David Walsh

Fr D Maugire

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Other than make unfounded allegations, which you say he shouldn't do, what exactly do you mean by being sceptical?

Well for a start, ask the relevant questions and follow-ups. Maybe I am wrong but I have yet to see Walsh explain how Froome transformed from a nobody to No 1 in the world by miles. Throwing forward a few generalisations is not going to cut the mustard.

When Porte says Froome is freakishly talented, the first thing that pops into my head is the question of how could someone so freakishly talented have been crap for so long??? If they put forward that Froome was tactically weak, then next question is how was he tactically weak? Can you be tactically weak in a TT??? On a mountain stage, a rider might have bad positioning at the start of a climb but generally if they are among the strongest, they will pass out most others guys they start behind?? What are these tactical weaknesses that Froome had??

Porte says people should be asking other former champions why have they gone backwards. I would be asking Porte, whom are these champions and what exactly has changed in the anti-doping process that these riders might have changed their ways as he is insinuating. After all most of these guys have been champions in the last two years and not much has changed in the anti-doping world.

Why is it SKY have been unable to do anything with significant talents like EBH, Lokvist etc yet managed to turn previous mid-talent riders into mega-stars. This is a legit question Kimmage asked and everyone got hysterical. How have they managed to turn Jonathan Tiernan-Locke from an apparent superstar in waiting into a nobody??

Rigobert Uran has stated previously that he doesn't buy into the whole marginal gains stuff and still does things his way, he just finished on the podium at the Giro. How relevant are marginal gains really?? Is it really just PR BS or something real. Has Walsh even spoken to any of the Colombians/Spaniards at SKY??

You know what would have been great, to see Walsh talk to former SKY riders who didn't make it there Lovkvist, Flecha, Cummings etc to get their views on SKY.

Also as someone else pointed out, why was it ok to question Rasmussen/Contador based purely on climbing times in 2007 but its not ok to do so in 2013.

There are literally dozens of questions I would have for SKY/Walsh that have not been adequately answered.

theSHU

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Well for a start, ask the relevant questions and follow-ups. Maybe I am wrong but I have yet to see Walsh explain how Froome transformed from a nobody to No 1 in the world by miles. Throwing forward a few generalisations is not going to cut the mustard.

It's funny David Brailesford didn't rate Chris Froome at all back in 2011 putting him in the 'borderline' category. Check out the following graph of DB's opinions on the Team Sky riders back in 2011 (note CF is in the bottem of category 5)

Dave Brailsford
1. The guys on the left of the chart are being paid for what we believe they can do in the future. It’s quite difficult but people gamble. Someone like Edvald is obviously a great talent. It could be unbelievable if he goes on to fulfil all that potential, or it could be that he doesn’t quite. But you’re betting on the future.

2. These are your top performers. Guys who can deliver big results and who are in the peak of their career.

3. These guys are getting older now but if they can still do a job they still deserve their place on the team. Guys over here don’t need coaching, as such. They still need support but we are not developing their talent, we are prolonging their careers.

4. Once you get down here, it’s time to say goodbye to the guys. Is it worth having an older guy, with his salary expectations, who can podium at Pro Continental level but not at the bigger races? Probably not.

5. Riders in this area are borderline for us. As you get older, the potential for improvement disappears and so it’s much more a judgement call. A rider might bring something to the team in terms of his personality that makes him a good guy to have around.

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/features/inside-the-mind-of-dave-brailsford/

In fairness though, Chris Froome lack of early performance is down to him suffering from the bilharzia parasite which was only discovered when he undertook blood screening when he joined Team Sky.

Dave Brailsford - VeloNews

Brailsford said it wasn’t until the bilharzia was diagnosed and treated that the real Froome could emerge.

“There was an inconsistency about him,” Brailsford said. “The question wasn’t why he was good, the question was why we’d only seeing glimpses. Why isn’t he like that all the time? When the illness was discovered, retrospectively, it made a lot of sense. There would be certain stages in the front group, you’d see these glimpses, but he couldn’t put it together with some consistency.”

