Inside Team Sky - David Walsh *Spoilers*
Comments
-
Cant be. Satire's supposed to have a humerous edge.0
-
Richmond Racer wrote:Cant be. Satire's supposed to have a humerous edge.
I think he's maybe American.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I fell for it. It sounded like the sort of thing Sky would promise for the future.0
-
RichN95 wrote:I see it has been confirmed that David Walsh is now ghostwriting Chris Froome's autobiography (out next summer). Certain sections of the internet will go absolutely mental.
He he. It is funny. And for many additional reasons including the Mrs Fenton-to-be calling Walsh a tool or idiot (take your pick) on the Twatters during the Giro.
And to be published Jun next year. Just before the Tour. Should throw yet more fuel on the Wiggins-Fenton relationship just before the Grand Depart. If Brailsford had any hair, it'd be grey by now.0 -
Is it worth buying?0
-
nic_77 wrote:
I genuinely think you'd enjoy it. For one thing it does endorse some of your views about Sky (and their rigid professionalism) but it does provide some perspective on the approach. I have also enjoyed reading more about the roles and personalities behind the scenes at a race like the tour.frenchfighter wrote:Didn't know this was coming out. I wont be buying a copy. Good to read a few interesting points here.
Give it a go!
"Sky and their rigid professionalism", If thats the reason behind all this obsessive Sky hating its a pretty thin argument. Its a professional sport, they are paid to be a pro team, any team that is not rigidly professional only has that to blame for lack of results. :roll:0 -
nic_77 wrote:
I genuinely think you'd enjoy it. For one thing it does endorse some of your views about Sky (and their rigid professionalism) but it does provide some perspective on the approach. I have also enjoyed reading more about the roles and personalities behind the scenes at a race like the tour.frenchfighter wrote:Didn't know this was coming out. I wont be buying a copy. Good to read a few interesting points here.
Give it a go!
Does it have photos? I think that might persuade FF.0 -
sbbefc wrote:Is it worth buying?
If you want to read a book from a guy who religiously persued LA on what was then unfounded dope reasons, yet seems blind to the rise of Chris Froome and the way he attacked on Ventoux and get record time, then yes read the blind BS that he and Sky are kicking out.0 -
:roll:0
-
MartinGT wrote:If you want to read a book from a guy who religiously persued [sic] LA on what was then unfounded dope reasons...
What like failed tests and sworn testimony?
Walsh deals with this perspective pretty well - indicating that with Armstrong there was sufficient weight of evidence to build a case, with Sky he has nothing except a weak recruitment policy.
Why not read the book and see whether you are persuaded?0 -
By 'record time' you actually mean '23rd best time of those we have, which excludes six Dauphines from 1996-2007 for which we have no data''MartinGT wrote:sbbefc wrote:Is it worth buying?
If you want to read a book from a guy who religiously persued LA on what was then unfounded dope reasons, yet seems blind to the rise of Chris Froome and the way he attacked on Ventoux and get record time, then yes read the blind BS that he and Sky are kicking out.Twitter: @RichN950 -
MartinGT wrote:sbbefc wrote:Is it worth buying?
If you want to read a book from a guy who religiously persued LA on what was then unfounded dope reasons, yet seems blind to the rise of Chris Froome and the way he attacked on Ventoux and get record time, then yes read the blind BS that he and Sky are kicking out.
Walsh appears to rewrite history. Here in the book (via the Clinic) Walsh tells us Froome on Ventoux didn't chase down Quintana but Porte safely delivered him to the Columbian. He also fails to mention the attack on Contador. Yes the OTT ludicrous seated attack never happened.
"Froome isn't making a swashbuckling solo.."
"Soon he is in their sights"
And apparently Contador came back to Froome and Porte! Porte wasn't even there but Contador was decimated.
This book is a major LOL. Pity Walsh has to lie to sell it off to Sky fans.
0 -
nic_77 wrote:MartinGT wrote:If you want to read a book from a guy who religiously persued [sic] LA on what was then unfounded dope reasons...
What like failed tests and sworn testimony?
Walsh deals with this perspective pretty well - indicating that with Armstrong there was sufficient weight of evidence to build a case, with Sky he has nothing except a weak recruitment policy.
Why not read the book and see whether you are persuaded?
Persuaded by Walsh that Sky are clean?
Haha, funny
That's nearly as funny as Brailsfraud telling us they are clean and transparent 0 -
MartinGT wrote:nic_77 wrote:MartinGT wrote:If you want to read a book from a guy who religiously persued [sic] LA on what was then unfounded dope reasons...
What like failed tests and sworn testimony?
Walsh deals with this perspective pretty well - indicating that with Armstrong there was sufficient weight of evidence to build a case, with Sky he has nothing except a weak recruitment policy.
Why not read the book and see whether you are persuaded?
Persuaded by Walsh that Sky are clean?
Haha, funny
That's nearly as funny as Brailsfraud telling us they are clean and transparent
But not as funny as you telling me they are not. What are your credentials?0 -
nic_77 wrote:MartinGT wrote:nic_77 wrote:MartinGT wrote:If you want to read a book from a guy who religiously persued [sic] LA on what was then unfounded dope reasons...
What like failed tests and sworn testimony?
Walsh deals with this perspective pretty well - indicating that with Armstrong there was sufficient weight of evidence to build a case, with Sky he has nothing except a weak recruitment policy.
Why not read the book and see whether you are persuaded?
Persuaded by Walsh that Sky are clean?
Haha, funny
That's nearly as funny as Brailsfraud telling us they are clean and transparent
But not as funny as you telling me they are not. What are your credentials?
Leinders
Bartalucci
Yates
De Jongh
Barry
Julich
Shall I carry on?
To say this team has zero tolerance and transparency, its laughable.
You're now going to tell me Brailsfraud didnt know and how he an Bradley were 'shocked' when they learnt about LA being doped up. haha, come on.
If it looks unreal, it usually is. So seeing Froome going from being DQ'd in a GT to coming second in the following season to me is unreal.0 -
Does the GT in MartinGT stand for gin and tonic?whiteboytrash wrote:
The Ventoux climb:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0ucvPWpCGM
If you watch from about 1 hour 30 in, you will see that Porte drags Froome from a gap of 40" to 15" and then Froome attacks. Contador seems to be hanging around for some of it. You do not see how close exactly they are to Quintana before Froome attacks as the camera was watching JRod when the actual attack happens. However you can see the three of them in the background when Nieve joins Quintana a few minutes before.
I don't see how the footage necessarily contradicts anything Walsh says. It is hard to tell because the camera does not focus on the Porte, Froome (Contador) group all the time. Perhaps Walsh actually you know talked to the people who were there, like Porte and Froome and maybe other people who were there like the race directors, other riders like Pete Kennaugh, hell maybe even Contador, sports directors etc and so has a more accurate, rounded picture of the climb than say someone who just watched the images (possibly with added ad breaks) offered to them by the ASO? I don't know that's just a possibility it being his job as a journalist and all to like talk to people about events and such.Correlation is not causation.0 -
I suppose you found Kittel winning four stages after only managing to finish four stages (all in the last ten places) the year before unreal too.MartinGT wrote:
If it looks unreal, it usually is. So seeing Froome going from being DQ'd in a GT to coming second in the following season to me is unreal.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Above The Cows wrote:Does the GT in MartinGT stand for gin and tonic?whiteboytrash wrote:
The Ventoux climb:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0ucvPWpCGM
If you watch from about 1 hour 30 in, you will see that Porte drags Froome from a gap of 40" to 15" and then Froome attacks. Contador seems to be hanging around for some of it. You do not see how close exactly they are to Quintana before Froome attacks as the camera was watching JRod when the actual attack happens. However you can see the three of them in the background when Nieve joins Quintana a few minutes before.
I don't see how the footage necessarily contradicts anything Walsh says. It is hard to tell because the camera does not focus on the Porte, Froome (Contador) group all the time. Perhaps Walsh actually you know talked to the people who were there, like Porte and Froome and maybe other people who were there like the race directors, other riders like Pete Kennaugh, hell maybe even Contador, sports directors etc and so has a more accurate, rounded picture of the climb than say someone who just watched the images (possibly with added ad breaks) offered to them by the ASO? I don't know that's just a possibility it being his job as a journalist and all to like talk to people about events and such.
What are you talking about?
At no point did Porte ride Froome to Quintana. Froome attacked Contador with his in-saddle-crazy-egg-beater attack and went solo after Quintana.
"Froomey I will bring you to him"
Or are you saying what we saw wasn't true and Walsh knows better than the TV cameras? :shock:
Go easy on the coolaid. You're not seeing straight.0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:MartinGT wrote:sbbefc wrote:Is it worth buying?
If you want to read a book from a guy who religiously persued LA on what was then unfounded dope reasons, yet seems blind to the rise of Chris Froome and the way he attacked on Ventoux and get record time, then yes read the blind BS that he and Sky are kicking out.
Walsh appears to rewrite history. Here in the book (via the Clinic) Walsh tells us Froome on Ventoux didn't chase down Quintana but Porte safely delivered him to the Columbian. He also fails to mention the attack on Contador. Yes the OTT ludicrous seated attack never happened.
"Froome isn't making a swashbuckling solo.."
"Soon he is in their sights"
And apparently Contador came back to Froome and Porte! Porte wasn't even there but Contador was decimated.
This book is a major LOL. Pity Walsh has to lie to sell it off to Sky fans.
I've no idea what you're going on about. Porte brought Froome to within 15 secs of Quintana, and both (+ Contador) certainly can see Quintana up the road - very clear from the video with 7.6km to go. This isnt counter to what Walsh has written.
He also describes describes Froome as closing down Quintana, and then describes '....Nairo Quintana won’t go away. Every time Froome tries to leave him behind, the Colombian finds another air pocket which gives him enough energy to live off. Froome has one tactic left and it’s not a surprising one. He burned Contador off with 6.5km to go by injecting a short burst of acceleration into the climb. At the end of a long day, it is a deadly weapon. He uses it on Quintana again and again, and is beginning to reconcile himself to not taking the stage win today when the youngster runs out of responses. For the last 1.5km the gap grows and Froome wins by 29 seconds.'
Which is an accurate account of what happened. So how is this 'peddling bs''? The usual Clinic stuff - seriously, you guys over there, why do you feel the need to just make sh^t up? Is real life just not exciting enough for you?
And dont start the 'record time' business. The Clinic lives and breathes all that guff.
Oh, and I love your statement of Walsh as 'a guy who religiously persued LA on what was then unfounded dope reasons'. Just from the '99 Tour alone, Walsh had, amongst other things, LA's treatment of Bassons during the race plus the positive test with the miraculously produced backdated TUE etc, to go on. Followed very soon after by Stephen Swart talking to him, followed by the rest...
So is your problem actually with Walsh having gone after Armstrong?0 -
TheBigBean wrote:nic_77 wrote:
I genuinely think you'd enjoy it. For one thing it does endorse some of your views about Sky (and their rigid professionalism) but it does provide some perspective on the approach. I have also enjoyed reading more about the roles and personalities behind the scenes at a race like the tour.frenchfighter wrote:Didn't know this was coming out. I wont be buying a copy. Good to read a few interesting points here.
Give it a go!
Does it have photos? I think that might persuade FF.
Ha, I just couldnt care less what he has to write and as I think he is out to line his products rather than provide anything substantial (he is getting older you know).
In addition I try and steer clear of all things Sky as they provide negative excitement and happiness for the sport.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Going to enjoy Mr Grand Tour Champion taking this posh zero to hero to the cleaners next year.
Someone give him a banana.
Contador is the Greatest0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:MartinGT wrote:sbbefc wrote:Is it worth buying?
If you want to read a book from a guy who religiously persued LA on what was then unfounded dope reasons, yet seems blind to the rise of Chris Froome and the way he attacked on Ventoux and get record time, then yes read the blind BS that he and Sky are kicking out.
Walsh appears to rewrite history. Here in the book (via the Clinic) Walsh tells us Froome on Ventoux didn't chase down Quintana but Porte safely delivered him to the Columbian. He also fails to mention the attack on Contador. Yes the OTT ludicrous seated attack never happened.
"Froome isn't making a swashbuckling solo.."
"Soon he is in their sights"
And apparently Contador came back to Froome and Porte! Porte wasn't even there but Contador was decimated.
This book is a major LOL. Pity Walsh has to lie to sell it off to Sky fans.
