Inside Team Sky - David Walsh *Spoilers*
Comments
-
nic_77 wrote:rayjay wrote:nic_77 wrote:
I had assumed that rayjay was a rundfahrt clone (or at least a parody).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 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.
I never questioned the detail or errors of Walsh's book just the sugar-coated content.
Glad to be of service and I will try to do better. Cheers0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:However, in this ongoing Sky debate, there seems to be no place for the moderate, which is sad.
The subject of Sky does bring out strong opinions on this forum which is a shame.0 -
I'm aware that I sound like a gigantic arse when I say this but it's the abuse of science and evidence and the total willingness to overlook every other team in favour of focussing 100% on the 2 best anti-doping teams in cycling, and probably in the world that winds me up the most.
I follow sky slightly more closely because they re british and having grown up on team sports i ve no problem with following a "national team" but I'm fairly ambivalent about them. We re approaching the classics season which traditionally is when I switch from being called a fanboi to a hater because I criticise the Sky Classics Team...
Again, i'm afraid that I don't think asking people to back up their posts with proper evidence is rude, aggressive or (hilariously) "censorship"We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Rick Chasey wrote: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.
On Twitter the other day the pack turned on Shane Stokes for having written an article in 1999 which was apparently supportive of Armstrong.
God forbid that might happen again.
Best pick a side now.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
What does get on the wick of many who are otherwise pretty neutral re the team, is some of the tosh that's put out there to supposedly back up loud and furious claims of the team doping.
Examples that spring to mind:
- PlasterGate
- Claim that Sky had made a donation to the UCI - source subsequently admitted he completely made up the claim
- Claim that Sky had been trying out some new-fangled doping on their riders during the 2010 Vuelta, which is why some of the riders fell sick - and that they murdered their swanny Txema González as a result of claimed experiment
- Claim that Leinders had been involved in early research around carbon monoxide. Turned out to be no such thing, or for him to be linked in any way to any such research. Some got a name wrong and kick-started the usual chinese whispers presented as 'fact'
And so it goes on.
We're talking here about peoples lives, careers and reputations. And a lot of people really object to the stuff that's 'claimed' - none of which is ever backed up, and much of which is subsequently - and quietly - admitted to have been made up, or have no basis in fact whatsoever. But they continue to peddle this kind of stuff.
None of this frankly pathetic, obnoxious and desperate stuff is directed at any other team, no matter how stuffed to the gills they are on the rider-and-staff-with-dubious-pasts front. And no matter how successful they are. No matter whether they dominated a racing season in a certain type of race e.g. OPQS last year. Or won the most races - OPQS last year, Belkin this year. No matter whether they have dodgy doctors on the team - Hello Ibarguren Taus - or have been linked as heading up so many proven doping teams - hello Ochowicz, hello Rhis.
And so, yes, people react to this rank hyprocrisy dressed up as 'anti-doping'0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Rick Chasey wrote: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.
On Twitter the other day the pack turned on Shane Stokes for having written an article in 1999 which was apparently supportive of Armstrong.
God forbid that might happen again.
Best pick a side now.
Stokes is a deux vittesse journo. For example he hails Kittel as a shining example of a role model for speaking out on anti-doping issues by suggesting that riders who dope should get a prison sentence. Yet Froome says the same and gets slated by Stokes. Sky training up in Tenerife gets referenced with a 'nudge nudge wink wink'; yet his articles referencing other teams doing the same - and the list of teams who havent trained in Tenerife this year is rather shorter than those who have - pass without a nudge nudge (Moser and Sagan were training there just before they took 1-2 at Strade Bianchi, Nibs and team mates where up there before T-A etc etc)
Christ knows what'll happen if Deignan starts winning big for Sky over the next 2 years. Talk about Sophie's Choice.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:What does get on the wick of many who are otherwise pretty neutral re the team, is some of the tosh that's put out there to supposedly back up loud and furious claims of the team doping.
Examples that spring to mind:
- PlasterGate
- Claim that Sky had made a donation to the UCI - source subsequently admitted he completely made up the claim
- Claim that Sky had been trying out some new-fangled doping on their riders during the 2010 Vuelta, which is why some of the riders fell sick - and that they murdered their swanny Txema González as a result of claimed experiment
- Claim that Leinders had been involved in early research around carbon monoxide. Turned out to be no such thing, or for him to be linked in any way to any such research. Some got a name wrong and kick-started the usual chinese whispers presented as 'fact'
And so it goes on.
We're talking here about peoples lives, careers and reputations. And a lot of people really object to the stuff that's 'claimed' - none of which is ever backed up, and much of which is subsequently - and quietly - admitted to have been made up, or have no basis in fact whatsoever. But they continue to peddle this kind of stuff.
