Inside Team Sky - David Walsh *Spoilers*

RichN95.

whiteboytrash wrote:

I'd like to know.

Better ask Santa then

nic_77

As the OP, I'd like to request that this thread is closed.
We have a circular argument that is going nowhere, for reasons that are obvious.

whiteboytrash

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

I'd like to know.

Better ask Santa then

This I don't understand.

Sky are strong. Super strong.

Some say they know. Walsh claims they are better through training.

But I've not heard from Walsh or anyone here as to why? What is so different.

Of course there's the silly stories about Nuetlla but what really makes them tick and so powerful?

Why is this such a "inside" secret?

tailwindhome

Will I just assume I'm not getting an apology?

dabber

Yaaaaawn :roll:

blazing_saddles

whiteboytrash wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

You say you have "insight"? Care to elaborate?

As I'd like to know about the training techniques Kerrison/Sky uses.

He said he had insight into British Cycling, not Sky. And he does. Most regulars on here know how.

Thanks. But I'll wait for the answer. I don't appear to be part of "the regulars".

I'd like to know.

I'm not being funny or awkward here, but there are only a handful on here and a very small community elsewhere that are party to that info.
Take note of what Rich has been at pains to point out: not Sky, but BC.

mike6

madasahattersley wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

As the OP, I'd like to request that this thread is closed.
We have a circular argument that is going nowhere, for reasons that are obvious.

I do concur

+1. Are the mods asleep?????

ddraver

TailWindHome wrote:

Will I just assume I'm not getting an apology?

Given that his response was equal to that Gordon Brown's "No I never said I'd abolished boom and bust, i said I'd abolished TORY boom and bust"I think you can safely assume no...

whiteboytrash

Blazing Saddles wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

You say you have "insight"? Care to elaborate?

As I'd like to know about the training techniques Kerrison/Sky uses.

He said he had insight into British Cycling, not Sky. And he does. Most regulars on here know how.

Thanks. But I'll wait for the answer. I don't appear to be part of "the regulars".

I'd like to know.

I'm not being funny or awkward here, but there are only a handful on here and a very small community elsewhere that are party to that info.
Take note of what Rich has been at pains to point out: not Sky, but BC.

Thanks.

No problems. I understand.

I think in terms of the Walsh book there are many whom are not part of a inner circle or have connections with BC etc.

That's why I'm perturbed by the Walsh book. At times it reads like fantasy.

Yes I do mock the book and make humor but do so to draw attention to its limited nature and that "inside sky" is probably not the best title.

Thanks for the follow-up.

ddraver

mike6 wrote:

madasahattersley wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

As the OP, I'd like to request that this thread is closed.
We have a circular argument that is going nowhere, for reasons that are obvious.

I do concur

+1. Are the mods asleep?????

Until he says a dirty word or starts putting this drivel into unrelated threads he's golden here...

Have to confess that i'm with the mods on this actually.

whiteboytrash

ddraver wrote:

mike6 wrote:

madasahattersley wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

As the OP, I'd like to request that this thread is closed.
We have a circular argument that is going nowhere, for reasons that are obvious.

I do concur

+1. Are the mods asleep?????

Until he says a dirty word or starts putting this drivel into unrelated threads he's golden here...

Have to confess that i'm with the mods on this actually.

I've always held the view on forums to never be abusive.

I understand that not everyone holds a similar view that I do.

I'd actually like to know why people believe in Sky. It interests me.

I'm more skeptical and forensic in nature. That's just me and I ask question as such.

I don't believe anyone here has come up with a good argument on the position of why Sky are clean. Nor Walsh.

Considering that I've been called a "bellend", a "masterbat**", "troll", "troll scum" it would appear odd to apply censorship in this case.

Why not just discuss the book, sky and everything related than attempt to shutdown discussion and point fingers at other forums?

Richmond Racer

ddraver wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Will I just assume I'm not getting an apology?

Given that his response was equal to that Gordon Brown's "No I never said I'd abolished boom and bust, i said I'd abolished TORY boom and bust"I think you can safely assume no...

WBT: "But I never called TWH fat"

ddraver

whiteboytrash wrote:

I'm more skeptical and forensic in nature. That's just me and I ask question as such.

rayjay

Can we eat Nutella or not ?

whiteboytrash

ddraver wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

I'm more skeptical and forensic in nature. That's just me and I ask question as such.

You may jest. But I've been on these forums since 2008. I questioned Armstrong just as much as I question Sky.

I'm not some fly-by-night troll here to disrupt the Sky party.

