Inside Team Sky - David Walsh *Spoilers*

Crankbrother

^ Language is somewhat combative but the points are fair ...

I think SKY do a lot of things right and that's why they get results ... Being a British team is what they do wrong, it brings out the worst in people ...

In terms of those results I do think that more scrutiny/transparency is required to demonstrate how they managed to turn 2 mid peleton riders into GT powerhouses in 2 seasons ... Froome's TT is specifically an area I would like explained ...

Richie Porte's progression ... I can accept that as he showed early promise and was left floundering in a team fraught with sponsor/rider/DS changes which wasn't a good environment for nurturing the talent he had ... He even won a few ITT's in decent stage races

RichN95.

whiteboytrash wrote:

[
In finality. On Ventoux despite the wind, whether side, tail or head, Froome decimated everyone. As he did so on Ax3. It's not the wind or freshness making him so good. He's just eons better. Eons..

Why do you only ever mention Ventoux and Ax3 and not Alpe d'Huez and Semnoz where Rodriguez and Quintana beat him comfortably? No-one ever does. I dare say you will try and explain it with the context which you refuse to acknowledge on those other stages. On mountain top finishes he was 2-2 v Rodriguez & Quintana - that's hardly eons better. He only beat Quintana when NQ attacked too early.

Walsh addressed the 'trial by times' agenda with bullsh1t because the whole debate is full of bullsh1t. It's all the debate deserves.

Here's the problem with the Sky are doping crowd - the ever vocal hardened cynics, not the habitual sceptics :
1. They are always the first to bring doping up, not the alleged 'fanboys'. And they do it often.
2. Most of them talk about little else but doping. Look at them on forums or twitter. It's nearly 100% doping
3. They have been doing this day in day out for a year or two. They are, as they say in poker, pot committed. There is no way back. No evidence can persuade them otherwise as they are in too deep by now.
4. They really don't have much evidence, and unlike Walsh with Armstrong, their pet journalists are too lazy or too crap to do likewise. Or worse, deep down those journalists don't buy into of their own professional scepticism

So in the absence of evidence they had to create it. Arbitary 'human levels', selective use of stats, fraudlent science sold to the non-scientist. It's this culture Walsh address and unfortunately descends to their level. It's also why teams won't release data - because the self-appointed judiciary has grown dishonest, bound to a belief, a faith, a religion.

But be if some of these people took a step back, embraced the idea that they may be wrong, then the debate might progress. But at the moment the debate is fuel by the vitriol of those more interested in defending their position than the truth.

RichN95.

Crankbrother wrote:

Richie Porte's progression ... I can accept that as he showed early promise and was left floundering in a team fraught with sponsor/rider/DS changes which wasn't a good environment for nurturing the talent he had ... He even won a few ITT's in decent stage races

It wasn't that. He had made it clear to Riis he was leaving at the end of the season at the beginning of the season. He had tried to move to Sky after year one. Coupled with Contador coming in with his own trusted domestiques meant that Riis had him pulling in the valleys and personal opportunites were curtailed. Basically office politics. When left to his own devices (TTs) he was probably better than the previous year.

whiteboytrash

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

[
In finality. On Ventoux despite the wind, whether side, tail or head, Froome decimated everyone. As he did so on Ax3. It's not the wind or freshness making him so good. He's just eons better. Eons..

Why do you only ever mention Ventoux and Ax3 and not Alpe d'Huez and Semnoz where Rodriguez and Quintana beat him comfortably? No-one ever does. I dare say you will try and explain it with the context which you refuse to acknowledge on those other stages. On mountain top finishes he was 2-2 v Rodriguez & Quintana - that's hardly eons better. He only beat Quintana when NQ attacked too early.

Walsh addressed the 'trial by times' agenda with bullsh1t because the whole debate is full of bullsh1t. It's all the debate deserves.

Here's the problem with the Sky are doping crowd - the ever vocal hardened cynics, not the habitual sceptics :
1. They are always the first to bring doping up, not the alleged 'fanboys'. And they do it often.
2. Most of them talk about little else but doping. Look at them on forums or twitter. It's nearly 100% doping
3. They have been doing this day in day out for a year or two. They are, as they say in poker, pot committed. There is no way back. No evidence can persuade them otherwise as they are in too deep by now.
4. They really don't have much evidence, and unlike Walsh with Armstrong, their pet journalists are too lazy or too crap to do likewise. Or worse, deep down those journalists don't buy into of their own professional scepticism

So in the absence of evidence they had to create it. Arbitary 'human levels', selective use of stats, fraudlent science sold to the non-scientist. It's this culture Walsh address and unfortunately descends to their level. It's also why teams won't release data - because the self-appointed judiciary has grown dishonest, bound to a belief, a faith, a religion.

But be if some of these people took a step back, embraced the idea that they may be wrong, then the debate might progress. But at the moment the debate is fuel by the vitriol of those more interested in defending their position than the truth.

Put down your pitchfork. Deep breaths. Slow down.

I've not mentioned doping. I'm just suspicious. And in the face of having little data from Sky my suspicion remains.

You do realize trying to interpret everything I type is of someone who is accusing Sky of rabid doping doesn't make you look so smart. Makes you look like someone who wants a fight, who wants to pigeon hole people so he feels better about being a "believer".

I'm ok with you believing Sky are clean. That's fine by me. I can see why it makes people uncomfortable to think Sky are doping. Their home countries team as a team of dopers. Yeah sure it makes people uncomfortable. Doesn't make it any less unlikely that they are doping.

To your question; a step back, as you say; if Sky (are) clean? Sure. Possible. Absolutely. They can be clean. For sure. But in the current context I'm not seeing it. Not with the type of domination and the riders whom have become the dominators.

So why are they clean?

No positives? Hmmm not sure that works. The sport has been riddled with riders who've "never test positive".

Sky have a ZTP? What is ZTP? I'm not sure any one has seen this policy? What is it?

Sky on marginal gains alone have tapped into methods of training which have turned not one but two riders whom spent a good portion of their careers in the grupetto into GT and 1 week powerhouses who can climb and TT like no other rider.

They are also able to put their team on the front of a GT, dial in 440-450w for 4-5 hours and kill off attacks (see Rogers, Basso comments 2012) - all clean?

Ok, getting much harder now.

Personally I'm not giving them a pass on blind faith alone. They haven't done enough for me to give them the clean seal of approval.

But I get it why others want to believe. And why its uncomfortable to think that Sky are on a full program of CO doping, AICAR, cortisone and GAS6. Its just much easier to believe that its all clean. That I get.

Per the Walsh book. He has a good stab at Katuhsa, its staff and riders. Doesn't say a lot to J-Rod if he is doping and getting smashed by Froome.

nic_77

whiteboytrash wrote:

Walsh explains Froome was so good on Ventoux was probably because of this "tailwind". He compared Froome to Mayo's
ITT and every other time from the 1999 and 2004 ITTs up Ventoux to say - "look not so fast after all".

But he fails to mention they were ITTs, why?

Can we consider this ITT thing as it appears to be central to your concern? I would expect a small group of riders racing hard together to be pretty close to an ITTer, even after a long stage (what kind of average does the Cav sprint train pull in the last 30km?). Moreso on a hill climb.

Of course, Froome also rode a decent chunk of the climb forcing the pace himself, even with Quintana for company - effectively as an ITT. I don't think anyone would argue that Mayo is a better rider against the clock than Froome (even tired). To be honest I'm surprised than Froome's climb average is so much slower than Mayo's.

whiteboytrash

nic_77 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

Walsh explains Froome was so good on Ventoux was probably because of this "tailwind". He compared Froome to Mayo's
ITT and every other time from the 1999 and 2004 ITTs up Ventoux to say - "look not so fast after all".

But he fails to mention they were ITTs, why?

Can we consider this ITT thing as it appears to be central to your concern? I would expect a small group of riders racing hard together to be pretty close to an ITTer, even after a long stage (what kind of average does the Cav sprint train pull in the last 30km?). Moreso on a hill climb.

Of course, Froome also rode a decent chunk of the climb forcing the pace himself, even with Quintana for company - effectively as an ITT. I don't think anyone would argue that Mayo is a better rider against the clock than Froome (even tired). To be honest I'm surprised than Froome's climb average is so much slower than Mayo's.

You do? Then why is the Top 20 times filled with ITT times? The top 15 ARE ITT times. Why is Vaughters still up there in 3rd place from 1999?

If its not such a big deal then Walsh surely would have mentioned that he's comparing an orange to an apple. Rather than pretending or concealing its was an apple to apple and stating Froome was "quite a difference" behind Mayo in terms of avg. speed.

Makes him look stupid or just like he's hiding something. Or both.

I also think saying that having a 220km rolling start doesn't make much difference is a joke. Seriously? 220km has no effect on the legs?

Well maybe not if you're doping? or is that what you meant? :shock:

Richmond Racer

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Pross wrote:

This could be the most tedious thread ever. Spoiler? More like spoiled! Is the book worth a read or are the 'inaccuracies' so bad as to make it pointless? Has anyone learned something new from reading it?

Yet another thread proving Frenchie's theory that anything Sky related gets disproptionate numbers of posts.

A month into to closed season and I'm bored stiff. I wouldn't be wasting my time going around in circles, otherwise.
Talking of circles, be watching Rachel in Newport, tomorrow evening.

Bored stiff - you and me too. Gets a bit desparate when you start envying the Aussies for their racing season right now. At least there's trackie action in Aguascalientes next week

RichN95.

whiteboytrash wrote:

Personally I'm not giving them a pass on blind faith alone. They haven't done enough for me to give them the clean seal of approval.

But I get it why others want to believe. And why its uncomfortable to think that Sky are on a full program of CO doping, AICAR, cortisone and GAS6. Its just much easier to believe that its all clean. That I get.

First of all, no-one's giving them a pass on blind faith.

Secondly, yes it's easier to believe they are clean - because thus far that's the what things point to. And no it's not uncomfortable to think that they are using those products. CO is ineffective, AICAR doesn't work and Gas6 doesn't even exist as a product. In fact Gas6 is an illustration how some people are desperate for a doping link that they make stuff up.

Many of those who claim to be fighting for a clean for a clean sport actually resist the idea with every sinew. They ae, in reality, fighting to defend their own entrenched views.

RichN95.

whiteboytrash wrote:

You do? Then why is the Top 20 times filled with ITT times? The top 15 ARE ITT times. Why is Vaughters still up there in 3rd place from 1999?

So why isn't the Alpe d'Huez list dominated by the 2004 Time Trial? And that wa sin the Tour not the Dauphine like the Ventoux TTs?

mike6

mfin wrote:

Pross wrote:

This could be the most tedious thread ever. Spoiler? More like spoiled! Is the book worth a read or are the 'inaccuracies' so bad as to make it pointless? Has anyone learned something new from reading it?

Yet another thread proving Frenchie's theory that anything Sky related gets disproptionate numbers of posts.

A theory coming from someone who makes loads of other threads disproportionately long by moaning about Sky when it's not even relevant to the topic just to wind people up

Quite. There are few on here who could turn a discussion on chess into a Sky must be doping thread. Anyway, Frenchie started it by flagging up the book and stating he would not be reading it because it was about Sky. So why bring it up in the first place?????? :roll:

Get a life and talk about something you like, I for one am tired of this constant negative, moaning, finger pointing pish.

r0bh

whiteboytrash wrote:

But I get it why others want to believe. And why its uncomfortable to think that Sky are on a full program of CO doping, AICAR, cortisone and GAS6. Its just much easier to believe that its all clean. That I get.

You know in QI when the klaxon goes off for an uneducated answer? Any mention of Gas6 does the same sort of thing in my head... :roll:

mfin

whiteboytrash wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

[
In finality. On Ventoux despite the wind, whether side, tail or head, Froome decimated everyone. As he did so on Ax3. It's not the wind or freshness making him so good. He's just eons better. Eons..

Why do you only ever mention Ventoux and Ax3 and not Alpe d'Huez and Semnoz where Rodriguez and Quintana beat him comfortably? No-one ever does. I dare say you will try and explain it with the context which you refuse to acknowledge on those other stages. On mountain top finishes he was 2-2 v Rodriguez & Quintana - that's hardly eons better. He only beat Quintana when NQ attacked too early.

Walsh addressed the 'trial by times' agenda with bullsh1t because the whole debate is full of bullsh1t. It's all the debate deserves.