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/news/froome-confirms-no-tue-still-treated-for-bilharzia-parasite_295548

Fr D Maugire

theSHU wrote: »

It's funny David Brailesford didn't rate Chris Froome at all back in 2011 putting him in the 'borderline' category. Check out the following graph of DB's opinions on the Team Sky riders back in 2011 (note CF is in the bottem of category 5)





In fairness though, Chris Froome lack of early performance is down to him suffering from the bilharzia parasite which was only discovered when he undertook blood screening when he joined Team Sky.

Once again, this requires follow up questions. How long did he have the disease?? I have seen numerous articles which suggest he picked up the bilharzia on a trip to Africa in November 2010. If this is the case, why was he so poor 08-10 which includes his first year at SKY. If he had it prior to that, why did the super amazing SKY doctors take so long to diagnose it, early 2011??

Surely a disease that effects the red blood cells would play havoc with his biological passport making it redundant!!!

You see this is the problem, SKY put out a statement about Froome and bilharzia and people just swallow it up as the explanation. More info is needed on things that cyclists and teams claim.

mikeoneill893

assuming the best

i figure maybe he has unanswered questions on skys performance

but want's to keep a lid on speculation as he will get drawn into debate and make his position difficult


he's just giving them a clean bill of health until he has evidence to the contrary..


assuming the worst...he sold out

mikeoneill893

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

SKY put out a statement about Froome and bilharzia and people just swallow it up as the explanation.

pretty much


that's all that matters to sky

AnotherView

Brailsford ( who I think from his graph, etc is one tough cookie with no room for sentimentality) said during the Tour that journalists should go away, get together and come up with what they would want to believe in SKY's performance ( ie questions, data etc)

Maybe people here could list some questions/evidence requirements and forward them to journalists including Walsh and see if SKY provide answers...questions would have to be very specific so there would be no room for misinterpretation of answers

Just a thought!

mikeoneill893

AnotherView wrote: »

Brailsford ( who I think from his graph, etc is one tough cookie with no room for sentimentality) said during the Tour that journalists should go away, get together and come up with what they would want to believe in SKY's performance ( ie questions, data etc)

Maybe people here could list some questions/evidence requirements and forward them to journalists including Walsh and see if SKY provide answers...questions would have to be very specific so there would be no room for misinterpretation of answers

Just a thought!

i think sky are clean


but you know brailsford just makes this sh1t up


he don't actually want it to happen


you seen the PR on about giving all their stuff to wada and the 2011-2013
stuff given to l'equipe


the guy would fit right in with a bunch of county councillors in any county in ireland

on_the_nickel

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Other than make unfounded allegations, which you say he shouldn't do, what exactly do you mean by being sceptical?

See point 2 in my post. I don't expect him to treat everything Sky tell him as gospel. Otherwise, he might make unfounded allegations......

Fr D Maugire

AnotherView wrote: »

Brailsford ( who I think from his graph, etc is one tough cookie with no room for sentimentality) said during the Tour that journalists should go away, get together and come up with what they would want to believe in SKY's performance ( ie questions, data etc)

Maybe people here could list some questions/evidence requirements and forward them to journalists including Walsh and see if SKY provide answers...questions would have to be very specific so there would be no room for misinterpretation of answers

Just a thought!

Yes but isn't that exactly what Walsh was supposed to be doing:rolleyes:

More PR spin by team SKY, Bralisford knows exactly what people want to see. Power files for Chris Froome pre and post his Vuelta transformation. They have released his power files from Vuelta 2011 onwards as they are nice and uniform. My guess is they will never release pre 2011 power files as chances are they will have some explaining to do.

All this keeping secrets is just spin, what will the rivals of Froome learn from pre 2011 power files. Why was only post Vuelta 2011 power files released.

Lets be clear SKY set themselves up to be the most transparent team out there bar none with a zero tolerance policy to doping which has already proven worthless with so many dopers in their management structure, Leinders, Yates, Julich, Barry, De Jongh, Knaven etc. What exactly do SKY do that makes them more transparent than for example Astana, Katusha or Movistar, teams with no such grand claims.

gordongekko

That's the whole problem. I believe sky are clean but Walsh with his access has done nothing to either help prove or disprove this. His whole articles are just filled with nothingness. Its seems with a complete waste of access and a year. I come away from reading any of his articles disappointed and none the wiser.