I still find it odd that nobody can come up with any reason to why they firmly believe that Sky are clean.

All I get is that there are some "insiders" who know but they won't divulge.

Well I'm sorry that's just not good enough. Not with the history of cycling as we know it.

blazing_saddles

rayjay wrote:

Can we eat Nutella or not ?

It's up to you.
Are you planning to race competitively, or become organic fertilizer?

Nutrition
Nutella contains 70% saturated fat and processed sugar by weight.

Definitely a BC no no.

Richmond Racer

ddraver wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

I'm more skeptical and forensic in nature. That's just me and I ask question as such.

Tigger from Pooh would also be apt

ddraver

whiteboytrash wrote:

ddraver wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

I'm more skeptical and forensic in nature. That's just me and I ask question as such.

You may jest. But I've been on these forums since 2008. I questioned Armstrong just as much as I question Sky.

I'm not some fly-by-night troll here to disrupt the Sky party.

I still find it odd that nobody can come up with any reason to why they firmly believe that Sky are clean.

All I get is that there are some "insiders" who know but they won't divulge.

Well I'm sorry that's just not good enough. Not with the history of cycling as we know it.

Whatever dude, the one thing you have demonstrated over the last 38 boring pages is that you are neither forensic nor scientific....

RichN95.

whiteboytrash wrote:

I still find it odd that nobody can come up with any reason to why they firmly believe that Sky are clean.

Who says anyone firmly believes it?

No-one believes in the Loch Ness monster. Not because there is a reason not to believe it exists, but because there is nothing to suggest it does.

And so it is with Sky (and for me other teams too). I come from an initial position of not knowing. More people need to admit they don't know. However, over the years I feel positively towards them for many reasons, but largely because they are team run by outsiders and beginners and also because, if they are running a doping team, almost every decision they have made is either stupid or reckless. But the main reason is that I've seen nothing to suggest they are doping. I judge as I would wish to be judged.

But then we come to the other side of the arguement, to which you belong. This is largely driven by the likes of the Clinic and like-minded anonymous people on twitter. They are a small group and they behave in a cultish manner, talking mostly amongst themselves and rarely about actual racing - it's 95% doping, using invective to dismiss those of differing views while patting themselves on the back for being so enlightened.

And they are there day after day and have been for years Obsessively focusing on doping with tunnel vision. 'Evidence' is judged not on it's merits but whether it supports their views. And their view is always that the person or team in question doping. And this is why they are attacking Walsh so badly now. Because they thought he was one of them, as Kimmage is. A Richard Moore book, for example, they could easily have dismissed. But Walsh is the man who wrote one of their gospels. He cannot be denounced as a mere non-believer, he must be a heretic.

They believe that Sky are doping because they have to. They have no other choice. The time and emotion invested in their cynicism compels them to continue. They're pot committed, "If it is a lie, we fight on that lie". They had decided that Sky were doping before they had even been started as a team. They have already decided Alonso's team are doping. They already know that the White Jersey winner five years from now is doping, regardless of what happens henceforth or who he is.

None of these people are seeking 'truth', they are merely clamouring for justification.

It is this that I argue against rather than for the notion of a clean Sky. The debate is being flooded by the repetition of terrible 'evidence' and 'analysis' from fundamentalists, and it's that that I primarily object to.

ddraver

nic_77

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

I still find it odd that nobody can come up with any reason to why they firmly believe that Sky are clean.

Who says anyone firmly believes it?

No-one believes in the Loch Ness monster. Not because there is a reason not to believe it exists, but because there is nothing to suggest it does.

And so it is with Sky (and for me other teams too). I come from an initial position of not knowing. More people need to admit they don't know. However, over the years I feel positively towards them for many reasons, but largely because they are team run by outsiders and beginners and also because, if they are running a doping team, almost every decision they have made is either stupid or reckless. But the main reason is that I've seen nothing to suggest they are doping. I judge as I would wish to be judged.

But then we come to the other side of the arguement, to which you belong. This is largely driven by the likes of the Clinic and like-minded anonymous people on twitter. They are a small group and they behave in a cultish manner, talking mostly amongst themselves and rarely actual racing - it's 95% doping, using invective to dismiss those of differing views while patting themselves on the back for being so enlightened.
And they are there day after day and have been for years Obsessively focusing on doping with tunnel vision. 'Evidence' is judged not on it's merits but whether it supports their views. And their view is always that the person or team in question doping.
They believe that Sky are doping because they have to. They have no other choice. The time and emotion invested in their cynicism compels them to continue. They're pot committed, "If it is a lie, we fight on that lie". They had decided that before Sky had even been started as a team. They have already decided Alonso's team are doping. They already know that the White Jersey winner five years from now is doping, regardless of what happens henceforth or who he is.
None of these people are seeking 'truth', they are merely clamouring for justification.

