Inside Team Sky - David Walsh *Spoilers*

1…6791112…28

Comments

  • r0bh
    r0bh Posts: 2,382
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Coming back to Walsh and his book. He believes that clean performances can NOW outperform those of doped riders.


    9gf4fp.jpg


    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?

    No, but most of your "critique" willfully mis-represents what Walsh is saying. Can you not see the difference between "Inevitably times set in the doping era will SOMEDAY be surpassed by clean riders" (Walsh, my emphasis) and "He believes that clean performances can NOW outperform those of doped riders" (whiteboytrash, your emphasis)?

    Whatever debate there may be had on this topic is being stifled by everyone else having to correct your inaccuracies. If you want valuable debate, stick to the facts.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,310
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Coming back to Walsh and his book. He believes that clean performances can NOW outperform those of doped riders.


    9gf4fp.jpg


    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?


    No.

    But that's not what you're doing.

    You're misquoting his book.

    That's different
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,174
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Coming back to Walsh and his book. He believes that clean performances can NOW outperform those of doped riders.


    9gf4fp.jpg


    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?

    I think you've missed the point. TWH is picking up that you are mentioning Walsh's errors whilst making a huge whopper yourself i.e. stating that Walsh said that clean performances can NOW outperform those of doped riders whereas the exert you quoted clearly says this will inevitably happen 'someday'. 'Someday' and 'now' are very different things. or were you being 'ironic'?
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    TailWindHome wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    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?


    No.

    But that's not what you're doing.

    You're misquoting his book.

    That's different

    Thanks.

    Perhaps you could point our where the misquoting has occured? Then I might be able to asses the point you're making.

    Feel free to provide details. Any details would be helpful.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,310
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    <snip>


    You're back to being silly now.

    Dissenting voices add value to the forum, but when they offer coherent arguments based on fact, experience and knowledge

    Shame.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    edited November 2013
    Pross wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Coming back to Walsh and his book. He believes that clean performances can NOW outperform those of doped riders.


    9gf4fp.jpg


    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?

    I think you've missed the point. TWH is picking up that you are mentioning Walsh's errors whilst making a huge whopper yourself i.e. stating that Walsh said that clean performances can NOW outperform those of doped riders whereas the exert you quoted clearly says this will inevitably happen 'someday'. 'Someday' and 'now' are very different things. or were you being 'ironic'?


    Thanks for the reply.

    You appear to have a very poor grasp of the English language.

    Even though Walsh's book is woefully written he clearly states that from the "doped era", "someday" those times will be bettered by "clean riders".

    When he states someday he means now as distinct from the "doped era".

    Therefore someday is now today or the present day.

    You've taken the word in isolation and not part of the actual sentence it forms. I wouldn't say you've made a common mistake but one a student at school might make when learning to read and write.

    Thus Froome on Ax3 beat several doped performances from the past. Froome was a long way ahead of 2nd place, 3rd place and so on.
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    TailWindHome wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    <snip>


    You're back to being silly now.

    Dissenting voices add value to the forum, but when they offer coherent arguments based on fact, experience and knowledge

    Shame.

    I'm not sure what you're saying.

    When you get a moment I'd be pleased to respond if you could point out the errors I've made in my assessments on the Walsh book.

    Look forward to your response.
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    Like the way Peter Kennaugh comes across as gobby as I'd expect - another gobby Manxman in the bunch. Perhaps its just as well his bro has had to give up on a road career - not sure the peloton could cope with 3 of 'em :)
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    edited November 2013
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    When you get a moment I'd be pleased to respond if you could point out the errors I've made in my assessments on the Walsh book.
    Can you spot the difference between these two statements?

    "Inevitably, someday you are going to die"
    "I believe you are going to die NOW"

    Would you reaction to being told them be different?

    Now spot the difference again
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    He believes that clean performances can NOW outperform those of doped riders
    David Walsh wrote:
    Inevitably times set in the doping era will someday be surpassed by clean riders"

    Did you answer that one is an projection of future events while the other is an assessment of present events? Yes? Congratulations! Your reading comprehension is now good enough to read My Life as a Dog by Pudsey the dancing dog.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,711
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Coming back to Walsh and his book. He believes that clean performances can NOW outperform those of doped riders.


