Velorooms - Cycling Forum

Miscellany => The Dark Side => Topic started by: FreeWheelin on May 02, 2012, 00:03

Title: Sky
Post by: FreeWheelin on May 02, 2012, 00:03
I was quite surprised by this article and I have been expecting massive debate about it... but unless I'm looking in the wrong spot I have not seen any.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-wants-to-be-a-credible-tour-de-france-winner (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-wants-to-be-a-credible-tour-de-france-winner)

If this is being discussed somewhere can someone point me in the right direction.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on May 02, 2012, 00:39
Interesting.

Perhaps this debate should be in a different section?   or are we talking about a different kind of credibility here?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: FreeWheelin on May 02, 2012, 00:53
Yeah, please move it to wherever it should go.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on May 02, 2012, 01:43
Quote
It would be nice to be part of it in a positive way, because there aren’t a lot of Tour winners who you can believe in,” Wiggins told L’Équipe. “For the first time last year, you had a Tour winner who everyone could believe in [Evans – ed]. He is a fantastic ambassador for the sport, he works hard, he didn’t win by showing off, but with great determination. So to be able to follow on from somebody like him would be nice, rather than doing it after somebody had a positive test hanging over his head for a year or two.”

big brave words from Brad there.   I actually like that he can bring it up and talk about it.  Its not everything ... but its better than worshipping at the feet of past winners who are questionable.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dr. Horrible the Mad Elephant Man on May 02, 2012, 02:23
I find it extremely hard to believe that Wiggins is clean

His words to me come across as someone who is no different to those who have come before (those dirty Spanish dopers), but is pretending to be better than them.

These word do nothing to improve my opinion of Wiggins.

If Wiggins is clean then he is a remarkable athlete the like of which the world has rarely seen.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Havetts on May 02, 2012, 02:37
Atleast he takes a stance, that has been yet to be seen from a lot of other riders.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on May 02, 2012, 02:51
Oh Bradley, Bradley, Bradley..

I dont usually go near any discussions on Brad, ive long learnt its not worth my while. On one hand I get fans on one side saying im blinded by team sky etc, on the other hand I get Bradley getting upset for not backing him up. As far as Brads cleanliness goes, I havnt got a foggiest. Id love to believe he is clean, and there seems to be some presumption in some circles that I should assume hes clean because of the fansite, or sky or whatever.. How can you assume someone is clean without knowing them personally, without talking to them, without having that in depth knowledge that only close friends and family have (and how many dopers managed to keep their activities secret from even their closest families). Im not going to trust Brad just because "I should" but at the same time Im not going to assume he is doping based on the flimsiest of evidence.

Ultimately sometimes I just wish he would say nothing, as he is not renowned for having a consistent approach. For years he was telling everyone how great lance was, now hes saying all the Tour winners lack credibility (although reading between the lines its clear that the credibility line is aimed purely at Contador and Landis, two riders have both been banned), and then supports Evans who's jawline alone is enough to raise questions.

Then again, if he says nothing hes accused of avoiding the subject, backing the Omerta, or just not talking about it because he has a guilty conscience.

Theres no winning.

Personally, I would like the teams that claim to be clean, such as Sky and Garmin be a lot more open. Sky are great at putting all their power data for riders online, so lets see blood values for all the riders, lets see Garmin do the same. But then, of course, there are loads of internet scientists who will analyze them and turn them to what they want.

Credibility.. For me, Contador has more credibility Lance and about as much as Andy Schleck.

Meh.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Ram on May 02, 2012, 03:42
I'll give him credit for this one, even if it is softcock. If he can criticise Contador, then so be it and if he can criticise Armstrong, the again, so be it. At least he is taking a stance.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: DinZ on May 02, 2012, 03:55
he does have a sense of humour, even if he is a grumpy arse

Le show de Bradley Wiggins à La Chaux-de-Fonds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxWPdnjk3I8#ws)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on May 02, 2012, 08:37
he does have a sense of humour, even if he is a grumpy arse

Le show de Bradley Wiggins à La Chaux-de-Fonds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxWPdnjk3I8#ws)

Someone needs to have a word in Wiggin's ear.

1. He should conduct himself properly in a press conference as he may be speaking directly to journalists, and i use that term oh so lightly, but he is really speaking to the fans of the sport.

2. If the 'journalists' are not asking good questions he should take control of the situation and speak to the fans and tell them/us about the stage a little bit and and give us something about tomorrow.

It is called being a professional.

Great that he has a sense of humour, it is obvious his dislike of the people asking questions, but be big and professional and talk to the cameras.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: DinZ on May 02, 2012, 08:51
Someone needs to have a word in Wiggin's ear.

1. He should conduct himself properly in a press conference as he may be speaking directly to journalists, and i use that term oh so lightly, but he is really speaking to the fans of the sport.

2. If the 'journalists' are not asking good questions he should take control of the situation and speak to the fans and tell them/us about the stage a little bit and and give us something about tomorrow.

It is called being a professional.

Great that he has a sense of humour, it is obvious his dislike of the people asking questions, but be big and professional and talk to the cameras.

to be fair to Brad this is an edited version showing his non serious answers, i have not seen the full interview which may (or may not) have been more professional.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on May 02, 2012, 09:03
to be fair to Brad this is an edited version showing his non serious answers, i have not seen the full interview which may (or may not) have been more professional.

Would like to see the full unedited version.

But the journos from that clip were idiots and it is not easy to take their questions seriously when they are asking such crap and not respecting each other and not letting one ask a question before asking theirs. Such BS. But Wiggins did not seem to rise above it. But if there is a longer version i would like to see it.

He does have a sense of humour and maybe what we do see of him through the cycling media is not his fault but his twitter sure aint painting a good picture either.

 

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on May 02, 2012, 10:05
Would like to see the full unedited version.

But the journos from that clip were idiots and it is not easy to take their questions seriously when they are asking such crap and not respecting each other and not letting one ask a question before asking theirs. Such BS. But Wiggins did not seem to rise above it. But if there is a longer version i would like to see it.

He does have a sense of humour and maybe what we do see of him through the cycling media is not his fault but his twitter sure aint painting a good picture either.

I felt that the journos were half joking, half trying to provoke him into giving them an interesting headline, using the two-faced Janus technique of which journos are masters.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on May 02, 2012, 11:01
If Wiggins is clean then he is a remarkable athlete the like of which the world has rarely seen.

Just like Evans :D Two of them in consecutive years!

Everyone can just say Contador was the only filthy doper at the top, that's why he won. I think we will have the "cleanest Tour ever" rubbish from 2011 back again this July.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on May 02, 2012, 11:23
Just like Evans :D Two of them in consecutive years!

Everyone can just say Contador was the only filthy doper at the top, that's why he won. I think we will have the "cleanest Tour ever" rubbish from 2011 back again this July.

nothing wrong with cleanest tour since ........ stuff

they were riding much slower up the same Cols for many years

cleanest I buy that for a dollar

but cleaner than what ?

Since blokes were sleeping with heart monitors and wind trainers in their rooms.

so not clean but cleaner sure but in the same way 2010 was cleaner  ;)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Ram on May 02, 2012, 11:39
I've always had issues with cyclists' personal hygiene, hopefully they're cleaner nowadays. Can't imagine a soap dodging, 200km riding sweaty arse walking up to me.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on May 02, 2012, 11:40
nothing wrong with cleanest tour since ........ stuff

they were riding much slower up the same Cols for many years

cleanest I buy that for a dollar

but cleaner than what ?

Since blokes were sleeping with heart monitors and wind trainers in their rooms.

so not clean but cleaner sure but in the same way 2010 was cleaner  ;)

No one says "cleaner", they talk in absolutes, e.g. "dark old days". No one is going to say that 2007 was cleaner than 2005 was cleaner than 1996, because that's an admission that it's still not "clean".

When they say "cleanest" they mean in terms of who is doping, not to what extent individuals are doping.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Jimmythecuckoo on May 02, 2012, 15:08
He seems to me to be weary of the same old questions and the same old names coming up in press conferences.

The issues have been around for years and if anyone thinks it wont take years for them to go away then they are naive.



Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on May 03, 2012, 13:04
No one says "cleaner", they talk in absolutes,

Reminds me of when the ex Mapei boss says that Evans is the cleanest rider of the last decade, which sort of implies that everyone else has been doping, but Evans hasn't, (unless of course Evans is just doping less), because why else would Evans be cleaner than the other clean riders.

Obviously the discussion as to whether Evans is doping or not is a different one, and I don't mean to hijack this one, nor deny that his defenders to have an argument or 2.

But he does have some major points against him as well, so for someone to come out and say that everyone knows he is clean, can only hurt their credibility.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on May 03, 2012, 15:33
Wiggin's latest blog for the guardian is up.

No negative comments are allowed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/may/02/bradley-wiggins-winning-mentality (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/may/02/bradley-wiggins-winning-mentality)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on May 03, 2012, 15:42
Wiggin's latest blog for the guardian is up.

No negative comments are allowed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/may/02/bradley-wiggins-winning-mentality (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/may/02/bradley-wiggins-winning-mentality)

(http://chasmang.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/boldstate-hype-train.png?w=412&h=316)

"All aboard the express hype train to Paris, calling at: Dauphiné Libéré Parkway, Liège Central and Paris. This train terminates at Paris."
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Jamsque on May 03, 2012, 18:06
(http://chasmang.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/boldstate-hype-train.png?w=412&h=316)

"All aboard the express hype train to Paris, calling at: Dauphiné Libéré Parkway, Liège Central and Paris. This train terminates at Paris."
Choo choo, mother effers!
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on May 03, 2012, 18:52
I've booked me ticket, when's it arriving?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on May 03, 2012, 18:54
I've booked me ticket, when's it arriving?

Vuelta 2013 ?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on May 03, 2012, 18:56
That's Contador, not Wiggo.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on May 03, 2012, 19:06
Real talk: Wiggins has been working on his acceleration, and it sounds like the vast majority of his training between now and the Tour is climbing. He still has a lot to prove in that department, but so far this year he has done everything else right.

Wiggins is the number 1 Favorite for the tour as we speak

He has a great team around him with Mick, Uran, Richie, Götland ?, Cheese  - the problem is Cav but Cavs helpers will be great help for Brad.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on May 03, 2012, 19:09
This is why I love VR. First time I have ever seen a doping-related thread "go straight". Never thought I'd say this but: take it back to Men's Road Cycling, people! ;D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: flicker2.0 on May 03, 2012, 19:30
Never saw any problem with Brad. I like how he deflected the barrage of nonsense from the French journalists. Why do they waste his time, when he deserves a break.
I hope he wins the tour. He is clean, I know it.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dr. Horrible the Mad Elephant Man on May 04, 2012, 04:10
Only Wiggins knows if he is clean or not and if he has eaten some steak recently he might not know it either.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on May 04, 2012, 11:24
Only Wiggins knows if he is clean or not and if he has eaten some steak recently he might not know it either.
I think you are confusing 'being clean' with 'able to pass a dope test'.

Ideally, these two things would be more closely related than they are.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dr. Horrible the Mad Elephant Man on May 04, 2012, 12:34
I think you are confusing 'being clean' with 'able to pass a dope test'.

Ideally, these two things would be more closely related than they are.

flicker said he knew Wiggins was clean, I was just countering that.

By clean I meant takes no drugs

I don't believe he is clean so I do believe he is able to not test positive without being clean or he has given money to the right people so he can just go mad and not be worried about getting caught. I think the former is more likely though.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: flicker2.0 on May 04, 2012, 15:15
I just have respect for the world champion pursuitist, whether it is Coppi, Anquentiel, Merckx, Ritter, Wiggins, Phinney.
I believe that the attributes of a great TT man (another Tony Martin) can equate into an excellent stage racer, which Wiggins has become. Riding the boards as he has and achieving Olympic Gold multiple times proves to me that Brad has lazerlike focus. It really shows if you compare the focus and courage of Wiggins compared to the raw talent of A. Schleck.

I know that most of the aforementioned riders doped,(and I consider amphetamines dope, unlike some peoples opinion,) but that does not mean Wiggins is a doper.
I do think someone like D. Millar or LeMond would be able to tell though, even without a positive drug test.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on June 08, 2012, 15:28
whaddya think? ..he looks good for the tour.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: mew on June 08, 2012, 17:21
whaddya think? ..he looks good for the tour.

Well, it looks as if his prep for the Tour is coming along perfectly.
Subtle he's not
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on June 09, 2012, 16:10
I changed the title

anyone willing to discuss the (http://www.dreamstime.com/cute-pink-elephant-thumb11613085.jpg), in the corner.

Dauphine: Wiggins and Sky dominate the Joux Plane

stage 6 just completed

Maybe we need some maths done on watts etc

Zam posted this in the chat - Porte-Wiggins group on Col de Joux-Plane (starting from the sharp bend) - 35 min 36 sec. VAM of 1603 m/hr (based on ascent of 981m) which equates to about 6.0 w/kg  now Froome, Rogers and Wiggins would be lower due to less wind but Porte should be about right.

But the question needs to be asked when was the last time you saw something like that ?

The thing that concerns me is Porte, Mick and Froome are not normally in the top 9 of the best climbers in a peloton.

Wiggins I just do not know anymore.

I am at a lose and we should discuss it.

Great ride sure but all 4 ?

Froome really concerns me nothing to Vuelta nothing to now.

please no overly emotional responses
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on June 09, 2012, 16:31
I think porte, froome, rogers always had the ability. Todays stage really wasnt that tough, and I dont think the power figures will be anthing to write home about.

Pretty much just rode a decent tempo all the way. Pretty week feild as well, only BMC have anything close to their first squad there, the rest are all a bit of a mish mash with no teams really interested in taking it to sky at this stage. I think as well, Porte and possibly Froome at another team would be team leaders for this race, certainly if Porte had gone to Greenedge he would be wearing the team leader jersey. Theyve sent a team much stronger than any of the others (and a pants team to switzerland)

I think Sky are the only ones taking this race seriously.

If in a month, they do the same thing, against BMC's strongest 9, Liquigas strongest 9, Astana, Radioshack, etc etc then a lot of questions will be asked.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: sublimit on June 09, 2012, 16:38
Froome is good, he's always been able to time trial and climb but he's managed to hold the consistency where he would always blow on a particular day in the past. 

The fact that he's not ill surprises me.   But he's clearly a different rider from a few years back though he's still only young despite seemingly being around for ages.

Froome representing Kenya in the Commonwealth games ITT from 6 years ago. some interesting names like Tuft, Brammier riding for Britain kind of up there also. :-\   Cummings another quality rider in that time trial.

  http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=6622 (http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=6622)

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on June 09, 2012, 17:23
I changed the title

anyone willing to discuss the (http://www.dreamstime.com/cute-pink-elephant-thumb11613085.jpg), in the corner.

Dauphine: Wiggins and Sky dominate the Joux Plane

stage 6 just completed

Maybe we need some maths done on watts etc

Zam posted this in the chat - Porte-Wiggins group on Col de Joux-Plane (starting from the sharp bend) - 35 min 36 sec. VAM of 1603 m/hr (based on ascent of 981m) which equates to about 6.0 w/kg  now Froome, Rogers and Wiggins would be lower due to less wind but Porte should be about right.

But the question needs to be asked when was the last time you saw something like that ?

The thing that concerns me is Porte, Mick and Froome are not normally in the top 9 of the best climbers in a peloton.

Wiggins I just do not know anymore.

I am at a lose and we should discuss it.

Great ride sure but all 4 ?

Froome really concerns me nothing to Vuelta nothing to now.

please no overly emotional responses
I'm getting 5.5W/kg, just a bit shy of that in fact. The only difference could be wind speed, but seeing as that condition has not been mentioned, I'll take for granted that it wasn't considered, and I'm taking Porte's weight here.

Around 6 for Fromage. Still hovering around 5.5 for me.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on June 09, 2012, 18:19
Quote
“It’s never about messages as much as people would love it to be,” Wiggins said. “We’re just trying to do a job and we’re doing it as efficiently and as professionally as possible. We’ve trained hard as a team. Each individual has worked as hard as I have and we’re getting the job done using our strengths. We haven’t got the arrogance to go about sending out messages.”

With one day to go, Wiggins holds a healthy 1:20 lead over his teammate Rogers, with Cadel Evans (BMC) a further 16 seconds behind in third. Such has been the firmness of Sky’s policing on the Dauphiné’s climbs that comparisons have been drawn between their tactics and those of Lance Armstrong and his former US Postal team. Given that his formative years coincided neatly with the reign of Miguel Indurain, however, Wiggins preferred to name check the Spaniard’s Banesto squad.

“It’s very similar and obviously for anyone who can remember, Banesto used to do a similar thing. A lot of people haven’t been in cycling for that long so they won’t remember them,” Wiggins said pointedly. “That was how they raced. You race to your strengths, as efficiently as possible and one day at a time. That’s what we’re doing. It works and we’re not going to change it.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/video-wiggins-focused-on-the-task-in-hand-at-dauphine (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/video-wiggins-focused-on-the-task-in-hand-at-dauphine)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on June 09, 2012, 18:21
Ok thanks Ram for the redo on the maths.

Of course people should get the benefit of the doubt, and Dim waiting for the tour I can see that.

I still have issues - Mick is not that good either is froome and Porte imo

BMC need Cummings to not crash and have form or the tour will be over before it started
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on June 09, 2012, 19:33
Just realised that I use a different type of calculation :fp

Using the VAM technique and estimating power from that, the average is somewhere around 5.6, so not much of a difference from my calculation at all (2% difference or so).

The difference in method being that I'd used the conventional method, I think (of course I'd think that), of calculation of work done in climbing up an ascent (considering forces of friction and weight components) and calculation of power from that and the given time. No biggy, just some spam.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on June 09, 2012, 19:51
I think porte, froome, rogers always had the ability. Todays stage really wasnt that tough, and I dont think the power figures will be anthing to write home about.

Every top team at the Dauphine has riders that always had the ability, BMC and Rabo to name 2

Pretty much just rode a decent tempo all the way. Pretty week feild as well, only BMC have anything close to their first squad there, the rest are all a bit of a mish mash with no teams really interested in taking it to sky at this stage. I think as well, Porte and possibly Froome at another team would be team leaders for this race, certainly if Porte had gone to Greenedge he would be wearing the team leader jersey. Theyve sent a team much stronger than any of the others (and a pants team to switzerland)

But we saw this at Postal/Discovery with Heras, Salvodelli, Hamilton, Leipheimer and Landis. It does look like Sky are following a certain other team with blue in its colour.

I think Sky are the only ones taking this race seriously.

I think every team is taking this race seriously. French teams are attacking everyday. Rabos are getting into breaks. LLSanchez having a go. These are not rdiers jut participating and waiting for July.

If in a month, they do the same thing, against BMC's strongest 9, Liquigas strongest 9, Astana, Radioshack, etc etc then a lot of questions will be asked.

I think we are seeing a 'dry run' for the TdF.

I cannot believe Sky are performing in a similar vein to the infamous 'blue train' without 'assistance'.

I am sorry but this sport has had all this before and no i dont believe in miracles whether they are blue, argyle or blue and black.

Are we suggesting that Bruyneel has given up the 'doping'. What about Astana? Katusha? Movistar? Come on these teams as far as we can see have no reason to drop their programs.

So that points to Tenerife being that if you cant beat them join them then beat them.



Title: Re: Sky
Post by: usedtobefast on June 09, 2012, 23:11
Well, it looks as if his prep for the Tour is coming along perfectly.
Subtle he's not
that team is well "prepared" reminds me of of Garmin. they finally figured that close to winning isn't winning. thus we see
better results.... :fp ;D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on June 09, 2012, 23:14
These are always a bit awkward as I am British and as such want Sky to succeed. I'd hope that wouldn't make me blind to doping issues but I admit may well make me see them in a more benign light.

Point 1. Sky did this at the Dauphine last year, with the difference that Rogers and Froome weren't fit and Porte was at Saxo. But in essence the race is following a similar pattern with EBH blasting it up the lower slopes of the big climbs, the difference being that they now have other quality riders to hand over to. And these riders were recruited to do exactly this job. And these riders are renowned tempo climbers unlike say Hincapie in the US Postal days.

Point 2. The field. Quintana rode away from them, Weening kept up with them, as did Kiryenka and Zubeldia. In the Tour these guys won't be a factor in a few weeks time but all those like Nibali, Schleck etc who were getting shelled will be. And yet people think this is symptomatic of doping at Sky?

fwiw I'm very distrustful of Froome, Rogers's past doesn't make him an obvious candidate for being mr clean. The rest? pretty much untainted I'd say and as such no more suspicious than anyone else in the peloton and a great deal less suspicious than many.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: DinZ on June 09, 2012, 23:39
Agree captain. My personal opinion, thir overall performance could be suspect ( or could actually be down to the incredibly intense altitude training camps they have been in) but not convinced yesterday showed anything suspicious. None of he rides involved have exactly come out of no where. Rodgers, Froome, Porte and wiggins have all shown form before. Weening in he front group?

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: mew on June 10, 2012, 00:03
Good points and if this dominance continues through the Tour then I believe it will be quite suspect.  :-\ :o
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on June 10, 2012, 06:38
From cineteq

Quote
Porte today on Col de Joux Plane 35:36. Pantani 1997 32:55 Ullrich 97 33:50
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Havetts on June 10, 2012, 09:53
Then again Porte rode the Joux Plane faster than Sastre did in 2006 in the Tour stage.

But impressive showing, its pretty odd seeing 4 sky there when theres only 9 remaining, but conclusions will only be drawn during the Tour whether this was peak form or something else.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on June 10, 2012, 09:57
Then again Porte rode the Joux Plane faster than Sastre did in 2006 in the Tour stage.

But impressive showing, its pretty odd seeing 4 sky there when theres only 9 remaining, but conclusions will only be drawn during the Tour whether this was peak form or something else.

any idea what time they did in 2005 ?

Dauphiné Libéré 2005 - Climb of the Joux-Plane (1/3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSa3_DUeD3k#)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on June 10, 2012, 10:02
Not too convinced about a nailed on doping programme going by the numbers, so far, and the riders in that group yesterday. Do that in the Tour, and that's suspicious.

Captain Cav also raises a fair point about the likelihood of a dingleberry becoming an eagle, that's also a case for suspicion.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on June 10, 2012, 10:14
Yeah ... its a little suspicious, but not of the 'totally impossible' scale at the moment.

If this happens all tour long, then some questions will certainly be asked, but for now - doing it at the Dauphine ... in the circumstances - I dont think its quite that bad.

I am super surprised at the form of Mick Rogers ... but Froome and Porte not so much.  EBH has always been great, just a matter of getting it right at the right time.

Will certainly be interesting times to come anyway
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on June 10, 2012, 10:18
Yeah ... its a little suspicious, but not of the 'totally impossible' scale at the moment.

If this happens all tour long, then some questions will certainly be asked, but for now - doing it at the Dauphine ... in the circumstances - I dont think its quite that bad.

I am super surprised at the form of Mick Rogers ... but Froome and Porte not so much.  EBH has always been great, just a matter of getting it right at the right time.

Will certainly be interesting times to come anyway

Why not Froome

he has been okish while are Barloworld (?)

Then sh*t - pops out of no where to podium the Vuelta

said a had this and this virus etc but now healthy

then sick again no form then bang

Froome is a major What the for me

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on June 10, 2012, 10:22
Maybe, but he didn't exactly climb with an elite group yesterday. remove Wiggins and Evans and it would be a sh*t small race, that front group.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on June 10, 2012, 10:29
Maybe, but he didn't exactly climb with an elite group yesterday. remove Wiggins and Evans and it would be a sh*t small race, that front group.

Not saying your wrong because you are correct, and as the times of Marco etc show they were slower.

but it does raise an eyebrow when out of 160 ish that 4 sky are top 10 ITT and then 3 of them are top 10 climbers.

as I said in response to Dim fair enough waiting for the tour and if we see a UK postal express then there are questions to be asked
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on June 10, 2012, 10:32
Its hard to judge when its the prep-race though.

Those who can challenge dont want to - just want to judge their legs.  They dont want to go too deep, so they pace themselves, have a good race and drop off when they feel they need to.

Sky had the motivation ... they wanted to test their train, put on a show of force to play the mind games with BMC and Evans. 

For me the surprise was that BMC exploded and Cadel was left with only TJVG ....
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on June 10, 2012, 10:36
Not saying your wrong because you are correct, and as the times of Marco etc show they were slower.

but it does raise an eyebrow when out of 160 ish that 4 sky are top 10 ITT and then 3 of them are top 10 climbers.

as I said in response to Dim fair enough waiting for the tour and if we see a UK postal express then there are questions to be asked
Nah, I wasn't thinking of the numbers then. Just thought that the select group wasn't the best. I don't think they'll replicate it in the tour de Frace, and if they do, make a space on sky organised doping bandwagon.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Tuart on June 11, 2012, 15:19
Class/Current form of the rest of the pack has to be taken into account too. The riders in the UK Postal Group:

Evans
Kiryienka
Weening
VDB2
Zubeldia

Just off the back:
Moreno
Brajkovic
Machado
TJVG

Oh yeah and Quintana off the front. All decent riders and no slouches but hardly and "elite" group of GT GC contenders, so it was a dominant display for the Dauphine and you can draw parallels to certain infamous teams but it'll be a different kettle of fish if they'll be able to do the same thing at the Tour.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Cobblestones on June 11, 2012, 18:20
Wiggins had great form for most of the year winning P.-N., Romandie, Dauphine. Should he then be able to recuperate well enough during the third week?

The sky train looked very impressive last week. Should I expect Rogers to also lead the peloton up the Pyrenees?

Should I expect one team to credibly attempt the Green and Yellow?

None of that would feel right.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: bicing on June 11, 2012, 20:50
Bradley Wiggins and Team Sky will absolutely dominate the Tour de France like nobody has seen in recent years.

Why?

He devulged his secret three days ago:

Quote from: Bradley Wiggins
“My coach has not been in cycling for long, he’s come from swimming, so I’ve pretty much been training like the swimmers train,” Wiggins told reporters in Bourg-en-Bresse. “I’ve been constantly training through the year, so it’s not like the traditional way for cycling, which is starting in January fat or in really bad condition, and then building, building and showing form in these races.”

Next year, everyone will be training like swimmers.

Tim Kerrison knows where the money is.  Once he wins the TdF with Wiggins he'll go solo. He will start offering training advice to top athletes. He will keep individual swimming suits for all his cyclists with code names on them, like the rider's dog's names.

Tim Kerrison's other genius training secrets

Streamline your way to success, with streamline positioning - http://www.camdenswisscottage.co.uk/site_downloads/370/FinalStreamlineyourwaytosuccessbacktobackformat%5B1%5D.pdf (http://www.camdenswisscottage.co.uk/site_downloads/370/FinalStreamlineyourwaytosuccessbacktobackformat%5B1%5D.pdf)

Training for race specific speed,  - http://books.google.ro/books?id=qnTDBoAxF_UC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=Tim+Kerrison+swimming&source=bl&ots=BeXZK0wRbZ&sig=pWRg-zE6-BV2Sk-bdTeLGLImGp0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=N0fWT_vJMPHP4QTwvKmsAw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Tim%20Kerrison%20swimming&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=qnTDBoAxF_UC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=Tim+Kerrison+swimming&source=bl&ots=BeXZK0wRbZ&sig=pWRg-zE6-BV2Sk-bdTeLGLImGp0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=N0fWT_vJMPHP4QTwvKmsAw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Tim%20Kerrison%20swimming&f=false)

GreenEye Swim Analysis OR QAS Interactive Race Analysis and Video System- his software system for swimming performance - see page 8 of http://members.westnet.com.au/stringybark/tumbalong/yb2002.pdf (http://members.westnet.com.au/stringybark/tumbalong/yb2002.pdf)

the "reverse" strategy of building up speed first and later moving up distance (as opposed to the traditional swim tendency to go the distance first then work on the speed later) with sports scientist Tim Kerrison - http://www.swimnews.com/News/view/3764 (http://www.swimnews.com/News/view/3764)

Of course marginal gains (but here they're explained) - http://israelirowingfederation.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/fisa-2011-scott-gardner2.pdf (http://israelirowingfederation.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/fisa-2011-scott-gardner2.pdf)

Nothing to learn from this, his coaching record for rowing - http://www.rowingone.com/pdf/018919.pdf (http://www.rowingone.com/pdf/018919.pdf)



THIS GUY'S A PROPHET
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on June 12, 2012, 14:51


anyone willing to discuss the (http://www.dreamstime.com/cute-pink-elephant-thumb11613085.jpg), in the corner
Ryder Hejsdal ?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: taiwan on June 12, 2012, 15:22
OK, someone explain - what did Froome ever do to foreshadow his 2011 Vuelta performance and give him credibility?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on June 12, 2012, 21:56
OK, someone explain - what did Froome ever do to foreshadow his 2011 Vuelta performance and give him credibility?

as far as chris goes, hed only actually done two years at barloworld as a pro before joining sky.

Rode two grand tours for Barloworld, the tour where he finished 84th (12th placed young rider) and the Giro where he finished 36th (7th placed young rider).

For a kid who was at the time, what, 23 years old, and just a few days shy of 24 in the giro thats actaully pretty impressive. Compare with say wiggins who has finished 123rd, 134th, 71st and 40th in the giro, and 124th, 4th and 24th in the tour..

2010 was pretty much a write off but to be fair the whole team were crap in the gt's. 2011 it was finally "discovered" that he had an illness, and then rode the vuelta.

But if you consider that he finished his first tour, 84th ona team that only had four riders finish the race (barloworld didnt ride the tour in 2009) and 36th in his first giro still aged 23, you could argue hes always had the potential.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on June 12, 2012, 22:05
Also if my memory serves me correctly he came 10th in the TDS 2011 TT so it was obvious he was in some kind of form.
Of course it was out of the blue but as Dim portrayed less out of the blue than some people may expect.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: usedtobefast on June 14, 2012, 02:30
swimmers they are clean and above reproach for sure. :wave :fp
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: flicker2.0 on June 21, 2012, 06:37
any idea what time they did in 2005 ?

Dauphiné Libéré 2005 - Climb of the Joux-Plane (1/3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSa3_DUeD3k#)

Thanks, what great riding by those in that clip. Whatever Tygert says, those were some epic climbs by that group. Real exciting stuff.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: taiwan on June 23, 2012, 09:52
as far as chris goes, hed only actually done two years at barloworld as a pro before joining sky.

Rode two grand tours for Barloworld, the tour where he finished 84th (12th placed young rider) and the Giro where he finished 36th (7th placed young rider).

For a kid who was at the time, what, 23 years old, and just a few days shy of 24 in the giro thats actaully pretty impressive. Compare with say wiggins who has finished 123rd, 134th, 71st and 40th in the giro, and 124th, 4th and 24th in the tour..

2010 was pretty much a write off but to be fair the whole team were crap in the gt's. 2011 it was finally "discovered" that he had an illness, and then rode the vuelta.

But if you consider that he finished his first tour, 84th ona team that only had four riders finish the race (barloworld didnt ride the tour in 2009) and 36th in his first giro still aged 23, you could argue hes always had the potential.

ty, I  had another look at cyclingarchives and CQ also, and saw some climbing performances in e.g. Italian races and TT results which I hadn't noticed. The Vuelta jump was maybe less marked than I previously thought, although his podium is clearly on a totally different scale to a nything he had done previously.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on June 26, 2012, 12:02
Lol
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Flo on July 07, 2012, 16:26
Obvious team Sky doping is obvious.  :police:
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 07, 2012, 16:29
Very much likely, but rich coming from a Contador innocent believer.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Havetts on July 07, 2012, 16:30
Shiii when people like Froome start dropping Ferrari-clients like Menchov and Nibali, Geert Leinders mustve had some "Marginal Gains" in his doping knowledge. Holy sh*t this is funny.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 07, 2012, 16:38
But what are the others on? Diarrhoea biscuits? Everyone seems to be flopping badly.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Havetts on July 07, 2012, 16:39
As Ferminal so nicely said on the other side; its because Sky have a swimming trainer. :)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: taiwan on July 07, 2012, 16:40
CN forum down? LOL. Clinic traffic must have increased x10
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 07, 2012, 16:44
As Ferminal so nicely said on the other side; its because Sky have a swimming trainer. :)
Dodgy no doubt, but Taaramae better than Menchov? Brajkovic better than all them other expected favourites? They don't really strike me as Sandy Schleck quality even.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Flo on July 07, 2012, 16:45
Very much likely, but rich coming from a Contador innocent believer.

 ::) That's not true.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: taiwan on July 07, 2012, 16:51
But back on topic it seems they are the 'chosen'team this year. Could almost stop watching.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on July 07, 2012, 17:15
Dodgy no doubt, but Taaramae better than Menchov? Brajkovic better than all them other expected favourites? They don't really strike me as Sandy Schleck quality even.

exactly, this is why the form of the big guys need to be questioned, taaramae, nico roche, dan martin, making kloden, valverde, basso, menchov looking like sunday riders. The question is much more where their form has gone./
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on July 07, 2012, 17:32
Yes sky are suspicious but question the other riders form too. Lol
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: mew on July 07, 2012, 17:37
But what are the others on? Diarrhoea biscuits? Everyone seems to be flopping badly.

Figured this comment was from you RAM! 
 ;D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 07, 2012, 17:43
 :-[
The fingers just lose control sometimes
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: taiwan on July 07, 2012, 18:04
IDK you could see how riders like Menchov/Sanchez might be looking to peak a bit later. I suppose we'll have to wait and see whether Sky drop off in the third week.

ROFL

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 07, 2012, 18:14
Two things-
Even if not on peak form, should they be in such bad form that they be dropped?

If so, isn't that just as dodgy as Sky?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: taiwan on July 07, 2012, 18:33
Two things-
Even if not on peak form, should they be in such bad form that they be dropped?

If so, isn't that just as dodgy as Sky?
IDK what outcome would have indicated being not in peak form, if not being dropped? Staying s.t. as Wiggins presumably, but then how would we know they weren't in peak form? I don't get the distinction between not peak/bad form.

b) No - how would Menchov being dropped be possibly indicative of him doping? It's the opposite of what's being seen from Sky. Unsure why it's even being brought up in relation to them.

I mean this is the Sky thread.

edit - if Roche and Taaramae are consistently better than The Bigs then 'we'll talk' - in another thread.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 07, 2012, 18:47
How can a Sky doping topic with nothing but relative performances to other riders be confined to them only. It can only be comparative, and I'm not going to go batsh*t.

And you misunderstand. Being sh*t enough to be dropped by Taaramae one week and then be an ace Menchov (so called peaking) in week 3 is what I'd think as dodgy as around. Cancellara today was the dodgiest of the lot for mine along with Gallopin. A donkey outclimbing proper climbers? And where was he in Suisse? Sure he doesn't have enough race days, but such a spurt? And Gallopin pacing Schleck?
Fine tuning a peak to a day is just the reason that Schleck gets suspected, and not without reason too. It's the same extrapolation. I don't believe this Sky team is clean (maybe not an organised doping programme, but clean? hardly), flip I don't think any top rider is.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on July 07, 2012, 18:48
lol
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 07, 2012, 18:51
basso menchov never like these types of finishes too many changes in gradient etc

same pace riders

some riders suffer 1st day in the small ring

Piti had a flat
JVDB2 Flat

here is the thing Froome and Wiggo are same pace riders ie same as Menchov and Basso did not suffer

something strange is occurring

there are 2 answers and a combination

old dopers are no longer doping or to the same level

Sky have a great program

or both  ;)

This finish should have Evans all over it but suddenly Froome is the guy  ::)  and this is after setting the pace for 3ish km

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: taiwan on July 07, 2012, 18:55
How can a Sky doping topic with nothing but relative performances to other riders be confined to them only. It can only be comparative, and I'm not going to go batsh*t.

And you misunderstand. Being sh*t enough to be dropped by Taaramae one week and then be an ace Menchov (so called peaking) in week 3 is what I'd think as dodgy as around. Cancellara today was the dodgiest of the lot for mine along with Gallopin. A donkey outclimbing proper climbers? And where was he in Suisse? Sure he doesn't have enough race days, but such a spurt? And Gallopin pacing Schleck?
Fine tuning a peak to a day is just the reason that Schleck gets suspected, and not without reason too. It's the same extrapolation. I don't believe this Sky team is clean (maybe not an organised doping programme, but clean?), flip I don't think any top rider is.

Well what do you think is happening? I considered there that you meant controls were tighter, and guys like Menchov couldn't return to their previous methods --> couldn't perform. I mean I suppose I'd have to accept that was a possibility unless people were producing unrealistic numbers. But what's your take?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 07, 2012, 18:59
here is what Evans thought

Quote
Evans made a bid for the stage win in the final 400 meters, but he was overtaken by stage winner and Wiggins' teammate Chris Froome, who counter-attacked to win by two seconds ahead of the pair. "I wanted to get some speed going into the curve," Evans said. "You try to take what advantage you can. Froome was really incredible. He rode the last three kilometers or something, so to follow me and then accelerate past me, he could probably take the climb at his own rhythm. From behind, it looked like he went easy." In the end, only five riders finished within 20 seconds of Froome.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on July 07, 2012, 19:12
Rogers  lol
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 07, 2012, 19:14
Well what do you think is happening? I considered there that you meant controls were tighter, and guys like Menchov couldn't return to their previous methods --> couldn't perform. I mean I suppose I'd have to accept that was a possibility unless people were producing unrealistic numbers. But what's your take?
My take is, Sky's dodgy, but let's wait for something more concrete, or even sandy, maybe some figures about times? And will they do it in the third week? I really hope not.

As for the ultra fine peaking concept has left a sour taste thanks to the previous era's GT winners, and I'm not willing to trust that either, and neither will I trust super dominance. So, if a Menchov or Sanchez suddenly start peaking in week 3 or so, that will also definitely beggar a question or two. Surely a spurt in form like Cacellara's today, which has largely been ignored, is also questionable.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: taiwan on July 07, 2012, 19:35
IDK why Cancellara's performance or those of the favourites who lost time would raise as many eyebrows as Sky again turning up with multiple climbing domestiques who are as strong as other teams GC riders, and are all pretty much as good as they've ever been uphill (when did Porte ever do such a job for Contador? Not as if that Saxo team had an excess of mountain domestiques). And even if Canc had won the stage today, that would be for another thread really.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 07, 2012, 19:56
It started off as just Wiggins, and became Sky/Wiggins, and maybe with more Cancellara in it it will be Wiggins/Sky/Cancellara. It's only a thread in the end. WGAF? And that I'm half on topic is a success.

About Cancellara- he's a heavyweight, he's not a climber, and he was flying past many better climbers. Kloeden, geriatric fliper, but still should be a better climber any day than Canc. Peraud, Tejay, Leipho. Surely that's as weird as four questionable yet qualified climbers controlling on a climb. 2010 is always ignored when talking about Porte, he rode before 2011 and wasn't terrible in 2010, a bit of luck or not. Cancellara was dodgy of the day for me.

About the favourites, my point was about the supposed peaking for the third week only. That was the scope of it, and I don't think I've said dropping off is doping. Don't know where that came from.

As for being on topic, I could half try to do some calculations and be ultra rough scientific with the times and not discuss the topic with gas and no steel, but I was too flipping happy to watch a stage on the telly that I didn't give a sh*t about the timing of the climb or some sort and will have to wait for it to be played to me.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: taiwan on July 07, 2012, 20:08
Well if you want to make an absurd Sky-Cancellara thread then that's your lookout, I don't see much milage in it tbh. I think the idea of staying on topic is to avoid people posting irrelevant information. It might be worth a go. Why not just humour us and talk about the topic in the title?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on July 07, 2012, 20:15
I think cancellara is relevant in that it shows the Sky werent actually going that mad at the front, the fact he managed to finish in front of half of his team says a lot. It certainly indicates that today was more a matter of a lot of riders riding very badly, than sky riding particularly ridiculously.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on July 07, 2012, 20:16
Ram the thing with sky is its not only today, this has been for awhile..the same guys inform. At the dauphine we were told to wait for the tdf and now we have to wait again?  ...  fabian as strange as it was, it was only today. So i dont think you can compare.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 07, 2012, 20:19
And when did I say Sky aren't dodgy now?

Cancellara has had more than on a few occasions been strange by the same mileage. But i better stop, it obviously doesn't bode well to talk about Cancellara ;)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on July 07, 2012, 20:22
You keep saying lets wait for something more concrete..when did fabian do well in the mountains continuosly?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on July 07, 2012, 20:23
whatever. rogers  again lol
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 07, 2012, 20:26
The concrete being any times available so the doubts would have some quantifiable values to it. It could be outrageous for all we know, or it could be mundane too. Nothing wrong in waiting for that.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: taiwan on July 07, 2012, 20:31
Once upon a time Wiggins was a heavyweight rouleur/TT specialist like Cancellara. The transformation isn't quite on the same scale. It's all speculation, but if one team apparently has 3 or 4 of the strongest climbers in the race, a flag goes up. The Dauphinee was similar, you could just about call it a pattern. But it's speculation.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on July 07, 2012, 20:34
conclusion - eyebows raised?   ;D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Anthony Moan on July 07, 2012, 20:51
This is Sky, lean mean blue machine 8)
Note at 3:20 that yellow Seat driver throwing a water bottle, idiot, Wiggins go mad and starting to chase him down ;D, my man. Go Wiggins!!!
TTT TRAINING GIRO 2010. TEAM SKY. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUEyBjV2eeA#ws)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on July 07, 2012, 22:20
basso menchov never like these types of finishes too many changes in gradient etc

same pace riders

some riders suffer 1st day in the small ring

Piti had a flat
JVDB2 Flat

here is the thing Froome and Wiggo are same pace riders ie same as Menchov and Basso did not suffer

something strange is occurring

there are 2 answers and a combination

old dopers are no longer doping or to the same level

Sky have a great program

or both  ;)


This finish should have Evans all over it but suddenly Froome is the guy  ::)  and this is after setting the pace for 3ish km

I think this is the marginal gains we are talking about with sky.

I reckon they have worked out what is the acceptable limit of performance enhancement without going over the 6.2w/kg level that Aldo Sassi set. This is the marginal gains they have been perfecting, getting their TdF team to that and being able to keep it at that.

Whether it is with traditional PEDs or new ones. I thin they have honed it to as near as perfection for keeping it just under anti-doping and science of power meter performances. Ie make it look real and keep the numbers about as real as possible.

The others are not doping the normal levels. Why? flip only knows!
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 07, 2012, 22:23
not that this is fact or anything but is shows the length Sky have gone too

setting watts for climbs

Asked if he was surprised that none of his rivals had attacked, Wiggins said: "I was little bit. I knew I was dictating the pace and that I wanted to keep it high threshold and not go too much into the red and I knew that if someone wanted to attack off that pace they’d have to be going quite a bit more, which I know is not really sustainable if we’re riding at 470 to 480 Watts. Someone is going to have to go a lot harder to sustain that. As long as we gauge it like that I knew we’d be alright."
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: usedtobefast on July 07, 2012, 22:55
I think cancellara is relevant in that it shows the Sky werent actually going that mad at the front, the fact he managed to finish in front of half of his team says a lot. It certainly indicates that today was more a matter of a lot of riders riding very badly, than sky riding particularly ridiculously.

aw come on Dave. Sky's program is getting results, just like other teams from the past. don't you think? we need a holding your nose emoticon, yes?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on July 08, 2012, 00:46
aw come on Dave. Sky's program is getting results, just like other teams from the past. don't you think? we need a holding your nose emoticon, yes?

im not going to comment on wether i think sky are doping or not, that said, in the event of a positive for the team there is a holding page on teamskyfans which would immediately be put in place suspending all activity on the site.

However, i think todays stage is being blown out of all proportion, it was a short steep climb, not a 20km alpine climb that was preceded by a couple of cat 1's, the performance of some of the so called clmbers was bizarre to say the least, and we saw the likes of Porte and Froome who are currently accepted as decent talents grinding out the pace. But when we are seeing the likes of Cancellara making mincemeat out of so called climbers I think we have to question the pathetic performance of some of the "contenders" when putting it in perspective.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on July 08, 2012, 01:07
Very much likely, but rich coming from a Contador innocent believer.

When riding for Contador, the guy who was shredding the heads of state to pieces today until only 8 remained,  was doing more or less  the same thing only to the autobus 20 minutes back.

Not an attack on your point,  just a follow on observation of how much more the pee sky are taking than Contador did.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Slow Rider on July 08, 2012, 01:26
Is Sky's performace really that out of this world? Froome has shown this kind of gradients is what he excels at. Beating Evans is a surprise, sure, but Evans seemed to have mistimed his jump completely imo.

And in Wiggins case, he was barely 10 seconds ahead of Taaramae.. I mean, he did good, but let's not jump to conclusions here. If both Wiggins and Froome continue riding this way and dropping everyone straight off their wheels, then that would be suspicious. But this one stage, not sure how much can be concluded from this. Evans and Nibali will only improve over time, while Wiggins seemed to have a higher form entering the Tour, so it only makes sense he is at a relative peak form now while the other two will improve further.

We'll see what happens over the next few days. I'm not going to call anyone a doper just yet.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 08, 2012, 02:15
When riding for Contador, the guy who was shredding the heads of state to pieces today until only 8 remained,  was doing more or less  the same thing only to the autobus 20 minutes back.

Not an attack on your point,  just a follow on observation of how much more the pee sky are taking than Contador did.
No worries, and I'm not blind to it, but it's not like he was flying from day one in his career, and that he ripped everyone unassisted.

Also, it's not like Sandy and Contador would've been in the field of five or so if they had been in top form, if Taaramae of all could hang on.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on July 08, 2012, 03:32
Ok - having thought about it for a little while ...

the performances

Wiggins - while I did expect Evans to try and put some time into him on that final steep ramp, its not super surprising that Wiggo could stay with him.   Nothing much OTT about Wiggins today.   

Overall - his performace over the last 4 years is extraordinary ... but he was a top class track cyclist so obviously has some talent on a bike, and has the dedication to make the most of it.  Its not outside the realms of probability that every now and then someone will come to the top in this manner ...

Froome - today he had a good day.  If he does this on the high mountains (Vuelta style) I might ask some questions, but he is obviously a talented guy, so this kind of performance isnt over the top from him.

Porte - has shown flashes of brilliance before, so not really above and beyond to think he would preform at this Tour.  He gave it his all and was riding for the bottom of the mountain, not the top ... so dropping off guys who were riding for the top isnt unexpected.

Rogers - he is the only one really that I find his performances suspect.  His career trajectory is pretty suss ...

EBH - totally expected.  nothing new there

A lot about yesterday was about who wasnt there and didnt perform rather than who was left
- no contador
- no andy schleck
- samu has not been the same since his fall in the Dauphine.  His prologue shows that
- valverde had a puncture at 10kms to go
- JVDB had a mechanical at 20 kms to go
- Gesink, Frank Schleck, Brajkovic, Dan Martin all hurt yesterday and obviously affected
- rodriquez and hesjedal both out of the race

- Menchov ... bit surprising he dropped off
- Rolland - he only dropped off at the very end
- TJVG - I would have expected to have stayed the distance ... this isnt an actual mountain after all ...
- Nibbles stayed .. couldnt attack at the end but didnt lose much
- I was surprised that Jelle Vanendert wasnt there ... but maybe he was trying to help JVDB get back

Really ... this was more about some of the others than about Sky.





Title: Re: Sky
Post by: jobiwan on July 08, 2012, 03:39
I personally don't know. It's not impossible that it was a completely clean performance; it's just that the way cycling goes you have to question almost everything.

I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but the sight of one team just drilling almost everyone else off the front just brings back bad memories.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 08, 2012, 07:01
not sure where this goes so in here

only a blind person could not see the innuendo by the author

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/nibali-froome-was-the-most-impressive (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/nibali-froome-was-the-most-impressive)

Quote
In recent seasons, the opening mountaintop finish of the Tour has tended to be a rather tentative affair, and beforehand Nibali said that he anticipated more of the same this time around. Instead, in an echo of the extremes of the Lance Armstrong era, Sky set to work from the foot of the climb and scattered the peloton to the four winds.

 ::)

Froome most impressive to Nibbles as well
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Damiano Machiavelli on July 08, 2012, 07:14
My take is, Sky's dodgy, but let's wait for something more concrete, or even sandy, maybe some figures about times?

The figures are in.

(http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg71/BroDeal/bloodgraph2012.png)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: flicker2.0 on July 08, 2012, 07:17
Hagan, Porte, Wiggins, were believably talented today. Froome, Mick, ET. Not that talented, riding above their capabilities, shades of T Mobile.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 08, 2012, 08:08
The figures are in.

(http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg71/BroDeal/bloodgraph2012.png)

where do these come figures come from ?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 08, 2012, 08:13
The figures are in.

(http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg71/BroDeal/bloodgraph2012.png)

Fair enough. Source?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on July 08, 2012, 08:27
AG: yes, Vanendert dropped back (way too late) to help out that filthy-mouthed yokel VDB. Belgian francophone commentary lamented Lotto's decisionmaking but the fact was that, apart from protected Vanendert and a token Adam Hansen, Lotto was all out of riders.

The most significant, indisputable fact in this thread so far is that Teamskyfans has a nuclear contingency plan. Loving Dim for that display of meticulous webmastering. ;D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Gravel Rash on July 08, 2012, 12:04
Porte and Rogers tearing the peloton apart in the TDF. That's lol worthy.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on July 08, 2012, 12:08
Copied from the Shoutbox:

Firstly the accusations from the clinic all seem to be a bit wishful and I dont think any of them have a strong enough basis. Also it doesnt really seem to be part of the British culture to have widespread doping and I dont see who high up would have originally introduced it to the team, a lot of these British riders are very against it and I cant imagine they wouldnt speak out and leave if they realised what was going on even if Wiggins, Froome etc were involved. Also Sky's transparency makes it seem unlikely but of course it can be gotten over. Yet on the other hand the perfomances of the Sky riders are pretty unrealistic and it does seem strange, is it due to the marginal gains and training which is so meticulously planned and the new techniques by guys like Kerrison. It could possibly be because logically if you focus on everything then there is no reason a rider shouldnt be on top form. At the same time is seems like Sky riders are doing a bit better than even that and that is where my doubts like my rational brain seems to be contradicting itself but the performance yesterday certainly didnt seem realistic and so I would say that there is a possibility of doping. Concerning Froome I am not sure he would be good evidence for that though because of his parasite disease we never really saw his true potential and now we do seem to be seeing it now that he is rid of the disease and he is up to top form
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 08, 2012, 12:12
I asked Froome the ? in the shoutbox

hence the thankyou  for answering my question I would like to note
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on July 08, 2012, 12:14
The most significant, indisputable fact in this thread so far is that Teamskyfans has a nuclear contingency plan. Loving Dim for that display of meticulous webmastering. ;D

also have britishcyclingfans.com in the event of sky finishing, or some other issue, would become a site focused purely on british riders of pro-conti level and upwards, and possibly the girls.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on July 08, 2012, 12:16
My biggest argument against sky doping is brailsford. A doping scandal and he can kiss his knighthood goodbye and we would see a mass removal of mbe's cbe's etc. Funding for british cycling would pretty much cease, and british cycling as a whole would be back to the 80's.

Im not convinced Brailsford, for all his flaws, would be willing to risk destroying everything hes worked for over the last 15 years.