It is this that I argue against rather than for the notion of a clean Sky. The debate is being flooded by the repetition of terrible 'evidence' and 'analysis' from fundamentalists, and it's that that I primarily object to.

Cue stock reply (without addressing the patiently composed and articulate logic above):
"Who said anything about doping. I'm just asking questions. It's my right to be suspicious... blah blah blah"

ddraver

I think someone made a list about that a few pages back :P

Crankbrother

I'm working on the premise that WBT just wants to know how the SKY project has produced such fast, consistent results, with what were, in the main, day-trippers within the peleton ... The best GC we had been treated to previously by these riders was a lucky fourth (and Garmin tore themselves inside out to get him there ... Just ask his then teammates (CVdV & DM were particularly vocal on the subject)) ...

Assuming that, for example, Nibali doesn't train in a big top with circus clowns ... What are these amazing margin gains that make riders previously no-where near his radar suddenly able to leave him FAR behind? History has shown (TVM/Telekom/Postal) that when results like this happen, there is something behind the curtain ...

WBT asks that question, and for an answer the 'PeSKY Kids' (this is one I'm trying out, it might not stick) get all in his monitor and jump up and down asking for proof of nefarious activity ... Maybe he'd like his question answered rather than challenged ... Maybe we should have these answers, or maybe we should just learn from history ... One way or another, there IS a discussion to be had ... and it's not covered in Walsh's book judging by the excerpts and feedback, in fact it only adds to the smoke and mirrors ...

Pross

whiteboytrash wrote:

I'd actually like to know why people believe in Sky. It interests me.

This has been answered on numerous occassions. If I answer again will you stop asking please? It isn't that people 'believe in Sky' just that they are giving them the benefit of the doubt as there is no credible evidence for doing otherwise. You presumably disagree based on (apparently) the fact they win a few stage races and a couple of riders have improved since joining the team, that's your perogative.

whiteboytrash wrote:

Considering that I've been called a ".... a "masterbat**".....it would appear odd to apply censorship in this case.

No, you were called a master debater. That is a compliment to your skills in arguing your case (using the same basis as 'I'm not saying Sky are doping' and 'I didn't call you a liar, I asked why you would lie').

whiteboytrash

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

I still find it odd that nobody can come up with any reason to why they firmly believe that Sky are clean.

Who says anyone firmly believes it?

No-one believes in the Loch Ness monster. Not because there is a reason not to believe it exists, but because there is nothing to suggest it does.

And so it is with Sky (and for me other teams too). I come from an initial position of not knowing. More people need to admit they don't know. However, over the years I feel positively towards them for many reasons, but largely because they are team run by outsiders and beginners and also because, if they are running a doping team, almost every decision they have made is either stupid or reckless. But the main reason is that I've seen nothing to suggest they are doping. I judge as I would wish to be judged.

But then we come to the other side of the arguement, to which you belong. This is largely driven by the likes of the Clinic and like-minded anonymous people on twitter. They are a small group and they behave in a cultish manner, talking mostly amongst themselves and rarely about actual racing - it's 95% doping, using invective to dismiss those of differing views while patting themselves on the back for being so enlightened.

And they are there day after day and have been for years Obsessively focusing on doping with tunnel vision. 'Evidence' is judged not on it's merits but whether it supports their views. And their view is always that the person or team in question doping. And this is why they are attacking Walsh so badly now. Because they thought he was one of them, as Kimmage is. A Richard Moore book, for example, they could easily have dismissed. But Walsh is the man who wrote one of their gospels. He cannot be denounced as a mere non-believer, he must be a heretic.

They believe that Sky are doping because they have to. They have no other choice. The time and emotion invested in their cynicism compels them to continue. They're pot committed, "If it is a lie, we fight on that lie". They had decided that Sky were doping before they had even been started as a team. They have already decided Alonso's team are doping. They already know that the White Jersey winner five years from now is doping, regardless of what happens henceforth or who he is.

None of these people are seeking 'truth', they are merely clamouring for justification.

It is this that I argue against rather than for the notion of a clean Sky. The debate is being flooded by the repetition of terrible 'evidence' and 'analysis' from fundamentalists, and it's that that I primarily object to.

Thanks for taking the time to articulate your views. Its appreciated.

