Inside Team Sky - David Walsh *Spoilers*

1…34689…28

Comments

  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    nic_77 wrote:
    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.

    Thanks for the post.

    To point 1.

    My suspicion is on two levels. The first being their performances. From a visual aspect alone and what they’ve done to the peloton I’ve never seen anything like it. Froome and Porte concern me the most. Porte on Ax3 was in my mind the single most powerful performance I’ve seen in the Tour since 1998. Froome is second with the feeling that he has the ability to go even harder that he has shown us. The fact that he can climb, accelerate and time trial better than any other rider by significant margins is most concerning. When I couple this with the fact he was an unknown and almost lost his contract at Sky then yes I have a high suspicion level. Now when you wrap these performances up in the riders weights I become even more skeptical.

    With all that in mind, after reading this book I’m no closer to understanding why Sky and in particular Porte and Froome are so strong. And not just a little bit stronger than the peloton but significantly stronger. By a long margin. The book does nothing to go deeper into training methods or what’s behind the significant rise in these performances. All Walsh is telling us is how amazingly clean Sky are but without really telling us how or why they became so good.

    We do get stories on Kerrison a genesis who is able to transform riders within 30 minutes of speaking with them(!)but that’s about it.

    So my skepticism remains. The book probably enhances my belief Sky are doping. Walsh has at every turn tried to water down the performances and make them appear more believable than they actually were.

    Why?

    2. In terms of doping there is intel out there. But again like the Lance years its all just talk. I don’t know how Walsh hasn’t heard it. Its odd because he knows all the players involved.

    3. Not sure what you’re asking here?

    No I’m not that interested in the doping angle from the point of this book. I think the book is terrible on so many levels. The problem I do have and this is probably not Walsh’s fault but he is being sold as the “anti-doping crusader who’ll stop at nothing to find the truth” when in fact he comes across and with all due respect as an idiot who has fallen in love with his subject.

    Hope this helps.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 18,941
    Something about the splinter in your neighbours eye while ignoring the plank in your own.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,157
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Porte on Ax3 was in my mind the single most powerful performance I’ve seen in the Tour since 1998.

    The fact that he can climb, accelerate and time trial better than any other rider by significant margins is most concerning.

    ... Porte and Froome are so strong. And not just a little bit stronger than the peloton but significantly stronger. By a long margin. We do get stories on Kerrison a genesis who is able to transform riders within 30 minutes of speaking with them(!)but that’s about it.


    Walsh has at every turn tried to water down the performances and make them appear more believable than they actually were.
    Those first three statements by you are big claims. I would say gross over-exaggerations. The fourth is blaming Walsh for not following suit.

    This would appear to be part of your issue.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    RichN95 wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Porte on Ax3 was in my mind the single most powerful performance I’ve seen in the Tour since 1998.

    The fact that he can climb, accelerate and time trial better than any other rider by significant margins is most concerning.

    ... Porte and Froome are so strong. And not just a little bit stronger than the peloton but significantly stronger. By a long margin. We do get stories on Kerrison a genesis who is able to transform riders within 30 minutes of speaking with them(!)but that’s about it.


    Walsh has at every turn tried to water down the performances and make them appear more believable than they actually were.
    Those first three statements by you are big claims. I would say gross over-exaggerations.

    The fourth is blaming Walsh for not following suit.

    This would appear to be part of your issue.

    I was respectfully asked for my personal opinion, I gave it.

    Feel free to explain why they are "gross-exaggerations". You too can offer your opinion, if you like.

    What is my issue?
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,157
    whiteboytrash wrote:

    Feel free to explain why they are "gross-exaggerations". You too can offer your opinion, if you like.

    What is my issue?
    Firstly saying that Porte was the most powerful performance since 1998. He did seven minutes on the front - shorter than expected due to a great ride by Kennaugh. Then he sat in wheels before making another effort at the end. It's not the stuff of legend.

