers? So Rod tears the page from the book and throws it in the bin! Yes rips it out of the book and throws it into the bin.
Later on in the book Rod happily visits the Tommy Simpson's museum and borrows a WC jersey from the Simpson memorial to give to Cav in preparation for his World Title bid. Dopers who top themselves on Ventoux and carry their drugs in their back pocket are ok?
Walsh and Ellingworth then speak glowingly of Julich he apparently never doped beyond his "once or twice" in 1998!
So French dopers are bad. British dopers appear to be ok, and dopers who only partially admit whom are Canadian but worked for team Sky and Froome are ok also.
Ellingworth is no different. And he will have personal experiences. Acceptance of a recent (as opposed to the 60s) doper he can manage, celebration of them probably less so.Twitter: @RichN950 -
whiteboytrash wrote:Walsh and Ellingworth then speak glowingly of Julich he apparently never doped beyond his "once or twice" in 1998!
So French dopers are bad. British dopers appear to be ok, and dopers who only partially admit whom are Canadian but worked for team Sky and Froome are ok also.
Julich is Canadian, eh. Who knew?
You'd be a lot more credible if you didn't make basic factual errors all the time, ironically the very same thing you are criticising Walsh for.0 -
I'm an alcoholic0
-
The constant un founded swipes at team Sky and anyone who has had anything to do with them is also not helping. I have a huge dislike of any cheat in sport, but accusing a rider, or a whole team, of cheating on no other grounds than they do what they do, winning GTs, well, sounds like pure spite.0
-
mike6 wrote:The constant un founded swipes at team Sky and anyone who has had anything to do with them is also not helping. I have a huge dislike of any cheat in sport, but accusing a rider, or a whole team, of cheating on no other grounds than they do what they do, winning GTs, well, sounds like pure spite.
But I'm not accusing them of cheating or doping? I'm critiquing the book.
I was asked for my personal view on Sky and doping and I gave it. That's what occurs on discussion forms. People discuss and give their views. Doesn't mean I'm right or that everyone will agree with me.
I believe the performances are questionable and I was hoping the Walsh book would answer some of those questions. It did not. It read like a teenagers book on One Direction. Not a well researched book into the "inside" of Sky like the title suggests.
What I find is odd is there doesn't appear to be anyone providing counter analysis. Some have but not many. A lot of jibes but the issue here is not me but the book by Walsh.
Can't we discuss its content rather than bully me? I've offered several to provide viewpoints but sadly they've not bothered.
I keep getting told to go back to the asylum. Which I find most exclusionary. Should we encourage questions? Should we offer debate?
If Sky are clean as they state then they'll be well able to handle the scrutiny, yes?
What is everyone afraid of? Questions should be asked and we should demand answers. Not talking points.0 -
...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0
-
whiteboytrash wrote:mike6 wrote:The constant un founded swipes at team Sky and anyone who has had anything to do with them is also not helping. I have a huge dislike of any cheat in sport, but accusing a rider, or a whole team, of cheating on no other grounds than they do what they do, winning GTs, well, sounds like pure spite.
But I'm not accusing them of cheating or doping? I'm critiquing the book.
I was asked for my personal view on Sky and doping and I gave it. That's what occurs on discussion forms. People discuss and give their views. Doesn't mean I'm right or that everyone will agree with me.
I believe the performances are questionable and I was hoping the Walsh book would answer some of those questions. It did not. It read like a teenagers book on One Direction. Not a well researched book into the "inside" of Sky like the title suggests.
What I find is odd is there doesn't appear to be anyone providing counter analysis. Some have but not many. A lot of jibes but the issue here is not me but the book by Walsh.
Can't we discuss its content rather than bully me? I've offered several to provide viewpoints but sadly they've not bothered.
I keep getting told to go back to the asylum. Which I find most exclusionary. Should we encourage questions? Should we offer debate?
If Sky are clean as they state then they'll be well able to handle the scrutiny, yes?
What is everyone afraid of? Questions should be asked and we should demand answers. Not talking points.
What everyone is afraid of is an intransigent simpleton with an inadequate grasp of the English language selectively quoting the book in a manner that confirms his preordained and ill-founded prejudices, while claiming that his idiosyncratic grasp of semantics is superior to that of everyone else on the thread and that everyone that points out his glaringly obvious biases and mistakes is attempting to bully him off the board, while his own repetitive, lacklustre arguments are the very essence of quality message board debate.
OK?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
RichN95 wrote:
People react to different dopers in different ways. Largely because they are different people. Our willingness to forgive and condemn can depend on may factors The Giro celebrates Pantani, yet Armstrong is reviled. Those that condemn Julich may praise Vaughters. We all do it.whiteboytrash wrote:[
There's another part in the book where Walsh tells the story of Rod Ellingworth reading the tour "road book" or the "bible" as its referred for the mornings stage.
There is an advertisement for Festina Watches with a smiling picture of Richard Virenque (que evil horror music)!
Rod disgusted by the evil doper in Virenque because he wouldn't admit to his sins, can't take it anymore. Why do the French celebrate their dopers? So Rod tears the page from the book and throws it in the bin! Yes rips it out of the book and throws it into the bin.
Later on in the book Rod happily visits the Tommy Simpson's museum and borrows a WC jersey from the Simpson memorial to give to Cav in preparation for his World Title bid. Dopers who top themselves on Ventoux and carry their drugs in their back pocket are ok?
Walsh and Ellingworth then speak glowingly of Julich he apparently never doped beyond his "once or twice" in 1998!
So French dopers are bad. British dopers appear to be ok, and dopers who only partially admit whom are Canadian but worked for team Sky and Froome are ok also.
Ellingworth is no different. And he will have personal experiences. Acceptance of a recent (as opposed to the 60s) doper he can manage, celebration of them probably less so.
Completely agree. Ellingworth I understand. It's more the way Walsh presents the story as symbolic for the stand against doping. When reality suggests blatant nationalism.
The French celebrate Richie V just like the British celebrate Simpson. I see no difference.
Similarly the book happily calls out Contador but over simplifies the Leinders engagement.0 -
There are several differences including the passage of time and the different ways drugs were viewed at their time.whiteboytrash wrote:[
The French celebrate Richie V just like the British celebrate Simpson. I see no difference.
But the main difference is that for Virenque there was very little downside. He served a short ban, published his book of lies, continued his career, got a commentary job, an advertising gig and a regular slot on celebrity shows. By contrast Simpson got a trip to the morgue.
They are like the angel and devil on the shoulders. One represents all the gains of doping, the other represents the losses.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Go Whiteboytrash . Your rocking this sight.
Booo to the Sky bullies.
Whiteboytrash you have got the Sky fans so worked up, it's brilliant. One even gave up
Your not alone.
Keep going.
I picked the wrong time to give up drinking 0 -
RichN95 wrote:
There are several differences including the passage of time and the different ways drugs were viewed at their time.whiteboytrash wrote:[
The French celebrate Richie V just like the British celebrate Simpson. I see no difference.
But the main difference is that for Virenque there was very little downside. He served a short ban, published his book of lies, continued his career, got a commentary job, an advertising gig and a regular slot on celebrity shows. By contrast Simpson got a trip to the morgue.
They are like the angel and devil on the shoulders. One represents all the gains of doping, the other represents the losses.
??
Simpsons death bless his soul was due to his overuse of drugs. Not some tragic strike from the gods. Virenque's ignominy of confessing in a public trial with the prospect of jail time looming over him. He didn't become celebrated as quickly as you suggest. Both are victims of a system, both used drugs, both are celebrated by their home country.
How Walsh picks out good and evil between these two is beyond me.
Are you suggesting if Virenque died he wouldn't have had his photo ripped from the book?0 -
If he was dead he wouldn't be raking in the cash advertising watches would he? That's the difference you don't seem to comprehend. It's not really Virenque that is offensive, it is what he represents.whiteboytrash wrote:Are you suggesting if Virenque died he wouldn't have had his photo ripped from the book?
(Also for most of Simpson's career drugs weren't even banned. And his death was due to dehydration not the drugs. The drugs were just one factor - the restriction on water bottles was another, probably bigger one.)Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
If he was dead he wouldn't be raking in the cash advertising watches would he? That's the difference you don't seem to comprehend. It's not really Virenque that is offensive, it is what he represents.whiteboytrash wrote:Are you suggesting if Virenque died he wouldn't have had his photo ripped from the book?
(Also for most of Simpson's career drugs weren't even banned. And his death was due to dehydration not the drugs. The drugs were just one factor - the restriction on water bottles was another, probably bigger one.)
Yes amphetamines do tend to dehydrate one. Ever wonder why clubbers drink so much water and orange juice?
You wrote that with a straight face?
Virenque is not allowed to earn money? I didn't realize doping carries a "he must not earn money for the rest of his life" statue? Seriously?
David Miller is earning money. Vaughters is earning money. Lots of dopers are earning money. British ones included.
I'm sure Tommy Simpson if he didn't die would be earning money.
Anyway we're not here to dissect the differences and nuances in good dopers and bad dopers. They both doped. Supposedly Vireque stopped after Festina so he can't be all that bad? Maybe? Point being Walsh through the book doesn't see the contradictions he makes in his assessments.
I'll give you another one. He is sizing up Ventoux and how Froome's ride wasn't all that exceptional after all. He talks about 2009 (he leaves out Wiggins as if he wasn't even there) how Garate noted there was a headwind in the final kilometers and they still rode fast. He was oblivious to the fact that Froome also omitted to the fact there was a strong headwind in the final kilometers in 2013 as did several other riders - Dan Martin etc. and this was where Froome after smashing apart Contador was attacking Quintana?! Into a headwind and gaining time.
He then compares it to Mayo's ITT and says Froome's time was 23 rd fastest up Ventoux. With a straight face. He includes the false flat at the start of Ventoux because it levels the times out nicely but then says "timing" is always a problem with measuring climbs because Froome might have been at the back of the peleton when they started the climb?? and his time wouldn't account for this!!
He did leave out the following:Froome's time over the last 6.15 km (average grade 8.00%, 492m. elevation gain) was an incredible 17'41", while in 2002 Armstrong rode 17'53" in his record ascension and Pantani posted 18'11" in 2000
But I'll give him a pass for that one!
Point being. He tells us how we can't always trust the data because of the variables. Then present the variables to tell us Froome wasn't really that fast.
Froome was fast. Decimated his opposition.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:mike6 wrote:If Sky are clean as they state then they'll be well able to handle the scrutiny, yes?
What is everyone afraid of? Questions should be asked and we should demand answers. Not talking points.
What everyone is afraid of is an intransigent simpleton with an inadequate grasp of the English language selectively quoting the book in a manner that confirms his preordained and ill-founded prejudices, while claiming that his idiosyncratic grasp of semantics is superior to that of everyone else on the thread and that everyone that points out his glaringly obvious biases and mistakes is attempting to bully him off the board, while his own repetitive, lacklustre arguments are the very essence of quality message board debate.
OK?
An intransigent simpleton whom is providing links to Walsh's book and offering discussion? I can't publish the entire book on this thread.
I've offered people to comment. Entered into debate. I've provided my own opinion and happily stated that I may not be right but its my own person view.
Can't see how that is the work of simpleton. I see the opposite. I see a lot here whom are standing at the gates of Sky with pitchforks telling me not to ask questions.
Brailsford himself at the Tour pleading with the public, 'tell us what you want us to do, to make you believe us'?
Therefore I'm asking the questions.
That's what we do in modern democracies. Ask questions.
Surely you don't disagree?0 -
WBT
I'm not understanding your points?
Is your conclusion you don't like the book? You don't like Sky? All of them are at it? You don't like DW? or
You do like Sky, none of them are at it and DW was just having a bad time writing?0 -
feltkuota wrote:WBT
I'm not understanding your points?
Is your conclusion you don't like the book? You don't like Sky? All of them are at it? You don't like DW? or
You do like Sky, none of them are at it and DW was just having a bad time writing?
Thanks for the questions.
I like Sky. I like their outfits. They look good. I like what they represent. But I have questions on their performances. Froome and Porte in particular. Didn't like what I saw at the Tour. Froome's back history makes me more suspicious. But on the whole I like Sky. Good investment in cycling top down. From Pro to street level with Skyrides etc. Cycling would be worse off without them. But I do question at what cost to the sport their success will bring in the future.
Walsh in my own opinion is an a silly old fart. Not a very smart man. For a person with so many accolades he does write like a 3 year old. I made the same comments in the Armstrong years. He had his position on Armstrong it was predetermined and his books worked from this point. I don't think those book were the work of any great investigative journalist. Picking out a doper in 1999 to 2005 was like asking a group 20 somethings if they've ever had a beer. We all knew Armstrong and the entire peloton for that matter was doping to some degree. It wasn't rocket science. (although like Sky fans many thought he was clean)
To the point of Wash's Sky book. It just reads like a fanzie about One Direction. He's trying so hard to be liked. Maybe because for the first time he's on the inside and not being isolated? I don't know. But content of the book is at times vomit inducing. He really is in love. And yes I understand he has to make it sound interesting but at times he is so over the top with how clean and how well advanced Sky are it reads like comedy. You know; they train harder than anyone else mantra. Not thinking for a minute that doping aids recovery and allows you to train harder! I also add this is what Armstrong used in his day. That he trained harder than any other riders/teams etc.
So what do you think? Or anyone else here? I've not heard a lot of what others think? Just how I don't know what I'm talking about. I'd like to hear other viewpoints.0 -
I said the drugs were one of the factors. Try reading what people write once in a while.whiteboytrash wrote:Yes amphetamines do tend to dehydrate one. Ever wonder why clubbers drink so much water and orange juice?
You wrote that with a straight face?
Then you bang on about Ventoux to me again, despite me saying over and over and over that using a small sample of stats is useless. Again try reading what people write once in a while.
You keep pompously saying you want a discussion, but are completely unwilling to take any of it on board - prefering to misrepresent it to suit your views.
