Inside Team Sky - David Walsh *Spoilers*
Comments
-
You dont have to go all mental on me, how come this rudeness and paranoia? You dont want to discuss on David Walsh? Fine. Dont harrass and make absurd accusations you cant substantiate. You'll look like a fool.mike6 wrote:Stillnox wrote: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:
So, Shane Stokes disagrees with the findings of David Walsh, saying other teams have doubts about Sky? Werent there also doubts about Vini Fantini earlier this year by other teams? The question is which teams Stokes has spoken to.
Garmin love Sky, Astana dont talk, Katusha dont talk, Saxo dont talk, Italians dont talk, Spaniards dont talk, Belgians dont talk, BMC dont talk, that leaves the French of Ag2R, FdJ, Argos and Belkin? Who has incentive to complain about Sky?
Has Walsh spoken to those other teams or didnt he have enough time due to twitterduty?0 -
No tA Doctor wrote: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 shoot, 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 shoot 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 ******* Nuttella anecdote.
I don’t think you listened to the interview correctly.
Stokes in his own opinion feels that for GT winners we’re not out of the woods yet. That we should show caution. Our trust has been broken and we should give it time before proclamations of cleanness.
That’s an entrirely normal and rational statement to make. We’d say the same thing about a cheating ex or a politician or boss who’d let us down.
That’s the normal human reaction when having been bitten once before.
I’m not seeing slander or anything even close to slander in those statements.
Stokes questioned Walsh’s approach in determining dopers as the method has changed when he was so convinced about Rasmussen and Contador by their “illogical speeds” to now Froome. Whom Walsh gives the benefit of the doubt. Stokes used evidence to back up his questioning by reading a 2007 quote from Walsh
The defense to slander is the absolute truth. And thats what Stokes did. Provided the absolute truth.
Stokes goes on to reference Brailsford’s offer to the media on what Sky should do. Stokes contacted Sky and offered Michael Ashenden whom some consider the foremost anti-doping expert in the world to validate the numbers from Sky.
Sky never got back to Stokes.
Again not seeing anything like slander in there. Not even remotely like slander. What I see is a lot of truth and a lot of Sky not backing up their bold statements of transparency. If anything Sky could be seen guilty of “misrepresentation”. Thankfully this is not contract law.
Thoughts?0 -
So Shane. Explain to us again why Martyn Irvine's track background is a great indicator of road potential unlike the track background of Wiggins.
"Let's not rush to judgement"
Quite.
Couldn't put it better myself.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Someone on this thread has at this point made 168 of the 798 posts.
That's 21% of all the posts.
In two recent pages, every post referenced or quoted this one poster.0 -
Holster the pitchforks, Rich has migrated to the Korneel Bogaert imbroglio....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0
-
RichN95 wrote:
I'm actually watching a documentary about the making of Troll 2. (Seriously, I am)Macaloon wrote:Holster the pitchforks, Rich has migrated to the Korneel Bogaert imbroglio.
The ultimate piss-poor review: the "-" (film, documentary, album, etc) was so bad, I couldn't help myself but have a cheeky look at that BR thread with the lunatic/cult contingent...0 -
Dear all,
Please have a read of the Walsh interview on cyclingnews .com. I'm not adept enough to post the link.0 -
As mentioned above^
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/int ... e-team-sky
There are some people on this thread that I can easily imagine being part of the mob referenced at the end of the interview0 -
dsoutar wrote:As mentioned above^
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/int ... e-team-sky
There are some people on this thread that I can easily imagine being part of the mob referenced at the end of the interview
Thank you sir.0 -
Did he? Just interested. You seem quite into this kind of materialwhiteboytrash wrote:Oh. And Hinault. He admitted as well.0 -
madasahattersley wrote:Sadly the thread won't be locked
"It's a difficult situation if I lock it then people will moan that they have no right of reply and if I don't then people will complain that I have taken no action."
So I can sort of see the mod's situation. Of course, the thread will die if nobody rises to the bait of the asylum escapees but I think people are still under the illusion that this is a discussion.
I honestly do not see why you want it locked so much? If you re not interested then just don't click on the link. Do you want the mods to save you from yourself or something?
Personally i'm happy watching wbt tie himself in very many knots then try to claim that we re shutting down discussion when actually we re asking him to POST MORE!
...but then I'm in Siberia so....We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:Stokes goes on to reference Brailsford’s offer to the media on what Sky should do. Stokes contacted Sky and offered Michael Ashenden whom some consider the foremost anti-doping expert in the world to validate the numbers from Sky.
Sky never got back to Stokes.
