Inside Team Sky - David Walsh *Spoilers*

frenchfighter

Blazing Saddles wrote:

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.

vs

http://www.up-shack.com/assets/up/10866 ... 40c8b4.swf

A World apart. Froome is just spinning out like he is on the home trainer again and again. Negative class.

He should watch this for how to attack with class:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szLGtG_yQzo

ddraver

whiteboytrash wrote:

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?

Your numbers that disprove what i'm saying are wrong but my numbers that back me up are unimpeachable

Please this has got to be a wind up...

whiteboytrash wrote:

Clean. Apparently.

10 pages in and multiple requests you have yet to provide a single scintilla of evidence to the contrary.

Like Rayjay, Like Trev, like Rundfahrt, we are still waiting for you yet all you can come up with are accusations of censorship. :roll:

Oh and by the way i don't think you re using "sudden"in the right way either, 2 years (as you point out) is hardly sudden. He had 2 years of the best training in cycling and then started to do well...wowsers...

tailwindhome

whiteboytrash wrote:

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.

The point is that you are supporting your argument with reference to a performance which requires context in order for in to be evaluated meaningfully.

Much like Walsh comparing TT times on Ventoux to times after 200km to support his argument.

Or 'lying'.

But yes Froome is a great TTer and a great climber. Now, my cycling knowledge is a fraction of most posters on here. But even I know that is very definition of a Grand Tour winner.

tailwindhome

frenchfighter wrote:

Froome is just spinning out like he is on the home trainer again and again.

Think how good he'll be when he learns to use his gears

iainf72

I'm going to read it soon - As soon as I finish The Shining Mountain.

Curious about that extract our crazed friend put out there comparing Froome / DB to Bert / BR. Does he do any more analysis on why some people just don't like the team? Because if he just leaves it at "people prefer dopers" that's pretty bloody weak

whiteboytrash

ddraver wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

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?

Your numbers that disprove what i'm saying are wrong but my numbers that back me up are unimpeachable

Please this has got to be a wind up...

whiteboytrash wrote:

Clean. Apparently.

10 pages in and multiple requests you have yet to provide a single scintilla of evidence to the contrary.

Like Rayjay, Like Trev, like Rundfahrt, we are still waiting for you yet all you can come up with are accusations of censorship. :roll:

Oh and by the way i don't think you re using "sudden"in the right way either, 2 years (as you point out) is hardly sudden. He had 2 years of the best training in cycling and then started to do well...wowsers...

Honestly speaking, I have no idea what it is your point is.

Sorry. I cannot decipher what it your trying to tell me.

In terms of "sudden" I think Poland 2011, 10 minutes off the main group per stage to the Vuelta 3 wweks later is fairly sudden, wouldn't you say?

ddraver

I think you really do...

You don't think that maybe there are simpler reasons to explain why he may have rolled in 10 mins back in poland wheras when he was racing in the Vuelta he may have done a bit better? I ve given you one there.

If you have evidence that Froome is doping then post it here. I don't expect a response anytime soon...

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

Curious about that extract our crazed friend put out there comparing Froome / DB to Bert / BR. Does he do any more analysis on why some people just don't like the team? Because if he just leaves it at "people prefer dopers" that's pretty bloody weak

That section isn't really about them not being liked. It's more about how some people react to them due to their doping policies, hammering them for any slip-up, making demands, while giving other teams a free pass because haven't bothered trying. I goes on to say how some have pitched them into a rivalry with Garmin despite them being the ones trying to do it.

blazing_saddles

whiteboytrash wrote:

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?

I thought your point was about Froome's acceleration. Now it seems to be about something else.
Nibali, Rolland, VDB, TJVG, Wiggins, Pinot and Horner also went faster in 2012.
Attacking, decelerating means nothing then? So this one is all about time.

But when a rider being towed for two thirds of a climb, after sitting in the bunch for a stage goes slower than a guy riding all the way up on his own in a time trial, the time doesn't count.
As the 2009 bunch we'll forget about them altogether, because they really screw up the theory.

I think I've got that right?

You do realise that this is what Rich has been trying to tell you.

RichN95.

whiteboytrash wrote:

In terms of "sudden" I think Poland 2011, 10 minutes off the main group per stage to the Vuelta 3 wweks later is fairly sudden, wouldn't you say?