If Chris froome is the real deal then this is one hell of a story but Walsh just does not convince me either me either way.

theSHU

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Once again, this requires follow up questions. How long did he have the disease?? I have seen numerous articles which suggest he picked up the bilharzia on a trip to Africa in November 2010. If this is the case, why was he so poor 08-10 which includes his first year at SKY. If he had it prior to that, why did the super amazing SKY doctors take so long to diagnose it, early 2011??

Surely a disease that effects the red blood cells would play havoc with his biological passport making it redundant!!!

You see this is the problem, SKY put out a statement about Froome and bilharzia and people just swallow it up as the explanation. More info is needed on things that cyclists and teams claim.

He was diagonsed in November 2010 and received his first treatment for the illness in December 2010. CF believes he suffered from the parasite for a year before it was diagnosed. Why the delay?? Perhaps the "amazing" Sky doctors aren't as up to date on obscure African jungles diseases as they should be.

"I found it 18 months ago and they had probably been in my system for a year before that," he explains. "I took the treatment three weeks ago and I've got to wait six months to see if it's still active or not."

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/533006/froome-the-fighter.html#YqvBP07iO0lJM79H.99

http://books.google.ie/books?id=zDnLnpM2GsQC&lpg=PP1&pg=PT279#v=onepage&q&f=false

Fr D Maugire

theSHU wrote: »

He was diagonsed in November 2010 and received his first treatment for the illness in December 2010. CF believes he suffered from the parasite for a year before it was diagnosed. Why the delay?? Perhaps the "amazing" Sky doctors aren't as up to date on obscure African jungles diseases as they should be.



http://books.google.ie/books?id=zDnLnpM2GsQC&lpg=PP1&pg=PT279#v=onepage&q&f=false

Froome "thinks" or "believes" is hardly scientific proof and it still does not explain how a freakish talent displayed jack in his first two years as a pro. Froome can say he think's he had it for a year because it fits a story. This is the sort of stuff that needs further explanation

Once again, to take from those articles. It states that the disease is debilitating to an athlete as it eats the red blood cells, Surely if this were the case his bio-passport would have been a mess. Wouldn't SKY be keeping track of their athletes blood profiles??

Blood profiles from Froome 2010-11 are another thing SKY could release in an effort to appease people as his blood profile from then are pretty irrelevant to his rivals now.

Raam

Send the blood profiles to Michael Ashenden or someone who has the skills to properly interpret them rather than release them to the general public.

Russman

Its interesting that Sky, for all the things they're good at, science, training etc seem to have a big problem with what their original speciality is, ie communication. IMO they've inadvertently dug a bit of a hole on the PR front with the whole "transparency" thing. Who knows whether it was inexperience, arrogance, innocence, but the list of people they've had to get rid of was a huge own goal and, coupled, with cycling's history, was bound to be jumped on as soon as some unexpected/unusual performances happened. Embedding Walsh turned into a bit of a ham fisted attempt at damage control but it was largely after a lot of people had already formed their opinions. The very idea that a team needs to go to such lengths to "prove" everything is above board is a bit unsettling (but I can't decide for what reason) and I'm actually torn between thinking "are we too cynical maybe ?" or "bloody sure they do with some of the donkeys they've turned into top climbers".

IMO their biggest mistake was proclaiming to be clean and different so loudly - I reckon if they hadn't and had just been "another" cycling team, no one would have batted an eyelid at BW or CF winning big races and we wouldn't have to listen to "it was a weak field this year" or "the route was tailor made for him", or Walsh fawning over them.

Surely if anything underhand was going on, Walsh would be the last person the team would let see it, given they all know the job he's doing for them ?

Junior

Raam wrote: »

Send the blood profiles to Michael Ashenden or someone who has the skills to properly interpret them rather than release them to the general public.

And here is the Crux of the Matter for me with Walsh, he's blithely reprinted *whatever* Sky have said to him without going off and checking it with professionals that can verify it.