None of this frankly pathetic, obnoxious and desperate stuff is directed at any other team, no matter how stuffed to the gills they are on the rider-and-staff-with-dubious-pasts front. And no matter how successful they are. No matter whether they dominated a racing season in a certain type of race e.g. OPQS last year. Or won the most races - OPQS last year, Belkin this year. No matter whether they have dodgy doctors on the team - Hello Ibarguren Taus - or have been linked as heading up so many proven doping teams - hello Ochowicz, hello Rhis.
And so, yes, people react to this rank hyprocrisy dressed up as 'anti-doping'
Spot on RR. Some people on here go on about the "Sky fanbois" but I really don't think there are any, just rational cycling fans exasperated by the anti-Sky hypocrisy.0 -
Coming back to Walsh and his book. He believes that clean performances can NOW outperform those of doped riders.
I'm not sure what data he is using to back up this theory? He doesn't provide any. With the exception of comparing Mayo's ITT with Froome's road race performance (and not mentioning it was an ITT).
What is odd about his statement is that Froome is the only rider in the peloton who is outperforming the doped performances of the past.
If this theory was true or to be accepted you'd think that several riders would perform above doped rides of the past?
Now in saying that. Chris Horner who released his bio passport was certainly out performing doped performances of the past in this years Vuelta.
So maybe Walsh is right? :shock:
0 -
He doesn't say 'NOW' he says 'someday'. And he's right. But 'someday' may be fifty years from now.whiteboytrash wrote:Coming back to Walsh and his book. He believes that clean performances can NOW outperform those of doped riders.
Right now the below par performances of dopers can be beaten and maybe even some of the average ones. But Froome's not getting anywhere the best ones.
People seem very keen to compare riders according to venue rather than their peak levels of performance. It's like comparing 100m runners by looking at their times on a particular track rather than their personal best times.
(For example - Best 100m times at Lausanne:
9.69 Yohan Blake
9.72 Asafa Powell
9.78 Asafa Powell
9.79 Tyson Gay
9.82 Usain Bolt
Therefore, in conclusion, Usain Bolt isn't particularly good.)Twitter: @RichN950 -
dsoutar wrote: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
I'm not following.
This is a discussion forum, yes?
Is it not appropriate to discuss Walsh, Sky, doping and his book in a thread with the same title? Everyone is welcome to provide input and their opinions.
Active debate is the cornerstone of any democracy. Are we seriously suggesting that debate and discussion on performances and doping should not be allowed?
Considering the sports history and that cycling has just come out the other side of uncovering the biggest fraud not just in cycling but in all sports, we should all be open to discussing the topic of performances and doping.
You mention a jury. Jurors are encouraged to discuss and debate the information and evidence at hand. They are encouraged to ask questions of their peers, experts and the presiding judge. That we should do. One should not be chastised for asking question not matter how irrelevant it may appear at the time.
Dismissing active discussion as "astonishing crap" demonstrates that you may not have the maturity to participate in constructive debate.
I don't know but welcome you to provide your own thoughts.0 -
ddraver wrote:I'm aware that I sound like a gigantic ars* when I say this but it's the abuse of science and evidence and the total willingness to overlook every other team in favour of focussing 100% on the 2 best anti-doping teams in cycling, and probably in the world that winds me up the most.
I follow sky slightly more closely because they re british and having grown up on team sports i ve no problem with following a "national team" but I'm fairly ambivalent about them. We re approaching the classics season which traditionally is when I switch from being called a fanboi to a hater because I criticise the Sky Classics Team...
Again, i'm afraid that I don't think asking people to back up their posts with proper evidence is rude, aggressive or (hilariously) "censorship"
Your not sounding like a gigantic ar%%.
There is not anyone on here that has actual proof. It is just strong suspicions about what we do know that leaves room for questions to be asked.
I agree with what Blazing posted earlier and that because of the doping culture in cycling we can never be sure of a clean result. When teams, any teams hire questionable staff and riders perform like never before the questions get asked like they were of Armstrong and a lot of other riders since.
Sky have a vibe to them like Postal did. Hate them or love them.
If Contador went to Sky I would still cheer for Contador but would not be to happy about his team choice.
But I doubt a rider like Contador or Quintana would fit in at Sky.
I like more flair and style and aggression and Sky for me are the opposite of that. The last 2 tours have lacked that zing and been a bit boring IMO. I would say the same about another team if they had the same style.
As for Sky and their control of the media, I hate everything they stand for and the way they try and monopolise everything. The romance of sport has gone and Sky have played a big part in turning sport and sports men and women into money making machines first and athletes second.......and Kay Burley0 -
RichN95 wrote:
He doesn't say 'NOW' he says 'someday'. And he's right. But 'someday' may be fifty years from now.whiteboytrash wrote:Coming back to Walsh and his book. He believes that clean performances can NOW outperform those of doped riders.