    Secondly saying that Froome is the best climber, accelerator and TTer of any rider by a long way. He may be the best climber (although Quintana and Rodriguez outclimbed him in the Alps), but he isn't the best accelerator (of climbers Rodriguez, Moreno and Martin would all thump him on a short climb to the finish). He can accelerate very well mid climb and sustain it, but that's what makes the best climbers. As for being the best TTer - he's not in the Martin, Cancellara & Wiggins league.

    Thirdly saying that both Froome and Porte are way ahead of the rest. Froome maybe, Porte no. His best GT finish is 7th as neo-Pro. He's never won a GT stage. His only race wins are Paris-Nice and the Tour of Algarve. Nibali, Horner, Quintana, Rodriguez are among those ahead of him. (And as for Kerrison changing a rider in a 30 minute chat - WTF?)

    Your issue is that you are judging things according to what you see, but what you see is seen through the eyes of someone who has already decided what their conclusion is before they've seen it.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • r0bh
    r0bh Posts: 2,194
    RichN95 wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:

    Feel free to explain why they are "gross-exaggerations". You too can offer your opinion, if you like.

    What is my issue?
    Firstly saying that Porte was the most powerful performance since 1998. He did seven minutes on the front - shorter than expected due to a great ride by Kennaugh. Then he sat in wheels before making another effort at the end. It's not the stuff of legend.

    And let's not forget that Porte was cooked the next day.
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    edited November 2013
    RichN95 wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:

    Feel free to explain why they are "gross-exaggerations". You too can offer your opinion, if you like.

    What is my issue?
    Firstly saying that Porte was the most powerful performance since 1998. He did seven minutes on the front - shorter than expected due to a great ride by Kennaugh. Then he sat in wheels before making another effort at the end. It's not the stuff of legend.

    Secondly saying that Froome is the best climber, accelerator and TTer of any rider by a long way. He may be the best climber (although Quintana and Rodriguez outclimbed him in the Alps), but he isn't the best accelerator (of climbers Rodriguez, Moreno and Martin would all thump him on a short climb to the finish). He can accelerate very well mid climb and sustain it, but that's what makes the best climbers. As for being the best TTer - he's not in the Martin, Cancellara & Wiggins league.

    Thirdly saying that both Froome and Porte are way ahead of the rest. Froome maybe, Porte no. His best GT finish is 7th as neo-Pro. He's never won a GT stage. His only race wins are Paris-Nice and the Tour of Algarve. Nibali, Horner, Quintana, Rodriguez are among those ahead of him. (And as for Kerrison changing a rider in a 30 minute chat - WTF?)

    Your issue is that you are judging things according to what you see, but what you see is seen through the eyes of someone who has already decided what their conclusion is before they've seen it.

    Thanks for the reply.

    Porte not only was able to shed Contador but when done was able to attack again and shed Valverde then catched Quintana.

    When was the last time you saw a domestique do that and finish 2nd? He was super super strong. That was Festina strong.

    Stuff of legend no. But highly suspicious.

    Froome with his history known and his rapid rise to not only to be very good in all disaplines but the best in the world by far. Best climber and probably the 2nd best ITT'er in the world. All whislt losing over 10kg since 2009 (according to Walsh).

    And all this clean. If Froome is not doping then he is the greatest bike racer ever in the history of the sport. By a long way.

    Froome clean would come close to a dirty Armstrong. That's how good he is.

    Would you believe that if I told you that in 2008? Probably not. Well most certainly not.

    My issue is I'm critiquing Walsh's book for its inaccuracies. Some here appear to want my view censored. This is a discussion forum, right? I'm here to discuss.

    Let's discuss the book.
  • nic_77
    nic_77 Posts: 929
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    nic_77 wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    nic_77 wrote:
    a bit of stuff
    a reply
    some more stuff, with some questions

    Thanks for the post.

    To point 1.

