Inside Team Sky - David Walsh *Spoilers*
Comments
-
Because - to take up Rich's point in his last post - WBT wants to win at the internetz
Yawn. What a way to live a life. And still try to claim to be a cycling fan. In the words of my dear departed parent, my a4se. A dopage fan, yes.0 -
madasahattersley wrote:whiteboytrash wrote: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.
Mod Edit = Cut the insults!
Mature debate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That statement beggars belief. Mature, debate and WBT :?: :?: :?:0 -
RichN95 wrote:
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.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.
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.
Why are we all here?
We like or love cycling. Watch a lot of it. Participate in it. And I think all of us share a common goal.
No one appears to like dopers.
So I'll repeat that again. We all share the common goal.
Some are just sick of dopers messing everything up again. So they take different approaches to the problem.
There are posters here attempting to deride myself from posting, calling me names in the hope that I will just go away so we get back to status quo and not ask questions. I see that no different from the way some behave on the Clinic.
You appear the "sit and wait" type-a-guy. But sitting and waiting based on past experiences doesn't really tell us whether someone is doping or not. And generally just gets us into a lot of trouble. As the arms race just starts up again like from 2000 onwards.
Brailsford himself asked the media - "...what should I do to make you guys trust us?"
He's asking us for ideas.
So the fact that some ask questions or would like to know more information is fairly straight forward and an acceptable form of action.
May not be popular on this forum but I think its very constructive. I'm enjoying the interaction. In the very least it helps me understand why some "believe" so much.0 -
RichN95 wrote:And not one single rider that I have any emotional investment in being caught.
+1000
Some people just can't understand this, particularly people who do have emotional attachments to some, they just think everybody else has... in fact, so much as they'd probably think saying you have no emotional attachment is a lie.
Even when it comes to people who do have emotional attachment, most people on here are not going to argue for anyone's innocence or by default want to defend riders they like, it's got absolutely sod all to do with 'belief'.0 -
There we go, I post that, and already WBT had posted to do with 'belief'.In the very least it helps me understand why some "believe" so much.
Sorry WBT, you don't get it. You're projecting that on people cos it suits you.
(and you're being pseudo-scientifically boring).0 -
mfin wrote:RichN95 wrote:And not one single rider that I have any emotional investment in being caught.
+1000
Some people just can't understand this, particularly people who do have emotional attachments to some, they just think everybody else has... in fact, so much as they'd probably think saying you have no emotional attachment is a lie.
Even when it comes to people who do have emotional attachment, most people on here are not going to argue for anyone's innocence or by default want to defend riders they like, it's got absolutely sod all to do with 'belief'.
It being the Walsh thread that's why some thought it was odd that DW called out Contador and Rasmussen in 2007 based on visual and speeds alone but not this time around.0 -
I've had to advise two people to cut the insults out, if you can't play nicely then the thread will be locked!0
-
Velonutter wrote:I've had to advise two people to cut the insults out, if you can't play nicely then the thread will be locked!
I think that is their intention.0 -
mfin wrote:There we go, I post that, and already WBT had posted to do with 'belief'.In the very least it helps me understand why some "believe" so much.
Sorry WBT, you don't get it. You're projecting that on people cos it suits you.
(and you're being pseudo-scientifically boring).
No I'm on an internet thread about David Walsh's book "Inside Sky" talking about the book "Inside Sky".
What are you doing? You're on a internet thread trying to shut down conversation because it doesn't suit your "belief".
But if you've read the book, I'd welcome to hear your views and take on the his work.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:RichN95 wrote:What Rich said
Yep. That sums it up nicely for me. Cheers Rich
Me too.
Sums up how I try to look at things in general, just about perfectly.
At least with Sky, I have quite bit more to go on.
Optimistic, but always cautious.
Now back to Walsh.
The first time his name and Sky were mentioned in the press,
I predicted in the Clinic, that within 24 hours, his position of hero would start
an erosion process, that would end up with him as villain.
Boy, did that come to pass.