Right now the below par performances of dopers can be beaten and maybe even some of the average ones. But Froome's not getting anywhere the best ones.
People seem very keen to compare riders according to venue rather than their peak levels of performance. It's like comparing 100m runners by looking at their times on a particular track rather than their personal best times.
(For example - Best 100m times at Lausanne:
9.69 Yohan Blake
9.72 Asafa Powell
9.78 Asafa Powell
9.79 Tyson Gay
9.82 Usain Bolt
Therefore, in conclusion, Usain Bolt isn't particularly good.)
Thanks for the reply.
Comparing 100m sprint on a straight-line track to a 242km stage probably won't provide us with anything but head scratching.
My suggestion would be to stick to the topic at hand.
We can debate Froom'e times to the cows come home. I agree its not black and white.
Hence why I bring up the topic on Walsh and his comparison of Froome's Ventoux time to mayo's ITT. Walsh himself is making the comparison to waterdown Froome's performance. Walsh wants you to believe Froome is legitimate because he was a long way off Mayo's record. He fails to mention Mayo's time was an ITT and some 220km shorter and part of a 1 week long stage race!
Walsh himself is using comparisons and as such he makes himself look foolish and gives the impression they are attempting to hide Froome's real numbers.
Walsh does the same on ax3. Again he tries to water it down as it was the 3rd fastest time in history to Ax3 which includes names of all the doped riders.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:If it cheers anyone up, Froome has been nominated for SPOTY and Walsh's SDS won Irish Sports Book of the Year.
Errrm, considering the women's nominations for SPOTY this year, the word to describe the mood around our household is furious.
(not that she stood an earthly)"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:TailWindHome wrote:If it cheers anyone up, Froome has been nominated for SPOTY and Walsh's SDS won Irish Sports Book of the Year.
Errrm, considering the women's nominations for SPOTY this year, the word to describe the mood around our household is furious.
(not that she stood an earthly)
What do you mean? There should have been more women or that the women that are nominated are poor choices?0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:
Thanks for the reply.
Comparing 100m sprint on a straight-line track to a 242km stage probably won't provide us with anything but head scratching.
My suggestion would be to stick to the topic at hand.
We can debate Froom'e times to the cows come home. I agree its not black and white.
Hence why I bring up the topic on Walsh and his comparison of Froome's Ventoux time to mayo's ITT. Walsh himself is making the comparison to waterdown Froome's performance. Walsh wants you to believe Froome is legitimate because he was a long way off Mayo's record. He fails to mention Mayo's time was an ITT and some 220km shorter and part of a 1 week long stage race!
Walsh himself is using comparisons and as such he makes himself look foolish and gives the impression they are attempting to hide Froome's real numbers.
Walsh does the same on ax3. Again he tries to water it down as it was the 3rd fastest time in history to Ax3 which includes names of all the doped riders.
Walsh is only watering them down as much as you and others are overstaing them. My example about the 100m (an event largely uneffected by tactics) at Lausanne illustrates how limited data for a single selected venue can be used to 'prove' what we know to be false: That Usain Bolt isn't the fastest runner. A valid comparison can only be made by comparing many times at many venues and considering the peak performances.
And so it is with Ax3 which you again bring up. It was a 5 star perfromance from Froome, but 3 star performances from Armstrong. You and others cling to it as it shows Froome performing as well as Armstrong. But it's only once. Compare times elsewhere and according to best performances, not venues, and they are not close to each other.
Walsh's reasoning isn't the best - he has no background in stats or science. But if he's talking crap, it's because crap is what he is debating against.Twitter: @RichN950 -
The Welsh SPOTY is the important one. (Pretty good line-up for that one)Blazing Saddles wrote:TailWindHome wrote:If it cheers anyone up, Froome has been nominated for SPOTY and Walsh's SDS won Irish Sports Book of the Year.
Errrm, considering the women's nominations for SPOTY this year, the word to describe the mood around our household is furious.
(not that she stood an earthly)Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
The Welsh SPOTY is the important one. (Pretty good line-up for that one)Blazing Saddles wrote:TailWindHome wrote:If it cheers anyone up, Froome has been nominated for SPOTY and Walsh's SDS won Irish Sports Book of the Year.
Errrm, considering the women's nominations for SPOTY this year, the word to describe the mood around our household is furious.
(not that she stood an earthly)
^Ach, Saddles, I'll put through a few phone votes on the night0 -
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.
Ah.....now I see where you are coming from. He has to prove he is not a cheating dope because he won the Tour. It is no longer enough to be clean, and say so in terms that leave no doubt. Using that rational I will have to go to the local police station and prove to them that I did not commit any recent offence in my local area, as will every other innocent citizen. That will leave only the guilty parties that the Police can pick up when they have time. I dont know why we had not thought of this before. :roll:0 -
RichN95 wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:
Thanks for the reply.