    My suspicion is on two levels. The first being their performances. From a visual aspect alone and what they’ve done to the peloton I’ve never seen anything like it. Froome and Porte concern me the most. Porte on Ax3 was in my mind the single most powerful performance I’ve seen in the Tour since 1998. Froome is second with the feeling that he has the ability to go even harder that he has shown us. The fact that he can climb, accelerate and time trial better than any other rider by significant margins is most concerning. When I couple this with the fact he was an unknown and almost lost his contract at Sky then yes I have a high suspicion level. Now when you wrap these performances up in the riders weights I become even more skeptical.

    With all that in mind, after reading this book I’m no closer to understanding why Sky and in particular Porte and Froome are so strong. And not just a little bit stronger than the peloton but significantly stronger. By a long margin. The book does nothing to go deeper into training methods or what’s behind the significant rise in these performances. All Walsh is telling us is how amazingly clean Sky are but without really telling us how or why they became so good.

    We do get stories on Kerrison a genesis who is able to transform riders within 30 minutes of speaking with them(!)but that’s about it.

    So my skepticism remains. The book probably enhances my belief Sky are doping. Walsh has at every turn tried to water down the performances and make them appear more believable than they actually were.

    Why?

    2. In terms of doping there is intel out there. But again like the Lance years its all just talk. I don’t know how Walsh hasn’t heard it. Its odd because he knows all the players involved.

    3. Not sure what you’re asking here?

    No I’m not that interested in the doping angle from the point of this book. I think the book is terrible on so many levels. The problem I do have and this is probably not Walsh’s fault but he is being sold as the “anti-doping crusader who’ll stop at nothing to find the truth” when in fact he comes across and with all due respect as an idiot who has fallen in love with his subject.

    Hope this helps.

    To continue our love-in - thanks for responding :)

    In terms of Sky being so dominant... it is clear that Sky have a difference in approach to other teams, right? DW describes many examples and more importantly other teams recognise it and try to emulate it.

    Why do the Yankees always win? The other team can't stop looking at the pinstripes.

    I fear you are looking for one golden ticket to explain their superiority.

    I have faith in the marginal gains approach, particularly in GT racing and more importantly during the long build up training and planning phase. We've already seen this isn't so effective in the one-dayers. In many respects marginal gains worked for USPS too - they weren't just doping, they were doing all the other things right too. I believe that's how they convincingly and repeatedly beat the other dopers - I don't buy that their drugs or program was significantly better (hmmm, I've become an LA apologist).

    My third question was who do you think is involved - you've kid of answered this by expressing your doubts about Porte and Froome. Who in the backroom staff do you believe is complicit / actively involved?

    Edit: to shorten the previous discussion quotes
    Strava
    Race reports
    Bike Aero Data
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,391
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Porte not only was able to shed Contador but when done was able to attack again and shed Valverde then catch Quintana.

    When was the last time you saw a domestique do that and finish 2nd? He was super super strong. That was Festina strong.
    Shed two old ex dopers (who you seem thoroughly unconcerned about btw), then got d1cked all over the next day. Plus, it goes without saying that Team Sky's next Giro Team Leader might be a little bit better than a "domestique"
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Some here appear to want my view censored. This is a discussion forum, right?

    Waa Waa Waaa no one believes me when I talk rubbish. Grow up FFS!

    Either back up your wild accusations and rumour mongering with some proper facts or deal with the reality that no one will believe you until you do. Know that when you do, we will listen very closely indeed, but we ve been waiting for 2 years now and some of us are getting a bit tired of this...
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    Not sure why there are so many people having a go at wbt. From what I have read he is simply pointing out various aspects which as far as I can tell are more or less relevant and accurate. It's called an opinion which makes up part of a debate. Thank goodness there are 1-2 people who not so far up ego alley to debate back.
    Contador is the Greatest
  • r0bh
    r0bh Posts: 2,194
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Froome with his history known and his rapid rise to not only to be very good in all disaplines but the best in the world by far. Best climber and probably the 2nd best ITT'er in the world. All whislt losing over 10kg since 2009 (according to Walsh).