Its true most if not all “don’t know”. Walsh himself says he “doesn’t know”. But he takes the time to present why he believes they are clean and to deconstruct some of the reasons put forward that they may be using PEDs.

I’m not sure the Clinic is really relevant here. I know its popular to suggest that all they talk about is how dirty Sky are but to be honest they weren’t far wrong in relation to Armstrong and countless others. But like I said I’m not sure this is a Clinic vs. the true believers type discussion. It doesn’t add much to the debate. Some here are just as fanatical as they are in the Clinic. They just hold two different belief extremes.

In some ways I believe cycling lost its privilege to assume that it is clean. The sport has just come through one of the biggest corruption scandals in the history of any sport. For the most part the UCI is still in place the one that allowed the corruption to take place. The sport has a long history with doping. Top to bottom.

I lived in the US through the Armstrong years. It was very hard to even mention the D word to his fans or when out on a ride. You couldn’t. Literally everyone had an uncle who they took along to a Ride for the Roses ride to be “healed”. They believed.

So you can’t be critical of those who feel they want to know. As I mentioned before. It’s human nature to question and be sceptical. We all question our politicians and the like to ensure they’re holding true to the values we expect. I don’t understand why so many suspend there critical thinking when it comes to cycling. Well I do understand.

I get it, that if one of your own countrymen from a home-grown team running a team on British principles that you want it to be clean and true. I get that. Doesn’t mean it is. That’s an emotive position not one of rationality.

Malcom Gladwell puts the proposition forward in his books. Science shows that our belief system is already made up. Our eyes and our mind know straight away what it sees. From that point our belief system well then add its components to fulfil our belief system. His example was that the human brain knows when it sees an original Picasso. Its intuitive enough to deuce this quickly. However depending whether we are sceptical of it or not our mind will then ask itself a myriad of questions and soon enough some will still maintain its an original whilst others will say it’s not.

I see some similarities with Sky. When watching the Tour. And I’ve been in cycling 20+ years I didn’t like what I saw. My jaw dropped on Ax3 at Porte and Froome. That’s from a purely visual perspective. Before I saw times, estimated wattages etc. It didn’t add up for a lot of reasons.

Then when Ventoux rolled around it was the same. The decimation of the opposition was immense. From a visual perspective alone he killed his opposition.

Now many here with time hold on that Froome is clean and its the good work of hard training, great team set-up, a good team etc. thats made the difference.

And the counter is that the history of cycling has shown that when one impresses to the level that Froome did then its generally due to hard training, recovery and drugs. I don’t think many argue that doping helps.

So when Walsh embeds himself at Sky the hope it would be a forensic look into the team and what makes them tick and why you can believe in them. But Walsh appears to be on the defensive and the backfoot. At every turn he trying to justify why they were so good. Whether its stories of Nutella or tailswinds etc. he provides the variables as the reasons not to question.

But it would have been much better if he told us that (for example) Froome motor paced up Ventoux 15 times with 5 one minute attacks interspersed at 380-450 watts to training for that day.

But we don’t get that.

Instead we get:

''There is an arresting theatrical drama about Ventoux when the riders get to the top of the tree line and come out into the blinding light of the moonscape beyond. It is a mountain built to stage final acts.

This final act begins with Froome attacking and leaving everybody for dead except Quintana.
Tactically it is a master class, and illustrates how much wisdom Team Sky have been able to plant in Froome’s head these past few years. The younger, straight out of Africa, Froome would have chased down every break of the day before finding himself out of gas.

Or on another day from the early years he would have looked around him, taking in all the big names, and decided his only chance was to attack from far out, when they weren’t paying much attention. They would think he was mad and do what bike riders have done since 1903: give him enough rope to hang himself.
He would often get a good placing on the stage but would have emptied his tank to do so. The next day, he would sleep with the fishes.

But here on Ventoux, he is calculating, waiting for the right moment. And his understanding of the perfect strategic climb is no coincidence. Froome has climbed Ventoux before. Twice..''

Twice? Masterclass? Seriously? And did the stage actually occur this way?



So when I ask for reasons why they so strong no one comes anywhere close to providing a reasonable answer. There’s just silence. That only adds to my skepticism.

I think the next part of the discussion is "evidence". But that's enough for now.

rayjay

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

I still find it odd that nobody can come up with any reason to why they firmly believe that Sky are clean.

Who says anyone firmly believes it?

No-one believes in the Loch Ness monster. Not because there is a reason not to believe it exists, but because there is nothing to suggest it does.