I've no idea what you're going on about. Porte brought Froome to within 15 secs of Quintana, and both (+ Contador) certainly can see Quintana up the road - very clear from the video with 7.6km to go. This isnt counter to what Walsh has written.
He also describes describes Froome as closing down Quintana, and then describes '....Nairo Quintana won’t go away. Every time Froome tries to leave him behind, the Colombian finds another air pocket which gives him enough energy to live off. Froome has one tactic left and it’s not a surprising one. He burned Contador off with 6.5km to go by injecting a short burst of acceleration into the climb. At the end of a long day, it is a deadly weapon. He uses it on Quintana again and again, and is beginning to reconcile himself to not taking the stage win today when the youngster runs out of responses. For the last 1.5km the gap grows and Froome wins by 29 seconds.'
Which is an accurate account of what happened. So how is this 'peddling bs''? The usual Clinic stuff - seriously, you guys over there, why do you feel the need to just make sh^t up? Is real life just not exciting enough for you?
And dont start the 'record time' business. The Clinic lives and breathes all that guff.
Oh, and I love your statement of Walsh as 'a guy who religiously persued LA on what was then unfounded dope reasons'. Just from the '99 Tour alone, Walsh had, amongst other things, LA's treatment of Bassons during the race plus the positive test with the miraculously produced backdated TUE etc, to go on. Followed very soon after by Stephen Swart talking to him, followed by the rest...
So is your problem actually with Walsh having gone after Armstrong?
I have no problem.
I'm merely critiquing the Walsh book.
I'm surprised that Walsh has to remove the crazy-karate-chop attack on Contador.
Also I’m not sure why Walsh is lying and changing the events as they actually occurred.
Is he searching for credibility or just making up stories to give Sky a pass?
Only the reader of the book can make a judgment on this.0 -
Did someone forget to lock the door to the asylum when they left?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
-
There's a difference between lying and getting something wrong.whiteboytrash wrote:Also I’m not sure why Walsh is lying and changing the events as they actually occurred.
It's clear that the book has been a bit rushed to get it out for the Christmas market. As I have noted earlier in this thread he makes a factual error six words into chapter 1, writing July instead of June. I do not, however, consider this a lie. Just a mistake. Same with the description of that stage.
(And it's a mistake which makes no bearing on the doping debate whatsoever.)Twitter: @RichN950 -
frenchfighter wrote:Someone give him a banana.
Bit of an unfortunate phrase there fella!frenchfighter wrote:Going to enjoy Mr Grand Tour Champion taking this posh zero to hero to the cleaners next year.
It's not last year already is it?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Hmm...it was Walsh, not any of the asylum 12 (or whatever they call themselves) who took the risk of doggedly pursuing the truth about cancer jesus, and it simply is not credible that he would give Sky a pass. While it is fashionable to be skeptical about the fourth estate, Walsh's track record speaks for itself doesn't it?0
-
RichN95 wrote:
There's a difference between lying and getting something wrong.whiteboytrash wrote:Also I’m not sure why Walsh is lying and changing the events as they actually occurred.
It's clear that the book has been a bit rushed to get it out for the Christmas market. As I have noted earlier in this thread he makes a factual error six words into chapter 1, writing July instead of June. I do not, however, consider this a lie. Just a mistake. Same with the description of that stage.
(And it's a mistake which makes no bearing on the doping debate whatsoever.)
I can understand rushing the book out for release and getting a few incidentals incorrect.
However the pivotal stage to Ventoux? The one stage that everyone was talking about? With the crazy attack that even the French commentary team were laughing at as they reported t. Surely not? Not possible just leave that out and then change the events that Froome solo’ed after Quintana.
Doesn’t make sense. Or does it? Is Walsh trying to make Sky more serine than they are?
I don’t know.
And no it doesn’t prove doping or not. But we’re not discussing doping. We’re discussing how Walsh could get something so WRONG and be so blind.
What’s up with David these days? If he can get THIS so wrong, it begs the question... what else has he got wrong? (or hiding).0 -
No comment on this book as I haven't read it, but....
<rant>
People have the internet these days, if you're going to write non-fiction you now have the extra responsibility of googling the event first. Harry Redknapp's ghost written autobiography* is a fine example of a failure to do that.
*An oxymoron - it's almost like the term biography doesn't exist.
</rant>0
This discussion has been closed.