    You think Froome would have between Wiggins and Cancellara in the World TT?
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Froome clean would come close to a dirty Armstrong. That's how good he is.

    How can you, or anyone, possibly know that? Just like we could never know if Armstrong would have beaten Hinault in his prime, or Hinault with Anquetil etc
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    My issue is I'm critiquing Walsh's book for its inaccuracies. Some here appear to want my view censored. This is a discussion forum, right? I'm here to discuss.

    And likewise we're critiquing your forum posts for their inaccuracies :wink:
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,391
    frenchfighter wrote:
    From what I have read he is simply pointing out various aspects which as far as I can tell are more or less relevant and accurate.

    Except that he hasnt and they arent...
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    edited November 2013
    I started to make a list of all the riders who've whopped Bert and Piti on climbs this year, but then I ran out of space. Suffice to say that the list includes not just 2nd year pros but also 1st year pros

    Dropping either of them this year hasnt exactly been ground-breaking stuff, nor has it been confined to one or two riders.
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    r0bh wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Froome with his history known and his rapid rise to not only to be very good in all disaplines but the best in the world by far. Best climber and probably the 2nd best ITT'er in the world. All whislt losing over 10kg since 2009 (according to Walsh).

    You think Froome would have between Wiggins and Cancellara in the World TT?
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Froome clean would come close to a dirty Armstrong. That's how good he is.

    How can you, or anyone, possibly know that? Just like we could never know if Armstrong would have beaten Hinault in his prime, or Hinault with Anquetil etc
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    My issue is I'm critiquing Walsh's book for its inaccuracies. Some here appear to want my view censored. This is a discussion forum, right? I'm here to discuss.

    And likewise we're critiquing your forum posts for their inaccuracies :wink:

    Yes Froome is probably the 2nd best TT'er in the world right now. At this point in time. Wiggins was injured or suffering other issues most of the year. Cancellera was preparing for worlds etc.

    Buy yes he is probably 2nd. Most certainly top 3.

    I think people know Armstrong would have beaten Hinault because his alpe time is a good 10 minutes faster! That should give you some indication wouldn't you think?

    So with that in mind. Froome, Ax3, Ventoux etc. would be with Armstrong.

    Armstrong with Bruyneel, Ferrari, doped up team would have to fight to beat a clean Froome.

    OK. Sure.

    And Froome in Poland 2011 was 10 minutes off the main bunch in each stage.

    2011 Vuelta he found those marginal gains. All of a sudden.

    1000 days as Mr. Hamilton used to say.

    But this is just my own opinion which was asked for.

    The book. Back to the book.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,157
    edited November 2013
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Thanks for the reply.
    Porte not only was able to shed Contador but when done was able to attack again and shed Valverde then catch Quintana.
    When was the last time you saw a domestique do that and finish 2nd? He was super super strong. That was Festina strong.
    Stuff of legend no. But highly suspicious.

    Kennaugh did most of the damage. Quitana had attacked solo on the previous mountain, Contador wasn't on great form and Valverde was the one whose wheel he followed. As someone mentioned - the next day he lost nearly 20 minutes.
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Froome with his history known and his rapid rise to not only to be very good in all disaplines but the best in the world by far. Best climber and probably the 2nd best ITT'er in the world. All whislt losing over 10kg since 2009 (according to Walsh).
    He was definitely overweight (for a cyclist) in 2009 - just look at the pictures. He's amongst the best climbers and TTers - most Tour winners were - Coppi, Hinault, Fignon, LeMond. But second best TTer? Which two of Martin, Cancellara & Wiggins is he better than? More exaggeration.
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    And all this clean. If Froome is not doping then he is the greatest bike racer ever in the history of the sport. By a long way.
    That's more exaggeration. Greater than Merckx? Hinault? Has he ever won a one day race, for example. He was almost unbeaten in major stage races this year - so was Nibali. Wiggins was last year, Evans in 2011
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Froome clean would come close to a dirty Armstrong. That's how good he is.
    Do you have any actual eveidence of that, or are you going to cling to Ax 3 again and claim it was Armstrong at his best even though Laiseka beat him.
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Would you believe that if I told you that in 2008? Probably not. Well most certainly not..
    No, I wouldn't, but Claudio Corti was telling people that he would one day be top five in the Tour, maybe better. He was certainly seen as talented.
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    My issue is I'm critiquing Walsh's book for its inaccuracies. Some here appear to want my view censored. This is a discussion forum, right? I'm here to discuss.