The only reason for this hullabaloo is the jaundiced viewpoint that somehow, by discrediting this book and you discredit his reasoning and objectivity on Sky being clean.
I simply see it as a stocking filler, written to take the public's coin, not Murdoch's."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:RichN95 wrote:What Rich said
Yep. That sums it up nicely for me. Cheers Rich
I simply see it as a stocking filler book written to take the public's coin, not Murdoch's.
Agreed. And agree on your caution. Its a good approach.0 -
Question for you WBT, a little off-topic but pertinent nonetheless... and it might take us back to a real discussion
Given that Sky seem unable to persuade you that they are riding clean, what precisely are the other teams doing to convince you (other than not winning of course)?
Obviously I want to be sure you don't have an anti-Sky agenda but I'd also like to know how you'd move the situation forward from this current position of distrust.
From a personal perspective I have a healthy suspicious of all teams and riders, but so far Sky are about the only team who have attempted to make a significant effort to allay my fears (putting aside whether or not you personally accept these attempts as genuine).0 -
nic_77 wrote:Question for you WBT, a little off-topic but pertinent nonetheless... and it might take us back to a real discussion
Given that Sky seem unable to persuade you that they are riding clean, what precisely are the other teams doing to convince you (other than not winning of course)?
Obviously I want to be sure you don't have an anti-Sky agenda but I'd also like to know how you'd move the situation forward from this current position of distrust.
From a personal perspective I have a healthy suspicious of all teams and riders, but so far Sky are about the only team who have attempted to make a significant effort to allay my fears (putting aside whether or not you personally accept these attempts as genuine).
Good question and thanks for asking.
I should state I’m not suggesting Sky are 100% doping but I’m mighty suspicions. And generally when I've been suspicious in the past it plays out.
As per other teams yes I believe there is still doping. For sure. It’s part of a wider discussion but I don’t see what event occurred in cycling that doping stopped entirely.
What was the line in the sand so to speak? I know it’s not the wild west days anymore but what changed? Who changed it and why did riders and teams give up doping?
I don't think anyone at the UCI decided enough was enough. In fact I know that.
The passport in a way encourages doping. Encourages is probably the wrong word. I’ll say it's better to have a flattened baseline microdosing on EPO and altitude training than to go without doping. Your profile “can” end up more suspicions when clean with your body dealing with sickness and effort. I also feel the passport assists teams with bigger budgets to dope. Getting through the passport hurdles is a little harder than the older days of OOC and IC testing but with the right assistance it can be done very easily. Thomas Frei and Chris Horner comes to mind. But a team with the right helpers can do it well, with confidence and track all the markers (hence my opinion on Leinders).
So yes other teams are doping. Again not like before but they are doping. Doping is way too attractive of a proposition not to do it. In stages race more so.
Not sure how many of you here have ridden real races. Like proper continental races. Man. 200 guys riding over pot holes at 50km p/h for 4 hours. It’s a killer. And when you get that 3-4 times a week or even twice a week getting up to ride again is half the battle. TV misses that element.
The sport has changed greatly. Gone are the days of piano tranquillo for the first 2 hours. The flag is down and its racing.
And again TV really doesn’t depict very well the steepness of a climb like Ventoux. It almost looks flat. Its only when you get a helicopter shot you can see what they’re riding up. So seeing Froome doing that on Ventoux when I know Ventoux well enough to know its hard no matter who does it then yes I get suspicious.
To your question. Am I suspicious of other riders from other teams? For sure. Horner is an obvious one and whilst I like the way Nibali rides I feel that he has a program of recovery (less performance but requires discussion).
There is also the element that riders dope for different reasons. Some to win but many just to hold on to the peloton or when your contract is up for renewal. The sport is cruel in that way. The job security is terrible. Doping is a good and effective avenue in these situations. The rewards often outweigh the risks.
Those who ride have all been there. Hanging on the back of the group by the skin of your teeth. Some do this just for fun but if your pay cheque comes from riding then you can't afford to get dropped, literally.