    9gf4fp.jpg


    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?

    I think you've missed the point. TWH is picking up that you are mentioning Walsh's errors whilst making a huge whopper yourself i.e. stating that Walsh said that clean performances can NOW outperform those of doped riders whereas the exert you quoted clearly says this will inevitably happen 'someday'. 'Someday' and 'now' are very different things. or were you being 'ironic'?


    Thanks for the reply.

    You appear to have a very poor grasp of the English language.

    Even though Walsh's book is woefully written he clearly states that from the "doped era", "someday" those times will be bettered by "clean riders".

    When he states someday he means now as distinct from the "doped era".

    Therefore someday is now today or the present day.

    You've taken the word in isolation and not part of the actual sentence it forms. I wouldn't say you've made a common mistake but one a student at school might make when learning to read and write.

    Thus Froome on Ax3 beat several doped performances from the past. Froome was a long way ahead of 2nd place, 3rd place and so on.

    A pretty poor grasp of the English language? Talk about selective interpretation.
    Quintana and Rodriguez also beat a number of notably doped performances on the Alpe.
    Somehow, I don't think you will be claiming that they outperformed Pantani's efforts there, today or any other day.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    RichN95 wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    When you get a moment I'd be pleased to respond if you could point out the errors I've made in my assessments on the Walsh book.
    Can you spot the difference between these two statements?

    "Inevitably, someday you are going to die"
    "I believe you are going to die NOW"

    Would you reaction to being told them be different?

    Now spot the difference again
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    He believes that clean performances can NOW outperform those of doped riders
    David Walsh wrote:
    Inevitably times set in the doping era will someday be surpassed by clean riders"

    Did you answer that one is an projection of future events while the other is an assessment of present events? Yes? Congratulations! Your reading comprehension is now good enough to read My Life as a Dog by Pudsey the dancing dog.

    Your still missing it.

    Walsh clearly states that the times where were set in the doping era will inevitably be surpassed by clean riders.

    As he is speaking of Froome's performance on Ax3 he is referring to this actual ride which did beat times of the doped era.

    Context is important. Reading the book is also important.

    Additionally the day before the climb up AX3, Brailsford also said, "At some point in time, clean performances will surpass the doped performances in the past".
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    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?

    I think you've missed the point. TWH is picking up that you are mentioning Walsh's errors whilst making a huge whopper yourself i.e. stating that Walsh said that clean performances can NOW outperform those of doped riders whereas the exert you quoted clearly says this will inevitably happen 'someday'. 'Someday' and 'now' are very different things. or were you being 'ironic'?


    Thanks for the reply.

    You appear to have a very poor grasp of the English language.

    Even though Walsh's book is woefully written he clearly states that from the "doped era", "someday" those times will be bettered by "clean riders".

    When he states someday he means now as distinct from the "doped era".

    Therefore someday is now today or the present day.

    You've taken the word in isolation and not part of the actual sentence it forms. I wouldn't say you've made a common mistake but one a student at school might make when learning to read and write.

    Thus Froome on Ax3 beat several doped performances from the past. Froome was a long way ahead of 2nd place, 3rd place and so on.

    A pretty poor grasp of the English language? Talk about selective interpretation.
    Quintana and Rodriguez also beat a number of notably doped performances on the Alpe.
    Somehow, I don't think you will be claiming that they outperformed Pantani's efforts there, today or any other day.


    Yes I've already stated that Horner has beaten several "doped era" times in the Vuetla.

    (clean!) Horner, incidentally, released his bio passport.

    Froome has not.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,174
    whiteboytrash wrote:

    When he states someday he means now as distinct from the "doped era".

    Therefore someday is now today or the present day.

    Really? That's your interpretation of his words. 'Someday' means exactly that - at some day. This has been the problem throughout, you are interpreting someone else's words to fit you argument.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    whiteboytrash wrote:

    Your still missing it.