    Let's discuss the book.
    I am discussing. No-one's censoring your views. They're all right here. If you mods to jump in and protect you when the discussion doesn't go your way then I recommend CyclingNews.As for the inaccuracies - I'm not denying them. I mentioned them before you did. However, I didn't try and make out they were deliberate lies.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Not sure why there are so many people having a go at wbt. From what I have read he is simply pointing out various aspects which as far as I can tell are more or less relevant and accurate. It's called an opinion which makes up part of a debate. Thank goodness there are 1-2 people who not so far up ego alley to debate back.

    I'm not sure why you're being so aggressive. Am I not allowed to post on this forum?
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,157
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Not sure why there are so many people having a go at wbt. From what I have read he is simply pointing out various aspects which as far as I can tell are more or less relevant and accurate. It's called an opinion which makes up part of a debate. Thank goodness there are 1-2 people who not so far up ego alley to debate back.

    I'm not sure why you're being so aggressive. Am I not allowed to post on this forum?
    You do realise he's supporting you, don't you? Or are you seeing what you want to see again?
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,391
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Froome is probably the 2nd best TT'er in the world right now. At this point in time. Wiggins was injured or suffering other issues most of the year. Cancellera was preparing for worlds etc.

    Buy yes he is probably 2nd. Most certainly top 3.
    I suggest you go watch the Worlds TT again - the one that Froome did nt even bother to race because he knew how much he'd get beaten by
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    2011 Vuelta he found those marginal gains. All of a sudden.
    When he joined Sky you mean? And got his Bilharzia cured

    Seriously!!!! I'm giving my self some time off of this, I'm more worked up that something so patently absurd is making getting me worked up...
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    ^take deep breaths and get back to your packing, chap. and think nice thoughts about your new mates Marianne, Ellen and Laurens :)
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,157
    whiteboytrash wrote:

    Yes Froome is probably the 2nd best TT'er in the world right now. At this point in time. Wiggins was injured or suffering other issues most of the year. Cancellera was preparing for worlds etc.
    By that rational, I'm better at cricket than all of the England and Australia teams because they're asleep right now and I'm not. (And Cancellara easily won a TT at the Tour of Austria while the Tour was going on).
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • rayjay
    rayjay Posts: 1,384
    whiteboytrash wrote:



    Porte not only was able to shed Contador but when done was able to attack again and shed Valverde then catched Quintana.

    When was the last time you saw a domestique do that and finish 2nd? He was super super strong. That was Festina strong.

    Stuff of legend no. But highly suspicious.

    Froome with his history known and his rapid rise to not only to be very good in all disaplines but the best in the world by far. Best climber and probably the 2nd best ITT'er in the world. All whislt losing over 10kg since 2009 (according to Walsh).

    And all this clean. If Froome is not doping then he is the greatest bike racer ever in the history of the sport. By a long way.

    Froome clean would come close to a dirty Armstrong. That's how good he is.

    Would you believe that if I told you that in 2008? Probably not. Well most certainly not.

    My issue is I'm critiquing Walsh's book for its inaccuracies. Some here appear to want my view censored. This is a discussion forum, right? I'm here to discuss.