Comparing 100m sprint on a straight-line track to a 242km stage probably won't provide us with anything but head scratching.
My suggestion would be to stick to the topic at hand.
We can debate Froom'e times to the cows come home. I agree its not black and white.
Hence why I bring up the topic on Walsh and his comparison of Froome's Ventoux time to mayo's ITT. Walsh himself is making the comparison to waterdown Froome's performance. Walsh wants you to believe Froome is legitimate because he was a long way off Mayo's record. He fails to mention Mayo's time was an ITT and some 220km shorter and part of a 1 week long stage race!
Walsh himself is using comparisons and as such he makes himself look foolish and gives the impression they are attempting to hide Froome's real numbers.
Walsh does the same on ax3. Again he tries to water it down as it was the 3rd fastest time in history to Ax3 which includes names of all the doped riders.
Walsh's reasoning isn't the best - he has no background in stats or science. But if he's talking crap, it's because crap is what he is debating against.
Walsh appears to change his position depending on whom he is writing about, would you not say?
Walsh: Why is it sad? They’re cheating. It’s sad that they cheat, but it’s good news when they get caught. What is sad is that the guy who’s wearing the yellow jersey now, Alberto Contador, is definitely cheating.
M: How can you tell he’s cheating?
Walsh: Michael Rasmussen went up the Gourette-Col d'Aubisque faster than Lance Armstrong ever went up it. Alberto Contador was alongside him the whole way. I’ve been at that race since the early 80s and I know what speeds they go up that mountain. The speeds the leaders go up at today are just illogical.0 -
Maybe he's learnt the fallacy of using such individual stats to make that kind of assessment (especially as Armstrong never did a summit finish at Aubisque as Rasmussen's was).whiteboytrash wrote:Walsh appears to change his position depending on whom he is writing about, would you not say?Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
Maybe he's learnt the fallacy of using such individual stats to make that kind of assessment (especially as Armstrong never did a summit finish at Aubisque as Rasmussen's was).whiteboytrash wrote:Walsh appears to change his position depending on whom he is writing about, would you not say?
Who knows what's going on in his mind. He appears to change about and use faulty logic.
I hope the books sells well though. Looks like its well researched 8)0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:Coming back to Walsh and his book. He believes that clean performances can NOW outperform those of doped riders.
Seriously?
You criticise Walsh for inaccuracies and inconsistencies?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:Stokes is a deux vittesse journo.
LOL
Still the point remains. 'Fans' are scared not to be caught out.
They don't seem to understand that is reasonable to watch, enjoy and reform their opinions if evidence of wrongdoing comes to light.
Or don't watch at all.
But then, that's what the Lance fanboys would have said.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Well, cant disagree with what you say about some 'fans'.
Who originally coined the phrase 'fanboy', out of interest? Trying to remember0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:Well, cant disagree with what you say about some 'fans'.
Who originally coined the phrase 'fanboy', out of interest? Trying to remember
Comes from some geeky group - comic book people I think!0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:Well, cant disagree with what you say about some 'fans'.
Who originally coined the phrase 'fanboy', out of interest? Trying to remember
http://technologizer.com/2010/05/17/fanboy/3/To understand the origins of “fanboy,” you don’t need to go back to 1919…but you do need to start earlier than 1985. Try 1973–when a handful of copies of a fanzine were distributed at a Chicago comics convention. The zine was credited to two fans who took Marvel Comics, the work of Frank Frazetta, and other matters a wee bit too seriously, Alfred Judson and Bill Beasley. And its name was Fanboy.
0 -
It comes from the sci-fi/comic book convention scene. Some think that the original 'Fanboy' was a home produced comic book fanzine given out at conventions in Chicago.Richmond Racer wrote:Well, cant disagree with what you say about some 'fans'.
Who originally coined the phrase 'fanboy', out of interest? Trying to remember
Edit: Big Bean did it quicker and betterTwitter: @RichN950 -
Thanks! Every day's a school day around here...0
-
Blazing Saddles wrote:TailWindHome wrote:If it cheers anyone up, Froome has been nominated for SPOTY and Walsh's SDS won Irish Sports Book of the Year.
Errrm, considering the women's nominations for SPOTY this year, the word to describe the mood around our household is furious.
(not that she stood an earthly)
Not a good year to be nominated anyway, Murray will trounce everyone. Another couple of Worlds titles in 2014 should do the job 0 -
TailWindHome wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:Coming back to Walsh and his book. He believes that clean performances can NOW outperform those of doped riders.
Seriously?
You criticise Walsh for inaccuracies and inconsistencies?
Is there are problem with critiquing and reviewing his book of a thread with the same title?0
This discussion has been closed.