This year Nibali was an hour down on GC in Poland. Then came second in the Vuelta.
It's a team sport. Sky were supporting Kennaugh who had it as a prime race of his season. Froome was focused on the Vuelta.

rayjay

Come on, you know we don't have actual evidence, did you actually see Armstrong doping back in the day. Just suspicions based on our opinions of what we see. Look how many riders passed test after test and never got caught yet a lot of cycling fans had suspicions and a lot of them proved to be right. What ever point we say gets ignored or you have an answer for it. Leinders is a perfect example of denial. Brailsford will spin this anyway he can. But they knew exactly who he was and what he does. Simple.
The only defence you have for Leinders is the one Brailsford gives himself. Don't forget until GL was on board Sky were the laughing stock of the peloton "all the gear but no idea" it was a remarkable turn around don't you think?
If you think Froomy's climbing is like that because he go's up the mountains a couple more times in training than Contador or because he has his own pillow well come on. I posted the Ventoux attack a while back.
You can post all the data all the timings ,whatever helps persuade you that that's a clean ride. But I have only seen known doped riders do anything like that in the midst of a grand tour. IMO

tailwindhome

rayjay wrote:

Come on, you know we don't have actual evidence, did you actually see Armstrong doping back in the day. Just suspicions based on our opinions of what we see. Look how many riders passed test after test and never got caught yet a lot of cycling fans had suspicions and a lot of them proved to be right. What ever point we say gets ignored or you have an answer for it. Leinders is a perfect example of denial. Brailsford will spin this anyway he can. But they knew exactly who he was and what he does. Simple.
The only defence you have for Leinders is the one Brailsford gives himself. Don't forget until GL was on board Sky were the laughing stock of the peloton "all the gear but no idea" it was a remarkable turn around don't you think?
If you think Froomy's climbing is like that because he go's up the mountains a couple more times in training than Contador or because he has his own pillow well come on. I posted the Ventoux attack a while back.
You can post all the data all the timings ,whatever helps persuade you that that's a clean ride. But I have only seen known doped riders do anything like that in the midst of a grand tour. IMO

Not much to base a book on though.

ddraver

At least you ve admitted you have no basis for any of your claims Rayjay. Admittance is the first step to a cure!

rayjay

I'm friends with the current technical director at BC. He's very familiar with Froome's power curve (that which Sky will not release) and he can vouch for it being well within the bounds of human potential, and entirely consistent with the numbers that he's been producing historically. Unless you have any evidence (or even hints of evidence, doesn't have to be a positive test) then you're just another armchair critic, and shall be suitably ignored

Luke[/quote]

From exactly when has the technical director been familiar with Froome.s power curve ? producing historically? Yeah , since he's been at Sky ? or since he's been a pro rider? Froome really looked like a tour winner at Barloworld Techincal director at BC . Doesn't Brailsford have something to do with BC
Power curve they will not release , why ? does it look suspicious ? Your just an armchair critic as well.
See this is the exact answer that proves nothing except perhaps your gullibility IMO

Nice one ddraver I do enjoy the banter and enjoy your views , cheers. I shall seek the cure.

nic_77

ddraver wrote:

Like Rayjay, Like Trev, like Rundfahrt, we are still waiting for you yet all you can come up with are accusations of censorship. :roll:

I had assumed that rayjay was a rundfahrt clone (or at least a parody).
I can't believe that two different people have such low regard for paragraph structure - never mind the content.

joelsim

For anyone who has read any of Walsh's books, he is vehemently anti doping. He wouldn't risk his whole reputation on one payday from Froome's book. Especially given most of the GB public don't know who he is. He's not Wiggins that's for sure.

whiteboytrash

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

In terms of "sudden" I think Poland 2011, 10 minutes off the main group per stage to the Vuelta 3 wweks later is fairly sudden, wouldn't you say?

This year Nibali was an hour down on GC in Poland. Then came second in the Vuelta.
It's a team sport. Sky were supporting Kennaugh who had it as a prime race of his season. Froome was focused on the Vuelta.

That is true but Nibili has pedigree and has had a stellar year followed by a long break then Poland then the Vuetla.

Froome's claim to fan prior to the 2011 Vuelta was the Atomic Jock Race. He came from literally nowhere to almost winning a GT. Only to be beaten by a clean Cobo!

How does that happen, so all of a sudden, just like that? From being a mid pack never winning a stage kinda-guy to attacking up climbs, coming 2nd in ITTs and almost winning a GT.

That was amazing.

Would have been good if Sky gave Grappe Froome's 2010 data instead of 2011 Vuelta onwards. I would have thought any serious analysis of Froome's data would have included his "lean years".

Walsh missed this in his book as well. He thought Grappe's analysis was top notch.

whiteboytrash

ddraver wrote:

I think you really do...

You don't think that maybe there are simpler reasons to explain why he may have rolled in 10 mins back in poland wheras when he was racing in the Vuelta he may have done a bit better? I ve given you one there.

If you have evidence that Froome is doping then post it here. I don't expect a response anytime soon...

Not when that was Froome's position in the peloton. 10 minutes back was where he belonged. He was fighting for his contract at the end of 2011. He couldn't afford to be saving himself for a GT. He had no results to speak of and was about to lose his contract.

Then, boom! The vuelta.

I get it. You want your guy to win and be clean. That's normal. Its commendable. But don't let emotions get in the way of what is rational and logical.

If froome were Spanish your position would be much different.

RichN95.

whiteboytrash wrote:

Froome's claim to fan prior to the 2011 Vuelta was the Atomic Jock Race. He came from literally nowhere to almost winning a GT. Only to be beaten by a clean Cobo!

How do that happen, so all of a sudden, just like that? From being a mid pack never winning a stage kinda-guy to attacking up climbs, coming 2nd in ITTs and almost winning a GT.

That was amazing.

Well you have to look at where he came from. He didn't come through the well trodden path of the European riders with national federation support. He had to hustle to get places on teams - even starting his own at one point. This a guy who rode the Commonwealth Games time trial in trainers. While other riders where learning at U23 teams he was at University.
When he finally got a shot in 2007 he had good results. He could have won the Giro delle Regioni if hadn't lost 1'20 in a crash. He won one stage, should have won a second while riding for the makeshift WCC team. This was a race with Rui Costa (who won) and L'Avenir winner Mollema in it.
Then he got to Barloworld and had to work as domestique for Soler & Hunter. Despite never having done a stage race higher than 2.1 before he managed 14th in the final TT of the Tour - which shows a definite amount of power and recovery. Then in 2009 he came 3rd up Mont Faron behind Moncoutie and Soler, while working for the latter.

The flashes were there - but no-one was telling how to train or trying develop him. He was behind the learning curve. His Barloworld days were like everyone else's U23 days.

whiteboytrash wrote:

Would have been good if Sky gave Grappe Froome's 2010 data instead of 2011 Vuelta onwards. I would have thought any serious analysis of Froome's data would have included his "lean years".

Well he was injured and/or ill. And he was riding as a domestique. Not really worthwhile. You really want his data from his best pre-2011 performances and they were at Barloworld.

rick_chasey

This over compensation for doping is getting tedious.

Before we'd point fingers for being caught up in raids or police investigations or having a dog.

Now it's just 'he's good! He's therefore doped!'

People need to start presenting evidence of doping rather than evidence of riding quickly.

dsoutar

Rick Chasey wrote:

People need to start presenting evidence of doping rather than evidence of riding quickly.

They're one and the same thing, surely


Jeez, there's some astonishing crap being spouted on this topic which is mainly why I haven't bothered to post. The problem is some people have a spot of bother with the definition of evidence. I just hope they're never on a jury

mike6

Lets face it, he is a very good GT rider. The doubters need to get over it. Just because you dont like a rider or a teams personality, or lack of, does not ergo mean they are dopers.
Who did he beat in the Tour? Contador and Valverde, past dopers who are now showing there true form, and Evans, who is past his sell by date.

rayjay

nic_77 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Like Rayjay, Like Trev, like Rundfahrt, we are still waiting for you yet all you can come up with are accusations of censorship. :roll:

I had assumed that rayjay was a rundfahrt clone (or at least a parody).
I can't believe that two different people have such low regard for paragraph structure - never mind the content.

Obviously yourreally upset

about this
I will
tryand do better after all itsvery important and it gives your

mighty ego a massive boost ,,,,,BUT you can't change my opinion or make yours right by being so anal,,,,,,,

ch
eer
s

rayjay

mike6 wrote:

Lets face it, he is a very good GT rider. The doubters need to get over it. Just because you dont like a rider or a teams personality, or lack of, does not ergo mean they are dopers.