You think the reason people have a go at you is you oppose Sky. It's not. It's because you're a bellend.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
I said the drugs were one of the factors. Try reading what people write once in a while.whiteboytrash wrote:Yes amphetamines do tend to dehydrate one. Ever wonder why clubbers drink so much water and orange juice?
You wrote that with a straight face?
Then you bang on about Ventoux to me again, despite me saying over and over and over that using a small sample of stats is useless. Again try reading what people write once in a while.
You keep pompously saying you want a discussion, but are completely unwilling to take any of it on board - prefering to misrepresent it to suit your views.
You think the reason people have a go at you is you oppose Sky. It's not. It's because you're a bellend.
Bellend? Interesting.
You going to call me a hater next?
Sad you've reduced yourself to childish putdowns.
But I guess it demonstrates you lack the maturity to have sensible discussion. And here's me thinking you were one of the more constructive contributors here.
You do realize there are people in this world who will disagree with you? Doesn't mean they are wrong or a "bellend" as you suggest.
Anytime you wish to discuss on a adult level let me know.0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:feltkuota wrote:WBT
So what do you think?
If I were to own a team I'd hope to set it up as professionally as Sky appear to be.
The book is ok I wasn't expecting too much from it and I can certainly forgive the errors. I would however have expected that if DW had seen anything, had an inkling of any wrongdoing, it would have been voiced before any book was published. As it is, I prefer to view from a point of glass half full as I don't particularily wish to live on the basis that everyone's cheating we just haven't caught them yet. If I thought everyone was cheating I just wouldn't be interested in the sport. If, at some point in the future there is evidence, and not some folks pinging away on an internet forum, then so be it.0 -
When actually read what posters (and Walsh) have actually written and address that rather that misrepresenting it as something you can more easily argue against then you will merit discussion at an adult level.whiteboytrash wrote:
Bellend? Interesting.
You going to call me a hater next?
Sad you've reduced yourself to childish putdowns.
But I guess it demonstrates you lack the maturity to have sensible discussion. And here's me thinking you were one of the more constructive contributors here.
You do realize there are people in this world who will disagree with you? Doesn't mean they are wrong or a "bellend" as you suggest.
Anytime you wish to discuss on a adult level let me know.
You might also want to branch out from the Sky doping as a topic into other areas of cycling. It appears to be the only subject you want to post about. It shows you to be somewhat tunnel visioned.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:You think the reason people have a go at you is you oppose Sky. It's not.
Posters who criticise Sky aren't exactly warmly welcomed by this forum. Most of the old sages just keep quiet.0 -
Frenchie and IainF hardly have a good word to say about them. They get on OK. Iain's one of the poster's whose view I respect the most. And Frenchie is now almost liked because of his Sky dislike.TheBigBean wrote:RichN95 wrote:You think the reason people have a go at you is you oppose Sky. It's not.
Posters who criticise Sky aren't exactly warmly welcomed by this forum. Most of the old sages just keep quiet.
Who are these old sages that are keeping quiet then? And if they're keeping quiet, then how do you know what they think.Twitter: @RichN950 -
feltkuota wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:feltkuota wrote:WBT
So what do you think?
If I were to own a team I'd hope to set it up as professionally as Sky appear to be.
The book is ok I wasn't expecting too much from it and I can certainly forgive the errors. I would however have expected that if DW had seen anything, had an inkling of any wrongdoing, it would have been voiced before any book was published. As it is, I prefer to view from a point of glass half full as I don't particularily wish to live on the basis that everyone's cheating we just haven't caught them yet. If I thought everyone was cheating I just wouldn't be interested in the sport. If, at some point in the future there is evidence, and not some folks pinging away on an internet forum, then so be it.
All good points. Yes agreed. Additionally Walsh wasn't just looking for doping he was reporting on their season at large. In terms of not seeing anything. In some cases his eyes appeared closed but agree if there were activities going on you'd hope he made note.
I temper this with we're coming from a sport with a history of doping in strange and secret ways. Autograph hunters delivering blood bags, Motoman, broken down buses, ex-wives carrying drugs etc.
Anything is possible.
I think sport for a long time yet will have those asking question and being suspicious of performances. We still don't know a lot in regards to what went on from 1996-2007. Until such time some will wear their suspicion hats.
I'd like to think the sport has got better. But I'm not entirely convinced. Time will tell.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:RichN95 wrote:You think the reason people have a go at you is you oppose Sky. It's not.
Posters who criticise Sky aren't exactly warmly welcomed by this forum. Most of the old sages just keep quiet.
I would agree. I'm shocked at some of the vitriol. Surely if there's nothing to hide there wouldn't anything to be concerned about ?
I don't think Sky or Cookson for that matter want to be seen as a pitchfork mob hunting down non-conformers.
2013 folks. We should be asking questions.0 -
And then listening to the answers!whiteboytrash wrote:2013 folks. We should be asking questions.0
This discussion has been closed.
