Are sky clean or not?
Comments
-
I think you're getting him confusing with Kimmage.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19729156#p19729156]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:
I think Walsh is waiting for someone else to do the leg work then he'll come in at the last minute and claim the credit.
In what respect? Surely a Ballester reference (though I guess you know this).0 -
I think you're getting him confusing with Kimmage.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19729156#p19729156]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:
I think Walsh is waiting for someone else to do the leg work then he'll come in at the last minute and claim the credit.
In what respect? Surely a Ballester reference (though I guess you know this).
Both Ballester who he worked with on the Armstrong Lie and also Landis who was the one man who actually brought about the downfall. Kimmage at least had the integrity to ask difficult questions at a time when every other journalist was happy on the Armstrong gravy train. I think the fact that Walsh is on the News Group pay roll speaks volumes as to his integrity and just how hard he is looking at Froome.0 -
In the respect that David Walsh was the primary journalist who brought down Armstrong and not a hanger on. He was the one that conducted all of the interviews which gave the evidence against Armstrong.
I think you're getting him confusing with Kimmage.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19729156#p19729156]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:
I think Walsh is waiting for someone else to do the leg work then he'll come in at the last minute and claim the credit.
In what respect? Surely a Ballester reference (though I guess you know this).
Ballister did work too. They produced two books together.
In no way did he come at the last minute a claim credit.
Kimmage on the other hand is a man who has made his reputation from repeating other's work.
I assume you are a Kimmage fan - he will claim his distance from the sport as impartiality, while following only the most extreme posters on twitter. He exists in an echo chamber of opinion. Walsh doesn't. Walsh has only lost credibility because he expressed opinions contrary to the twitterati.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Walsh has only lost credibility because he expressed opinions contrary to the twitterati.
I thought he lost some credibility when everyone realized that he used people just like Armstrong did, in order to get the story and further his own career?0 -
In the respect that David Walsh was the primary journalist who brought down Armstrong and not a hanger on. He was the one that conducted all of the interviews which gave the evidence against Armstrong.
I think you're getting him confusing with Kimmage.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19729156#p19729156]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:
I think Walsh is waiting for someone else to do the leg work then he'll come in at the last minute and claim the credit.
In what respect? Surely a Ballester reference (though I guess you know this).
Ballister did work too. They produced two books together.
In no way did he come at the last minute a claim credit.
Kimmage on the other hand is a man who has made his reputation from repeating other's work.
I assume you are a Kimmage fan - he will claim his distance from the sport as impartiality, while following only the most extreme posters on twitter. He exists in an echo chamber of opinion. Walsh doesn't. Walsh has only lost credibility because he expressed opinions contrary to the twitterati.
I'm a fan of both of them, respect their work (irrespective of Twitter followings), and I don't understand the need to pick sides. I'm not aware that Kimmage has claimed the credit for Armstrong's downfall which you seemed to be implying.0 -
Walsh has only lost credibility because he expressed opinions contrary to the twitterati.
I thought he lost some credibility when everyone realized that he used people just like Armstrong did, in order to get the story and further his own career?
Thats a good point. His double standards with respect to his allegations / doubts about Armstrong back in 1999 compared to his unwavering support for Froome despite their being more evidence against him has made him look like a sell-out.
Time will tell but my feeling is that he's going to look pretty stupid in the future.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19729464#p19729464]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:Walsh has only lost credibility because he expressed opinions contrary to the twitterati.
I thought he lost some credibility when everyone realized that he used people just like Armstrong did, in order to get the story and further his own career?
Thats a good point. His double standards with respect to his allegations / doubts about Armstrong back in 1999 compared to his unwavering support for Froome despite their being more evidence against him has made him look like a sell-out.
Time will tell but my feeling is that he's going to look pretty stupid in the future.
Wait a minute, there's more evidence against Froome than there was against Armstrong in 1999? You're going to have to clue me in here..."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19729477#p19729477]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19729464#p19729464]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:Walsh has only lost credibility because he expressed opinions contrary to the twitterati.
I thought he lost some credibility when everyone realized that he used people just like Armstrong did, in order to get the story and further his own career?
Thats a good point. His double standards with respect to his allegations / doubts about Armstrong back in 1999 compared to his unwavering support for Froome despite their being more evidence against him has made him look like a sell-out.
Time will tell but my feeling is that he's going to look pretty stupid in the future.
Wait a minute, there's more evidence against Froome than there was against Armstrong in 1999? You're going to have to clue me in here...
This should be good0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19729477#p19729477]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19729464#p19729464]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:Walsh has only lost credibility because he expressed opinions contrary to the twitterati.