Then again, Lance is busy doing just that.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Anthony Moan on July 08, 2012, 12:28
You guys are so flipping obsessed with doping, affairs, and Lance that you even dont know how to enjoy in cycling. No one should ever won with such supremacy like Sky, coz doping police is alert and everyone is guilty. Nuts!
Freaking sad!
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: taiwan on July 08, 2012, 14:49
Copied from the Shoutbox:

Firstly the accusations from the clinic all seem to be a bit wishful and I dont think any of them have a strong enough basis. Also it doesnt really seem to be part of the British culture to have widespread doping and I dont see who high up would have originally introduced it to the team, a lot of these British riders are very against it and I cant imagine they wouldnt speak out and leave if they realised what was going on even if Wiggins, Froome etc were involved. Also Sky's transparency makes it seem unlikely but of course it can be gotten over. Yet on the other hand the perfomances of the Sky riders are pretty unrealistic and it does seem strange, is it due to the marginal gains and training which is so meticulously planned and the new techniques by guys like Kerrison. It could possibly be because logically if you focus on everything then there is no reason a rider shouldnt be on top form. At the same time is seems like Sky riders are doing a bit better than even that and that is where my doubts like my rational brain seems to be contradicting itself but the performance yesterday certainly didnt seem realistic and so I would say that there is a possibility of doping. Concerning Froome I am not sure he would be good evidence for that though because of his parasite disease we never really saw his true potential and now we do seem to be seeing it now that he is rid of the disease and he is up to top form

I think it's worth looking at the situation from the hypothetical point of view that Brits are not innately morally superior to everyone else.

My biggest argument against sky doping is brailsford. A doping scandal and he can kiss his knighthood goodbye and we would see a mass removal of mbe's cbe's etc. Funding for british cycling would pretty much cease, and british cycling as a whole would be back to the 80's.

Im not convinced Brailsford, for all his flaws, would be willing to risk destroying everything hes worked for over the last 15 years.

Then again, Lance is busy doing just that.

It sort of depends on the probablility of a scandal, and whether the establishment values cleanliness or results more. If there is ~0 possibility of a scandal even if they are doing stuff, there is no penalty, and if  there were no results there would not be the knighthood and continued funding i the first place. Not that I have reason to doubt the man's intergrity.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Anthony Moan on July 08, 2012, 16:26
Jesus, how many needles has been dropped from jersey pockets today, miracle how no one had a flat.
Congrats to young French man :win and again nice Sky work.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 08, 2012, 18:33
Wiggo responds

(http://velonews.competitor.com/files/2012/07/brad-2-465x421.jpg)

PORRENTRUY, Switzerland (VN) — Don’t ask Bradley Wiggins about cynicism in cycling, ever.

The Briton, known for his explosive talent — and equally explosive command of profanities — let reporters here have it when asked what he thought of those who believed that to win the Tour de France riders must be doped “to the gills.”

“Honestly they’re just flipping w***ers. I can’t be doing with people like that,” Wiggins said. “It justifies their own bone idleness… because they can’t ever imagine applying themselves to anything in their lives.

“And it’s easy for them to sit under a pseudonym on Twitter and write that kind of sh*t rather than get off their arses and apply themselves and work hard at something and achieve something.”

He paused, tossed the table and left.

Wiggins is in the yellow jersey headed into Monday’s 45km time trial from Arc-st-Senans to Besançon.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on July 08, 2012, 18:56
Quote from: Mello Wiggo=topic=636.msg44739#msg44739 date=1341768789

“Honestly they’re just flipping lonesomes. I can’t be doing with people like that,” Wiggins said. “It justifies their own bone idleness… because they can’t ever imagine applying themselves to anything in their lives.

“And it’s easy for them to sit under a pseudonym on Twitter and write that kind of sh*t rather than get off their arses and apply themselves and work hard at something and achieve something.”


Make an angry statement about people who use the internet as lonesomes (like Cathy Wiggins?) then leave.

Reminds me of, "After cancer i would never put anything in my body against that wasn't pure"

UKPostal didn't show today like yesterday, but saying that, they sure did get a lot of flak for yesterday so maybe plan was to make it look real as Mello Wiggo and Froome felt able enough to handle everything Evans, Nibali or others could throw at them at the end.

RSNT looked like its old self though ::) wonder did a car arrive in the night sent from Hogland with some vitamins.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: pedaling squares on July 08, 2012, 21:20
My biggest argument against sky doping is brailsford. A doping scandal and he can kiss his knighthood goodbye and we would see a mass removal of mbe's cbe's etc. Funding for british cycling would pretty much cease, and british cycling as a whole would be back to the 80's.

Im not convinced Brailsford, for all his flaws, would be willing to risk destroying everything hes worked for over the last 15 years.

Then again, Lance is busy doing just that.
On the other hand all those trappings came from success.There is incentive to use whatever means to achieve that success. Funding for 'close but not quite' is not going to be what it is for masses of gold medals and a TDF victory.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: pedaling squares on July 08, 2012, 21:23
Concerning Froome I am not sure he would be good evidence for that though because of his parasite disease we never really saw his true potential and now we do seem to be seeing it now that he is rid of the disease and he is up to top form
That sounds horrifyingly familiar.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on July 08, 2012, 22:25
:admin While I appreciate its an emotive subject can we try and remain civil please and not stoop to personal insults. Ta.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on July 08, 2012, 22:30
That sounds horrifyingly familiar.
And Armstrong came back as a better cyclist even without the dope.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: flicker2.0 on July 08, 2012, 22:38
Make an angry statement about people who use the internet as lonesomes (like Cathy Wiggins?) then leave.

Reminds me of, "After cancer i would never put anything in my body against that wasn't pure"

UKPostal didn't show today like yesterday, but saying that, they sure did get a lot of flak for yesterday so maybe plan was to make it look real as Mello Wiggo and Froome felt able enough to handle everything Evans, Nibali or others could throw at them at the end.

RSNT looked like its old self though ::) wonder did a car arrive in the night sent from Hogland with some vitamins.

A British TdF victory by Wiggins would be fantastic for British cycling. A victory by a USA team(BMC) Cadel would be fantastic for US aqnd Aussie cycling. A good showing by Radioshack, would be good for US cycling, they sponsor a lot of the online media cycling races also. At this time RSNT is the highest profile team in the USA and looking at Cyclingnews and Velonews sites is the most popular team at this time, on the English Speaking sites.
Personally, I would not attackand bite the hand that provides sponsorship to the sport. If you loathe the sport or certain teams, why not just use your time in a more positive manner. Just sayin'.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: flicker2.0 on July 08, 2012, 22:40
Wiggo responds

(http://velonews.competitor.com/files/2012/07/brad-2-465x421.jpg)

PORRENTRUY, Switzerland (VN) — Don’t ask Bradley Wiggins about cynicism in cycling, ever.

The Briton, known for his explosive talent — and equally explosive command of profanities — let reporters here have it when asked what he thought of those who believed that to win the Tour de France riders must be doped “to the gills.”

“Honestly they’re just flipping lonesomes. I can’t be doing with people like that,” Wiggins said. “It justifies their own bone idleness… because they can’t ever imagine applying themselves to anything in their lives.

“And it’s easy for them to sit under a pseudonym on Twitter and write that kind of sh*t rather than get off their arses and apply themselves and work hard at something and achieve something.”

He paused, tossed the table and left.

Wiggins is in the yellow jersey headed into Monday’s 45km time trial from Arc-st-Senans to Besançon.

I like Brads' statement. Patron of the Peloton returns. Honey Badger/The Badger returns, ya just gotta love his winning attitude!
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on July 08, 2012, 22:48
I think it's worth looking at the situation from the hypothetical point of view that Brits are not innately morally superior to everyone else.
.
As I explained in the shoutbox at the time, of course Brits are not morally superior. But the fact is that cycling is a relatively new sport on such a wide scale level in Britain and there is not that level of doping common yet rather it would have to be developed.

Also for example I will provide the example of Millar and Chambers, the BOA adamantly refused to let them participate in the Olympic games even though for example the USA were happy to allow Merrit to participate, furthermore there were many high profile sports starts and personalities who spoke out against them being included. I dont think there are any countries like that who refused to back down to the law allowing former drug cheats to participate in the Olympics and certainly there wasnt such an uproar from its high profile personalities. I am not saying that the Brits are morally superior we are just as corrupt if not more corrupt than anyone else but we have a different mindset to other countries when it comes to doping
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 08, 2012, 22:51
Interesting little thread over on CN

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17728 (http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17728)

It's about how the trains work and I thought of mentioning it yesterday but it seemed premature after one day's racing. But today, the Leaky and Lotto train shelled the Sky domestiques so maybe it's worth a look.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: usedtobefast on July 08, 2012, 23:03
i think anything Rupert Murdoch has his hands in gets tainted. we see it here and i see for sure in the UK. 3rd place was not what they(sky news)signed up for. win or else. these ducks walk like ducks. :win :wave
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on July 08, 2012, 23:47
Cn losing the plot
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: bicing on July 08, 2012, 23:55
where do these come figures come from ?
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=608478 (http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=608478)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 09, 2012, 00:06
Still, the source? There's the website, but the source? A Michael Rogers search on their website takes me to the Olympics 2008

Interesting little thread over on CN

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17728 (http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17728)

It's about how the trains work and I thought of mentioning it yesterday but it seemed premature after one day's racing. But today, the Leaky and Lotto train shelled the Sky domestiques so maybe it's worth a look.
But clearly Sky are the only ones, no?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: taiwan on July 09, 2012, 00:09
As I explained in the shoutbox at the time, of course Brits are not morally superior. But the fact is that cycling is a relatively new sport on such a wide scale level in Britain and there is not that level of doping common yet rather it would have to be developed.

Also for example I will provide the example of Millar and Chambers, the BOA adamantly refused to let them participate in the Olympic games even though for example the USA were happy to allow Merrit to participate, furthermore there were many high profile sports starts and personalities who spoke out against them being included. I dont think there are any countries like that who refused to back down to the law allowing former drug cheats to participate in the Olympics and certainly there wasnt such an uproar from its high profile personalities. I am not saying that the Brits are morally superior we are just as corrupt if not more corrupt than anyone else but we have a different mindset to other countries when it comes to doping
Those examples could indicate a hard line on doping or hard line on those who get caught. If we're talking about British culture, I think a focus on the appearance of propriety is a resonant characteristic. But I'm just making this argument to keep an unbiased perspective. Again, I don't have reason to believe doping's used or tolerated in the UK system, but I don't want to have preconceptions based on nationality.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Gravel Rash on July 09, 2012, 03:38
As I explained in the shoutbox at the time, of course Brits are not morally superior. But the fact is that cycling is a relatively new sport on such a wide scale level in Britain and there is not that level of doping common yet rather it would have to be developed.

Also for example I will provide the example of Millar and Chambers, the BOA adamantly refused to let them participate in the Olympic games even though for example the USA were happy to allow Merrit to participate, furthermore there were many high profile sports starts and personalities who spoke out against them being included. I dont think there are any countries like that who refused to back down to the law allowing former drug cheats to participate in the Olympics and certainly there wasnt such an uproar from its high profile personalities. I am not saying that the Brits are morally superior we are just as corrupt if not more corrupt than anyone else but we have a different mindset to other countries when it comes to doping

I thought both were competing at the Olympics http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/18701660 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/18701660)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on July 09, 2012, 04:29
I think it's worth looking at the situation from the hypothetical point of view that Brits are not innately morally superior to everyone else.

 :police:

And Armstrong came back as a better cyclist even without the dope.

Q: In what period post-illness was Armstrong not working with Ferrari?

A: 2006-2007

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on July 09, 2012, 07:31
Wiggo responds

(http://velonews.competitor.com/files/2012/07/brad-2-465x421.jpg)

PORRENTRUY, Switzerland (VN) — Don’t ask Bradley Wiggins about cynicism in cycling, ever.

The Briton, known for his explosive talent — and equally explosive command of profanities — let reporters here have it when asked what he thought of those who believed that to win the Tour de France riders must be doped “to the gills.”

“Honestly they’re just flipping w***ers. I can’t be doing with people like that,” Wiggins said. “It justifies their own bone idleness… because they can’t ever imagine applying themselves to anything in their lives.

“And it’s easy for them to sit under a pseudonym on Twitter and write that kind of sh*t rather than get off their arses and apply themselves and work hard at something and achieve something.”

He paused, tossed the table and left.

Wiggins is in the yellow jersey headed into Monday’s 45km time trial from Arc-st-Senans to Besançon.

while he might have been genuinely annoyed with the constant questions ... elite sportsmen, representing their team, country, sponsors and selves ... dont have the luxury of saying stuff like that.

Its not acceptable.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on July 09, 2012, 08:49
while he might have been genuinely annoyed with the constant questions ... elite sportsmen, representing their team, country, sponsors and selves ... dont have the luxury of saying stuff like that.

Its not acceptable.

Hang on, do you mean he actually said that? I thought it was a joke post!  :o
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 09, 2012, 08:50
Hang on, do you mean he actually said that? I thought it was a joke post!  :o

my quote was a direct as far as I can tell
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on July 09, 2012, 08:55
my quote was a direct as far as I can tell

The foul mouth is classic Brit, but what is "tossing the table"? Does that mean he overturned it in anger like Jesus in the temple and walked off?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 09, 2012, 08:55
The foul mouth is classic Brit, but what is "tossing the table"? Does that mean he overturned it in anger like Jesus in the temple and walked off?

thats what I thought
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on July 09, 2012, 09:07
thats what I thought

I just saw another quote of the article which said "he tossed the microphone on the table and walked off."

Guess that clears that one up. Wiggins is not the Second Coming. ;D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on July 09, 2012, 09:12
Some replies

@Vaughters: 'Respect to @bradwiggins'

@ChristianVDV: Just heard @bradwiggins quote from the press conference today. It is so, spot on. Thank you Wiggo.

@markcavendish: Good on @bradwiggins for an honest answer in today's press conference, aimed at people who know nothing better than to be skeptical.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 09, 2012, 10:14
Still, the source? There's the website, but the source? A Michael Rogers search on their website takes me to the Olympics 2008
But clearly Sky are the only ones, no?
How do you mean ram?

The idea that was discussed is that if you have tempo climbers setting their own tempo at the head of the race, they will be better off than tempo climbers at the back of the bunch. So Rogers and Porte had solid finishes on stage 7 and came nowhere on stage 8 which would seem to support that theory. Clearly two stages isn't much to go on though.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 09, 2012, 10:25
My attempt at sarcasm, which wasn't best successful.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 09, 2012, 11:53
My attempt at sarcasm, which wasn't best successful.
Aah. I feel bad now for thinking you were just stupid. Sorry.  :-[
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 09, 2012, 12:20
Fairly polite response considering that :D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 09, 2012, 12:58
Yes it was.

You see there's a sadly ill-educated world out there who don't realise that British riders don't dope, only foreigners do. But a bit of tolerance and patient explanation will be far more effective at getting them to understand their mistaken beliefs than getting rude or abusive will.

Now I realise you are already enlightened, I don't feel the need to be polite to you at all.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 09, 2012, 13:46
;D
Sagacity
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: bicing on July 09, 2012, 16:41
time's man of the year
nobel prize winner
sportsman of the year
next in line for knighthood

(http://www1.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Team+GB+Kitting+Out+FOmJPwP0jP0l.jpg)

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Havetts on July 09, 2012, 16:49
Party like its 1999!
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Jimmythecuckoo on July 09, 2012, 17:37
One thing that is clear in all this is that your nationality plays some part in what you believe.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on July 09, 2012, 17:38
One thing that is clear in all this is that your nationality plays some part in what you believe.

Yes, most people are irrational. Not sure why, but we are.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Jimmythecuckoo on July 09, 2012, 17:43
I dont have a problem with that...
When the UK had barely any riders in the Tour I always thought they were dirty dopers, especially Lance.

I can't complain when we have good riders and people want to throw it back.

Haters gonna hate and all that.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: bicing on July 09, 2012, 20:59
Yes, most people are irrational. Not sure why, but we are.
Although paradoxically what you just said then is quite rational.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Amsterhammer on July 09, 2012, 22:32
I hate myself for having suspicions as a result of what I saw today, I hate even being in this forum writing these words now, but what happened today was just too unreal.

I will admit that I'm not too fond of Sky, mainly because of the name association with the dirty, corrupt, digger Murdoch, but I'm not a Wiggins or Froome hater, and I'm not a frustrated Evans fanboy either. Nevertheless, today's events have sucked the interest for this Tour right out of me. Froome in particular, simply should not have been capable of anything like what he did today after the effort he put in yesterday. I hate saying it, but something really stinks here. :(
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: usedtobefast on July 10, 2012, 00:37
I hate myself for having suspicions as a result of what I saw today, I hate even being in this forum writing these words now, but what happened today was just too unreal.

I will admit that I'm not too fond of Sky, mainly because of the name association with the dirty, corrupt, digger Murdoch, but I'm not a Wiggins or Froome hater, and I'm not a frustrated Evans fanboy either. Nevertheless, today's events have sucked the interest for this Tour right out of me. Froome in particular, simply should not have been capable of anything like what he did today after the effort he put in yesterday. I hate saying it, but something really stinks here. :(

(http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2008/02/29/smell460.jpg)

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on July 10, 2012, 01:40
I have tried to give Sky the benefit of the doubt .. but its getting hard.

Looking at the times ...

name
1GBRWIGGINS Bradley101SKY51' 24''   
2GBRFROOME Christopher105SKY51' 59''+ 00' 35''
3SUICANCELLARA Fabian12RSNT52' 21''+ 00' 57''
4USAVAN GARDEREN Tejay   9BMC52' 30''+ 01' 06''
5FRACHAVANEL Sylvain192OPQS52' 48''+ 01' 24''
6AUSEVANS Cadel1BMC53' 07''+ 01' 43''
7SVKVELITS Peter199OPQS53' 23''+ 01' 59''
8ITANIBALI Vincenzo   51LIQ53' 31''+ 02' 07''
9RUSMENCHOV Denis131KAT53' 32''+ 02' 08''
10GERKLÖDEN Andréas15RSNT53' 33''+ 02' 09''

Using Cancellara as a benchmark ... his time seems to be pretty good generally.  TJVG had a blinder (which people have once in a while) and no one else got that close. 

Cadel didnt ride well. Being only 24 seconds ahead of Nibali and Menchov isnt as much as I would expect ... so lets say he was 30 seconds off his best ride.

That would put him 16 seconds behind Cancellara, which is around what I would expect.

Wiggo did beat Cance at the worlds ... but only because Cance overcooked a corner trying to get back time on Tony Martin.  Otherwise there is no way Wiggo would have beat him.   Cance is coming back from injury true, but he still put in an excellent time ... so realistically IMO Wiggo, even on a blinder of a ride, should still only be putting a few seconds into Cancellara.  Not a minute!!!

As for Froome ... even on his best day he should not be able to go 35 seconds better than Cancellara. 

Fabs is 4 times world champion ... olympic champion, time trial specialist. In what way can 60kg climbers push out more power than 80kg tt/power riders? 


Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 10, 2012, 02:17
Wiggins has done this all year. Beating a rider who shat on Cancellara like mad all year in 2011. Froome? question him. Top form Martin would've challenged that time by Wiggo, maybe not beaten it, and secondly, Froome and Wiggo are 70kgs not 60kg climbers.

Also, didn't this pair beat Cancellara in the Vuelta last year? And Wiggins was well undercooked.  Dodgy defo, but Martin on top form would challenge them surely.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on July 10, 2012, 02:41
Remember I called it during the stage that Cancellara's time was beatable. He was still "on" today though, and put in a very good time. I think he may have been 20 - 30 seconds off his best, which still has him beaten by Froome and half a minute down on Wiggins. I'd say Evans was 30 - 40 seconds off his best. Wiggins and TJVG were the most surprising for me, and wasn't expecting Evans to be bad.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Auscyclefan on July 10, 2012, 03:48
Wiggins has done this all year. Beating a rider who shat on Cancellara like mad all year in 2011. Froome? question him. Top form Martin would've challenged that time by Wiggo, maybe not beaten it, and secondly, Froome and Wiggo are 70kgs not 60kg climbers.

Also, didn't this pair beat Cancellara in the Vuelta last year? And Wiggins was well undercooked.  Dodgy defo, but Martin on top form would challenge them surely.

Yes but Wiggins is around 188-190cm, he is a tall man and so he being 70kg is actually quite light. Wiggins has not been doing that all year, that is simply false. At the same time, I do agree with what The Arbiter said and perhaps some of us have been a little over the top with our comments about Sky.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 10, 2012, 03:59
True, I must have imagined all his TT wins this year.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Auscyclefan on July 10, 2012, 04:04
True, I must have imagined all his TT wins this year.

Algarve
1.       [GBR]         WIGGINS Bradley       SKY       32'48"       20   
    2.       [GER]         MARTIN Tony       OPQ              10   
    3.       [AUS]         PORTE Richie       SKY       13"       5   
    4.       [USA]         VAN GARDEREN Tejay       BMC       14"       3   
    5.       [NZL]         SERGENT Jesse       RNT       14"       0   
    6.       [BEL]         VAN DEN BROECK Jurgen       LTB       28"       0   
    7.       [USA]         TALANSKY Andrew       GRM       39"       0   
    8.       [POL]         KWIATKOWSKI Michal       OPQ       53"       0   
    9.       [NOR]         BOASSON HAGEN Edvald       SKY       56"       0   
    10.       [ESP]         SANCHEZ GIL Luis Leon       RAB       56"       0

Paris Nice
1.       [GBR]         WIGGINS Bradley       SKY       19'12"       40   
    2.       [NED]         WESTRA Lieuwe       VCD       02"       25   
    3.       [FRA]         PERAUD Jean-Christophe       ALM       33"       15   
    4.       [SLO]         SPILAK Simon       KAT       47"       10   
    5.       [FRA]         COPPEL Jérôme       SAU       51"       5   
    6.       [ESP]         VALVERDE BELMONTE Alejandro       MOV       52"       3   
    7.       [GER]         KLÖDEN Andreas       RNT       58"       2   
    8.       [FRA]         MONCOUTIE David       COF       59"       1   
    9.       [ITA]         CUNEGO Damiano       LAM       59"       0   
    10.       [COL]         URAN URAN Rigoberto       SKY       01'06"       0   

Romandie
1.       [GBR]         WIGGINS Bradley       SKY       28'56"       40   
    2.       [USA]         TALANSKY Andrew       GRM              25   
    3.       [AUS]         PORTE Richie       SKY       16"       15   
    4.       [POR]         COSTA Rui Alberto Faria       MOV       22"       10   
    5.       [CZE]         KREUZIGER Roman       AST       40"       5   
    6.       [POL]         SZMYD Sylwester       LIQ       41"       3   
    7.       [AUS]         ROGERS Michael       SKY       42"       2   
    8.       [FRA]         PINOT Thibaut       FDJ       52"       1   
    9.       [BEL]         DE GENDT Thomas       VCD       53"       0   
    10.       [SLO]         BRAJKOVIC Janez       AST       54"       0   

Dauphine
1.       [GBR]         WIGGINS Bradley       SKY       1h03'12"       40   
    2.       [GER]         MARTIN Tony       OPQ       34"       25   
    3.       [AUS]         ROGERS Michael       SKY       01'11"       15   
    4.       [NED]         KELDERMAN Wilco       RAB       01'25"       10   
    5.       [FRA]         CHAVANEL Sylvain       OPQ       01'33"       5   
    6.       [GBR]         FROOME Chris       SKY       01'33"       3   
    7.       [AUS]         DURBRIDGE Luke       OGE       01'37"       2   
    8.       [AUS]         EVANS Cadel       BMC       01'43"       1   
    9.       [GBR]         MILLAR David       GRM       01'51"       0   
    10.       [ESP]         SANCHEZ GIL Luis Leon       RAB       01'53"       0   

Now you said, "Wiggins has done this all year". I disagree. Other than the Dauphine TT, he has not dominated like that all year. What you are suggesting in your previous post is incorrect.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 10, 2012, 04:05
What you read in my post and assumed to be the point is incorrect. That's all.
If Martin hadn't been injured, he'd have been closer than Dauphine.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Auscyclefan on July 10, 2012, 04:11
What you read in my post and assumed to be the point is incorrect. That's all.
If Martin hadn't been injured, he'd have been closer than Dauphine.
:-\

WE are disagreeing. You are saying he has done those types of performances all year and I am saying he hasn't. Your second line concedes that I'm right.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on July 10, 2012, 04:15
Having said what I think above ... I am going to argue the other side now too  ;D  (just cause I can  :P)


your post with the results ACF shows that he has in fact done this all year.

He has been in superb form ... won basically everything he has been in and never really been troubled. 

Some of those he didnt win by a minute no, but he still won them ... still beat Tony Martin, Cancellara, Westra - all who have at various stages been in raging form.

As for dominating ... the amount of domination depends on not only Wiggins and his performance, but the performance of the other top class tt'ers who would normally match him.

Normally, he would be looking at
- martin ... riding with a broken wrist, and had a puncture
- cancellara - while I thought his time was good, quite a few at the time said it wasnt unbeatable and thought Wiggo would do it easily
- cadel who didnt ride nearly well enough on the day

after that, there is in fact a pretty big gap between the known ability of these guys and the rest.  Look at the worlds for how far this gap is.

Froome is a bit of a surprise for sure, but then so is TJVG's result.   People do exceptional things when there is a lot on the line.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 10, 2012, 04:20
:-\

WE are disagreeing. You are saying he has done those types of performances all year and I am saying he hasn't. Your second line concedes that I'm right.
Yes darling.

Compare the time differences for a 9km and 40 odd km TT. And no, Wiggins has not built form for the Tour at all, he has been at the peak from January.

And no, a non injured Martin wouldn't have finished within a minute of the winning time.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Auscyclefan on July 10, 2012, 04:21
Having said what I think above ... I am going to argue the other side now too  ;D  (just cause I can  :P)


your post with the results ACF shows that he has in fact done this all year.

He has been in superb form ... won basically everything he has been in and never really been troubled. 

Some of those he didnt win by a minute no, but he still won them ... still beat Tony Martin, Cancellara, Westra - all who have at various stages been in raging form.
Again, he beat them, but not like he did yesterday. You are failing to address that.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Auscyclefan on July 10, 2012, 04:23
Yes darling.

Compare the time differences for a 9km and 40 odd km TT. And no, Wiggins has not built form for the Tour at all, he has been at the peak from January.

And no, a non injured Martin wouldn't have finished within a minute of the winning time.

You are completely contradicting yourself...nice work!  ::)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on July 10, 2012, 04:24
I'm kind of disappointed that three of them didn't try, they could have gone one better than the TMO job of 4 in the top10. Zam's boy must have been told to ease up on the trolling.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 10, 2012, 10:05
OK let's look at the last GT TT, Vuelta 2011.

MARTIN Tony   77   THR   00"   
FROOME Christopher   183   SKY   59"
WIGGINS Bradley   188   SKY   01' 22"
CANCELLARA Fabian   102   LEO   01' 27"
PHINNEY Taylor   33   BMC   01' 33"
FUGLSANG Jakob   103   LEO   01' 37"
MACHADO Tiago   206   RSH   01' 54"
SANCHEZ GIL Luis Leon   158   RAB   02' 02"
MONFORT Maxime   104   LEO   02' 06"
KESSIAKOFF Fredrik   131   AST   02' 18"
OLIVIERA Nelson Filipe   207   RSH   02' 19"
MENCHOV Denis   65   GEO   02' 19"
O'GRADY Stuart   105   LEO   02' 20"
NIBALI Vincenzo   1   LIQ   02' 24"

We know that Wiggins stuffed up the pacing on that ride, up on Martin at the first split, and weaving drunkenly 10K from the finish and we know he hadn't been on a bike for long following injury at the tour. But let's take Martin's time as the benchmark on a course that was a) shorter than yesterday and b) flatter, so time gaps should be less.

At the Vuelta: Froome 1 minute down, Cancellara 1.5 mins down, Monfort, Menchov, Nibali 2 mins down.

And yesterday: Froome 35 seconds down, Cancellara 1 min down, Nibali, Menchov Montfort 2 mins down.

Relatively the whole field of contenders was closer to Wiggins yesterday than they were to Martin at the Vuelta.


The performance was not incredible at all. What was surprising was that Cancellara and Evans performed so poorly.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: flicker2.0 on July 10, 2012, 15:45
I agree with Kelly, Wiggins could crack at the slightest provocation, if he does, it will be entertaining, probably the best thing about this tour. Something about Wiggins makes him look like he sits on the edge of his chair. Not about anyone attacking on Twit. really, he just looks to lack something, although he looks really good now. I might be wrong though, and for the sake of the sun rising and setting on the BRITISH CYCLING EMPIRE, it would be great to see BRAD win the tour and the olympic TT and Cav. win the olympic road.
Great for Britich Cycling that, rah,rah.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Hugh Jassman on July 10, 2012, 16:00
I was wondering, is it OK to use the word w**nk*r over here?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on July 10, 2012, 16:04
I was wondering, is it OK to use the word w**nk*r over here?

Ciao, Huge! Try it and see what happens! (There's a swear filter turned on by default in your user profile. Turn it off to see the full raspberry)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 10, 2012, 16:06
I was wondering, is it OK to use the word w**nk*r over here?

You can even go to ur profile and turn off the word filter

Say alll sorts of things just not race, sex based ofc

And others can read what you say if they decide to have the filter off

Which is flipping nice
 ;)


Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on July 10, 2012, 16:07
Yeah, but I think Huge was joking. And I only just got it.  ;D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 10, 2012, 16:09
Silly us being all professional
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on July 10, 2012, 20:25
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE86912520120710?irpc=932 (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE86912520120710?irpc=932)

TOP NEWS
Wiggins puts trust in Australian coach
Tue, Jul 10 13:43 PM EDT
By Julien Pretot
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 10, 2012, 20:27
is it double standard not to say anything re Remy today or trying to catch a horse that kicked you in the nuts and bolted

or am I showing bias  ;D

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/533830/wiggins-taking-nothing-for-granted-despite-dream-scenario.html (http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/533830/wiggins-taking-nothing-for-granted-despite-dream-scenario.html)

Quote
Speaking to the 50-odd press pack just before the start of the conference, Sky head of business operations Fran Millar said "We're not going to answer questions about Cofidis. We're here to talk about our own race... If someone does [ask one], I'm going to interrupt and ask somebody else."
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 10, 2012, 20:33
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE86912520120710?irpc=932 (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE86912520120710?irpc=932)

TOP NEWS
Wiggins puts trust in Australian coach
Tue, Jul 10 13:43 PM EDT
By Julien Pretot
Of course it's interesting when Aussies cast aspersions on the purity of the British effort. The Team GB programme is pretty much lifted from the Australian one - methods and personnel.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on July 11, 2012, 01:59
I was wondering, is it OK to use the word w**nk*r over here?

:wave Hugh

Just for Brad - :winker    ;D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 11, 2012, 08:49
(http://redkiteprayer.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/PIC294324625-588x389.jpg)

a blog on questions re Wiggins

http://redkiteprayer.com/2012/07/wiggins-winning-ways/ (http://redkiteprayer.com/2012/07/wiggins-winning-ways/)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Tuart on July 11, 2012, 10:19
You guys are so flipping obsessed with doping, affairs, and Lance that you even dont know how to enjoy in cycling. No one should ever won with such supremacy like Sky, coz doping police is alert and everyone is guilty. Nuts!
Freaking sad!

Ha, the most intelligent post in this whole dung heap of a thread and its from Andy. Rofl, did not see that.

Not going to respond to anything the only thing I'll say (here) on the matter is to post this (not written by me):

http://www.tourdecouch.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/whats-in-narrative.html (http://www.tourdecouch.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/whats-in-narrative.html)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on July 11, 2012, 10:52
So we should be like robot and not be surprised at anything now!!
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 11, 2012, 11:01
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/07/tour-in-mountains-analysis-discussion.html (http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/07/tour-in-mountains-analysis-discussion.html)

According to these guys, what we have seen is well within bounds of recent tour performances. And I trust their judgement more than forummers who go, "Oh no, he beat Cancellara, he must be doping."

Doesn't prove Wiggins is not doping, just that an objective analysis of the data doesn't show that he is.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on July 11, 2012, 11:05
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/07/tour-in-mountains-analysis-discussion.html (http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/07/tour-in-mountains-analysis-discussion.html)

According to these guys, what we have seen is well within bounds of recent tour performances. And I trust their judgement more than forummers who go, "Oh no, he beat Cancellara, he must be doping."

Doesn't prove Wiggins is not doping, just that an objective analysis of the data doesn't show that he is.

The problem or question i have is that he has held his form all season long so far..who has done that? Philip Gilbert..which was unbelievable itself.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 11, 2012, 11:48
The problem or question i have is that he has held his form all season long so far..who has done that? Philip Gilbert..which was unbelievable itself.
Contador always does it.

Wiggins is clearly trying to maintain a higher all year round level than anyone else so it's no surprise he's picked up wins, but remember in a couple of them he squeaked past guys who wouldn't be considered genuine GT threats so maybe it's just that his form was just a bit higher than anyone else's like BYOP just said.

I also don't think anyone else is looking very good. Evans had a lot of success coming into the 2011 Tour, but this year? Meanwhile Menchov has done nothing this year, RaNT is disarray and no baby Schleck, Gesink crashing out again, a lot of team leaders did the Giro, no Contador, Samuel Sanchez with no form and injured. And in the TTs, Cancellara hasn't dominated since 2010 and Tony Martin's injured and can't even hold the bars.

Who's left, Nibali and JVDB?

What were you expecting to happen if the race was clean that hasn't happened?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on July 11, 2012, 12:00
Kimmage weighs in:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx (http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx)

I was waiting to read what he would say. Another well-written article from Stokes.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on July 11, 2012, 12:09
Contador always does it.

Wiggins is clearly trying to maintain a higher all year round level than anyone else so it's no surprise he's picked up wins, but remember in a couple of them he squeaked past guys who wouldn't be considered genuine GT threats so maybe it's just that his form was just a bit higher than anyone else's like BYOP just said.

I also don't think anyone else is looking very good. Evans had a lot of success coming into the 2011 Tour, but this year? Meanwhile Menchov has done nothing this year, RaNT is disarray and no baby Schleck, Gesink crashing out again, a lot of team leaders did the Giro, no Contador, Samuel Sanchez with no form and injured. And in the TTs, Cancellara hasn't dominated since 2010 and Tony Martin's injured and can't even hold the bars.

Who's left, Nibali and JVDB?

What were you expecting to happen if the race was clean that hasn't happened?

Contador  lolzzzzz
Anyways. I should have said not only wiggins but also rogers,froome and porte. Yea wiggins could be expected. But the other three and along with him certainly "raised an eyebrows"
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on July 11, 2012, 12:12
Zam did you read about the swimming technique because that may serve to lessem your doubts.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on July 11, 2012, 12:23
Zam did you read about the swimming technique because that may serve to lessem your doubts.

Okay, thank you. It's all clear now. Case closed.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Gravel Rash on July 11, 2012, 12:54
Contador always does it.

Wiggins is clearly trying to maintain a higher all year round level than anyone else so it's no surprise he's picked up wins, but remember in a couple of them he squeaked past guys who wouldn't be considered genuine GT threats so maybe it's just that his form was just a bit higher than anyone else's like BYOP just said.

I also don't think anyone else is looking very good. Evans had a lot of success coming into the 2011 Tour, but this year? Meanwhile Menchov has done nothing this year, RaNT is disarray and no baby Schleck, Gesink crashing out again, a lot of team leaders did the Giro, no Contador, Samuel Sanchez with no form and injured. And in the TTs, Cancellara hasn't dominated since 2010 and Tony Martin's injured and can't even hold the bars.

Who's left, Nibali and JVDB?

What were you expecting to happen if the race was clean that hasn't happened?

Never before has anyone won Paris-Nice, Romandie, Dauphine and Tour in the same year. Wiggins is good but that is incredible.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on July 11, 2012, 13:02
Never before has anyone won Paris-Nice, Romandie, Dauphine and Tour in the same year. Wiggins is good but that is incredible.

To be fair, the Tdf ain't over yet.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Slow Rider on July 11, 2012, 13:09
Never before has anyone won Paris-Nice, Romandie, Dauphine and Tour in the same year. Wiggins is good but that is incredible.

All four races were perfectly designed for him. All are very TT-heavy with little serious mountains. I mean, in Paris-Nice the queen stage was up to Mende :fp So it's not surprising the best TT'er of the GC rider won all three. Wiggins is good, but course-wise this Tour and all those other races were a perfect fit for him, so I don't find it that astonishing that he won all of them.

And indeed, the Tour is not yet over. Wiggins is about to tackle the first serious climbs of the year for him and it remains to be seen how he will handle those.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 11, 2012, 13:55
Never before has anyone won Paris-Nice, Romandie, Dauphine and Tour in the same year. Wiggins is good but that is incredible.
Who did he beat in the first two?

Talansky by 12 seconds and Westra by 8. Incredible.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on July 11, 2012, 16:32
Kimmage weighs in on the subject of sky
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx (http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on July 11, 2012, 16:46
Who did he beat in the first two?

Talansky by 12 seconds and Westra by 8. Incredible.
Indeed incredible that those two would better riders like Valverde and Kreuziger  :P
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: killswitch on July 11, 2012, 17:22
Even Saint Lance is doubting Sky

http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/armstrong-files-restraining-order-against-team-sky/ (http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/armstrong-files-restraining-order-against-team-sky/)

 O0
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Havetts on July 11, 2012, 18:37
Who bothers me a lot too is Richie Porte, he has gone from the guy who did the work on the flat for SaxoBank last year, to the guy who rolls back GC winners in who are attacking at almost full gas. I mean, Porte had to do the work at SaxoBank because he got dropped like a rock when the gradient rose to 2%.

136th in the stage to Gardeccia in the 2011 Giro, 93rd in the Mountain Time Trial which wasnt even a tough climb but had a few kms flat before the climb too. The stage to the Etna was his best result on the mountains that Giro, frikking 65th. And now Richie Porte is riding the Grand Colombier & Richemont on front and reels back in Nibali? I'm sorry, but how could I not be cynical after seeing this.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: jobiwan on July 11, 2012, 19:00
Quote
I’m tested by the UCI, god knows how many times a year, god knows how many times at the Dauphiné, blood tested every morning. What more can I do other than that?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-im-not-some-s-t-rider-who-has-come-from-nowhere (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-im-not-some-s-t-rider-who-has-come-from-nowhere)

I'm not saying whether he is or isn't, but that is NOT the defense to be using at this point.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on July 11, 2012, 19:06
Who bothers me a lot too is Richie Porte, he has gone from the guy who did the work on the flat for SaxoBank last year, to the guy who rolls back GC winners in who are attacking at almost full gas. I mean, Porte had to do the work at SaxoBank because he got dropped like a rock when the gradient rose to 2%.

136th in the stage to Gardeccia in the 2011 Giro, 93rd in the Mountain Time Trial which wasnt even a tough climb but had a few kms flat before the climb too. The stage to the Etna was his best result on the mountains that Giro, frikking 65th. And now Richie Porte is riding the Grand Colombier & Richemont on front and reels back in Nibali? I'm sorry, but how could I not be cynical after seeing this.
Havetts Ok I understand where you are coming from, but I believe you are a tad mistaken because cyclists depend on form a lot. A yound unexperienced rider like Porte was last year is not going to ride well if he is being made to races when he is not fit and then being to made more races when he is fatigues because of those races. This is exactly what happened to Porte last year he was made to race the Giro when he was in poor form and was not supposed to and then he then was required to race the Tour, it was a Saxo desperate plan as much of the last 2 seasons at Saxo Bank have been as they struggle to remain WT and it ruined Porte's season. Many riders have poor seasons for one reason or another and the above reasons coupled with Porte's inexperience was certainly enough imo to ruin Porte's season.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on July 11, 2012, 20:03
Shane Stokes talks to Paul Kimmage

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx (http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on July 11, 2012, 20:42
Paul Kimmage talks to Shane Stokes

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx (http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx)








 ;D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: flicker2.0 on July 11, 2012, 20:50
Shane Stokes talks to Paul Kimmage

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx (http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx)

Kimmage rubbishing cycling once again, oh will he never tire of rubbishing cycling. Frankly I will never understand why he choses cycling, tarnishs cycling as much as the dopers.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 11, 2012, 20:52
Who bothers me a lot too is Richie Porte, he has gone from the guy who did the work on the flat for SaxoBank last year, to the guy who rolls back GC winners in who are attacking at almost full gas. I mean, Porte had to do the work at SaxoBank because he got dropped like a rock when the gradient rose to 2%.

136th in the stage to Gardeccia in the 2011 Giro, 93rd in the Mountain Time Trial which wasnt even a tough climb but had a few kms flat before the climb too. The stage to the Etna was his best result on the mountains that Giro, frikking 65th. And now Richie Porte is riding the Grand Colombier & Richemont on front and reels back in Nibali? I'm sorry, but how could I not be cynical after seeing this.

We've knocked this one around a few times, but here goes again,

1) Richie Porte had an outstanding first year in Europe,  10th Romandie, 7th Giro, 4th Eneco, 4th ToB. Are we supposed to ignore that ever happened? Sky weren't the only team who didn't because there was a long queue for his signature.

2) Saxo changed radically in terms of personnel, both riding and support staff, between the two years. It isn't hard to imagine how an inexperienced rider might not react well to such an overhaul.

3) Clearly year 2 at Saxo went horribly wrong in terms of climbing but TTing not so much, 3rd PN, 8th Vasco, 1st Castila y Leon, 2nd Romandie, 3rd Giro, 4th TdF, 1st Denmark, 6th Worlds. Clearly his role isn't the same at Sky, or if the role is the same, it shows how badly Saxo screwed up, rather than that Porte must be doping.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on July 11, 2012, 20:56
Kimmage rubbishing cycling once again, oh will he never tire of rubbishing cycling. Frankly I will never understand why he choses cycling, tarnishs cycling as much as the dopers.

Do you believe the  mouth/keyboard  that comes out your arse? 

Here enjoy

1999 Tour de France Stage 9 Sestrières (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HavGf-xTS_4#)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Anthony Moan on July 11, 2012, 20:57
 ;D, Jessu Havy they are all over your ass ;D, guys leave Havy alone, Jesus :fp
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: flicker2.0 on July 11, 2012, 21:35
Do you believe the  mouth/keyboard  that comes out your arse? 

Here enjoy

1999 Tour de France Stage 9 Sestrières (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HavGf-xTS_4#)

So, basically Kimmage is the good guy here, Sky, Yates, Wiggins, including Cavendish: the team are the bad guys. So Kimmage says Sky are cheats, and that is good? Because Wiggins basically says the people who attack riders on twitter, need to be productive in their lives and get a job, a life. I think that is good advice by Wiggins, but that is just me. That makes Wiggins a bad guy? Because Wiggins appreciates Armstrong, that makes Wiggins a doper, and a cheat?
I guess I am the idiot here, chapaue.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on July 11, 2012, 21:44
So, basically Kimmage is the good guy here, Sky, Yates, Wiggins, including Cavendish: the team are the bad guys. So Kimmage says Sky are cheats, and that is good? Because Wiggins basically says the people who attack riders on twitter, need to be productive in their lives and get a job, a life. I think that is good advice by Wiggins, but that is just me. That makes Wiggins a bad guy? Because Wiggins appreciates Armstrong, that makes Wiggins a doper, and a cheat?
I guess I am the idiot here, chapaue.

I am not talking about wiggins being a bad guy or sky here but whatever makes you happy.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Mellow Velo on July 11, 2012, 21:57
We've knocked this one around a few times, but here goes again,

1) Richie Porte had an outstanding first year in Europe,  10th Romandie, 7th Giro, 4th Eneco, 4th ToB. Are we supposed to ignore that ever happened? Sky weren't the only team who didn't because there was a long queue for his signature.

2) Saxo changed radically in terms of personnel, both riding and support staff, between the two years. It isn't hard to imagine how an inexperienced rider might not react well to such an overhaul.

3) Clearly year 2 at Saxo went horribly wrong in terms of climbing but TTing not so much, 3rd PN, 8th Vasco, 1st Castila y Leon, 2nd Romandie, 3rd Giro, 4th TdF, 1st Denmark, 6th Worlds. Clearly his role isn't the same at Sky, or if the role is the same, it shows how badly Saxo screwed up, rather than that Porte must be doping.

 Yes.
 Seems a lot of folks want to dismiss what I recall was a very impressive first year, (I remember a lot of predictions about a great future. Lovely guy etc) in favour of a miserable and unhappy second year, because it doesn't fit their theory.

  Porte taking back 30 seconds in 10-12kms from Nibali after their respective efforts, is only "suspect", if you ignore 2010 and use 2011 as your immovable benchmark.

 That's July for you.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Lanced Armprong on July 11, 2012, 21:58
Who bothers me a lot too is Richie Porte, he has gone from the guy who did the work on the flat for SaxoBank last year, to the guy who rolls back GC winners in who are attacking at almost full gas. I mean, Porte had to do the work at SaxoBank because he got dropped like a rock when the gradient rose to 2%.

136th in the stage to Gardeccia in the 2011 Giro, 93rd in the Mountain Time Trial which wasnt even a tough climb but had a few kms flat before the climb too. The stage to the Etna was his best result on the mountains that Giro, frikking 65th. And now Richie Porte is riding the Grand Colombier & Richemont on front and reels back in Nibali? I'm sorry, but how could I not be cynical after seeing this.

Might be a bit like Gilbert last year smashing everything, but this year can't win a thing. Riders peak, riders slump.

Seeing that video of Lance going up Sestriere highlights one thing - they don't climb like that anymore, so I'd like to think the peloton is a bit cleaner.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Lanced Armprong on July 11, 2012, 21:59
With regards to Porte, I was chuffed to bits when Sky signed him as I'd seen the potential during a previous Giro. Then I promptly forgot all about it once Cav signed and took the limelight :)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on July 11, 2012, 22:04
So not a chance that anyone on teamsky is doping?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Lanced Armprong on July 11, 2012, 22:12
Never say never! Been bitten on the arse before. I'd like to think they're not, to the point that I root for them at every race. I like the way they've trained this year - it breeds improvement. Think about how Brailsford has helped to bring in better training methods to BC before Sky started.

Eh, everyone has different opinions on it - only Team Sky know for sure :)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 11, 2012, 22:28
So not a chance that anyone on teamsky is doping?
No, none.









Apart from Froome






and Rogers









and maybe Siutsou





I dunno, there's doping and there's doping. If there is dopng going on, it's no more than the same riders were doing previously without all this excitement about their performances. Apart from Froome, I don't see any suspicious turnaround in ability, no donkey to racehorse syndrome. Sky have bought in a stable full of good GT riders and they're using them to pursue one aim, and it's working; partly due to the quality and togetherness of the riders, partly due to the route, partly due to the weakness of the field. But I don't see how you can blame Sky for any of the above.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Lanced Armprong on July 11, 2012, 22:33
Sky have bought in a stable full of good GT riders and they're using them to pursue one aim, and it's working; partly due to the quality and togetherness of the riders, partly due to the route, partly due to the weakness of the field. But I don't see how you can blame Sky for any of the above.

QFT

Also, on your comment about the route, put this Sky team in either the TdF or Giro in 2009, and watch them get their arses handed to them. Like the Green jersey comp was tailored for Cav last year, this TdF parcours seems perfect for Sky.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: flicker2.0 on July 11, 2012, 22:34
So not a chance that anyone on teamsky is doping?

Not a chance.  If SKY were doping, before the London Olympics, and with Wiggins, Cav., the track team, having a great chance at medals, Sky or any of their members would be fools to take risk of a doping detection. Like the other poster said, no riders are flying uphills like Armstrong used to in Le Tour, this year. My point is , even if Kimmage suspects, it is not the right time for him to cast shadow on the British Team in my opinion. The video of Armstrong in 1999 is very impressive. I really did not watch cycling at that time. It is kind of sick actually.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 11, 2012, 22:44
Not a chance.  If SKY were doping, before the London Olympics, and with Wiggins, Cav., the track team, having a great chance at medals, Sky or any of their members would be fools to take risk of a doping detection. Like the other poster said, no riders are flying uphills like Armstrong used to in Le Tour, this year. My point is , even if Kimmage suspects, it is not the right time for him to cast shadow on the British Team in my opinion. The video of Armstrong in 1999 is very impressive. I really did not watch cycling at that time. It is kind of sick actually.
6 minutes on the field after a TT and a mountain stage. Different days indeed.

Disagree with you about Kimmage though. I think his points are valid and he above anyone else has the right to air them.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Lanced Armprong on July 11, 2012, 22:49
The main problem of this tour will be the fact that Sky are trying to win in a "boring" way. We as fans want to see crazy attacks, but they have done their homework on this Tour, and then some, so are going to follow their plan to the letter. I hope they do it - Britain needs a TdF winner if it's to encourage more and more kids to take it up and become elite cyclists. I just hope that next year, we get a Tour that has those crazy attacks :)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 11, 2012, 23:01
The main problem of this tour will be the fact that Sky are trying to win in a "boring" way. We as fans want to see crazy attacks, but they have done their homework on this Tour, and then some, so are going to follow their plan to the letter. I hope they do it - Britain needs a TdF winner if it's to encourage more and more kids to take it up and become elite cyclists. I just hope that next year, we get a Tour that has those crazy attacks :)
+1

I also think that Sky haven't made themselves too popular, brash assertions about winning the Tour within 5 years, (how we all laughed and us Brits had to pretend they didn't really mean it as Bradley came in 25th). Combine that with a lot of purchasing power and a lot of statements on team ethics that haven't really been lived up to and I'd hate them too if I wasn't British.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: killswitch on July 11, 2012, 23:07
So not a chance that anyone on teamsky is doping?
No. /thread
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: TheNightRider on July 11, 2012, 23:26
Kimmage came across as having a grudge. Wiggins ruined his vacation with sky so he doesn't like him. But there is nothing of substance in what he says that indicates Sky are doping. There is only a tenuous link with a part time doctor who is linked to the team, who isn't even at the tour. Kimmage is entitled to continue to play the role of doubting Thomas, but I am not buying to the logic.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on July 12, 2012, 00:57
We've knocked this one around a few times, but here goes again,

1) Richie Porte had an outstanding first year in Europe,  10th Romandie, 7th Giro, 4th Eneco, 4th ToB. Are we supposed to ignore that ever happened? Sky weren't the only team who didn't because there was a long queue for his signature.



10th in romandie aint that much to brag about, especially when it came from winning a  long tt in which Valverde came 2nd.

giro was not that special either - compared to what he is doing now. I mean once the big mountains came he was losing minutes. he held the pink for a flat stage then lost it to Arroyo over monte grappa, hardly the most challenging mountain stage they had that year. He lost what was it 4 on Zoncolan and more of the same on Mortirolo. And by this point he had all team leader privelages behind him and was fighting for the white.

In fact you do not mention the best performance he had that year, and the one that might just could have suggested there was some real climbing talent in him. Going with the heads of state in San sebatian despite not doing the TDF.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on July 12, 2012, 01:01
Been watching videos of climbs from the 96 - 99 tours. Puts all the claims about sky doping in perspective :D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on July 12, 2012, 01:28
wow - just reading the CN piece on his interview ...

and seriously - I dont care whether he has a program or not, what an arrogant asshole.

he has this whole 'entitled' attitude that is the kind of thing I hate.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on July 12, 2012, 02:29
Who bothers me a lot too is Richie Porte, he has gone from the guy who did the work on the flat for SaxoBank last year, to the guy who rolls back GC winners in who are attacking at almost full gas. I mean, Porte had to do the work at SaxoBank because he got dropped like a rock when the gradient rose to 2%.

136th in the stage to Gardeccia in the 2011 Giro, 93rd in the Mountain Time Trial which wasnt even a tough climb but had a few kms flat before the climb too. The stage to the Etna was his best result on the mountains that Giro, frikking 65th. And now Richie Porte is riding the Grand Colombier & Richemont on front and reels back in Nibali? I'm sorry, but how could I not be cynical after seeing this.

It's possible that Porte wasn't doping at Saxo.

Plus he had some reasonable moments (was in the group until Giau caught fire). His time trialing was consistently good which suggested his lack of climbing ability was partly a weight problem. We know he has dropped weight and his TT has suffered as a result - this was evident in January. But I'd put him in the top10 climbers this year, so yeh. Hopefully they allow to train to break up next year and they try and win all three GTs.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: TheNightRider on July 12, 2012, 03:04
wow - just reading the CN piece on his interview ...

and seriously - I dont care whether he has a program or not, what an arrogant asshole.

he has this whole 'entitled' attitude that is the kind of thing I hate.

How do you form that conclusion from not allowing a journalist to follow him around everywhere, and one tweet? Wiggins is one of the most humble cyclists out there.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on July 12, 2012, 03:15
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-im-not-some-s-t-rider-who-has-come-from-nowhere (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-im-not-some-s-t-rider-who-has-come-from-nowhere)

I'm not saying whether he is or isn't, but that is NOT the defense to be using at this point.


Night rider. This is the piece I was talking about.

Not just one tweet
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: TheNightRider on July 12, 2012, 03:25

Night rider. This is the piece I was talking about.

Not just one tweet

I thought it was refreshingly honest. He's just answering questions and not listening to PR people. Maybe he's talking about it too much now, but when other riders refuse to talk about it, they are criticized.

You are reading way too much into it.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Gravel Rash on July 12, 2012, 03:49
We've knocked this one around a few times, but here goes again,

1) Richie Porte had an outstanding first year in Europe,  10th Romandie, 7th Giro, 4th Eneco, 4th ToB. Are we supposed to ignore that ever happened? Sky weren't the only team who didn't because there was a long queue for his signature.

2) Saxo changed radically in terms of personnel, both riding and support staff, between the two years. It isn't hard to imagine how an inexperienced rider might not react well to such an overhaul.

3) Clearly year 2 at Saxo went horribly wrong in terms of climbing but TTing not so much, 3rd PN, 8th Vasco, 1st Castila y Leon, 2nd Romandie, 3rd Giro, 4th TdF, 1st Denmark, 6th Worlds. Clearly his role isn't the same at Sky, or if the role is the same, it shows how badly Saxo screwed up, rather than that Porte must be doping.

Didn't Porte gain a lot of time in the Giro though one stage when there was a massive split in the peloton
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on July 12, 2012, 03:52
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-im-not-some-s-t-rider-who-has-come-from-nowhere (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-im-not-some-s-t-rider-who-has-come-from-nowhere)

I'm not saying whether he is or isn't, but that is NOT the defense to be using at this point.

I think people have to realise what kind of engine you need to win an Olympic gold medal as an Olympic pursuiter.

How scary is it going to be when all the guys who have done sub 4:15-4:16 in the last few years turn to the road?

I predict the 2016 Tour GC to be something like 1. Phinney 2. Hepburn 3. Sergent 4. Bobridge 5. Thomas 6. Dennis
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 12, 2012, 11:28
Kimmage weighs in:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx (http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx)

I was waiting to read what he would say. Another well-written article from Stokes.
Kimmage weighs in on the subject of sky
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx (http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx)

Full admins, same wordage, clearly multi IDs :D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on July 12, 2012, 11:31
Paul Kimmage and Shane Stokes talk and this was what came out of that:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx (http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx)








 ;D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on July 12, 2012, 12:18
Shane Stokes has been blocked by Wiggins on Twitter.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on July 12, 2012, 13:24
Shane Stokes has been blocked by Wiggins on Twitter.

Block any number of f**king w**kers by all means but a respectable, respected journo? For publishing an interview featuring somebody's honest opinion?

It's his choice (unless his PR people knobbled him) and he has a race to do, so I could see how he doesn't need the negative psychology right now, but it really seems like a shot in the foot.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: flicker2.0 on July 12, 2012, 16:14
Shane Stokes has been blocked by Wiggins on Twitter.

Can you blame Wiggins for blocking Shane, after all it takes total focus to ride the tour. People feel as if they can use twitter, to make war on others. Really hard to understand how Shane could not understand that Wiggins has other interests than a twit=war.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 12, 2012, 16:30
10th in romandie aint that much to brag about, especially when it came from winning a  long tt in which Valverde came 2nd.

giro was not that special either - compared to what he is doing now. I mean once the big mountains came he was losing minutes. he held the pink for a flat stage then lost it to Arroyo over monte grappa, hardly the most challenging mountain stage they had that year. He lost what was it 4 on Zoncolan and more of the same on Mortirolo. And by this point he had all team leader privelages behind him and was fighting for the white.

In fact you do not mention the best performance he had that year, and the one that might just could have suggested there was some real climbing talent in him. Going with the heads of state in San sebatian despite not doing the TDF.
Not much to brag about?

I hadn't looked at the field but since you raise it...

   1.       [SLO]         SPILAK Simon       LAM       17h38'06"       240   
    2.       [RUS]         MENCHOV Denis       RAB       10"       180   
    3.       [AUS]         ROGERS Michael       THR       24"       145   
    4.       [RUS]         KARPETS Vladimir       KAT       31"       132   
    5.       [SLO]         BRAJKOVIC Janez       RSH       41"       120   
    6.       [POR]         MACHADO Tiago Jose Pinto       RSH       01'05"       108   
    7.       [ITA]         PINOTTI Marco       THR       01'16"       96   
    8.       [SUI]         WYSS Marcel       CTT       01'17"       85   
    9.       [ESP]         ANTON HERNANDEZ Igor       EUS       01'23"       74   
    10.       [AUS]         PORTE Richie       SAX       01'59"       63   
    11.       [FRA]         MOREAU Christophe       GCE       02'06"       55   
    12.       [SVK]         SAGAN Peter       LIQ       02'21"       49   
    13.       [USA]         VANDE VELDE Christian       GRM       02'36"       44   
    14.       [FRA]         ROY Jérémy       FDJ       02'39"       39   
    15.       [FRA]         CASAR Sandy       FDJ       02'45"       34   
    16.       [ESP]         ZUBELDIA AGIRRE Haimar       RSH       02'55"       31   
    17.       [ITA]         CAPECCHI Eros       FOT       03'09"       28   
    18.       [FRA]         GADRET John       ALM       03'34"       25   
    19.       [ESP]         RUBIERA VIGIL Jose Luis       RSH       03'48"       22   
    20.       [FRA]         DUPONT Hubert       ALM       04'03"       20   

That's some field and for someone to come straight in at that level is pretty astonishing - just for being able to hold onto the peloton.

Amazed by your brushing off a 7th place finish in the Giro too.  Gaps were huge that year.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on July 12, 2012, 17:32
Porte was a liability today, maybe still some hope that Rogers is the only one doping.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 12, 2012, 17:35
Today stage 11 was c razy but not for the reason you think

Well mick was a bit mental.

But really slow stage 18.00 cet finish and strange for how many riders could not handel the efforts.

Really really slow but too much for 95%.

Maybe something to consider re sky
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on July 12, 2012, 17:40
How fast did the climb the last 2 main climbs though, they could have done everything else slowly but if they climbed Croix de Fer and La Toussuire fast then it is understandable that everything would unravel.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on July 12, 2012, 17:41
Porte was a liability today, maybe still some hope that Rogers is the only one doping.
Not so much a liability I believe rather than him being in the wrong position, Rogers was clearly stronger and he should have been 3rd man not Porte.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on July 12, 2012, 17:55
BTW does anyone think Rogers is a "super-responder"? Ferrari always thought that he had the "numbers" to win the Tour. Something didn't go right in cutting the weight from his TT days and lost significant power, we know Sky can fix that.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 12, 2012, 18:06
BTW does anyone think Rogers is a "super-responder"? Ferrari always thought that he had the "numbers" to win the Tour. Something didn't go right in cutting the weight from his TT days and lost significant power, we know Sky can fix that.

Who knows way too much noise in there, ITT stuff, mono and crashes.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on July 12, 2012, 18:07
Yep, as they say, our Tommy D!
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: flicker2.0 on July 12, 2012, 19:40
BTW does anyone think Rogers is a "super-responder"? Ferrari always thought that he had the "numbers" to win the Tour. Something didn't go right in cutting the weight from his TT days and lost significant power, we know Sky can fix that.

rodgers is very dicy!
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on July 12, 2012, 21:27
(http://www.cyclesportmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/DBgraphhires.jpg)

cf= chris froome.

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

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on July 12, 2012, 21:31
Whats the deal with froome? will he be given giro or tdf next year or the plan will still be b wiggins at all cost.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: killswitch on July 12, 2012, 21:37
(http://www.cyclesportmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/DBgraphhires.jpg)

cf= chris froome.

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/features/inside-the-mind-of-dave-brailsford/ (http://www.cyclesportmag.com/features/inside-the-mind-of-dave-brailsford/)
That confirms again that EBH really is a physical freak, who is wasting his talent at Sky though. Saxo could do with a rider like him.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on July 12, 2012, 22:23
(http://www.cyclesportmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/DBgraphhires.jpg)

cf= chris froome.

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



To be fair, thats Lionel Bernies interpretation of what Brailsford was saying as opposed to what DB actually said. John Lee was blighted with injury, Froome had what looks like long term illness, Lars Peter has just been a slow starter, and Bernie is a bit of a schmuck. Hes like Britains Anthony Tan. You only have to look where he had Chris Sutton who has had several  world tour podiums
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on July 12, 2012, 22:28
Michelle Cound ‏@michellecound
Anybody else spot the rope-a-dope today or was it that convincing?? :)))

Michelle Cound ‏@michellecound
for clarity :) rope-a-dope: strategies in which one party purposely puts itself in what appears to be a losing position
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on July 12, 2012, 22:34
Michelle Cound ‏@michellecound
Anybody else spot the rope-a-dope today or was it that convincing?? :)))

Michelle Cound ‏@michellecound
for clarity :) rope-a-dope: strategies in which one party purposely puts itself in what appears to be a losing position

Rolling Stones - Play With Fire [BEST quality / Original upload] (Aussie TV, 1966) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhJGo0RcY_k#)

 :fp
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on July 12, 2012, 22:57
Michelle Cound ‏@michellecound
Anybody else spot the rope-a-dope today or was it that convincing?? :)))

Michelle Cound ‏@michellecound
for clarity :) rope-a-dope: strategies in which one party purposely puts itself in what appears to be a losing position

Did Cathy Wiggins not respond?  ::)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on July 13, 2012, 02:22
(http://www.cyclesportmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/DBgraphhires.jpg)

cf= chris froome.

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

The way I read that, Thomas or Uran were more likely to have an explosion at this time than Froome. Froome is actually dead last?

Edit: Read dim's post, you mean there's another Anthony Tan?  :o
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 13, 2012, 02:27
Thomas Lofkvist- WT podium ;D

Thought it was TIernan Locke for a second, that would be more realistic.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on July 13, 2012, 11:03
you dont know anything  :fp

Michelle Cound ‏@michellecound
To those that have been criticising my comments from yesterday, I stand by them. I know all the facts, all the details that you don't
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on July 13, 2012, 12:06
Thomas Lofkvist- WT podium ;D

Thought it was TIernan Locke for a second, that would be more realistic.

Thomas lofkvist was a great talent and big things were expected of him.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 13, 2012, 12:12
Just laughing in hindsight mate, I saw his first Giro and he was good for most of it. Anyway, also goes to show that the graph is just hopes.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 13, 2012, 12:18
Thomas lofkvist was a great talent and big things were expected of him.
Yup. Before the Wiggins signing happened late on in proceedings, Lofkvist would have been the team leader.

And I suppose he is the evidence that not everything Sky touches grows wings.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on July 13, 2012, 12:56
Very well written blog by Wiggins in todays Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs?CMP=twt_gu (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs?CMP=twt_gu)

An extract

Quote
If I doped I would potentially stand to lose everything. It's a long list. My reputation, my livelihood, my marriage, my family, my house. Everything I have achieved, my Olympic medals, my world titles, the CBE I was given. I would have to take my children to the school gates in a small Lancashire village with everyone looking at me, knowing I had cheated, knowing I had, perhaps, won the Tour de France, but then been caught. I remember in 2007 throwing that Cofidis kit in the bin at that small airport, where no one knew me, because I didn't want any chance of being associated with doping. Then I imagine how it would be in a tiny community where everyone knows everyone.

It's not just about me. I've always lived in the UK. All my friends in cycling are here, and my extended family. Cycling isn't just about me and the Tour de France. My wife organises races in Lancashire. I have my own sportif, with people coming and paying £40 each to ride. If all that was built on sand, if I was deceiving all those people, I would have to live with the knowledge it could all disappear just like that. My father-in-law works at British Cycling and would never be able to show his face there again. Their family have been in cycling for 50 years, and I would bring shame and embarrassment on them. It's not just about me: if I doped it would jeopardise Sky – who sponsor the entire sport in the UK – Dave Brailsford and all he has done, and Tim Kerrison, my trainer. I would not want to end up sitting in a room with all that hanging on me, thinking: "sh*t, I don't want anyone to find out."

That is not something I wish to live with. Doping would simply be not worth it. This is only sport we are talking about. Sport does not mean more to me than all those other things I have. Winning the Tour de France at any cost is not worth the possibility of losing all that.

I am not willing to risk all those things I've got in my life. I do it because I love it. I don't do it for a power trip: at the end of the day, I'm a shy bloke looking forward to taking my son to summer rugby camp after the Tour, where he could maybe bump into his hero, Sam Tomkins. That's what's keeping me going here. What I love is doing my best and working hard. If I felt I had to take drugs, I would rather stop tomorrow, go and ride club 10-mile time trials, ride to the cafe on Sundays, and work in Tesco stacking shelves
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: thingswelike on July 13, 2012, 13:07
Phew - I must say, I'm very pleased he's written this.
The assumption of guilt has been taken too far by many. I hope this at least tempers that slightly.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on July 13, 2012, 18:51
Completely off topic and nothing to with doping .. Since there are alot of brits posting.. Why didnt charlie wegelius and one more guy didn't want to ride for hammond at the 2005 world championship? Any particular reason? ... I dont want to open a new thread just to ask a question.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on July 13, 2012, 20:41
From what I can remember didn't Wegelius and some others ride for Italian teams and they may have got a fee too.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/southam-and-wegelius-blasted-for-performance-at-worlds (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/southam-and-wegelius-blasted-for-performance-at-worlds)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2366613/Herety-resigns-over-team-tactics.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2366613/Herety-resigns-over-team-tactics.html)

Later said he regretted it.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Jamsque on July 14, 2012, 12:06
Very well written blog by Wiggins in todays Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs?CMP=twt_gu (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs?CMP=twt_gu)

An extract


Came here to post this. Wiggins comes across much better when he has time to collect his thoughts than in press conferences.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on July 14, 2012, 19:10
While Wiggins piece in the Guardian explaining why he wont dope goes someway to helping appease people, he has not backed it up with saying he will post the data online to prove he is clean, ie the data that ASO got to see.

But saying he stands to lose everything is reminiscent of Armstrong saying he would never dope after having cancer, ie cause he has too much to lose.

So again while it would be nice to believe Sky are doing it clean, i doubt it as i doubt others race clean. It is too easy to get away with micro doping so others are definitely doing it, RSNT, OPQS, Katusha, Astana etc yet Sky is the dominant team.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: jobiwan on July 14, 2012, 19:53
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/07/news/bradley-wiggins-mulls-releasing-blood-data-to-bolster-clean-racing-argument_229792 (http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/07/news/bradley-wiggins-mulls-releasing-blood-data-to-bolster-clean-racing-argument_229792)

Quote
“It’s something I’m looking into doing. I’ve been advised against it. Strongly advised against it. But it’s something I would like to do, because I’ve got nothing to hide, so I don’t see why it shouldn’t be out there,” Wiggins said.

Good. Now don't mull it, just do it.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on July 14, 2012, 20:20
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/07/news/bradley-wiggins-mulls-releasing-blood-data-to-bolster-clean-racing-argument_229792 (http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/07/news/bradley-wiggins-mulls-releasing-blood-data-to-bolster-clean-racing-argument_229792)

Good. Now don't mull it, just do it.

who would advise him against doing it and why?

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Jamsque on July 14, 2012, 20:39
He released some before, didn't he? While he was at Garmin. I think I remember JV saying something to the effect that all they achieved by releasing blood values was giving amateur hematologists something to talk about and make spurious inferences from.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Lanced Armprong on July 14, 2012, 20:46


So again while it would be nice to believe Sky are doing it clean, i doubt it as i doubt others race clean. It is too easy to get away with micro doping so others are definitely doing it, RSNT, OPQS, Katusha, Astana etc yet Sky is the dominant team.

some facts to back up your statement that those teams are "DEFINITELY" would be nice right about now. Otherwise you come across as just another Sky-basher / Pro Cycling hater. I prefer to take the opinion that looking at the times of climbs, and watching the effort the riders are putting in and what that does to them, that the majority are riding clean now. Until I see proof otherwise, I'm going to stop being so cynical (for the first time in my life!).
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on July 14, 2012, 21:29
who would advise him against doing it and why?

Because of all the amateur haemotologists on cycling forums that would pull every little discrepancie apart and turn it around on him.

I'm in favor of rides data being made public. But it should be EVERY rider from every team so is an even playing field

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on July 15, 2012, 02:59
Because of all the amateur haemotologists on cycling forums that would pull every little discrepancie apart and turn it around on him.

Well, those amateur haemotologists who didn't accept that it was "all good" were probably closer than you think, and the UCI suspicion index 12 months later seemed to reinforce the suggestion that maybe something wasn't right.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on July 15, 2012, 04:17
I'm in favor of rides data being made public. But it should be EVERY rider from every team so is an even playing field

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

I originally thanked your post, but have changed it to not give the wrong impression.

Its this bit that I agree with    :)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on July 15, 2012, 10:39
some facts to back up your statement that those teams are "DEFINITELY" would be nice right about now. Otherwise you come across as just another Sky-basher / Pro Cycling hater. I prefer to take the opinion that looking at the times of climbs, and watching the effort the riders are putting in and what that does to them, that the majority are riding clean now. Until I see proof otherwise, I'm going to stop being so cynical (for the first time in my life!).

I am on a cycling related forum offering opinion.

Sadly i cannot offer facts. But i base my opinions on what i know and what my eyes tell me.

If the doping teams are clean why are they not doing a Garmin now? Proclaiming they are clean, remember JV doped in his past.

As for offering up that the others are doping teams. These teams, their DSs and team doctors know of no other way to operate in sport.

How was Andy Schleck going to turn up to the TdF as he had done nothing all season, barely finished a race?

While it can frustrating to watch and think they are doping,it might be  easier like in the  Giro to have bigger doubts that there was much doping going on, but Sky are USPostalling it.

I will leave you to enjoy the Sky success if you so wish. But if you dont want to be cynical about the sport it is best not to visit forums and their doping threads  ;)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on July 15, 2012, 10:44

So again while it would be nice to believe Sky are doing it clean, i doubt it as i doubt others race clean. It is too easy to get away with micro doping so others are definitely doing it, RSNT, OPQS, Katusha, Astana etc yet Sky is the dominant team.
That logic seems to be flawed because if others are doing it, then why are Sky superior. Many people originally attribute their claims that Sky are doping due to their unnatural superiority but are you implying that Sky are just better than everyone else at it? Because otherwise you may as well just assume the dope is taken away and everyone will still be at the same level with Sky remaining superior.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: killswitch on July 15, 2012, 12:43
... but are you implying that Sky are just better than everyone else at it?
US Postal were and the eerie similarities to Sky are maybe too much to be a coincidence.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Lanced Armprong on July 15, 2012, 19:56

Sadly i cannot offer facts. But i base my opinions on what i know and what my eyes tell me.


I too believe what my eyes tell me, and when I see how the pro peloton performs nowadays compared to the height of the doping era, they are night and day. There will always be doping, but I believe it is becoming rarer every year. I just think we're at a stage in cycling where we should be enjoying it more and stop trying to find some way of putting a downer on every race (Cuddles last year winning the TdF was amazing, but because he didn't speak out against doping, people immediately said he condones it :fp).

Each to their own though, some people just like to have something to moan about :)

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 15, 2012, 19:59
I think this maybe one of the slowest average speed tours in history for whatever it is worth.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on July 15, 2012, 21:56
I too believe what my eyes tell me, and when I see how the pro peloton performs nowadays compared to the height of the doping era, they are night and day. There will always be doping, but I believe it is becoming rarer every year. I just think we're at a stage in cycling where we should be enjoying it more and stop trying to find some way of putting a downer on every race (Cuddles last year winning the TdF was amazing, but because he didn't speak out against doping, people immediately said he condones it :fp).

Each to their own though, some people just like to have something to moan about :)

I dont like the personal attacks from your 2 previous posts. Hater and now moaner.

I think every cycling fan at this stage has the complete right to be angry about the doping in the sport. I dont moan about it i offer my opinion, which is to doubt what i see.

This is not 'the clinic', it is a new forum where personal attacks and name calling are not wanted. We can all call it as we see it. But to start with the fanboy and hater bullsh*t is gonna make it a duplicate of what is already online. I for one dont want to see velorooms become similar to what is there. So far it has stayed above that.

i hope it continues in this manner.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on July 15, 2012, 22:02
That logic seems to be flawed because if others are doing it, then why are Sky superior. Many people originally attribute their claims that Sky are doping due to their unnatural superiority but are you implying that Sky are just better than everyone else at it? Because otherwise you may as well just assume the dope is taken away and everyone will still be at the same level with Sky remaining superior.

When you add up all the questions that Sky need to answer, it really is too much in a sport where we all know the past.

Why are Sky superior? I dont know maybe because they have a world class swimming coach, they have Geert Leinder and  maybe the combination of these 2 out performs whatever programs Ferarri, Ibarguren and Fuentes have their teams on!


Or maybe no one is doping and Sky like everyone else is riding clean! But i doubt it!

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 15, 2012, 23:09
When you add up all the questions that Sky need to answer, it really is too much in a sport where we all know the past.

Why are Sky superior? I dont know maybe because they have a world class swimming coach, they have Geert Leinder and  maybe the combination of these 2 out performs whatever programs Ferarri, Ibarguren and Fuentes have their teams on!


Or maybe no one is doping and Sky like everyone else is riding clean! But i doubt it!
Why are Sky superior?There are about three hundred posts in this thread and a great many of them offer answers to your question. You haven't addressed any of them.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Lanced Armprong on July 16, 2012, 20:15
I dont like the personal attacks from your 2 previous posts. Hater and now moaner.

I think every cycling fan at this stage has the complete right to be angry about the doping in the sport. I dont moan about it i offer my opinion, which is to doubt what i see.

This is not 'the clinic', it is a new forum where personal attacks and name calling are not wanted. We can all call it as we see it. But to start with the fanboy and hater bullsh*t is gonna make it a duplicate of what is already online. I for one dont want to see velorooms become similar to what is there. So far it has stayed above that.

i hope it continues in this manner.

Calm down please. I said in a previous post where you claim something is "definitely" the case that if you don't provide facts to back that assertion that something is "definite", that you come across as a Sky basher / Pro cycling hater.

You continue to single out a particular team and make claims that they are doing something untoward (we've been seeing this since this year's Tour started) just because of the past. Yes, cycling has a horrible past with doping, but you need to compare the performances of those bad days with today's performances, which you don't seem to want to do. Anyone can see that the performances this year (and I'm not just talking about Sky before you start with the fanboy stuff - I've been following cycling since way before Sky came along) are way down on what the dopers were capable of.

Your latest post also just seems to want to stir trouble for the sake of it, just because this team has done what no other team has done this year - worked as a solid unit in the mountains. This last part is key, if Nibali had the support from his teammates that Wiggins has or if Cadel had more than Teejay in the mountains, the GC might look a little different.

Were you as critical of Cadel when he won last year? The way he just kept going up those climbs every day, even on his own...

Yes this is a doping part of the forum, but that does not mean that you have to be negative in every post - there should be arguments from both sides of the discussion. I'm certainly happy to continue.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on July 16, 2012, 20:38
Been thinking about the Wiggins data thing

the pro's

+ It gets his data out and he can "prove" he is clean

the negatives

+ it counts for nothing if other riders dont follow suit
+ the amateur haemotologists will have a field day
+ he will be accused of lying about the figures
+ there will be a sh*tstorm when they get taken down again

My suggestion to Brad would be give the figures to someone who is respected such as Ashenden. Let him publish them, along with an accompanying study of what he gets from the figures (with the agreement that he can publish it unedited but Sky have the right of reply).

That way everyones happy.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Lanced Armprong on July 16, 2012, 20:44
Been thinking about the Wiggins data thing

the pro's

+ It gets his data out and he can "prove" he is clean

the negatives

+ it counts for nothing if other riders dont follow suit
+ the amateur haemotologists will have a field day
+ he will be accused of lying about the figures
+ there will be a sh*tstorm when they get taken down again

My suggestion to Brad would be give the figures to someone who is respected such as Ashenden. Let him publish them, along with an accompanying study of what he gets from the figures (with the agreement that he can publish it unedited but Sky have the right of reply).

That way everyones happy.

Sounds like a plan. Wiggins seems keen to post his stats, I can only guess Sky don't want to after the furore when he posted his stats at Garmin. People will pick holes in everything, even though his last stat-posting showed to the experts that he wasn't doping.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 16, 2012, 20:46
Guys and Girls

I think it is time for a little step back on the personal nature of some of the posts.

We are here to discuss both sides of any given subject and it is important that each sides views are debated in a way that does not lead to personal attacks or making claims of what one person does or does not think.



 
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Anthony Moan on July 16, 2012, 21:11
Before two weeks no one even gives a sh*t for Wiggins or Sky, now all the sudden every single doubter is on ;D
Today Wiggins/Sky, tomorrow any rider or team who ride good, it is just silly if you ask me.
Wait why not Thibaut Pinot, yesterday he was anonymous French rider, and now he is top ten. If you ask me, something smelly for sure ;D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on July 16, 2012, 21:25
Before two weeks no one even gives a sh*t for Wiggins or Sky, now all the sudden every single doubter is on ;D
Today Wiggins/Sky, tomorrow any rider or team who ride good, it is just silly if you ask me.
Wait why not Thibaut Pinot, yesterday he was anonymous French rider, and now he is top ten. If you ask me, something smelly for sure ;D
Agree with the first bit but the 2nd bit is not necessarily true as Pinot is a young rider who showed lots of promise last year and seems to be starting to come good this year. Otherwise when can you ever come good as a rider?
Problem with Wiggins is he coming good in fact really good later on in his career, what people do not understand is that he started off as a track rider and that took away years of his GT development which he only made up recently whilst riders like Pinot are making them up now.

It is very similar to Evans, Hesjedal and Kessiakoff all of whom are former mountain bikers and have started to display their full road and specifically GT climbing talent at a later age.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Anthony Moan on July 16, 2012, 21:43
Agree with the first bit but the 2nd bit is not necessarily true as Pinot is a young rider who showed lots of promise last year and seems to be starting to come good this year. Otherwise when can you ever come good as a rider?
Problem with Wiggins is he coming good in fact really good later on in his career, what people do not understand is that he started off as a track rider and that took away years of his GT development which he only made up recently whilst riders like Pinot are making them up now.

It is very similar to Evans, Hesjedal and Kessiakoff all of whom are former mountain bikers and have started to display their full road and specifically GT climbing talent at a later age.
Yes, yes, but my point was that Pinot is not very attractive for doubters as Wiggins and Sky ;)
Doubters dont have any favorite rider or team, coz sooner or later they will found them selves in deep sh*t how to explain their conduct ;D, all they know is moaning after first week of any GT at any rider who is leading 8)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on July 16, 2012, 21:44
Yes, yes, but my point was that Pinot is not very attractive for doubters as Wiggins and Sky ;)
Doubters dont have any favorite rider or team, coz sooner or later they will found them selves in deep sh*t how to explain their conduct ;D, all they know is moaning after first week of any GT at any rider who is leading 8)
Yeh totally agree.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: pedaling squares on July 16, 2012, 23:02
Phew - I must say, I'm very pleased he's written this.
The assumption of guilt has been taken too far by many. I hope this at least tempers that slightly.
Unfortunately, history has shown us thousands of times that the prospect of negative consequences is a terrible indicator of innocence.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on July 17, 2012, 01:13
Been thinking about the Wiggins data thing

the pro's

+ It gets his data out and he can "prove" he is clean

the negatives

+ it counts for nothing if other riders dont follow suit
+ the amateur haemotologists will have a field day
+ he will be accused of lying about the figures
+ there will be a sh*tstorm when they get taken down again

My suggestion to Brad would be give the figures to someone who is respected such as Ashenden. Let him publish them, along with an accompanying study of what he gets from the figures (with the agreement that he can publish it unedited but Sky have the right of reply).

That way everyones happy.

I do like that idea.  Putting out results for all kinds of amateteurs (read w*****s and c***s  ;D) to analyse is not really a good idea.  But independent analysis would go some way towards allaying some of the general chatter.

Interviews such as the other day, thoughtful responses that treat people with respect go a lot further than abusive ones though  :)   Even if people dont agree or believe him, abusing the fans who are asking genuine questions isnt the way to go.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on July 17, 2012, 04:24
Wait why not Thibaut Pinot, yesterday he was anonymous French rider, and now he is top ten. If you ask me, something smelly for sure ;D

Is this the same Pinot who has been struggling for days? What about Taaramae?

There is a big difference to a very talented rider having a few good days and being a GT GC contender.

Rolland is a better example  ::)

It is very similar to Evans, Hesjedal and Kessiakoff all of whom are former mountain bikers and have started to display their full road and specifically GT climbing talent at a later age.

Evans who set a national climbing record at 21, who won on Kitzbuheler Horn at 24, and in his first full season as a pro was one climb away from the Giro at 25?

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 17, 2012, 19:24
I was looking at something else and saw this

I laughed

Floyd Landis on Bradley Wiggins interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUCzQ0e38I8#ws)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Sprout on July 17, 2012, 21:07
Before two weeks no one even gives a sh*t for Wiggins or Sky, now all the sudden every single doubter is on ;D
Today Wiggins/Sky, tomorrow any rider or team who ride good, it is just silly if you ask me.
Wait why not Thibaut Pinot, yesterday he was anonymous French rider, and now he is top ten. If you ask me, something smelly for sure ;D
agree on the first bit. Its the tour someone is winning so bring out the drug conspiracies, where have they been all season. Perhaps thats why Brad is so peed off. Where were the questioms following the Dauphne or Paris Nice
O
Should have been handled better by Brad and sky really. his peice in the Guardian was what he should have said to the press afer pulling on yellow
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Anthony Moan on July 18, 2012, 00:06
Is this the same Pinot who has been struggling for days? What about Taaramae?

There is a big difference to a very talented rider having a few good days and being a GT GC contender.

Rolland is a better example  ::)

Put Pinot, Taaremae, or Rolland in Sky as a leader and you will have GT contender. Every single rider who finished GT has brilliant fitness, and any top ten rider is super human dude.
What Pinot is struggling after 70 hours in saddle for two weeks? No way! What he would do? Smiling and writing on forums instead ;D

I say big difference my ass 8)
Top ten dudes are animals, animals. When someone understand that it is going to be easier to him watching races 8)

Evans who set a national climbing record at 21, who won on Kitzbuheler Horn at 24, and in his first full season as a pro was one climb away from the Giro at 25?
Really dont have a clue what that mean ::)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Anthony Moan on July 18, 2012, 00:09
agree on the first bit. Its the tour someone is winning so bring out the drug conspiracies, where have they been all season. Perhaps thats why Brad is so peed off. Where were the questioms following the Dauphne or Paris Nice
O
Should have been handled better by Brad and sky really. his peice in the Guardian was what he should have said to the press afer pulling on yellow
Yes, Wiggins is kind David Beckham of cycling these days ;D, and now we have even his wife on Twitter 8)
Media is all over his ass, if he lost he is fliped up, if he won he is doped :D There is no third way for such a super stars.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 26, 2012, 09:38
was trolling through CN and came across this name 

Fabio Bartalucci , Dr. Maserati found this.

Larri can come and link some stuff as he has a history and has been working with Team Sky since last year.

Now DB said they got Geert working with the team due to not knowing how to treat certain cycling related problems but why 2 Drs with past issues. This Dr has even been up against Coni - http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2001/agosto/18/Sono_gli_avvisi_garanzia_per_co_0_0108188088.shtml (http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2001/agosto/18/Sono_gli_avvisi_garanzia_per_co_0_0108188088.shtml)

and he has worked with Nicole Cooke - http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/nicole-cooke-i-hated-cycling-i-was-in-pain-i-wanted-to-quit-966040.html?afid=af (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/nicole-cooke-i-hated-cycling-i-was-in-pain-i-wanted-to-quit-966040.html?afid=af)

So some better ask DB why he needs 2 Drs with pasts now.

Of course it does not mean they are doping but they are moving further away from their own mission statement
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 26, 2012, 13:32
That's the first piece of evidence against Sky that has got me thinking, "That's not good." as opposed to, 'That doesn't look good."

"And he took me to see a doctor he'd worked with before with other athletes, Fabio Bartolucci, and he was able to offer advice and guidelines on how I could try and progress. And things started progressing. They were going OK – still not great – but then in March Fabio took on my coaching as well, and with his medical knowledge he was able to really help prescribe the training for my needs and my limits. And since then it's all been going well. It is a big turnaround. I think it's because I really believed in my dream and really wanted to make it happen and didn't give up when perhaps I might have done."
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on July 26, 2012, 13:33
was trolling through CN and came across this name 

Fabio Bartalucci , Dr. Maserati found this.

Larri can come and link some stuff as he has a history and has been working with Team Sky since last year.

Now DB said they got Geert working with the team due to not knowing how to treat certain cycling related problems but why 2 Drs with past issues. This Dr has even been up against Coni - http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2001/agosto/18/Sono_gli_avvisi_garanzia_per_co_0_0108188088.shtml (http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2001/agosto/18/Sono_gli_avvisi_garanzia_per_co_0_0108188088.shtml)

and he has worked with Nicole Cooke - http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/nicole-cooke-i-hated-cycling-i-was-in-pain-i-wanted-to-quit-966040.html?afid=af (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/nicole-cooke-i-hated-cycling-i-was-in-pain-i-wanted-to-quit-966040.html?afid=af)

So some better ask DB why he needs 2 Drs with pasts now.

Of course it does not mean they are doping but they are moving further away from their own mission statement

Bartalucci was a doctor at Bonjour in that team's difficult Giro in 2001. He appears to have become embroiled in the Giro Blitz investigation and then one of the Bonjour riders (Noan Lelarge) tested positive two or three weeks later for a minor corticosteroid in the same race.

Corticosteroids were common among the haul of substances in the Blitz but they are not among the sport's most serious substances or methods. Indeed there is a lingering sense that, despite spilling out cycling's dirty laundry all over the floor, the whole Blitz investigation did not really lead to much. Out of 51 indictees, only 8 were ever punished.

http://www.dopeology.org/teams/Bonjour/ (http://www.dopeology.org/teams/Bonjour/)

The Bonjour team was later responsored as Bouygues Telecom and its infrastructure has remained largely intact until the present day as Team Europcar.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 26, 2012, 13:43
He was on Cervelo Test Team with Carlos Sastre so Hitch needs to tread a bit carefully on this one.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 26, 2012, 13:46
Idly googling and it would appear he joined Phonak in 2001
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 26, 2012, 13:49
Idly googling and it would appear he joined Phonak in 2001

Correct  ::)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 26, 2012, 13:52
But then Bouygues Telecom in 2008. There couldn't be two could there?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on July 26, 2012, 13:52
Phonak 2002-? (probably until end when staff quit en masse)
FDJ 2005-6
Cervélo 2009-10
Sky 2011-
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 26, 2012, 13:59
Not a good sign clearly.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on July 26, 2012, 14:10
Be interesting to note what Vroomen's reaction be? He's stated his stance on anti doping, and said that the allegations against sky are a bit unwarranted, but he sponsored a team with a doping doctor? How does he defend that when questioning others like Frei via his blag?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on July 26, 2012, 15:39
Be interesting to note what Vroomen's reaction be? He's stated his stance on anti doping, and said that the allegations against sky are a bit unwarranted, but he sponsored a team with a doping doctor? How does he defend that when questioning others like Frei via his blag?

Vroomen is up there with Vaughter's on the anti-doping stance. Not credible imo.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on July 26, 2012, 15:44
Vroomen is up there with Vaughter's on the anti-doping stance. Not credible imo.

Guy makes bikes. He has as much interest as anyone in keeping things smooth unless the perp is riding Trek or some other brand, in which case hang 'em high. ;)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on July 26, 2012, 15:47
Guy makes bikes. He has as much interest as anyone in keeping things smooth unless the perp is riding Trek or some other brand, in which case hang 'em high. ;)

Exactamundo  :tu
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on July 26, 2012, 18:52
He was on Cervelo Test Team with Carlos Sastre so Hitch needs to tread a bit carefully on this one.

I never claimed.either sastre or wiggins were clean or dirty. Sastre certainly would not be a surprise if he doped. But wiggins defense these days is - no positive, no scandal = 100% clean, your not even allowed to ask questions.

So by iwiggins standards he has.no right to make any suggestions that sastre doped. My own standards there is definitely a lot to be sceptical about with sastre but exactly the same for wiggins.

Its either or though. You cast have 1 standard for riders not named wiggins and another for brad.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Sprout on July 26, 2012, 19:55
As I said in the shoutbox and that is not to say there isn't any doping at Sky, but if one of the team (brits especially) test positive thean the whole British track programme is implicated and Dave Brailsford would be facing enourmous questions.

There might be doping, but there are massive consequences if there is. It would ruin and cats doubts on so many. I think Brad handled some of the early press conferences badly. His peice in The Guardian is what he should have said in the first place. If he was caught it would make him look stupid based on that (again doesn't mean he isn't lying)

On the Doctor front. they might just be good doctors, all be it ones with questionable pasts. Doesn't mean that they are  doping guys now.

I just find it horrible that we have another tour winner and people have to dig for any sort of dirt. I say that as a Cycling fand rather than a Team Sky fan.


No doubt if Nibali won people would be digging on him and Leakygas.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 26, 2012, 21:05
As I said in the shoutbox and that is not to say there isn't any doping at Sky, but if one of the team (brits especially) test positive thean the whole British track programme is implicated and Dave Brailsford would be facing enourmous questions.

There might be doping, but there are massive consequences if there is. It would ruin and cats doubts on so many. I think Brad handled some of the early press conferences badly. His peice in The Guardian is what he should have said in the first place. If he was caught it would make him look stupid based on that (again doesn't mean he isn't lying)

On the Doctor front. they might just be good doctors, all be it ones with questionable pasts. Doesn't mean that they are  doping guys now.

I just find it horrible that we have another tour winner and people have to dig for any sort of dirt. I say that as a Cycling fand rather than a Team Sky fan.


No doubt if Nibali won people would be digging on him and Leakygas.
I'm a fan too. The implications for the UK are huge, way beyond a few sportsmen, to how we view cycling as a nation and how we participate in it.

However, that doesn't mean questions shouldn't be asked or answered.

In Nibali's case, I'm sure most exiles from CN remember the stories of him being spotted alongside Basso with Ferrari on a scooter before the 2010 Giro
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on July 26, 2012, 21:11
As I said in the shoutbox and that is not to say there isn't any doping at Sky, but if one of the team (brits especially) test positive thean the whole British track programme is implicated and Dave Brailsford would be facing enourmous questions.

There might be doping, but there are massive consequences if there is. It would ruin and cats doubts on so many. I think Brad handled some of the early press conferences badly. His peice in The Guardian is what he should have said in the first place. If he was caught it would make him look stupid based on that (again doesn't mean he isn't lying)

On the Doctor front. they might just be good doctors, all be it ones with questionable pasts. Doesn't mean that they are  doping guys now.

I just find it horrible that we have another tour winner and people have to dig for any sort of dirt. I say that as a Cycling fand rather than a Team Sky fan.

Why is it only the Brits who feel this.

Plenty have been caught doping and their coaches and teams have extracted themselves from any involvement with the ever helpful media. Cycling is full of such scenarios.

But if any rider on the Sky GT team tests positive it will have been an internal doping program. Apparently they have spent since a lot time since the Vuelta together preparing for the TdF. But i fully expect Sky to wash their hands of it as is the standard method.

You have to ask yourself as a cycling fan, why does a team like Sky break their own clean manifesto and say nothing! Brailsford was adamant that he would not hire David Millar his friend for Sky due to his doping ban. I mean Brailford could've said I'll hire him because i believe him and i will be able to guarantee he will be clean at Sky. Then he breaks it without any communication statement of transparency. There can only be one reason. But they are stupid to think it wouldn't come out. History repeats itself and nearly every major team in the sport has been caught for doping one way or another. Sky will be no different if they are not clean and all the signs are pointing in the direction of a team doping program.

No doubt if Nibali won people would be digging on him and Leakygas.

Evans got his thread last year. ;) :win

I have no doubt that Nibali works with Ferarri or similar. I have no evidence but again this is how it is done in Italy. If he won there would  definitely have been a thread. But as we and the 'other', are English 'written' forums ,there was of course a huge discourse over Wiggins, but not just because he is AngloSaxon, but by his manner of win, his abuse of cycling fans after hsi own anti doping rants in 2007, his team doctors, his domestiques performances, his Lieutenant's amazing performances in Vuelta and TdF.

These are not pie in the Sky ;D accusations being levelled, they have some basis for the questioning, doubting and Sky know that but they have dealt with in the exact same manner we have had from other doping teams.

Poor Sky, were they really that naive to think because of their declarations of transparency and being a British team that their performances would be celebrated without question. :fp

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on July 26, 2012, 21:16
I'm a fan too. The implications for the UK are huge, way beyond a few sportsmen, to how we view cycling as a nation and how we participate in it.

However, that doesn't mean questions shouldn't be asked or answered.


I would've thought that any implications would happen soon and Brit Cycling would make it clear to Brailsford that Leinders and Bartalucci got to go. After the Olympics or Worlds. But that is pre-supposing BC are not in on it. I imagine they are. They are sweet on the deal.

The days of falling on one's sword are consigned to history. Taking full responsibility for others actions is not done anymore. We live in a blame culture where everyone else is to blame.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Sprout on July 26, 2012, 21:25
Questions should always be asked I agree and it's obvious to see why there are with the sort of performances Sky/Wiggins have given this year.

Sky have definitley deviated from their manifesto, but was that manifesto a bit naive to begin with? I'd say so. Easy to make all the bold statements before you venture into the new and unknown and realise it's not as easy as you first thought. Perhaps Sky are guilty, or perhaps they are embarrassed/sheepish about how they have had to change tack from their original aim a bit

Cycling has it's history and nuiances that I suppose until you are in it you can't avoid or escape. I mean I'm only talking as a cycling fan. Lord knows what it's like in the Peleton and being able to understand what goes on and what is said and what is a given

If Sky are guilty, I hope they are caught. I would hate it as a fan and It is unimaginable what damage it would do to the whole of British cycling, but so be it
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: usedtobefast on August 02, 2012, 01:49
well, it seems that Sky have the "preparation" down. just going one better, without going one over. like going not quite to digital zero, but 1 tick under.
hats off,well done ;) ;D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on August 10, 2012, 09:49
Brailsford is really trying hard to push a UKPostal image with more comparisons to 7 time TdF fraud Armstrong!

Talking about Wiggins getting some training time in over the winter.

Quote
That’s where the guys who had repeated success on something like the Tour de France, like Armstrong, it’s a phenomenal achievement, in that sense, to manage your life

http://road.cc/content/news/63136-bradley-wiggins-latest-season-will-be-crucial-tour-defence-says-brailsford#comment-115591 (http://road.cc/content/news/63136-bradley-wiggins-latest-season-will-be-crucial-tour-defence-says-brailsford#comment-115591)

I would've thought the last person on the planet right now they would even mention in the same room as Wiggins would be Armstrong, but no, the  Sky egos are out of control.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on August 25, 2012, 21:02
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-warned-before-all-doping-controls (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-warned-before-all-doping-controls)

Quote
He also believes riders are still showing suspicious signs.

"Work together with Antoine Vayer [LeMond columnist], the performance specialist, helped show the implausibility of the power generated in watts on the climbs. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the UCI has banned the publication of such real-time statistics in 2012. And we can understand why when you see that the power production by [Bradley] Wiggins and [Chris] Froome (first and second of the Tour) is comparable to the turbulent times of the late 1990s and early 2000s."

food for thought
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on August 30, 2012, 09:50
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-warned-before-all-doping-controls (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-warned-before-all-doping-controls)

food for thought
It would be if it were true.

Everything I've read says that Wiggins and Froome are way slower than Armstrong/Pantani and are well within the bounds of what is considered physically plausible. Just looking at the videos of Armstrong/Pantani gives you a good idea of whether either claim is accurate or not.

But if someone can show me some output from someone respected in the field, that shows that Wiggins and Froome are as dodgy as what went before, I'll (sadly) revise my opinion.


Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on August 30, 2012, 09:59
It would be if it were true.

Everything I've read says that Wiggins and Froome are way slower than Armstrong/Pantani and are well within the bounds of what is considered physically plausible. Just looking at the videos of Armstrong/Pantani gives you a good idea of whether either claim is accurate or not.

But if someone can show me some output from someone respected in the field, that shows that Wiggins and Froome are as dodgy as what went before, I'll (sadly) revise my opinion.

Antoine Vayer is pretty respected as it goes. I don't know if and where he publishes the numbers he uses. What I think Vayer suggests is that Armstrong's/Pantani's numbers were ridiculous - that's a given. However, he also suggests that Wiggins' and Froome's are less but still not natural.

I translated Le Monde's recent interview with Vayer someplace here. Naturally, I'm too lazy to find it, but it's probably in the Armstrong thread. ;)

I afford Vayer as much airtime as I do Team Sky, which is to say that I don't know anything for sure, so I will just be content to listen to everything.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on August 30, 2012, 10:00
It would be if it were true.

Everything I've read says that Wiggins and Froome are way slower than Armstrong/Pantani and are well within the bounds of what is considered physically plausible. Just looking at the videos of Armstrong/Pantani gives you a good idea of whether either claim is accurate or not.

But if someone can show me some output from someone respected in the field, that shows that Wiggins and Froome are as dodgy as what went before, I'll (sadly) revise my opinion.

here is the issue only Sky will have the real numbers

you have the sports science website saying 1 thing and these French guys saying another.

and us discussing, getting upset and some throwing the baby out with the bath water.

by the way anyone know what is plausible ?

no one can really as we are using comparisons to things with way too many variables.

 
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on August 30, 2012, 10:45
Of course it's plausible, the 90s are long gone.

Not so plausible is having four Greg Lemonds in the same team.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on August 30, 2012, 11:12
I look at Michele Ferarri's brief report on 53x12 and read Andrew Coggan's posts on CN too. Both have had a 'Nothing to get excited about' ring to them.

Reading up on Vayer, he had access to the data on the two speed team at Festina, so he bases his assumptions on that.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on August 30, 2012, 12:00
Of course it's plausible, the 90s are long gone.

Not so plausible is having four Greg Lemonds in the same team.
Why not? If I recruit 9 Lemonds, I have a team of 9 Lemonds.

RNT had stronger climbers overall
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: cj2002 on August 30, 2012, 12:09
Why not? If I recruit 9 Lemonds, I have a team of 9 Lemonds.

RNT had stronger climbers overall

When life gives you Lemonds, make Lemondade...
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on August 30, 2012, 14:26
Why not? If I recruit 9 Lemonds, I have a team of 9 Lemonds.

RNT had stronger climbers overall

Where do I order a Lemond?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on August 30, 2012, 14:40
Carmichael industries  ;)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on August 31, 2012, 03:47
I look at Michele Ferarri's brief report on 53x12 and read Andrew Coggan's posts on CN too. Both have had a 'Nothing to get excited about' ring to them.

Reading up on Vayer, he had access to the data on the two speed team at Festina, so he bases his assumptions on that.
Nothing to get excited about for top climbers is not the same as nothing to.get excited about for 4 riders who have spent recent.tdfs in the gruppetto.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Lanced Armprong on August 31, 2012, 20:32
Where do I order a Lemond?

Wonder if there's a sugar free version...
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: FreeWheelin on September 01, 2012, 05:32
Where do I order a Lemond?

BALCO labs?  :-[
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on September 01, 2012, 10:32
Nothing to get excited about for top climbers is not the same as nothing to.get excited about for 4 riders who have spent recent.tdfs in the gruppetto.
You're just making stuff up now.

The funny thing is, when Sky signed Rogers and then Porte, no-one went, "Ha ha, crap riders who won't be any use at all." As I remember, the buzz from the CN forum was, "Holy smoke, that'll make Sky strong in the mountains."

It's a bit of a distant memory now but if you can prove me wrong....
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on September 01, 2012, 22:32
They are obviously good riders who logically could have had the potential to achieve what they had (without any additions)

That all of them all were on top form and all seeming to be at the very peak of the ability is unlikely, but if there was one team who could achieve such it would be Sky with their meticulous planning.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: pedaling squares on September 02, 2012, 00:18
You're just making stuff up now.

The funny thing is, when Sky signed Rogers and then Porte, no-one went, "Ha ha, crap riders who won't be any use at all." As I remember, the buzz from the CN forum was, "Holy smoke, that'll make Sky strong in the mountains."

It's a bit of a distant memory now but if you can prove me wrong....
I would agree with that, but I think the general commentary was along the lines of what you wrote, "strong in the mountains" and not "now Sky have a couple of horses who can lead the peloton up HC cols at an insane pace and whittle the pack down to a half dozen men", which is what we saw them do in the toughest race of the year. I saw riders who I had expected to be very useful mtn domestiques destroying teams and putting GC candidates into trouble. So yeah, eyebrows up.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on September 02, 2012, 13:58
I would agree with that, but I think the general commentary was along the lines of what you wrote, "strong in the mountains" and not "now Sky have a couple of horses who can lead the peloton up HC cols at an insane pace and whittle the pack down to a half dozen men", which is what we saw them do in the toughest race of the year. I saw riders who I had expected to be very useful mtn domestiques destroying teams and putting GC candidates into trouble. So yeah, eyebrows up.
Rafael Majka dropped Robert Gesink yesterday...
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: killswitch on September 02, 2012, 19:56
Rafal Majka dropped Robert Gesink yesterday...
He's been touted as a future GC contender by Riis for a long time. And Gesink is... Gesink.  :police:
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on September 02, 2012, 20:19
He's been touted as a future GC contender by Riis for a long time. And Gesink is... Gesink.  :police:
Trust me know  :fp I have in my Cq team...  :police:

If only Riis had said when he will be a GC contender..


Ps: Also have Gesink, but that is another story...  :P
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on September 03, 2012, 00:50
You're just making stuff up now.

The funny thing is, when Sky signed Rogers and then Porte, no-one went, "Ha ha, crap riders who won't be any use at all." As I remember, the buzz from the CN forum was, "Holy smoke, that'll make Sky strong in the mountains."

It's a bit of a distant memory now but if you can prove me wrong....

Froome finished his first TDF in 84th. On stage 15 for example he finished 25 minutes down, in a 40 man group that contained Hushovd Mcewen Eisel etc.

Gruppeto no?

Wiggins finished the 06 Alpe stage 30 minutes down in a 30 man group including Grabsh and Robbie Hunter

Am i being harsh on wiggins to say he finished that in the gruppeto.

ok then, lets say that was a chasing group  ::), next day, 44 minutes down in an 80 man group and only 2 riders finished behind that.

Is that not the gruppeto?

For a future tdf winner, who afterwards said that finishing the tour was his bit of cycling history, that is just comical.


Now Richie Porte.

1st tdf, last year in fact, queen stage to Galibier, 33:40 down, 2 and a half minutes behind Julian dean. But ill be generous because julian dean did win the king of the mountains at the tour of new zealand and the cav gruppeto finished a whopping 2 minutes behind Porte, so technically he did just about beat the gruppeto (assuming the 20 man group 2 minutes in front of him, doesnt count as a gruppeto)

Which brings us to Michael Rogers, by far and away the creme de la creme of the UK Postal mountain service.

With my limited - guess what result he could have sucked at and see the ranking, search method, the worst i could find for him was finishing 22 minutes behind in a 10 man group on 2010 stage 17 to tourmalet.

Ok so i admit it, i was wrong i apologize. Micahel Rogers has indeed to my knowledge not oficialy finished in a gruppeto.

Ill correct myself.

It was only wiggins, froome and porte, the 3 best climbers  of the Uk postal service (including the 2 best of the entire tour) who have finished in the gruppeto.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on September 03, 2012, 10:21
If you look at 2011 to show how bad Porte was and say that he is now doping it Sky, you come to the conclusion of 2010 doped, 2011 clean, 2012 doped. This does not match with his TT performances which have been consistent throughout his short career.

Purely in terms of career progression, Porte comes out looking the best of the lot.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Lanced Armprong on September 03, 2012, 19:55
Remember when Wiggins placed 4th (now 3rd lol) at the 2009 TdF, when riding for a clean (so we believe...) team, and it was pre-Leinders...

Yeah guess he hasn't ever shown previous form, bearing in mind all previous GTs he took part in before '09 were at a time when he hadn't given up the track to focus on road 100%.

What am I saying, he must be doping!

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on September 03, 2012, 22:10
Nothing to get excited about for top climbers is not the same as nothing to.get excited about for 4 riders who have spent recent.tdfs in the gruppetto.
If you look carefully, you will see you used the word 'recent' in this post. 2006 is not recent, it is half a career ago. In Wiggins's case, a career in a different arm of the sport ago.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on September 04, 2012, 00:25
I don't know anyone who thinks he is doping now that thinks he was clean in 2009.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on September 04, 2012, 20:11
Will Sky fans at least aknowledge that his response to what he thinks about the Lance case - "its bad for the sport" shows that his attitude towards doping is a million miles away from the wiggins who was finishing in the gruppeto in 2006 and 7, and that it is far far more towards the omerta direction, than it was when he said for example

 -
Quote
'You bastard Landis,' I thought. You have completely ruined my own small achievement of getting around the Tour de France and being a small part of cycling history. You and guys like you are peeing on my sport and my dreams. "

I have no idea how yall do reconcile his tremendous shift towards the pro omerta stance just as he became a gt contender, but will  you at least aknowledge that the shift clearly exists?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Lanced Armprong on September 04, 2012, 21:02
Will Sky fans at least aknowledge that his response to what he thinks about the Lance case - "its bad for the sport" shows that his attitude towards doping is a million miles away from the wiggins who was finishing in the gruppeto in 2006 and 7, and that it is far far more towards the omerta direction, than it was when he said for example

 -
I have no idea how yall do reconcile his tremendous shift towards the pro omerta stance just as he became a gt contender, but will  you at least aknowledge that the shift clearly exists?

The moment I get annoyed about no-one (not just Sky riders) speaking out about the Lance case is IF, when the full evidence is released in a week or so, they still don't speak out.

I wonder at the moment if this is why no-one is really talking - we can all see (and have done for years) that Lance is guilty as hell - I kind of get the impression a lot of them are waiting to see the evidence first. I'm just being patient right now - we've waited this long for it to come out, what's another week or so?

As for Wiggo, unfortunately, I strongly believe Sky's PR machine have him well and truly gagged on speaking his mind as openly as he used to - the only times we really hear his own words are if he's just finished a tough stage and a reporter shoves a mic in his cakehole.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on September 06, 2012, 12:58
...
I have no idea how yall do reconcile his tremendous shift towards the pro omerta stance just as he became a gt contender, but will  you at least aknowledge that the shift clearly exists?
I acknowledge that the shift exists.

It is one of a number of things that are somewhere on the spectrum of Disappointing to Suspicious. Geraint Thomas's comments (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19386735) were particularly troubling.

But there is no smoking gun, or indeed evidence of any gun crime. Plenty of such evidence in just about every other team. I don't get the equating of having suspicious attitudes to clear evidence of doping.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: cj2002 on September 06, 2012, 13:53
As for Wiggo, unfortunately, I strongly believe Sky's PR machine have him well and truly gagged on speaking his mind as openly as he used to - the only times we really hear his own words are if he's just finished a tough stage and a reporter shoves a mic in his cakehole.

I totally agree. The shift in him becoming a GT contender coincides with his coming under the auspicies of DB and all at Team Sky, who are good at keeping things close to their chest. Even Cav hasn't been that outspoken this season!

I'm also hoping that the release of the full USADA evidence prompts comment from the top tier of the peloton - both riders and managers need to come out and say something strong; I think there will be a pressure on Sky and Wiggins to lead the way, especially given a) the team's anti-doping attitude and b) Wiggo's previous comments. If someone demonstrably clean comes out, surely others will follow?

And if not, we should all despair.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on September 06, 2012, 17:36
I totally agree. The shift in him becoming a GT contender coincides with his coming under the auspicies of DB and all at Team Sky, who are good at keeping things close to their chest. Even Cav hasn't been that outspoken this season!

I'm also hoping that the release of the full USADA evidence prompts comment from the top tier of the peloton - both riders and managers need to come out and say something strong; I think there will be a pressure on Sky and Wiggins to lead the way, especially given a) the team's anti-doping attitude and b) Wiggo's previous comments. If someone demonstrably clean comes out, surely others will follow?

And if not, we should all despair.

Better start despairing because you are not going to hear it, especially from Sky/Wiggins.

Everyone is scared to condemn unless they too get landed in the mire.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on September 06, 2012, 17:57
Better start despairing because you are not going to hear it, especially from Sky/Wiggins.

Everyone is scared to condemn unless they too get landed in the mire.
Totally true, and that is where cycling can't win.
If fans are not going to believe anything and will always remain suspicous then what is the point of any riders speaking out or even attempting to try? It will never put you in a positive light in some peoples eyes..
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on September 06, 2012, 18:09
Totally true, and that is where cycling can't win.
If fans are not going to believe anything and will always remain suspicous then what is the point of any riders speaking out or even attempting to try? It will never put you in a positive light in some peoples eyes..

If you are clean, say it loud and proud. Have no fear. Better to ride with the truth out in the light then ride in the dark under a cloud of suspicion.

I wanna hear a rider call for more testing, call for samples to be stored to be tested in the future to catch those doping now, better late than never etc etc etc

If you get hassle for that at least riders know they can go to anti-doping agencies and report it, what good i will do, i dont know.

But i never understood riders starting pro careers with no back up qualifications. Nowadays most pro footballers take coaching badges before their career ends.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on September 24, 2012, 13:37
Brailsford vague on Leinders investigation - “I think we’re addressing the issue”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsford-vague-on-leinders-investigation (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsford-vague-on-leinders-investigation)

Why not just say yes we are investigating, we hope for a public statement soon  and leave it at that
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Rolling Along on September 24, 2012, 13:54
I dont understand why Brailsford seems to be mis-managing this Leinders buisiness.  By not handling it properly, and having a satisfactory line of response as to the result of the investigation he spoke off in the Jul interview with Lionel Birnie, he's doing his team and his riders a massive disservice.

I dont thnk Brailsford takes kindly to being forced to react to pressure from conventional and social media.  But Dave, it aint going to go away. With Kimmage now having discovered a way of spreading his messages via Twitter, conventional libel law restrictions not havng to come into play with social media, and hooking in via David Walsh with the various interwebz media platforms, plus  Velonation and Cyclingnews in particular, this aint going to go away - its just going to escalate.



 
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on September 24, 2012, 13:59
Quote
"Team Sky had pledged that it would only employ doctors who had never before worked on professional cycling teams, supposedly in order to ensure that the sins of cycling’s past could have no place in this new team."

Quote
"Cyclingnews asked Brailsford for details on the nature of the supposed investigation"

Cutting, very cutting.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Rolling Along on September 24, 2012, 14:04
yeah. Cyclingnews and Velonation have both had a thing about Sky since they set up shop in 2010 - love Garmin, hate Sky (IMO) - but Brailsford has left himself and his team open to this. 
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on September 24, 2012, 18:07
I dont understand why Brailsford seems to be mis-managing this Leinders buisiness.  By not handling it properly, and having a satisfactory line of response as to the result of the investigation he spoke off in the Jul interview with Lionel Birnie, he's doing his team and his riders a massive disservice.

I dont thnk Brailsford takes kindly to being forced to react to pressure from conventional and social media.  But Dave, it aint going to go away. With Kimmage now having discovered a way of spreading his messages via Twitter, conventional libel law restrictions not havng to come into play with social media, and hooking in via David Walsh with the various interwebz media platforms, plus  Velonation and Cyclingnews in particular, this aint going to go away - its just going to escalate.

Mis-managing? It looks like he is about to get caught lying.

There has been no investigation and there never will be. They knew full well what Leinders was bringing to the team it is why he was hired. A doping doctor who they thought no one would question them about.

An investigation into Leinders would take a few days at most. Cycling is a small sport. It has been over 2 months.

Ashenden said it when he called 'new age teams' having 'doping elements'.

Leinders was only hired for 80 days to work with the GT TdF team. Goal achieved.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on September 24, 2012, 18:09
Mis-managing? It looks like he is about to get caught lying.

There has been no investigation and there never will be. They knew full well what Leinders was bringing to the team it is why he was hired. A doping doctor who they thought no one would question them about.

An investigation into Leinders would take a few days at most. Cycling is a small sport. It has been over 2 months.

Ashenden said it when he called 'new age teams' having 'doping elements'.

Leinders was only hired for 80 days to work with the GT TdF team. Goal achieved.

Alternatively Sky could have discovered something they did not like and therefore they and specifically DB are reticent to talk about it..
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Rolling Along on September 24, 2012, 18:18
Mis-managing? It looks like he is about to get caught lying.

There has been no investigation and there never will be. They knew full well what Leinders was bringing to the team it is why he was hired. A doping doctor who they thought no one would question them about.

An investigation into Leinders would take a few days at most. Cycling is a small sport. It has been over 2 months.

Ashenden said it when he called 'new age teams' having 'doping elements'.

Leinders was only hired for 80 days to work with the GT TdF team. Goal achieved.


You are convinced that Sky are up to their necks in doping. I, however, am not. Our views are unlikely to converge.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Rolling Along on September 24, 2012, 18:20
Froome, yes, that's possible - but DB needs to be ready to handle the questions better, I feel.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on September 24, 2012, 20:04
So was  Leinders the Rabobank dr, i.e. one of one? Or was he a Rabobank dr i.e. one of many?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on September 25, 2012, 10:01
So was  Leinders the Rabobank dr, i.e. one of one? Or was he a Rabobank dr i.e. one of many?

One of several. Riders were also free to consult their own doctor.

This latter aspect can sometimes cause friction between riders and management, some of which forbid use of 'outside' doctors. It can work both ways: 'outside' doctors are not necessarily the bad guys.

Sometimes, such a restriction disables you from preferring your innocent family GP/MD (the only guy to whom Bassons would go throughout his career, he has said) while the 'inside' guys might be running the programme.  ???
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Jamsque on September 25, 2012, 10:35
Mis-managing? It looks like he is about to get caught lying.

There has been no investigation and there never will be. They knew full well what Leinders was bringing to the team it is why he was hired. A doping doctor who they thought no one would question them about.

An investigation into Leinders would take a few days at most. Cycling is a small sport. It has been over 2 months.

Ashenden said it when he called 'new age teams' having 'doping elements'.

Leinders was only hired for 80 days to work with the GT TdF team. Goal achieved.

So Leinders is the flipping Hematocrit Whisperer now or something?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on October 09, 2012, 00:44
kimmage on twitter

Quote
I find it curious that the Leinders "issue" has not been addressed by Bradley Wiggins. Bradley used to be extremely vocal about these issues


In May 2010, on the day the Floyd Landis admission broke, I sent Dave Brailsford a text: 'Dave, you would be doing the sport a huge service


...if you encourage Michael Barry to tell the truth.' Brailsford was on the Giro with Barry that week. He phoned me back and I told him...


...Barry had been implicated by Floyd. The following morning, Brailsford told reporters he was "aware of the allegations" and said he...


...and said he would clarify the facts with the Canadian before taking any action. Barry denied Landis' claims. No action was taken.


Brailsford had offered me full access to the team that summer for the Tour. On the eve of the race, the offer was withdrawn. "Bradley...


...wasn't happy," he said. I requested an interview with Barry but this was also refused. I called Jonathan Vaughters at Garmin and...


...and asked if I could come on board for the Tour. "Not a problem," he replied. So please, the soon-to-be Sir Dave, spare us the lectures..


...on ducking and diving and transparency.



http://storify.com/UCI_Overlord/paul-kimmage-speaks-on-brailsford?utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter&utm_campaign=&utm_content=storify-pingback&awesm=sfy.co_oAEY&utm_source=t.co (http://storify.com/UCI_Overlord/paul-kimmage-speaks-on-brailsford?utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter&utm_campaign=&utm_content=storify-pingback&awesm=sfy.co_oAEY&utm_source=t.co)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on October 09, 2012, 14:20
So Leinders is the flipping Hematocrit Whisperer now or something?

He is whatever you want him to be Jam, he can even be your unicorn  ;)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Jamsque on October 09, 2012, 19:37
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/leinders-not-renewed-after-team-sky-doping-investigation (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/leinders-not-renewed-after-team-sky-doping-investigation)

Looks like they caved. Too much negative attention.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 09, 2012, 19:48
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/leinders-not-renewed-after-team-sky-doping-investigation (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/leinders-not-renewed-after-team-sky-doping-investigation)

Looks like they caved. Too much negative attention.

They did break their own mission statement - so expected I would guess in a world of skeptics
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Drummer Boy on October 09, 2012, 19:51
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/leinders-not-renewed-after-team-sky-doping-investigation (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/leinders-not-renewed-after-team-sky-doping-investigation)

Looks like they caved. Too much negative attention.

Interesting. And yet they still can't offer up any straight talk. Would it really kill them to be more straightforward and unambiguous?
Quote
Sky would not confirm why Leinders had not been offered a contract for the future.
"Dr Leinders worked with Team Sky on a freelance basis and that has now ended."

I wonder if they'll use the fact the Leinders is now gone as an excuse to longer have to talk about it?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 09, 2012, 19:53
Is that thing in Manchester still happening ?

If so I am sure it will be asked 
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on October 09, 2012, 20:59
Interesting. And yet they still can't offer up any straight talk. Would it really kill them to be more straightforward and unambiguous?
I wonder if they'll use the fact the Leinders is now gone as an excuse to longer have to talk about it?

Kimmages response should be good  :)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on October 10, 2012, 19:40
Also something else to consider here from the USADA report:

Quote
Also in March 2005,

Armstrong attended a training camp with Dr. Ferrari on the island of Tenerife. Armstrong

invited Levi Leipheimer to Tenerife and introduced Leipheimer to Ferrari.413
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on October 12, 2012, 04:54
So are sky going to look at, talk to or make any statement about Micheal Rogers?

Rogers (along with Popo, Savoldelli, Mazzoleni, Keshekin and Vino) were named by Levi Leipheimer as having attended training camps with Dr Ferrari in 2005

(these names strangely enough were not redacted in his affidavit (para's 68 + 69)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on October 12, 2012, 06:54
+ Julich + Yates.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on October 12, 2012, 11:16
yeah will be interesting to see what they do from here.

Though at least some credit to their PR boys - at least Wiggins' statement was fairly ok.  He might not have liked it much, but he did need to make a public statement condemning Lance.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: cj2002 on October 12, 2012, 11:40
Given Wiggo's statements in the past, I wonder whether deep down he did like saying it, but for the sake of Sky's cosying up to Fat Pat pretended like he didn't.

Double bluffing. Or is that triple bluffing...  :-\
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on October 12, 2012, 13:21
+ Julich + Yates.
I think they've already stated that they were prepared to relax their stance when it comes to staff because of the difficulty in employing anyone over the age of thirty-five with the necessary pro peloton experience who can't be linked to PEDs in some way.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on October 12, 2012, 13:32
I think they've already stated that they were prepared to relax their stance when it comes to staff because of the difficulty in employing anyone over the age of thirty-five with the necessary pro peloton experience who can't be linked to PEDs in some way.
Well Michael Barry was over the age of 35  :P
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on October 12, 2012, 16:57
Only around halfway through everything but apparently Ferrari claims in one of the Affadavits that Teide was not a good location for doping and he advised one of his clients not to travel to the area due to the fact that the anti-doping authorities were onto it and monitored it closely.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on October 12, 2012, 18:15
Only around halfway through everything but apparently Ferrari claims in one of the Affadavits that Teide was not a good location for doping and he advised one of his clients not to travel to the area due to the fact that the anti-doping authorities were onto it and monitored it closely.

Some of these comments by Ferrari chime in perfectly with the picture I have built up of him. He really does rate himself rather highly. Must be a nightmare to live with, kind of explains why his son is also his valet.

It also relates to another question I often had: were their territories that should not be impinged upon? Did Fuentes favour certain locations for doing business and Ferrari others? There is certainly an appreciable sense of a theatre of activity with these guys.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 14, 2012, 15:54
Sky Procycling will ask all of its staff members — among them sporting director Sean Yates, a former teammate and longtime friend of Lance Armstrong’s — to confirm that they have no issues that could breach the team’s zero-tolerance policy regarding doping.

According to The Daily Telegraph, team boss Dave Brailsford “will seek assurances” after Michael Barry’s testimony turned up in the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency’s report on its investigation into Armstrong, Johan Bruyneel and the U.S. Postal Service team.

Barry confessed to doping while riding for U.S. Postal and has retired.

As for Yates, who roomed with Armstrong when the two rode for Motorola, helped the American learn his trade and later was recruited to manage Team Discovery, he said he was “shocked” at the depth of the doping allegations.

“I worked with Lance but never had any inclination this was going on,” he said.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/10/news/must-read-sky-asks-all-staff-for-assurances-following-michael-barrys-confession_261307 (http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/10/news/must-read-sky-asks-all-staff-for-assurances-following-michael-barrys-confession_261307)

I do wonder if it might be more than that

ie if we find that your lying sh*t is going come down hard on you, Yates may have to think .....................

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on October 14, 2012, 16:00
bout time..
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Drummer Boy on October 14, 2012, 16:34
But I don't understand. As I only just posted the same in the "truth and reconciliation" thread...

What are Brailsford's intentions? Does he march into a room and announce, "OK, lads, who wants to get fired today?"
Isn't that what it amounts to? If Wiggins or Froome admitted to past transgressions, would we even hear about it?

Or is it a matter of everyone buckling down and Brailsford emerging by saying, "That's it. We're all good now. I've just had everyone assure me that they have no doping pasts. Now we're really clean. It's true. All my riders and staff just told me so, just like they did the first time I asked them. Transparency. As a matter of fact, our team kit for 2013 will be made from clear plastic wrap, just so you can see how transparent we are. New Era"

Maybe I'm just particularly dumb this morning, but none of this is making any sense whatsoever to me.

(Or maybe I'm still disoriented from having missed another CX race >:()
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on October 14, 2012, 16:36
PR stunt DB..

Go with the flow.. ;)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on October 14, 2012, 22:47
Statement from Sky: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/14/lance-armstrong-team-sky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/14/lance-armstrong-team-sky)


Quote
Team Sky have said that they carried out checks on the Dutch doctor they employed and whose name has appeared in the Lance Armstrong doping controversy.

Geert Leinders was with the team until last week and a spokesman said on Sunday: "Dr Leinders worked with Team Sky on a freelance basis and his contract has now ended.

"This summer, as promised, we looked fully into his work with us, interviewed him and talked to riders and the full medical team. We had no doubts about his work with us or his approach. Before employing him we also made checks, gathered references and he was interviewed by [the sports psychiatrist] Dr Steve Peters.

"Over the summer we have added to the medical team, using staff from outside cycling, and we continually look for the best ways to work and to support our riders."

The former Team Sky member Michael Barry was one of 11 riders who gave evidence against Armstrong to the United States Anti-Doping Agency.

The 26-year-old American was at the US Postal Service team from 2002 to 2006. Since 2010 he rode for Team Sky before announcing his retirement this year but Team Sky's spokesman continued: "We have had no doubts about Michael being clean during his time at Team Sky. We are a clean team and we have shown that you can win clean.

"Michael has retired after 14 years as a professional cyclist. His final race was last month and he is no longer with Team Sky.

"Though we are saddened by the revelations about Michael's early career, he is doing the right thing by admitting to his past and helping the sport to a clean future."

26 Year old American? :fp
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on October 15, 2012, 00:51
that is such a nothing statement.

so they looked into and checked Gert Leinders before they employed him?   and knowing what they knew ... employed him anyway?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on October 15, 2012, 02:28
What can they say apart from that they cocked up monumentally?

Are we or can we even try to expect credibility from this? I certainly don't see any from Sky for a while, or for that matter most teams.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on October 15, 2012, 11:04
What can they say apart from that they cocked up monumentally?

Are we or can we even try to expect credibility from this? I certainly don't see any from Sky for a while, or for that matter most teams.
Actually it is more that subsequent events caught them out.

The time line is...

2009 - Leinders leaves Rabobank

2010 Vuelta - Soigneur dies and rest of team suffering in the heat and generally unhappy with medical care. Leinders signed 'in extremis', so thorough checking very unlikely to have happened. The most likely reasons for hiring him are: 1) He was available, 2) He had a lot of experience at the highest level, 3) He, presumably like all Dutch I've ever met, spoke excellent English, 4) Personal testimony from riders who had worked with him at Rabobank.

2012 Giro - The story comes out that Rabobank management knew about and sanctioned doping while Leinders was employed by them.

2012 post season USADA affidavits appear to show that some Rabobank medical staff had been active in managing doping programmes.


Personally, I can't believe that if you have a cunning plan to achieve world domination, you employ the pivotal figure during the Vuelta when it just so happens that your team's demanding a change of medical staff.

Unless anyone can demonstrate that negotiation took place outside the time frame of the Vuelta, his employment was a reaction to circumstance and not pre-planned. If it's not pre-planned, then it's harder to argue that he was brought in in order to run some USPostal type team doping policy.

So what should Sky have done?

a) Not replaced the team doctor? presumably, they didn't take this decision without a pressing need to. Although they probably wish they hadn't.

b) Got rid of Leinders the moment they actually did some checking on his past, assuming they ever did.

c) Got rid of Leinders the moment the Rabobank story broke.

For b&c it is an issue of public reputational damage against cycling reputational damage. With Barry, Possoni and now Leinders, Sky have shown a tendency not to make a big show of sacking somebody but to ease them out of the picture until they can find somewhere else or retire. This will make Sky seen as 'good' employers and make their targets more likely to work for them. In the Leinders case I wouldn't be surprised if the real reason for releasing him was that Leinders' reputational damage through his association with Sky was becoming a big problem for Leinders' future employment prospects.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: cj2002 on October 15, 2012, 11:36
Given the lengths LA went to in covering up/playing down his relationship with Ferrari, I can't believe Brailsford would be naive/stupid enough to hire someone to conduct a similar scheme, let alone doing it in such a public way.

I think you've got it spot of Capt - Leinders' appointment was a response to circumstance. He wasn't full time, either, if you believe the official line.

All that said, it would definitely be good to hear something more concrete from the team.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on October 15, 2012, 12:19
Given the lengths LA went to in covering up/playing down his relationship with Ferrari, I can't believe Brailsford would be naive/stupid enough to hire someone to conduct a similar scheme, let alone doing it in such a public way.

I think you've got it spot of Capt - Leinders' appointment was a response to circumstance. He wasn't full time, either, if you believe the official line.

All that said, it would definitely be good to hear something more concrete from the team.

I think that is too far fetched to believe that Leinders was hired for dangerous viruses! Please you dont need to go to a doping Doc for that.

Plenty of experts out there who would be available 80 days a year for the money Sky can afford!

That Brailsford is treating everyone as stupid with his shock and suprise about what USADA releaed is crap!

Keep hoping and praying the Sky are clean, but it is a myth. Every time someone from Sky opens their mouth the words that come out sound exactly like what was being said in 1999.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on October 15, 2012, 12:40
I think that is too far fetched to believe that Leinders was hired for dangerous viruses! Please you dont need to go to a doping Doc for that.
Complete strawman. Must try harder.
Plenty of experts out there who would be available 80 days a year for the money Sky can afford!
You've ignored all the points made.
That Brailsford is treating everyone as stupid with his shock and suprise about what USADA releaed is crap!
Totally agree, not sure what it proves.
Keep hoping and praying the Sky are clean, but it is a myth. Every time someone from Sky opens their mouth the words that come out sound exactly like what was being said in 1999.
Keep hoping and praying that Sky aren't clean. Every time you open your mouth you sound ever more desperate.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 15, 2012, 12:52
Guys one of things we want here is a discussion of the issue not, a attack on the poster type of thing

ie hate the game not the player  ;)

so I though a  reminder might be in order
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: mc_mountain on October 15, 2012, 13:13
watching the 4 corners  programme  (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/10/11/3608613.htm)that JSG and Zam posted, very interesting to see the parallel between Lance's breakdown (in the SCA testimony) of what he would lose as well as money ie the faith of cancer survivors if he was doping/caught doping and the Wiggins blog.

For me it reinforces more that ever, just saying you're clean (and reasons why you wouldnt dope) isnt enough.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on October 15, 2012, 13:14
I don't know about Sky and I'm fine with that.  8)  ;D

What I find interesting is that I feel like Sky has a bit of a dilemma that it's trying to work through at the moment.

I feel like, as Sky matures as a team, it would now increasingly like to say less, to be somewhat less gapingly open to the media, to avoid being asked for comment every time somebody else's crap explodes.

It wanted to be oh-so different but it didn't appreciate how that would become a heavy burden when it had to get on with its peers, when it did deliver that Tour title and when trouble rode into town.

Sky would probably now like to be a bit more like taciturn OPQS, or tactful Liquigas, or timorous Argos. But it's really tough: the pattern of loquacity has been established. Failure to comment sounds like subterfuge. Improvised comment sounds like bungling.

And I think it's all fascinating.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on October 15, 2012, 13:57
Actually it is more that subsequent events caught them out.
What I am saying is, no team will come out well from this. Lampre are in the deep sh*t too for example.

It'd still have been better if they'd avoided a Leinders or better Yates.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on October 15, 2012, 15:55
What I am saying is, no team will come out well from this. Lampre are in the deep sh*t too for example.

It'd still have been better if they'd avoided a Leinders or better Yates.
I think I got distracted from following up what I meant about that bit...

The Leinders thing blew up in Sky's face because of what happened at Rabobank. It wasn't anything that Sky had control over at that point in time. If he had been a Quickstep/Movistar/EE doctor, the issue would have stayed under the radar. Why are people talking about Leinders and not Fabio Bartalucci?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on October 15, 2012, 16:01
Actually, I was going to post his name too but the fingers missed out.

When exactly was he appointed?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on October 15, 2012, 21:42
For a team that believes in marginal gains by working on every single little detail no matter how small or insignificant it may be, that they would hire a doctor and not check his past and whether he was connected to Rasmussen and Dekker to name 2 Rabobank dopers is not believable.

If this is believable then there mantra of marginal gains isn't, so that they get better performance on marginal gains is out the window, which leaves doping.

I am sorry, but i see Sky and then Ullrichs quote of putting 2 and 2 together springs to mind
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on October 15, 2012, 21:53
Complete strawman. Must try harder. You've ignored all the points made. Totally agree, not sure what it proves.Keep hoping and praying that Sky aren't clean. Every time you open your mouth you sound ever more desperate.

I ignored all the points you made because they are replica Sky PR points and therefore not to be believed.

That Brailsford has spent the last week lying through his teeth has rubber stamped their doping for me.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on October 15, 2012, 22:02
I ignored all the points you made because they are replica Sky PR points and therefore not to be believed.

That Brailsford has spent the last week lying through his teeth has rubber stamped their doping for me.

Why are Sky PR points not be believed?
They may not be fully trusted, but to totally disregard them seems to me a bit extreme.

And to say that Brailsford has been lying through his teeth is certainly an exaggeration.

Also there is a big difference between looking into a member of staff's background and focusing on aerodynamics and such.
They decided to focus totally on one aspect of the team and the performance of their riding, that does not mean that every other aspect has the same thoroughness. 
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on October 15, 2012, 22:02

If this is believable then there mantra of marginal gains isn't, so that they get better performance on marginal gains is out the window, which leaves doping.

So if it is believable then the mantra of marginal gains is also?



 ;)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on October 15, 2012, 22:17
For a team that believes in marginal gains by working on every single little detail no matter how small or insignificant it may be, that they would hire a doctor and not check his past and whether he was connected to Rasmussen and Dekker to name 2 Rabobank dopers is not believable.

If this is believable then there mantra of marginal gains isn't, so that they get better performance on marginal gains is out the window, which leaves doping.

I am sorry, but i see Sky and then Ullrichs quote of putting 2 and 2 together springs to mind
How would you check his past?

Can you name an doctor with lots of experience of working for a top team who has not been involved in any doping scandals ever?

Thing about Ullrich's comment was that you could clearly see the 2s he was asking you to add together. Your 2s aren't even close to 2, they're teeny tiny fractions.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on October 15, 2012, 22:21
I ignored all the points you made because they are replica Sky PR points and therefore not to be believed.

That Brailsford has spent the last week lying through his teeth has rubber stamped their doping for me.
But you're not even offering any plausible sequence of events. You're just repeating that you believe Sky are doping so they must be lying about everything which just goes to prove they're doping. Hardly the stuff of great debate.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on October 15, 2012, 23:14
Why are Sky PR points not be believed?


One surprising article i read in the telegraph asked why bailsford claims to be totally taken back by the Lance doping revelations whereas wiggins claims to have known that there may have been problems.

Harmonn also laughed at Bailsford claiming that he was shocked by these revelations, "as if you didnt know".

I also recall that you wrote  that training in cycling was doping based until Kerrison came along. Thats why Kerrison works, because  cycling was so rife with doping that no one bothered looking at other ways to improve, or so you wrote.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on October 16, 2012, 01:28
While I can see what you are trying to argue Froome and Cavman, I have to say I dont really agree with you.

As far as appointing Leinders - seriously, he was not the ONLY option they had. To imply that they were desperate and he was the only choice available in the world is simply ludicrous.  To suggest that it was in relation to a soigner dying of a mysterious virus is even more so.

So during/after the Vuelta they found themselves short on doctors with actual experience in this area, so they decided to appoint someone is fairly reasonable.  No issues there.

To say that they didnt really have the time to check references and history properly - for a team so very meticulous about everything, to suggest that they would employ someone to oversee the medical requirements of the team that they didnt know that much about  -  no.

The PR spin that they are applying is just twaddle as far as I am concerned.

As far as any actual issue with the guy - I still swing a bit either way with Sky.  I would like to beleive that Wiggins is clean (and some days I do), but heart says clean and brain says not.  Froome, Porte, Rogers etc .... I have some more doubts about some of them.   

In any case, if they did have a program (or at least knowledge of individuals using PED's), it commenced well before Leinders was appointed ... so he certainly hasnt instigated it.    However, if they did have a program and decided they needed more experience in managing it - well, that is where my doubts are kind of raised.

and when you add that to
- fantastic unexpected success this year (yes Wiggo was expected to do well at the Tour, but the team was not expected to dominate in such a fashion)
- great results from Froome
- Yates / Barry / Rogers
- the budget available
- the whole 'we are the clean team' etc

it does leave substantial questions in my mind.  Questions that Brailsford and Wiggins PR 'genius' are certainly not doing anything to allay.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on October 16, 2012, 01:34
and as far as no questions being raised about other teams - why is this just about Sky?

well, for me ... I have doubts about Sky.  Other teams not so much.
 
Saxo - Contador and his helpers
OPQS - Dr Iby .... enough said
BMC - Phonack/Telekom/Andy Riis/Jim Ock .... though  I would really love to beleive in Cadel and Phil, so I excuse my belief in simple blind fan-girl-ism  ;D
Katusha, Astana, etc - do I need to say?
RSNT ..

Greenedge are under the pump as much as Sky these days. 

The questions are being ask about all the teams.  Just seems to be more Sky atm because of their success, and because people DO have doubts rather than just a foregone conclusion of it happening.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on October 16, 2012, 07:59
One surprising article i read in the telegraph asked why bailsford claims to be totally taken back by the Lance doping revelations whereas wiggins claims to have known that there may have been problems.

Harmonn also laughed at Bailsford claiming that he was shocked by these revelations, "as if you didnt know".
All true, but I believe you are interpreting that reaction a bit too extremely if you consider it to be making void any subsequent comments.
Brailsford's comments could have been made with any one of a number of motives behind. Surely you can not take that as definitive proof that Sky are doping and therefore he is lying.

Quote
I also recall that you wrote  that training in cycling was doping based until Kerrison came along. Thats why Kerrison works, because  cycling was so rife with doping that no one bothered looking at other ways to improve, or so you wrote.

I do not believe that was the motive behind Sky recruiting Kerrison specifically.
That was more something highlighted by Kerrison's success, it was something Kerrison himself commented on.. a year after he had joined Sky.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on October 16, 2012, 08:13

- fantastic unexpected success this year (yes Wiggo was expected to do well at the Tour, but the team was not expected to dominate in such a fashion)
- great results from Froome
- Yates / Barry / Rogers
- the budget available
- the whole 'we are the clean team' etc

it does leave substantial questions in my mind.  Questions that Brailsford and Wiggins PR 'genius' are certainly not doing anything to allay.

To be honest I think even many of the harshest critics here would find it hard to accuse Sky of a whole team doping scheme.
To say that the Tour team was doping in the season is a more reasonable statement. But I don't think you can attribute Sky's all round success this season down to doping.

Froome is someone I think people don't really get, he has always been a very talented rider, and it is obvious he has talent which can lead to results, otherwise he would be another Hounard...
Doping only takes a rider so far.

The riders who were involved with Lance and previous doping offences.. as many others have said, I dont think that shows anything. You would be hard pressed to find many teams who do not employ such staff, and in fact it could be seen as a positive that they do not have a team manager who was previously linked to doping on the road, rare for WT teams..
That Sky have displace people's trust in them by hiring such individuals, well I think we can all see that the doping statements were a PR stunt. One that has backfired and has been disappointing to witness, but nevertheless you can't read to much into the team through them.

Once again the "we are the clean team" is an approach which was a PR stunt, but personally I dont think it proves anything. A clean team would like to prove it is clean, a doping team would also like to prove they are clean..

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on October 16, 2012, 08:25
To be honest I think even many of the harshest critics here would find it hard to accuse Sky of a whole team doping scheme.
To say that the Tour team was doping in the season is a more reasonable statement. But I don't think you can attribute Sky's all round success this season down to doping.

...

Once again the "we are the clean team" is an approach which was a PR stunt, but personally I dont think it proves anything. A clean team would like to prove it is clean, a doping team would also like to prove they are clean..

I agree they more than likely dont have a team sponsored all-inclusive doping scheme.  Its very unlikely.

What I am saying is that it is possible that they have a number of riders of whom they dont ask too many questions, or that they know are using banned substances or methods.  And that the team doctors possibly enable that to be done carefully, safely and with less risk of getting caught.

I am not saying its ALL of the team - or any of them in fact - as I said, I am still somewhat undecided so not making any accusations ... just asking questions, but its certainly possible.

As far as the PR stuff - absolutely agreed.  Its simply a PR stunt gone badly wrong.  They are no better or worse than any other team, just getting bad PR right now due to their own ineptness  ;D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 16, 2012, 09:13
Someone should send  this link to DB when he wants to hire someone to check their past


http://www.google.com/ (http://www.google.com/)

Leinders is gone

Barry retired

we have questions over
Yates
bobby julich
Rogers
Fabio Bartalucci

who all have pasts or named in the usada files




Title: Re: Sky
Post by: lancasterke on October 16, 2012, 09:17
i'd really like sky to be clean. that is all that matters. they don't need to win, or even be competitive, just clean.

i'm finding it increasingly hard to believe that they are clean because what they set out as "zero tolerance" is now a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. these are worlds apart.

the idea that it takes a lot of investigation to ascertain that a dr who worked with dekker and chicken might be dodgy and is worth looking into is obviously wrong. a glance at his cv would have told most people with an interest in cycling that there were question marks. at the very least, leinders was hired (in a hurry) as someone who might have a bad past. sky obviously weren't bothered by that, they were bothered when his past was in the press.

yates is dirty, it's not credible that sky don't think he ever doped as a rider.

bobby julich and mick rogers have at some point doped.

michael barry doped. sky new this or at least suspected it. there have been question marks over everyone who rode at usps/disco.

if they're clean and want to demonstrate it. then be open with people. don't talk about being astonished Lance et al were doping.

admitting that people in cycling often have a bad past but some (barry, julich, yates, leinders....) have seen the light is much more healthy and believable.

i find it much easier to believe garmin are clean (despite very significant numbers of them being past dopers) because they are generally open and acknowledge that yes, lots of people dope and yes it's a big problem for the sport.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: cj2002 on October 16, 2012, 09:41
I want to quickly make a number of points, but I don't want to pepper this post with quote code. So, apologies for not addressing you personally.

Here goes:

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on October 16, 2012, 09:50
ah CJ ....  ;D

you really honestly think OPQS is clean?  or that they take a strict line on doping?

honestly?

I agree with you about the lack of competition in this years Tour.  But still ... I dont think that accounts for the team domination - only Wiggins' surprising ease of win.  We did expect Wiggo to do well ...

but if you had been told of Sky's team before last years Vuelta, would you have expected the result that we got?  Would you have expected Froome, Rogers, Porte, EBH to carry the front of the Tour  for 2 entire weeks that Wiggo was in yellow? 

I dont know.  Maybe I am just ultra cynical after everything thats happened.   :fp


PS - my  ;D is genuine amusement, not meant to be snarky or sarcastic.  Just after the discussion earlier in the year about Boonen and OPQS domination and the famous Dr Ibarg .xxx (cant remember his name) ... I do find it amusing to consider OPQS being known as the clean team
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on October 16, 2012, 10:02
Once again, I don't know if Sky is clean or not. What I reckon happened (and of course, I have no proof, this is my opinion):

a) The hiring of Leinders was a "bottom up" decision from riders and/or DSs.

b) Management didn't bother to check out Leinders.

c) Sky trumpeted a good policy but didn't apply it consistently.

I have worked for a number of organisations that put out as big, proud, principled and polished. Top 10 global law firms, a renowned advertising agency, multi-national government bodies. They like to have the public believe what micro-managing, super-efficient operations they run when in fact they are frequently sloppy and it's just that nothing happened yet to expose that.

I think Sky's blah about marginal gains and taking care of the little details and fancy chefs and whatnot is all very nice but, beneath all the gloss, they screwed up. That's all it is, for me. They hired a dodgy doctor and they failed to apply their trumpeted policy and they did not live up to their own professed standard of perfection. And now people are slaying them for it. Doesn't really prove anything else yet though.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 16, 2012, 10:07
not 1 Dr 2

plus a DS

plus 1,2,3 riders

although they could have gone the Astana or Katusha way

we do not give a flip we hire you ride to win.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Jimmythecuckoo on October 16, 2012, 10:29
At some point someone is going to have to win the Tour clean.

Could it have been Evans? could it have been Wiggins?

I would like to think both, but is that based on an English speaking bias?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 16, 2012, 10:31
Festinagirl going hard on sky again via twitter

posted this re yates

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2011/2/23/2010343/LeMaillotJauneBlanchi (http://www.podiumcafe.com/2011/2/23/2010343/LeMaillotJauneBlanchi)

Quote
The news of this broke during the 1990 Giro d'Italia. The peloton threw a wobbly. They staged a strike and the start of the sixth stage was delayed. A delegation of directeurs sportifs, lead by Roger Legeay and Cyrille Guimard, confronted Hein Verbruggen, then VP of the UCI (he would take his seat at the top of the table later in the year, after the death of Luis Puig). Verbruggen, ever the diplomat, promised the UCI would look into the matter. In August, come the UCI's annual shindig at the Worlds. Legeay and co were having none of that - what was the point of handing out a suspension that wouldn't start until the Autumn?

Verbruggen tried to smooth talk them, asking that Theunisse be given the benefit of the doubt: "In the Tour of Belgium last year [1989] Sean Yates, positive with anabolic steroids, was given the benefit of the doubt. And Delgado in the Tour of '88 received the support of a minister. Why not Theunisse?"
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Jimmythecuckoo on October 16, 2012, 10:34
I grew up watching Sean Yates in his Fagor kit and Oakley Razors drilling it on the front of the peloton and winning Tour time trials.

As time has gone on I have become more and more embattled to the point I now understand that he is very likely to have doped.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on October 16, 2012, 10:37
To be honest I think even many of the harshest critics here would find it hard to accuse Sky of a whole team doping scheme.
To say that the Tour team was doping in the season is a more reasonable statement. But I don't think you can attribute Sky's all round success this season down to doping.

Froome is someone I think people don't really get, he has always been a very talented rider, and it is obvious he has talent which can lead to results, otherwise he would be another Hounard...
Doping only takes a rider so far.

The riders who were involved with Lance and previous doping offences.. as many others have said, I dont think that shows anything. You would be hard pressed to find many teams who do not employ such staff, and in fact it could be seen as a positive that they do not have a team manager who was previously linked to doping on the road, rare for WT teams..
That Sky have displace people's trust in them by hiring such individuals, well I think we can all see that the doping statements were a PR stunt. One that has backfired and has been disappointing to witness, but nevertheless you can't read to much into the team through them.

Once again the "we are the clean team" is an approach which was a PR stunt, but personally I dont think it proves anything. A clean team would like to prove it is clean, a doping team would also like to prove they are clean..

If you adhere to marginal gains, you dont hire doping doctors for virus control of riders health! If you dont adhere to marginal gains then it is a front for something darker coupled with hiring a doping doctor!

The idea that Sky didn't know Leinders history is a complete joke as big a joke as Brailsford fake surprise and shock ! It is not like there were outbreaks of viruses throughout the Peloton and it was an emergency!

To the above in bold, if it was just a PR stunt, then they dope or some of them dope!

That Brailsford did not come out saying how happy he was that those offenders of the past were brought to book for their actions and it was a long time coming and how glad he is to see how well a job USADA did where others failed etc etc, no he didn't then the stupid disbelieving 'surprise and shock' that no one believes. What an idiot!

Most teams dont put out 'pr stunts' stating their cleanliness and transparency. Garmin and Sky are the 2 most vocal and now have been shown to have some of the biggest dopers on their team. Now these are for past discrepancies but it doesn't look clean for the future if we take the simplistic view that a leopard cannot change his spots. I dont take that view. Brailsford has talked the talk for the last 3/4 years but it appears he didn't walk the walk!

 The others are not clean, that has long been obvious, imo, to people who know the true nature of the sport.

I read Cannondale Liquigas statement for next year, 2013. Not a word about being anti doping, riding clean etc.
http://italiancyclingjournal.blogspot.ie/2012/09/liquigas-cannondale-becomes-cannondale.html (http://italiancyclingjournal.blogspot.ie/2012/09/liquigas-cannondale-becomes-cannondale.html)

Why do Sky and Garmin get it in the neck so much and other teams dont? Becuase these other teams dont pretend to be something they are not!
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 16, 2012, 10:41
If you adhere to marginal gains, you dont hire doping doctors for virus control of riders health! If you dont adhere to marginal gains then it is a front for something darker coupled with hiring a doping doctor!

The idea that Sky didn't know Leinders history is a complete joke as big a joke as Brailsford fake surprise and shock ! It is not like there were outbreaks of viruses throughout the Peloton and it was an emergency!

To the above in bold, if it was just a PR stunt, then they dope or some of them dope!

That Brailsford did not come out saying how happy he was that those offenders of the past were brought to book for their actions and it was a long time coming and how glad he is to see how well a job USADA did where others failed etc etc, no he didn't then the stupid disbelieving 'surprise and shock' that no one believes. What an idiot!

Most teams dont put out 'pr stunts' stating their cleanliness and transparency. Garmin and Sky are the 2 most vocal and now have been shown to have some of the biggest dopers on their team. Now these are for past discrepancies but it doesn't look clean for the future if we take the simplistic view that a leopard cannot change his spots. I dont take that view. Brailsford has talked the talk for the last 3/4 years but it appears he didn't walk the walk!

 The others are not clean, that has long been obvious, imo, to people who know the true nature of the sport.

I read Cannondale Liquigas statement for next year, 2013. Not a word about being anti doping, riding clean etc.
http://italiancyclingjournal.blogspot.ie/2012/09/liquigas-cannondale-becomes-cannondale.html (http://italiancyclingjournal.blogspot.ie/2012/09/liquigas-cannondale-becomes-cannondale.html)

Why do Sky and Garmin get it in the neck so much and other teams dont? Becuase these other teams dont pretend to be something they are not!

Which when you think about it is just stupid really, but it is the reason.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 16, 2012, 11:06
(http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/672165738.jpg?key=769888&Expires=1350382860&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIYVGSUJFNRFZBBTA&Signature=nzHWZxKdpzbCywz2b-UxVzrgXHtuA9kS-LjA7vIimB4t9Ef-MqLx5JFjIU3Oa7~t-sDgtt5BbomPVoskzd9lQF-eJq8app3jF9tE1NbOUfcZqzJ4YM7h5kk68IbUAcMoGZ~t~Tm1Ple96maWbGB8vHs9qkoXAerpG4eLrq47sio_)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on October 16, 2012, 13:16
Festinagirl going hard on sky again via twitter

posted this re yates

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2011/2/23/2010343/LeMaillotJauneBlanchi (http://www.podiumcafe.com/2011/2/23/2010343/LeMaillotJauneBlanchi)

The "Yates positive that wasn't" is an old but not well documented story which needs explanation for those who don't know.

He won the 1989 edition of the now-defunct Torhout-Werchter Classic during a real purple patch in his career. He tested positive on his first sample but others turned out negative. There were also concerns that the testing procedures had not been properly followed.

The Belgian cycling authority vacillated and the British Cycling Federation (as it was then known) backed Yates. After a while the Belgian authority decided not to pursue the matter and Yates was confirmed as the winner.

The punishment Yates would have faced was relatively minor in comparison with today's penalties. He would have been stripped of the title and his subsequent Tour of Belgium wins (two stages and the GC) but it seems unlikely that he would have spent any significant time off the bike. In the 1980s, testosterone positives in a GT were typically punishable with a mere fine and 10 minutes on GC.

What's new for me is that, thanks to Cillian of Irish Peloton, I only found out this week that the substance in question with Yates was testosterone.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on October 16, 2012, 13:21
Once again, I don't know if Sky is clean or not. What I reckon happened (and of course, I have no proof, this is my opinion):

a) The hiring of Leinders was a "bottom up" decision from riders and/or DSs.


Whats confusing me, is everyone is going batsh*t over Leinders, but everyone has completely forgotten about Jose Ibarguren Taus who has been associated with countless dirty teams, been arrested and all sorts.

Maybe its because everyone hates Wiggins but loves Boonen :?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 16, 2012, 13:39
Whats confusing me, is everyone is going batsh*t over Leinders, but everyone has completely forgotten about Jose Ibarguren Taus who has been associated with countless dirty teams, been arrested and all sorts.

Maybe its because everyone hates Wiggins but loves Boonen :?

:snip

Why do Sky and Garmin get it in the neck so much and other teams dont? Becuase these other teams dont pretend to be something they are not!

thats why  and it is a stupid reason but that is why I think

plus people want a new team to bring down now Armstrong and Postal have fallen

imo ofc
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on October 16, 2012, 13:54
Whats confusing me, is everyone is going batsh*t over Leinders, but everyone has completely forgotten about Jose Ibarguren Taus who has been associated with countless dirty teams, been arrested and all sorts.

Maybe its because everyone hates Wiggins but loves Boonen :?

ah CJ ....  ;D

you really honestly think OPQS is clean?  or that they take a strict line on doping?

:snip

PS - my  ;D is genuine amusement, not meant to be snarky or sarcastic.  Just after the discussion earlier in the year about Boonen and OPQS domination and the famous Dr Ibarg .xxx (cant remember his name) ... I do find it amusing to consider OPQS being known as the clean team

as I posted this earlier today, I am pretty sure that people do remember ....

just that OPQS dont make such a big deal out of being clean.  With Sky people debate and question if they are clean or arent - with OPQS there isnt any doubt.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on October 16, 2012, 13:58
I think it is worth revisiting what Brailsford is reported to have said...

Quote
Brailsford says that the team employed him following widespread illnesses in the team in the 2010 Vuelta, plus the death from a virus of one of the soigneurs, Txema Gonzalez. “We had all these sick riders going: ‘What is going on? This isn’t good enough.’ And you think: ‘We’re putting these guys at risk here.’ We sat down afterwards and we said: ‘We do not know enough about looking after people in extreme heat and extreme fatigue.’”

He is NOT saying he needed a Dr to combat disease. He IS saying that he needed a Dr to combat managing riders' performance in extreme heat when debilitated by illness. He is also saying that it was the riders dissatisfaction which initiated the change.

Also note that this Sky team was about as B team as a Sky team could possibly get.

Lars-Petter Nordhaug
Juan Antonio Flecha
Kjell Carlström
John-Lee Augustyn
Ben Swift
Ian Stannard
Thomas Löfkvist
Peter Kennaugh
Simon Gerrans

GC rider Lofkvist couldn't even keep up with rest in the the TTT. Theories about this being a test bed for doping performance just don't ring true given that line up.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 16, 2012, 14:02
I think it is worth revisiting what Brailsford is reported to have said...

He is NOT saying he needed a Dr to combat disease. He IS saying that he needed a Dr to combat managing riders' performance in extreme heat when debilitated by illness. He is also saying that it was the riders dissatisfaction which initiated the change.

Also note that this Sky team was about as B team as a Sky team could possibly get.

Lars-Petter Nordhaug
Juan Antonio Flecha
Kjell Carlström
John-Lee Augustyn
Ben Swift
Ian Stannard
Thomas Löfkvist
Peter Kennaugh
Simon Gerrans

GC rider Lofkvist couldn't even keep up with rest in the the TTT. Theories about this being a test bed for doping performance just don't ring true given that line up.

Capt I do not think that is the issue

it is the way it is being handled from the beginning to the end

we will not hire people with a doping past


to 2 Drs with really easy to find pasts being used, plus Yates

as for the heat thing I call BS I think they just got lazy and dumb.

How hard would it be to wonder over to rabo and as in private ?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on October 16, 2012, 15:48
Whats confusing me, is everyone is going batsh*t over Leinders, but everyone has completely forgotten about Jose Ibarguren Taus who has been associated with countless dirty teams, been arrested and all sorts.

Maybe its because everyone hates Wiggins but loves Boonen :?

Or, given the way you pursued Ibaguren, surely you can understand people who raise concern at another doping doctor?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on October 16, 2012, 18:49
Talking of the devil..

Just to state that personally I believe that OPQS are not doping as a team.
Also would be immensely hypocritical if they released Levi for previous doping whilst doping themselves and Levi himself may in fact decide enough is enough and spill the beans. At this point in his career that is not all that hard a decision to make when you are so infuriated. Logically therefore I would say that they are not doping.

Though certainly it seems like OPQS will be thrust into sharing the limelight with Sky due to their rather extreme actions, especially due to the fact they have as mentioned above a doctor who has links and other links as well within their system.

And of course like Sky they had tremendous success this season as well.

Foolish move by OPQS therefore, imho.

And whilst Garmin remained unmoved throughout it all, JV is firm and clear on his stance. Not to extreme like Sky that they seem to be reneging on their statements, even contrary to what some in the clinic say about him and his recruitment of the US postal riders in the first place.

Edit: sorry about going of topic  :-[
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on October 16, 2012, 21:10
as I posted this earlier today, I am pretty sure that people do remember ....

just that OPQS dont make such a big deal out of being clean.  With Sky people debate and question if they are clean or arent - with OPQS there isnt any doubt.

In my mind there is no doubt.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on October 16, 2012, 21:12
Whats confusing me, is everyone is going batsh*t over Leinders, but everyone has completely forgotten about Jose Ibarguren Taus who has been associated with countless dirty teams, been arrested and all sorts.

Maybe its because everyone hates Wiggins but loves Boonen :?

Who has forgotten about Ibarguren? 
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on October 16, 2012, 21:12
Talking of the devil..

Just to state that personally I believe that OPQS are not doping as a team.
Also would be immensely hypocritical if they released Levi for previous doping whilst doping themselves and Levi himself may in fact decide enough is enough and spill the beans. At this point in his career that is not all that hard a decision to make when you are so infuriated. Logically therefore I would say that they are not doping.

Though certainly it seems like OPQS will be thrust into sharing the limelight with Sky due to their rather extreme actions, especially due to the fact they have as mentioned above a doctor who has links and other links as well within their system.

And of course like Sky they had tremendous success this season as well.

Foolish move by OPQS therefore, imho.

And whilst Garmin remained unmoved throughout it all, JV is firm and clear on his stance. Not to extreme like Sky that they seem to be reneging on their statements, even contrary to what some in the clinic say about him and his recruitment of the US postal riders in the first place.

Edit: sorry about going of topic  :-[

Maybe and it is only a guess that OPQS made a deal with Levi. 'Fired' him but paid him his last year plus bonus to make them look good. Cynical but Lefevre is a fliper.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on October 16, 2012, 21:14
At some point someone is going to have to win the Tour clean.

Could it have been Evans? could it have been Wiggins?

I would like to think both, but is that based on an English speaking bias?

Why not Sastre?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: killswitch on October 16, 2012, 21:23
Why not Sastre?
¿Quién?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on October 17, 2012, 21:50
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-asks-riders-and-staff-to-sign-anti-doping-declaration (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-asks-riders-and-staff-to-sign-anti-doping-declaration)

Quote
Team Sky has reaffirmed its anti-doping policy by asking their staff and riders to sign a declaration confirming that they have no past or present involvement in doping. Anyone who does not sign the declaration will leave the team, as will anyone who does sign but is subsequently found to be in breach of the policy. The team will also terminate contracts if individuals admit to any doping in their pasts.

Imo this could be make or break for Sky in terms of PR and how they come across in the fight against doping.

If they uphold this and do not continue their worrisome trend of breaking with their original supposed adherence to nothing which would even bring a doubt about the team doping, then they can make amends in a way by once again being capable of claiming that they are foremost in the fight against clean doping.

This is not about the riders and staff admitting to doping. Omerta still holds firm as we saw so very well last night. Rather this is about Sky upholding them and ensuring that no one in the team can get away with links to doping at all. This means that if Yates, Julich and Rogers amonst others are found to be doping than they will be released . Even more than this it also means that these people will be forced into stating one way or the other that they are clean or not clean. This means that there is no more sitting on the fence and though it is by no means breaking of omerta and most likely many will lie, it still forces these people into committing themselves, rather than merely attempting to look on and escape under the radar.

And if Sky do not uphold to the message they are sending out by doing this then I will be sorely disappointed. This means to be a last ditch attempt by Sky to salvage what previously has come across as double standards and for them to break them once more would certainly indicate that the fans trust in them is no warranted.

Also consider this, if Sky are not doping then the message which it sends out to riders who may be who are looking to sign for them, is a sure no no as they would not want to take the risk of putting themselves into such a situation that they have to sign the contract when it may be easier on a team who are more lenient.

And yes I believe that the stance of Sky's PR and hopefully soon to be their stance in reality, is in fact the ideal stance as cycling and any teams or organisations linked to cycling should not assist people who have doped, as it sends out the wrong message. To purge the sport the stance must be one of doping being totally intolerable. Even David Millar who I believe has totally repented, still ideally should not be competing as the message is one of doping being tolerated, and imo it can not be so.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Havetts on October 17, 2012, 22:04
Quote
The team will also terminate contracts if individuals admit to any doping in their pasts.

:fp :fp :fp

So this reinforces the Omerta more than even trying to break it. The rest is okay, great actually. They do something; "be clean (note; not come clean) and you have a future with us"
but doing this in this way, it promotes people not speaking the truth because they will lie.

Idea is good, execution is .. :fp
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Drummer Boy on October 17, 2012, 22:06
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-asks-riders-and-staff-to-sign-anti-doping-declaration (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-asks-riders-and-staff-to-sign-anti-doping-declaration)

This just in!

No members of Team Sky admit to doping.  ::)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on October 17, 2012, 22:07
Well I ask what other choice do they have but when taking this stance to terminate contracts. If you say you do not tolerate doping there is no other way around it, but to release the riders.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Havetts on October 17, 2012, 22:10
You know.. thats good; but it wont create anything thats going to help us get rid of 'the past', the future is in the future, sure. But skeletons in closets get claustrophobic once in a while ( i made that up myself, i feel proud ), so why not help people come clean first and then build on a way to secure a great future?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Jamsque on October 17, 2012, 22:23
So Mick Rodgers has to go then.

This seems like a dumb move. Of course compel your riders not to dope but saying you'll sack them if they confess to past crimes just reinforces the code of silence.

Sky cannot say this and keep Rodgers on the squad.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on October 17, 2012, 22:30
I see what you are saying, but from their position as this being a PR move, that would be untenable in Sky's view. That would be going against their whole stance from their induction and the fact that they reversed would just be a cause for as much criticism most likely.

And the question I would ask is  how much do we need to focus on the past. The past is a part of cycling, but we do not want to jeopardise the future of cycling by focusing overtly on the past. In this stance, there is no need to fully uncover everything of the past so long as cycling puts it whole effort into the future and preventing the past reoccurring then the future will be more likely to be clean. The priority here is the future, the past is a peripheral point which in an ideal world would be dealt with..

Is a clear past worth a clean future?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: killswitch on October 17, 2012, 23:20
:fp :fp :fp

So this reinforces the Omerta more than even trying to break it. The rest is okay, great actually. They do something; "be clean (note; not come clean) and you have a future with us"
but doing this in this way, it promotes people not speaking the truth because they will lie.

Idea is good, execution is .. :fp
Well said. (The managers of) the two most successful teams in 2012 Sky and OmertaPQS reinforce the omerta in the space of less than 24 hours. Hein & Pat could still survive the storm if Lance / Johan don't spill the beans  >:(  :fp.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: mc_mountain on October 18, 2012, 01:42
Will Fotheringham piece in tomorrow's Guardian

link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/18/team-sky-pledge-anti-doping)

Quote
The likelihood is that some members of the team will leave, but Brailsford said he had no idea how many.

Brailsford
Quote
  If our performances go backwards, if they go back to square one, I can accept that.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on October 18, 2012, 01:52
Yep Iam with Havy here  -  good idea, very bad execution.

I want to believe Sky, I really do.  They are just so poor at actually doing what they want to do.

Cycling is standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon right now ... for the good of the sport, they need to take a step back from this and say "ok, its time for people to come forward and talk about what has happened and what has gone on.  If you are honest and truthful about the past, we will have counselling, you will face sanctions but if you come clean and are clean in the future you will still have a job".

Sticking with the "dont ask, dont tell" is not actually going to help.  As much as its a great approach to say "we dont want that stuff in our team, so we wont have anything to do with anyone who has a past"  its just not realistic in today's cycling.

I would respect them much more if they encouraged truth and honesty in relation to the past.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ansimi on October 18, 2012, 01:54
I predict this will get worse for Sky before it gets better. Part of their success has been that their riders and staff like working there. They are not going to enjoy this part.

There are a lot of levels of doping and different eras and cultures that people come from. What if a staff member says his junior coach gave him needles in the 80s and he doesn't know what was in them. Are they going to fire the guy as part of zero tolerance? Or a rider says he went through a bad personal time and abused prescription drugs off-label to get through and keep riding.

This approach doesn't work in the fight against recreational drugs and I don't see it working against performance-enhancing drugs either.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on October 18, 2012, 02:03
It's too late for sackings, just keep people in their jobs and spare us the PR cowdung.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 18, 2012, 04:48
Bobby and Sean good luck I hear the job market is hard at the moment

but nice work there Sky - but they are only re enforcing what they said earlier, so it is hard on them saying they are keeping the omerta , but timing people timing
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 18, 2012, 06:52
the UCI overlord wrote something interesting ....................


(http://www.cyclismas.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Wiggins-Plaster.jpg)


Quote
In fact, as an experiment I posted a dubious photo of Brad Wiggins, screengrabbed during an interview with Ned Boulting on July 21st, 2012. The interview took place after the punishing individual time trial, which Wiggins won by a country mile. We had an expert examine the photo, who stated it’s the median cubital vein that’s been tapped based on the position of the plaster.

Why is the plaster there?

The UCI passed a no needles policy in May of 2011 which stated the following (quote courtesy of cyclingnews.com article by Stephen Farrand):

The UCI Regulations now prohibit injections that have the aim of artificially improving performance or helping recovery. It means riders can no longer inject vitamins, sugars, enzymes, amino acids or antioxidants to aid recovery. It is hoped the ban will contribute to the eradication of doping by greatly reducing the use of injections in cycling.

Herein lies the problem. No one asked why Wiggins had a plaster, and the interesting fact is that Boulting, who conducted the interview, didn’t find the plaster on Wiggins arm as strange. According to sources within the Tour de France, there wasn’t any blood drawn for anti-doping purposes on that day. So why did Wiggins have a plaster on his arm? It couldn’t have been for medicinal purposes, as a Team Sky doctor supported and asserted the no needles policy as “fantastic” during an interview with Lionel Birnie that appeared in the August 2011 edition of Cyclesport Magazine.



http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/10/groundhog-day-for-cycling/ (http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/10/groundhog-day-for-cycling/)

he then goes on to say does it mean Wiggo is doping no but questions were not asked

a really good piece ...........................
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on October 18, 2012, 10:30
So Mick Rodgers has to go then.

This seems like a dumb move. Of course compel your riders not to dope but saying you'll sack them if they confess to past crimes just reinforces the code of silence.

Sky cannot say this and keep Rodgers on the squad.

Now why would Sky want to reinforce a code of silence and not take the approach that JV and Garmin pursue most of the time? ::)

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on October 18, 2012, 11:26
the UCI overlord wrote something interesting ....................


(http://www.cyclismas.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Wiggins-Plaster.jpg)




http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/10/groundhog-day-for-cycling/ (http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/10/groundhog-day-for-cycling/)

he then goes on to say does it mean Wiggo is doping no but questions were not asked

a really good piece ...........................

Why would he be "doping" after he's already won the Tour?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Jamsque on October 18, 2012, 11:30
'No needles' doesn't ban teams from blood testing their own riders to monitor how they are recovering from racing.

And as Arbiter said, this was after the ITT, basically after the tour was over. Not the time for a blood transfusion.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on October 18, 2012, 11:35
'No needles' doesn't ban teams from blood testing their own riders to monitor how they are recovering from racing.

And as Arbiter said, this was after the ITT, basically after the tour was over. Not the time for a blood transfusion.

Maybe Sky can answer that by providing the blood levels for Wiggins that day.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 18, 2012, 11:36
'No needles' doesn't ban teams from blood testing their own riders to monitor how they are recovering from racing.

And as Arbiter said, this was after the ITT, basically after the tour was over. Not the time for a blood transfusion.

really not with the Olympics a week away - would have been perfect

lawyer for the devil  ;)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: cj2002 on October 18, 2012, 11:38
Also, how can they be specific about the vein based on the position of a plaster?!  :-\

I've given blood and had a nurse make several attempts to get into a vein (and mine are usually fairly easy to access). When they put the plaster on, it covers them all.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on October 18, 2012, 11:53
really not with the Olympics a week away - would have been perfect

lawyer for the devil  ;)

Oh don't worry I considered it.

Could also be for blood value management, plasma/EPO.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Jamsque on October 18, 2012, 12:31
I thought transfusions were best done a day or two before a big event? Regardless, all academic.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on October 18, 2012, 13:22
I thought transfusions were best done a day or two before a big event? Regardless, all academic.

Transfusion =/= management
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on October 18, 2012, 15:29
 Fran Millar ‏@franmillar

I have sent an email to cyclismas.com confirming Bradley and the other top 5 in GC were tested for blood and urine after the final TT
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 18, 2012, 15:33
well there goes that one


Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 18, 2012, 17:04
British doping ultimatum

Anyone who signs and is found guilty of a breach - including past involvement in doping - will have their contracts terminated. The move announced by boss David Brailsford in London yesterday will also see all 80 riders and staff at Sky interviewed in a concerted effort to make the team clean in the fallout of the Lance Armstrong scandal, and sets a benchmark for other units in the pro ranks.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/british-doping-ultimatum-20121018-27uhk.html#ixzz29fQbTR9J (http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/british-doping-ultimatum-20121018-27uhk.html#ixzz29fQbTR9J)

80 is there 50ish staff at Sky - wow
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on October 18, 2012, 18:00
British doping ultimatum

Anyone who signs and is found guilty of a breach - including past involvement in doping - will have their contracts terminated. The move announced by boss David Brailsford in London yesterday will also see all 80 riders and staff at Sky interviewed in a concerted effort to make the team clean in the fallout of the Lance Armstrong scandal, and sets a benchmark for other units in the pro ranks.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/british-doping-ultimatum-20121018-27uhk.html#ixzz29fQbTR9J (http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/british-doping-ultimatum-20121018-27uhk.html#ixzz29fQbTR9J)

80 is there 50ish staff at Sky - wow

80 staff, be about right, surprised its not a few more actually

30 riders give or take
11-12 management/coaches
4-6 mechanics
10 soigneurs/masseus etc etc (a few subcontacted temps)
3-4 drivers
5-6 admin, pr, etc, Fran, Dario Cioni, Nick Howes, etc etc
2 web guys
add in about half a dozen staff at BC who deal with sky stuff, payroll etc..

a good 80.. wonder how far they will go down the line with the statements.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 18, 2012, 19:41
http://road.cc/content/news/69131-team-sky-re-states-its-position-doping (http://road.cc/content/news/69131-team-sky-re-states-its-position-doping)

names 1 rider 2 ds who are in trouble maybe

misses 1 Dr
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 18, 2012, 19:49
Roche defends cycling director who worked with Lance Armstrong


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/roche-defends-cycling-director-who-worked-with-lance-armstrong-3264595.html (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/roche-defends-cycling-director-who-worked-with-lance-armstrong-3264595.html)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 18, 2012, 19:53
inrng

http://inrng.com/2012/10/the-madness-of-zero-tolerance/ (http://inrng.com/2012/10/the-madness-of-zero-tolerance/)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 18, 2012, 20:02
Fran Millar ‏@franmillar

I have sent an email to cyclismas.com confirming Bradley and the other top 5 in GC were tested for blood and urine after the final TT

the response

 
Quote
Actually, no. It's no different than Hein Verbruggen saying "never, never, never" or Lance stating "I passed 500 tests." The UCI protocols for doping controls contradict her statement, which makes the statement curious. In fact, it now has caught the interest of members of the media for follow up. 

In fact here is the doping control protocol for World Calendar races in stage races:

1. World Calendar leader after first stage if present

2. World Calendar leader after last stage if present

3. Winner of the stage

4. The leader of GC after the stage

5. 2 riders selected at random.

Typical protocol calls for urine analysis only. Bloods are typically reserved for later in the evening or first thing in the morning, and do not typically involve the race at hand, but rather surprise controls related to their status as an athlete in general.

The interview by Boulting occurred shortly after the stage conclusion, and Wiggins was receiving a massage.  As stated in the piece, this is not about doping. Nor is the accusation that he is doping. At worst, it could mean that Team Sky violated the no needle policy implemented in May of 2011, which has a fine/sanction associated. At best it means they were doing their own internal programme.

However, Fran Millar's assertion means that no, Team Sky were not doing internal blood analysis.

So again, why they've chosen to take exception is curious indeed, considering my previous pieces, and other commentators who have discussed the subject at length.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on October 19, 2012, 00:46
interesting.

especially as they could have easily made all of this go away by saying it was an internal blood test.

I dont see any real value in them doing anything nefarious after the final TT, so am not suggesting there is anything in this - just that they are so bad at PR.    ;D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 19, 2012, 07:28
Hmmm is this going to run or not?

not sure but it is getting quite serious

I have a feeling there might be some things further on this -

http://captaintbag.tumblr.com/post/33847425574/franmillar-satire-and-accusing-a-rider-of (http://captaintbag.tumblr.com/post/33847425574/franmillar-satire-and-accusing-a-rider-of)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 19, 2012, 07:32
cycletard ‏@cycletard
And I have sent a reply to @franmillar stating her claim "the top 5 in GC were tested for blood and urine" isn't proof. It's an assertion.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on October 19, 2012, 08:00
Yeh, and cyclismas asserted that he wasn't blood tested, with as far as we know, zero proof.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 19, 2012, 08:14
agreed and here is the issue with internet type of stuff

what we write included - there is not much editorial and proof checking

not that there is much in cycling internet press anyways    ;)

maybe a discussion for the off season

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on October 19, 2012, 10:13
Indeed and now cyclismas refuse to show the emails Millar sent to them which is reasonably disappointing. They claim proof then do not show it, and then refuse to show opposing proof.

Problem once again being the lack of objectivity, need to see both sides of the story not just the one side.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Not Andre Greipel on October 19, 2012, 10:56
Quote from the Guardian 18 October 2012
The Guardian understands that Cavendish and his coach Rod Ellingworth, who is the race coach at Sky, will no longer work together, because Ellingworth will remain at the British team.

Mark Cavendish "Boy racer" Stage 12 Page 251 or thereabouts
"Cav" he (Rod Ellingworth) said "I need you to promise me something. I need you to promise me that, if you ever decide to take drugs, you'll tell me straight away. I won't judge you, but I need to know straight away so that I can disassociate myself fro you straight away"

Say it ain't so, Mark
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 19, 2012, 11:08
doubt it for second

more Sky saying he is no help for our brand now

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on October 19, 2012, 22:28
Roche defends cycling director who worked with Lance Armstrong


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/roche-defends-cycling-director-who-worked-with-lance-armstrong-3264595.html (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/roche-defends-cycling-director-who-worked-with-lance-armstrong-3264595.html)

1st sensible thing Roche has said in a long long time

Quote
"In that case, get rid of everybody. Wipe out half the peloton, half the directeur sportifs, half the managers, half the UCI and then start from scratch.

I Would get rid of more than that though  ;D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on October 21, 2012, 10:13
I think this might be satire
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2220801/Team-Sky-braced-departures.html?ito=feeds-newsxml (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2220801/Team-Sky-braced-departures.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)


Quote
"Id say (the accuser) is a very bitter and twisted guy. I must have been tested 103 times during my career and never come up positive"

I lol'd
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ansimi on October 21, 2012, 10:41
I think this might be satire

I lol'd

I made an odd snorting sound that quite startled my sleeping cat.

103 huh?

I'm hoping somebody leaks a copy of what they have to sign. The exact wording could be very interesting.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on October 21, 2012, 11:09
As is usual, the 103 figure has been exxagerated..

Did some workings myself..

I fully expect that figure to grow to 104 by the end of today and by the end of next week be somewhere around 106
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on October 21, 2012, 11:56
I think this might be satire
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2220801/Team-Sky-braced-departures.html?ito=feeds-newsxml (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2220801/Team-Sky-braced-departures.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)


I lol'd

Oh ok, I never realised they were taking the pee.

Blinded by HATE for both Armstrong and Sky.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: sublimit on October 21, 2012, 12:11
Somebody started a thread at the other place dedicated to Daily Mail articles slagging Sky and taking it all seriously, kind of pathetic really.  This article amongst them.  ::)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on October 21, 2012, 12:23
Doping expert wants Team Sky's drug stance put under the microscope

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/20/doping-team-sky-cyclin (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/20/doping-team-sky-cyclin)

Quote
One of the world's leading experts on blood doping, who worked for cycling's governing body, the UCI, until April, has called for greater scrutiny of Team Sky's zero-tolerance stance on drugs and warned of the need for increased vigilance if the sport's battered credibility is to be restored.

Seems Ashenden knows something.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on October 21, 2012, 12:32
I wouldn't say so.

Just his way of making a point, it is his job after all.
And Sky with their current habit of making a hash of their Zero tolerance they are easy pickings.
Indeed of course he is 100% correct in that Sky are at odds currently with their stance and now it is time they started to try to reconcile them, as they are doing. Pretty standard.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on October 21, 2012, 12:47
He doesnt appear to be suggesting that there is any more issues at Sky than anywhere else.  He is just saying Sky's approach (the zero tolerance to past dopers - and making everyone sign a declaration) isnt the way to go.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on October 21, 2012, 16:34
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/porte-looking-forward-to-2013-at-team-sky (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/porte-looking-forward-to-2013-at-team-sky)

Nice interview by Porte..

Quote
"I understand that it's hard for some to sit back and watch on TV what's happening but at the end of the day I hope they trust that we're doing it the right way. And I know that even just saying that is going to get me flack but the sport is cleaning up and what's tarnishing us young guys now is the past.

"It's easy to be cynical; with social media everyone has a voice. In some ways that is great and part of the tide of change is coming from the fact everyone has a bit of input. But I don't know how I can be more transparent. Short of having Paul Kimmage around for a sleepover, and even then that's not a guarantee. You have to have faith in the passport and the controls. It's a little unfair that in a lot of respects we're sitting ducks but the sport has itself to blame for that."

I agree with all of the above points.
He obviously understands the situation well and he is right it is much easier to be cynical than believe in the sport and then be proven wrong. With the Clinics, twitter it easy to express it with approval.

He may be outright lying through his teeth, but I would be more inclined to believe him..

And also it is nice to see more and more riders speaking out, you will start to get an idea about the extent of doping in the current peloton if more and more riders start to express their situation, it can not be that everyone single one lies..
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on October 22, 2012, 00:38
certainly nice to see someone speaking up a bit.

 :tu for him
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on October 22, 2012, 01:04
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/porte-looking-forward-to-2013-at-team-sky (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/porte-looking-forward-to-2013-at-team-sky)

Nice interview by Porte..

I agree with all of the above points.
He obviously understands the situation well and he is right it is much easier to be cynical than believe in the sport and then be proven wrong. With the Clinics, twitter it easy to express it with approval.

He may be outright lying through his teeth, but I would be more inclined to believe him..

And also it is nice to see more and more riders speaking out, you will start to get an idea about the extent of doping in the current peloton if more and more riders start to express their situation, it can not be that everyone single one lies..

"I dont know how I can be more transparent"

Simple, publish your blood values online for everyone to take apart, and for the amateur heomotologists to decide you are blood doping :D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 28, 2012, 12:31
opinion piece on sky´s zero tolerance 

http://www.chasingwheels.com/doping/team-sky-zero-tolerance-policy-or-how-not-to-address-reality (http://www.chasingwheels.com/doping/team-sky-zero-tolerance-policy-or-how-not-to-address-reality)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: riding too slowly on October 28, 2012, 16:17
I think this might be satire
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2220801/Team-Sky-braced-departures.html?ito=feeds-newsxml (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2220801/Team-Sky-braced-departures.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)


I lol'd

Satire - very good !
So was this started by Daryl Webster and the person in question is Sutton ?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on October 28, 2012, 21:13
I find it difficult to see Sky doping..
Would they ever take the risk of sacking Yates, De Jongh or Julich if it was possible they would lash out at Sky and implicate the team as a backlash?

After the Lance revelations I would have thought they would have been extremely careful to ensure that there is no chance of anything leaking out...
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on October 29, 2012, 01:15
While I have come to admire Sky's effort and at least respect their desire to speak out and act at this time when we need teams to do exactly that ... I do think they are doing this the wrong way, and it will cost Sky and the sport. 

Its not helping to have people who have done wrong in the past being forced to admit and resign ... people who have done wrong have no incentive to come forward.  Its only the ones that are obvious that will pay the price. 

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on October 29, 2012, 09:30
I find it difficult to see Sky doping..
Would they ever take the risk of sacking Yates, De Jongh or Julich if it was possible they would lash out at Sky and implicate the team as a backlash?

Big payoffs with sign non disclosure agreements.

After the Lance revelations I would have thought they would have been extremely careful to ensure that there is no chance of anything leaking out...

I would have thought that by keeping them at Sky would ensure their silence. But Brailsford has not been the smartest, he has shown that with his declarations of shock and have to roll back on lots of what he said recently.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 30, 2012, 08:23
(http://nyvelocity.com/files/imagecache/toto/toto/tturns264.jpg)

if too small

http://nyvelocity.com/content/toto/2012/toto-turns-264 (http://nyvelocity.com/content/toto/2012/toto-turns-264)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Kvinto on October 30, 2012, 19:46
Dave Brailsford's monologue, changing tyres:

 Dave Brailsford all alone. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfOdEZfBYSU#ws)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: mc_mountain on October 31, 2012, 16:31
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/61260000/jpg/_61260883_matt_slater_bbc.jpg)

<- BBC's Matt Slater Team Sky strive for cycling’s moral high ground (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20147726)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on October 31, 2012, 16:47
Tis a fluff piece to be honest. Lots of words to say basically nothing.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: mc_mountain on October 31, 2012, 17:47
Tis a fluff piece to be honest. Lots of words to say basically nothing.

Tis true indeed.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on November 06, 2012, 22:06
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20228054 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20228054)

Right at the end something new from DB
Quote
Speaking at the Business in Sport and Leisure conference, Brailsford said: "We started Team Sky with a very clear policy, we were going to try to recruit the riders and the staff who hadn't had previous convictions for doping and, to the best of our knowledge, had no previous involvement in doping.
"[It was important to stick with the policy but we have to go through some pain - some short-term pain, some medium-term pain, potentially and maybe even some performace pain - to get to where we want to be."

No point in criticising them now, is basically what he is saying..
They messed up all the way back at the team's inception when releasing that manifesto.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on November 07, 2012, 05:34
They could change the policy.

Get public admit, speak to WADA or whoever and move on, much better
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on November 07, 2012, 10:27
To their target market that would have been even worse. People who do not understand the sport, would have seen that as a very cowardly measure

Also Seeing doping as not being tolerated at all and then they suddently start making concessions  :police:
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Jamsque on November 07, 2012, 12:40
Sky can't change their policy now. They have made their bed, they must now lie in it.

I think David Millar put it best: Garmin's policy on former dopers makes sense to harcore fans but seems filthy to casuals. Sky's policy on former dopers seems filthy to hardcore fans but makes sense to casuals.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on November 07, 2012, 16:56
Indeed I think he got if from his boss :D
From my post in JV thread


Quote from: JV
I'm not a fan of their approach. Clearly. But, they are trying, which is more than can be said for many. Our approach makes sense to the hardcore fan, but less so to the casual fan. Theirs is opposite of this. I don't think Brailsford has a choice. It's a corporate policy.


Complicated.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Jamsque on November 07, 2012, 17:13
Wait maybe I was mis-sourcing that quote then....
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on November 13, 2012, 09:30
This is why I love VR. First time I have ever seen a doping-related thread "go straight". Never thought I'd say this but: take it back to Men's Road Cycling, people! ;D
Now that's an era ago...
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on December 06, 2012, 09:39
GT - http://www.biciciclismo.com/cas/site/noticias-ficha.asp?id=57700 (http://www.biciciclismo.com/cas/site/noticias-ficha.asp?id=57700)

Quote
Brailsford: "We will not change our policy because the most important is not just to win"


The zero tolerance policy has been criticized Team Sky, although it has opted for sacrificing athletic performance to be "in the forefront of clean equipment" and "maintain leadership in the fight against doping."

The British ensemble led by Dave Brailsford and Bradley Wiggins asked all its members, brokers and staff, sign a document in which they denied any involvement, past or present, with doping, following the report of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency ( USADA) Lance Armstrong on the case.

Bobby Julich and Steven de Jongh, two highly prized and recognized coaches, confessed to doping, Sean Yates also, if for personal reasons, according to the official version, and Michael Rogers also has opened the door to play for Team Saxo -Tinkof.

Brailsford thinks not turn back, but quite the opposite. The manager explained Sky L'Equipe the reasons for its policy. "We want to be at the forefront of clean equipment, so we had to make a decision. I always tried to hire people with a clear idea, did not want people who had doped in the past. With the revelations of the USADA, led us to change our policy, we had to do something because doing nothing, look away, you can not, "he insists. But why have not conducted these interviews three years ago? "For me, usually belongs to us not look back and punish people for what they did, Brailsford-but-still when they came into the team, knew of our policy. If we had known then what I know now, I would have hired? No. We had to fix our situation is difficult, "he admits.

"We will not change our policy. When we reach this point, perhaps we are forced to go back in our results for a short time, to maintain our leadership in the fight against doping. This is what we do. I prefer to stay with our philosophy, get fewer results, instead of trying to do everything and intrigue to keep on top. Most important, not just to win, "he explains.

The Australian Shaun Stephens joined the staff in the following Steve Peters and Tim Kerrison, and which will also Dan Hunt. "We also look for another manager, says Brailsford, but if we can not find the right person, we'll be fine, we'll stay with what we have, is very difficult to find someone admits Brailsford," he acknowledges.

Finally, assume that the USADA report on Armstrong and the U.S. Postal places a significant burden. "Clearly this ruin our fun. It is our time, it's only been three years since we are here (the team emerged at the dawn of the 2010 season), but it is up to us now to manage this whole story, is a price we have to pay, "concludes French sports daily.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Kvinto on December 06, 2012, 10:55
He's trotting out the same lines yet again. The whole reasoning is based on extremely implausible conjecture that he had no idea about what's going on in the sport and only USADA report managed to open his eyes. Mr.Brailsford's desire to cut ties with ex-dopers reminds me of one thing though: one renowned dude once said that he has "zero tolerance for anyone convicted of using or facilitating the use of performance-enhancing drugs"... Yeah, that was Lance Armstrong about Michele Ferrari. Mr.Armstrong claimed to cut ties with Ferrari several hours after the latter was found guilty of sporting fraud back in 2004 ::)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Jimmythecuckoo on January 02, 2013, 12:31
And now Paul Kimmage puts the boot in to Bradley...

I think he has a point about how dominant the team were and how quick to get rid of Mick Rogers after they proved to be.

I want to believe in Bradley though!
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on January 02, 2013, 12:39
Do you have a link Jimmy? Or is that the interview from a while back?

In terms of Rogers it really is hard to know what was going on there, but it is all speculation tbh. Imo it could have been down to a number of different reasons such as his age etc Though it could have also been due to his links with Ferrari being too obvious.

Also I do not get what the significance of getting rid of Rogers is to with them doping though, or was that not what Kimmage was talking about?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on January 02, 2013, 13:18
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/sport/mehr-sport/paul-kimmage-im-f-a-z-gespraech-ich-war-ein-paria-im-radsport-12010427.html (http://www.faz.net/aktuell/sport/mehr-sport/paul-kimmage-im-f-a-z-gespraech-ich-war-ein-paria-im-radsport-12010427.html)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Not Andre Greipel on January 02, 2013, 15:06
For those who want it in English

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kimmage-unconvinced-by-sky-and-wiggins (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kimmage-unconvinced-by-sky-and-wiggins)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Jimmythecuckoo on January 02, 2013, 16:36
I think there is a subtle difference between PK and David Walsh.

There is a lot of subjecture and innuendo with Kimmage. Of course its hard to believe that Sky weren't "prepared" like USPS. The difference was that there was a large weight of evidence surrounding LA instantly and continually.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on January 02, 2013, 21:17
Quote
“You look at what happened after the Tour. Sky threw out the team doctor and three others. Michael Rogers left, he was one of the strongest riders. I don't know anyone who could say that this was a fully convincing Tour win.”

I genuinely still don't understand his point about Rogers.

I respect Kimmage and he was certainly someone who contributed immensely to the Lance case, but he is just repeating the same concerns we all have. His Tenerife point for example is valid but shows a very basic explanation/understanding. Tenerife has been thoroughly explained as the ideal place for Sky to train, but I can see how it raises concern. Once again Kimmage is right though to be unsure as how can you be sure unless you have all the facts or proofs and unlike with Lance he really does not have enough this time round?

On a different note, what is Kimmage going to do now? He may publish a book like Walsh but he still needs a job to keep him rolling I would say.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: cj2002 on January 02, 2013, 22:58
Rogers left of his own volition, I thought... Yés, the tíming raised some eyebrows, but a rider moving teams is no evidence of team-wide doping.

Then we consider the lack of serious competition... Meh, I'm just gonna ignore Kimmy on this one.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on January 03, 2013, 00:14
there were some similarities - but honestly, there were similarities between liquigas and USPS for the giro ... Leaky's dominated (only difference was Basso didnt finish things off)

I dont think that should condemn them ... if we are going to suggest things, it has to be based on more evidence than just 'they dominated the race'

The Leinders thing, Rogers history, Yates and Julich's history .... those things are more of a concern in my mind.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on January 03, 2013, 04:16
Bartalucci is far dodgier than anything Leinders can muster. Being convicted and let off, something like that. Leinders is only associated to a team.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on January 03, 2013, 04:42
didnt say no one else was dodgy ... Sky certainly dont have a monopoly on that  :P
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on January 03, 2013, 04:43
Bartalucci is/was a sky employee
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on January 03, 2013, 05:05
oh.  didnt realise that.

my point is still the same.  There are plenty of other dodgy doctors - on sky and elsewhere.  I dont doubt that there are other teams who are worse

But if Sky want to continue to claim that they are the embodiment of clean cycling, and that they won the 2012 tour clean ... they have a way to go to prove that.

Their spin and PR leaves a LOT to be desired
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on January 03, 2013, 05:17
How can they though? Honest question. No PR, no spin, nothing can change that for me. Suspicion comes with success in that race or any other similar race, and that suspicion is warranted (and though the course was pee weak and the quality worse, sky still dominated). Unless there's a mass team wide doping bust in sky and all attest that an individual is clean, nobody can be beyond reproach. Even Vaughters'  claims are well... and BMC are Phonak so that's how much trust they'll get. The frogs, they're led by Europcar (the others are far more believable, but so was Schleck this year).

They could be run by Richard Branson and their PR would still be full of holes. Some seriously mundane sky crap gets overanalysed. Like the Froome Wiggins balls a couple of weeks ago. Maybe it's the bravado they entered the scene with, maybe it's presence all over the media. I don't know.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on January 03, 2013, 09:46
people also forget

Kimmage and Brad had issues from Garmin days

there is a major personality thing going on from a rider I love to a rider who said I could not stay with the team so he must be guilty

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on January 03, 2013, 10:39
Knew it, but ignored it. If he let personal differences plague his writing, then that's just as dodgy for a journalist.

Down to interpretation. Walsh said something very much the different to what Kimmage says (which for some reason didn't get a mention here). Of course, there'd be someone who says Murdoch connection. But that's honestly weak as for a person who's just been named 'journalist of the year or so' if not a news international outlet, some other will lap him up.

Let's see, if they're doping, they're not alone. If by any chance they're clean, they'd not be alone either. I like Argos for some reason in this.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: kabloemski on January 03, 2013, 10:50
I saw some tweets from Walsh, what did he have to say again ???
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on January 03, 2013, 11:00
How can they though? Honest question. No PR, no spin, nothing can change that for me. Suspicion comes with success in that race or any other similar race, and that suspicion is warranted (and though the course was pee weak and the quality worse, sky still dominated). Unless there's a mass team wide doping bust in sky and all attest that an individual is clean, nobody can be beyond reproach. Even Vaughters'  claims are well... and BMC are Phonak so that's how much trust they'll get. The frogs, they're led by Europcar (the others are far more believable, but so was Schleck this year).

They could be run by Richard Branson and their PR would still be full of holes. Some seriously mundane sky crap gets overanalysed. Like the Froome Wiggins balls a couple of weeks ago. Maybe it's the bravado they entered the scene with, maybe it's presence all over the media. I don't know.

Ram is right on the money for me: anything and everything from Sky is going to be overanalysed. I think Kimmage - and anyone else who sat through 2012 - is right to be suspicious but undue emphasis on one team is the media equivalent of only watching cycling in July. I don't hold Kimmage responsible for that, it is the press as a whole and I would bag on the press sooner than I would Team Sky after the year we just had. The reporting malaise, like the doping malaise, is general to the sport. Picking off targets isn't the way to approach the issue but it's all hacks have ever done.

In fact there is a significant list of other teams that fly quietly in this fabricated dawn of "Nu Cycling" as we the users on VR often point out. I am appalled to come back from holiday and find almost no noise about Katusha's World Tour "ethics" snub, not a word about Lampre quietly retiring off riders whose collective past could affect its cleaner, brighter, greensleeved future. A solid press review of Katusha is long overdue but hey, they're Russian, right? 'Nuff said.  ::)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on January 03, 2013, 11:13
absolutely larri - and ram too.

I dont think Sky is the dodgiest around.  It gets most of the debate IMO really because they are the ones proclaiming that they are clean. 

As for what they can do to prove that ... probably not too much at this point.  The damage has already been done.  They hired Leinders and various others with a past, Wiggo went off to the media with c's and w's, Froome has tried to explain his yo-yo'ing form with the story changing fairly often ... those things are out there, and contradict a fair amount with what they are saying.

The issue for me is not so much their record (I am still fence sitting a fair amount), the issue is the continual "we are a shining light", "we are the epitome of clean cycling", "we are leading the peleton in bringing in a new clean era" stuff, but when the questions are ask about their actual conduct, they dont want to answer.

As far as Katusha goes - I am pretty horrified by the WT thing.  Katusha are also on the smelly side of the fence for sure ... but then again, so are many other teams.  The politics of it all, and the subjectivity of deciding that Katusha are out for ethical reasons, but we will give a license to RSNT, Rabobank, Astana and Saxo is completely bewildering - and the cynic in me says it has a lot to do with control of the UCI.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on January 03, 2013, 12:36
absolutely larri - and ram too.

I dont think Sky is the dodgiest around.  It gets most of the debate IMO really because they are the ones proclaiming that they are clean. 

And the ones others talk about being clean. David.millar for example in his 10 million post Armstrong interviews and pieces where he argued cycling is now clean never said anything about for example hejsedal or Evans. He always said - bradley wiggins won the tour clean. That was always his evidence for cycling being clean - sky.  Pat Mcquaid and Phil Ligget have also focused.on sky with their - cycling is clean now comments.
 David Walsh also talks about sky when asked if he believes cycling is clean now- saying he thinks and hopes but doesn't know for certain( unlike.mcquaid millar and ligget who do " Know for certain")
Most  of the media in this country also took this line of argument of course after the Armstrong scandal  but i suppose in other countries reports on usada didst conclude with feelgood.comments about how wiggins is proof not all tour winners dope so its not as big a deal.

 there was however1 article from wiggins ghostwriter gallackhar where he said
Quote

You can rest assured that the Tour Directeur Christian Prudhomme, a big supporter of Wiggins who he sees as the best advertisement there is for clean cycling, will be hoping that the 2012 champion turns up in Corsica as something as other than a super-domestique.

So while i hope gallackar as usual is making stuff up, its at least been claimed that even prudehomme sees wiggins as the Jesus of nazareth of cleanliness in sport.

I don't recall anywhere near the same backing for sastre or Evans, both of whom have just as strong a case for being held up as pillars of clean cycling.

So the point is that sky really are being hyped and hyped in a way that is unique in the history of sport, not just by themselves but by very prominent people not officially involved with sky as well, as the team everyone knows is clean and as paving the way for a.clean era - millar and jv don't just think sky is clean they think doping is gone for ever.

 So its natural that anyone sceptical about whether doping really is gone will begin their questions with sky. Because sky and wiggins have made themselves and have been made by others, the centre of the entire discussion  about doping.in cycling.

So even if someones scepticism in the clean now narrative arises not from sky themselves but from say contador and piti at the vuelta, they will also think to sky and ask questions there.
 Its the flip side to al the positive coverage sky get and since we saw with armstrong how few in journalism ever question what they are told, its not a really big flip side,  just kimmage really.

Funnilly Walsh actually explained away Contador and valverde at the vuelta by saying that the races in Spain allow doping ( though he hasn't paid any attention to the tour of Spain in a while). I wonder if he'll have a rethink about his belief that the tour is clean, if contador wins that next year.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on January 03, 2013, 17:16
And the ones others talk about being clean. David.millar for example in his 10 million post Armstrong interviews and pieces where he argued cycling is now clean never said anything about for example hejsedal or Evans. He always said - bradley wiggins won the tour clean. That was always his evidence for cycling being clean - sky.  Pat Mcquaid and Phil Ligget have also focused.on sky with their - cycling is clean now comments.
 David Walsh also talks about sky when asked if he believes cycling is clean now- saying he thinks and hopes but doesn't know for certain( unlike.mcquaid millar and ligget who do " Know for certain")
Most  of the media in this country also took this line of argument of course after the Armstrong scandal  but i suppose in other countries reports on usada didst conclude with feelgood.comments about how wiggins is proof not all tour winners dope so its not as big a deal.

 there was however1 article from wiggins ghostwriter gallackhar where he said
So while i hope gallackar as usual is making stuff up, its at least been claimed that even prudehomme sees wiggins as the Jesus of nazareth of cleanliness in sport.

I don't recall anywhere near the same backing for sastre or Evans, both of whom have just as strong a case for being held up as pillars of clean cycling.

So the point is that sky really are being hyped and hyped in a way that is unique in the history of sport, not just by themselves but by very prominent people not officially involved with sky as well, as the team everyone knows is clean and as paving the way for a.clean era - millar and jv don't just think sky is clean they think doping is gone for ever.

 So its natural that anyone sceptical about whether doping really is gone will begin their questions with sky. Because sky and wiggins have made themselves and have been made by others, the centre of the entire discussion  about doping.in cycling.

So even if someones scepticism in the clean now narrative arises not from sky themselves but from say contador and piti at the vuelta, they will also think to sky and ask questions there.
 Its the flip side to al the positive coverage sky get and since we saw with armstrong how few in journalism ever question what they are told, its not a really big flip side,  just kimmage really.

Funnilly Walsh actually explained away Contador and valverde at the vuelta by saying that the races in Spain allow doping ( though he hasn't paid any attention to the tour of Spain in a while). I wonder if he'll have a rethink about his belief that the tour is clean, if contador wins that next year.

Some really good points here. Anglophone press + 2012 London Olympics + Tour winner + unusually loquacious team = massive overrepresentation of Sky.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on January 04, 2013, 05:24
I don't know about the media bit. If I want to see Contador or Real Madrid fawning, I'd not open a beeb or guardian newspaper but turn over to Marca. I won't go to Marca to see what Froome or Wiggins love ins. Tis but expected that an English news agency to focus on an English/GBR sportsman, so too for Australia, for India and everyone but a crapulence like Maldives. And clean winning bits, journalists follow the riders. Evans speaks nowt about doping. When he does, there'll be a press for him. Sastre, he'd be speaking against Valverde or Contador. The media won't take kindly to that, applies anywhere in the world. Don't think that there'd be a good reception if Wiggins called Tom Simpson an outright cheat... Cycling media, otoh, is though
As I said earlier, Walsh's credibility cannot be written off just cos he writes something that we don't want to hear. If he claims there's no definite dirtiness, it's his interpretation. And I definitely have missed his Spain allows doping claim.

About the :censoreds and w***ers. Twitter spillover, imo. Hugh Morris of the ECB- twitter for sportsmen is like machineguns to a monkey. It could be epic, but it can be a disaster.
Wiggins couldn't handle it, Wiggins spilled over. He was only chided for a couple of months, Lee Westwood was for a year and more and to a greater extent, and he's a guy who's intelligent, funny, and with a wicked wit, he got into too many spats. He left, not flounced, just left and never let it affect his public life. Perfectly done. Wiggins failed terribly there
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on January 20, 2013, 10:59
"I've got 100% faith in what Team Sky are doing. What's disappointing is you still hear people criticise, you still have the cynics and the pessimists and those depressed people that are even questioning Wiggins' and Froome's performances. At the moment what we have is fool proof."

http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/video/15077443598/Pat-Jonker-interview (http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/video/15077443598/Pat-Jonker-interview) [Aus Restricted]
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Kvinto on January 20, 2013, 11:36
"I've got 100% faith in what Team Sky are doing. What's disappointing is you still hear people criticise, you still have the cynics and the pessimists and those depressed people that are even questioning Wiggins' and Froome's performances. At the moment what we have is fool proof."

“And finally the last thing I’ll say for the people who don’t believe in cycling. The cynics, the skeptics. I’m sorry for you, I’m sorry that you can’t dream big, and I’m sorry you don’t believe in miracles.”  :D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on January 22, 2013, 12:09
Nice interview with Knees:
http://www.christianknees.de/cms/index.php/news#english (http://www.christianknees.de/cms/index.php/news#english)

Quote
And when Armstrong claims that in his opinion, 95% of the riders are doped, then I can only say: You can't always believe what he says. My best result at the Tour de France was 20th in 2009 – and I can tell you with a clear conscience, that this was a “clean performance”
I wonder if he doped before that though?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on January 22, 2013, 12:58
Nice interview with Knees:
http://www.christianknees.de/cms/index.php/news#english (http://www.christianknees.de/cms/index.php/news#english)
I wonder if he doped before that though?
In that L'Equipe 'score' in 2010 he had a high value, 7 or so.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on January 25, 2013, 01:05
Not direct, but probably best place for it to go

Vaughters on twitter


58m Jonathan Vaughters ‏@Vaughters
Oh Wiggo.... While I respect your talent and believe you're clean... You forget some pretty important stuff sometimes.


50m Jonathan Vaughters ‏@Vaughters
Ok, let's elaborate.Since Wiggo was absolute BFF with LA in 2009 Tour, LA was in Wiggo's ear every moment about how "he should leave Garmin"
Expand

47m Jonathan Vaughters ‏@Vaughters
So, am I annoyed at latest interview? Yeah. I am. I'll get over it. Btw- I've defended Wiggo more on twitter than his own mother.
Expand


20m, Jonathan Vaughters @ Vaughter
Sometimes I reveal too much here. But hey, I'd rather be a bit loose than Robotic sound byte. Sorry if I peeed anyone off.
Expand   Reply  Retweet  Favorite  More

Also responded to some guy who accused JV of being a bitter doper and that wiggins probably didnt know about lance with
- he knew. But i think that was then deleted.

 
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on January 25, 2013, 04:56
the interview he is referring to is is where Wiggo calls Lance a "lying bastard" about being clean in 2009 + 2010

.http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/wiggins-calls-armstrong-a-lying-bastard-20130125-2dama.html (http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/wiggins-calls-armstrong-a-lying-bastard-20130125-2dama.html)

Quote
Wiggins, the reigning Tour de France champion, has spoken about the 2009 race when he watched Armstrong with disbelief and thought to himself: “You lying bastard”.

:snip

Referring to the moment in Armstrong’s interview with Oprah Winfrey where the ex-cyclist insisted he swore off banned drugs after retiring for the first time, Wiggins said: "That was the thing that upset me the most about 2009 and 2010. I thought you lying bastard. I can still remember going toe-to-toe with him, watching him and his body language. The man I saw [in the 2009 Tour, struggling] at the top of Verbier in 2009 to the man I saw on the top of Ventoux … wasn't the same bike rider.

“Watch the videos and see the way the guy was riding. I just don't believe anything that comes out of his mouth anymore.”

It was on the penultimate stage of the 2009 Tour, including the legendary climb of Mont Ventoux, when Armstrong gained a crucial 22-seconds on Wiggins. On the earlier summit finish at Verbier Wiggins had gained 29 seconds on Armstrong

while I dont think that highly of Brad in general due to his past thoughts on this - its a bit of 'band wagon' stuff - I do like this now.

At least he (and hopefully others) are starting to get angry at the ones who cheat. 

And they should be angry. 
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on January 25, 2013, 12:12
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/bradley-wiggins/9826081/Bradley-Wiggins-accused-of-hypocrisy-by-Jonathan-Vaughters-Garmin-Sharp-manager-and-former-employer.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/bradley-wiggins/9826081/Bradley-Wiggins-accused-of-hypocrisy-by-Jonathan-Vaughters-Garmin-Sharp-manager-and-former-employer.html)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on January 25, 2013, 12:37
interesting - that story appears to have been removed   :rolleye
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on January 25, 2013, 12:39
but this is the whole story that JV is responding to

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/9825663/Bradley-Wiggins-I-know-that-Lance-Armstrong-lied-about-doping-on-his-comeback.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/9825663/Bradley-Wiggins-I-know-that-Lance-Armstrong-lied-about-doping-on-his-comeback.html)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: mc_mountain on January 25, 2013, 15:38
Vaughters tweet story back up now.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on January 28, 2013, 11:53
David Brailsford on doping in cycling post Lance admissions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKRLW3TkWHA#ws)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on February 01, 2013, 09:08
The Lance says "in sport you are always on record for what you've done, for what you've said, the way you've acted" every second counts.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on February 02, 2013, 23:28
A very nice quote from the man himself Tim Kerrison.

Quote
"Our job is to improve our riders' performance, and if we do our job really well, some of thing our riders do are seen as remarkable. But remarkable performance does not correlate with doping."

"Now more than ever, cycling's credibility is tarnished by its history. One of the things I've struggled with is that people assume that because we are doing our jobs well, people must be doping. It used to make me frustrated and angry. If your integrity is being constantly questioned because you are doing a good job, how do you feel?"

In the Press conference Kerrison highlighted the fact that the coaches in cycling have been primarily former riders and the such who are doing things the way they have always been done and do not have significant scientific training.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on February 02, 2013, 23:36
A very nice quote from the man himself Tim Kerrison.

In the Press conference Kerrison highlighted the fact that the coaches in cycling have been primarily former riders and the such who are doing things the way they have always been done and do not have significant scientific training.

How does he know what other teams are doing behind the scenes. As madiot said last year - we have the wind tunnels too we just dont call a press conference about it.

Besides Lance said about Ferrari that Ferrari brought new non cycling sports science into his training and that his techniques were amazing. To ignore the doping for a sec, Lance was a guy who would do anything to win - legal and nonlegal, so i doubt that praising Ferraris sports science was totally made up. And if it wasn't totally made up, clearly sports science has played a bigger role in the sport than Bailsford and Kerrison claim.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on February 02, 2013, 23:41
It was an overview of a 3 hour press conference with that being at its base. I can't find coverage of it, but I would suspect the points you raised were surely brought up.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on February 02, 2013, 23:52
It was an overview of a 3 hour press conference with that being at its base. I can't find coverage of it, but I would suspect the points you raised were surely brought up.

I dont know. Its quite rare to see journos asking questions in sport. Politics, maybe (and not US) but in sport, not usually
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on February 03, 2013, 07:04
Walsh has been give access at any time as long as he wants speak to whom ever he wants.

Just spent 5 days with sky
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on February 03, 2013, 08:00
Tim Kerrison on use of science at Team Sky and the future of clean cycling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVROhTHxWP8#ws)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on February 03, 2013, 08:57
Cadel Evans style awkwardness.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on February 03, 2013, 13:18
(http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/multimedia/dynamic/00321/STS0312TEAMSKY1_321813k.jpg)

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/sport/cycling/article1206449.ece?shareToken=ccea51abc589211e28ad23ea10f8b076 (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/sport/cycling/article1206449.ece?shareToken=ccea51abc589211e28ad23ea10f8b076)

Walsh ´s 1st article from team sky camp
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on February 03, 2013, 14:23
Fair play. They seem to be consciously making an effort to clear the smog. Inviting not only Walsh but other sportsmen to their training camp.

Btw, Raleigh are also in Mallorca.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on February 03, 2013, 14:33
Fair play. They seem to be consciously making an effort to clear the smog. Inviting not only Walsh but other sportsmen to their training camp.

Btw, Raleigh are also in Mallorca.
They will be called dopers now  :rolleye
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Kvinto on February 03, 2013, 14:37
Tim Kerrison on use of science at Team Sky and the future of clean cycling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVROhTHxWP8#ws)

That's my favourite part:

“Over the last three years we really recognized the need to simplify what we’ve been doing, go back to basics, look at the areas where we get the big gains, make sure we address these areas first...” 

I’m glad that they – in the Team Sky – are professional enough to perceive that the “big gains” are bigger than “marginal gains”, but what do these big gains mean from the point of view of sports science  :? because every time I read/listen about the term “science” next to “sports” (not to mention the “big gains”) my perverted mind recalls me one quote of late Aldo Sassi about doping in the 80th. I’m not sure I can convey it literally, but I’m going to try:

“The ethical perception of doping at that time has not been the same as today. What is doping now was called science back then”

Under the circumstances when so many parties in the sport emphasize on clean achievements I long to know what kind of “new science” propels these achievements nowadays and hope it will take less than 10 years to figure out...  :cheesy
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: cj2002 on February 04, 2013, 13:57
The Return of the Kimmage

taken from @PaulKimmage

Quote
The genius of Sir David Brailsford (or what you didn't read yesterday in The Sunday Times)...

September 2009: Brailsford outlines his plans for Team Sky to win the Tour de France clean in five years. Roger Palfreeman, the BC team doc,

is a trump card. "It's one of the key things," he tells Jeremy Whittle of The Times. "We have Roger Palfreeman doing internal testing but...

we also work with the UCI and UK sport. We have a clear anti-doping strategy." March 2010: Palfreeman leaves BC. The media are not informed.

June 7, 2010: Brailsford offers a journalist from The Sunday Times complete and unrestricted access to the team for the Tour de France.

June 16 2010: The journalist spends four days with Bradley Wiggins at a Team Sky training camp in the Pyrenees.

June 27 2010: An interview with Wiggins is published. Five days later, on the eve of the Tour in Rotterdam, Brailsford informs the journo...

...that complete and unrestricted access now comes with certain restrictions: No access to the team for the first week of the race...

...No access to Michael Barry for the duration of the race and some tap dancing on Palfreeman. Q: Do you have his number?

A: "No, he handed his BC phone back. If I can get hold of him I'll give him your number and he can call you."

July 3 2010: The journalist files a story about Barry, Palfreeman and Brailsford's surprise about-turn for the ST. It isn't published.

(Sometime) 2010: The former Rabobank doctor, Geert Leinders, currently assiting an anti-doping inquiry in Belgium, joins Team Sky.

May 2012: Leinders association with the team is questioned by fans on Twitter. July 11, 2012 - the first mention of Leinders in The Times.

October 2012: Leinders "80-day-a year" (whatever that means) contract with Sky is not renewed.

December 2, 2012: "CLEAN BREAKAWAY" - the first mention of Leinders in The Sunday Times.

February 3, 2013: "NO HIDING PLACE: Battle for the credibility of cycling brings extraordinary offer from Dave Brailsford" appears in ST.

There is no mention that this offer has been made before. Or how Brailsford, and the newspaper, conducted themselves.

Bottom line: When they start applying the same standards to Team Sky as they did to Lance Armstrong, I'll start taking them seriously.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on February 17, 2013, 02:32
How is he or that connected to Sky?
We could surely dig the same about anyone, clean or dirty, and they'd say similar stuff.

USPS wore shorts.... so do sky...
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on February 17, 2013, 11:45
How is he or that connected to Sky?
We could surely dig the same about anyone, clean or dirty, and they'd say similar stuff.

USPS wore shorts.... so do sky...

He isn't, so I moved the post (http://velorooms.com/index.php/topic,1246.msg85617.html#msg85617). :)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on February 18, 2013, 17:20
Like Zapatero saved Contador?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on February 18, 2013, 17:31
@ Asturiano

You're of course entitled to that opinion. But there's nothing in your piece that is a fact that indicates any Sky riders are doping. There aren't many such facts which is interesting in itself. Personally, I'd be surprised if they were all doping all the time but not surprised that some were doping some of the time.

Whatever Sky are doing, their performance has been remarkable. A performance level that you could only really put down to doping if they have a product that no-one else has or an ability to escape detection that no-one else has AND they have a team-wide programme.

Or the simplest answer is that they're not doing anything the rest of the peleton isn't doing, their training is just better.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on February 18, 2013, 17:54
"Doping will always be ahead of testing"... heard this once, agree with it 100%....
just stating my opinion, not here to argue.
There's far more to be learnt by challenging and defending assertions in a debate rather than by making a claim and walking away.

Up to you though...
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on February 18, 2013, 19:16
while there is a bit of glass houses about someone who thinks Contador is clean going after Sky, his wider point about big teams being protected at the olympics, while a slight digression from the topic, is very  valid. Anti doping at the olympics has been a joke all the way and absolutely nothing has happened since the 2000 and 2004 olympics to suggest anything has changed.


Whatever Sky are doing, their performance has been remarkable. A performance level that you could only really put down to doping if they have a product that no-one else has or an ability to escape detection that no-one else has AND they have a team-wide programme.


Surprised to see this coming from you.

 If they are doping their performance level can be put down to doping REGARDLESS of what everyone else is doing.

Maybe what you wanted to write is that their superiority over other teams could only really be put down to doping if they have a product and ability to escape detection  that no one else has.

But the performance level is either down to doping or it is not, it doesn't matter 1 iota whether other teams have those drugs and those methods or not.

As i said strange (unless you meant somehting else) for someone who boycotted the late 90's and 2000's because of doping, to write the above sentence. Did Pantani and Vino and Ullrich etc etc etc  have "a product that no-one else has or an ability to escape detection that no-one else"?


Quote
Or the simplest answer is that they're not doing anything the rest of the peleton isn't doing,

So you think sky are doping and everyone else is doping but just dont like people claiming that sky dope more. Or you think they are all clean? That the sport suddenly essentially overnight and with no catalyst became clean in 2011.


Quote
or their training is just better.

I dont get this. So Froome went from 0 to 100 because the training is so good? Or did Froome go from 0 to 100 because he suddenly became talented? Or did he go from 0 to 95 because of  the talent and 95 to 100 because of the training? Rogers and Porte also posted unreal improvements upon joining sky and Wiggins the year before. It was all down to training? Or did Sky just by pure massive coincidence pickup riders who post massive unnatural improvements midway/ late in their career.

What reason is there to believe the training line anyway?  Sky flush the true believers with propaganda about how Kerrison reinvented physical exercise. But what else do we have other than sky themselves talking about how magical marginal gains are to actually suggest sky have such superior training? Its not like Kerrison is the first person credited with bringing sports science into cycling. And Sky's assertion that sports science was non existent in the sport before Tim came along asks a lot in the faith department.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on February 18, 2013, 19:21
Just to pose the questions as Hitch & Cap touched on it. If Sky are doping then what do people put their superiority down to? Do they have better techniques? Better this.. better that?
And also why is it specifically Sky who are better when it comes to the doping stakes?

Also just to point out that Sky do seem to have pooled and do pool much more money into "scientific" research, development than any other teams in the history of cycling. It may be not entirely accurate but I would be pretty sure of that.

Edit:

Quote
What reason is there to believe the training line anyway?  Sky flush the true believers with propaganda about how Kerrison reinvented physical exercise.
I would disagree with that, I don't see them really saying anything along those lines.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on February 18, 2013, 19:34

Edit:
I would disagree with that, I don't see them really saying anything along those lines.

You made a whole thread about how he was the greatest thing since round wheels.

remember some of these quotes


Quote from: Jullich
At first when I saw the way Tim was working I was pretty skeptical. Then as soon as I'd figured it out, I was like, WOW! Why doesnt everyone else do it like this"

Quote from: froome19
Indeed Sky have rightfully applauded their genius coach and Wiggins has specifically attributed his Tour win down to Kerrison's coachin. Not only that but
Quote from: Bailsford
"The best man in cycling"

Quote from: froome19
Rogers as well claimed that has increased his power threshold by 5-7% since working with Kerrison.
Love this bit though

Quote from: Froome19
Furthermore another example is that of Wiggins's time trialling which as markedly improved over the past two years. This is due to the fact that Kerrison has made Wiggins race his TTs at a lowed cadence
:hitch
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on February 18, 2013, 19:36
Without getting too involved as I've seen this film a few times.

Define doping

The WADA code or .........
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on February 18, 2013, 19:38
Without getting too involved as I've seen this film a few times.


me too. It was called- Le Tour de France 2004, official dvd. ;)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on February 18, 2013, 19:55
You made a whole thread about how he was the greatest thing since round wheels.

remember some of these quotes

Love this bit though
:hitch
True, but my point was not that he reinvented physical exercise, he has just brought together a lot of concepts from either his past experiences, other sports and whatnot. He also has a team who is much more committed to the science way than other teams and he also has more resources than other teams to dedicate to ensuring everything is scienced up. I don't think Kerrison is unique and can not be reproduced but it is the amount of resources and dedication which defines Sky not Kerrison. Without that expertise it would never have happened true, but Garmin have their own technical director whom I am sure is not too bad though probably not up to Kerrison's standard.

This is from Dombro's interview today:

Quote
"I don't have anything to compare it to because I haven't been on other [professional] teams. Just talking to my buddies in the other teams, and hearing what it has been like for them, I think Sky's a cut above.

"They have a pretty good grasp on what your capabilities are because they so closely monitor your power files. Every day I'm on my bike, the SRM records what I'm doing, then I upload it, I comment. That goes to all the race coaches at Sky and they all see what's going on. They comment back a lot of times... Every day you're in contact with the team. For me, I really like that it's hands-on and a lot of structure."
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Slow Rider on February 18, 2013, 20:24
I still don't see why Sky's performances are that suspect. Wiggins has always been extremely talented. Last year, he had a couple of courses that were perfectly suitable for him with a lot of ITT km's and little serious climbing. At the same time, Contador was suspended, Evans was off form, the Schlecks were completely washed up, Menchov was too old, the Dutch squad fell over, Sanchez had to withdraw... Only Nibali and VDB remained as serious competitors for Wiggins. And is it really that surprising Wiggins beats those two riders on a parcours that was basically taylor-made for him?

Then there's the overall strength of the team. Porte, yes, he was strong. It surprised me too, but it was not unbelievable. He had shown talent before. Plus, his performances were good, but he didn't have a lot of competition from the other teams either. Nibali's support was a Basso who sucked at the Giro and was even weaker at the Tour, Szmyd who was terribly out of form, and Sagan who can do a lot, but not climb with the best. VDB had Vanendert, who had only one good day on which he instantly destroyed most of the Sky train. Radioshack was probably stronger, with guys like Zubeldia staying with the groups as long as Porte and Rogers.
Rogers was good as well, but he has always been talented as well. Of course he had a bit of a history, so yes, he might have doped. Other riders on the team.. I remember EBH doing an excellent ride, but well, EBH is one of the most talented riders in the world right now. And besides, he's Scandinavian, so he can't be doped ;)

Then there's Froome. Yes, he had a meteoric rise to the top, from a little known domestique to a GT contender in a very short time. But I remember our very own Froome (Froome19 that is) made an excellent post explaining Froome's life story and rise which sounded pretty convincing. But yes, Froome could certainly be doped.
Other riders who performed well at Sky? Thomas, but he has been a very talented rider on the track and his conversion from track to road has seemed very believable to me. Stennard, same story. Uran and Henao, no indication of doping. Flecha, same thing.

So from all the riders at team Sky, only Froome is really suspect. Rogers perhaps, but he has been a suspect character since before joining Sky. Sky's dominance was based on a very lucky combination of factors: other contenders not being able to compete, the relative weakness of other teams, a very favourable parcours. None of this has anything to do with doping.

Yes, it is entirely possible that Froome is doped (though I'm personally still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt). But you can't possibly say that an entire team dopes because of one guys' incredible performances. In my view, it is far more likely that Froome is on a personal programma, if he's even on anything. In terms of classics performance, or even performance in other GT's Sky haven't done anything special. They had one dominant performance in a GT, which they were lucky to have. With Contador back and supported by a stronger team than anything we've seen last year, I'm not that sure Sky's dominance will continue. Froome may continue to be great, but that doesn't have to mean a thing for the rest of the team.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on February 18, 2013, 21:03

True, but my point was not that he reinvented physical exercise, he has just brought together a lot of concepts from either his past experiences, other sports and whatnot. He also has a team who is much more committed to the science way than other teams and he also has more resources than other teams to dedicate to ensuring everything is scienced up. I don't think Kerrison is unique and can not be reproduced but it is the amount of resources and dedication which defines Sky not Kerrison. Without that expertise it would never have happened true, but Garmin have their own technical director whom I am sure is not too bad though probably not up to Kerrison's standard.

This is from Dombro's interview today:

Thats not.the tune you were.singing then. You and sky were very much hyping him as a 21st century einstein as a lot.of those threads show.




Then there's Froome. Yes, he had a meteoric rise to the top, from a little known domestique to a GT contender in a very short time. But I remember our very own Froome (Froome19 that is) made an excellent post explaining Froome's life story and rise which sounded pretty convincing. But yes, Froome could certainly be doped.

Froome makes a never before seen tranformation from guy about to.be dumped.from world.tour to joint best grand tour rider around. In a sport where every single person to have ever reached that level doped.
Froomes number 1 fan - oh but he had blizharia. + he trains hard now. It makes sense.
You - oh that makes.sense.

Really?

99% of dopers have never reached froomes current level. And almost all of the showed more talent in every single age bracket until 25 that froome did.

 You also.cite the fact that contador may beat froome( and he actually lost their last encounter) as suggestive of.froome being clean. This is the same contador who was named in puerto tested positive and now.works.with riis.

The only other people in this world that confident that cycling is a totally clean sport where hard work and a good attitude will always prevail are pat mcquaid and David millar.

Btw wiggins also beat nibali and vdb.in the 2011 vuelta that totally did not suit him. And he crushed both those riders in the mountains of the tour anyway, and froome even more so. I dont even know what you were trying to say with the " wiggins was always an immense talent" bit.


Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Slow Rider on February 18, 2013, 22:30
Froome makes a never before seen tranformation from guy about to.be dumped.from world.tour to joint best grand tour rider around. In a sport where every single person to have ever reached that level doped.
Froomes number 1 fan - oh but he had blizharia. + he trains hard now. It makes sense.
You - oh that makes.sense.

Really?

99% of dopers have never reached froomes current level. And almost all of the showed more talent in every single age bracket until 25 that froome did.
OK, I'll follow your view. 99% of dopers have never reached Froome's level, and all of those are more talented as evidenced from their youth results. Then what the hell is Froome on and how do I get it? And more importantly, how did he as a completely unknown rider gain access to this drug and manage to avoid suspension? And why has no one else used this wonderous form of doping that is apparently so incredible successful that it can raise a (going by youth results) barely talented rider to such a level?

Even if you believe Froome is on a better doping programme from anyone else in the peloton (which I doubt, I don't see how his personal programme is so much better than anyone elses), he still needs to have an enormous level of natural talent. Certainly more than guys like Wiggins, Porte and Rogers, since those are (according to the conspiracy theorists) on the same Sky-wide doping programme as Froome. Ergo, Froome is very talented, whether he dopes or not. That talent was never apparent in his youth. So how then do we explain this lack of results during the first part of his career? Well, have a look at Froome19's topic for a potential explanation

(on a side-note, the fact that someone is a fan of a rider, even his or her 'number one fan', doesn't make their arguments any less valid)

Quote
You also.cite the fact that contador may beat froome( and he actually lost their last encounter) as suggestive of.froome being clean. This is the same contador who was named in puerto tested positive and now.works.with riis.
I never cite anything as evidence that either Contador or Froome is clean, since I have no evidence of either being clean or otherwise. All I'm saying there is that with Contador back, Sky's dominance will stop, or certainly be less one-sided. I'm trying to place things in perspective: Sky got very lucky last year. That luck has led to a domination, but that domination will not continue.

Quote
The only other people in this world that confident that cycling is a totally clean sport where hard work and a good attitude will always prevail are pat mcquaid and David millar.
Sigh.. Where did you read anything in any of my posts ever that I believe cycling is a totally clean sport? That I'm not as sceptical as you are on every exceptional performance doesn't mean I'm an idiot. Of course there is doping in cycling. Froome may very well be doping, just as Contador might be doping, and Nibali, and even Jonathan Lovelock for all I know.

However, I have not seen any evidence of them doping. Well, I've seen some of Contador which was pretty convinving, but not on the others. We can't go judge people on the basis of results alone, and that is what you (and many others) are doing.

Quote
Btw wiggins also beat nibali and vdb.in the 2011 vuelta that totally did not suit him. And he crushed both those riders in the mountains of the tour anyway, and froome even more so. I dont even know what you were trying to say with the " wiggins was always an immense talent" bit.
Yep, both completely off form. Beating Nibali 2011 Vuelta doesn't prove anything in any way. It was Nibali's worst GT in years, he wasn't anything like his usual self there. And beating VDB in any race that is not the Tour doesn't exactly mean much either, now does it? ;)

What I was trying to say with Wiggins talent is that Sky did nothing that is truly unbelievable for me. Certainly not with Wiggins. He was always talented, he got lucky with a good parcours for him and won. I have no clue why his performance would be more suspect than others. And I still have not heard a good explanation for why what they did is so exceptional that it is beyond belief Sky did it clean, only some talk about Froome's rise.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on February 18, 2013, 23:06
OK, I'll follow your view. 99% of dopers have never reached Froome's level, and all of those are more talented as evidenced from their youth results. Then what the hell is Froome on and how do I get it? And more importantly, how did he as a completely unknown rider gain access to this drug and manage to avoid suspension? And why has no one else used this wonderous form of doping that is apparently so incredible successful that it can raise a (going by youth results) barely talented rider to such a level?

Even if you believe Froome is on a better doping programme from anyone else in the peloton (which I doubt, I don't see how his personal programme is so much better than anyone elses), he still needs to have an enormous level of natural talent. Certainly more than guys like Wiggins, Porte and Rogers, since those are (according to the conspiracy theorists) on the same Sky-wide doping programme as Froome. Ergo, Froome is very talented, whether he dopes or not. That talent was never apparent in his youth. So how then do we explain this lack of results during the first part of his career? Well, have a look at Froome19's topic for a potential explanation.
+10000. I have raised this point many times on CN and have never received an answer. Froome's rise is suspicious but you just don't go from zero to hero. Lance never did, he was a talented bike rider even before his cancer (though he was probably doing before), even Cobo never did. If Froome was stripped of his drugs now would we see him drop all the way down back to where he originally was at?

PEDs do not unlock ability they increase ability. Take Hounard how come he was doping anonymously whilst Froome rocketed up so considerably? And of course Froome is better than Hounard but that is besides the point. And most likely Froome had access to a much more detailed doping programme but then if so then I find it hard to believe that riders like Dombrowski are doping, if anything it is the big stars who would be indocrinated to the Tenerife group. So why is Froome all of a sudden up there?

Furthermore how come Wiggins lost out to Froome so badly in the Vuelta? They were on the same programme, Froome may react better to PEDs but such a boost?

Thats not.the tune you were.singing then. You and sky were very much hyping him as a 21st century einstein as a lot.of those threads show.

I am not saying that Kerrison is not the difference for Sky, but it is not like he is doing anything insanely genius. This stuff is found in other sports and all over the place. It is not revolutionary stuff, but in the context of cycling it does come across in that way.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on February 19, 2013, 00:54
I am not really a sky fan by any means ... but I am with Captain Cavman here.  There is a lot of speculation - but no real facts at this point.

I dont think really that the ENTIRE sky team is doping - but yes, its likely that some are.

And at the end of the day, money and training count.  Big time.  Sky put a huge amount of money into the team - and better facilities, more access to equipment, training camps, doctors, nutritionists, physio etc ... it all counts.  Compare that to a lower budget team where only the big star gets his own physio, less training camps, 1 coach supervising multiple young guys etc ... those things make a huge difference.

Still on the fence about Wiggo - he has a lot of natural talent, and has an awful lot to lose, but there are lots of things that dont add up ... so I just dont know.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on February 19, 2013, 12:47
OK, I'll follow your view. 99% of dopers have never reached Froome's level, and all of those are more talented as evidenced from their youth results. Then what the hell is Froome on and how do I get it? And more importantly, how did he as a completely unknown rider gain access to this drug and manage to avoid suspension? And why has no one else used this wonderous form of doping that is apparently so incredible successful that it can raise a (going by youth results) barely talented rider to such a level?

Even if you believe Froome is on a better doping programme from anyone else in the peloton (which I doubt, I don't see how his personal programme is so much better than anyone elses), he still needs to have an enormous level of natural talent. Certainly more than guys like Wiggins, Porte and Rogers, since those are (according to the conspiracy theorists) on the same Sky-wide doping programme as Froome. Ergo, Froome is very talented, whether he dopes or not.

You are trying to make this discussion about whether froome has a better doping programme and point.out flaws in that theory questioning how he could get a better product etc.

But no one said froome has to have a better doping programme.

No.one said froome has.to have anything better than others. For.all.we know schleck contador balverde etc are all doping similarly and would also be weak without drugs or are poor responders.

The fact is though they did all.dope.

So.to believe he, alone, is achieving that level clean (even before taking into account his ridiculous improvement) is to believe he is a 1 in 30.years talent.

As for the improvements if you made a list of the 10 biggest improvements in the history of the sport wiggins and froome would be 1 and 2. The other 8 all.took epo.

Clean? Immediately after sky say they want to win the tour with a British rider in 5 years but have no.one to do it with, just like that 2 British passengers.of the autobus  suddenly realize they have 1 in a million gt talent. And both possess this strong commitment to doing it clean that no.one.else.in.the sport seems.to.have? I don't think one needs to.be that big a cynic.to question this fairy tale.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on February 19, 2013, 13:25
+10000. I have raised this point many times on CN and have never received an answer. Froome's rise is suspicious but you just don't go from zero to hero. Lance never did, he was a talented bike rider even before his cancer (though he was probably doing before), even Cobo never did. If Froome was stripped of his drugs now would we see him drop all the way down back to where he originally was at?


Seriously - Lance never doped ergo no dopers did, is not the kind of logic one expects from someone with 2000 posts.
And it makes no sense anyway since Lance was already doping as a youngster so the base level from which you say he didnt  improve that much  was already based on heavy doping to begin with.

There are plenty of people who went donkey to racehorse. Riis, Kashechkin, Kohl, Jalabert, to name a few and people who have been watching cycling longer than me will know far more and far better examples.

So sorry the - no one ever went from 0 to hero argument is unfortunately very incorrect.

Not that that means Froome is entirely down to doping. Its  possible that Froome is very talented. But that his improvement came down entirely to special circumstances and talent is even more preposterous  than the it was all down  to doping theory you ridicule.

Quote
even Cobo never did.
you are not suggesting Cobo doped but Froome didnt are you? :-x Whats your proof on cobo?

Quote
PEDs do not unlock ability they increase ability. Take Hounard how come he was doping anonymously whilst Froome rocketed up so considerably? And of course Froome is better than Hounard but that is besides the point. And most likely Froome had access to a much more detailed doping programme but then if so then I find it hard to believe that riders like Dombrowski are doping, if anything it is the big stars who would be indocrinated to the Tenerife group. So why is Froome all of a sudden up there?
Quote
Furthermore how come Wiggins lost out to Froome so badly in the Vuelta? They were on the same programme, Froome may react better to PEDs but such a boost?
Froome was already better than wiggins as a climber when they were both sh*t. There is nothing strange about it remaining that way now.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on February 19, 2013, 13:39
I think he's saying that Cobo won a GT clean which was always going to be possible based on his clean 2007 Pais Vasco performance. Cobo had motivational issues too so like most of the other stories, is excused from his dormant years.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Slow Rider on February 19, 2013, 16:01
You are trying to make this discussion about whether froome has a better doping programme and point.out flaws in that theory questioning how he could get a better product etc.[/b]

But no one said froome has to have a better doping programme.

No.one said froome has.to have anything better than others. For.all.we know schleck contador balverde etc are all doping similarly and would also be weak without drugs or are poor responders.

The fact is though they did all.dope.

So.to believe he, alone, is achieving that level clean (even before taking into account his ridiculous improvement) is to believe he is a 1 in 30.years talent.
If he doesn't have a better programme than all other riders, then he has to be more talented. Certainly more talented than riders such as Contador, Wiggins, Porte, Schleck, Evans, who according to you are all doped on the same. So Froome must be very talented, yet no one had seen that talent. Why was that?

You're saying Froome is a nobody with no talent who got on a good program and suddenly became great. I don't think that's possible, and certainly not without taking excessive risks of getting caught.

Quote
As for the improvements if you made a list of the 10 biggest improvements in the history of the sport wiggins and froome would be 1 and 2. The other 8 all.took epo.
Wiggins made a change from one discipline to the other. He was one of the best track riders in the world before he transferred to the road. So yes, he was hugely talented. From there, he changed to road cycling and became a good TT'er and after losing a lot of weight a decent climber. I'm not saying he defintely did this without any doping, but it doesn't seem that impossible to change from one of the best track riders into a good road rider with specific training. And he showed this talent at Garmin, before changing to Sky and their supposed programme.

Quote
Clean? Immediately after sky say they want to win the tour with a British rider in 5 years but have no.one to do it with, just like that 2 British passengers.of the autobus  suddenly realize they have 1 in a million gt talent. And both possess this strong commitment to doing it clean that no.one.else.in.the sport seems.to.have? I don't think one needs to.be that big a cynic.to question this fairy tale.
It's suspicious, certainly. But a vague suspicion does not equal proof that the whole of Team Sky is in a conspiracy to get a British Tour winner through doping. Again, we can't judge riders or teams on performances alone. There will always be some people who stand out, even from a (hypothetical) completely clean field. And yes, it's entirely possible that Froome is a 'once in 30 years' talent.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on February 19, 2013, 18:26
I think he's saying that Cobo won a GT clean which was always going to be possible based on his clean 2007 Pais Vasco performance. Cobo had motivational issues too so like most of the other stories, is excused from his dormant years.

Cobo have always been clean, sure there are rumours but not a single evidence. :cool:
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on February 19, 2013, 18:26
Seriously - Lance never doped ergo no dopers did, is not the kind of logic one expects from someone with 2000 posts.

Some good back-and-forth on this thread, but let's keep the criticism focused on the arguments rather than the users who make them. ;)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on February 19, 2013, 19:08
Seriously - Lance never doped ergo no dopers did, is not the kind of logic one expects from someone with 2000 posts.
And it makes no sense anyway since Lance was already doping as a youngster so the base level from which you say he didnt  improve that much  was already based on heavy doping to begin with.
I don't get what you mean about the bit about Lance having never doped ,it was meant as an example nothing more. Also I noted that Lance was doping before cancer but he generally is used as the example of someone who can be transformed by PEDs so I stuck by him anyways.

Quote
There are plenty of people who went donkey to racehorse. Riis, Kashechkin, Kohl, Jalabert, to name a few and people who have been watching cycling longer than me will know far more and far better examples.

So sorry the - no one ever went from 0 to hero argument is unfortunately very incorrect.

Not that that means Froome is entirely down to doping. Its  possible that Froome is very talented. But that his improvement came down entirely to special circumstances and talent is even more preposterous than the it was all down  to doping theory you ridicule.

I never said the bolded. Check the Froome thread for what I think could have been the reason. I am not convinced myself but I do perceive it as a viable alternative. Also I don't ridicule the doping theory, just I don't believe it is fair to condemn him like that based on nothing of proper substance.
Quote
you are not suggesting Cobo doped but Froome didnt are you? :-x Whats your proof on cobo?
Not me but most people consider Cobo to be doping, I attempt to refrain from condemning him yet. True though maybe there are better examples out there.

Quote
Froome was already better than wiggins as a climber when they were both sh*t. There is nothing strange about it remaining that way now.
You didn't answer the question about why Froome? Also just for clarification are you saying that Wiggins was doping in 2009? Because Froome pre Vuelta 2011 certainly did not match Wiggins Tour 2009.
Also I don't think it takes a whole big jump in logic to say that Wiggins was always capable of climbing at for example his 2009 level. He just had never tried it due to his track commitments. We are going to see more and more people coming off the track and being capable of challenging in hilly and possibly GTs I believe and I would not be so surprised if a rider who was so obviously talented as Wiggins was capable of climbing well when he came off the track. Was everyone shouting "doper" in 2009? True they are totally different, but he certainly had not explored his limits of climbing prior to 2009.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on February 19, 2013, 19:37
If he doesn't have a better programme than all other riders, then he has to be more talented. Certainly more talented than riders such as Contador, Wiggins, Porte, Schleck, Evans, who according to you are all doped on the same. So Froome must be very talented, yet no one had seen that talent. Why was that?

You're saying Froome is a nobody with no talent who got on a good program and suddenly became great.

No, i.never said froome  has no.talent.

What he doesn't have however is the talent to reach a higher level.clean than all the dopers on dope.

Once again you are trying to make.the discussion about how.much froome dopes, ridiculing the idea the he is 100% drug fueled.

To.me.that is unimportant. Froome may very well be more.talented than.most others. Though judging by his original performances i think.the reverse.is.more.likely i.nevertheless don't rule.out that he may be more talented than them because they may have been doping from.earlier ( especially schleck).


Title: Re: Sky
Post by: esafosfina on February 19, 2013, 19:53
Starting to hear some curious things about Royal Liverpool Hospital's endocrinology dept. Will keep you up to speed as I hear more, if indeed there is more.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Slow Rider on February 19, 2013, 20:46
No, i.never said froome  has no.talent.

What he doesn't have however is the talent to reach a higher level.clean than all the dopers on dope.

Once again you are trying to make.the discussion about how.much froome dopes, ridiculing the idea the he is 100% drug fueled.

To.me.that is unimportant. Froome may very well be more.talented than.most others. Though judging by his original performances i think.the reverse.is.more.likely i.nevertheless don't rule.out that he may be more talented than them because they may have been doping from.earlier ( especially schleck).
I took this to mean you didn't think he was all that talented, which seemed pretty vital to your argument:

Quote
Froome makes a never before seen tranformation from guy about to.be dumped.from world.tour to joint best grand tour rider around. In a sport where every single person to have ever reached that level doped.
Froomes number 1 fan - oh but he had blizharia. + he trains hard now. It makes sense.
You - oh that makes.sense.

Really?

99% of dopers have never reached froomes current level. And almost all of the showed more talent in every single age bracket until 25 that froome did.
But the point remains, who says he doesn't have the talent to beat some riders who are doped? According to most, doping is far less extreme than it used to be, as evidenced by worse times on climbs. Then it becomes more likely for exceptionally talented clean riders to compete with doped competition.

Again, and I keep repeating this, I'm not saying this is definitely what happened. It's entirely possible Froome is doped. However, I still have not seen any convincing evidence of this, and I refuse to brand someone a doper based exclusively on their results.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: DB-Coop on February 20, 2013, 14:19
Well considering that Froome was found to have Bilharzia in 2010 and that he might have had this for quite some time, and that it results in Anemia and other conditions that would reduce performance, I think that could be a definite explanation for him under preforming early on as oppose to his later performances.

The time gap in the tour was not that amazing when you think of it, the Osymetric chain rings on the TT's can explain approximately 3 minutes of the performance, when you take that into account Froome and Nibali performed equally on the TT's and in the mountains, and Wiggins never attacked up any mountain and appeared weaker there than Froome and Nibali, I see no reason why Wiggins and Froome shouldn't possibly be clean if Nibali is clean.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on February 20, 2013, 14:22
Well considering that Froome was found to have Bilharzia in 2010 and that he might have had this for quite some time, and that it results in Anemia and other conditions that would reduce performance, I think that could be a definite explanation for him under preforming early on as oppose to his later performances.

The time gap in the tour was not that amazing when you think of it, the Osymetric chain rings on the TT's can explain approximately 3 minutes of the performance, when you take that into account Froome and Nibali performed equally on the TT's and in the mountains, and Wiggins never attacked up any mountain and appeared weaker there than Froome and Nibali, I see no reason why Wiggins and Froome shouldn't possibly be clean if Nibali is clean.

Well that´s put the last nail in Wiggins and Froome coffins   ;)   :lol
 
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on February 20, 2013, 15:15
Erm, Ferrari was there purely for training plans.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on February 20, 2013, 15:17
Erm, Ferrari was there purely for training plans.

 :D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on February 20, 2013, 15:23
Well considering that Froome was found to have Bilharzia in 2010 and that he might have had this for quite some time, and that it results in Anemia and other conditions that would reduce performance, I think that could be a definite explanation for him under preforming early on as oppose to his later performances.

The time gap in the tour was not that amazing when you think of it, the Osymetric chain rings on the TT's can explain approximately 3 minutes of the performance, when you take that into account Froome and Nibali performed equally on the TT's and in the mountains, and Wiggins never attacked up any mountain and appeared weaker there than Froome and Nibali, I see no reason why Wiggins and Froome shouldn't possibly be clean if Nibali is clean.

Nibali is clean?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: DB-Coop on February 20, 2013, 15:28
Nibali is clean?

People somehow manage to misunderstand my post completely, I was not stating that Sky was or was not clean, neither am I stating if Nibali is or is not clean, I'm just stating that the speculations that the gap from Sky to #2 is so big that they have to cheat is not true, it is possible that Sky and other teams cheat the same way, that neither cheat or that they cheat to varying degrees, just trying to state that we can not say from the tour results that Sky is the only cheaters, or that they cheat in a larger scale than Nibali or VDB does, we don't know yet, but as time goes we might get more insight into it.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Slow Rider on February 20, 2013, 15:31
Nibali is clean?

Yep.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on February 20, 2013, 15:31
Nibali is clean?

Can we get Basso on his clean program?

I got faith, Amadio will sort this sh*t.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on March 08, 2013, 03:23
Watching chickens interview i can't imagine how anyone can not get suspicious everytime lienders and what he was doing are mentioned. The guy seems to be a doping mastermind around who the doping programmes functioned.

Then again im probably not imagining hard enough. Rasmussen is like landis and Hamilton, making up.lies out of bitterness.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: pedaling squares on March 08, 2013, 05:58
Just to pose the questions as Hitch & Cap touched on it. If Sky are doping then what do people put their superiority down to? Do they have better techniques? Better this.. better that?
And also why is it specifically Sky who are better when it comes to the doping stakes?

Also just to point out that Sky do seem to have pooled and do pool much more money into "scientific" research, development than any other teams in the history of cycling. It may be not entirely accurate but I would be pretty sure of that.

But isn't that a recycled version of the same argument USPS fans gave us 10 yrs ago? USPS were far from the only doping team in the peloton, they had a big budget, they tried new technologies with training and equipment, they were early adopters of the wind tunnel, helmet fairings, etc. What we heard from USPS was essentially marginal gains under a different banner. But we suspected otherwise then and we know better now. And Sky's rapid ascension, their about-turn with Kimmage, their quick dumping of (formerly of course) dirty personnel between the TDF and the knighthoods, and the obligatory dodgy doc who, despite being a blood transfusion specialist, apparently had other skills that made him the best choice for team clean... I don't know anything for certain, but it all smells a little 2001 to me.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on March 08, 2013, 06:06
Watching chickens interview i can't imagine how anyone can not get suspicious everytime lienders and what he was doing are mentioned. The guy seems to be a doping mastermind around who the doping programmes functioned.

Yeh, I think the idea that he could have just been an accessory or silent observer at Rabo is now incorrect. He was an enabler of the highest order (as far as team payroll docs go).
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on March 08, 2013, 11:57
Just to pose the questions as Hitch & Cap touched on it. If Sky are doping then what do people put their superiority down to? Do they have better techniques? Better this.. better that?
And also why is it specifically Sky who are better when it comes to the doping stakes?

Also just to point out that Sky do seem to have pooled and do pool much more money into "scientific" research, development than any other teams in the history of cycling. It may be not entirely accurate but I would be pretty sure of that.


How about their close and cosy realtionship with the UCI and ASO? Worked for Armstrong. Sky bleated about how they were doing it USPS 'style' before the USADA thing blew up in the media.

We have seen plenty of times in the past how teams had better doping programs than others. Why not sky? Why not better management of their doping? When they talk of marginal gains maybe it is related to their doping. The hiring of Leinders is a very blackmark against Sky. Froome's skyrocketing is another mystery only explained by doping imo. Wiggin's going from the bus to podium and mystery only explained by doping imo. The peloton aint cleaner. We have plenty of recent evidence of teams using doping and not testing positive. BMC soigneur caught with dope. Pozzatto admitting to working with Ferarri. Ibarguren. Lefevere. Saronni. I look around the sport and I dont see a cleaner sport. I see all the ex dopers running teams and riders who served bans back winning again or on podiums and sentences of months during the off season instead of long bans from the sport. Nothing has changed.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: esafosfina on March 09, 2013, 16:05
Hayman being evasive: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hayman-refuses-to-discuss-geert-leinders (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hayman-refuses-to-discuss-geert-leinders)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on March 09, 2013, 16:13
There was some good rider purchasing and plenty of other specious excuses but - and I know I'm jumping the gun here - but the GC of Paris-Nice and Tirreno-Adriatico? Whatever these fools are doing or not doing, this is not the kind of tedious cycling I want to watch.

Wiggins will fail in the Giro, that's my hunch, and I'm not yet convinced Froome can win the Tour. However, there are plenty of shorter stage races they can still turn into pro wrestling.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on March 09, 2013, 16:20
I agree, this doesn't look sustainable. I would expect two if not three of their top5 guys to be at other teams for 2014.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: jobiwan on March 09, 2013, 19:49
For the record, I don't know if they're doing anything or not.
It's still annoying to watch. I think Froome's almost a lock for le Tour.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on March 09, 2013, 21:48
There was some good rider purchasing and plenty of other specious excuses but - and I know I'm jumping the gun here - but the GC of Paris-Nice and Tirreno-Adriatico? Whatever these fools are doing or not doing, this is not the kind of tedious cycling I want to watch.

Wiggins will fail in the Giro, that's my hunch, and I'm not yet convinced Froome can win the Tour. However, there are plenty of shorter stage races they can still turn into pro wrestling.
I still think that Sky are mostly profiting from a meltdown everywhere else. US cycling, ongoing Puerto case, Radioshack implosion, Contador ban and subsequent loss of dominance (so far), Schleck disintegration, Evans decline, Basso likewise, Mantova, Rabobank  withdrawal, Katusha World Tour status etc.

Every year, Sky improve their roster and it seems as though their main rivals hit problems.

Is it boring? I don't know, I've enjoyed this year's P_N more than most, Porte and Talansky have ridden with panache. As for T_A, would it be less boring if Contador rode away from everyone as he did most races until his ban?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on March 09, 2013, 22:39
In terms of "boringness", I fail to see how Sky made TA anymore boring than the same stage was last year. Today's stage I really enjoyed watching, and I generally find races with Froome quite exciting as you never seem to think he has it in him but then at the last moment he goes for it and destroys everyone else. Admittedly the Sky train was boring but last year I was bored watching the Prato di Tivo until Nibali attacked at 3.8km.

Paris Nice I also didn't find very boring (and I don't think it was only because I am a Sky fan) and that was also because Sky didn't actually have it in the bag and were not in control. Actually Imo Porte's attack saved the day and turned what could have been a disastrous stage  and anticlimatic stage with limited GC gaps into a pretty decent one.

Sky seem to get their roster spot on as well. Their talent to success conversion ratio seems to be much higher than most other teams.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on March 10, 2013, 01:54


Sky seem to get their roster spot on as well. Their talent to success conversion ratio seems to be much higher than most other teams.

Same thing happens to me on PCM when i go into editor and give all my riders an extra 5 points climbing
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on March 10, 2013, 02:03
I have really quite enjoyed PN.  Its been a good race, and pretty exciting to watch.  Sky have taken their turn, but it hasnt been a black and blue train the whole way.

TA last night not so much - but I am not really Froome's biggest fan.  Still, he rode well, took his opportunity and made it count.  I would have liked to see Nibali win, but thats not really Sky's fault  :D

I do hope they dont dominate the whole season though. I dont think another whole year of Sky-bashing is good for cycling
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on March 10, 2013, 10:09
Same thing happens to me on PCM when i go into editor and give all my riders an extra 5 points climbing
Why don't you simply recruit better riders?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on March 10, 2013, 10:49
Same thing happens to me on PCM when i go into editor and give all my riders an extra 5 points climbing

Cheater, training camps are at least authentic.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on March 10, 2013, 11:18
Same thing happens to me on PCM when i go into editor and give all my riders an extra 5 points climbing
Alternatively you could just take 5 points off everyone else?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on March 10, 2013, 12:35




Why don't

you simply recruit better riders?
That's not what bailsford does.


Alternatively you could just take 5 points off everyone else?

As I saw pointed out, if everyone has gotten worse, why aren't they all zigzagging on hills with froome?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on March 10, 2013, 12:59
Santambrogio better than Mantova days and Quick Step producing climbers, definitely -5 there.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on March 10, 2013, 17:26


That's not what bailsford does.
eh? You think Morris Possoni is better than Uran? Calzati better than Henao? Lovqvist better than Porte? Nicolas Portal better than Sivtsov? Cioni better than Cataldo? Serge Pauwels better than Kiryenka? Kjell Karlstrom better than David Lopez?

The only rider ever released by Brailsford who would be of use assisting a GT challenge is Rogers.


As I saw pointed out, if everyone has gotten worse, why aren't they all zigzagging on hills with froome?
But you're shifting your stance. Your comment was about the whole Sky team, now you're trying to wriggle out of it with an attack on Froome alone. I saw that zigzagging pointed out too, and just about everyone (apart from you clearly) took the pee out of Brodeal for making it. Deservedly so.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on March 10, 2013, 17:42
Amazing performance this week from Rogers for Contador  :rolleye
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on March 10, 2013, 20:34
Same thing happens to me on PCM when i go into editor and give all my riders an extra 5 points climbing
Same thing also happens to me when I go into the database and check up what the potential of a certain young rider is. If it is above 6 I take him. Though my teams do tend to become a bit overly dominant after a couple of years.

Quote
Jonathan Vaughters ‏@Vaughters
@daveno7 nah. Key is Sky buys guys to be workers that are outright talents. I can think of 8-9 they have that have higher earning than my #1

I don't think anyone can argue that Porte has the talent to win Paris-Nice.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on March 10, 2013, 20:38
Quote
@Vaughters Chris Froome: 38 min 22 sec, 22.75 Kph, VAM 1605 m/h, 5.93 W/kg.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on March 10, 2013, 21:07
But on the flip side of that coin, when did Porte show that he had the talent to win it?
2010, 2012 and 2013.

Tony Martin won in 2011 with Porte not far behind in the TT, so you could make a case for 2011 too.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on March 10, 2013, 21:44
2010 I guess is linked to the Giro? In that case why has Arroyo done nothing of note? If only Movistar hired a swimming coach.

Also no 2011, down year for Richie or just peeed he wasn't getting paid and when Contador joined Saxo Bank, cos it would mean less race freedom for himself, yet has no problem waiting for his chance now at Sky, despite being closer to the age of decline than he was a couple of years ago.
Arroyo? What has he got to do with Porte?

What the Giro proved was that Porte had the potential to climb, seriously climb. He was always able to TT. There was also a tenth at Romandie. This for a guy in his first season in Europe.

I don't know what went wrong at Saxo, from what's been said he was overweight. But all the same his TTing was top notch, 3rd at PN behnd Wiggins and Martin, 2nd at Roamndie ahead of Wiggins and Martin, 3rd in the Giro TT, 4th at the Tour, and a couple of minor TT wins. This stuff about him being a flop in 2011 isn't really true even if his climbing was disappointing.

Age of decline? It's only his fourth year in Europe, he'll most likely peak in 3 or 4 years time.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on March 10, 2013, 21:47
2010 I guess is linked to the Giro? In that case why has Arroyo done nothing of note? If only Movistar hired a swimming coach.
Why Arroyo has not done anything is another something to consider. But generally going so well in your first GT like Porte did is a sign of much talent.

Quote
Also no 2011, down year for Richie or just peeed he wasn't getting paid and when Contador joined Saxo Bank, cos it would mean less race freedom for himself, yet has no problem waiting for his chance now at Sky, despite being closer to the age of decline than he was a couple of years ago.
Flip, wrote a response but this excerpt sums it up much better:

Quote
Circumstances would dictate that Porte's primary task this season would be to ride in support of Alberto Contador, but not everything was going to plan. Porte had health issues with allergies and then it became a case of what he describes as "trying to re-invent the wheel" when it came to his riding approach.

"All I had to do, really, was maybe improve in a few areas when instead we tried to improve on too much," Porte says in retrospect. "It just got a little bit too much. I got sick, and through no one else's fault but my own, I kept on training and that led to us chasing our tails a bit.

"I guess it was as frustrating for the team as it was for me. Around Romandie and those races I had to put my hand up and tell them exactly how I was, and I didn't."

It was a situation that Julich knew all too well and likened to his own experience in 1999 having finished third overall at the Tour de France the previous season.

"I thought I had it all figured out and I think he thought he had it all figured out as well," Julich admitted. "You really need to have a support team and you need to dance with the girl that brought you, sort of thing and don't move too far away from what you were doing.

"Everyone has seasons like that," Julich continued. "You want to come out and confirm your amazing results with more amazing results; you try to do too much sometimes. He just needs to get back to basics and do what works for him."

Cause, effect and another sort of reward

Unexpectedly, Porte found himself back at the Giro when the plan had been for him to concentrate on the Tour de France. Pockets of the Australian media considered this to be a somewhat controversial move by team management but it's a decision that Porte maintains he had the final say on.

"We knew that it was never going to be me riding for GC but we were just trying to get some good kilometres in the legs and a bit of morale back," Porte explained. "To be honest the last week of the Giro I was coming good." Something that Porte confirmed with a respectable fourth on the final stage time trial in Milan.

In preparation for his debut at the Tour de France, Porte was feeling his best all season having banished his troublesome allergies and spent some time at altitude doing some "mindless climbing." Still, his third Grand Tour was not about personal ambition. He went on to finish fifth in the penultimate stage, the individual time trial where countryman Cadel Evans (BMC) took control of the yellow jersey.

According to Julich, watching from afar, the results that Porte was able to post in the race against the clock was about some of the weight of expectation being lifted and a chance of redemption, a rare moment in a team sport that could be about self – something he had drilled into Porte over a year earlier.

"It was almost a comforting role for him because he did not have that pressure because he wasn't ready but then that competitive spirit that Richie has, that was kind of stifled and the only time he could let that out was in the time trials," Julich said.

Persistence eventually paid off for Porte at the Tour of Denmark in August where he claimed his lone win of the season and unsurprisingly, it was in the individual time trial where he bettered Saxo Bank – SunGard teammate Gustav Larsson and Sky's Alex Dowsett by 10 and 17 seconds respectively.

Eventually standing on the top of the podium aside, the Tasmanian took away more from his year of toil than would first appear.

"I may not have had great personal achievements but I learnt a hell of a lot off Alberto and also Bjarne," Porte admits. "I rode two Grand Tours with them and maybe that's the best lesson I could have had."

Welcome to the saving grace

Porte explained that it came as a surprise to him that Sky were still interested in his services following the trials and tribulations of 2011.

"They'd actually done a lot of research into me which, I guess is nice," he said. "They're the one team that identified that I took some big steps last year and I think that the first two years of being a professional are a learning curve whereas I didn't really have to do so much learning. I'd go to races for the first time and the next thing, I'd be the protected rider."

Julich concedes that aside from working with his natural ability, the next steps for Porte are about more than his development as a rider.

"I've known him for two years since he's come into the professional world so I think he trusts me, I hope I earn his trust and I hope that we, the Team can help him get back to where he should be," Julich said.

"Regardless of his results this year, I want him to learn to take responsibility for his profession, for himself. We're there to help him but the most important thing is that personal growth because once that happens, things fall into line. If you have something one year and you don't have it the next, then you've kind of lost. But if you've had the basic skills, that basic organisation, those core values that make you who you are, you take that with you to every scenario."

Porte is relishing the opportunity to be a part of the Team Sky line up, a destination key to his continuing development in the professional peloton and stacked with GC options with Brad Wiggins, Chris Froome at their disposal for the three-week epics. With the Australian's race program yet to be decided where he will fit within the pecking order is still unclear although Porte told Cyclingnews he would like to target GC in the smaller stage races, but most importantly be consistent throughout all elements of his racing.

"He's definitely a talent, he's a young talent - we like that on our team," said Julich. "We obviously have some riders that have the proven GC credentials, a little bit higher than him but he's going to be a very important part of our team and now it's up to us to make him feel comfortable there."
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on March 10, 2013, 22:12
When you dont have the answers reach for the PR spin........
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on March 10, 2013, 23:42
I actually dont have too much of an issue with the statement that Porte has the talent to win PN.

He has shown he has substantial talent - I do think the work done by his team is perhaps above their ability so brings a few questions - but Porte's results on their own stand up.

When you add in to the equation the fact that Sky can dominate and control the pace for the entire race of not only this race, but TA at the same time ... and the questions I have about Froome ... now we are starting to get many more questions than I have answers for.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on March 11, 2013, 00:03
Quote
What the Giro proved was that Porte had the potential to climb, seriously climb. He was always able to TT. There was also a tenth at Romandie. This for a guy in his first season in Europe.

This comment seems to me to be  based entirely on looking at the results and not the context behind them or the actual race.

Showing that he had the potential to seriously climb was the one thing Porte did not show at the 2010 Giro. He lost 14 minutes to Basso on the main 3 mountain stages and another 2 minutes on the mountain tt (the thing he just owned today), and this while trying to keep the jersey and a top 5.

Porte  10th in Romandie was because he destroyed the tt. There wasnt much climbing.  Sagan finished  only 20 seconds behind him.

And since you consider the PN and TA fields this year as weak, the field at Romandie that year was even worse.   
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on March 11, 2013, 00:10
In isolation, "winning" P-N is nothing special. There are heaps of guys who have shown the same level of ability... Eros Capecchi, Diego Ulissi, Gianluca Brambilla, Benat Intxausti, Jerome Coppel, Steven Kruijswijk, Tiago Machado. But how many of them will ever be in the position to win, let alone dominate it.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on March 11, 2013, 01:21
Lot of fuss about nothing. Porte has always shown abilty and this was an incredibly weak Paris Nice, the only previous winner was kloden from about 30 years ago, a rag tag bunch of young up and coming riders, and riders on their way down.

Not wanting to discredit Ritchie but it was pee poor, the racing was good enough but the field was very average. Porte and Talansky fighting out one of the biggest races in the calendar? Really?

Just shows how screwed the WT is. You can have the best 18 teams in the world and still end up with a very mediocre field.

and as for comparing a couple of paris nice stages with hills, to the giro where theres three weeks of racing over HC mountains.. not even worth comparison.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: DinZ on March 11, 2013, 01:53
The problem with the logic that too many riders are going well on sky therefore they must all be doping is that it also works for what they say is the real reason they are doing well.

the change to approach, the focus on data, the group training sessions, the application of science to the situation. People have talked about how sky over the last couple of years have really changed the style of racing which some believe is killing excitement but is also allowing their riders to prosper.

saying the whole team dopes is to ignore the riders that have gone their and disappointed and left. Pretty much all of them have complained about the rigid science of the team and the structure and how they struggled in that atmosphere. so it makes sense that year after year the riders that are staying are those that prosper in that atmosphere and therefore will improve under it

i also think that people think that sky cannot get much advantage from their approach as surely all the teams do the same thing, but have read in autobiographies how backward some teams are and how people will solidly stick to traditional methods and not believe in something new. they do do things differently to other teams they have shown last year in the way they raced and trained that they changed things and took new approaches.

but hey believing that is too simple for most people



 
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on March 11, 2013, 02:33
The problem with the logic that too many riders are going well on sky therefore they must all be doping is that it also works for what they say is the real reason they are doing well.

the change to approach, the focus on data, the group training sessions, the application of science to the situation. People have talked about how sky over the last couple of years have really changed the style of racing which some believe is killing excitement but is also allowing their riders to prosper.

saying the whole team dopes is to ignore the riders that have gone their and disappointed and left. Pretty much all of them have complained about the rigid science of the team and the structure and how they struggled in that atmosphere. so it makes sense that year after year the riders that are staying are those that prosper in that atmosphere and therefore will improve under it

i also think that people think that sky cannot get much advantage from their approach as surely all the teams do the same thing, but have read in autobiographies how backward some teams are and how people will solidly stick to traditional methods and not believe in something new. they do do things differently to other teams they have shown last year in the way they raced and trained that they changed things and took new approaches.

leaving off the snarky last sentence  :D - you make a good point.

Budget - and spending it well - makes a HUGE difference.  Buying good riders, and supporting them with science (nutrition, training, equipment, coaching etc) will obviously lift the team capabilities - and there is no doubt that Sky have done this exceptionally well.

Do I think that answers all of the questions I have?  no.   But it goes a fair way.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on March 11, 2013, 03:14
Evans struggled to fit in at Telekom.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on March 11, 2013, 05:15
Yep, those goddamn Pinnies really are tough to master.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on March 11, 2013, 09:33
This comment seems to me to be  based entirely on looking at the results and not the context behind them or the actual race.

Showing that he had the potential to seriously climb was the one thing Porte did not show at the 2010 Giro. He lost 14 minutes to Basso on the main 3 mountain stages and another 2 minutes on the mountain tt (the thing he just owned today), and this while trying to keep the jersey and a top 5.

Porte  10th in Romandie was because he destroyed the tt. There wasnt much climbing.  Sagan finished  only 20 seconds behind him.

And since you consider the PN and TA fields this year as weak, the field at Romandie that year was even worse.
No. You're just looking at the stats. The fact that he was even within within 14 minutes in his first GT was a sign of huge potential. What had he attempted to do before that bore any relation to what he faced in that Giro?

And that uphill TT?  It wasn't anything like the Col d'Eze. How many riders had TT bikes? Gadret 3rd - the awesome TTer that he is.

And you're missing the point. It's not that he demonstrated he was good enough to win PN in 2010, it's that he demonstrated he had the potential to win races with climbing and a decisive TT.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on March 11, 2013, 09:39
here is the thing

Sky might not be doping

or

Sky might be doping

Sky might be using products not yet on the banned list

Sky might be using techniques not on the banned list

Everyone else maybe a little off

Doping levels maybe down in the peloton

1 team domination = new arms race that concerns me
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Slow Rider on March 11, 2013, 09:55
Don't worry people, come the Giro Nibali will show the world what remains of that Sky dominance if faced with some serious competition on actual climbs :D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on March 11, 2013, 11:12
Mr Arroyo was in the break with Porte, managed to keep up with Basso et all longer than the super talent Porte. As for it being his first GT, I believe people have won GT's at a younger age and their first go.

As for 2011, who knows but I've heard he was peeed that he didn't get more $$$$ and Froomey said that Porte was ill for 2011. But was he ever thought as a 'climber'?  I don't think that he was, maybe more a puncheur, but I could be wrong.

If you look at the greats, they all started to lose it not long after they turned 30. I'm sure in this age of athletes looking after themselves much better than they did in the past. But I'm sure Porte with the help of swimming coaches and marginal gains will win GT's for the next decade, well if there aren't any other super talented British donkeys waiting to win.
I'm aware of what Arroyo achieved, I just don't see what the career trajectory of a European rider coming towards the end of his career has to do with a completely different rider at the beginning of his.

The other thing that happened in 2011 was that Saxo changed from being a down-on-it's-luck Danish outfit to being the home of the 'World's best' and the change in status and aspiration that that brought. I don't see what is extraordinary about the scenario where rider is happy, then team culture changes and rider is unhappy so rider changes team and is now happy again.

As for age of riders, the length of their careers is just as important as their age. Late starters will go on longer than say Andy Schleck. Cadel Evans did, and that is the point about coming from the Aussie domestic scene where there isn't the need to prepare for doing a GT from the age of 20, however good you are.

It seems to me that there is no possibility a rider can develop 'naturally' into a winner while at Sky in some people's opinion. The weird thing is that I can remember all the comment on the transfer being positive at the time; no-one was calling him talentless with no potential before he transferred. If Quintana were to transfer to Sky, just wait for all his current achievements to be trashed.

Although he does live in Monaco... I find that Monaco set quite interesting although there's no reason why they should all 'prepare' for races together.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on March 11, 2013, 19:54
I am finding the defence of Sky similar to those that defended Armstrong.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on March 11, 2013, 20:03
I am finding the defence of Sky similar to those that defended Armstrong.

It is so is the arguments from the anti sky side, still does not mean we know what or what it not going on .

To quote Armstrong ssdd  :lol
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on March 11, 2013, 20:15
But the anti Lance/USPS side were right.

And now they have moved onto sky. Which is fine but it does get boring.

And fwiw it is more about personalities rather than anti-doping for most imho, which again is fine.

And because they were right about L.A. does not mean they are right about sky, Does not mean they are wrong ofc but ssdd

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on March 11, 2013, 20:26
Aye

Just stirring a little as well  ;)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: DinZ on March 11, 2013, 20:32
I am finding the defence of Sky similar to those that defended Armstrong.

wow way to encourage discussion on the subject.

this is the trouble with sky becoming the new Armstrong, prevents reasonable discussion in my book

the difference with Armstrong is there was always a rather large amount of evidence that there was doping, but they could not make it stick. we do not have that with sky yet, just snide comments based on results. The Omerta is still strong but i also do not believe that in the current atmosphere of people opening up that not one voice has come out and tried to say there is systematic doping at sky. there have been people dropped from the team in slightly harsh ways and some that seem to dislike the team afterwards, and yet not one has even hinted at anything.

But hey anyone who tries to speak against the very vocal forum / twitter crowd that have already decided what is happening is just naive.

 
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: DinZ on March 11, 2013, 20:38
It does get boring, but if a team's actions are exactly the same as one(s) that got busted, what are people to do?

Sky could come out and release every piece of testing information etc and maybe that would show 'they're 4 real'. Instead we get the same junk from the USPS playbook and the 'we don't hire anyone with a dodgy past'.

I have no problem with Wiggins/Porte/Froome on any other rider on Sky. I have a problem with dopers, I don't care if they ride for Sky or random Pro-Conti team, or if they're American, Australian if they're doping they should go forever.

See i hate this popular thing to compare the race techniques and say Sky are doping cause they race like US Postal. I think the US postal 'playbook' and doping are separate things. despite the noise lets not forget that everyone was doping and every team had systemised (not sure how to spell that) doping programs. yes some may have had more money that others but everyone was doing it, so my personal opinion is that US postal riding races differently to others was not down to doping but trying something different.

again i am sure there will be plenty that will shoot my opinion down but i still fundamentally think that there is way way too much bias in the world of cycling fans and all doping discussion is driven way more by how much certain fans like a team or like the way they ride and not nearly enough by reason.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on March 11, 2013, 20:43
Agreed 're personalities driving doping debates.

Trains are way older than usps, they just did it faster more consistent than others .

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: esafosfina on March 11, 2013, 20:45
Agreed 're personalities driving doping debates.

Trains are way older than usps, they just did it faster more consistent than others .

Agreed... Panasonic and Superconfex both had good trains back in the day, as did ADR (when we got it right!)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on March 11, 2013, 21:22
I am finding the defence of Sky similar to those that defended Armstrong.
Big difference with the whole situation for me is the fact that there is no one coming forward having said anything.

Give it time and certainly info should leak, I would have thought. I guess we will see.
To me that makes it a whole lot harder to pick sides than last time.

Post Merge: March 11, 2013, 21:23
And now they have moved onto sky. Which is fine but it does get boring.

And it makes you wonder, when will it ever stop?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on March 11, 2013, 21:27

Sky could come out and release every piece of testing information etc and maybe that would show 'they're 4 real'.
Can they realistically really release that testing information?

There will be guys saying it was fabricated, I have seen guys in the clinic looking at what seemed to me as perfectly normal values and saying that they indicate doping. Vaughters said how he saw some of the most suspicious values from a rider who was known as being clean (many posters took that as being Moncoutie).
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on March 11, 2013, 21:35
I'm not saying that Sky are doping because they have 7-8 guys rding tempo on a climb or several climbs, USPS weren't the first team to do that and Sky wont be the last.

My problem with Sky is they make all this noise about being clean and cutting edge and not hiring those with a dodgy past etc, but when asked questions regarding the hiring of someone with a dodgy past, they deny all knowledge of said persons past. I mean of the roster they had last year, Rogers was the only one with a 'past' or was he expendable due to his age, if he was 5 or 6 years younger would they have kept him for this year?

They could do alot more to prove that they're clean and by opening up they could help clean the sport up and when Sky rider wins the Tour there will be no doubts that he did it clean. But the longer they keep the door closed and issue the cliched replies, that were given by teams such as Rabobank, USPS, T-Mobile etc, the harder it is to believe Sky now.

I do kinda hope Sky are clean, since they've come along I've had no issues whilst I've been out on my bike, before cycling became 'big time' in the UK it was like riding on certain roads back home, not safe.
It's an interesting point about how a team that has an ethical basis treats those who have breached those ideals while in previous employment. Possoni (no great loss), Barry and Rogers have all been quietly let go. How would you treat such an employee? Public flogging?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on March 11, 2013, 21:40

My problem with Sky is they make all this noise about being clean and cutting edge and not hiring those with a dodgy past etc, but when asked questions regarding the hiring of someone with a dodgy past, they deny all knowledge of said persons past. I mean of the roster they had last year, Rogers was the only one with a 'past' or was he expendable due to his age, if he was 5 or 6 years younger would they have kept him for this year?

They could do alot more to prove that they're clean and by opening up they could help clean the sport up and when Sky rider wins the Tour there will be no doubts that he did it clean. But the longer they keep the door closed and issue the cliched replies, that were given by teams such as Rabobank, USPS, T-Mobile etc, the harder it is to believe Sky now.

I see it as the PR being poor but I don't see how that is related to doping performances. If anything they would be more impressive and ready for doping PR tactics if they were doping. Considering how thought out Sky are you would think they would be thought out in their approach to dealing with the press and defending attacks questioning their doping. It is a start though and hopefully not an end as I believe they can go much further, but just stating they should open up is not as easy as it may sound originally. Kerrison recently held a 3 hour conference to the press presenting them with graphs and all that explaining how their training works.

They are treading on thin ice. How could they open up more? They have allowed Walsh to come in and view their training camps which is pretty impressive, and it is also another thing which differentiates the case from that of Lance's, even considering Walsh's apparent bias.



Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on March 11, 2013, 21:45
Agreed... Panasonic and Superconfex both had good trains back in the day, as did ADR (when we got it right!)

you can go back further than that, Faema made an art of having five men on the front and one man in the break just in case.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: killswitch on March 11, 2013, 22:04
https://twitter.com/inrng/status/311174090885066753

Marginal gains, eh?  :-x
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on March 11, 2013, 22:59
This article seems to be dividing opinions on Twitter but it is quite some article nevertheless. Hopefully it will provide some perspective:

http://www.cyclismas.com/2013/03/portly-richie-sparks-the-scaremongers-into-a-frenzy/ (http://www.cyclismas.com/2013/03/portly-richie-sparks-the-scaremongers-into-a-frenzy/)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on March 11, 2013, 23:22
Well it just shows that Sky's research isn't as cutting edge as they'd like you to believe and how they like to present it at every given opportunity. I'm guessing if you're in the 'inner circle' of pro cycling you'll know who has a past and who doesn't. I find it hard that Sir Dave who's been involved in cycling since the mid 90's didn't know that Rogers, Barry etc were dirty or that hiring Sean Yates was a great idea. Nope they were hired cos Sir Dave wanted to win(british winner of the TdF within 5 years) at all costs.

The way to make cycling clean is to ban people who fail tests for life, so no returning as a rider or becoming a DS or owner of a team. All this reformed doper chat is utter balls, they know the rules before they take drugs the first or thousandth time and I guess they only see it as 'bad luck' that they fail a test and they know within 12-18 months a team will come calling with a contract. So how should Rogers, Barry, Possoni etc be treated, with the same amount of aversion and contempt they showed us when they broke the rules.
They may have shown you contempt but for DB etc they put their bodies on the line to help bring success to others on the team, people they roomed with, shared their life with, people who are going to be left once these guys have been removed. The equation's different for a team boss, to expect it to be otherwise is to deny human nature.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Flo on March 12, 2013, 16:14
666 replies. I believe it's a sign.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on March 13, 2013, 14:14
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsford-hits-back-at-accusations-and-criticism-of-team-sky (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsford-hits-back-at-accusations-and-criticism-of-team-sky)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on March 13, 2013, 14:52
AFAIC bailsford is declaring himself an enemy of cycling with this ridiculous patronizing comment

Quote
If people want the entertainment value of riders attacking each other, stopping, attacking each other again and again, then go back to 'old cycling', which will give you the capability to do that.
If you want clean sport and clean cycling, then it's going to be different. You can't have it both ways. There's an element of reality about what were doing.

Attacking = doped.

Sky = clean and all clean cycling will follow the model I dave bailsford have set.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Flo on March 13, 2013, 14:55
Gee what a clown. Don't trust this dude at all.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on March 13, 2013, 15:11
AFAIC bailsford is declaring himself an enemy of cycling with this ridiculous patronizing comment

Attacking = doped.

Sky = clean and all clean cycling will follow the model I dave bailsford have set.

well the context is a bit out, he's not saying anyone who attacks is dirty, but referring to the crazy days of armstrong, pantani when it was just all out attacks from everyone.

Brailsford is in a no win, if he says nothing, the team are doping, if he denies it, the team are doping, if he comes forward with explanations and reasons, hes a  liar..

All it means is when the five years are up, Sky will be out..and just wave goodbye
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on March 13, 2013, 15:43
well the context is a bit out, he's not saying anyone who attacks is dirty, but referring to the crazy days of armstrong, pantani when it was just all out attacks from everyone.

Brailsford is in a no win, if he says nothing, the team are doping, if he denies it, the team are doping, if he comes forward with explanations and reasons, hes a  liar..

All it means is when the five years are up, Sky will be out..and just wave goodbye

I agree it is a no win situation

The bed is theirs, they made it , but it does not matter in the internet world what they say or do, David Walsh maybe going down with them which is ironic

but flip me it´s getting boring
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on March 13, 2013, 16:16
ah come on. Brailsford just sounds ridiculous

The Leinders story is getting worse, from 80 days down to 40. Soon it will be less or he was never around. He gave Porte strepsils and panadol, well why the fck do they need a doc. Strepsils and panadal can be got at a chemist without prescription.

The Sky fans defending it have forgotten everything that has gone before in the sport and all the sad and stupid excuses rolled out to explain the performances. Brailsford and Sky are the latest in a long long line that gone before.

No doubt Sky fans feel that Sky are getting so much flal and it is unfair, well they brought it on themselves with their clean and houlier than thou BS. It is absolutely insulting to fans and the rest of the sport with their claims of marginal gains. Heck, all the pro teams have trying ways to find marginal gains over their rivals since the sport began.

I mean take the latest from Richie Porte about Leinders. Leinders did nothing different then the doctors at Saxo? FFS!!!! Saxo, Riis after what we know how he operates that means Leinders and Sky were and are doing a Saxo, which is doping. Thanks for clearing it up Porte, no more debate needed.

Take of the blinkers.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on March 13, 2013, 16:25
you know me Beno no fan here just bored with it at the minute
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on March 13, 2013, 16:39
ah come on. Brailsford just sounds ridiculous

...
Take of the blinkers.
Pointless. If successful team doesn't say they're clean, they're dopers. If they do say they're clean, they're dopers and hypocrits. Straight out of the Ladybird book of nihilism.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on March 13, 2013, 16:56
Pointless. If successful team doesn't say they're clean, they're dopers. If they do say they're clean, they're dopers and hypocrits. Straight out of the Ladybird book of nihilism.

Thanks for proving my point.

Where are OPQS going on about being clean? Radioshack? BMC? Saxo? They are not talking about doping. Go read Cannodale (ex liquigas) statement for 2013. They do not mention doping, being clean or anything remotely to do with the bright new future of the sport and no more dopers, doping bla blah. Sky and to a lesser extent Garmin have been blowing their own trumpets of being clean. Well when you do that and dont back it up with proof after dominating races, you are going to get slaughtered and rightly so.

http://italiancyclingjournal.blogspot.ie/2012/09/liquigas-cannondale-becomes-cannondale.html (http://italiancyclingjournal.blogspot.ie/2012/09/liquigas-cannondale-becomes-cannondale.html)

I keep saying it, the sport is inhabited by all the same people from the last 25 years. Show me where they changed and what made them change. Bruyneel was a DS till the near the end of last year. Riis, Rihs, Och, Lefevere, Martinelli, Vino, Unzue etc etc all these guys are still there with the UCI at the top of the steaming pile.

Keep shooting the messengers, but Sky have not proved they are clean. In fact they have done the opposite, hiring doping riders, ex doping riders, doping doctors and when asked about it have given the unbelievable explanation of ignorance to these peoples past. Yeah a small sport like cycling and they did not do their homework after the huge claim to clean and transparent.

We have seen and heard it all before. Sky are doping some if not all their riders. We will find out not with anti doping, but by the usual method of the police, ex employees or diligant journalism.



Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on March 13, 2013, 17:20
All it means is when the five years are up, Sky will be out..and just wave goodbye
I don't think so.
I don't think that the internet world is as powerful as people make it out to be. There are also all of those people who come up to me saying Bradley Wiggins Tour de France winner and he races for Team Sky. Sky if anything seem to want to further their involvement not withdraw from it.

I don't blame Brailsford for getting a bit aggravated. People have a right to doubt of course but to call him out on everything he says or anything Sky does is a bit far, that is if he is clean of course.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on March 13, 2013, 17:27
ah come on. Brailsford just sounds ridiculous

The Leinders story is getting worse, from 80 days down to 40. Soon it will be less or he was never around. He gave Porte strepsils and panadol, well why the fck do they need a doc. Strepsils and panadal can be got at a chemist without prescription.

The Sky fans defending it have forgotten everything that has gone before in the sport and all the sad and stupid excuses rolled out to explain the performances. Brailsford and Sky are the latest in a long long line that gone before.

No doubt Sky fans feel that Sky are getting so much flal and it is unfair, well they brought it on themselves with their clean and houlier than thou BS. It is absolutely insulting to fans and the rest of the sport with their claims of marginal gains. Heck, all the pro teams have trying ways to find marginal gains over their rivals since the sport began.

I mean take the latest from Richie Porte about Leinders. Leinders did nothing different then the doctors at Saxo? FFS!!!! Saxo, Riis after what we know how he operates that means Leinders and Sky were and are doing a Saxo, which is doping. Thanks for clearing it up Porte, no more debate needed.

Take of the blinkers.
But however stupid people's opinion may seem, there are still a lot of people who I would consider rational, sane and reasonably intelligent people who do hold those opinions, so obviously they are not that far fetched and ridiculous. Even if they do come across as ridiculous that does not mean they are so, that is just from your point of view. I don't think it is fair to deride them for holding an opinion which many others hold and which from their point of view can be perfectly viable. There is obviously some grounds for it because many respected people consider and hold it. Yes the same thing happened with Armstrong, but some of these guys were the main protagonists against Armstrong.

Also what do you think? Is Porte really hinting that Leinders was doping?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on March 13, 2013, 21:04
But however stupid people's opinion may seem, there are still a lot of people who I would consider rational, sane and reasonably intelligent people who do hold those opinions, so obviously they are not that far fetched and ridiculous. Even if they do come across as ridiculous that does not mean they are so, that is just from your point of view. I don't think it is fair to deride them for holding an opinion which many others hold and which from their point of view can be perfectly viable. There is obviously some grounds for it because many respected people consider and hold it. Yes the same thing happened with Armstrong, but some of these guys were the main protagonists against Armstrong.

I find that Brailsford has totally lost the plot. The PR attacks, and they have been attacks and are directed at fans of the sport who dont deserve to be attcked, have been something that is not what a team who had nothing to hide would be releasing. His reluctance to address Leinders getting a job at Sky, his reasons for firing all those who had a doping past was stupid. It does not add up. If Yates for example, had a past but that is what it was a past, why get rid of him? Only reason to get rid of him was if he had not changed from his past, same for Jullich and the others. As i said it does not add up. I wish Sky were clean and that they were the most pro team out there who were clean and winning and the sport was back to days when the true talents had a chance to shine through the dirt. But i just cannot see it.


Also what do you think? Is Porte really hinting that Leinders was doping?

I think what Porte has done is speak to other riders and teams with his words. And to me he has said yes Sky are like every other team in the sport.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on March 17, 2013, 03:02
Walsh article said a whole lot of nothing (talks generally about Leinders, doesn't mention Rasmussen accusations)... only interesting bit was at the end:

Quote
They come to this training camp in Tenerife without a doctor, as Kerrison likes to strip things down when they’re in Teide. “There’s a time for giving the riders all the support and a time for focusing them on the things that matter. Up here we try to eliminate all the distractions.” He then adds: “We’ve been here eight times and only once have the testers come. It’s only a two-hour flight from Spain, a 50-minute drive from the airport. Once in eight visits here is pretty disappointing.”
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on March 17, 2013, 21:04
Walsh article said a whole lot of nothing (talks generally about Leinders, doesn't mention Rasmussen accusations)... only interesting bit was at the end:

More Sky BS. How did all those teams manage that cant afford 'training' in Tenerife? Must be terrible being a pro in Girona, Nice, Monaco, Belgium, Holland, France and other places where riders have to get up and train. That is all they have to do is train? What going to Tenerife changes, apart from doping, is again more Sky BS?

I think Walsh is not taken in. He cant write about what he hasn't seen. He could also quite possible be setting Sky up for a huge fall by talking to ex Sky people in the same manner he talked to Emma O'Reilly, Stephen Swart and others. Not unreasonable.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on March 19, 2013, 13:19
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2013/3/18/1363625773154/Dave-Brailsford-010.jpg)

Sir Dave Brailsford: cyclists' doping spread like a joint to crack cocaine (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/mar/18/dave-brailsford-cyclists-doping-spread-crack-cocaine)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on March 19, 2013, 14:00
Things that DB is good at...

1) Running cycling teams.


Things that DB is bad at...

1) Analogies
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: DinZ on March 19, 2013, 19:58
Things that DB is good at...

1) Running cycling teams.


Things that DB is bad at...

1) Analogies

they should hire Ian Holloway for interviews

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJB3-vEKQDc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJB3-vEKQDc#)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on March 19, 2013, 21:43
they should hire Ian Holloway for interviews

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJB3-vEKQDc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJB3-vEKQDc)

At least that guy is funny, albeit in a 20th century sort of way. :D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on March 25, 2013, 00:33
Cards on table. Sky are not, to my knowledge doing anything that is currently banned.

No EPO
No CERA
No Blood tranfusions

Are they doing things that are borderline, not illegal, but certainly dodgy.. yes..

Are they doing things that will be banned in a few years... ? probably
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on March 25, 2013, 04:59
Cards on table. Sky are not, to my knowledge doing anything that is currently banned.

No EPO
No CERA
No Blood tranfusions

Are they doing things that are borderline, not illegal, but certainly dodgy.. yes..

Are they doing things that will be banned in a few years... ? probably

Rider driven or team ?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on March 25, 2013, 10:12
Cards on table. Sky are not, to my knowledge doing anything that is currently banned.

No EPO
No CERA
No Blood tranfusions

Are they doing things that are borderline, not illegal, but certainly dodgy.. yes..

Are they doing things that will be banned in a few years... ? probably
That reads that you know they are doing something ethically dodgy to boost performance. Is that the case? or have you added 2 & 2 together?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on March 25, 2013, 16:28
"To my knowledge" and "knowing" is a fine line...

I think they were very safe inviting Walsh around as I am 99% sure there is no EPO or Transfusions going on, certainly not on a team level, although who the hell knows what a rider gets up to in in private.

There are hoodles of "legal" ways, medicines that arent banned, that the bunch of ex-gp's they have can prescribe without need for a doping doctor.

And things like this http://velorooms.com/index.php/topic,1985.0.html (http://velorooms.com/index.php/topic,1985.0.html) for instance, when I first heard about this last summer, it scared the crap out of me, its something that just shouldnt be messed with. It was pointed out to me by an Aussie, with Sky and Greenedge amongst the teams mentioned.

I think AG sums it up fairly well in teh other thread

I dont think its 'team sponsored doping' on the level we saw with USPS or anything like that ...

But I do think that teams push the boundaries as much as they can sports science wise.  I do think that team doctors encourage and advise riders on 'alternative preparation' on an individual basis.  I do think that team management, doctors and sports directors regularly look the other way for individual riders who organise their own programs and methods.

I think that
- most riders push the boundaries in terms of things like cortisone that you can get a TUE for, and other things that are currently legal or can be maneuvered around ... but are decidedly dodgy


Title: Re: Sky
Post by: killswitch on March 27, 2013, 00:25
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/thomson-reuters/130323/defiant-evans-confident-he-can-rekindle-former-glory (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/thomson-reuters/130323/defiant-evans-confident-he-can-rekindle-former-glory)

Quote
"Normally, putting guys at such a high level in the early season means you're going to pay for it later in the year, that would be the normal case - time will tell in that regard," said Evans.
Evans drops a hint about "the performance" of Sky . Not for the first time this year either.  :rolleye

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on March 27, 2013, 10:36
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/thomson-reuters/130323/defiant-evans-confident-he-can-rekindle-former-glory (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/thomson-reuters/130323/defiant-evans-confident-he-can-rekindle-former-glory)
Evans drops a hint about "the performance" of Sky . Not for the first time this year either.  :rolleye
Eh? In his Tour winning year, Evans won just about every race he entered from T_A onwards.

"Evans' 2011 performance highly dodgy, claims Evans" shock.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on March 27, 2013, 14:33
"To my knowledge" and "knowing" is a fine line...

I think they were very safe inviting Walsh around as I am 99% sure there is no EPO or Transfusions going on, certainly not on a team level, although who the hell knows what a rider gets up to in in private.

There are hoodles of "legal" ways, medicines that arent banned, that the bunch of ex-gp's they have can prescribe without need for a doping doctor.

And things like this http://velorooms.com/index.php/topic,1985.0.html (http://velorooms.com/index.php/topic,1985.0.html) for instance, when I first heard about this last summer, it scared the crap out of me, its something that just shouldnt be messed with. It was pointed out to me by an Aussie, with Sky and Greenedge amongst the teams mentioned.

I think AG sums it up fairly well in teh other thread

I think you are being Naive Dim. Sky have a 'program' for their GT teams at least.

If Sky were clean, then Garmin* would be up there in a dominant manner similar to Sky. DZ, CVV, TD, DM et al are all super domestiques.

No one has yet to explain how a clean team can beat all the doping teams?

UCI hasn't changed. Remember what they did with Lance? Why not Sky? Sky has a nice cosy relationship with Brit Cycling. Sky made a big presentation to ASO for TdF! Sky are not transparent. Sky talk about warm downs as if they invented it. Sky tell lies all the time. Review their PR from last 3 years. Riders who did very little at other teams suddenly out performing GC leaders on dirty teams.  It all adds up and in cycling as Ullrich told us 1+1 = 2.


*for the record i dont believe Garmin ride only on pane e acqua. But i do think Garmin has a pretty damn good internal monitoring system to prevent positive and BP anomalies.





 
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on March 27, 2013, 14:35
I think you are being Naive Dim. Sky have a 'program' for their GT teams at least.


Not being naive.. never said they didnt have a program.

But the program isnt based around traditional epo, transfusions.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on March 27, 2013, 14:51
... Riders who did very little at other teams suddenly out performing GC leaders on dirty teams...
If we're talking BS, this statement is high on the list, always peddled by people who spend too much time in the clinic. It seems like it's meaningful but when you look at it, it means nothing.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on March 27, 2013, 15:45
Really? Best you tell Cuddles to update his website then:

http://www.cadelevans.com.au/results.aspx (http://www.cadelevans.com.au/results.aspx)
Oops. I meant to say, 'every race he entered'
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on March 27, 2013, 16:42
If we're talking BS, this statement is high on the list, always peddled by people who spend too much time in the clinic. It seems like it's meaningful but when you look at it, it means nothing.

Going from the grupetto in a GT to the podium? The excuse of concentrating on the track is lame at best.

I have asked many a time, what has changed in the sport? Did all the dopers, team owners, doping DS, doping docs, dope dealers, etc all leave the sport? On top on that you have the UCI running the sport for personal gain.

So where has the sport actually cleaned up?

Anyone who thinks that Ferarri ha stopped working needs to wake up. Same for others. Del Moral is working with Valencia FC ffs and probably has a few riders on the side.

So Sky are beating all these and they do it on pane e acqua?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on March 27, 2013, 21:57
Going from the grupetto in a GT to the podium? The excuse of concentrating on the track is lame at best.

I have asked many a time, what has changed in the sport? Did all the dopers, team owners, doping DS, doping docs, dope dealers, etc all leave the sport? On top on that you have the UCI running the sport for personal gain.

So where has the sport actually cleaned up?

Anyone who thinks that Ferarri ha stopped working needs to wake up. Same for others. Del Moral is working with Valencia FC ffs and probably has a few riders on the side.

So Sky are beating all these and they do it on pane e acqua?
Even the grupetto to the podium argument totally fails to take into consideration what the riders' aims were in each case. In how many GTs has Wiggins actually attempted a GC placing?

Then again there are also a large number of riders who've done nothing at Sky. EBH and Gerrans were huge money signings and haven't delivered. For every Froome there are 3 or 4 John Lee Augustyns, it's the way sport is, sportsmen have ups and downs, latent talent is discovered and huge potential is found to lead to nothing more.

As for the rest of your post I agree entirely, the sport isn't clean, hasn't been cleaned and it is unlikely that a team like Sky can dominate while being totally clean.

BUT there is no (or close to no) evidence that Sky are dirty. This seems to make a group of posters far angrier than if there was any evidence, leading them to come up with plainly nonsensical statements like "Brailsford lies all the time."; "Sky haven't improved their roster through new signings" ; "All riders improve dramatically at Sky", "XYZ was crap before he joined Sky" etc etc. All these highly improbable 'facts' get bandied around the CN clinic like they are on tablets of stone and there's such a mob hysteria there that any opposing view just gets shouted down.

Me, I'll continue to broadly favour those riders who I think are most likely to be clean but if others want to see Contador or Nibali grind Sky into the ground, it's no skin off my nose, as long as they don't invoke some BS about Sky's 'dirtiness' to justify it.

The shame is, that while we're talking about stuff that's going nowhere, there are interesting questions we could be asking. But what's the point?



Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on March 29, 2013, 12:11
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/thomson-reuters/130323/defiant-evans-confident-he-can-rekindle-former-glory (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/thomson-reuters/130323/defiant-evans-confident-he-can-rekindle-former-glory)
Evans drops a hint about "the performance" of Sky . Not for the first time this year either.  :rolleye

in fairness, if you include the whole of what he said ... it seems (to me at least) that he is talking not about Wiggins' form, but that of Sky overall - fielding 2 whole teams of dominating mountain stages of TA and PN - saying if the Teams are that strong early on, the doms may pay for it later.

Quote
"They seem to be very, very well prepared for the early part of the season with two whole teams of strong climbers and in the mountains at least they can dictate their own terms," said Evans. 

Sky will go to the Tour looking to retain their title, either through Britain's Froome or compatriot Wiggins, who has though made the Giro d'Italia his main goal this season.

Both will be helped by a small army of pure climbers such as Colombians Rigoberto Uran and Sergio Henao or talented all-rounders such as Australian Richie Porte, the Paris-Nice champion.

"Normally, putting guys at such a high level in the early season means you're going to pay for it later in the year, that would be the normal case - time will tell in that regard," said Evans.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on April 02, 2013, 12:11
Portal (Sky) responds to criticism of his rule: "We have no secrets"


The Team Sky is always a reference in all the races that dispute and never goes unnoticed, especially in the turns. This year, Chris Froome won the Tour of Oman and the Criterium International, and was second in the Tirreno-Adriatico, and Richie Porte won the Paris-Nice. The Australian, with Sergio Luis Henao as second trick, is the leader in the Tour of the Basque Country British all started with the handicap of having two runners less to control the race. Still, the team left its stamp Elgoibar yesterday and two leaders entered the front group.

Nicolas Portal is the athletic director at the round Basque reveals BiciCiclismo naturally responds to critics doubt their superiority and performance. "We have no secrets, we make our way," he says. Also reveals the intentions of his team in a test that considers "historic".

Mastering the Sky in the turns is a reality and some do not seem sentarles well that superiority. Faced with criticism, Portal is calm. "We consist. But there are comments runners do not feel something special in the pack. We do the best path, which is ours, as always, we have no secrets. No, "says outright. "Our tactic is easy to understand. We simply good people. The hardest job is to make the most of each corridor and in place. Cyclists are also very happy. And not just a British team, there are people around the world. We will continue our path, "said French director.

"In the Criterium International, French journalists told me that the team walked too strong. But I said, 'Peraud only went to 15 seconds Porte, is he also going strong?'. There is a big difference, just a few seconds in the two last three kilometers, "he says.

"I think now the bike is now much cleaner and I think it's real. Everything is normal now. Yes we have a strong team but others as well, and will be harder from now because they are preparing for the Tour, "ditch the matter.

Porte and Hainaut, "two options"

Portal assumes weak start a turn as the Basque Country with two runners less. "It's a shame because we have a strong team and we have ambition with Richie and Sergio who was in Colombia 15 days preparing. It is a problem for the low Boswell and Edmondson, one had a knee injury after the Criterium International and the other became ill a few days ago. We had no choice. The only was David Lopez but was concentrated in Tenerife and was a compromise. "

"It is also the toughest race of the season, not only for the profile but because it is before the Giro and classic and must have a very good level. So with six riders is more difficult to control. But it is a challenge for the team. There are others like Saxo, Euskaltel, Movistar and Garmin have a strong team. Let's see how we play but it sure is going to be almost impossible to control the race, "explained BiciCiclismo .

Porte, winner of Paris-Nice and the Criterium International second only behind Froome, is the team leader of the British, although Henao is the bullet in the chamber. "We have two options. Richie is probably the most likely is because it is stronger and has more ability in the time trial, Sergio is very good and progresses in the lap in each race. So we want to help the two make a good general. The truth is that Richie has a better chance, but we know the difficulty of the race and have two good runners is better. "

Anyway, Portal notes that do not start with a big responsibility Basque round. "We have done a very good part of the season and so the team is relaxed in that aspect. And there are more strong teams in each race and change. The pressure is not with us in this case. We will give our best and if we can not win the overall nothing happens. We have won many races before, "he says. "But Basque Country Basque Country. It is a historic race. I live in Pau and I like personally, and also to Richie and Sergio "he says.

GT - http://www.biciciclismo.com/cas/site/noticias-ficha.asp?id=60700 (http://www.biciciclismo.com/cas/site/noticias-ficha.asp?id=60700)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on April 02, 2013, 13:31
I wonder if Nicolas has any knowledge of doping at Abarca.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on April 02, 2013, 13:40
Probably not doping-related but I've often wondered how Portal went from minor rider to stage race winning DS in such a short time.

José-Vicente Garcia Acosta was in the Movistar car on Sunday. He retired one season after Portal to take up a DS role but at least they send him to races that Movistar has zero chance of winning.  :rolleye

Lots of mediocre riders have become renowned DSes - everyone knows that - but in so little time, it's kind of surprising to me.

None of this amounts to a hill of beans. It just raises a different sort of eyebrow, I suppose.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on April 16, 2013, 19:55
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/porte-slams-critics-of-sky-team-20130416-2hyqn.html (http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/porte-slams-critics-of-sky-team-20130416-2hyqn.html)

Have not read it in total due to issues with the paper and online access, but guess it fits in this sky thread.

Sorry if not
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dancing on the Pedals on April 16, 2013, 20:04
Quote
Australian Richie Porte has hit back at detractors of cycling's dominant Sky team as he prepares for a rare one-day classic start.
The in-form Tasmanian will be the Sky team leader on Wednesday night (AEST) at La Fleche Wallonne in Belgium, the second of the three Ardennes Classics.
Porte was leading last month's Criterium International stage race in France, but teammate Chris Froome rode away from him on the last stage to take the title.
Their tactics prompted more internet discussion of a team that has become a lightning rod for criticism.
 
Sky's domination has inevitably led to speculation in the post-Armstrong era about how it is achieving success.
The riders and team management have repeatedly insisted they are a clean team.
"There was a lot of crap thrown our way at Criterium International but really, it's the oldest trick in the book," Porte said in a post on the cyclingnews website.
"It's tall poppy syndrome and everybody wants to throw everything they can at Team Sky and question everything about the team.
"It's getting a bit old now (and) people are going to have to get over it.
"It's not new but in the twitter age, every Tom, dickhead and Harry's got a voice."


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/porte-slams-critics-of-sky-team-20130416-2hyqn.html#ixzz2QeeWX9U4 (http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/porte-slams-critics-of-sky-team-20130416-2hyqn.html#ixzz2QeeWX9U4)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on April 16, 2013, 20:08
Interestingly enough I recently read an interview with Ian Boswell whom many would believe to certainly be clean and he was very adamant that Sky are clean.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on April 16, 2013, 23:31
"many believe to certainly be clean" can be used on any rider in the world who hasnt failed a drugs test.

I don't quite get what it means for Boswell who is an  extremely young rider still developing.

You mean to say we are to believe the chances of Boswell being clean are significantly greater than the chances of any other Tom Dick and Harry at that age?

Id be interested to hear what the reason behind that would be.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on April 17, 2013, 00:20
Patrick Jonker is a good example.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on April 17, 2013, 22:26
"many believe to certainly be clean" can be used on any rider in the world who hasnt failed a drugs test.

I don't quite get what it means for Boswell who is an  extremely young rider still developing.

You mean to say we are to believe the chances of Boswell being clean are significantly greater than the chances of any other Tom Dick and Harry at that age?

Id be interested to hear what the reason behind that would be.
Well, not based on anything much but generally there seems to be a perception that the young American talents now coming through.. eg.  Phinney, Dombro etc are pretty clean..
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on April 17, 2013, 22:56
Well, not based on anything much but generally there seems to be a perception that the young American talents now coming through.. eg.  Phinney, Dombro etc are pretty clean..

Its not based on "anything much"? Dont you  mean its not based on "anything at all".

Sorry, "people believe x to be clean" is the most overused and most  meaningless argument in doping discussion history

Even more dumb when applied to an entire nationality. Since when is someones place of birth a determining factor in whether they are clean or not?

Your comment furthermore implies that since the American talents are clean, there is some nationality which is not? Your perception detector find out which one that is? its those darn Russians isnt it? Isnt it?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on April 18, 2013, 00:39
You are perhaps being a bit harsh there Hitch.  I dont think froome is casting aspersions on anyone here.

A perception is simply how you (either an individual or a whole group of people) see things ... so if someone perceives that a rider or group of riders are clean, that is fine.  It doesnt mean much (and froome acknowledges its not based on anything other than his personal inclination).

As for grouping young riders of the same nationality together, in some instances that is actually a fair thing.   Many of the young riders are developed in their own country under their own national cycling program.  If that program is 'clean' then the riders have a better chance of being clean than if the development program includes sections which advocate PED's

That is not a slight against any particular country, just an acknowledgement that some development programs are cleaner than others.

And in Froome's belief the American program is clean (that is something I might debate ... but still, that's his inclination)


The fact that Boswell thinks sky are clean ... well that doesnt actually shed any light on things whatsoever for me, and I thought Richie Porte's interview was a huge pile of balls - but that is my perception :D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on April 18, 2013, 02:06
I understand we are supposed to be nice here so im trying, but the harsh reality is, an opinion is not an argument. Never was never was never will be. To try and masqerade it as one, like Froome did with the wording "Boswell whom many would believe to certainly be clean", (what is  "certainly" supposed to mean)  designed to give extra credit to boswell's particular opinion, where none is due, is annoying at best and disingenuous, intellectually weak, well i better stop there.

It was almost the exact same thing uk's semi tabloid daily news programme ITV news at 10 did when during the Lance saga they said cycling is clean because "everyone agrees wiggins is clean". Millar, clearly suffering from the same inability to differentiate an argument from an opinion answers that cycling is clean because  "everyone in the peloton knows Bradley wiggins won the tour clean".

More importantly,and dangerously,  in the real world they have these moronic things called opinion polls on which policy is formed without any thought to the arguments behind the numbers.

Its bad enough that the politics is  falling into this trap, but  I am  certainly (and thats how you use that word) not going to stand by and watch  my beloved cycling discussions fall to a point where popularity carries more weight than actual arguments.

I know some people who think Valverde is clean. flipping thousands if you go to Murcia or the right youtube channel.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on April 18, 2013, 02:35
I get some of what you are saying Hitch ... it is hard because people want to believe that the cyclists they like and follow are clean.

But Froome wasnt arguing anything. He was stating his own opinion and perceptions.

Interestingly enough I recently read an interview with Ian Boswell whom many would believe to certainly be clean and he was very adamant that Sky are clean.

Many believe Boswell are clean ... well, he isnt wrong about that.  Many do. 

When you ask him to clarify what that belief is based on, he fully admitted it wasnt based on anything other than his own perceptions.

What's your beef here ?

anyway - back to Porte's actual interview -

Quote
"There was a lot of crap thrown our way at Criterium International but really, it's the oldest trick in the book," Porte said in a post on the cyclingnews website.

"It's tall poppy syndrome and everybody wants to throw everything they can at Team Sky and question everything about the team.

"It's getting a bit old now (and) people are going to have to get over it.

"It's not new but in the twitter age, every Tom, dickhead and Harry's got a voice."

seriously, is he learning from Wiggins?     
They really REALLY need to get some media training as part of their marginal gains. 
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on April 18, 2013, 02:55
Don't think it was an interview. Think he posted in the comments section

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on April 18, 2013, 03:08
hmm - you are right ... in "a post on the cyclingnews website"

still - its not really helping his cause any.  Slagging off the fans because they have questions isnt the way to go. 

Yes it must be hard for them, as people are questioning their very integrity at every step - but they do have to understand that its because of the history of cycling and what has happened in the past that people have these questions ... its something they will have to learn to live with, adapt to and respond to in a positive way rather than just biting back all the time.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on April 18, 2013, 04:33
At least Porte isnt on record attacking other riders as dopers and saying that anyone who wins Paris nice should accept that people have a right to be sceptical.
he'd look like even more of a douche then. Or to be more precise, even more like wiggins
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on April 18, 2013, 06:20
As an aside

We discussed this in the chat yesterday, but some may have missed it.

Brain Smith was kind of giving sky a kicking, 're the classics. Most it seems brought into the kerrison plan. And most of them are just fliped, training was way way too hard.

1 rider while in camp actually stopped the group from training for a day or so as he said this is way too much.

Sutton I think stayed at home - or maybe it was haymen , haymen helps the argument as he did something this season at least.

JTL went back to his old trainer.

Things are not so rosy.

What does this mean , smith was saying that not many can take the punishment of wiggo and froome etc

But going back to the 1st year of sky they were in the stage race section pretty sh*t if I remember correctly then the year after much improved, which could mean the classics squad for next year will be unbeatable.

It could also mean that the difference is in recovery, both natural andor man made ?

The issue is now the performance of some of the lesser riders. Sistou yesterday, Porte etc again the 2 or 3rd year under kerrison, but then Lopez calls questions into this theory and then there is Mick, mono, world beater not sick once , off the team sh*t again.

More questions than answers
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on April 18, 2013, 06:45
It's only a problem if you hold the belief that doping at Sky is a team-wide thing with all the management involved on a practical level. When people say "Sky are doping" I presume a lot of the time they are referring specifically to their GT A-Team. That they dominate stage races like the great teams of old does not mean to say that their classics riders are automatically dopers. Likewise that their classics riders are unremarkable tells us nothing about the cleanliness of their stage racers.

My personal view is that staff like Kerrison have no practical involvement in doping, as Rasmussen said, an "informal" basis :D


Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on April 18, 2013, 06:48
1 rider while in camp actually stopped the group from training for a day or so as he said this is way too much.

The most important use for PEDs in sport is training.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on April 18, 2013, 06:51
Agreed 're classics and A squads is my thinking as well.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on April 18, 2013, 07:32
The most important use for PEDs in sport is training.

had this argument with people before saying doping makes it easy , nope they train harder because they recover better 

It's only a problem if you hold the belief that doping at Sky is a team-wide thing with all the management involved on a practical level. When people say "Sky are doping" I presume a lot of the time they are referring specifically to their GT A-Team. That they dominate stage races like the great teams of old does not mean to say that their classics riders are automatically dopers. Likewise that their classics riders are unremarkable tells us nothing about the cleanliness of their stage racers.

My personal view is that staff like Kerrison have no practical involvement in doping, as Rasmussen said, an "informal" basis :D




Interesting idea Kerrison is hired to train and monitor they guys without any knowledge of back ground stuff, he then sees these improvements - thinks he is on a winner, which he is but not quite for the reasons he thinks.

He comes across as genuine in interviews etc , the classics  guys think flip yes we are on here, but as a group get fatigued and broken.

G-train would be in the know though, most of his classics mess was being not to be able to stay on his bike.

if so Brailsford = worse than JB   
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: LukasCPH on April 18, 2013, 07:37
Don't think it was an interview. Think he posted in the comments section
It was a post in his CN blog (http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/richie-porte/racing-the-ardennes-with-nothing-to-fear).
If he had posted it as comment to a CN article, he'd been completely and utterly stupid to put himself out there. As it is, he still opened himself up to criticism - he didn't have to write those last sentences. I guess one wants to get stuff said once in a while; but it does sound Wiggins-y and isn't going to endear him to the general public.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on April 18, 2013, 07:41
It's only a problem if you hold the belief that doping at Sky is a team-wide thing with all the management involved on a practical level. When people say "Sky are doping" I presume a lot of the time they are referring specifically to their GT A-Team. That they dominate stage races like the great teams of old does not mean to say that their classics riders are automatically dopers. Likewise that their classics riders are unremarkable tells us nothing about the cleanliness of their stage racers.

My personal view is that staff like Kerrison have no practical involvement in doping, as Rasmussen said, an "informal" basis :D
I agree with you that team-wide doping is unlikely and impractical. For me, if you were to create an index of suspicion just for Sky based on the assumption that there is some sort of team programme, you would be looking at Anglos who've been in the set up from the start or even before as part of the UK set up. I.e. Thomas, Stannard, Swift, Kennough, Sutton, Hayman, EBH? The only climbers are Wiggins and Froome.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on May 02, 2013, 02:03
Wiggins in the Times on Sunday - taken from RR's scribd (http://www.scribd.com/doc/138339424/the-Sunday-Times-Walsh-interview-with-Wiggins)



Actually an interesting read.. especially the bits about his comments towards Landis and the fact he took his lead from the likes of Zabriskie and Michael Barry..
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on May 02, 2013, 04:17
to be honest, the comments about Lance and the Landis stuff is something I can understand.

Its a group thing ... hard to be accepted, to deal with the pressure etc and go against the grain at the same time.  It takes a special person with a strength of character that Brad doesnt have to be able to stand up against the crowd.

Its a shame we didnt see too many within the peloton have that - but I dont blame Brad for that lack. 

As far as the "I couldnt do that to my kids" stuff - it makes sense ... but sadly we have heard all of it before, and seen that in fact - people CAN do that to their kids. 

In order to have what it takes to win (dedication, determination, ability to sacrifice everything just in order to win) you have to be prepared to do things that you ordinarily would not.

Thats why I dont think it stacks up as an argument for pro cyclists (any pro's - not just Wiggins)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on May 03, 2013, 02:40
It wasn't a group thing though. Wiggins was the only one. What other cyclists served as character witness to lance and went after Landis?

And there's no justifying that he knew Landis was telling the truth and he came out and said he was lying nonetheless. Is a nice sleight of hand attempt but doesn't quite work.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on May 03, 2013, 02:49
but he was getting hounded by the media, and we all know he doesnt deal well with them ...

Its not an excuse.  He is an idiot.  But I understand that their might have been circumstances where he said stuff he now regrets.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: FreeWheelin on May 03, 2013, 04:17
Quote
I want to watch Ben play rugby league.

This makes me like him more.  :)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on May 03, 2013, 11:58
but he was getting hounded by the media, and we all know he doesnt deal well with them ...

Its not an excuse.  He is an idiot.  But I understand that their might have been circumstances where he said stuff he now regrets.

Not really. It wasn't a 1 off thing. It's a position he held consistently for over 3years. plenty of the times he came ut kissing lances ass were in 1 on 1 interviews. Like 1 with the BBC during the Olympics. Also on the podium of Paris nice. Where was the pressure to praise lance? He'd been retired for over a year by then. 1 and a half by the Olympics, yet sky kept calling themselves UK postal and Wiggins kept up contact with and heroworship of lance.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on May 03, 2013, 15:06
Some of it makes sense though. He talked with Zabriskie and Van de Velde as they were ex teammates. Assuming Garmin is clean, then he assumed they were clean riders and listens to what they say. Then hes got Michael Barry sitting on the bus telling him what an arse floyd was.

Wiggins is quized about it as one of the most promiment in the peloton.. Goes on what he is told.

The moral... dont listen to what other people tell you.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on May 03, 2013, 19:10
Some of it makes sense though. He talked with Zabriskie and Van de Velde as they were ex teammates. Assuming Garmin is clean, then he assumed they were clean riders and listens to what they say. Then hes got Michael Barry sitting on the bus telling him what an arse floyd was.

Wiggins is quized about it as one of the most promiment in the peloton.. Goes on what he is told.

The moral... dont listen to what other people tell you.

Nah, not buying that Dim. Wiggins is not telling the truth. He professed his love for Armstrong and his terrible comments about landis are straight from a Armstrong fanboy

Quote
Wiggins, who could have stayed clear of the debate, chose instead to run with the mob that attacked Landis, questioning the former Postal rider’s mental state and suggesting that only a crazed man would say the things Landis was saying.

This is same as Armstrong calling Betsy crazy.

Wiggins does not come across well in that interview and to drop his kids in as an excuse, well another leaf from Armstrong.

