Inside Team Sky - David Walsh *Spoilers*

blazing_saddles

Richmond Racer wrote:

Clear the decks over at the Clinic, a whole new thread for this one

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/miguel- ... ment-squad

Big Mig will surely have had Little Mig on it from before he was weaned

Should put a big grin on deejay's face.

If folks wish to debate Sky's zero policy, subsequent sackings etc, I think they will find less opposition.
Possibly, ill conceived, almost certainly poorly implemented.
Now, hopefully, a work in progress, but given the attention it has attracted, not imo, the smokescreen that some would have us believe.

Velonutter

Keep this on topic lads, I don't want to spend my valuable time trying to tidy things up! Thank-you

Coriander

Velonutter wrote:

Keep this on topic lads, I don't want to spend my valuable time trying to tidy things up! Thank-you

Conversations meander all the time. Can't believe you took a report on one post even vaguely seriously enough to comment on it.

Macaloon

Stillnox wrote:

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?

Is that a fact, a theory, or a hunch? Can you link to something a little more (ahem) solid than the forum discussions served-up by Google? Ta.

ddraver

It's now gone from Ridiculous to Absurd....

blazing_saddles

Coriander wrote:

Velonutter wrote:

Keep this on topic lads, I don't want to spend my valuable time trying to tidy things up! Thank-you

Conversations meander all the time. Can't believe you took a report on one post even vaguely seriously enough to comment on it.

ddraver wrote:

It's now gone from Ridiculous to Absurd....

+1
This was reason for so many of the good posters leaving CN.

whiteboytrash

ddraver wrote:

It's now gone from Ridiculous to Absurd....

Why would you say that?

I don't think it has. What you don't appear to like is that Sky are being questioned. Walsh is being questioned.

Brailsford asked for ideas on what to do, to quell the discontent.

That is being offered and ignored by Sky.

Why? Wouldn't you like to know?

Many here appear not to want to know if Sky are clean are not. The passport appears good enough for some even though no one actually knows what the passport results are!

And thats acceptable?

Many here appear to continually say "wheres the evidence" or "show me the evidence" and when offered a route which perhaps the evidence could be shown its - "I don't want to know", or "Ashenen is lying low" or some other crazed, fanatical ranting.

The constant comparisons to the Clinic, I also believe have got to fanatical fever pitch levels.

Why compare? The Clinic is a doping forum. They discuss doping, end of story.

Why compare this forum which is not a doping forum to one which is just about doping? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to do so.

From my time in this thread I've not seen anyone provide anything that is reasonably credible to suggest Sky are doing things as they say they are.

In fact I see the opposite. And when questioned people want the thread shut down?

Why is that?

I presume if our wives or husbands were cheating on us most here would say "I'd prefer not to know". Rather than, "perhaps I could intelligently ask questions and verify whether its just paranoia based on past experiences or do my senses tell me something is really going on".

You're and odd bunch of people. But I'm enjoying the debate and the findings into Walsh's account from his book.

Pross

OK I'm bored enough to bite, I really need a life! Can't speak for others but some answers of my own in red

whiteboytrash wrote:

Many here appear not to want to know if Sky are clean are not. The passport appears good enough for some even though no one actually knows what the passport results are! I've not seen anything worrying enough to make me want proof. No matter what Sky do some people will never be happy so why bother as you can never prove a negative.if they had dodgy passport data then it's surely up to the authorities to do something about it? Why is it just Sky that need this additional scrutiny? Astana and Trek had GT wins too.

Many here appear to continually say "wheres the evidence" or "show me the evidence" and when offered a route which perhaps the evidence could be shown its - "I don't want to know", or "Ashenen is lying low" or some other crazed, fanatical ranting. see most of the above, why are Sky being singled out as having to provide more evidence? Would someone accused of murder have to provide evidence in court to show they weren't at the scene when there was no credible evidence or witnesses to say they were? As for crazed, fanatical ranting can I suggest you look the definitions of these words up and then re-read this thread in its entirety?

Why compare? The Clinic is a doping forum. They discuss doping, end of story. yes and of course you are just discussing Walsh's book and are not discussing doping. In fact none of your posts on Bike Radar have mentioned or implied doping at all

Why compare this forum which is not a doping forum to one which is just about doping? because it's in danger of going that way when it was once an informative forum where I learned a lot about pro racing.

In fact I see the opposite. And when questioned people want the thread shut down? People who have asked for the thread to be shut down have done so due to the circular argument that has continued for about 40 pages

I presume if our wives or husbands were cheating on us most here would say "I'd prefer not to know". Rather than, "perhaps I could intelligently ask questions and verify whether its just paranoia based on past experiences or do my senses tell me something is really going on". No, checking for evidence would be fine (providing there was sufficient grounds for initial doubts rather than just 'attractive women have had affairs before therefore as my wife is an attractive woman it's highly likely she is too'. If I then hired a private detective with a history of uncovering other people having affairs, they spent months being able to track her movements whenever they wanted and he said he saw nothing suspicious I would be inclined to accept that rather than someone who didn't even know her claiming he was a bumbling fool and that I should hire someone else

Hopefully my last word on this thread!

iainf72

whiteboytrash wrote:

From my time in this thread I've not seen anyone provide anything that is reasonably credible to suggest Sky are doing things as they say they are.

Here's my position. When Sky started out, they did a lot of things that were at odds with their stated public position. And then they refused to engage the media about these issues and closed ranks. Over time, that position has hurt them, they're realised that and changed their approach somewhat.

Brailsford still seems to lie about silly things and they sometimes deploy PR to attempt to manage the situation. They aren't really transparent but then what does that mean in reality. There have been some spectacular missteps like talking about WADA analysing power or whatever which just makes them sound clueless.

They've hired riders who obviously doped in the past, ditto management etc, ditto a doctor.

They've also won a bunch of races, including the Tour. There hasn't been anything to credibly link any of those riders with doping, aside from perhaps knowing a few people who were involved in doping and the fact they won some races.

Hypocrites? Sure. Liars? Sometimes. Visionary, absolutely. Dopers? Doubtful.

I don't like them. At all. I'd happily have a doper I like win the Tour rather than a Sky rider. I read one of Brailsfords football analogies in the Walsh book and I want to slap his bald head. But I'm grown up enough to look at the evidence and see there's not much smoke.

And at the BikeRadar do the other night I would guess most people there (not a huge sample) weren't enormous fans.

mike6

iainf72 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

From my time in this thread I've not seen anyone provide anything that is reasonably credible to suggest Sky are doing things as they say they are.

Here's my position. When Sky started out, they did a lot of things that were at odds with their stated public position. And then they refused to engage the media about these issues and closed ranks. Over time, that position has hurt them, they're realised that and changed their approach somewhat.

Brailsford still seems to lie about silly things and they sometimes deploy PR to attempt to manage the situation. They aren't really transparent but then what does that mean in reality. There have been some spectacular missteps like talking about WADA analysing power or whatever which just makes them sound clueless.

They've hired riders who obviously doped in the past, ditto management etc, ditto a doctor.

They've also won a bunch of races, including the Tour. There hasn't been anything to credibly link any of those riders with doping, aside from perhaps knowing a few people who were involved in doping and the fact they won some races.

Hypocrites? Sure. Liars? Sometimes. Visionary, absolutely. Dopers? Doubtful.

I don't like them. At all. I'd happily have a doper I like win the Tour rather than a Sky rider. I read one of Brailsfords football analogies in the Walsh book and I want to slap his bald head. But I'm grown up enough to look at the evidence and see there's not much smoke.

And at the BikeRadar do the other night I would guess most people there (not a huge sample) weren't enormous fans.

That is why people like me, who are fans of racing, but not particularly Team Sky fans, will defend them. I hate to see people attacked for for no other reason than.......well.I don't like them so I would rather a cheat won than them. Childish. I would defend any team or rider that I thought was being vilified for no reason.

Velonutter

I think after 42 pages now everything and anything has been said so time to close this thread before it degrades!