Inside Team Sky - David Walsh *Spoilers*
Comments
-
That's market analysis not statistics.
The contributory factors influence the specific odds of a single event. Previous outcomes have no statistical impact.
Anyway Sky are not linked to any of the possible factors you have mentioned... unless you have some evidence you'd like to share? No I didn't think so.0 -
nic_77 wrote:That's market analysis not statistics.
The contributory factors influence the specific odds of a single event. Previous outcomes have no statistical impact.
Anyway Sky are not linked to any of the possible factors you have mentioned... unless you have some evidence you'd like to share? No I didn't think so.
Cycling is the market? I think you may be confused. Please don't let this get personal. Just discuss the details.
Previous outcomes have no statical impact? (don't go becoming a weather man).
Or bet on the horses. Do you know how they create "odds"? - they use historical form.
Thus if Armstrong doped for his first 4 Tour victories the likelihood he would for 5, 6 and 7 is?
Sky are linked to several factors I mentioned. They ride and win GTs, yes? They do so beating the times or former dopers. The sport has an endemic doping problem whereby a high majority of all GTs have doped.
Throw in some more variables such Basso's comments, Rogers comments, the fact Froome could barely ride straight to GT winner and you can draw a fairly conclusive outcome of doping.
Doesn't mean Froome is doping. But very likely.
Facts are evidence. Period.
You could always turn the equation around the other way.
What is the statistical probability of Froome being clean?0 -
Is the level of debate in this thread really now at the level where Froome has been doping because he won the Tour de France?whiteboytrash wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Almost all Tour winners have been amongst the best climbers and best time triallists. Very few exceptions. And they mostly been fairly lightweight. This really shouldn't baffle anyone.Arkibal wrote:How can a skinny climber do both, riddle me that.
Last time it happened, we know how it was achieved. (Contador, he had a similar doping doctor as Leinders, and yet he was a rider that had shown huge talent early on)
True. And of those Tour winners how many have been busted to doping?
I could answer this question blindfolded.0 -
FJS wrote:
Is the level of debate in this thread really now at the level where Froome has been doping because he won the Tour de France?whiteboytrash wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Almost all Tour winners have been amongst the best climbers and best time triallists. Very few exceptions. And they mostly been fairly lightweight. This really shouldn't baffle anyone.Arkibal wrote:How can a skinny climber do both, riddle me that.
Last time it happened, we know how it was achieved. (Contador, he had a similar doping doctor as Leinders, and yet he was a rider that had shown huge talent early on)
True. And of those Tour winners how many have been busted to doping?
I could answer this question blindfolded.
Yes. If you throw in the fact that he won it by riding quite quickly then there's also corroborating evidence.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Arkibal wrote:I don't know how anyone, who's followed the sport longer than just a couple of years, thinks that Sky's dominance won't raise questions?
What Froome did this year was exactly what LA did, dominate the climbs and even flat TT's.
How can a skinny climber do both, riddle me that.
Last time it happened, we know how it was achieved. (Contador, he had a similar doping doctor as Leinders, and yet he was a rider that had shown huge talent early on)
I've only seen excerpts of the Walsh book, but from what I've seen, it fits right into fairy tale.
It did raise questions, and they were answered. They do things differently and they do things more thoroughly and they make sure they do things better. Every aspect of the profession is analised and refined. Start with talented motivated riders then give them the best, training, coaching, recovery, nutrition, equipment, clothing, psychology. They had the successful track blueprint that has been refined to suit the road.
Also, they are not dominant, there approach works in the Gts but is not good in one day racing, its not possible to be all things, all the time. If they wanted to be good at one day classics they would have to change the riders and the training.
Anyway, If Sky being good at GTs "raised questions" that would be fine and dandy, but its not like that. What it raises is "Sky are winning the Tour ergo they are doping and nothing anyone can say will change my mind". Its not the same thing and its also not a discussion, its a statement. :roll:0 -
mike6 wrote:Arkibal wrote:I don't know how anyone, who's followed the sport longer than just a couple of years, thinks that Sky's dominance won't raise questions?
What Froome did this year was exactly what LA did, dominate the climbs and even flat TT's.
How can a skinny climber do both, riddle me that.
Last time it happened, we know how it was achieved. (Contador, he had a similar doping doctor as Leinders, and yet he was a rider that had shown huge talent early on)
I've only seen excerpts of the Walsh book, but from what I've seen, it fits right into fairy tale.
It did raise questions, and they were answered. They do things differently and they do things more thoroughly and they make sure they do things better. Every aspect of the profession is analised and refined. Start with talented motivated riders then give them the best, training, coaching, recovery, nutrition, equipment, clothing, psychology. They had the successful track blueprint that has been refined to suit the road.
Also, they are not dominant, there approach works in the Gts but is not good in one day racing, its not possible to be all things, all the time. If they wanted to be good at one day classics they would have to change the riders and the training.
Anyway, If Sky being good at GTs "raised questions" that would be fine and dandy, but its not like that. What it raises is "Sky are winning the Tour ergo they are doping and nothing anyone can say will change my mind". Its not the same thing and its also not a discussion, its a statement. :roll:
Froome has apparently never been in a wind tunnel. I kid you not.
If we the past has thought us anything, it's that we don't buy everything we see anymore at face value.
At least I don't.
Anyway, my main issue with Walsh is that he says climbing speeds indicate doping. He said the -12 Vuelta podium were all dopers (Purito has never tested +), because they climbed so fast.
Yet this same doper podium riders were beaten by minutes by Froome at the Tour, even matching doped record times, and suddenly the climbing speed is normal and not a sign of doping?
Can't have it both ways Walsh.0 -
Arkibal wrote:Froome has apparently never been in a wind tunnel. I kid you not.
"But the time trial is something I've been working on quite a bit. I went to the wind tunnel for the first time a week ago so that was interesting to see if there are any small changes I can make there to get a bit faster."
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... rance.html0 -
FJS wrote:
Is the level of debate in this thread really now at the level where Froome has been doping because he won the Tour de France?whiteboytrash wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Almost all Tour winners have been amongst the best climbers and best time triallists. Very few exceptions. And they mostly been fairly lightweight. This really shouldn't baffle anyone.Arkibal wrote:How can a skinny climber do both, riddle me that.
Last time it happened, we know how it was achieved. (Contador, he had a similar doping doctor as Leinders, and yet he was a rider that had shown huge talent early on)
True. And of those Tour winners how many have been busted to doping?
I could answer this question blindfolded.
Curious By-Stander: Judge Whiteboytrash, how is it that you find every defendant guilty?
Judge Whiteboytrash: Well, think about: there are a lot of known criminals who come through these courtroom doors, so even for those without a criminal record, I work on the basis that, statistically, they're guilty.
Curious BS: You sure save us all a lot of time, expense and thinking - We're mighty grateful for that, sir... But what about the evidence - either from the defence or the prosecution?
JW: all time-wasting, son. Think about it: if it's from the prosecution, it's just backing up what I already know; if its from the defence, it always just weasely excuses...
Curious BS: Mmm... I know what you mean. As our former brilliant leader said "fool me once, shame on you: fool me...you can't get fooled again..."
JW: my sediments exactly...0 -
mike6 wrote:
" They do things differently and they do things more thoroughly and they make sure they do things better. Every aspect of the profession is analised and refined. Start with talented motivated riders then give them the best, training, coaching, recovery, nutrition, equipment, clothing, psychology. They had the successful track blueprint that has been refined to suit the road. "
But they forget to check Leinders CV .
0 -
-
Well I've read the book. Safe to say it's not a classic of sports writing. Felt a bit like a rush job. Some interesting asides. There is in places special pleading for Froome's performances which doesnt convince (in terms of the argument rather than the ultimate conclusion) - he clearly believes in Froome and, at some level, is staking his 'reputation' on that belief.0
-
whiteboytrash wrote:nic_77 wrote:
You might want to learn something more about statistics.whiteboytrash wrote:On mathematical probability alone the likelihood of a Grand Tour winner and the Top 5 doping is highly likely. In fact a clean GT winner based on the historic context of the last 30 years would just about be a mathematical improbability.
Let's say I toss a coin 10 times and each time it comes up heads. What is the probability of me getting an 11th head on the next toss? ...yes 50%. The odds are unaffected by previous events.
This is not a situation where you can use statistics as evidence of Froome doping - so don't do it!
I think you might need a refresher course on what statistical analysis actually is.
How do you think investment analysis make predictions on stocks? By looking at previous history and current market conditions.
What you talk of is a simple coin toss with two possible outcomes.
What i present is predicability based on probability of already collated outcomes.
20+ years of endemic doping suggest that GT winners use doping to win. That't not rocket science or chance.
A coin toss analysis of cycling won't conclude anything. Its just stupid.
To my previous post. I didn't say he was doping. I just said likely when you look at the history of cycling, Froome's climbing times, a very corrupt UCI known to cover up positives and a weak passport program.
From that the likelihood (emotion removed) is that Froome is probably doping. As is Horner.
As is anyone who ever won or who ever will win the tour. I think that's basically what you're saying, right?0 -
rayjay wrote:mike6 wrote:
" They do things differently and they do things more thoroughly and they make sure they do things better. Every aspect of the profession is analised and refined. Start with talented motivated riders then give them the best, training, coaching, recovery, nutrition, equipment, clothing, psychology. They had the successful track blueprint that has been refined to suit the road. "
But they forget to check Leinders CV .
What was on Leinders' CV that they should have picked up on?0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:FJS wrote:
Is the level of debate in this thread really now at the level where Froome has been doping because he won the Tour de France?whiteboytrash wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Almost all Tour winners have been amongst the best climbers and best time triallists. Very few exceptions. And they mostly been fairly lightweight. This really shouldn't baffle anyone.Arkibal wrote:How can a skinny climber do both, riddle me that.
Last time it happened, we know how it was achieved. (Contador, he had a similar doping doctor as Leinders, and yet he was a rider that had shown huge talent early on)
True. And of those Tour winners how many have been busted to doping?
I could answer this question blindfolded.
Yes. If you throw in the fact that he won it by riding quite quickly then there's also corroborating evidence.
And if you further throw in that he rode for 10 seconds with a high cadence...well that's just Game Set and Match Doping sir!We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
I've highlighted a passage you might want to have a think about. Apart from the fact that it's untrue and makes you look for all the world as if you have a preconceived conclusion and are casting around for evidence to support it, it would be even worse for your claims if it actually was true.whiteboytrash wrote:nic_77 wrote:That's market analysis not statistics.
The contributory factors influence the specific odds of a single event. Previous outcomes have no statistical impact.
Anyway Sky are not linked to any of the possible factors you have mentioned... unless you have some evidence you'd like to share? No I didn't think so.
Cycling is the market? I think you may be confused. Please don't let this get personal. Just discuss the details.
Previous outcomes have no statical impact? (don't go becoming a weather man).
Or bet on the horses. Do you know how they create "odds"? - they use historical form.
Thus if Armstrong doped for his first 4 Tour victories the likelihood he would for 5, 6 and 7 is?
Sky are linked to several factors I mentioned. They ride and win GTs, yes? They do so beating the times or former dopers. The sport has an endemic doping problem whereby a high majority of all GTs have doped.
Throw in some more variables such Basso's comments, Rogers comments, the fact Froome could barely ride straight to GT winner and you can draw a fairly conclusive outcome of doping.
Doesn't mean Froome is doping. But very likely.
Facts are evidence. Period.
You could always turn the equation around the other way.
What is the statistical probability of Froome being clean?
Imagine, for a moment, that there's a form of doping that can turn a donkey who can "barely ride straight" into an unbeatable superhuman, as you apparently want to categorise Froome. Further imagine that Froome must be doping by this method, which is how he was converted from this donkey. This is all just accepting your argument at face value. So now what?
First, isn't anyone else using this new miracle drug? Why haven't we seen lots more riders following the same ET trajectory? As has been noted here in the past, even Froome's own domestiques have a tendency to disappear at key moments, and Sky have very rarely seemed to develop any of their riders beyond the level they were at when they signed. Do you really think they have the sooper-sekrit recipe, but are keeping it for Froome alone? What's Plan B?
Second, why the silence from the peloton? Actually, scratch that - silence has a long and murky history. Why the unprompted statements of support for Froome from well-regarded riders with strong anti-doping credentials? Riders who know what's normal in terms of performance and development far better than any of us, and who will have heard any whispers about Froome and Sky? Are they all just idiots, or have they been bought?
Even if you have convincing answers for these questions (which I doubt, but we appear to have different definitions of "convincing"), all this would demonstrate is that doping is a possible explanation. Then all you need to do is identify a method of doping that would achieve the donkey to superhuman transformation that you claim has occurred, while remaining undetectable, and prove that it's being used.
tl;dr - If you make ridiculous, exaggerated claims, it just makes your arguments look even weaker than they did before.N00b commuter with delusions of competence
FCN 11 - If you scalp me, do I not bleed?0 -
"Froome who could barely ride...."
Yeah, that must have been what Rui Costa and Bauke Mollema thought when he left them behind on a couple of MTFs at the U23s 2007 Giro della Reggioni
What? Not convinced? Have a look at the race's website for the 2007 results, then. Stages 2 and 5.
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate ... 6bih%3D778
Fark he's useless, can barely ride" said neither of them. Ever.0 -
Right, I've heard all of WBT's evidence
Now where's Froome ???