    Well put. I agree. I really do think that Sky have got some fans under hypnosis.
    I have watched cycling for years and even the uneducated now know that riders are doping. If you look at those performances and times up the climbs and think that its done on Beetroot juice you are kidding yourselves.
    You look at Froome , he has no pedigree as a rider to be that good. It's all happened at Sky. If that was a rider from another team putting in those kind of rides Sky fans would be all over him and his team. He has some of the fastest times up some of those mountains beating times of known doped riders. You can talk about wind you can talk about overall stage speed but teams are hitting those climbs harder than before, We now have a full on race to get their climbers in position. People only see or believe what they want to and sometimes they miss the obvious. I was a Lance fan but I did not think for one minute he was clean. My fav rider is Cadel and I don't know if he's clean, looking at the riders he's beat it's hard to believe you can be clean and get those results. IMO
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    ddraver wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Froome is probably the 2nd best TT'er in the world right now. At this point in time. Wiggins was injured or suffering other issues most of the year. Cancellera was preparing for worlds etc.

    Buy yes he is probably 2nd. Most certainly top 3.
    I suggest you go watch the Worlds TT again - the one that Froome did nt even bother to race because he knew how much he'd get beaten by
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    2011 Vuelta he found those marginal gains. All of a sudden.
    When he joined Sky you mean? And got his Bilharzia cured

    Seriously!!!! I'm giving my self some time off of this, I'm more worked up that something so patently absurd is making getting me worked up...

    Froome joined Sky in 2010.

    Froome had targeted the road race at the Worlds. Not the TT.

    Froome’s Bilharzia is cured? I thought it was on-going. He was still having treatment this year. Last occurrence in January.

    I’m not following your logic.

    I wouldn’t get so worked up. Your welcome to join the discussion if you like.
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    RichN95 wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:

    Yes Froome is probably the 2nd best TT'er in the world right now. At this point in time. Wiggins was injured or suffering other issues most of the year. Cancellera was preparing for worlds etc.
    By that rational, I'm better at cricket than all of the England and Australia teams because they're asleep right now and I'm not. (And Cancellara easily won a TT at the Tour of Austria while the Tour was going on).

    Now you're just being silly.

    You know as well as I do that Froome's TT'ing is astounding. He's very good. Pushed Martin to the wire. No, he's not the best but for a climber Froome is an exceptional ITT'er.

    Period.
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    rayjay wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Well put. I agree. I really do think that Sky have got some fans under hypnosis.
    I have watched cycling for years and even the uneducated now know that riders are doping. If you look at those performances and times up the climbs and think that its done on Beetroot juice you are kidding yourselves.
    You look at Froome , he has no pedigree as a rider to be that good. It's all happened at Sky. If that was a rider from another team putting in those kind of rides Sky fans would be all over him and his team. He has some of the fastest times up some of those mountains beating times of known doped riders. You can talk about wind you can talk about overall stage speed but teams are hitting those climbs harder than before, We now have a full on race to get their climbers in position. People only see or believe what they want to and sometimes they miss the obvious. I was a Lance fan but I did not think for one minute he was clean. My fav rider is Cadel and I don't know if he's clean, looking at the riders he's beat it's hard to believe you can be clean and get those results. IMO

    Walsh calls Cadal "hopeless" in the book. Twice.

    Further to this point is in the book Walsh makes statements such as "Sky are on the vanguard of anti-doping".

    But never explains why they are.

    All I see is a team which is crushing is opposition but there's no powerdata, no explanation, no information to as why.

    Sure don't release data but don't push this "vanguard of anti-doping" business.

    As it stands Movistar released their SRM files, did Sky.

    I can answer my own question. No they didn't. So how Walsh comes to a conclusion that Sky are on the vanguard of anti-doing is beyond me.

    They are on the vanguard of secrecy, yes.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 18,941
    edited November 2013
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    You know as well as I do that Froome's TT'ing is astounding. He's very good. Pushed Martin to the wire.