DZ,TD,EZ,JU,IB,AC,MR,BR,GH,TH,FL,DM,LA.AV. Did you think all these riders were clean before they got busted?
We had no REAL evidence that any of the above doped until they got caught. Don't forget that the likes of GH and DZ etc had to confess as they were questioned under oath. It has nothing to do with likes or dislikes just suspicion
of the facts we do know.

ddraver

Rich you are the sane and reasonable voice that every forum needs! I bow to you!

whiteboytrash wrote:

But don't let emotions get in the way of what is rational and logical

Usually it's Frenchie that causes my self awareness sensor to explode, but congratulations you ve achieved it...

blazing_saddles

rayjay wrote:

mike6 wrote:

Lets face it, he is a very good GT rider. The doubters need to get over it. Just because you dont like a rider or a teams personality, or lack of, does not ergo mean they are dopers.

DZ,TD,EZ,JU,IB,AC,MR,BR,GH,TH,FL,DM,LA.AV. Did you think all these riders were clean before they got busted?
We had no REAL evidence that any of the above doped until they got caught. Don't forget that the likes of GH and DZ etc had to confess as they were questioned under oath. It has nothing to do with likes or dislikes just suspicion
of the facts we do know.

It is understandable given the sport's history, that a lot of folks take the default position, that every good ride is a doped one, but this doesn't actually constitute evidence.
I sense that there are many followers of the sport; I include myself here, that remain both sceptical and open minded. An amount of scepticism, given our sport's circumstances is essential, imo.
If I were unable to watch a performance and take it on face value, regardless of "how it looks", I would watch no more. Sometimes this can be hard.

However, in this ongoing Sky debate, there seems to be no place for the moderate, which is sad.

Richmond Racer

Oh noes! The Asylum will have to digest this:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... ggins.html


Has Brailsford slipped Nibz a massive bung to say this to throw peeps off the scent? What to make of it all....

rayjay

Blazing Saddles wrote:

rayjay wrote:

mike6 wrote:

Lets face it, he is a very good GT rider. The doubters need to get over it. Just because you dont like a rider or a teams personality, or lack of, does not ergo mean they are dopers.

DZ,TD,EZ,JU,IB,AC,MR,BR,GH,TH,FL,DM,LA.AV. Did you think all these riders were clean before they got busted?
We had no REAL evidence that any of the above doped until they got caught. Don't forget that the likes of GH and DZ etc had to confess as they were questioned under oath. It has nothing to do with likes or dislikes just suspicion
of the facts we do know.

It is understandable given the sport's history, that a lot of folks take the default position, that every good ride is a doped one, but this doesn't actually constitute evidence.
I sense that there are many followers of the sport; I include myself here, that remain both sceptical and open minded. An amount of scepticism, given our sport's circumstances is essential, imo.
If I were unable to watch a performance and take it on face value, regardless of "how it looks", I would watch no more. Sometimes this can be hard.

However, in this ongoing Sky debate, there seems to be no place for the moderate, which is sad.

Blazing, you make a great point and I respect your positive outlook. I do think considering the sports history it has become quite difficult not to question amazing performances. Horner's victory has been questioned and IMO that was not as stunning a performance as Froomes tour win. I don't see to many people jumping to his defence the same way as fans jump to Froomes. It's all a bit sad really. We should be enjoying our sport.

tailwindhome

If it cheers anyone up, Froome has been nominated for SPOTY and Walsh's SDS won Irish Sports Book of the Year.

nic_77

rayjay wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Like Rayjay, Like Trev, like Rundfahrt, we are still waiting for you yet all you can come up with are accusations of censorship. :roll:

I had assumed that rayjay was a rundfahrt clone (or at least a parody).
I can't believe that two different people have such low regard for paragraph structure - never mind the content.

Obviously yourreally upset

about this
I will
tryand do better after all itsvery important and it gives your

mighty ego a massive boost ,,,,,BUT you can't change my opinion or make yours right by being so anal,,,,,,,

ch
eer
s

That's actually easier to read. Thanks

There is a point to my moaning. It's the lack of attention to detail that detracts from the occasional good point. If I remember correctly Walsh's minor errors make him an out-and-out liar.