0 -
greasedscotsman wrote:Arkibal wrote:Froome has apparently never been in a wind tunnel. I kid you not.
"But the time trial is something I've been working on quite a bit. I went to the wind tunnel for the first time a week ago so that was interesting to see if there are any small changes I can make there to get a bit faster."
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... rance.html
Thanks.
Look at the publish date on that article. 30-May-2013.0 -
0
-
Arkibal wrote:greasedscotsman wrote:Arkibal wrote:Froome has apparently never been in a wind tunnel. I kid you not.
"But the time trial is something I've been working on quite a bit. I went to the wind tunnel for the first time a week ago so that was interesting to see if there are any small changes I can make there to get a bit faster."
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... rance.html
Thanks.
Look at the publish date on that article. 30-May-2013.
Unless you have an issue with grammatical tense, you experienced disbelief that he has been in a wind tunnel. Greased is correct to post that up as it notes that he has indeed been in a wind tunnel. And before this year's Tour too.0 -
WhiteboyTrash posting comments asking the difficult questions: Do you actually believe that you are the only person with doubts over what is going on in the peleton? It simply is not the case. I do not believe that anyone watching/caring about the sport today still doesn't have doubts. It is however all a matter of perspective ie benefit of the doubt goes to the rider opposed to the benefit of doubt going the other way.
Your continuation of saying the same things is not evidence. Folks have tried to enter the discussion with you however have failed to have you agree their side. Fine, that's the internet but you continue to bang the same drum until someone else gives it a go to persuade you otherwise. It seems you have time and strength on your side to carry on until all other posters desist from replying. That does not make your argument evidence it simply means others are losing the will to live and "discuss" with you.
Rayjay, your latest point re Leinders. can't remeber if you've read the book, if you had there are a number of paragraphs in there regarding Brailsfords acceptance that this was a mistake and his regret. Even if you haven't read the book it DB has already stated elsewhere the mistake and regret.
There is nothing else that I can contribute to this thread as all we have is a few persons "evidence" v others benefits of the doubt and hope. A position not dissimilar DW's in the book.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:Arkibal wrote:greasedscotsman wrote:Arkibal wrote:Froome has apparently never been in a wind tunnel. I kid you not.
"But the time trial is something I've been working on quite a bit. I went to the wind tunnel for the first time a week ago so that was interesting to see if there are any small changes I can make there to get a bit faster."
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... rance.html
Thanks.
Look at the publish date on that article. 30-May-2013.
Unless you have an issue with grammatical tense, you experienced disbelief that he has been in a wind tunnel. Greased is correct to post that up as it notes that he has indeed been in a wind tunnel. And before this year's Tour too.
No, my disbelief is that the team which uses 'marginal gains' only sends their star rider, who has suddenly become the most talented rider on the planet, to a wind tunnel for the first time just few months before the Tour
Why does Walsh say when the Spanish riders climb fast that they are doping, but won't use that same logic when Froome goes full retarded on climbs?0 -
It's full retard, not full retarded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAKG-kbKeIo
Never go full retard.0 -
Arkibal wrote:No, my disbelief is that the team which uses 'marginal gains' only sends their star rider, who has suddenly become the most talented rider on the planet, to a wind tunnel for the first time just few months before the Tour
OK, fair enough. I thought you were suggesting that he had never been in a wind tunnel, as RR explained.0 -
greasedscotsman wrote:Arkibal wrote:No, my disbelief is that the team which uses 'marginal gains' only sends their star rider, who has suddenly become the most talented rider on the planet, to a wind tunnel for the first time just few months before the Tour
OK, fair enough. I thought you were suggesting that he had never been in a wind tunnel, as RR explained.
Three things wrong with this. Firstly I think you will find that J-Rod is the most talented rider on the planet as we speak. Look at the UCI rankings. So according to your logic he must be doping.
Second, Froome won the Tour and a few other stage races. That douse not make him the most talented rider on the planet, merely the best stage race rider last season. See above for confirmation.
Third. Suddenly? 2nd in the Vuelta 2011, 2nd in the Tour 2012, 1st in the Tour 2013. Hardly sudden. He is in his peak years, for an endurance athlete. :roll:0 -
mike6 wrote:greasedscotsman wrote:Arkibal wrote:No, my disbelief is that the team which uses 'marginal gains' only sends their star rider, who has suddenly become the most talented rider on the planet, to a wind tunnel for the first time just few months before the Tour
OK, fair enough. I thought you were suggesting that he had never been in a wind tunnel, as RR explained.