Sky never got back to a nobody with a computer, a twitter account and a website that needs clicks to make money - Big flipping whoop...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
feltkuota wrote:Dear all,
Please have a read of the Walsh interview on cyclingnews .com. I'm not adept enough to post the link.
It's an interesting adversarial interview for those of us that can't be bothered to read the book. I think Barry Ryan does a good job of asking probing questions and he certainly demonstrates a knowledge of cycling.
One that stuck out for me wasCN: Sky's zero tolerance policy saw Steven de Jongh and Bobby Julich leave the team last year, but there are some guys who raced successfully during the Lance Armstrong years who are still on the staff at Sky now. One example – and there are a few – is Dario Cioni. He's still working for Sky, so he's clearly signed a form saying that he never doped. He finished 4th overall in the 2004 Giro d'Italia. If Cioni was clean – and we assume he's signed a declaration saying that – then that is an amazing story. I would imagine he would be a very interesting guy to talk to, if he rode clean at the business end of a grand tour during that era… He's only mentioned in passing in your book. Did you speak to him?0 -
ddraver wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:Stokes goes on to reference Brailsford’s offer to the media on what Sky should do. Stokes contacted Sky and offered Michael Ashenden whom some consider the foremost anti-doping expert in the world to validate the numbers from Sky.
Sky never got back to Stokes.
Sky never got back to a nobody with a computer, a twitter account and a website that needs clicks to make money - Big flipping whoop...
How funny. The person "some consider the foremost anti-doping expert in the world', has been silent for almost the entire year - well since he flounced out of the Bonfire of the Vanities aka 'Change Cycling Now'. Not a peep in public during or after the Tour. Even Stokes and others couldnt get him to give his opinion on Horner's BP data (and I know they tried). Seems to have gone to ground since having to issue a public apology for comments he made in a major Aussie paper early in the year
http://siab.org.au/about-siab/history.php
(his website)0 -
While I wouldn't really fancy betting on Cioni being clean, it should also be noted that the 2004 Giro was probably the softest Grand Tour any of us can remember - largely designed with Petacchi in mind. 13 of the 20 stages finished in a bunch sprint (Petacchi won 9) and there were only four mountain stages - with the biggest climbs mid stage and two of them less than 125km.TheBigBean wrote:One that stuck out for me wasCN: Sky's zero tolerance policy saw Steven de Jongh and Bobby Julich leave the team last year, but there are some guys who raced successfully during the Lance Armstrong years who are still on the staff at Sky now. One example – and there are a few – is Dario Cioni. He's still working for Sky, so he's clearly signed a form saying that he never doped. He finished 4th overall in the 2004 Giro d'Italia. If Cioni was clean – and we assume he's signed a declaration saying that – then that is an amazing story. I would imagine he would be a very interesting guy to talk to, if he rode clean at the business end of a grand tour during that era… He's only mentioned in passing in your book. Did you speak to him?
Brad McGee (universally seen as clean) came 8th. Honchar, a TT specialist with a lesser reputation, came 2nd. Neither got a result like that before or since and neither did Cioni. He later had a couple of Giro top 20s - one while riding for Sky.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Good background. I think there could have been a much longer discussion of Sky's zero-tolerance policy, and that both sides could have made better points. This would have been one of them.RichN95 wrote:
While I wouldn't really fancy betting on Cioni being clean, it should also be noted that the 2004 Giro was probably the softest Grand Tour any of us can remember - largely designed with Petacchi in mind. 13 of the 20 stages finished in a bunch sprint (Petacchi won 9) and there were only four mountain stages - with the biggest climbs mid stage and two of them less than 125km.TheBigBean wrote:One that stuck out for me wasCN: Sky's zero tolerance policy saw Steven de Jongh and Bobby Julich leave the team last year, but there are some guys who raced successfully during the Lance Armstrong years who are still on the staff at Sky now. One example – and there are a few – is Dario Cioni. He's still working for Sky, so he's clearly signed a form saying that he never doped. He finished 4th overall in the 2004 Giro d'Italia. If Cioni was clean – and we assume he's signed a declaration saying that – then that is an amazing story. I would imagine he would be a very interesting guy to talk to, if he rode clean at the business end of a grand tour during that era… He's only mentioned in passing in your book. Did you speak to him?
Brad McGee (universally seen as clean) came 8th. Honchar, a TT specialist with a lesser reputation, came 2nd. Neither got a result like that before or since and neither did Cioni. He later had a couple of Giro top 20s - one while riding for Sky.
Personally, I think Sky are in a very difficult position on this due to the very, very strong requirement from their sponsors to be completely above suspicion. Setting up a strong team from scratch without any riders or staff who ever had even a slight whiff about them would be tricky at any time. In 2010, it was virtually impossible. They have to have the zero-tolerance policy or the team will disappear, but sometimes it seems as if the zero-tolerance rhetoric is for the benefit of the Murdochs, while in reality they muddle along on a nod and a wink with a more pragmatic form of clean riding, like a sort of Garmin Lite. Then people start talking, and Brailsford is "shocked, shocked I tell you, to find that there are ex-dopers in my team!"
He's just trying to walk a tightrope between unrealistic corporate expectations and the reality on the ground. Ironically, that makes Sky look dirtier, or at least more suspicious, than if they'd always been openly hiring people with dodgy pasts as long as they were clean now. But the policy isn't going to change, so he just does what he can with it. Cioni may well be an ex-doper, but I don't think that's a problem. If he was doping last year, though...
I realise that this theory is entirely impossible to disprove - Brailsford would strongly deny it for the same reasons that I've just given - but it fits the available facts very well, and I think it explains a lot. As someone who's often caught in a similar bind between Orders From Above and the cold blast of reality, I have a lot of sympathy.N00b commuter with delusions of competence
FCN 11 - If you scalp me, do I not bleed?0 -
RichN95 wrote:
While I wouldn't really fancy betting on Cioni being clean, it should also be noted that the 2004 Giro was probably the softest Grand Tour any of us can remember - largely designed with Petacchi in mind. 13 of the 20 stages finished in a bunch sprint (Petacchi won 9) and there were only four mountain stages - with the biggest climbs mid stage and two of them less than 125km.TheBigBean wrote:One that stuck out for me wasCN: Sky's zero tolerance policy saw Steven de Jongh and Bobby Julich leave the team last year, but there are some guys who raced successfully during the Lance Armstrong years who are still on the staff at Sky now. One example – and there are a few – is Dario Cioni. He's still working for Sky, so he's clearly signed a form saying that he never doped. He finished 4th overall in the 2004 Giro d'Italia. If Cioni was clean – and we assume he's signed a declaration saying that – then that is an amazing story. I would imagine he would be a very interesting guy to talk to, if he rode clean at the business end of a grand tour during that era… He's only mentioned in passing in your book. Did you speak to him?
Brad McGee (universally seen as clean) came 8th. Honchar, a TT specialist with a lesser reputation, came 2nd. Neither got a result like that before or since and neither did Cioni. He later had a couple of Giro top 20s - one while riding for Sky.
Interesting. I was mainly pointing out that Barry Ryan did a solid adversarial style interview rather than criticising Sky / Cioni. It does seem though that he has more cycling knowledge than Walsh, and it might have been more interesting if Barry Ryan had answered his own questions - although obviously he hasn't been inside the Sky team.
(I know nothing else about him, so it may be that he is only good asking questions for one side)0 -
And he has a natural high hemotacrit, that's why five days after completing the 3 week Vuelta he failed the UCI bloodtest of 50%. How high is that natural crit when you consider ones crit drops for about 10 to 15 % at the end of a GT?RichN95 wrote:While I wouldn't really fancy betting on Cioni being clean, it should also be noted that the 2004 Giro was probably the softest Grand Tour any of us can remember - largely designed with Petacchi in mind. 13 of the 20 stages finished in a bunch sprint (Petacchi won 9) and there were only four mountain stages - with the biggest climbs mid stage and two of them less than 125km.
Brad McGee (universally seen as clean) came 8th. Honchar, a TT specialist with a lesser reputation, came 2nd. Neither got a result like that before or since and neither did Cioni. He later had a couple of Giro top 20s - one while riding for Sky.
What is striking there is this part from Walsh:There was a time when I thought I should be investigating every guy on the team, every mechanic, everyone. Go back into his past and find out did he aid or abet anybody to dope, and prove that Sky have hired somebody with doping in his background. And you know what? I said I wasn't going to do that because I actually don’t believe it’s fair on the guy
But later on Walsh says he would investigate if that person would be Jim Ochowiz.
Why would he not be interested in Cioni? Member of at least two notorious teams in the past, Fassa and Liquigas?
Currently also having a position in the athletes commission at the UCI.
http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI1/la ... g&LangId=10 -
Richmond Racer wrote:ddraver wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:Stokes goes on to reference Brailsford’s offer to the media on what Sky should do. Stokes contacted Sky and offered Michael Ashenden whom some consider the foremost anti-doping expert in the world to validate the numbers from Sky.
Sky never got back to Stokes.
Sky never got back to a nobody with a computer, a twitter account and a website that needs clicks to make money - Big flipping whoop...
How funny. The person "some consider the foremost anti-doping expert in the world', has been silent for almost the entire year - well since he flounced out of the Bonfire of the Vanities aka 'Change Cycling Now'. Not a peep in public during or after the Tour. Even Stokes and others couldnt get him to give his opinion on Horner's BP data (and I know they tried). Seems to have gone to ground since having to issue a public apology for comments he made in a major Aussie paper early in the year
http://siab.org.au/about-siab/history.php
(his website)
Quick, shut the thread down! Mods shut down the thread! ;-)
Going to ground is exactly what Ashenden does. His work by its very nature is private and confidential. He job isn't to provide public commentary or write books like Walsh.
He is a real scientist. With credentials. Worked on the passport committee.
What better person would there be?
Sky being clean and having a perception issue should welcome someone of Ashenden's stature to go over their data and certify that they are clean.
That would be a good idea, yes?0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:
Quick, shut the thread down! Mods shut down the thread! ;-)
Going to ground is exactly what Ashenden does. His work by its very nature is private and confidential. He job isn't to provide public commentary or write books like Walsh.
He is a real scientist. With credentials. Worked on the passport committee.
What better person would there be?
Sky being clean and having a perception issue should welcome someone of Ashenden's stature to go over their data and certify that they are clean.
That would be a good idea, yes?
You mean like all Sky riders do already via the biological passport scheme?0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:ddraver wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:Stokes goes on to reference Brailsford’s offer to the media on what Sky should do. Stokes contacted Sky and offered Michael Ashenden whom some consider the foremost anti-doping expert in the world to validate the numbers from Sky.
Sky never got back to Stokes.
Sky never got back to a nobody with a computer, a twitter account and a website that needs clicks to make money - Big flipping whoop...
How funny. The person "some consider the foremost anti-doping expert in the world', has been silent for almost the entire year - well since he flounced out of the Bonfire of the Vanities aka 'Change Cycling Now'. Not a peep in public during or after the Tour. Even Stokes and others couldnt get him to give his opinion on Horner's BP data (and I know they tried). Seems to have gone to ground since having to issue a public apology for comments he made in a major Aussie paper early in the year
http://siab.org.au/about-siab/history.php
(his website)
Quick, shut the thread down! Mods shut down the thread! ;-)
Going to ground is exactly what Ashenden does. His work by its very nature is private and confidential. He job isn't to provide public commentary or write books like Walsh.
He is a real scientist. With credentials. Worked on the passport committee.
What better person would there be?
Sky being clean and having a perception issue should welcome someone of Ashenden's stature to go over their data and certify that they are clean.
That would be a good idea, yes?
For a guy whose job it ISN'T he's been very, very public with his comments in the past. You can't "go to ground" unless you were previously "above ground". Which he most emphatically was. In fact various posters here had already bemoaned the fact that his reputation was somewhat sullied by his media work a long, long time before he was involved with CCN or asked to comment on Sky.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Rich never said Cioni was clean. In fact he posted what I would have said in regard of that 2004 Giro joke.
Walsh never said Cioni was clean, either.
OK, so Walsh invests a lot of time and effort in investigating Cioni and say he finds him dirty, what does it prove?
That Sky are dirty? nope.
It proves Dario tells porkie pies.
Talking of investing misplaced time and effort. Trying to reinvent David Walsh definitely qualifies."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
andyp wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:
Quick, shut the thread down! Mods shut down the thread! ;-)
Going to ground is exactly what Ashenden does. His work by its very nature is private and confidential. He job isn't to provide public commentary or write books like Walsh.
He is a real scientist. With credentials. Worked on the passport committee.
What better person would there be?
Sky being clean and having a perception issue should welcome someone of Ashenden's stature to go over their data and certify that they are clean.
That would be a good idea, yes?
You mean like all Sky riders do already via the biological passport scheme?
What does the biological passport "scheme" do?
I think you may not understand the intent of this program.
Besides Brailsford made his offer to the media. This is what Stokes was responding to.
The concern is perhaps Brailsford was lying to the media to garner public support? I hope not.
I'd like to see Sky make good on Brailsfords offer. I think you'd agree with me on this.0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:Stuff
Oh what drama
You might want to read up on why any review system of significance has more than one reviewer.
The days of one person being judge and jury disappeared a long time ago, wherever we are talking about disciplinary or legal consequences.
And yes, that goes for Walsh too. He is not judge or jury. But then he doesnt present himself as either of those things.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:ddraver wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:Stokes goes on to reference Brailsford’s offer to the media on what Sky should do. Stokes contacted Sky and offered Michael Ashenden whom some consider the foremost anti-doping expert in the world to validate the numbers from Sky.
Sky never got back to Stokes.
Sky never got back to a nobody with a computer, a twitter account and a website that needs clicks to make money - Big flipping whoop...
How funny. The person "some consider the foremost anti-doping expert in the world', has been silent for almost the entire year - well since he flounced out of the Bonfire of the Vanities aka 'Change Cycling Now'. Not a peep in public during or after the Tour. Even Stokes and others couldnt get him to give his opinion on Horner's BP data (and I know they tried). Seems to have gone to ground since having to issue a public apology for comments he made in a major Aussie paper early in the year
http://siab.org.au/about-siab/history.php
(his website)
Quick, shut the thread down! Mods shut down the thread! ;-)
Going to ground is exactly what Ashenden does. His work by its very nature is private and confidential. He job isn't to provide public commentary or write books like Walsh.
He is a real scientist. With credentials. Worked on the passport committee.
What better person would there be?
Sky being clean and having a perception issue should welcome someone of Ashenden's stature to go over their data and certify that they are clean.
That would be a good idea, yes?
For a guy whose job it ISN'T he's been very, very public with his comments in the past. You can't "go to ground" unless you were previously "above ground". Which he most emphatically was. In fact various posters here had already bemoaned the fact that his reputation was somewhat sullied by his media work a long, long time before he was involved with CCN or asked to comment on Sky.
You don't think Ashenden is a good selection? Ok then, perhaps someone else?
Who would you suggest?
I'm sure Stokes would be happy to work with a reputable scientist of Sky's choice.
Perhaps better than showing David Walsh Froome's pre Vuelta '11 numbers and him telling us they are the same numbers as post Vuelta.
That's a stretch. Media commentator David Walsh, scientist??!!
I'm sure the scientific community would have a big LOL at that one.
I'd like to see Sky make good on Brailsford's offer. I'm sure Stokes and Sky can come to a suitable arrangement. Yes?0 -
Ashenden comes away with positive opinion on Sky data. Ashenden is a sellout. Mob turn on Ashenden.
Repeat for next expert.0 -
Why Ashenden if I may ask you? Why not D’Onofrio.whiteboytrash wrote:Sky being clean and having a perception issue should welcome someone of Ashenden's stature to go over their data and certify that they are clean.
That would be a good idea, yes?
While I am typing this, what was it Stokes suggested Team Sky should offer to Ashenden? Bio passport markers or SRM - files?
I doubt Ashenden has knowledge on SRM. That leaves the bio passport files?
I agree on the Cioni part, but he is not the only one selling porkies here; Team Sky sacking Julich, de Jong, Yates 'retiring', Rogers who got a better deal at Saxo. Thats where Dario and his 2004 Ferretti wonderyear is important.Blazing Saddles wrote:Rich never said Cioni was clean. In fact he posted what I would have said in regard of that 2004 Giro joke.
Walsh never said Cioni was clean, either.
OK, so Walsh invests a lot of time and effort in investigating Cioni and say he finds him dirty, what does it prove?
That Sky are dirty? nope.
It proves Dario tells porkie pies.
Talking of investing misplaced time and effort. Trying to reinvent David Walsh definitely qualifies.
You do know the UCI bio passport is software sensitive? I mean, some of Lance Armstrongs 2009 blood tests were somehow 'excluded'?Ritchmond Racer wrote:You might want to read up on why any review system of significance has more than one reviewer.
The days of one person being judge and jury disappeared a long time ago, wherever we are talking about disciplinary or legal consequences.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/02/ ... ort_274676
http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/02/ ... =whats-hot0 -
Turfle wrote:Ashenden comes away with positive opinion on Sky data. Ashenden is a sellout. Mob turn on Ashenden.
Repeat for next expert.
"Rinse and repeat" would be the appropriate phrase.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:Stuff
Oh what drama
You might want to read up on why any review system of significance has more than one reviewer.
The days of one person being judge and jury disappeared a long time ago, wherever we are talking about disciplinary or legal consequences.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Braislford made an offer to the media.
Shane Stokes was responding to that offer.
Sky didn't reply.
What does that tell you?
It tells me it was purely a cynical marketing attempt to buy public support for Sky and Froome.
In regards to the passport program if you're satisfied that it demonstrates cleanness then I'll send your regards to Chris Horner.
He'll appreciate your support. As too Lance Armstrong.0
This discussion has been closed.