For most doping is not performance enhancement. Its surving in a job. Crude comparison but maybe like some need a beer after work to get through the week. That's what cyclists do. They are inflamed and need to train the next day so a backdated TUE (permitted by UKAD) C shot in the knees helps. In fact it more than helps. It brings you back to your normal level.
Hope I articulated this well enough. I wrote it in a wee rush on my phone.0 -
Rich and WBT you have both fought well and I am sure lots of people have enjoyed reading your debate. I reckon you can both simueltaneously hang up your boots on this one. Good job, now have a well earned rest.Contador is the Greatest0
-
Shane Stokes on Newstalk in Ireland.
http://www.newstalk.ie/mobile/index.php?id=17741
Worth listening to. Suggests other teams have indicated reservations about Sky and doping. Which in a way goes against Walsh stating that other teams are in awe of their working practices.
Says also that he offered Sky Ashenden to go through Sky's numbers. No response from Sky.
Asks for caution and reservation.0 -
Interesting viewpoints, especially the bold parts. But what about riders riders using products out of competition during training which are forbidden in competition? Riders hiding for weeks, some even months, return to competition and slamdunk to a Tour de France podium doing what was it, 6.4w/k in the third week? What about the lack of hormonal markers in the bio passport?whiteboytrash wrote:I don't think anyone at the UCI decided enough was enough. In fact I know that.
The passport in a way encourages doping. Encourages is probably the wrong word. I’ll say it's better to have a flattened baseline microdosing on EPO and altitude training than to go without doping. Your profile “can” end up more suspicions when clean with your body dealing with sickness and effort. I also feel the passport assists teams with bigger budgets to dope. Getting through the passport hurdles is a little harder than the older days of OOC and IC testing but with the right assistance it can be done very easily. Thomas Frei and Chris Horner comes to mind. But a team with the right helpers can do it well, with confidence and track all the markers (hence my opinion on Leinders).
I think the peloton has moved on to other products, non - blood related products. When racers from Venezuela are being busted for gw1516, often not the most wealthy of the peloton, what is one using in the Big League?
I also read the Inside Team Sky book by David Walsh, also the interview yesterday on the Cycling News website. He seems to believe the bio passport is working. Even for the team of Riis and Barabbas.0 -
Ah, another visitor from the Clinic. It's getting very incestuous around here all of a sudden0
-
Richmond Racer wrote:Ah, another visitor from the Clinic. It's getting very incestuous around here all of a sudden
Perhaps it could be set that noone can post on BR until they have at least 1 post.0 -
It sounds like you have some interesting credentials - anything you'd like to share? Personally I've ridden Ventoux a couple of times and it's not all that from beyond the Chalet... especially with the tailwindwhiteboytrash wrote:nic_77 wrote:Question for you WBT, a little off-topic but pertinent nonetheless... and it might take us back to a real discussion
Given that Sky seem unable to persuade you that they are riding clean, what precisely are the other teams doing to convince you (other than not winning of course)?
Obviously I want to be sure you don't have an anti-Sky agenda but I'd also like to know how you'd move the situation forward from this current position of distrust.
From a personal perspective I have a healthy suspicious of all teams and riders, but so far Sky are about the only team who have attempted to make a significant effort to allay my fears (putting aside whether or not you personally accept these attempts as genuine).
Good question and thanks for asking.
I should state I’m not suggesting Sky are 100% doping but I’m mighty suspicions. And generally when I've been suspicious in the past it plays out.
As per other teams yes I believe there is still doping. For sure. It’s part of a wider discussion but I don’t see what event occurred in cycling that doping stopped entirely.
What was the line in the sand so to speak? I know it’s not the wild west days anymore but what changed? Who changed it and why did riders and teams give up doping?
I don't think anyone at the UCI decided enough was enough. In fact I know that.