    Walsh clearly states that the times where were set in the doping era will inevitably be surpassed by clean riders.

    As he is speaking of Froome's performance on Ax3 he is referring to this actual ride which did beat times of the doped era.

    Context is important. Reading the book is also important.

    Additionally the day before the climb up AX3, Brailsford also said, "At some point in time, clean performances will surpass the doped performances in the past".

    someday [ˈsʌmˌdeɪ]
    adv
    at some unspecified time in the (distant) future - Collins English Dictionary

    Walsh and others are saying that whatever doped performances have been done in the past, they will one day be beaten by clean cyclists. Not that they can all be beaten now.
    Right now some can be - the lacklustre performances by the top dopers or the top performances by a lacklustre dopers. Hell, I can outperform a doper if he rides slow enough.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    edited November 2013
    RichN95 wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:

    Your still missing it.

    Walsh clearly states that the times where were set in the doping era will inevitably be surpassed by clean riders.

    As he is speaking of Froome's performance on Ax3 he is referring to this actual ride which did beat times of the doped era.

    Context is important. Reading the book is also important.

    Additionally the day before the climb up AX3, Brailsford also said, "At some point in time, clean performances will surpass the doped performances in the past".

    someday [ˈsʌmˌdeɪ]
    adv
    at some unspecified time in the (distant) future - Collins English Dictionary

    Walsh and others are saying that whatever doped performances have been done in the past, they will one day be beaten by clean cyclists. Not that they can all be beaten now.
    Right now some can be - the lacklustre performances by the top dopers or the top performances by a lacklustre dopers. Hell, I can outperform a doper if he rides slow enough.

    Oh dear.

    Did you ever think why it was mentioned in the book in the context of Ax3?

    If Froome didn't actually beat doped up times on Ax3 there would be no relevance in mentioning it.

    Sure one person might say that "some day" note the space between "some" and "day" that those times may be surpassed.

    But Walsh brings this up to say "someday" and that "someday" is now, today, on the day that Froome rode the 3rd fastest time in history with the last 5km on his own.

    The context will draw you to the meaning.

    Reading comprehension helps. I'm happy to provide you a pass on this one as Walsh truly is a woeful writer and I can understand how "some" people can misunderstand his writings, somedays.
  • mike6
    mike6 Posts: 1,199
    Sigh....I cant take any more of this. Sadly another nutter poster I have to put on block. :(

    Is it possible there are people on here with more than one account?
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,711
    edited November 2013
    What Walsh is saying is that at some point in the future due to natural progressions,
    it will be possible to surpass epo fuelled efforts.

    He is then qualifying this by stating what Rich, myself etc have been saying.
    You cannot draw a definitive conclusion of doping from the fact that a fully fit and supported Froome
    rode up Aix a few seconds faster than a dehydrated and severely weakened Armstrong,
    experiencing the worst Tour day, post comeback.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,174
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    Like the way Peter Kennaugh comes across as gobby as I'd expect - another gobby Manxman in the bunch. Perhaps its just as well his bro has had to give up on a road career - not sure the peloton could cope with 3 of 'em :)


    Yep, I remember the slating he gave far more experienced riders in his post race interview after the 2009 Nationals. Certainly not shy for a youngster! I have to admit I only recently realised that whilst only 19 at the time he had a fair bit of experience already.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,174
    mike6 wrote:
    Sigh....I cant take any more of this. Sadly another nutter poster I have to put on block. :(

    Is it possible there are people on here with more than one account?

    Ditto. When someone starts arguing against the 'evidence' they posted themselves it's time to disengage.
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    Pross wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:

    When he states someday he means now as distinct from the "doped era".

    Therefore someday is now today or the present day.

    Really? That's your interpretation of his words. 'Someday' means exactly that - at some day. This has been the problem throughout, you are interpreting someone else's words to fit you argument.

    Oh dear again.

    "Someday" and "some", "day" have two separate meanings and intentions.