Take for instance the Power Data that was released to L'Equipe, how come Walsh hasn't asked for it and taken it to Ashenden or even Ross Tucker or any one else ?

Tim Kerrison has spoken at length to William Fotheringham to discuss his training methods, I'm sure Walsh could do the same, they've talked about how they've been working on 10/20 Minute Threshold Power as the key to it all. Personally I don't think you can keep up doing threshold intervals for 2 years and not get fed up/start losing the return from them. He could get this training peer reviewed as to how this would work over 2 years, what would be the benefits, the gains, how would they change it up.

This is the sort of healthy skepticism that I feel should have come from Walsh, that he went into the camp, got as much information as he possibly could and when faced with science he shouldn't have repeated it as gospel, but gone and got it reviewed and checked out.

And the way that the story with the Lakeland Wheelers guys has played out is a little microcosm of it all, if he can't be arsed to fact check that, what else is not bothering with.

Chips Lovell

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Why is it SKY have been unable to do anything with significant talents like EBH, Lokvist etc yet managed to turn previous mid-talent riders into mega-stars. This is a legit question Kimmage asked and everyone got hysterical. How have they managed to turn Jonathan Tiernan-Locke from an apparent superstar in waiting into a nobody??

What on earth is suspicious about this? Big things are predicted of young riders all the time who then, for one reason or another, fail to live up to the hype. I can point to a host of riders on other teams who never lived up to the early hype. Although I'd dispute that Edvald Boasson Hagen is somehow a wasted talent. He's got a great palmares, especially consdering how he's struggled with injury.

elduggo

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

What on earth is suspicious about this?

Its not suspicious but it pokes holes in Skys claims about having new, super-innovative training methods.

If those claims were true and if claims about having some new-fangled bike technology (I don't actually think Sky have claimed this, the comment is drawn more from the British track team in the olympics where they covered up their wheels/bikes as soon as a race finished so as not to let competitors see them), how come it only seems to benefit very few of their riders?

EBH has definitely regressed as a rider with Sky. I'm amazed hes stayed there. For a guy who is such a huge star in his home country I'd imagine he'd be a very attractive prospect for a lot of teams to sign up, to stay with Sky in a very subdued role, I think hes selling himself short. Obviously its the money keeping him there but I would expect a guy like him to show a little more ambition.

I'd also argue that Michael Rogers is not the rider he was while at Sky, which begs the question, why not?

Beasty

elduggo wrote: »

Its not suspicious but it pokes holes in Skys claims about having new, super-innovative training methods.

If those claims were true and if claims about having some new-fangled bike technology (I don't actually think Sky have claimed this, the comment is drawn more from the British track team in the olympics where they covered up their wheels/bikes as soon as a race finished so as not to let competitors see them), how come it only seems to benefit very few of their riders?

It's been readily accepted that they used the same Mavic wheels as everyone else, but sought to gain a psychological advantage from this

I would however ask what other "claims" you are referring to?

Chips Lovell

elduggo wrote: »

Its not suspicious but it pokes holes in Skys claims about having new, super-innovative training methods.

So Sky, in order to be credible, need to have a 100 per cent success rate? That it be impossible that riders not hit a glass ceiling with development, lose motivation or struggle with injuries?

elduggo wrote: »

EBH has definitely regressed as a rider with Sky.

Take a look at his palmares from Sky and then compare it to his results at High Road and show me the regression. Not bad for a guy who's had two seasons disrupted by his Achilles injury.

elduggo wrote: »

I'd also argue that Michael Rogers is not the rider he was while at Sky, which begs the question, why not?

Were you watching this year's Tour? Did you see the work Rogers did for Contador?

Incidentally, if you're viewing unfulfilled talent as ringing alarm bells for Sky, you should add Rogers himself to that list. He was a three time world TT champ before he joined Sky.

elduggo

Beasty wrote: »

It's been readily accepted that they used the same Mavic wheels as everyone else, but sought to gain a psychological advantage from this

I would however ask what other "claims" you are referring to?

they're not substantiated claims. It was more suspicions arising from the olympics. I think the French raised them.

http://inrng.com/2012/08/british-cycling-funding/

I never heard it mentioned in relation to Sky's road team but given the overlap between the backrooms of Sky and British cycling I would expect, were there any secrets, they would be shared. Then of course there was Bradley's top secret road bike for the Olympics. I don't even think it was a Pinarello.

elduggo

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

So Sky, in order to be credible, need to have a 100 per cent success rate? That it be impossible that riders not hit a glass ceiling with development, lose motivation or struggle with injuries?

not impossible but highly unlikely it would happen so many with the raw talent at their disposal (thinking specifically of EBH and Kennaugh). If they had such grand plans for their riders then why would Dowsett, Cummings, etc, jump ship at such an early stage.

Take a look at his palmares from Sky and then compare it to his results at High Road and show me the regression. Not bad for a guy who's had two seasons disrupted by his Achilles injury.

I think it more relevant to look at his performances in any sprint he contested. Its clear to me that he cannot sprint like he used to. And if thats because he wanted to focus his early part of the season on the classics, well what a rip-roaring success he/Sky were in those.

I think they have shown themselves to be very tactically naive, apart from in a 9-man GT scenario. The Olympics/classics bear this out.

Were you watching this year's Tour? Did you see the work Rogers did for Contador?

I would argue it wasn't a patch on the work he did for Bradley last year.

Incidentally, if you're viewing unfulfilled talent as ringing alarm bells for Sky, you should add Rogers himself to that list. He was a three time world TT champ before he joined Sky.

yep, cheers, will add that to my list.

Have Sky ever actually developed any rider? It seems to me they haven't. Bradey won a Tour that had a parcours suited to his particular talents, whereas Froome's development, from the best explanation I can make out, was as a majorly fortunate side-affect of an illness he had.

Chips Lovell

So if I'm reading this correctly, having riders perform better than expected warrants scepticism.

And having riders perform worse than expected, warrants scepticism also.

And, in the case of Michael Rogers, performing both worse (compared to his time at Quick Step and T-Mobile) and better (compared to now at Saxo) should raise eyebrows.

Riders transferring to other teams is also a reason to start asking questions.

As if all of this isn't completely normal in cycling?

elduggo

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

So if I'm reading this correctly, having riders perform better than expected warrants scepticism.

And having riders perform worse than expected, warrants scepticism also.

And, in the case of Michael Rogers, performing both worse (compared to his time at Quick Step and T-Mobile) and better (compared to now at Saxo) should raise eyebrows.

Riders transferring to other teams is also a reason to start asking questions.

As if all of this isn't completely normal in cycling?

wording it like this skews the context and causes the point to be missed. One needs to be viewed in the context of another.

As an example, take riders performing worse than expected. Consider that these riders are/were arguably the top young riders of their time, among the best available raw material available for any Protour team to work with. Then consider a rider excelling to a level beyond anyone's anticipation. This being put down, in large part, to new and revolutionary training methods that Sky won't reveal as they feel it will remove a competitive advantage they possess (I paraphrase a tweet from Michelle Cound here). Consider then that the same young, excellent, riders are part of the team, a natural conclusion, particularly those who were part of the Tour de France team, would be that these riders would have undertaken the same training as the aforementioned, much-improved, rider. Why is it such a stretch to assume that a massive improvement should also have been seen in these riders, undertaking the same training methods/plan?

In isolation all of the points you listed are completely normal. Put in the context intended I would argue that there a couple of clarifications needed before they can be considered normal.

In my humble opinion of course.

Fr D Maugire

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

What on earth is suspicious about this? Big things are predicted of young riders all the time who then, for one reason or another, fail to live up to the hype. I can point to a host of riders on other teams who never lived up to the early hype. Although I'd dispute that Edvald Boasson Hagen is somehow a wasted talent. He's got a great palmares, especially consdering how he's struggled with injury.

This is one thing of many I have listed. Maybe you don't agree on this one issue but put them all together and it only logical to be skeptical. I don't think EBH is wasted, he is still a top rider but he just hasn't developed as expected.

As elduggo has pointed out, this is their own PR at work. They talked about how they were going to revolutionize the sport and they have, but clearly not with the guys they were planning with as illustrated by that graph by Bralisford.

They were about to release Froome when he had his Vuelta breakout and clearly they had very little faith in him during that Vuelta, or else he could have won it. Don't get me wrong as I felt they did the right thing at the time as Froome was so unproven but then I don't have access to the best rider in the pro world.


I don't want to get bogged down in the details as we are talking about what Walsh should have been looking at. Too many people are prepared to believe whatever SKY say and leave it at that and from experience we have learned that is fatal and that even experts are prepared to believe myths to explain stuff, think Ed Coyle and his book on Lance.

I think Walsh should have talked to former SKY riders to get a more rounded opinion of what SKY are about.

Finally this is a direct question. Other than let Walsh track them, what have SKY done that makes them more transparent than Astana, Katusha or Movistar??? and I am not talking about doing things retrospectively.

MrCreosote

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

So if I'm reading this correctly, having riders perform better than expected warrants scepticism.

And having riders perform worse than expected, warrants scepticism also.

And, in the case of Michael Rogers, performing both worse (compared to his time at Quick Step and T-Mobile) and better (compared to now at Saxo) should raise eyebrows.

Riders transferring to other teams is also a reason to start asking questions.

As if all of this isn't completely normal in cycling?

That's the whole point. The legacy of the 90s and 00s is that most people will question all cyclists all the time.

ROK ON

Vlad

It is for the very reasons that you have stated in your post that IMHO cycling is irreparable as a sport.

Trust of stakeholders is virtually non existent, such that anything is viewed with absolute suspicion.

That in my view is the point of no return.

I don't buy resurrections & it ain't going to happen in pro cycling either. Anyone hoping for a different future is setting themselves up for disappointment.

Russman

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

what have SKY done that makes them more transparent than Astana, Katusha or Movistar??? and I am not talking about doing things retrospectively.

That's actually a really good point re other teams.

Junior

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

This is one thing of many I have listed. Maybe you don't agree on this one issue but put them all together and it only logical to be skeptical. I don't think EBH is wasted, he is still a top rider but he just hasn't developed as expected.

EBH has admitted that he had mental issues with dealing with the weight of expectation on him after a stellar start and has only come round in the last year or so.

TheKingslayer

Walsh's arse is bought, paid for, and fully buttered by the Team Sky Coco Butter Boys.

I wouldn't read his drivel now if it was dished out for free.

Made a killing off slicing lance apart, now happy to sit back and let the cheques roll in to pay for his family's future. Let's not forget he was ostracized before Lancelot was exposed, can't blame the guy for taking a back seat on this one. Imagine if he took on Team Sky. He'd be picking his hole picking up the scratcher every tuesday morning, and there's no guarantee he would ever prove anything. Let's not forget LA nearly got away scot free last time.

TinyExplosions

TheKingslayer wrote: »

Walsh's arse is bought, paid for, and fully buttered by the Team Sky Coco Butter Boys.

I wouldn't read his drivel now if it was dished out for free.

...or maybe it's not, and he genuinely believes what he sees from Sky, and it has nothing to do with who pays his wages.

elduggo

TinyExplosions wrote: »

...or maybe it's not, and he genuinely believes what he sees from Sky, and it has nothing to do with who pays his wages.

that'd be a whole lot easier to believe if the whole Lance thing had never happened. Its a wholesale change in attitude to what, could be argued, from the outside looks to be a very similar situation.

It just doesn't add up, so naturally people will assume their having mutual employer is an influencing factor.

Beasty

elduggo wrote: »

from the outside looks to be a very similar situation.

What you are essentially acknowledging is any cynicism over Walsh and indeed Sky is pure speculation based entirely on circumstantial evidence (which itself is derived from a single "sample") - yes you are on the outside and therefore ignorant of the facts (as indeed am I)

elduggo

Beasty wrote: »

What you are essentially acknowledging is any cynicism over Walsh and indeed Sky is pure speculation based entirely on circumstantial evidence (which itself is derived from a single "sample") - yes you are on the outside and therefore ignorant of the facts (as indeed am I)

right, I don't deny that for a second. But the point is that, back when Walsh was writing about Lance/USPS everything was pure speculation, based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

Perhaps Walsh has more than circumstantial evidence to back up his claims about Sky. If he does hes not really stating that very clearly. If anything what seems to be coming across is that everything is based on what people tell him, and hes happy to take them at their word and run with that.

couerdelion

elduggo wrote: »

right, I don't deny that for a second. But the point is that, back when Walsh was writing about Lance/USPS everything was pure speculation, based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

I thought it was based upon what had been heard and seen by Betsy Andreu and Emma O'Reilly - so a little more than pure speculation.

At the moment with Sky it's pure speculation - there hasn't to my knowledge been anyone who has said they have seen or been involved with anything untowards.

TinyExplosions

elduggo wrote: »

that'd be a whole lot easier to believe if the whole Lance thing had never happened. Its a wholesale change in attitude to what, could be argued, from the outside looks to be a very similar situation.

It'd be easier to believe if Walsh was one of the Lance fans who was sticking up for him, and was now following a similar course.

In my mind, he's a journalist, and his journalistic tendencies haven't changed from last year to this one -I think it's less likely that he's completely thrown his integrity out the window for a paycheck, but that he genuinely sees nothing going on.

Having said that, don't forget that he said that Lance smelled funny, and was immediately treated as an outcast by him, and USPS/Discovery -maybe if they'd invited him on the bus and shown him a good time they could have avoided him going at them like a dog with a bone.

I just find it amazing how peoples attitudes to riders/teams and journos can do a total 180 if they start saying things one doesn't agree with...

Chips Lovell

These new standards of evidential burden would certainly make my job a lot more interesting. I've only circumstantial evidence to suggest that Businessman X is not fiddling his taxes. I'm therefore obligated to suggest that he may be engaging in tax fraud.

DirkVoodoo

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

These new standards of evidential burden would certainly make my job a lot more interesting. I've only circumstantial evidence to suggest that Businessman X is not fiddling his taxes. I'm therefore obligated to suggest that he may be engaging in tax fraud.

Fraud detection isn't a million miles away from that:

elduggo

couerdelion wrote: »

I thought it was based upon what had been heard and seen by Betsy Andreu and Emma O'Reilly - so a little more than pure speculation.

At the moment with Sky it's pure speculation - there hasn't to my knowledge been anyone who has said they have seen or been involved with anything untowards.

I think until Betsy, etc, gave testimony under oath it remained 'circumstantial'. Or at least thats what the pro-Lance brigade would have argued.

mikerodgers96

couerdelion wrote: »

I thought it was based upon what had been heard and seen by Betsy Andreu and Emma O'Reilly - so a little more than pure speculation.

At the moment with Sky it's pure speculation - there hasn't to my knowledge been anyone who has said they have seen or been involved with anything untowards.

they hired a doping doctor and a bunch of riders with doping pasts

unwittingly apparently.....


they been talkin a whole lot about transparency ....and doin nothin to back up all the talk

and then we got froome......mr transformer

couerdelion

mikerodgers96 wrote: »

they hired a doping doctor and a bunch of riders with doping pasts

unwittingly apparently.....

and after being sacked so publicly they would be the ones most likely to have motive to say something about Sky and any PED's that might be being used. Yet nothing....

mikerodgers96 wrote: »

they been talkin a whole lot about transparency ....and doin nothin to back up all the talk

and then we got froome......mr transformer

Brailsford is a PR disaster sometimes. Doesn't make him guilty of peddling drugs to make his riders faster.

Froome's rise is remarkable and the kind of thing that usually the public likes. It would make a great film. Boy living in Kenya discovers cycling, gets better but still has a barrier to competing... tropical disease cured and he wins the biggest race of them all. The critics would love it.

You would be sat waiting for the DVD release and the missing directors cut featuring the deleted EPO injection / transfusion scenes

mikerodgers96

couerdelion wrote: »

and after being sacked so publicly they would be the ones most likely to have motive to say something about Sky and any PED's that might be being used. Yet nothing....




Brailsford is a PR disaster sometimes. Doesn't make him guilty of peddling drugs to make his riders faster.

Froome's rise is remarkable and the kind of thing that usually the public likes. It would make a great film. Boy living in Kenya discovers cycling, gets better but still has a barrier to competing... tropical disease cured and he wins the biggest race of them all. The critics would love it.

You would be sat waiting for the DVD release and the missing directors cut featuring the deleted EPO injection / transfusion scenes

i think they're clean

if they were doping i don't think brailsford would have any direct involvement

it would be one-on-one... .need to know basis

TinyExplosions

mikerodgers96 wrote: »

they hired a doping doctor and a bunch of riders with doping pasts

Forgive the stupid question, but which riders with doping pasts were hired to ride for Sky?

Yes, they made mistakes with some backroom staff (Leinders/Yates.de Jongh), but is Barry the only *rider* who has a past that was on the team (and IIRC there wasn't much speculation bar his riding for Discovery to suggest he'd doped).

To the contrary, they have steered clear of riders with a history (David Miller being the prime example, he was told clearly that Sky could never hire him)

elduggo

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Forgive the stupid question, but which riders with doping pasts were hired to ride for Sky?

<snip>

Chips Lovell

Can I remind people again that you can't accuse named people of doping without have evidence to substantiate it.

Or indeed say they were forced out from a team for it.

elduggo

I give up

TinyExplosions

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Can I remind people again that you can't accuse named people of doping without have evidence to substantiate it.

Or indeed say they were forced out from a team for it.

Oops, sorry!

What riders with an interesting history have Sky hired -for example ones that might have raced on Discovery/USPS or under Riis or something?

(is that ok?)

Beasty

elduggo wrote: »

I give up

Please read this thread - you are on a final warning - your next ban will be a long one

Any questions, PM one of the mods - do not respond in-thread

Fr D Maugire

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Oops, sorry!

What riders with an interesting history have Sky hired -for example ones that might have raced on Discovery/USPS or under Riis or something?

(is that ok?)

Ok, just putting names here with "links" to so called dodgy people/teams so no accusations or insinuations, just plain facts.

Flecha, Hayman rode for Rabobank whilst Leinders was doing his thing and there have been numerous confessions from riders on that team. Boogerd, Niermann, Koerts, De Jongh, Rasmussen, might be more.

Arvesen who was a rider but is now a DS rode for Riis whilst Hamilton, Basso, Jaksche were at the team and Porte is a former Riis rider.

Rogers was at T-Mobile when they were implicated of receiving transfusions at the Freiburg clinic in 06.

Possoni was at Lampre who are currently under investigation in Italy and I think at one point his name came up in documents relating to that investigation.

gordongekko

couerdelion wrote: »

I thought it was based upon what had been heard and seen by Betsy Andreu and Emma O'Reilly - so a little more than pure speculation.

I don't think that's correct. I think he said in his book that during the 99 tour he thought sometime was wrong but anytime he rang home all anyone wanted to talk about was the positive story and not the negitive story. That would have been long before he met Betsy or Emma.

mcgratheoin

gordongekko wrote: »

I don't think that's correct. I think he said in his book that during the 99 tour he thought sometime was wrong but anytime he rang home all anyone wanted to talk about was the positive story and not the negitive story. That would have been long before he met Betsy or Emma.

IIRC, Walsh said that in 99 the press were all sceptical after the Sestriere stage. L'Equipe called the performance "l'extra terrestriel", suggesting that nobody believed in the legitimacy of it, but following a Pierre Ballester interview with Lance (where Lance lied about never taking EPO, even though it had been part of his cancer recovery and was perfectly acceptable), the TDF boss had a go at the l'Equipe editor and they were forced to drop the investigation and jump on the bandwagon.

Walsh's own suspicions about Lance were crystallised following an interview in 2001 where he asked Lance had he heard of Tommy Simpson and Lance's reply was "Yes, but he never tested positive".

edit - plus the Bassons incident - wasn't that in 99? Who said "you can't be anti-drugs and anti-Bassons"