And so it is with Sky (and for me other teams too). I come from an initial position of not knowing. More people need to admit they don't know. However, over the years I feel positively towards them for many reasons, but largely because they are team run by outsiders and beginners and also because, if they are running a doping team, almost every decision they have made is either stupid or reckless. But the main reason is that I've seen nothing to suggest they are doping. I judge as I would wish to be judged.

But then we come to the other side of the arguement, to which you belong. This is largely driven by the likes of the Clinic and like-minded anonymous people on twitter. They are a small group and they behave in a cultish manner, talking mostly amongst themselves and rarely about actual racing - it's 95% doping, using invective to dismiss those of differing views while patting themselves on the back for being so enlightened.

And they are there day after day and have been for years Obsessively focusing on doping with tunnel vision. 'Evidence' is judged not on it's merits but whether it supports their views. And their view is always that the person or team in question doping. And this is why they are attacking Walsh so badly now. Because they thought he was one of them, as Kimmage is. A Richard Moore book, for example, they could easily have dismissed. But Walsh is the man who wrote one of their gospels. He cannot be denounced as a mere non-believer, he must be a heretic.

They believe that Sky are doping because they have to. They have no other choice. The time and emotion invested in their cynicism compels them to continue. They're pot committed, "If it is a lie, we fight on that lie". They had decided that Sky were doping before they had even been started as a team. They have already decided Alonso's team are doping. They already know that the White Jersey winner five years from now is doping, regardless of what happens henceforth or who he is.

None of these people are seeking 'truth', they are merely clamouring for justification.

It is this that I argue against rather than for the notion of a clean Sky. The debate is being flooded by the repetition of terrible 'evidence' and 'analysis' from fundamentalists, and it's that that I primarily object to.

I was at Loch Ness in back in august. The visitor centre at Urquart castle has really come on since I last visited.
I also visited the Nessy centre thing they have and there is no real evidence for Nessy Just a lot of eye witness accounts who IMO have been fooled by their imagination.

I still say Sky are up to something. Nice post though Rich.

ddraver

Evidence please whitetrashboy...evidence.

Richmond Racer

RichN95 wrote:

What Rich said

Yep. That sums it up nicely for me. Cheers Rich

whiteboytrash

Crankbrother wrote:

I'm working on the premise that WBT just wants to know how the SKY project has produced such fast, consistent results, with what were, in the main, day-trippers within the peloton ... The best GC we had been treated to previously by these riders was a lucky fourth (and Garmin tore themselves inside out to get him there ... Just ask his then teammates (CVdV & DM were particularly vocal on the subject)) ...

Assuming that, for example, Nibali doesn't train in a big top with circus clowns ... What are these amazing margin gains that make riders previously no-where near his radar suddenly able to leave him FAR behind? History has shown (TVM/Telekom/Postal) that when results like this happen, there is something behind the curtain ...

WBT asks that question, and for an answer the 'PeSKY Kids' (this is one I'm trying out, it might not stick) get all in his monitor and jump up and down asking for proof of nefarious activity ... Maybe he'd like his question answered rather than challenged ... Maybe we should have these answers, or maybe we should just learn from history ... One way or another, there IS a discussion to be had ... and it's not covered in Walsh's book judging by the excerpts and feedback, in fact it only adds to the smoke and mirrors ...

Well yes. Correct.

I see fans of Sky trolling their own thread trying to get it closed down because they don't have the answers or refuse to even engage in mature debate.

Its odd.

I took the time to read the book. I was skeptical to begin with. But more so after I finished it.

I don't feel we're any closer to have more confidence in the system or Sky.

But I understand why people hold a position they are clean. That's makes sense if you're British. That's normal to support your home nation.

Like I said with the Armstrong years, debate was shut down at all levels. You couldn't have a reasonable discussion.

Let's not make the same mistake twice.

RichN95.

whiteboytrash wrote:

I get it, that if one of your own countrymen from a home-grown team running a team on British principles that you want it to be clean and true. I get that. Doesn’t mean it is. That’s an emotive position not one of rationality.

No, you don't get it. I want them ALL to be clean and true. There's not one single rider that I hope is doping. And not one single rider that I have any emotional investment in being caught. Whether any individual is doping or not largely unconcerns me. This is not my life - it's just something I enjoy watching. And as such I extend the common decency of not damning a rider without evidence. You, and many others, may not feel that the sport deserves that respect, but individuals do.

There was once a thread on The Clinic which asked "Which rider would you most like to be caught doping?" The only human answer is the one that is doping. But actual names were offered. Why? Not because the poster wanted that rider to be banned, but so they could be seen as right and other posters as wrong. The level of debate is motivated by winning at the internet, not cycling.