    When did he push Martin to the wire?

    Edit - checking Cycling Quotient he was within 12s of Martin in stage 11 to Mont San Michel
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,157
    TailWindHome wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    You know as well as I do that Froome's TT'ing is astounding. He's very good. Pushed Martin to the wire.

    When did he push Martin to the wire?
    At the Tour. About ten days after this

    57423da0-12e7-4d7a-9242-7565c2e3571d-460x276.jpeg
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 21,812
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Froome clean would come close to a dirty Armstrong. That's how good he is.

    I think people know Armstrong would have beaten Hinault because his alpe time is a good 10 minutes faster! That should give you some indication wouldn't you think?

    So with that in mind. Froome, Ax3, Ventoux etc. would be with Armstrong.

    Armstrong with Bruyneel, Ferrari, doped up team would have to fight to beat a clean Froome.

    OK. Sure.

    The book. Back to the book.

    Just like to address this. I think a lot of folks reached pretty much this same conclusion from
    looking at the respective times.
    None appear to me to have placed these performances into context, either because they didn't witness
    Armstrong's rides, or they wilfully chose to ignore certain facts.
    Rich has already pointed out that time comparison is meaningless: this is why.
    Ventoux 2002: I seem to recall, was ridden fairly sedately because the field had already surrendered.
    Eventually, just before the trees ended, a "broken" Beloki made a half hearted attack, before Armstrong rode off in chase of breakaway man Virenque.
    Nothing like this year, which kicked off kms earlier.
    Ventoux 2009: Kreuziger among the riders who bettered Froome's 2013 time, yet nobody could muster an attack because of the severe headwind.

    "Clean" David Moncoutie has a faster than Froome time in the record books.

    As for Aix, 2003 was Armstong's Annus horribilis and Aix was the stage where he was at his most frail. Ullrich had hammered him the day before in the ITT and he suffering horribly.
    Lucky for him that the rest played the old attack and sit up routine.
    2001, Laiseka attacked early, Armstrong simply marked Ullrich until late on, before jumping away.

    So, it does boil down to what eyes see and the interpretation. If folks haven't see anything like Froome's Ventoux acceleration, they can't have seen 2007 when it happened over and over again.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 18,941
    RichN95 wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    You know as well as I do that Froome's TT'ing is astounding. He's very good. Pushed Martin to the wire.

    When did he push Martin to the wire?
    At the Tour. About ten days after this

    57423da0-12e7-4d7a-9242-7565c2e3571d-460x276.jpeg


    Yeah. Just read the stage report. Funny I had discounted the 2012 results due to Martin's run of injuries and forgot about his 2013 dramas.....he is not the luckiest eh?


    g-martin-back.png
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    "Clean" David Moncoutie has a faster than Froome time in the record books.

    So, it does boil down to what eyes see and the interpretation. If folks haven't see anything like Froome's Ventoux acceleration, they can't have seen 2007 when it happened over and over again.

    "Clean" David Moncoutie time is from an ITT not from a road stage.

    Sure your not David Walsh? :shock:

    As for 2007 Peyresourde you do realize that Froome went faster than Contador and Rasmussen, yes?
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    TailWindHome wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    You know as well as I do that Froome's TT'ing is astounding. He's very good. Pushed Martin to the wire.

    When did he push Martin to the wire?
    At the Tour. About ten days after this


    Yeah. Just read the stage report. Funny I had discounted the 2012 results due to Martin's run of injuries and forgot about his 2013 dramas.....he is not the luckiest eh?


    Not entirely sure the point you're making.

    Are you telling me Froome is not a good ITT'er?

    The day Martin puts in a in-saddle attack on Ventoux to drop a 4-GT champion I'd be worried.

    But Martin is a ITT'er and that's about it.

    To my point. Frrome can climb like no other and is one of the strongest ITT'ers.

    Clean. Apparently.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories