Inside Team Sky - David Walsh *Spoilers*

RichN95.

WBT

You want an explanation as to why Froome was at the level where he was giving up his bike for Henderson. Well look at that patch on his knee. Why do you think that is there? I'll give you a clue - it's not because he's trying to quit smoking.

whiteboytrash

Macaloon wrote:

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.

Sure. Doesn't stop the suspicion. And until the day Cav wins LBL then my suspicion of him is fairly low to non-exsistant.

Froome? Well he's another case all together. He's supposedly if I believe the narrative is the greatest clean cyclist to have ever lived. At least in the last 30 years.

That's a wow. A very big wow.

And that's what I was hoping Walsh would get to the bottom of. A bit more detail would have been good. But he appears more not he teenage fan side than investigative journalist.

whiteboytrash

RichN95 wrote:

WBT

You want an explanation as to why Froome was at the level where he was giving up his bike for Henderson. Well look at that patch on his knee. Why do you think that is there? I'll give you a clue - it's not because he's trying to quit smoking.

Sure. I see it.

And if he is this super (duper) GT rider in the making to provide Sky with the next 7 Tour's then they'd be resting him, protecting him, their future investment, yes? Not letting him support a sprinter and give up his bike! I mean, really?

I don't doubt he was hurt and I don't doubt the paltry 100k Sky offered him to continue into 2012 as a value of what they thought of him.

Put simply this is not a future GT rider in the making and Sky didn't see it just as well we all didn't see it.

But I think Leidners saw it when he joined But that's another story.

Richmond Racer

No sillybilly, Spaghetti Man Mr Nibbles who beat him at T-A is the greatest clean cyclist for the last xx years

whiteboytrash

Richmond Racer wrote:

No sillybilly, Spaghetti Man Mr Nibbles who beat him at T-A is the greatest clean cyclist for the last xx years

Or Chris Horner? :shock:

I've seen his bio passport so we have a bit more to to go on.

And after all clean performances will surpass those of the doping era.

Apparently.

Richmond Racer

Hello..? UCI Underpants...is that you?

*chuckle*

whiteboytrash

iainf72 wrote:

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

Exactly. I mean Yates?! He tested positive and was buddyroo with Lance and Motoman.

I mean Yates!

I don't disagree its hard to find staffers who've not been in some form part of a doping past. But for Walsh to pretend that Brailsford who was sitting at the same dinner table when David Millar was arrested is oblivious to staff/riders who doped then f--- me.

Brailsford is not stupid. But he probably thinks most of his fans are.

mike6

I was looking at the forum list only to see this thread back up near the top again. Is WBT still bleating on about Sky? Bloody hell man, get a life. :roll: Sky are wonderful right, and they are going to win the Tour again next year, and I hope it really, really upsets you.

whiteboytrash

mike6 wrote:

I was looking at the forum list only to see this thread back up near the top again. Is WBT still bleating on about Sky? Bloody hell man, get a life. :roll: Sky are wonderful right, and they are going to win the Tour again next year, and I hope it really, really upsets you.

I'm not following.

Its a Walsh thread about his book, which is about Sky.

Wouldn't the content in the thread be the same?

mike6

Chuckle.

rayjay

mike6 wrote:

I was looking at the forum list only to see this thread back up near the top again. Is WBT still bleating on about Sky? Bloody hell man, get a life. :roll: Sky are wonderful right, and they are going to win the Tour again next year, and I hope it really, really upsets you.

That shows how whiteboytrash is getting to you.

Whiteboytrash you are doing a great Job and making some great points.


"Brailsford is not stupid. But he probably thinks most of his fans are" Spot on.

rayjay

Brailsford said of Leinders: "Hindsight is a brilliant thing, and what we've all learnt is pretty horrific. Had we known then what we know now [about Leinders], we wouldn't have touched the guy for sure.

Yeah right, but he still hired all the other staff members who we knew had doped and Rodgers

"Brailsford is not stupid. But he probably thinks most of his fans are"

whiteboytrash

rayjay wrote:

mike6 wrote:

I was looking at the forum list only to see this thread back up near the top again. Is WBT still bleating on about Sky? Bloody hell man, get a life. :roll: Sky are wonderful right, and they are going to win the Tour again next year, and I hope it really, really upsets you.

That shows how whiteboytrash is getting to you.

Whiteboytrash you are doing a great Job and making some great points.


"Brailsford is not stupid. But he probably thinks most of his fans are" Spot on.

In Walsh's book he talks about how "gentle" the stage to Ventoux was compared to 2009.

But this is not how others saw it:

On Mont Ventoux he attacked 7.2km from the summit, and surged with serious venom at least three times. This came on the most difficult climb in the Tour, at the end of the longest stage of the race, where average speeds for the first four hours had approached 50km/h.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/07/16/ho ... is-froome/

50km/h! For 4 hours!

Now Froome attacked at 7.2km, both Martin and Ten Dam have confirmed a headwind in at least the last 2km's.

Now what was the stats with Froome on his own attacking and riding away from riders after a super super fast day?

I'll let you all know:

Mt Ventoux, last 7.1 km 7.53% :

2000 Armstrong 21'32
2002 Armstrong 20'22
2009 Contador 20'31
2013 Froome 20'04

Just confirm what a hard day it was:

Bookwalter and Amaël Moinard said the team did its best to protect Evans before the punishing climb to the finish that averages 7.5 per cent. "It was very, very fast at the beginning and all day long," Moinard said. "Then, we all had to struggle to be in a good position at the bottom of the Ventoux. It was very hard. I think that everybody had to make great efforts to be in a good position at the bottom and then (from the bottom), it was very fast."

http://www.cyclingquotes.com/news/evans ... oux_climb/

This why I can't understand why Walsh was in such a hurry to water down the entire stage. Well I understand why he did, he was scared of what it really represented.

tailwindhome

At the 3rd stroke the time difference between this thread and The Clinic will be one hour.

Beep

Beep

Beep

TailWIndHome wrote:

I'm out

Shut up you.

whiteboytrash

TailWindHome wrote:

At the 3rd stroke the time difference between this thread and The Clinic will be one hour.

Beep

Beep

Beep

TailWIndHome wrote:

I'm out

Shut up you.

Your welcome to contribute if you like? Have you read the book? Or anything to offer?

Happy to discuss at anytime rather than drawing divisions.

Look forward to your response.

tailwindhome

whiteboytrash wrote:

Happy to discuss at anytime rather than drawing divisions.

Look forward to your response.

No drawing of divisions here. My post was very literal.

I have no interest in engaging with you in any way as I don't believe you have any genuine interest in discussion.

Enjoy the rest of your posting.

whiteboytrash

TailWindHome wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

Happy to discuss at anytime rather than drawing divisions.

Look forward to your response.

No drawing of divisions here. My post was very literal.

I have no interest in engaging with you in any way as I don't believe you have any genuine interest in discussion.

Enjoy the rest of your posting.

Apologies. I'm not trying to offend you. If I've upset you in someway let me know.

I'm just not sure why when you said you were out of the discussion you can back to criticise me?

Nevertheless, have you read the book? What are your views how Walsh presented his time "Inside Sky"?

Do you think he did a good job? Your own opinion?

Be good if you could provide input and not just anger.

tailwindhome

whiteboytrash wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

Happy to discuss at anytime rather than drawing divisions.

Look forward to your response.

No drawing of divisions here. My post was very literal.

I have no interest in engaging with you in any way as I don't believe you have any genuine interest in discussion.

Enjoy the rest of your posting.

Apologies. I'm not trying to offend you. If I've upset you in someway let me know.

I'm just not sure why when you said you were out of the discussion you can back to criticise me?

Nevertheless, have you read the book? What are your views how Walsh presented his time "Inside Sky"?

Do you think he did a good job? Your own opinion?

Be good if you could provide input and not just anger.

I'm not angry. I'm a tad disappointed that another BR thread has gone to sh*t. And if I'm honest a bit apprehensive that this represents the future until either Froome/Sky are busted or retire. And then it'll be the next one.

I haven't read the book. Reading the book isn't essential to comment on the evidence against Sky which you and others present. As you say yourself a couple of posts up that is the broader theme of this thread.

I probably would have got a copy - but I'm sure I've read all the keys bits on this thread and in The Clinic. Also the reviews from all 'sides' of the Sky debate have been poor.

I'll hold back until it's in the local library.

I came back in to share an observation of how closing the postings on this thread are tracking the postings on The Clinic thread, it's up to you if you decide to take that as a criticism. It just amused me. It also occurred that this is how the 'case' against Sky is being built. An endless cycle of retweeting and reposting 'evidence' of dubious merit.

IMO have provided input to this thread. Mostly pointing out some of the exaggerations and inaccuracies in your posts.

iainf72

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Anyone who thinks Leinders is some kind of smoking gun at Sky is a complete moron.

But then, I'm probably a moron because I dislike the team but think they've very likely clean

RichN95.

whiteboytrash wrote:

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

But it doesn't mean that we can label all Muslims as terrorists. Which is the level that much of the debate has reached.

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Anyone who thinks Leinders is some kind of smoking gun at Sky is a complete moron.

But then, I'm probably a moron because I dislike the team but think they've very likely clean

For future use: http://www.glastonbridge.co.uk/flash/q. ... t+Leinders

Crankbrother

...

whiteboytrash

iainf72 wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Anyone who thinks Leinders is some kind of smoking gun at Sky is a complete moron.

But then, I'm probably a moron because I dislike the team but think they've very likely clean

Want my view on Leinders?

No_Ta_Doctor

whiteboytrash wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Anyone who thinks Leinders is some kind of smoking gun at Sky is a complete moron.

But then, I'm probably a moron because I dislike the team but think they've very likely clean

Want my view on Leinders?

Not really.

whiteboytrash

TailWindHome wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

Happy to discuss at anytime rather than drawing divisions.

Look forward to your response.

No drawing of divisions here. My post was very literal.

I have no interest in engaging with you in any way as I don't believe you have any genuine interest in discussion.

Enjoy the rest of your posting.

Apologies. I'm not trying to offend you. If I've upset you in someway let me know.

I'm just not sure why when you said you were out of the discussion you can back to criticise me?

Nevertheless, have you read the book? What are your views how Walsh presented his time "Inside Sky"?

Do you think he did a good job? Your own opinion?

Be good if you could provide input and not just anger.

I'm not angry. I'm a tad disappointed that another BR thread has gone to sh*t. And if I'm honest a bit apprehensive that this represents the future until either Froome/Sky are busted or retire. And then it'll be the next one.

I haven't read the book. Reading the book isn't essential to comment on the evidence against Sky which you and others present. As you say yourself a couple of posts up that is the broader theme of this thread.

I probably would have got a copy - but I'm sure I've read all the keys bits on this thread and in The Clinic. Also the reviews from all 'sides' of the Sky debate have been poor.

I'll hold back until it's in the local library.

I came back in to share an observation of how closing the postings on this thread are tracking the postings on The Clinic thread, it's up to you if you decide to take that as a criticism. It just amused me. It also occurred that this is how the 'case' against Sky is being built. An endless cycle of retweeting and reposting 'evidence' of dubious merit.

IMO have provided input to this thread. Mostly pointing out some of the exaggerations and inaccuracies in your posts.

Thanks.

You can contribute to this thread and move it to a direction you'd like? Rather than deride me why not have a positive influence?

Also comparing the clinic to this forum is stupid. The clinic is a dedicated doping forum. That's what they talk about, doping. It's separated out so the professional cycling thread can be free of doping talk. So not sure why you compare this forum to one on pure doping.

But maybe that's the problem? Your uncomfortable with Sky doping talk? I'm not sure.

In any case I've posted links from Walsh's book in regards to why I think the book is light on real facts. I would have liked him to go deeper and explain some of Kerrison's training programs. I'd like to know why are Sky so strong in one week to GT tours. He doesn't really explain this.

Just my take on the book. Happy for others to provide their thoughts.

Perhaps if you read the book you could provide input on a Walsh spoiler thread? Just an idea.

napoleond

Just put someone on your ignore list. Someone's obviously bored over at Conspiracy Corner aka the clinic.

rayjay

iainf72 wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Anyone who thinks Leinders is some kind of smoking gun at Sky is a complete moron.


How would you know that?

From one moron to another

No_Ta_Doctor

rayjay wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Anyone who thinks Leinders is some kind of smoking gun at Sky is a complete moron.

How would you know that?

From one moron to another

Maybe he's met you before?

rayjay

No tA Doctor wrote:

rayjay wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Anyone who thinks Leinders is some kind of smoking gun at Sky is a complete moron.

How would you know that?

From one moron to another

Maybe he's met you before?

Interesting that you feel the need to post such a comment.

Well done :roll:

mike6

NapoleonD wrote:

Just put someone on your ignore list. Someone's obviously bored over at Conspiracy Corner aka the clinic.

That's the secret. I have 4 people on my ignore list (have a guess) and it makes the forum a much more enjoyable and informative place. There are a lot of people on here with whom you can have a sensible and adult exchange of views without having to deal with the zealots and conspiracy theorists.