The passport in a way encourages doping. Encourages is probably the wrong word. I’ll say it's better to have a flattened baseline microdosing on EPO and altitude training than to go without doping. Your profile “can” end up more suspicions when clean with your body dealing with sickness and effort. I also feel the passport assists teams with bigger budgets to dope. Getting through the passport hurdles is a little harder than the older days of OOC and IC testing but with the right assistance it can be done very easily. Thomas Frei and Chris Horner comes to mind. But a team with the right helpers can do it well, with confidence and track all the markers (hence my opinion on Leinders).
So yes other teams are doping. Again not like before but they are doping. Doping is way too attractive of a proposition not to do it. In stages race more so.
Not sure how many of you here have ridden real races. Like proper continental races. Man. 200 guys riding over pot holes at 50km p/h for 4 hours. It’s a killer. And when you get that 3-4 times a week or even twice a week getting up to ride again is half the battle. TV misses that element.
The sport has changed greatly. Gone are the days of piano tranquillo for the first 2 hours. The flag is down and its racing.
And again TV really doesn’t depict very well the steepness of a climb like Ventoux. It almost looks flat. Its only when you get a helicopter shot you can see what they’re riding up. So seeing Froome doing that on Ventoux when I know Ventoux well enough to know its hard no matter who does it then yes I get suspicious.
To your question. Am I suspicious of other riders from other teams? For sure. Horner is an obvious one and whilst I like the way Nibali rides I feel that he has a program of recovery (less performance but requires discussion).
There is also the element that riders dope for different reasons. Some to win but many just to hold on to the peloton or when your contract is up for renewal. The sport is cruel in that way. The job security is terrible. Doping is a good and effective avenue in these situations. The rewards often outweigh the risks.
Those who ride have all been there. Hanging on the back of the group by the skin of your teeth. Some do this just for fun but if your pay cheque comes from riding then you can't afford to get dropped, literally.
For most doping is not performance enhancement. Its surving in a job. Crude comparison but maybe like some need a beer after work to get through the week. That's what cyclists do. They are inflamed and need to train the next day so a backdated TUE (permitted by UKAD) C shot in the knees helps. In fact it more than helps. It brings you back to your normal level.
Hope I articulated this well enough. I wrote it in a wee rush on my phone.
If I was going to try a long attack I'd hope to have the chance in the last km before that point, especially if there was a tiring Nairo Quintana ahead to bridge to - remind me where Froome attacked from please?
But going back to your answer... OK so you have a general suspicion that all teams are doping and maybe that the big teams are doing it more (or getting more out of it). That's fine - in fact it is a very understandable position in particular with respect to the challenges the modern pro-rider faces and of course the history of the sport.
You haven't really indicated whether any other team has managed to do anything that convinces you of their credentials - maybe they haven't if you think everyone is at it to some extent.
Let's go back to Brailsford's original question to the journalists at the tour... assuming you were running a clean team how would you convince WBT2 that you're doing it clean? Or would you just not bother as other (quite possibly clean) teams are doing?
Finally returning to the general divide in this debate - I'm pretty sure we are going to have to agree to disagree... probably at the conceptual level of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
I'm going to take Team Sky at their word for now. This book is an important part of that decision (and I have my own reasons for preferring Walsh's credibility to yours or that of any internet nutter). I accept that my judgement may have been wrong, but I am happy to have loved and lost rather than never to have loved at all.0 -
Stillnox wrote:
Interesting viewpoints, especially the bold parts. But what about riders riders using products out of competition during training which are forbidden in competition? Riders hiding for weeks, some even months, return to competition and slamdunk to a Tour de France podium doing what was it, 6.4w/k in the third week? What about the lack of hormonal markers in the bio passport?whiteboytrash wrote:I don't think anyone at the UCI decided enough was enough. In fact I know that.
The passport in a way encourages doping. Encourages is probably the wrong word. I’ll say it's better to have a flattened baseline microdosing on EPO and altitude training than to go without doping. Your profile “can” end up more suspicions when clean with your body dealing with sickness and effort. I also feel the passport assists teams with bigger budgets to dope. Getting through the passport hurdles is a little harder than the older days of OOC and IC testing but with the right assistance it can be done very easily. Thomas Frei and Chris Horner comes to mind. But a team with the right helpers can do it well, with confidence and track all the markers (hence my opinion on Leinders).