    I suggest some time spent on a website that teaches the basics in sentence construction and meaning.
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    Pross wrote:
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    Like the way Peter Kennaugh comes across as gobby as I'd expect - another gobby Manxman in the bunch. Perhaps its just as well his bro has had to give up on a road career - not sure the peloton could cope with 3 of 'em :)


    Yep, I remember the slating he gave far more experienced riders in his post race interview after the 2009 Nationals. Certainly not shy for a youngster! I have to admit I only recently realised that whilst only 19 at the time he had a fair bit of experience already.


    He takes no prisoners :) Came 3rd in the Girobio that year too
  • whiteboytrash
    whiteboytrash Posts: 594
    edited November 2013
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    What Walsh is saying is that at some point in the future due to natural progressions,
    it will be possible to surpass epo fuelled efforts.

    He is then qualifying this by stating what Rich, myself etc have been saying.
    You cannot draw a definitive conclusion of doping from the fact that a fully fit and supported Froome
    rode up Aix a few seconds faster than a dehydrated and severely weakened Armstrong,
    experiencing the worst Tour day, post comeback.

    This I agree with. Thank-you.

    Context is very important.

    Which why I find it odd that on Ventoux Walsh compares a very fresh Mayo ITT in a 1 week stage race to Froome at the back end of the Tour after 220km.

    There lies a terriable contradiction.

    He states Froome was fresh for Ax3. It was early in the Tour compared to Armstrong and Ullrich but then goes on in his comparisons on Vetnoux to apply the same formula to the opposite. Said Froome was normal because Mayo was far better - and fails to menion Mayo was an ITT in a 1 week stage race.

    Its not only a contradiction. Its a lie and its blatant manipulation of data to suit the narrative.
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    Oh, I love the timings thing. I love the vision of peeps hunched over the videos

    Makes me larf

    http://www.ridemedia.com.au/?p=10280
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Its not only a contradiction. Its a lie and its blatant manipulation of data to suit the narrative.


    Arf :)
  • r0bh
    r0bh Posts: 2,382
    whiteboytrash wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:

    When he states someday he means now as distinct from the "doped era".

    Therefore someday is now today or the present day.

    Really? That's your interpretation of his words. 'Someday' means exactly that - at some day. This has been the problem throughout, you are interpreting someone else's words to fit you argument.

    Oh dear again.

    "Someday" and "some", "day" have two separate meanings and intentions.

    I suggest some time spent on a website that teaches the basics in sentence construction and meaning.

    someday
    adverb /ˈsʌm.deɪ/
    › at some time in the future that is not yet known or not stated
  • r0bh
    r0bh Posts: 2,382
    Pross wrote:
    mike6 wrote:
    Sigh....I cant take any more of this. Sadly another nutter poster I have to put on block. :(

    Is it possible there are people on here with more than one account?

    Ditto. When someone starts arguing against the 'evidence' they posted themselves it's time to disengage.

    +2. Time to leave this thread to the hard of thinking.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,310
    ----
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • ocdupalais
    ocdupalais Posts: 4,314
    whiteboytrash wrote:

    Walsh clearly states that the times where were set in the doping era will inevitably be surpassed by clean riders.

    As he is speaking of Froome's performance on Ax3 he is referring to this actual ride which did beat times of the doped era.

    Was there some sort of bell or claxon telling us that we've moved out of "the doping era"?
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    OCDuPalais wrote:
    whiteboytrash wrote:

    Walsh clearly states that the times where were set in the doping era will inevitably be surpassed by clean riders.

    As he is speaking of Froome's performance on Ax3 he is referring to this actual ride which did beat times of the doped era.

    Was there some sort of bell or claxon telling us that we've moved out of "the doping era"?


    Typical bloody cyclist - you were wearing earphones, weren't you

    Tut :roll:
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    Whitetrashboy,

    Someday you will come to agree with some of my posts

    Great, I'm pleased that you now think I'm right
    Twitter: @RichN95
This discussion has been closed.

Categories