Three things wrong with this. Firstly I think you will find that J-Rod is the most talented rider on the planet as we speak. Look at the UCI rankings. So according to your logic he must be doping.
Second, Froome won the Tour and a few other stage races. That douse not make him the most talented rider on the planet, merely the best stage race rider last season. See above for confirmation.
Third. Suddenly? 2nd in the Vuelta 2011, 2nd in the Tour 2012, 1st in the Tour 2013. Hardly sudden. He is in his peak years, for an endurance athlete. :roll:
What about the pre Sky years or pre Leinders ? Nothing that's what. Never won a thing on the road. Just like Wiggins not one victory of any significance.
There was nothing to show from either rider that they could win a tour before they Joined Sky and in Froomes case his performances have been outstanding, been on a new level. IMO0 -
BigMat wrote:rayjay wrote:mike6 wrote:
" They do things differently and they do things more thoroughly and they make sure they do things better. Every aspect of the profession is analised and refined. Start with talented motivated riders then give them the best, training, coaching, recovery, nutrition, equipment, clothing, psychology. They had the successful track blueprint that has been refined to suit the road. "
But they forget to check Leinders CV .
What was on Leinders' CV that they should have picked up on? x a Googolplex 0 -
rayjay wrote:mike6 wrote:greasedscotsman wrote:Arkibal wrote:No, my disbelief is that the team which uses 'marginal gains' only sends their star rider, who has suddenly become the most talented rider on the planet, to a wind tunnel for the first time just few months before the Tour
OK, fair enough. I thought you were suggesting that he had never been in a wind tunnel, as RR explained.
Three things wrong with this. Firstly I think you will find that J-Rod is the most talented rider on the planet as we speak. Look at the UCI rankings. So according to your logic he must be doping.
Second, Froome won the Tour and a few other stage races. That douse not make him the most talented rider on the planet, merely the best stage race rider last season. See above for confirmation.
Third. Suddenly? 2nd in the Vuelta 2011, 2nd in the Tour 2012, 1st in the Tour 2013. Hardly sudden. He is in his peak years, for an endurance athlete. :roll:
What about the pre Sky years or pre Leinders ? Nothing that's what. Never won a thing on the road. Just like Wiggins not one victory of any significance.
There was nothing to show from either rider that they could win a tour before they Joined Sky and in Froomes case his performances have been outstanding been on a new level. IMO
Oh FFS. Wiggins finished 3rd in the Tour. Behind two obvious dopers. What bigger hint of his ability to win that race do you need?
As for Froome, he managed to perform at Pro tour level coming from a genuine outsider's position (coming from the mighty Kenyan road racing scene). Did reasonably well at Barloworld whilst clearly overweight (and his power profiles raised a few eyebrows - in a good way), then got a parasitic disease and when he got on top of that started to perform as many had always suspected he might be capable of. Hell, I'm not Froome's biggest fan and you're entitled to your suspicions (which I consider healthy and share to an extent), but that is all they are - suspicions. You don't have a shred of evidence, nothing.0 -
Quote BigMat
Oh FFS. Wiggins finished 3rd in the Tour. Behind two obvious dopers. What bigger hint of his ability to win that race do you need?
As for Froome, he managed to perform at Pro tour level coming from a genuine outsider's position (coming from the mighty Kenyan road racing scene). Did reasonably well at Barloworld whilst clearly overweight (and his power profiles raised a few eyebrows - in a good way), then got a parasitic disease and when he got on top of that started to perform as many had always suspected he might be capable of. Hell, I'm not Froome's biggest fan and you're entitled to your suspicions (which I consider healthy and share to an extent), but that is all they are - suspicions. You don't have a shred of evidence, nothing.[/quote]
.
Exactly, WIggins finished 4th behind ,,,,,,,DOPERS. The others Dope but WIggo doesn't
What about the guys who came 6th and 7th did they dope or were they clean as well. Only the ones who beat Wiggo dope Can you really believe that?
Like I said Froome won nothing to show he could win a GC. You really believe that is a tour winning CV he had?
I don't have evidence. But do have strong suspicions on what facts we do have.
Look how many riders have been busted but never actually got caught doping.
You are right. Suspicions they are and IMO justified.
I appreciate your point of view BigMat.0 -
I'm yet to see any sceptic attempt address the tricky problem (for them) of why
Sky would select a rider with little or no potential, to turn into their GT star.
If their doping programme is that superior, they could use on a rider of proven quality
remove all risk of defeat.........."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0
This discussion has been closed.