I think the peloton has moved on to other products, non - blood related products. When racers from Venezuela are being busted for gw1516, often not the most wealthy of the peloton, what is one using in the Big League?
I also read the Inside Team Sky book by David Walsh, also the interview yesterday on the Cycling News website. He seems to believe the bio passport is working. Even for the team of Riis and Barabbas.
Please mods, stop this thread. Can you not see. WBT has PMd one of his headbannger mates from the clinic to come and back him up and keep the thread going. 1 post, and as if by magic, its on this thread. It sticks out like a sore thumb. If you want this forum ruined like the Clinic, let it go on. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:0 -
I bolded the interesting part as you can see.mfin wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:Ah, another visitor from the Clinic. It's getting very incestuous around here all of a sudden
Perhaps it could be set that noone can post on BR until they have at least 1 post.
Instead of referencing me to a clinic you could show me the decensy to address my post instead of showing you are not happy someone is intruding your incestious party? Thanks.
Hurrah, post number 2, now I am welcome to the party!0 -
Stillnox wrote:
I bolded the interesting part as you can see.mfin wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:Ah, another visitor from the Clinic. It's getting very incestuous around here all of a sudden
Perhaps it could be set that noone can post on BR until they have at least 1 post.
Instead of referencing me to a clinic you could show me the decensy to address my post instead of showing you are not happy someone is intruding your incestious party? Thanks.
Hurrah, post number 2, now I am welcome to the party!
I have been running a crack house for almost 37 years and I want to welcome you to this forum , welcome.0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:Shane Stokes on Newstalk in Ireland.
http://www.newstalk.ie/mobile/index.php?id=17741
Worth listening to. Suggests other teams have indicated reservations about Sky and doping. Which in a way goes against Walsh stating that other teams are in awe of their working practices.
Says also that he offered Sky Ashenden to go through Sky's numbers. No response from Sky.
Asks for caution and reservation.
I see that's gone down well in the place you got this from. Especially this bit:"I've spoken to other teams who would be quite cautious about Team Sky. I don't think these teams have definite proof but there is concern within the peloton about how this team is so dominant and these riders that didn't have a great history in their early careers."
Odd, they suddenly put such faith in what other teams may, or may very well not be saying, since they are so certain that these other teams are doping, they all can't be bothered to make the effort to post about them.
More Clinic hypocrisy.
Caution cutting both ways."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
mike6 wrote:Stillnox wrote:
Interesting viewpoints, especially the bold parts. But what about riders riders using products out of competition during training which are forbidden in competition? Riders hiding for weeks, some even months, return to competition and slamdunk to a Tour de France podium doing what was it, 6.4w/k in the third week? What about the lack of hormonal markers in the bio passport?whiteboytrash wrote:I don't think anyone at the UCI decided enough was enough. In fact I know that.
The passport in a way encourages doping. Encourages is probably the wrong word. I’ll say it's better to have a flattened baseline microdosing on EPO and altitude training than to go without doping. Your profile “can” end up more suspicions when clean with your body dealing with sickness and effort. I also feel the passport assists teams with bigger budgets to dope. Getting through the passport hurdles is a little harder than the older days of OOC and IC testing but with the right assistance it can be done very easily. Thomas Frei and Chris Horner comes to mind. But a team with the right helpers can do it well, with confidence and track all the markers (hence my opinion on Leinders).
I think the peloton has moved on to other products, non - blood related products. When racers from Venezuela are being busted for gw1516, often not the most wealthy of the peloton, what is one using in the Big League?
I also read the Inside Team Sky book by David Walsh, also the interview yesterday on the Cycling News website. He seems to believe the bio passport is working. Even for the team of Riis and Barabbas.
Please mods, stop this thread. Can you not see. WBT has PMd one of his headbannger mates from the clinic to come and back him up and keep the thread going. 1 post, and as if by magic, its on this thread. It sticks out like a sore thumb. If you want this forum ruined like the Clinic, let it go on. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
I did what? I'm sure you have some form of proof for this accusation?