I thought he lost some credibility when everyone realized that he used people just like Armstrong did, in order to get the story and further his own career?
Thats a good point. His double standards with respect to his allegations / doubts about Armstrong back in 1999 compared to his unwavering support for Froome despite their being more evidence against him has made him look like a sell-out.
Time will tell but my feeling is that he's going to look pretty stupid in the future.
Wait a minute, there's more evidence against Froome than there was against Armstrong in 1999? You're going to have to clue me in here...
Was there any evidence about Armstrong in '99? You might get away with arguing that there is "as much".Team My Man 2018: David gaudu, Pierre Latour, Romain Bardet, Thibaut pinot, Alexandre Geniez, Florian Senechal, Warren Barguil, Benoit Cosnefroy0 -
I love that its not ok for Walsh to work for the Sunday Times because it is owned by Murdoch but it's ok for Kimmage to take Denis O'Brien's shilling...0
-
I love that its not ok for Walsh to work for the Sunday Times because it is owned by Murdoch but it's ok for Kimmage to take Denis O'Brien's shilling...
Beautiful point! Back of the net!
Walsh wont' dob in his paymaster Times/News Corporation/Sky.
A side point, here's a hunch; LA rode for Discovery which is a competitor to Sky as a media provider so not sure if Walsh was there to help give a punch on the nose to Discovery. Sky against Discovery. Big corporation tactics is like this with companies in competition with one another trying to trip one another up.
Ha Ha! I do enjoy how people can think the sport or a team is dope free. The sport has always been off it's face on drugs; even the mechanics and drivers have pick me ups to keep them on the go.
The riders are paid to win, not to be dope free.“Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving”- Albert Einstein
"You can't ride the Tour de France on mineral water."
-Jacques Anquetil0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19729477#p19729477]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19729464#p19729464]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:Walsh has only lost credibility because he expressed opinions contrary to the twitterati.
I thought he lost some credibility when everyone realized that he used people just like Armstrong did, in order to get the story and further his own career?
Thats a good point. His double standards with respect to his allegations / doubts about Armstrong back in 1999 compared to his unwavering support for Froome despite their being more evidence against him has made him look like a sell-out.
Time will tell but my feeling is that he's going to look pretty stupid in the future.
Wait a minute, there's more evidence against Froome than there was against Armstrong in 1999? You're going to have to clue me in here...
Was there any evidence about Armstrong in '99? You might get away with arguing that there is "as much".
Failed test (which he wriggled out of, of course).0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19729477#p19729477]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19729464#p19729464]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:Walsh has only lost credibility because he expressed opinions contrary to the twitterati.
I thought he lost some credibility when everyone realized that he used people just like Armstrong did, in order to get the story and further his own career?
Thats a good point. His double standards with respect to his allegations / doubts about Armstrong back in 1999 compared to his unwavering support for Froome despite their being more evidence against him has made him look like a sell-out.
Time will tell but my feeling is that he's going to look pretty stupid in the future.
Wait a minute, there's more evidence against Froome than there was against Armstrong in 1999? You're going to have to clue me in here...
Was there any evidence about Armstrong in '99? You might get away with arguing that there is "as much".
Failed test (which he wriggled out of, of course).
Oh aye, I forgot about that one.Team My Man 2018: David gaudu, Pierre Latour, Romain Bardet, Thibaut pinot, Alexandre Geniez, Florian Senechal, Warren Barguil, Benoit Cosnefroy0 -
Jaysus where do these people come from...?
Iirc, their mummy's tummies.Team My Man 2018: David gaudu, Pierre Latour, Romain Bardet, Thibaut pinot, Alexandre Geniez, Florian Senechal, Warren Barguil, Benoit Cosnefroy0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19729477#p19729477]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19729464#p19729464]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:Walsh has only lost credibility because he expressed opinions contrary to the twitterati.
I thought he lost some credibility when everyone realized that he used people just like Armstrong did, in order to get the story and further his own career?
Thats a good point. His double standards with respect to his allegations / doubts about Armstrong back in 1999 compared to his unwavering support for Froome despite their being more evidence against him has made him look like a sell-out.
Time will tell but my feeling is that he's going to look pretty stupid in the future.
Wait a minute, there's more evidence against Froome than there was against Armstrong in 1999? You're going to have to clue me in here...
Was there any evidence about Armstrong in '99? You might get away with arguing that there is "as much".
Failed test (which he wriggled out of, of course).
Oh aye, I forgot about that one.