Here's the problem with the Sky are doping crowd - the ever vocal hardened cynics, not the habitual sceptics :
1. They are always the first to bring doping up, not the alleged 'fanboys'. And they do it often.
2. Most of them talk about little else but doping. Look at them on forums or twitter. It's nearly 100% doping
3. They have been doing this day in day out for a year or two. They are, as they say in poker, pot committed. There is no way back. No evidence can persuade them otherwise as they are in too deep by now.
4. They really don't have much evidence, and unlike Walsh with Armstrong, their pet journalists are too lazy or too crap to do likewise. Or worse, deep down those journalists don't buy into of their own professional scepticism

So in the absence of evidence they had to create it. Arbitary 'human levels', selective use of stats, fraudlent science sold to the non-scientist. It's this culture Walsh address and unfortunately descends to their level. It's also why teams won't release data - because the self-appointed judiciary has grown dishonest, bound to a belief, a faith, a religion.

But be if some of these people took a step back, embraced the idea that they may be wrong, then the debate might progress. But at the moment the debate is fuel by the vitriol of those more interested in defending their position than the truth.

Put down your pitchfork. Deep breaths. Slow down.

I've not mentioned doping. I'm just suspicious. And in the face of having little data from Sky my suspicion remains.

You do realize trying to interpret everything I type is of someone who is accusing Sky of rabid doping doesn't make you look so smart. Makes you look like someone who wants a fight, who wants to pigeon hole people so he feels better about being a "believer".

I'm ok with you believing Sky are clean. That's fine by me. I can see why it makes people uncomfortable to think Sky are doping. Their home countries team as a team of dopers. Yeah sure it makes people uncomfortable. Doesn't make it any less unlikely that they are doping.

To your question; a step back, as you say; if Sky (are) clean? Sure. Possible. Absolutely. They can be clean. For sure. But in the current context I'm not seeing it. Not with the type of domination and the riders whom have become the dominators.

So why are they clean?

No positives? Hmmm not sure that works. The sport has been riddled with riders who've "never test positive".

Sky have a ZTP? What is ZTP? I'm not sure any one has seen this policy? What is it?

Sky on marginal gains alone have tapped into methods of training which have turned not one but two riders whom spent a good portion of their careers in the grupetto into GT and 1 week powerhouses who can climb and TT like no other rider.

They are also able to put their team on the front of a GT, dial in 440-450w for 4-5 hours and kill off attacks (see Rogers, Basso comments 2012) - all clean?

Ok, getting much harder now.

Personally I'm not giving them a pass on blind faith alone. They haven't done enough for me to give them the clean seal of approval.

But I get it why others want to believe. And why its uncomfortable to think that Sky are on a full program of CO doping, AICAR, cortisone and GAS6. Its just much easier to believe that its all clean. That I get.

Per the Walsh book. He has a good stab at Katuhsa, its staff and riders. Doesn't say a lot to J-Rod if he is doping and getting smashed by Froome.

Instead of all these posts you might as well just say "I think Sky or some of Sky are doping or at least am very suspicious that they're doping, although I don't have much to go on really", because nothing else you are saying is worth saying. People ARE listening to what you are saying and digesting and dissecting it, but why not drop it now and maybe discuss it if and when there is some evidence.

As for the book, okay, you don't like it, but the book was never going to be an "in depth scientific investigation into whether Sky are doping", and if it was, and all it was studying was results and compared times up a mountain then it wouldn't be a scientific investigation anyway.

So, we know what you are saying, and we know the speculative, conclusion of likely doping you are offering, and what basis you are offering it. So, maybe when there is more to say, say that, instead of banging the same old drum.

I'm sure you're an ok bloke, but why not calm it down a bit? If you were in a pub and trying to dominate a conversation with the same degree of relentless repetition then there would be half pints everywhere where people just 'disappear on you' out of complete boredom. That, is what is happening here. Some people are even popping their heads back into the pub and just hear that you are 'banging on and on still' and find it frustrating and boring in equal measure. If you're gonna keep on, can you come up with something new please, cos attempting to dominate the discussion in the fashion that you are is not adding to it, it's ruining it.

Richmond Racer

r0bh wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

But I get it why others want to believe. And why its uncomfortable to think that Sky are on a full program of CO doping, AICAR, cortisone and GAS6. Its just much easier to believe that its all clean. That I get.

You know in QI when the klaxon goes off for an uneducated answer? Any mention of Gas6 does the same sort of thing in my head... :roll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU5mOT57ghM

rayjay

I disagree. Whiteboytrash is doing a very good job and I am enjoying both sides of the debate.
I do think though when you look at the posts that it is the Sky fans who start making the insulting remarks and petty comments.There is no need for such remark's.

The sky fans say there is no reason for suspicion yet your defence shows that there is questions, valid questions to be asked.

I have never once defended Armstrong on his doping because I knew he doped.

From my own point of view, Leinder's is the main issue. I do not believe for one minute that DB did not know his background. If the Armstrong case had never blown up he would still be at Sky IMO.

The other point is the fact that 2 riders who have won nothing on the road have been turned into Tour winners inline with the arrival of Leinder's.
If the same thing happened at another team then suspicions would be aroused.

I think that is a fair point.

Macaloon

mfin wrote:

If you were in a pub and trying to dominate a conversation with the same degree of relentless repetition then there would be half pints everywhere where people just 'disappear on you' out of complete boredom.

Awkward http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12944279&start=100

r0bh

Richmond Racer wrote:

r0bh wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

But I get it why others want to believe. And why its uncomfortable to think that Sky are on a full program of CO doping, AICAR, cortisone and GAS6. Its just much easier to believe that its all clean. That I get.

You know in QI when the klaxon goes off for an uneducated answer? Any mention of Gas6 does the same sort of thing in my head... :roll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU5mOT57ghM

mike6

r0bh wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

r0bh wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

But I get it why others want to believe. And why its uncomfortable to think that Sky are on a full program of CO doping, AICAR, cortisone and GAS6. Its just much easier to believe that its all clean. That I get.

You know in QI when the klaxon goes off for an uneducated answer? Any mention of Gas6 does the same sort of thing in my head... :roll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU5mOT57ghM

Want to believe?? WTF. So any race, won by any rider is not believable, unless it gets your stamp of approval.? I dont see anything going on at Sky to disbelieve. Then again I actually enjoy cycling rather than simply using it as platform for snide accusations concerning a pet hate. :roll:

RichN95.

Richmond Racer wrote:

r0bh wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

But I get it why others want to believe. And why its uncomfortable to think that Sky are on a full program of CO doping, AICAR, cortisone and GAS6. Its just much easier to believe that its all clean. That I get.

You know in QI when the klaxon goes off for an uneducated answer? Any mention of Gas6 does the same sort of thing in my head... :roll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU5mOT57ghM

We can do better than that: http://www.glastonbridge.co.uk/flash/q.php?i=GAS6

RichN95.

rayjay wrote:

I
From my own point of view, Leinder's is the main issue. I do not believe for one minute that DB did not know his background. If the Armstrong case had never blown up he would still be at Sky IMO.

The other point is the fact that 2 riders who have won nothing on the road have been turned into Tour winners inline with the arrival of Leinder's.
If the same thing happened at another team then suspicions would be aroused.

I think that is a fair point.

But then there are points you are missing:

1. His last race was the Dauphine in 2012. He was sidelined after that - two months before the USADA report. So Armstrong had no impact on that.
2. If Sky knew his background, then they would have known he was certain to be mentioned in upcoming Rabobank investigations. As it was hiring him was risking, but under those circumstances it would have been downright reckless. Brailsford doesn't seem reckless to me.
3. If Sky knew his background how is it that no-one else seemed to. You would have thought someone would have mentioned it. He wasn't hidden from view.
4. Nothing that has come out some far about the happenings at Rabobank suggests that this is a man you would turn to to design a doping program. Assist and administer - maybe. But the Rabo riders were going off to Vienna, Fuentes, Italy to visit actual experts.
5. And if he was their doping mastermind, why did they hire him in an official capacity? Surely keeping him off the books and out sight would be wiser.
6. More time has now passed since he last worked for Sky than the time he worked for them. How long do Sky have to keep up their current standard for you to consider he may not have actually been doing anything?

blazing_saddles

Richmond Racer wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Pross wrote:

This could be the most tedious thread ever. Spoiler? More like spoiled! Is the book worth a read or are the 'inaccuracies' so bad as to make it pointless? Has anyone learned something new from reading it?

Yet another thread proving Frenchie's theory that anything Sky related gets disproptionate numbers of posts.

A month into to closed season and I'm bored stiff. I wouldn't be wasting my time going around in circles, otherwise.
Talking of circles, be watching Rachel in Newport, tomorrow evening.

