Inside Team Sky - David Walsh *Spoilers*

TheBigBean

The Clinic is actually providing quite entertaining commentary on this book. (I don't normally read it).

What's with the present tense all the time?

tailwindhome

..........

tailwindhome

When Walsh describes the stage to Ventoux does he make mention of the barefoot man carrying a 3 legged stuffed boar?

whiteboytrash

I'm concerned for Walsh

He can't be stupid but comparing the time of an ITT time up Ventoux to a road stage of 220km then Ventoux is just plain dumb.

I fear he's losing all credibility.

He does understand cycling does he not? Stating their was "quite a different" between Mayo's time shows he knows little about cycling. Or does he have other ulterior motives at play?

Yellow Peril

whiteboytrash wrote:

I'm concerned for Walsh

He can't be stupid but comparing the time of an ITT time up Ventoux to a road stage of 220km then Ventoux is just plain dumb.

I fear he's losing all credibility.

He does understand cycling does he not? Stating their was "quite a different" between Mayo's time shows he knows little about cycling. Or does he have other ulterior motives at play?

Chill out. It's just a book not sworn testament. He's nothing to prove in the cycling journalism. I suspect the target market aren't dissecting it to the same level. Friebe is a good cycling writer but I thought "Boy Racer" was terrible.

Macaloon

whiteboytrash wrote:

He does understand cycling does he not? Stating their was "quite a different" between Mayo's time shows he knows little about cycling. Or does he have other ulterior motives at play?

Perhaps you've never read a sports book before? Or you've never sexed-up a piece of writing to make it more interesting for your readers? Whatever the reason, you appear to be spectacularly naive. And not in rayjay's endearing way.

As for your wider concern - Walsh was conscripted by the evil all-powerful Murdoch enterprise to conceal the largest doping conspiracy in World sport - I suggest you read a paper:


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/21/phone-hacking-trial-brooks-emails-found

Poor guy can't even muster a coherent 'Live long and prosper' these days.

rayjay

Thanks

"As for your wider concern - Walsh was conscripted by the evil all-powerful Murdoch enterprise to conceal the largest doping conspiracy in World sport" you said it

ddraver

Oh man whiteboytrash is hilarious!!!

Seriously If Walsh had written that Froome had taken 16mg of EPO when actually he'd taken 15mg would you be totally refuting the validity of Chris Froome taking EPO because Walsh wasnt 100% accurate? Somehow I doubt you wouldnt miss the forest for those particular trees...

However because your gutted that your messiah has found Sweet FA evidence of doping despite having as much access as anyone could give youre saying reduced to saying that he's losing all credibility because of some minor interpretations of events you disagree with. Good god man if you want a play by play account of what happened on Ventoux go and watch it on Youtube (RR provided you with the link) don't read a book about a cycling team that happened to race it...

(oh and if youre worried about the cadence then I suggest you never watch an attack by any mountain biker or track cyclist ever, it will blow.your.mind!!)

The Jesus/Barabus - Brailsford/Riis comparison is quite apt actually, you could add the recent hoo hah with Jonathan Vaughters too. Trust an Irish for a good religious reference! :P

Richmond Racer

^ 'he's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy....'

frenchfighter

Maybe Walsh didnt write the book.

For someone so closely aligned with the sport and with more inside knowledge then the rest of us he clearly has difficulties. I noticed earlier this year though that his interpretations were sometimes incorrect.

Macaloon

"I disagree with your opinions on a bike race; you are therefore a corrupt scumbag" seems to be the argument. Pathetic.

That said, I can understand the disgust of all excavating clinicians of good standing at the supine nature of the independent press. It took the mighty Hugh Grant to finally put Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson (former press sec to Cameron!) in the dock facing time. Stokes, Kimmage & the rampant anti-Murdoch revenge-lust hack-pack, can't find a single source to confirm what the entire world can see.

Where will we find our Hugh Grant?

Richmond Racer

^will Hugh Porter do?

ocdupalais

Macaloon wrote:

Where will we find our Hugh Grant?

The red light district's probably best place to start.

Fortunately, up and down the country, there are already scores of men out there driving through the back streets quite slowly looking for him...

whiteboytrash

ddraver wrote:

Oh man whiteboytrash is hilarious!!!

Seriously If Walsh had written that Froome had taken 16mg of EPO when actually he'd taken 15mg would you be totally refuting the validity of Chris Froome taking EPO because Walsh wasnt 100% accurate? Somehow I doubt you wouldnt miss the forest for those particular trees...

However because your gutted that your messiah has found Sweet FA evidence of doping despite having as much access as anyone could give youre saying reduced to saying that he's losing all credibility because of some minor interpretations of events you disagree with. Good god man if you want a play by play account of what happened on Ventoux go and watch it on Youtube (RR provided you with the link) don't read a book about a cycling team that happened to race it...

(oh and if youre worried about the cadence then I suggest you never watch an attack by any mountain biker or track cyclist ever, it will blow.your.mind!!)

The Jesus/Barabus - Brailsford/Riis comparison is quite apt actually, you could add the recent hoo hah with Jonathan Vaughters too. Trust an Irish for a good religious reference! :P

Who said anything about doping?

I just have concerns to Walsh's credibility.

Comparing ITT times with a 242km road stage is laughable.

Surely you're not condoning such analysis? Please say you're not.

Macaloon

whiteboytrash wrote:

Who said anything about doping?

RichN95.

whiteboytrash wrote:

Comparing ITT times with a 242km road stage is laughable.

Comparing times on a mountain which routinely has strong winds is also laughable. It doesn't stop the people who are criticising Walsh now and are critcised by him in the book from doing it.

TheBigBean

I doesn't understand the criticism of the criticism, this forum spends half its life complaining about mistakes commentators make, and they're doing it live.

If the book contains some well written and insightful pieces, then please do quote a few bits. If it is all as poorly written as the quotes from whiteboytrash, then I'm surprised anyone is defending it.

ddraver

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

Comparing ITT times with a 242km road stage is laughable.

Comparing times on a mountain which routinely has strong winds is also laughable. It doesn't stop the people who are criticising Walsh now and are critcised by him in the book from doing it.

That

...and please give us some credit, you and us all know that all youre interested in is proving that Sky Dope. You're questioning Walsh's credibility because you don't like the reality that there is no evidence whatsoever that Sky are doping.

If you have NEVER questioned Froome because you know, as we do, that comparing times up a single climb in unique circumstances is the worst kind of hocum, then fair play, you re much more scientifically literate than many of cycling's online commentators. I would now ask you to turn that literacy on to more pressing matters than exactly what happened on Ventoux that day, because you, like us, know that actually that's pretty irrelevant...

RichN95.

TheBigBean wrote:

I doesn't understand the criticism of the criticism, this forum spends half its life complaining about mistakes commentators make, and they're doing it live.

If the book contains some well written and insightful pieces, then please do quote a few bits. If it is all as poorly written as the quotes from whiteboytrash, then I'm surprised anyone is defending it.

The difference is that when the commentators make mistakes they are just called crap - but the criticism of Walsh has claimed that he is knowingly lying. There's the difference between calling someone incompetant and calling them dishonest.

whiteboytrash

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

Comparing ITT times with a 242km road stage is laughable.

Comparing times on a mountain which routinely has strong winds is also laughable. It doesn't stop the people who are criticising Walsh now and are critcised by him in the book from doing it.

Agreed.

But why would Walsh make the comparison of an ITT, fails to mention it was an ITT, makes the comparison to Froome's performance and states "that's quite a difference".

To me either he is incompetent or he's trying to deceive his readers.

That worries me. Walsh is embedded at Team Sky ProCycling. Surely he wouldn't be trying to use influence because of his position?

In addition there's a lot of newbie readers coming into the sport and if they read that Froome was a long way from Mayo's time that might take it at face value.

The sport can only move forward if its transparent.

Walsh is not being transparent. He's lying.

RichN95.

whiteboytrash wrote:

Agreed.

But why would Walsh make the comparison of an ITT, fails to mention it was an ITT, makes the comparison to Froome's performance and states "that's quite a difference".

To me either he is incompetent or he's trying to deceive his readers.

That worries me. Walsh is embedded at Team Sky ProCycling. Surely he wouldn't be trying to use influence because of his position?

In addition there's a lot of newbie readers coming into the sport and if they read that Froome was a long way from Mayo's time that might take it at face value.

The sport can only move forward if its transparent.

Walsh is not being transparent. He's lying.

He says he's not the best with the stats. And he's right. He's very hit and miss with his analysis. Sometimes he gets it right (with respect to Ax 3) and sometimes wrong (Ventoux). However, it's really no different than the similarly abused stats that you probably lap up when the endorse your opinions - and that is the thurst of that section rather than a solid scientific analysis.

And can people stop saying he was 'embedded'. He wasn't. Embedded journalists can't wander off and talk to whoever they like.

whiteboytrash

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

Agreed.

But why would Walsh make the comparison of an ITT, fails to mention it was an ITT, makes the comparison to Froome's performance and states "that's quite a difference".

To me either he is incompetent or he's trying to deceive his readers.

That worries me. Walsh is embedded at Team Sky ProCycling. Surely he wouldn't be trying to use influence because of his position?

In addition there's a lot of newbie readers coming into the sport and if they read that Froome was a long way from Mayo's time that might take it at face value.

The sport can only move forward if its transparent.

Walsh is not being transparent. He's lying.

He says he's not the best with the stats. And he's right. He's very hit and miss with his analysis. Sometimes he gets it right (with respect to Ax 3) and sometimes wrong (Ventoux). However, it's really no different than the similarly abused stats that you probably lap up when the endorse your opinions - and that is the thurst of that section rather than a solid scientific analysis.

And can people stop saying he was 'embedded'. He wasn't. Embedded journalists can't wander off and talk to whoever they like.

Oh, he's not the best? Not a problem then, that's ok. Sorry my mistake.

Just so I understand the point you're making.

You're saying its ok to make fundamental mistakes in analysis which change the very nature of his book because "he's not very good at stats".

That being the case then he shouldn't bother with the stats when attempting to water down Froome's performances and hire someone who does know stats.

My concern if Walsh got this part so wrong, what else has he got wrong? What as has he missed?

I've read ax3. He's wrong again. Want me to quote a passage?

TheBigBean

RichN95 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I doesn't understand the criticism of the criticism, this forum spends half its life complaining about mistakes commentators make, and they're doing it live.

If the book contains some well written and insightful pieces, then please do quote a few bits. If it is all as poorly written as the quotes from whiteboytrash, then I'm surprised anyone is defending it.

The difference is that when the commentators make mistakes they are just called crap - but the criticism of Walsh has claimed that he is knowingly lying. There's the difference between calling someone incompetant and calling them dishonest.

Ok, so he is incompetent and lacks cycling knowledge. That doesn't sound like much of a recommendation to read it.

nic_77

I'm glad we are still arguing the content of a book with people who haven't read it, anyway...

I think there are perhaps 3 or 4 sections which contain silly inaccuracies or badly explained / interpreted descriptions. Of course these could (and should) have been easily corrected before publication. The fact that they weren't suggests that someone on the team had no editorial input.

Presumably had the errors been eliminated everyone would be in full acceptance of the real message, that there is no evidence of doping at Sky. Right? If so, send me your copy and I'll make the corrections for you...

Of course, if you simply think that Walsh has been 'bought'... then I believe you are plain wrong.

Yellow Peril

TheBigBean wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I doesn't understand the criticism of the criticism, this forum spends half its life complaining about mistakes commentators make, and they're doing it live.

If the book contains some well written and insightful pieces, then please do quote a few bits. If it is all as poorly written as the quotes from whiteboytrash, then I'm surprised anyone is defending it.

The difference is that when the commentators make mistakes they are just called crap - but the criticism of Walsh has claimed that he is knowingly lying. There's the difference between calling someone incompetant and calling them dishonest.

Ok, so he is incompetent and lacks cycling knowledge. That doesn't sound like much of a recommendation to read it.

Bean, I think the reason for reading it would be for the interviews and observations "inside" (always a clue in the title) the team as opposed to what's happening on the road. You can always watch the race again on a DVD for that. After what's happened to walsh over the last 15 years I'd say his strengths lie in investigative journalism as opposed to race commentary...leave that to Porter and Liggett!

mike6

nic_77 wrote:

I'm glad we are still arguing the content of a book with people who haven't read it, anyway...

I think there are perhaps 3 or 4 sections which contain silly inaccuracies or badly explained / interpreted descriptions. Of course these could (and should) have been easily corrected before publication. The fact that they weren't suggests that someone on the team had no editorial input.

Presumably had the errors been eliminated everyone would be in full acceptance of the real message, that there is no evidence of doping at Sky. Right? If so, send me your copy and I'll make the corrections for you...

Of course, if you simply think that Walsh has been 'bought'... then I believe you are plain wrong.

Spot on, end of (none) argument.

whiteboytrash

nic_77 wrote:

I'm glad we are still arguing the content of a book with people who haven't read it, anyway...

I think there are perhaps 3 or 4 sections which contain silly inaccuracies or badly explained / interpreted descriptions. Of course these could (and should) have been easily corrected before publication. The fact that they weren't suggests that someone on the team had no editorial input.

Presumably had the errors been eliminated everyone would be in full acceptance of the real message, that there is no evidence of doping at Sky. Right? If so, send me your copy and I'll make the corrections for you...

Of course, if you simply think that Walsh has been 'bought'... then I believe you are plain wrong.

Who's we? and who said anything about doping?

I've read the book.

There are a lot more than 3 to 4 sections and its not silly. Well a lot of the book is silly but the inaccuracies are glaringly bad judgments and assessments of Froome's performances.

You think a man of Walsh's statue could get to the bottom of Froome's acceleration on Ventoux. Perhaps an explanation of sorts?

But no. He pretends that it didn't happen. Mentions it later as a "short burst" then tells us Grappe's conclusions of Froome post Vuelta 11 power data means Froome's capable of "5 minute bursts at full power" up mountains.

Yes, 5 minute attacks!

That's not inaccurate. That's just blatant incompetence. Or lying. Probably both.

TheBigBean

Yellow Peril, I think that is a fair point, but isn't that like reading Heat / OK magazine? I mean a disconcerting number of people do that, but it's not for me. I like to read about sport not sporting gossip.

nic_77

whiteboytrash wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

I'm glad we are still arguing the content of a book with people who haven't read it, anyway...

I think there are perhaps 3 or 4 sections which contain silly inaccuracies or badly explained / interpreted descriptions. Of course these could (and should) have been easily corrected before publication. The fact that they weren't suggests that someone on the team had no editorial input.

Presumably had the errors been eliminated everyone would be in full acceptance of the real message, that there is no evidence of doping at Sky. Right? If so, send me your copy and I'll make the corrections for you...

Of course, if you simply think that Walsh has been 'bought'... then I believe you are plain wrong.

Who's we? and who said anything about doping?

I've read the book.

There are a lot more than 3 to 4 sections and its not silly. Well a lot of the book is silly but the inaccuracies are glaringly bad judgments and assessments of Froome's performances.

You think a man of Walsh's statue could get to the bottom of Froome's acceleration on Ventoux. Perhaps an explanation of sorts?

But no. He pretends that it didn't happen. Mentions it later as a "short burst" then tells us Grappe's conclusions of Froome post Vuelta 11 power data means Froome's capable of "5 minute bursts at full power" up mountains.

Yes, 5 minute attacks!

That's not inaccurate. That's just blatant incompetence. Or lying. Probably both.

I appreciate you've read it... and you have certainly identified some bits which could/should have been improved.
I also accept that there might be some things that you'd want to ask explore in more detail...

But I still don't see how this detracts from the message that Walsh didn't find any evidence of doping.

I'll ask you the three questions I asked myself when I finished the book:

1. Would you say your suspicion of Team Sky has increased or decreased after reading this book?
<My answer is 'decreased, pretty significantly'. I'm never going to rule out the possibility but this makes me feel a fair bit better about supporting the team>

Then, assuming that you are still suspicious of the team
2. At what point during the time Walsh spent with the team do you believe they were planning, evaluating and administering their doping products?
<I simply don't see how the team can be doing this>

3. Of the main characters that Walsh carefully and comprehensively gets to know, who do you now believe is implicated?
<I think that it is still possible that the odd rider could be/go rogue, but I think they'd get lynched in the team>

(I am genuinely interested in your answers, and those of others)

If you are not interested in the doping angle then I assume you are only looking to critique Walsh as a writer and actually have no interest in Sky per se. Which is fine btw.

ddraver

whiteboytrash wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

I'm glad we are still arguing the content of a book with people who haven't read it, anyway...

I think there are perhaps 3 or 4 sections which contain silly inaccuracies or badly explained / interpreted descriptions. Of course these could (and should) have been easily corrected before publication. The fact that they weren't suggests that someone on the team had no editorial input.

Presumably had the errors been eliminated everyone would be in full acceptance of the real message, that there is no evidence of doping at Sky. Right? If so, send me your copy and I'll make the corrections for you...

Of course, if you simply think that Walsh has been 'bought'... then I believe you are plain wrong.

Who's we? and who said anything about doping?

I've read the book.

There are a lot more than 3 to 4 sections and its not silly. Well a lot of the book is silly but the inaccuracies are glaringly bad judgments and assessments of Froome's performances.

You think a man of Walsh's statue could get to the bottom of Froome's acceleration on Ventoux. Perhaps an explanation of sorts?

But no. He pretends that it didn't happen. Mentions it later as a "short burst" then tells us Grappe's conclusions of Froome post Vuelta 11 power data means Froome's capable of "5 minute bursts at full power" up mountains.

Yes, 5 minute attacks!

That's not inaccurate. That's just blatant incompetence. Or lying. Probably both.

This is utterly ridiculous but I'm putting off packing so meh

I can take you the the bottom of Froome's acceleration on Ventoux here - Froome was on ventoux, he rode a bit faster, faster than the other guys could handle. Sorted!

You are appear to argue about the definition of the word attack. I would say an attack encompassed both the initial moment of acceleration to snap the elastic then the period that follows when the rider/riders have to ride faster than the peloton to stay away. The attack becomes a breakaway when the riders ease off to match the speed of the peloton (or the attack fails and the riders drop back into the bunch). Froome can hold 5 mins of max power, ie he can "attack" for 5 mins to get away and then open a gap before he has to drop the pace again. I ll concede that what he's talking about is a 5 min equivalent of max power rather than say the 3 second power burst that may also be called max power, but again you re arguing twigs on branch when what we re interested in is the forest.

I'm afraid you need to go back to working out how to beat Sky on the road (plenty of teams have shown it can be done) rather than hoping that they ll be done for doping.