At the time there was lots of hearsay and conjecture which has since been shown to be actual evidence. But, at the time, it was just loons, cynics and anti-American party poopers who were the lone voices above the 'yee-haws'.0 -
And so the off season begins...0
-
And so the off season begins...
So tragic isnt it...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
And so the off season begins...
So tragic isnt it...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
My question is: Froome is being asked to release data essentially because he had a good first half of the tour. He looked weaker everyday towards the end, whereas others were getting stronger. Why aren't they being asked to produced data? Is it because they don't ride for Sky?0
-
My question is: Froome is being asked to release data essentially because he had a good first half of the tour. He looked weaker everyday towards the end, whereas others were getting stronger. Why aren't they being asked to produced data? Is it because they don't ride for Sky?
He's been pressed for this data for much longer but yes it was brought up again during the tour when Sky were dominating.0 -
My question is: Froome is being asked to release data essentially because he had a good first half of the tour. He looked weaker everyday towards the end, whereas others were getting stronger. Why aren't they being asked to produced data? Is it because they don't ride for Sky?
Looked like. Well said.
This thread isn't about others. It's about Sky. Froome isn't being asked to release data because he had a good first half of the tour. He's being asked to produce data because he has transformed from a grupetto rider being let go by his team to a tour winer almost overnight. Remember, if Lars Petter Nordhaug hadn't been sick, Froome wouldn't even have ridden his breakthrough Vuelta.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19730103#p19730103]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:My question is: Froome is being asked to release data essentially because he had a good first half of the tour. He looked weaker everyday towards the end, whereas others were getting stronger. Why aren't they being asked to produced data? Is it because they don't ride for Sky?
Looked like. Well said.
This thread isn't about others. It's about Sky. Froome isn't being asked to release data because he had a good first half of the tour. He's being asked to produce data because he has transformed from a grupetto rider being let go by his team to a tour winer almost overnight. Remember, if Lars Petter Nordhaug hadn't been sick, Froome wouldn't even have ridden his breakthrough Vuelta.
To be fair, this is true. His overnight transformation was remarkable, from a palmares of meh to world beater. And its never really been properly explained.
Its not unreasonable to expect scepticism in the face of what we've seen in this sport.
I have my doubts about him, but those are my own doubts. I dont go sounding off left right and centre about it, and I don't resort to online bullying tactics unlike some of t'internet.
But it would be blind not to understand the scepticism0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19729156#p19729156]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:Froome is clean, no two ways about it. If anybody thinks he isn't then its safe to assume the entire peloton is doping. Even Walsh thinks Froome is clean.
Froome = clean
Wiggins = clean
Evans = clean.
Nibali = ?
Contador = ?
I think Walsh is waiting for someone else to do the leg work then he'll come in at the last minute and claim the credit.
There is evidence either way but looking at the way Froome sprinted up Mont Ventoux and his sudden transformation into a GC rider there is no way he did this clean.
The sprint up Mont Ventoux is old hat. Anyone who knows anything about road racing already knows that what Froome did there wasn't actually that special and nothing out of the ordinary judging by his output. If you are referring to some dodgy guy on YouTube who overlaid his own made up numbers then you need to re-do your research.
Also, if you have read Froomes book you will know that his sudden transformation was anything but. Its also worth knowing that he grew up in Africa, rode beaten up bikes on mountains every day. I doubt very much he had access to things like EPO growing up seeing as the only cycling club he belonged to didn't even have a proper toilet.
Froome has done it the hard way, he had natural talent that just needed to be nurtured and Sky have done that. What evidence have you got except 'speculation' that Froome has doped? If you knew his character you would know he just doesn't come from that sort of place like Lance. He didn't have access to modern drugs, he didn't have a lot of money, he didn't have a structure around him like Lance did. He doesn't have an ego like Lance did, he's a completely different character. Its just sheer hard work thats got him to where he is.
As i said before, if you truly believe Froome is a doper then stop watching the sport because everyone else would be a doper. Nibali at the Tour...Wiggins at the Tour...Evans....everyone.
Why watch it if they are?
Why keep on with the doping allegations?
At what point do you believe that a TDF winner isn't doping?
The trouble with this whole doping saga is that its become a self-fulfilling business now. Its no different to 'Who was Jack the Ripper?' it just goes on and on and in the meantime life passes everyone by. Someone had a few minutes in their lunch break at work and asks 'did **** dope to win the Tour.." just to give themselves a nice little ego rub for a few seconds, to make themselves feel good. But the consequences roll on and are devastating for the sport. It now lives under a permanent cloud of doping.