You are indeed fanatical if not mad.
I did no such thing.0 -
Shane Stokes is an utter joke. All he's doing there is rumour-mongering. That's not journalism, but it is close to slander. He's got past form for it as well.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
-
nic_77 wrote:
It sounds like you have some interesting credentials - anything you'd like to share? Personally I've ridden Ventoux a couple of times and it's not all that from beyond the Chalet... especially with the tailwindwhiteboytrash wrote:nic_77 wrote:Question for you WBT, a little off-topic but pertinent nonetheless... and it might take us back to a real discussion
Given that Sky seem unable to persuade you that they are riding clean, what precisely are the other teams doing to convince you (other than not winning of course)?
Obviously I want to be sure you don't have an anti-Sky agenda but I'd also like to know how you'd move the situation forward from this current position of distrust.
From a personal perspective I have a healthy suspicious of all teams and riders, but so far Sky are about the only team who have attempted to make a significant effort to allay my fears (putting aside whether or not you personally accept these attempts as genuine).
Good question and thanks for asking.
I should state I’m not suggesting Sky are 100% doping but I’m mighty suspicions. And generally when I've been suspicious in the past it plays out.
As per other teams yes I believe there is still doping. For sure. It’s part of a wider discussion but I don’t see what event occurred in cycling that doping stopped entirely.
What was the line in the sand so to speak? I know it’s not the wild west days anymore but what changed? Who changed it and why did riders and teams give up doping?
I don't think anyone at the UCI decided enough was enough. In fact I know that.
The passport in a way encourages doping. Encourages is probably the wrong word. I’ll say it's better to have a flattened baseline microdosing on EPO and altitude training than to go without doping. Your profile “can” end up more suspicions when clean with your body dealing with sickness and effort. I also feel the passport assists teams with bigger budgets to dope. Getting through the passport hurdles is a little harder than the older days of OOC and IC testing but with the right assistance it can be done very easily. Thomas Frei and Chris Horner comes to mind. But a team with the right helpers can do it well, with confidence and track all the markers (hence my opinion on Leinders).
So yes other teams are doping. Again not like before but they are doping. Doping is way too attractive of a proposition not to do it. In stages race more so.
Not sure how many of you here have ridden real races. Like proper continental races. Man. 200 guys riding over pot holes at 50km p/h for 4 hours. It’s a killer. And when you get that 3-4 times a week or even twice a week getting up to ride again is half the battle. TV misses that element.
The sport has changed greatly. Gone are the days of piano tranquillo for the first 2 hours. The flag is down and its racing.
And again TV really doesn’t depict very well the steepness of a climb like Ventoux. It almost looks flat. Its only when you get a helicopter shot you can see what they’re riding up. So seeing Froome doing that on Ventoux when I know Ventoux well enough to know its hard no matter who does it then yes I get suspicious.
To your question. Am I suspicious of other riders from other teams? For sure. Horner is an obvious one and whilst I like the way Nibali rides I feel that he has a program of recovery (less performance but requires discussion).
There is also the element that riders dope for different reasons. Some to win but many just to hold on to the peloton or when your contract is up for renewal. The sport is cruel in that way. The job security is terrible. Doping is a good and effective avenue in these situations. The rewards often outweigh the risks.
Those who ride have all been there. Hanging on the back of the group by the skin of your teeth. Some do this just for fun but if your pay cheque comes from riding then you can't afford to get dropped, literally.
For most doping is not performance enhancement. Its surving in a job. Crude comparison but maybe like some need a beer after work to get through the week. That's what cyclists do. They are inflamed and need to train the next day so a backdated TUE (permitted by UKAD) C shot in the knees helps. In fact it more than helps. It brings you back to your normal level.
Hope I articulated this well enough. I wrote it in a wee rush on my phone. If I was going to try a long attack I'd hope to have the chance in the last km before that point, especially if there was a tiring Nairo Quintana ahead to bridge to - remind me where Froome attacked from please?
But going back to your answer... OK so you have a general suspicion that all teams are doping and maybe that the big teams are doing it more (or getting more out of it). That's fine - in fact it is a very understandable position in particular with respect to the challenges the modern pro-rider faces and of course the history of the sport.
You haven't really indicated whether any other team has managed to do anything that convinces you of their credentials - maybe they haven't if you think everyone is at it to some extent.
Let's go back to Brailsford's original question to the journalists at the tour... assuming you were running a clean team how would you convince WBT2 that you're doing it clean? Or would you just not bother as other (quite possibly clean) teams are doing?
Finally returning to the general divide in this debate - I'm pretty sure we are going to have to agree to disagree... probably at the conceptual level of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
I'm going to take Team Sky at their word for now. This book is an important part of that decision (and I have my own reasons for preferring Walsh's credibility to yours or that of any internet nutter). I accept that my judgement may have been wrong, but I am happy to have loved and lost rather than never to have loved at all.
From one internet nutter to another.
In terms of what teams should be doing it’s an interesting question.
What should Sky and what should other teams do?
I think in some part it needs the UCI.
Garmin and Sky talk a lot about transparency but I don’t see a lot of substance to match the talk.
On the face of it what has Sky done to demonstrate they are clean other than say they are? What steps or actions have they taken?
Other team release SRM files etc. or are signed into the MPCC etc. The French teams have to submit to their own federations longitude testing. From which they have the concern of the criminality of doping.
From my own point of view all teams needs to be together on this. Having a passport but keep all of the data hidden is odd. I don’t mean each individual passport I mean the UCI have an excellent collection of data, which may go a long way of showing how the sport as a whole is improving. We see none of that information. (the UCI do release a annual report on doping but generally concentrates itself on number of tests and of what type).
From a team perspective if you were really a clean team I would be releasing monthly, quarterly, yearly reports on performance and testing etc. I’d have an entire portion of the team website dedicated to this component. I’d have an independent doping auditor or should I say performance auditor tracking and determining results. Say a little like an auditor may come into a public company and report on his accounts. Brailsford said pseudo-scientists making incorrect interpretations on data concern him. The he should then let someone do this properly and do it consistency and published the results on their website not in a newspaper.
More can be done here by I’ll hold to myself.
Walsh is really marketing. He by his own admission is not a scientist nor is he providing an audit on Sky’s practices.
He is writing a book for profit.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:Shane Stokes is an utter joke. All he's doing there is rumour-mongering. That's not journalism, but it is close to slander. He's got past form for it as well.
I'm not following.
What did he say that would be considered slander? Care to be more specific?0 -
Stokes is only saying what a lot of people think.
You have to make your own mind up.
Any rider or team who win big races will come under suspicion not just Sky or Froome.
Horner has not had the best of times since his win.
Like it or not Doping and Cycling do go hand in hand.
F%%% knows how you will ever change it.0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:Shane Stokes is an utter joke. All he's doing there is rumour-mongering. That's not journalism, but it is close to slander. He's got past form for it as well.
I'm not following.
What did he say that would be considered slander? Care to be more specific?
In the style of whiteboytrash: "I didn't say it was slander, I said it was close to slander."
You're right, though, I should have picked my words better.
I should have said it was a dirty, cheap, underhand method of making an insinuation without having to take responsibility for it. A cheap shot.
Some other people, who he won't name or provide evidence of actually existing, but who are given expert status by virtue of being involved with "professional teams" (at what level, in what role?) are apparently a little "cautious" about Sky's results. He doesn't think they have absolute proof (no shit, if they did and they hadn't released it they'd be conspirators), but he won't tell us what evidence, if any, they have. It seems he's pretty sure it's some good shit though, so we'd better take his word for it.
Seriously, you've been laying into Walsh for near 40 pages, you say you like to pose questions. Here's a tip - ask yourself what on earth Shane shit-spreader Stokes has done to provide ANY backing for his postulation. He doesn't even have a fecking Nuttella anecdote.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
This discussion has been closed.