Bored stiff - you and me too. Gets a bit desparate when you start envying the Aussies for their racing season right now. At least there's trackie action in Aguascalientes next week

Don't know what coverage there will be, if any. Hope there will be something recordable since the finals could go on until some unearthly hour. (not for you, judging from the time of this posts!)
Birthday girl in Mexico, today. (so, sans George) A ripe, old 22.

Sorry, I mustn't sidetrack this wonderful thread.

Richmond Racer

Bugger - forgot about the time difference

blazing_saddles

Richmond Racer wrote:

Bugger - forgot about the time difference

The same now for both World Cups and the World Champs, thanks to those lazy French.


Anyhow, for me on the subject of this question of belief.
It isn't a matter of believing or disbelieving.
It's as it always was: about accepting results as they stand, until proven otherwise.
This doesn't necessarily have to come in the form of a positive test, but it does
have to be more definitive than a few groups of hardened cynics, trying to convince me otherwise,
with the use of questionable calculations, pseudo scientific guess work and an unfortunate
appointment.

rayjay

Hey Rich.
I just don't believe that Brailsford did not no anything about Leinders. That just does not add up. Braisford does not work that way. He knows exactly who works for him and what they do. There is no way he would hire a Dr and not check his CV. Leinders after all his a Doctor and holds the health and well being of the team in his hands. No chance would be taken on such an appointment.

As for his PED skills, we don't know what Leinders can do. He does seem to know quite a bit from what Chicken has said.

Sky hired him before the Armstrong affair had really blown up.
No one in the media was looking into Sky, in fact I think it was Walsh who started asking awkward questions which is quite strange as now Walsh is writing Froomes book as well. Ker-Ching.

Who knows if all contact has stopped between Leinders and Sky.

Once the template is in place then having Leinders or even any of the other ex dopers Sky hired would not be needed.

You make some good points Rich. I just am not convinced by what you have said.

cheers

Pross

Having not yet read the book I'm prepared to accept WBT's examples of poor writing / proof reading. However, what I'm having issues understanding is how these mistakes are somehow Walsh's way of covering up dodgy dealings within the team. That's a quantum leap even by the usual Clinic standards!

Richmond Racer

rayjay wrote:

Hey Rich.
I just don't believe that Brailsford did not no anything about Leinders. That just does not add up. Braisford does not work that way. He knows exactly who works for him and what they do. There is no way he would hire a Dr and not check his CV. Leinders after all his a Doctor and holds the health and well being of the team in his hands. No chance would be taken on such an appointment.

As for his PED skills, we don't know what Leinders can do. He does seem to know quite a bit from what Chicken has said.

Sky hired him before the Armstrong affair had really blown up.
No one in the media was looking into Sky, in fact I think it was Walsh who started asking awkward questions which is quite strange as now Walsh is writing Froomes book as well. Ker-Ching.

Who knows if all contact has stopped between Leinders and Sky.

Once the template is in place then having Leinders or even any of the other ex dopers Sky hired would not be needed.

You make some good points Rich. I just am not convinced by what you have said.

cheers

No, it was not Walsh who started asking awkward questions - abandon ker-ching

News started hitting the press in spring 2012 with De Rooj trying to get a headstart on throwing everyone apart from himself under the bus claiming that Rabobank tolerated doping but it was all between the riders and the medical staff, 'nothing to do with me as team manager, no sirree'

There were plenty of experienced cycling journos for whom Leinders-Rabo-now-at-Sky just had never come up as something worthy of even a raised eyebrow. Hell, nothing had been raised even by the likes of Jeremy 'Bad Blood' Whittle, or the High Priest Kimmage. Amongst the earliest journos to put proper questions to Brailsford was Lionel Birnie after De Rooj started the finger pointing.

Walsh was covering other sports, having walked away from covering bike racing as a journo mid-00s. He still hadnt got back to covering cycling by the time the 2012 Tour came and went. He only popped up with questions on Twitter around Sep-Oct '12

rayjay

Thanks for that RR. I never knew about those early accusations.

I actually thought it was Kimmage not Walsh who fired the first shots. I got that wrong in my reply as well :oops: It's been a long week

I will try and do better.
cheers RJ

iainf72

Pross wrote:

Having not yet read the book I'm prepared to accept WBT's examples of poor writing / proof reading. However, what I'm having issues understanding is how these mistakes are somehow Walsh's way of covering up dodgy dealings within the team. That's a quantum leap even by the usual Clinic standards!

Indeed. I think he covers the ground fairly well, and pretty evenly. What I'm finding so far though is that because it covers this year Walsh seems to ignore some of the things that happened in the past to a degree. For example, in the chapter in Leidners he writes a bit about the people who don't like Sky and why not. A lot of it's valid, but it ignores some of the history and why people may not like that. You know, paint Brailsford to be the hero wanting to change thing, Riis a symbol of the past yet fail to mention when Brailsford started the team he hired a lot of people who worked for Riis during the skaniest era in the sport. And how he used to flounce off when people tried to ask him about stuff like that. Perhaps it's addressed later, dunno. Sometimes feels like a fluff job but there is some good stuff in the book.

I did chortle when he said Yates had to leave because of the zero tolerance policy.

It's not going to change anyones mind but it's interesting

iainf72

I also had a good laugh at Walsh taking the mickey out of the quality of questioning on the internet....

whiteboytrash

mfin wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

[
In finality. On Ventoux despite the wind, whether side, tail or head, Froome decimated everyone. As he did so on Ax3. It's not the wind or freshness making him so good. He's just eons better. Eons..

Instead of all these posts you might as well just say "I think Sky or some of Sky are doping or at least am very suspicious that they're doping, although I don't have much to go on really", because nothing else you are saying is worth saying. People ARE listening to what you are saying and digesting and dissecting it, but why not drop it now and maybe discuss it if and when there is some evidence.

As for the book, okay, you don't like it, but the book was never going to be an "in depth scientific investigation into whether Sky are doping", and if it was, and all it was studying was results and compared times up a mountain then it wouldn't be a scientific investigation anyway.

So, we know what you are saying, and we know the speculative, conclusion of likely doping you are offering, and what basis you are offering it. So, maybe when there is more to say, say that, instead of banging the same old drum.

I'm sure you're an ok bloke, but why not calm it down a bit? If you were in a pub and trying to dominate a conversation with the same degree of relentless repetition then there would be half pints everywhere where people just 'disappear on you' out of complete boredom. That, is what is happening here. Some people are even popping their heads back into the pub and just hear that you are 'banging on and on still' and find it frustrating and boring in equal measure. If you're gonna keep on, can you come up with something new please, cos attempting to dominate the discussion in the fashion that you are is not adding to it, it's ruining it.

This is a ridiculous post.

This is a discussion forum. Its a place to debate and discuss. I don't expect people to agree with me nor am I on a vigil to brainwash or convince people to my way of thinking.

I believe Walsh's book is overly simple doesn't get very far to explain the reasons behind Froome's transformation from mid pack peloton guy to the greatest living cyclist today.

I think what you're saying is your uncomfortable with the thought of Sky doping and you don't wan to know about it or even begin to consider its possible.

Our suspicions are very important. Walsh in 1999 was going on suspicion. He want on suspicion with Michelle Smith, the Vuelta podium in 2012 and countless others.

We teach out children to be suspicious. Terrorism has taught us to be suspicious of suspect packages etc.

That's what we human do. Being suspicious and suspecting wrong doing is our ability to callout BS when we see it.

Our suspicions also help us dig further and find more.

In the UK we're coming out the other side of a banking crisis, expenses scandal and a phony war on Iraq. If more people acted with suspicion or at least were listened to during this time the UK and world may have not got itself into the trouble that it did.

With Mandoff in the US there was one broker in Boston sending the SEC his skepticism on Bernie and the scheme. They didn't listen. He kept sending the letters. He was going on suspicion that the gains made were just not possible long term. Nothing else.

So to suggest we should suspend "suspicion" and wait is stupid. Especially in a sport like cycling, which for the better part of 25 years has had dopers win all of its races.

Suspicion allows people to dig further. Armstrong, Rasmussen etc. once there is element of suspicion then others dig further and find that evidence which is what you're look gin for.

Or is it you don't anyone to dig further for their to be evidence?

Cycling needs suspicion. And lots of it.

Because once someone can explain how a guy who was giving up his bike and pushing Greg Henderson a 2nd rate sprinter in GTs to smashing Contador in half with a 'in-saddle attack' I might suspend some of my suspicion.

Until then, no.

Macaloon

Your previous "come from nowhere" narrative based on race finishes was undermined by unfortunate facts above. I'm afraid a similar fate awaits your photographic evidence too. Look at what Sky can do to an actual World Champion, never mind domestique.