So I say again, why watch it? why watch it knowing you're going to be disappointed because you believe everyones doping and if you don't believe such-and-such is doping now, you will in the future, so why bother? At what point do you believe NOBODY is doping? and if nobody is doping, are you going to ask the same questions to yourself, to others that maybe someone ought to be doping? just to put it out there again? to light the fire?
Whats the purpose of constantly asking if a team, or a rider, are clean if you are never, ever going to believe that they are? Really, whats the point?
You either do believe and continue to watch or you don't and watch something else. At some point we all have to 'trust' again otherwise we might as well just all go and watch fishing knowing that they probably haven't doped to sit in a chair all day.0 -
Er. No. That black and white, its A or its B, might work for you, Ashbeck - that that's your choice
But there is no directive from on high that says everyone who has to follow a sport, has to believe everyone is pure as pure can be, in order to follow it.
I truly cant stand Astana, and I dont trust Froome, but I've followed the sport through much rougher, more unbelievable times. And I think my love for the sport will hold up booing, pantomime-style, whenever Astana win a race, or wincing every time Froome appears on tv on a bike (or off it, for that matter)
Hell, I've even regained a bit of my love for Bertie
PS: as for fishing.....http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/others/bridge-players-and-anglers-caught-with-performance-enhancing-drugs-10501178.html0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19729156#p19729156]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:Froome is clean, no two ways about it. If anybody thinks he isn't then its safe to assume the entire peloton is doping. Even Walsh thinks Froome is clean.
Froome = clean
Wiggins = clean
Evans = clean.
Nibali = ?
Contador = ?
I think Walsh is waiting for someone else to do the leg work then he'll come in at the last minute and claim the credit.
There is evidence either way but looking at the way Froome sprinted up Mont Ventoux and his sudden transformation into a GC rider there is no way he did this clean.
The sprint up Mont Ventoux is old hat. Anyone who knows anything about road racing already knows that what Froome did there wasn't actually that special and nothing out of the ordinary judging by his output. If you are referring to some dodgy guy on YouTube who overlaid his own made up numbers then you need to re-do your research.
Also, if you have read Froomes book you will know that his sudden transformation was anything but. Its also worth knowing that he grew up in Africa, rode beaten up bikes on mountains every day. I doubt very much he had access to things like EPO growing up seeing as the only cycling club he belonged to didn't even have a proper toilet.
Froome has done it the hard way, he had natural talent that just needed to be nurtured and Sky have done that. What evidence have you got except 'speculation' that Froome has doped? If you knew his character you would know he just doesn't come from that sort of place like Lance. He didn't have access to modern drugs, he didn't have a lot of money, he didn't have a structure around him like Lance did. He doesn't have an ego like Lance did, he's a completely different character. Its just sheer hard work thats got him to where he is.
As i said before, if you truly believe Froome is a doper then stop watching the sport because everyone else would be a doper. Nibali at the Tour...Wiggins at the Tour...Evans....everyone.
Why watch it if they are?
Why keep on with the doping allegations?
At what point do you believe that a TDF winner isn't doping?
The trouble with this whole doping saga is that its become a self-fulfilling business now. Its no different to 'Who was Jack the Ripper?' it just goes on and on and in the meantime life passes everyone by. Someone had a few minutes in their lunch break at work and asks 'did **** dope to win the Tour.." just to give themselves a nice little ego rub for a few seconds, to make themselves feel good. But the consequences roll on and are devastating for the sport. It now lives under a permanent cloud of doping.
So I say again, why watch it? why watch it knowing you're going to be disappointed because you believe everyones doping and if you don't believe such-and-such is doping now, you will in the future, so why bother? At what point do you believe NOBODY is doping? and if nobody is doping, are you going to ask the same questions to yourself, to others that maybe someone ought to be doping? just to put it out there again? to light the fire?
Whats the purpose of constantly asking if a team, or a rider, are clean if you are never, ever going to believe that they are? Really, whats the point?
You either do believe and continue to watch or you don't and watch something else. At some point we all have to 'trust' again otherwise we might as well just all go and watch fishing knowing that they probably haven't doped to sit in a chair all day.
Bless you, this is really sweet. You've read the book and are an expert on him!!!
Granted he was brought up in Africa. South Africa. In one of the best private schools in Joburg no less. As an aside, it is probably easier to get hold of EPO etc over there than it is in the UK.
The numbers on Ventoux are genuine I believe.
Do some research that maybe includes things not written by the team or the teams PR people.
You are right though in some respect we do need to trust but we need to be able to verify to make sure that our trust isn't being abused.0 -
^best not to patronise
All that happens is that you end up coming across as a bit of a kn&b0