I only hope Walsh has not been totally sold on Sky's GT team being clean.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on May 03, 2013, 21:04
Some of it makes sense though. He talked with Zabriskie and Van de Velde as they were ex teammates. Assuming Garmin is clean, then he assumed they were clean riders and listens to what they say. Then hes got Michael Barry sitting on the bus telling him what an arse floyd was.

Wiggins is quized about it as one of the most promiment in the peloton.. Goes on what he is told.

The moral... dont listen to what other people tell you.

And how does any of that explain all the praise Wiggins gave to Armstrong over the next 3 years?

And since when does someone telling you they thought a guy was a jerk justify coming out and claiming they are lying, even though you know they are telling the truth.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on May 04, 2013, 01:20
Some of it makes sense though. He talked with Zabriskie and Van de Velde as they were ex teammates. Assuming Garmin is clean, then he assumed they were clean riders and listens to what they say. Then hes got Michael Barry sitting on the bus telling him what an arse floyd was.

Wiggins is quized about it as one of the most promiment in the peloton.. Goes on what he is told.

The moral... dont listen to what other people tell you.

it makes sense - except that JV says that Wiggins knew what Lance was doing. 

so unless DZ, CVV and Barry convinced him that Lance was actually clean - which I totally dont buy ... he went a whole lot out of his way to defend someone he knew full well was guilty and was a total dirtbag.

I could have understood the media thing - if it was just them hounding him for answers and he gave them off the cuff and regretted it.  But as Hitch points out - that didnt occur constantly for 3 years.  Putting it in his book ...

So the only conclusion I can come to is that its just  like Kittel going after Sayer ...    Wiggins thought Lance was going to win - so backed Lance 100% against 'the little guy' who was already discredited and disowned amongst the peleton. 
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on May 05, 2013, 17:56
it makes sense - except that JV says that Wiggins knew what Lance was doing. 

so unless DZ, CVV and Barry convinced him that Lance was actually clean - which I totally dont buy ... he went a whole lot out of his way to defend someone he knew full well was guilty and was a total dirtbag.

I could have understood the media thing - if it was just them hounding him for answers and he gave them off the cuff and regretted it.  But as Hitch points out - that didnt occur constantly for 3 years.  Putting it in his book ...

So the only conclusion I can come to is that its just  like Kittel going after Sayer ...    Wiggins thought Lance was going to win - so backed Lance 100% against 'the little guy' who was already discredited and disowned amongst the peleton.

There can only be one reason to go way out of your way to defend a dirtbag like Armstrong.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on May 10, 2013, 12:37
Quote
David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST 36m
I will be inside Sky team for next 17 days. First time to be with them at a race. As excited journalistically as I've been for a long time.

Following Sky around at a GT, a pretty big step.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on May 10, 2013, 14:10
Are you saying everyone who rides on a team where someone is doping will know about it?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on May 10, 2013, 14:56
Are you saying everyone who rides on a team where someone is doping will know about it?
No 
Does it look like I am saying that?  :S  :cheesy

I am not of the opinion that Walsh following Sky around should acquit them of doping accusations, but it is nevertheless another something which should be thrown into the mix.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: S-Works on May 11, 2013, 01:29
I have not read all 20+ odd pages of replies, and have no intention to do so... and I've come here late, rather I just signed up recently...
what I still would like to hear are answers by Wiggo re his relationship with ex-Sky doctor Geert Leinders.
I recall him saying, more or less, "He is a hell of a doctor and really knows what he's doing."

Also, why is a doctor being hired to work with a team for 80 days during the year? Why 80 days? I'd have an answer to that...
all I will say is it stinks, alot more than rotten fish.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Jimmythecuckoo on May 15, 2013, 13:39
This makes me like him more.  :)

As do I ... even if it is for Wigan Warriors.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on June 06, 2013, 11:15
Race Radio on Cn on Richie:

Quote
I had lunch with Richie last week. I would be the last person a doper would want to hang out with.

I found him very open, direct, and confident. He was clearly very passionate about the sport and his team. I asked a lot of questions and he gave me very direct, non-evasive, answers. I have had the same discussion with dozens of riders over the years but few have been as direct as Richie.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on June 06, 2013, 11:48
Race Radio on Cn on Richie:

Lol can't believe you found that so persuasive. An anonymous poster who at best is known to have had some inside info on lance as he was part of that setup (10 years ago) says he liked Richie. Doesn't say anything about doping. if this thread is just gonna be reposting any comments you agree with from cn then it's gonna be as long as the cn one.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on June 06, 2013, 11:56
Lol can't believe you found that so persuasive. An anonymous poster who at best is known to have had some inside info on lance as he was part of that setup (10 years ago) says he liked Richie. Doesn't say anything about doping. if this thread is just gonna be reposting any comments you agree with from cn then it's gonna be as long as the cn one.
I didn't say I found it persuasive on anything like that. I just found it enlightening ;)

I respect Race radio and I believe that many on here also do so it is interesting as to see what he/she believes and thinks about Richie. Race Radio does seem to favour Richie and was impressed by how he came across and though he/she has not said anything definitive he/she does not seem to believe it is very likely Porte is doping.

Also a personal view of Porte and his opinions, even if it was very vague and very brief also is nice to see, as it gives you just a slightly better perspective and especially as it is coming from an unbiased source as opposed to coming from the Sky website etc.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on June 06, 2013, 11:57
Oh and btw vaughters already pulled the - I met him for dinner and am convinced he's clean trick 4 years ago.

The rider in question- Alberto Contador.

So stop treating riders as 2 year olds who scratch their head every time they tell a lie. Dopers lie for a living. I pity anyone who thinks getting through a dinner without blurting out - ok ok I took epo, is a sign of cleanliness.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on June 06, 2013, 12:01
Also I think it is important to consider that giving additional perspectives in this discussion is important.

If Vaughters can meet Contador for dinner or Race Radio someone who knows doping much better than I do and yet they still can't ascertain accurately for themselves whether a rider is clean.. well what chance do we have. Of course I don't take this as definitive proof that Porte isn't doping, but at the same time it is surely something to consider. The whole CN thread and the whole of this thread is filled with speculation, due to the closed, omerta nature of the cycling world we are left with bits and pieces and we just have to make do with what we have.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Tuart on June 06, 2013, 12:26
Lol can't believe you found that so persuasive. An anonymous poster who at best is known to have had some inside info on lance as he was part of that setup (10 years ago) says he liked Richie. Doesn't say anything about doping. if this thread is just gonna be reposting any comments you agree with from cn then it's gonna be as long as the cn one.

Better than circulating bullsh*t rumours and innuendo which is all most of these threads have become.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on June 06, 2013, 12:45
Better than circulating bullsh*t rumours and innuendo which is all most of these threads have become.

Sadly most of the innuendo is pretty close to the truth. We see it regurlarly with the small fry who get sacrificed as they cannot afford better set ups or afford to buy sysmex blood testing machines for UCI.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on June 06, 2013, 12:57
I trust RR's opinion more than I trust David Walsh's
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on June 06, 2013, 14:06
I trust RR's opinion more than I trust David Walsh's

Pity RR didn't ask him what is making him a GC contender at Sky that he couldn't do at Saxo?

As Hitch says, these guys are professional liars. Comes with the sport.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on June 06, 2013, 14:10
I trust RR's opinion more than I trust David Walsh's
I can't think of anyone whose opinion I'd trust more than Race Radio. History of standing up to the biggest bully in the business, no vested interest, what's not to like?

Unless of course he disagrees with an evidence-free opinion of your own.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on June 06, 2013, 20:35
Did rr say richie porte was clean or did he say he is a nice guy after meeting him for dinner.

Im a bit confused, cos from what i read it was the former but captain cavman seems to have a different interpretation.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: search on June 06, 2013, 20:44
Pity RR didn't ask him what is making him a GC contender at Sky that he couldn't do at Saxo?

he was Top 10 in his first ever grand tour, riding for Saxo. Nowaday's he is propably Top 10 material for the Tour de France, so there is an improvement, but that's it. People act like he'd win the Tour de France, but even without Froome I cannot really see him finishing on the podium.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on June 06, 2013, 21:44
...

Im a bit confused...
Clearly.

What do you think he means by, "Not evasive"?


Presumably that's why you tried to undermine him in your comments above.

Person A says something nice about Contador or Nibali and his comment gets discussed. Person B says something nice about Porte and he gets trashed. Confusing.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Tuart on June 07, 2013, 13:27
Sadly most of the innuendo is pretty close to the truth. We see it regurlarly with the small fry who get sacrificed as they cannot afford better set ups or afford to buy sysmex blood testing machines for UCI.

What has this got to do with the price of fish? Someone posted an opinion a public figure gathered themselves over the mentality of a rider others find suspicious. I find that highly more relevant and beneficial to a thread than some twitter rumour that spreads because someone farted out a name.

Pity RR didn't ask him what is making him a GC contender at Sky that he couldn't do at Saxo?

As Hitch says, these guys are professional liars. Comes with the sport.

I'd say with all the resources at Sky, considering what their budgets are, why is it a surprise when they develop people and they actually start doing well? Not to mention all the evidence has been there. In his first year as a pro, he managed to win the white jersey. Regardless of how it got to him, he still had to climb well enough to defend it.

Porte has no greater risk of being a doper than what's normal for anyone in cycling.

After Aquila, he was 18th on Zoncolan, 14th to Aprica, 19th Passo Tonale.

Does that not equal ability to climb? 17th and 11th in the TT. That's shows ability to TT.

Holy smokes, just from that one grand tour we have someone who's shown he can climb and timetrial. That must mean he can only carry water bottles, that's all he's fit for. That's totally logical!
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on June 08, 2013, 02:01
of all the Sky riders, I actually think Porte is probably the least suspicious.

He had a great first year, showing bucketloads of talent.  Yes he gained lots of time in that Giro from a break - but he wasnt 1/2 an hour behind or anything when he went off.  It takes more than just 1 break on 1 stage to top 10 the giro.

That he had a poor year with Saxo ... well, not every team suits every rider.  He never seemed to fit in at Saxo and certainly didnt seem to enjoy his riding.  He could have been ill, or injured, or simply didnt respond to the way they trained etc.   

To come good when he moves to a new team with a structure he likes in an environment he feels comfortable in ... well its not really a surprise to me.  Nor to anyone else it seems - he wasnt lacking for offers when he moved on from Saxo.

I am not saying 'he is definitely clean'.   

I am saying he gets the benefit of the doubt from me.   

And yes - I find RR's personal experience of him interesting.  (it doesnt convince me of anything - is just interesting to hear points of view from someone with personal knowledge rather than just rumour)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Tuart on June 08, 2013, 08:14
In Porte's "bad" year at Saxo he had these results:

1st Tour of Denmark St5
1st Castilla y Leon St4
2nd Romandie St4
3rd Paris-Nice St6
4th TDF St 20
3rd Giro St21
6th World Champs

They are of course, all in the ITT.

I wonder what he was focusing on?   :? :roll

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on June 08, 2013, 11:55


I'd say with all the resources at Sky, considering what their budgets are, why is it a surprise when they develop people and they actually start doing well? Not to mention all the evidence has been there. In his first year as a pro, he managed to win the white jersey. Regardless of how it got to him, he still had to climb well enough to defend it.

Porte has no greater risk of being a doper than what's normal for anyone in cycling.

After Aquila, he was 18th on Zoncolan, 14th to Aprica, 19th Passo Tonale.

Does that not equal ablity to climb? 17th and 11th in the TT. That's shows ability to TT.

Holy smokes, just from that one tour with have somone who's shown he can climb and timetrial. That must mean he can only carry water bottles, that's all he's fit for. That's totally logical!

Porte rode for Riis. Not a clean CV for Richie.

Why do people make the mistake of thinking the sport has cleaned up? Where is the evidence? Testing is down. EPO is still in use. ASO has not changed, UCI nor RCS, so where and when did this sport get clean? How can a so called clean team like Sky beat the known doping teams?

We dont get to see riders blood passports. We dont get to see anything that would make me believe that any of the top riders are not doping.



Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on June 08, 2013, 11:57
In Porte's "bad" year at Saxo he had these results:

1st Tour of Denmark St5
1st Castilla y Leon St4
2nd Romandie St4
3rd Paris-Nice St6
4th TDF St 20
3rd Giro St21
6th World Champs

They are of course, all in the ITT.

I wonder what he was focusing on?   :? :roll

He was focused on not getting caught for doping and practicising his pr skills. ;)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on June 08, 2013, 12:32
Finishing in the mid to high tens on giro mountain stages. There were plenty of riders finishing below him who proved they were much better climbers, who were shutting things down because they were domestiques - szmyd, uran, serpa, cas.

Also by the time you are 5 minutes down on a stage nobody else gives a sh*t. Everyone around him is just pedaling to the finish line waiting for the next day.

Porte meanwhile had everything to ride for and unlike everyone finishing near him, he had a team of domestiques at his disposal, including cas who had already won a stage and may have finished top10 without laquila. Hell despite pacing Richie up every climb in the giro he was still finishing just behind him on many stages.

And despite all that look at who Porte was finishing with. Yuri trofimov, bramislav samilao, a supposedly injured and il pre lienders Chris froome.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Slow Rider on June 08, 2013, 12:52
Porte was doing his first ever year in Europe at the 2010 Giro. Even if he was a bit older than most first-year pro's (he was 24-25, right?). It was all new to him, new environment and a higher level of competition than anything he was used to. So back then there was a lot of room for growth, yet he did perform very well. Few riders that are used to the Giro Bio and the Tour de Lankawi instantly perform this well in their first GT during their first year in Europe.

Plus, turning pro that late there was always going to be a lot of room for improvement from there. Perhaps he was just the kind of person who develops later at a later age? Not everyone is a prodigy at age 22 imediately climbing with the best, some riders need some time to grow into it. He may well be as doped, but he's not as suspicious as some others.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on June 08, 2013, 13:11
Wait - so Chris Froome did actually do something before his Vuelta podium?

a high finish on a stage or two is different from managing it as a neo pro over 3 weeks.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Jamsque on June 08, 2013, 23:32
pre lienders

My favourite part of all of this is how Gert Lienders is somehow the new Michele Ferrari.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on June 08, 2013, 23:52
My favourite part of all of this is how Gert Lienders is somehow the new Michele Ferrari.

Who said that?

Though i do remember that until a few months ago, us sceptical types had a hard time even arguing that lienders was even dodgy  as sky fans argued that there was absolutely no evidence he was a doping doctor.

Then Rasmussen confessed Lienders was the Napoleon Bonaparte of the Rabobank doping programme that got him flying like Pantani on PDB.

So the trenches have been moved back a few km, but it seems not that far at all.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Tuart on June 09, 2013, 11:03
Porte rode for Riis. Not a clean CV for Richie.

Why do people make the mistake of thinking the sport has cleaned up? Where is the evidence? Testing is down. EPO is still in use. ASO has not changed, UCI nor RCS, so where and when did this sport get clean? How can a so called clean team like Sky beat the known doping teams?

We dont get to see riders blood passports. We dont get to see anything that would make me believe that any of the top riders are not doping.

Bloody hell, Bassons rode for Festina, he can't have been clean! Same for Michael Creed! Just an illogical thought process.

So no team should be able to win against the likes of Katusha, Movistar, Astana, Saxo? Geez, that's an effective and foolproof way of finding out who's doping.  :rolleye

Cycling world is kind of small, every team has links to doping. Greenedge has them, Garmin has them, BMC has them, FDJ has them. There's no escaping any links to doping in cycling.

Every rider should come under the same cynicism, cheery picking who you label is just a slippery slope and and end up being hypocritical.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Tuart on June 09, 2013, 11:06
Finishing in the mid to high tens on giro mountain stages. There were plenty of riders finishing below him who proved they were much better climbers, who were shutting things down because they were domestiques - szmyd, uran, serpa, cas.

Also by the time you are 5 minutes down on a stage nobody else gives a sh*t. Everyone around him is just pedaling to the finish line waiting for the next day.

Porte meanwhile had everything to ride for and unlike everyone finishing near him, he had a team of domestiques at his disposal, including cas who had already won a stage and may have finished top10 without laquila. Hell despite pacing Richie up every climb in the giro he was still finishing just behind him on many stages.

And despite all that look at who Porte was finishing with. Yuri trofimov, bramislav samilao, a supposedly injured and il pre lienders Chris froome.

Zoncolan is Zoncolan, there the time gaps are huge. Despite 156 other people not climbing at the speed of Basso, Porte managed to still come in 18th, just behind Kruiswijk and in front of Efimkin, Trofimov, Karpets. Avila, no one finished within 3 minutes of the leading trio and yet Porte finished 14th, in a group that consisted of Mollema, Kiserlovski, Kruijswijk, Ardila, Samoilau, Pinotti.  Uran was a further 5 minutes down. Passo Tonale, 2 minutes down in 19th, again with the same company, Kruiswijk, Kiserlovski, Pinotti just ahead and beating in Moreno, Karpets, Efimkin, Dupont.

CAS, however great a super-dom he is, is not a chair-lift up a climb and are you actually feigning stupidity as to why would a team change leaders midway through a GT when one of their riders gets Pink? :rolleye

These people mentioned, they all have climbing ability, yeah? So someone who finishes with and around them, shows climbing ability. It's fairly straight forward.

Yet you're complaining because he wasn't showing the ability to climb with the top 10? As a neo-pro? :facepalm

As for Froome, he was no where on any of these stages,  irrelevant to the discussion.

Who said that?

Though i do remember that until a few months ago, us sceptical types had a hard time even arguing that lienders was even dodgy  as sky fans argued that there was absolutely no evidence he was a doping doctor.

Then Rasmussen confessed Lienders was the Napoleon Bonaparte of the Rabobank doping programme that got him flying like Pantani on PDB.

So the trenches have been moved back a few km, but it seems not that far at all.

So what you're saying is that because there was no evidence before Rasmussen's admission then people were right to say there was no evidence?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on June 09, 2013, 11:58
YOU were the one who introduced Richie portes 2010 giro mountain finishing positions to the discussion a few posts ago, arguing that they were domonstrative of a top climber.

I disagreed with that assessment, and offered my own analysis of the those finishes,  purely as a counterpoint to yours. There wasn't even any doping talk in my response. I pointed out what riders finished around him, and the advantages he had at his disposal.

Why is it ok for you to talk about portes 2010 giro but not me?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on June 09, 2013, 12:53
Bloody hell, Bassons rode for Festina, he can't have been clean! Same for Michael Creed! Just an illogical thought process.

I suppose Porte has a similar nickname like Bassons then? 'Mr Clean'? Bassons was the exception to the rule ;)

So no team should be able to win against the likes of Katusha, Movistar, Astana, Saxo? Geez, that's an effective and foolproof way of finding out who's doping.  :rolleye

I still ask the question, where, when and how did the doping stop?

Cycling world is kind of small, every team has links to doping. Greenedge has them, Garmin has them, BMC has them, FDJ has them. There's no escaping any links to doping in cycling.

Every rider should come under the same cynicism, cheery picking who you label is just a slippery slope and and end up being hypocritical.

In my book every rider does come under the same scrutiny, criticism and cynicism, but I only post about those at the pointy end who are the more obvious. I rarely waste my time posting about Contador, Piti, Purito and the likes, as for me these guys are and were never clean. Teams like Movi, SaxoT, Katusha, Astana are doping teams. The see it as integral to the sport.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: search on June 09, 2013, 12:55
that's a long post Hitch, but I still don't see your point, where do we find the unusual increase of Porte's performance in recent years?

he was also sick during that 2010 giro btw. Of course, you can say he was doped back then as well, but if we do not assume that I cannot see anything too unusual about his current performances, regarding his earlier result.

but as I already said, I also don't see him as a possible gc contender for the Tour, maybe that's the difference.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on June 09, 2013, 13:13
Can we please remember to debate the subject and cut out the personal attacks.

Posts which include personal attacks will be deleted ... 

Cheers
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on June 09, 2013, 13:52
that's a long post Hitch, but I still don't see your point, where do we find the unusual increase of Porte's performance in recent years?


I never said that. All I did was explain why Porte's 2010 Giro climbing was not as special as Tuart claimed they were.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on June 09, 2013, 14:22
Can we please remember to debate the subject and cut out the personal attacks.

Posts which include personal attacks will be deleted ... 

Cheers
this thread keeps on giving, doesn't it. Don't read it anymore, till today, as it's a cock fight where each party tries to drown its opponent in its circle jerk and it being a circular debate with no real points being made either way. Is it the thread or is it the users?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: FreeWheelin on June 09, 2013, 14:30
this thread keeps on giving, doesn't it. Don't read it anymore, till today, as it's a cock fight where each party tries to drown its opponent in its circle jerk and it being a circular debate with no real points being made either way. Is it the thread or is it the users?

My claim to fame at VR is having the (very awkard) OP for this thread... funny thing was I posted it first in the gen news thread... little did I know...
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: ram on June 09, 2013, 14:35
People like me make thousands of posts to be the drunk awkward invitee in a party that sits in a corner insulting everyone within arms reach (I think I may have forummed drunk a couple of times).... you make one post and in the folklore.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: kabloemski on June 09, 2013, 18:23
Every rider should come under the same cynicism

Exactly.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Tuart on June 10, 2013, 03:08
I suppose Porte has a similar nickname like Bassons then? 'Mr Clean'? Bassons was the exception to the rule ;)

I still ask the question, where, when and how did the doping stop?

In my book every rider does come under the same scrutiny, criticism and cynicism, but I only post about those at the pointy end who are the more obvious. I rarely waste my time posting about Contador, Piti, Purito and the likes, as for me these guys are and were never clean. Teams like Movi, SaxoT, Katusha, Astana are doping teams. The see it as integral to the sport.

1. You're picking and choosing

2. This question doesn't have any relevancy to why Porte definitely is a doper. You're going on about the whole of the sport, I'm questioning singling out a specific rider to label as such above the normal level of suspicion.

3. If cycling and doping is that cut-and-dried for you and they're all doing it, then why hang around a doping forum and comment about specific riders? Your answer to everything is the same, what's there to change or gain?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Tuart on June 10, 2013, 03:10
YOU were the one who introduced Richie portes 2010 giro mountain finishing positions to the discussion a few posts ago, arguing that they were domonstrative of a top climber.
No, I gave evidence to indicate that talent for Richie Porte's climbing (and time-trialling) ability was there since the 2010 Giro. Go and read back, I'd love for you to find a quote where I said Porte was a top climber.

I disagreed with that assessment, and offered my own analysis of the those finishes,  purely as a counterpoint to yours. There wasn't even any doping talk in my response. I pointed out what riders finished around him, and the advantages he had at his disposal.

All team leaders have advantages to their disposals, is Nibali any less of a climber because he had Agnoli, Kangert and Aru around him this Giro? Porte had the advantage of L'Aquila to be able to show what he was able to do (at that time. in 2010. As a Neo Pro) with the team at his disposal. He showed he could climb in the top 20 of riders in that Giro. This is not the Men's Cycling forum, I'm not having a battle of who is the better climber, 2010 Szymd or 2010 Porte, the only point I am making there, which I am backing up with results from the 2010 Giro, is that Porte showed ability to climb. I didn't say he was elite, I'm not moving goalposts, I'm not reading tea leaves how I wish. If you disagree with that, fine. But then you're also disagreeing that all those mentioned, they can't climb either. Mollema, Kiserlovski, Kruijswijk, Ardila, Samoilau, Pinotti, Dani Moreno, Karpets, Efimkin, Dupont. No ability to climb either. :rolleye

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: kabloemski on June 10, 2013, 08:47
People like me make thousands of posts to be the drunk awkward invitee in a party that sits in a corner insulting everyone within arms reach

Ram, those guests are always the most memorable and a guaranteed antidote to a boring gathering :-)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: kabloemski on June 10, 2013, 08:59
it being a circular debate with no real points being made either way

Exactly.

And looks like we'll never know anyway, the science is just too good? I'm over trying to figure out whose poster I can safely tack on my wall, I've gone back to enjoying cycling for the reasons I started following the TdF in high school back in the 90's - the beautiful scenery, and hot men in Lycra.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on June 10, 2013, 12:43
1. You're picking and choosing

Of course I am picking and choosing. I dont have time to post about every rider in the peloton who does something. Porte has.

2. This question doesn't have any relevancy to why Porte definitely is a doper. You're going on about the whole of the sport, I'm questioning singling out a specific rider to label as such above the normal level of suspicion.

I am basing my opinions on them all taking substances that they use to improve their performances. It is easy. They talk, walk and ride like the peloton has done by and large. Porte has improved dramatically at a team that is suspect. He has worked with a doping doctor, Leinders, has worked with dodgy DSs, Riis and Yates to name 2. This makes his performnaces suspicious to me.

3. If cycling and doping is that cut-and-dried for you and they're all doing it, then why hang around a doping forum and comment about specific riders? Your answer to everything is the same, what's there to change or gain?

Becuase it is important to dicsuss this and bring it to a larger audience. Lots of cycling forums will not allow doping talk.

My answer is the same based on nothing having changed in the sport. Armstrong/Bruyneel/Stapleton were spouting how clean and transparent they were and i see nothing new with Sky doing the same. Armstrong told the press he dumped Ferarri and he was only using him for training plans ( see Italian riders givng same excuse lately) but we know now that was BS. Did Sky dump Leinders? He is not on their books but then neither was Ferarri on USPS books.

UCI still the same. Bloodtesting down a third on recent years. Plenty of doping being found out. Plenty of ex dopers still riding to high levels.

So nope nothing has changed. Yesterday, Martin and Hesjedal finished with the likes of Scarponi, Visconti and Kreusiger. So called clean riders climbing with clients of Ferarri and Fuentes????
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Tuart on June 11, 2013, 09:20
Of course I am picking and choosing. I dont have time to post about every rider in the peloton who does something. Porte has.

But is your response the same everytime someone wins a WT event and they're not on the team of one the Axis of Evil? If I try and find a thread for Dan Martin after Catalunya, will I find it?

I am basing my opinions on them all taking substances that they use to improve their performances. It is easy. They talk, walk and ride like the peloton has done by and large. Porte has improved dramatically at a team that is suspect. He has worked with a doping doctor, Leinders, has worked with dodgy DSs, Riis and Yates to name 2. This makes his performnaces suspicious to me.

Firstly, if they all use "substances", then none of these performances would be out of the ordinary, by your expectations anyway, so why bring it up for a specific rider? Porte hasn't improved "dramatically", that is what the last page a bit has been discussing. He's shown signs from his very first GT. Only now that he's at Sky and riding well are people taking creative liberties with their eulogising, its the same with Chris Froome, who apparently didn't exist before 2011, yet a simple google search would prove otherwise. Again, the connections mean nothing. Otherwise, I can just as equally say "McGee is a clean DS, therefore Porte must be clean". A link to a former doper/doctor/DS does not equal proof that a rider is doping.

Quote from: author=benotti69 link=topic=636.msg102973#msg102973 date=1370864623
Becuase it is important to dicsuss this and bring it to a larger audience. Lots of cycling forums will not allow doping talk.

My answer is the same based on nothing having changed in the sport. Armstrong/Bruyneel/Stapleton were spouting how clean and transparent they were and i see nothing new with Sky doing the same. Armstrong told the press he dumped Ferarri and he was only using him for training plans ( see Italian riders givng same excuse lately) but we know now that was BS. Did Sky dump Leinders? He is not on their books but then neither was Ferarri on USPS books.

UCI still the same. Bloodtesting down a third on recent years. Plenty of doping being found out. Plenty of ex dopers still riding to high levels.

So nope nothing has changed. Yesterday, Martin and Hesjedal finished with the likes of Scarponi, Visconti and Kreusiger. So called clean riders climbing with clients of Ferarri and Fuentes????

I didn't take you for an evangelical! You must be the cycling forum version of a Jehovah Witness. Pity I don't see any philistines about.

After Festina, the Peloton sped up. After the LA era, has the same thing happened? It it simplification and pigeon-holing to just say that "it's just the same". That's a cop out.

The UCI, is another kettle of fish, there's plenty of problems there that need to be razed, still doesn't mean anything about Porte. Testing - what was all this discussion about a new EPO test then? If anti-doping is falling by the way side, why are there riders still being caught? Make up your mind. If they didn't catch anyone, how is that proof that cycling is clean? That's the otherside of the coin to what you're assuming.

You're just falling down a slippery slope, you're assuming that at the moment, every rider is at their peak, that the known-dopers are on a full dosage. There are a million variances in racing to begin with. Where do you stop then? You could keep going down the list and then start questioning why 100 riders are climbing better than XY ex-doper. It's inane.

Without any sort of proof, I don't no believe that 100% of the peloton is doping. As such, aside from the normal level of cynicism and risk, aside from facepalming over a few incidents (eg tour of turkey), then I won't believe without actual proof and not innuendo, that a rider has any more chance of being a doper than any other.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Slow Rider on June 11, 2013, 10:01
I fully agree with Tuart here. I see no reason not to believe the peloton is significantly cleaner. Yes, there are still dopers, some probably on a larger scale than others. I'll even agree that a large majority probably does some dudgy stuff that is only semi-legal. However I simply don't believe all riders are doped. Looking at Garmin, Argos, Blanco, FDJ, Lotto... There is just no way those teams and riders are doped. Obviously there are exceptions (Lulu), but no matter how hard I try I cant bring up the cynicism to believe there is a team-wide doping programme at those teams.

About Sky, I honestly don't know whether the whole team is doped or only a few riders. I have seen nothing from Porte that is more suspect than I have seen from anyone else. His development doesn't seem natural to me, and as search says I don't see him as a candidate for top-5 at the Tour anyway. Porte should come under the same cynicism all other riders do. I'd say he's more suspicious than average, certainly more so than, say, Tobias Ludvigsson. But he is not nearly as suspicious as a Valverde or Contador, to name some.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: kabloemski on June 12, 2013, 10:06
I'm so over this thread, and threads like 'Why I don't like Chris Froome' - nobody knows for sure, all pure speculation, and people getting their knickers in a knot over BS. It all sounds like the kind of chats one caught on the playground in high school.

But thanks, I've been struggling to motivate myself to get out there and get a life, at the very least this thread and others like it are doing an awesome job :win
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Tuart on June 13, 2013, 11:30
I fully agree with Tuart here. I see no reason not to believe the peloton is significantly cleaner. Yes, there are still dopers, some probably on a larger scale than others. I'll even agree that a large majority probably does some dudgy stuff that is only semi-legal. However I simply don't believe all riders are doped. Looking at Garmin, Argos, Blanco, FDJ, Lotto... There is just no way those teams and riders are doped. Obviously there are exceptions (Lulu), but no matter how hard I try I cant bring up the cynicism to believe there is a team-wide doping programme at those teams.

About Sky, I honestly don't know whether the whole team is doped or only a few riders. I have seen nothing from Porte that is more suspect than I have seen from anyone else. His development doesn't seem natural to me, and as search says I don't see him as a candidate for top-5 at the Tour anyway. Porte should come under the same cynicism all other riders do. I'd say he's more suspicious than average, certainly more so than, say, Tobias Ludvigsson. But he is not nearly as suspicious as a Valverde or Contador, to name some.

This is what I don't get.

2010: Neo-pro that finishes top 10 in the Giro and wins white
2011: Becomes Bertie's bitch and focuses year round on the TT
2012: Focuses on his climbing and becomes a super-dom in the Wiggins-train
2013: Starts winning one-week races for himself

I don't get what is absolutely unnatural about that. Nor can I fathom what people are exactly looking for as to what is acceptable "development". I don't know if its personal bias, confirmation bias or what but come on, he's no Santambrogio going from an obscure domestique to top climber in 6 months. For example, if he was Colombian, he'd be lauded as a natural talent finally delivering on his potential and no eyelids raised.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on June 13, 2013, 12:09
This is what I don't get.

2010: Neo-pro that finishes top 10 in the Giro and wins white
2011: Becomes Bertie's bitch and focuses year round on the TT
2012: Focuses on his climbing and becomes a super-dom in the Wiggins-train
2013: Starts winning one-week races for himself
Nevermind that, there is also this article; http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/richie-porte-great-expectations  you can't really comment on Porte's 2011 season and what it entails without having read this article as it explains why it went the way it did. Considering that, it is effectively one year null and so not surprising that he jumped to his 2012 level.

That is part of the problem here, so much is based on performances and the perceptions it creates. There is so much more we do not know about which factors into rider's performances that to guesstimate based on performances does seem foolhardy in retrospect.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on June 13, 2013, 12:48
But is your response the same everytime someone wins a WT event and they're not on the team of one the Axis of Evil? If I try and find a thread for Dan Martin after Catalunya, will I find it?

Where did i say axis of evil teams. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Firstly, if they all use "substances", then none of these performances would be out of the ordinary, by your expectations anyway, so why bring it up for a specific rider? Porte hasn't improved "dramatically", that is what the last page a bit has been discussing. He's shown signs from his very first GT. Only now that he's at Sky and riding well are people taking creative liberties with their eulogising, its the same with Chris Froome, who apparently didn't exist before 2011, yet a simple google search would prove otherwise. Again, the connections mean nothing. Otherwise, I can just as equally say "McGee is a clean DS, therefore Porte must be clean". A link to a former doper/doctor/DS does not equal proof that a rider is doping.

It is a dirty sport, always was with exceptions. I have not seen a change. I hear Garmin and Sky spouting their cleanliness but other teams are not, yet clean teams are beating teams that have no spin about being clean.

Froome did nothing before Vuelta 2011. Sky were about to let him go. JV was not interested either, then boom, Froome!

Porte, doing the magical climbing TT combo. Dont believe it. I cant prove anything. But these teams are not showing us how it is done!

I didn't take you for an evangelical! You must be the cycling forum version of a Jehovah Witness. Pity I don't see any philistines about.
Dumb comment.
After Festina, the Peloton sped up. After the LA era, has the same thing happened? It it simplification and pigeon-holing to just say that "it's just the same". That's a cop out.

No they didn't. Look at Pantani. Look at what others were doing. Obviously in France teams turned up cleanish, but lots have dispelled that.

As for pigeon holing, show me the clean pigeon hole?

The UCI, is another kettle of fish, there's plenty of problems there that need to be razed, still doesn't mean anything about Porte. Testing - what was all this discussion about a new EPO test then? If anti-doping is falling by the way side, why are there riders still being caught? Make up your mind. If they didn't catch anyone, how is that proof that cycling is clean? That's the otherside of the coin to what you're assuming.

Why are UCI catching the likes of Di Luca, Santabromgio, Frei, and second rate cyclists? It is to the UCI's advantage to be able to catch cheats, it helps them threaten teams and I have no doubt that they solicit payments to keep positives quiet. It worked for Armstrong for a long time, why not others?

You're just falling down a slippery slope, you're assuming that at the moment, every rider is at their peak, that the known-dopers are on a full dosage. There are a million variances in racing to begin with. Where do you stop then? You could keep going down the list and then start questioning why 100 riders are climbing better than XY ex-doper. It's inane.

The sport is a doping cesspit. Where to start believing performances is the question? Since none of the teams wish to provide transparency into how they acheve their wins, why believe they do it au natural? I dont. Remember Brailsford said they were going to show everyone how they do it clean, total transparency, ZTP, and the whole hog, well that went out the window pretty quickly didn't it? Now we have to take Froome, Porte and Woggin's performances in the same manner as before, believe what you see because the team tells us, no failed test yadayadayadayadayada............

Without any sort of proof, I don't no believe that 100% of the peloton is doping. As such, aside from the normal level of cynicism and risk, aside from facepalming over a few incidents (eg tour of turkey), then I won't believe without actual proof and not innuendo, that a rider has any more chance of being a doper than any other.

I do not believe that the peloton is 100% doping but the top 50-100 are probably doping. Lots of teams dont have the cash to dope a squad of 25-30 riders. Other teams are keeping things more secretive. There has been a change but in the modus of managing doping not in riding clean.

I dont care to wait for proofs or clean riding. I think we would know if we saw a clean peloton. I dont see it.

Well done you for believing in miracles and unicorns, just remember that the bells were attached to unicorns by the likes of Leinders, Yates, Jullich and others of such high cleanliness.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Slow Rider on June 13, 2013, 14:13
This is what I don't get.

2010: Neo-pro that finishes top 10 in the Giro and wins white
2011: Becomes Bertie's bitch and focuses year round on the TT
2012: Focuses on his climbing and becomes a super-dom in the Wiggins-train
2013: Starts winning one-week races for himself

I don't get what is absolutely unnatural about that. Nor can I fathom what people are exactly looking for as to what is acceptable "development". I don't know if its personal bias, confirmation bias or what but come on, he's no Santambrogio going from an obscure domestique to top climber in 6 months. For example, if he was Colombian, he'd be lauded as a natural talent finally delivering on his potential and no eyelids raised.

Sorry, that was just a typo. I meant to say his development did not seem unnatural to me. I was agreeing with you in that post, to say his development didn't seem natural would be illogical there.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on June 14, 2013, 10:27
So you're saying you can't judge if someone is doping due to performance alone, because ? 

So by that logic,  you can't defend someone regarding doping because
No-one's arguing that point. 'They cycle professionally therefore there is a likelihood they dope' isn't a controversial statement.

What is controversial is whether Team Sky deserve the level of abuse they receive from certain members and whether the rationale behind this abuse has any merit.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: kabloemski on June 14, 2013, 12:17
What is controversial is whether Team Sky deserve the level of abuse they receive from certain members and whether the rationale behind this abuse has any merit.

What is controversial is whether ANY TEAM deserves the level of abuse they receive from certain members and whether the rationale behind this abuse has any merit.

And none of you know for sure if and how to establish properly if the abuse has any merit - THAT'S THE PROBLEM IN PRO CYCLING. And these sort of posts are just one peeing contest after the other.

BORING!
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on June 14, 2013, 12:45
I don't think that any team deserves any ABUSE.

Does sky deserve this kind of analysis?  Well, this is the dark side, so naturally enough it's going to focus on that.

Sky in particular do seem to be subject to a much higher degree of scrutiny than say Movistar or saxobank ... But I think the reason for that is 3 fold

1- sky's over the top media sh*te and zero tolerance policy .. And the obvious disregarding of that when it suits them. IMO  If you set yourself above all others, and proclaim yourself  better than everyone else, then  breach your own standards, you certainly deserve some questions and criticism.

2- sky's success.  Any team with the kind of success that sky has experienced the last 2years is bound to get more attention than one floundering with no wins. It happened to opqs last spring, to Astana in the classics ... Strong teams (as opposed to just one strong rider) seem to bring allegations.   I find that sad - that any success brings such skepticism to fans .... But sad that this is due to the history of our sport and how that kind of success has been achieved in the past.    I don't think that a team should be abused or questioned simply due to success. But it's something that successful teams unfortunately will have to get used to, as I don't think it's going away.

3- doubt.  The reason it gets discussed more in relation to sky than Movistar for example, is that people DO have doubts about sky. There is questions in people's minds that they haven't necessarily formed opinions about. In the case of many of the other teams ... There simply isn't that doubt. People have already decided, and no one argues about whether or not valverde (for example)  is doping or not.   There are lots who do believe that sky (or some of sky) are clean.

For me, that's actually a posative sign. After everything we have been through as a sport, that we can still have some faith (or some of us can) is a start.

At the end of the day though, I don't understand the abuse or 'sky hate' for want of a better  word.   (Not that we have had too much of that here .. a little but not the extent of twitter and stuff). Most of us here support riders who are doped or who have in the past. Looking at the 'why don't I like chris froome' thread - many are going to support contractor over froome. Even if you think froome is doped, it's Minot like contractor is clean ... So I don't get that.    It's a puzzle.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on June 14, 2013, 16:03
2- sky's success.  Any team with the kind of success that sky has experienced the last 2years is bound to get more attention than one floundering with no wins. It happened to opqs last spring, to Astana in the classics ... Strong teams (as opposed to just one strong rider) seem to bring allegations.   I find that sad - that any success brings such skepticism to fans .... But sad that this is due to the history of our sport and how that kind of success has been achieved in the past.    I don't think that a team should be abused or questioned simply due to success. But it's something that successful teams unfortunately will have to get used to, as I don't think it's going away.


The OPQS thing i would disagree with. When it comes down to in a tiny handful of people questioned OPQS and more specifically Ibarguren Taus.
Myself, Jose Been (Who got an incredible amount of sh*t for even mentioning it), Gazetta did one article, and Ouest France did one article. On the Whole OPQS got by completely scot free (because everyone likes Boonen)

One thing that has always confused me is peoples perception of Sean Yates as some sort of evil mastermind. When asked for evidence of Sky being dodgy one of the first arguments is "they employed Sean Yates".. Why?

Sean doped as a rider, no doubt, (as did most other DS's)
But he was never at US Postal, was never part of the seven "wins"
He only joined Discovery in 2005
He rode for Motorola

The entire basis for Sean being an evil doping mastermind appears to be his friendship with "motoman"

Peoples perception seems to be that Yates was part of it all, Motorola, Postal, Disco, there all along, part of the doping program, etc. When in reality he was only there for a very short time.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: DB-Coop on June 14, 2013, 23:35
I think more interesting than Porte's performance is that he chose to resign, I really wonder why he would do that if Sky doesn't do something no other team does/can do. With Wiggins and Froome on the squad Porte won't get a chance to ride his own chance at many races. I can't see if Porte could preform the same on another team why he wouldn't at least wait till after July to sign and see what other teams might offer, that to me is why I will doubt Porte, it reminds me a bit too much about the US Postal reports where riders would sign cheaper contracts with Postal than elsewhere because they knew they couldn't preform elsewhere. And while Sky is able to pay big money, why not see if another team will pay the same and allow a better schedule?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: search on June 14, 2013, 23:38
after Paris Nice he said he would have a go at the Giro next year
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: DB-Coop on June 14, 2013, 23:44
after Paris Nice he said he would have a go at the Giro next year

Still it seems weird to me that he would put himself in a situation where his schedule will be determined by where Froome and Wiggins go, he will only get what is left over, without even checking the market. If no good offers where out there for him he could just return, also he would likely net bigger money elsewhere as he has WT Points from Paris-Nice and he might be able to land with a team where he could decide what races to go for on his own.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: search on June 14, 2013, 23:54
yeah, sure, but which team would come to your mind? I can't really see him at Astana, Katusha or Radioshack and the only other teams I could think of being able to pay his salery would be BMC, OPQS and Greenedge, where he would either end up in more or less the same situation as now (BMC) or without any kind of support in the mountains
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: DB-Coop on June 15, 2013, 00:08
yeah, sure, but which team would come to your mind? I can't really see him at Astana, Katusha or Radioshack and the only other teams I could think of being able to pay his salery would be BMC, OPQS and Greenedge, where he would either end up in more or less the same situation as now (BMC) or without any kind of support in the mountains

Out of those Greenedge seems like an amazing option, while he might need some help in the mountains there you would think that could be brought in, after all getting an Australian GT contender to Greenedge would be great for them. OPQS are already set on Uran, and I don't expect they want to pay for both, or have enough opportunities for them. But other teams that need to scrape together points for another Pro Tour license could be potential buyers.  Argos have a lot of money, but mountain dom's are badly needed though. I could see a team like Lampre as well though with the rumors that they want to ditch Scarpony I can see some sense in a move like bringing Porte in, to let him do the Tour and Cunego do the Giro, and maybe letting Niemiec ride for him self in the Vuelta.

Greenedge or a points needy team would be my top choices.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on June 15, 2013, 01:38
See I don't have an issue with him staying at sky.

He didn't have a good time at saxo, and that may play on his mind a lot ... If you aren't happy with the team environment you don't ride we'll - so when he finds himself in a team that he likes, with training, staff, coaching etc that he fits in with ... And they are prepared to give him a shot at some of the things he wants ... Why wouldn't he stay?

Also, to me it might be an indication that they have told him wiggins is out.  Sharing just between him and froome with a couple of great support riders is different from being behind froome and wiggins in the pecking order
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: LukasCPH on June 15, 2013, 04:08
Maybe Richie is doing a Klöden...
Best mates with Froome (like Klöden with Ullrich), being happier to ride in the second rank.

Not everyone wants to get to the absolute top - and that shouldn't be criticized just for that reason.
As long as he's happy with what he does, it's fine by me.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: FreeWheelin on June 15, 2013, 06:39
Whatever questions I may or may not have about Richie, I dont think that him staying at Sky is too sus.  I think that a) he enjoys they way the team is run (with or without dark side), b) I think he sees the benefit of having a strong team around him - i dont know how good a GT rider he could become but he probably realizes that a bunch of Skybots in front of him is going to be his best chance.  While if he went to GreenEdge he could race whatever he wanted, he would have to do it alone which i dont think he want to do, not yet anyway.  So because of that c) he is prepared to play the long game, stay loyal to the team (he certainly seems to salute the flag in his interviews) and wait for his chance.  Wiggins can have many years left and who knows what handshake deals have been done with him for the future.

While his potential and current WT points may be worth $y to other teams.  If he gets his chances and takes a GT podium or even win he will be worth $y times 3.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: DB-Coop on June 15, 2013, 17:27
Maybe Richie is doing a Klöden...
Best mates with Froome (like Klöden with Ullrich), being happier to ride in the second rank.

Not everyone wants to get to the absolute top - and that shouldn't be criticized just for that reason.
As long as he's happy with what he does, it's fine by me.

True, but it seems strange to me that he wouldn't even test the market, unless he is scheduled to be the leader at the Vuelta I see no reason why he would resign without seeing other offers, if he is scheduled to do the Vuelta it makes some sense because Sky might pull him if they end up not having his points. couldn't Klöden be more of an example of a rider that might not have wanted to change because Telekom had a good "program" and he wouldn't be as good somewhere else? His team history is not that credible and the way he exited the case he was involved in was very suspicious, borderline incriminating.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on July 06, 2013, 16:27
No surprises. Field too weak. 
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on July 06, 2013, 16:59
I wasnt too surprised today. Froome looked right on the rivet, Contador, Evans were both pretty poor.. Hell, Belkin filled two of the top 5 spots.. :fp
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on July 06, 2013, 17:04
When Nibali won his 16km tt by a minute you announced dim that doping was back in cycling. Now Froome who attacked 5k from the end takes a minute 10 on his nearest rival in that short space of time, with trackstand richie somewhere in between, and you are not surprised?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on July 06, 2013, 17:07
A minute over 16km is a lot more than a minute over a 10km climb. :D

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on July 06, 2013, 17:09
Nibali's Giro MTT? A lot easier (erm, guess I should say twice as easy) to take a minute on a 40 minute climb than a 20 minute one.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Flo on July 06, 2013, 17:11
A minute over 16km is a lot more than a minute over a 10km climb. :D

That...

Is not true.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: doolols on July 06, 2013, 17:11
Contador, Evans were both pretty poor

We keep waiting for those two to show some decent form, but it seems the Sky Grinder puts them near their limit throughout the day, and they have nothing for the dancing-on-pedals attacks in the hills. The only way of avoiding a complete whitewash is for some minor team (Belkin?  :D) to give it a real go out front, maybe with a couple of riders from other teams. Otherwise, all competitors will get ground down by the Skybots ready for Froome / Porte to leap off the front. Very impressed with Porte today. Intelligent riding.

Shame The Clinic is down at the moment. I'll bet people are apoplectic over there.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: doolols on July 06, 2013, 17:13
When Nibali won his 16km tt by a minute you announced dim that doping was back in cycling. Now Froome who attacked 5k from the end takes a minute 10 on his nearest rival in that short space of time, with trackstand richie somewhere in between, and you are not surprised?

Riding as part of a team all working for you, vs. working on your own in a MTT. Very different.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on July 06, 2013, 17:15
A minute over 16km is a lot more than a minute over a 10km climb. :D

How does that work?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Flo on July 06, 2013, 18:39
Wow Froome  way more impressive than a doped up Contador in 2009. And that while being clean. Sheesh.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 06, 2013, 20:22
Contador, Evans were both pretty poor..

Well...donkeys to racehorses and back again.

Contador must have been a super super responder
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Mellow Velo on July 06, 2013, 21:38
 The best reason to be sceptical about Sky is that alternative to today's result was a guy who hasn't raced in two months pulling off a Pantani, or  Piti Valverde, taking the stage.
 
 Great alternative.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Flo on July 06, 2013, 21:51
Well...donkeys to racehorses and back again.

Contador must have been a super super responder

Or perhaps there is something going on which explains him getting progressively worse ever since vuelta 2012. Lack of motivation perhaps.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Flo on July 06, 2013, 21:55
Thought this was a reasonable take on todays stage

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=639157642761945&id=213103522034028

Pretty funny the replies
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 06, 2013, 22:17
A common meme last year for the Skyphobics was to say that Wiggins Sky team victory looked just like USPS, therefore Sky doped, because USPS doped. I didnt see that parallel at all. Wiggins never really delivered the killer blow in the way that Armstrong did. Just got the time in the TT and hung in there by and large. No real top class competition either and a parcours made for him.

I think the parallel of appearances can be made today much more justifiably. However that parallel can be also made to the pre EPO champions. Hinault and Lemond, as team mates, got so far ahead of the peloton they sat up and chatted for the final part of a mountain stage. Coppi, Bahamontes...etc etc etc


Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on July 06, 2013, 23:00
A common meme last year for the Skyphobics was to say that Wiggins Sky team victory looked just like USPS, therefore Sky doped, because USPS doped. I didnt see that parallel at all.
No you just made that up.

Quote
Wiggins never really delivered the killer blow in the way that Armstrong did. Just got the time in the TT and hung in there by and large. No real top class competition either and a parcours made for him.

I think the parallel of appearances can be made today much more justifiably. However that parallel can be also made to the pre EPO champions. Hinault and Lemond, as team mates, got so far ahead of the peloton they sat up and chatted for the final part of a mountain stage. Coppi, Bahamontes...etc etc etc

It was Bailsford who said that attack less cycling = clean cycling.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on July 07, 2013, 01:32
Pretty funny the replies

If you find racism and overt nationalism funny, i guess so. Frankly I think some of those people need to grow brain cells.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on July 07, 2013, 02:23
see I didnt really see much in that stage that induced skepticism in me (and I am a skeptic)

Froome rides an attacking style.  He was never going to be happy setting a strong pace and just waiting till the end ...

He knew that he was the strongest, so he set his team to doing whatever they could, and he would do the rest.

I was surprised by how bad Contador looked on the bike.  In his usual riding, he simply doesnt look like that.  He is the epitome of style on the bike - even when he is at his limit.  He dances on the pedals ... and he definitely wasnt yesterday.   

That to me tells me that it was more Alberto than Froome.   

I was surprised by Cadel losing 4 minutes ... but again, that is more about Cadel.   Mollema and TenDam losing 1 minute or 2 to Froome - thats about expected if they are having a good day (well, an exceptional day from LTD).

Froome went all out to destroy everyone.  He was clearly on his limit and did everything he could. 
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on July 07, 2013, 03:34
see I didnt really see much in that stage that induced skepticism in me (and I am a skeptic)

Froome rides an attacking style.  He was never going to be happy setting a strong pace and just waiting till the end ...

He knew that he was the strongest, so he set his team to doing whatever they could, and he would do the rest.

I was surprised by how bad Contador looked on the bike.  In his usual riding, he simply doesnt look like that.  He is the epitome of style on the bike - even when he is at his limit.  He dances on the pedals ... and he definitely wasnt yesterday.   

That to me tells me that it was more Alberto than Froome.   

I was surprised by Cadel losing 4 minutes ... but again, that is more about Cadel.   Mollema and TenDam losing 1 minute or 2 to Froome - thats about expected if they are having a good day (well, an exceptional day from LTD).

Froome went all out to destroy everyone.  He was clearly on his limit and did everything he could.

Did you hear that froome went faster than Armstrong ullrich vino etc 03 and only a couple of seconds slower than Armstrong 01?

That's the info that truly shocked everyone. Anyway regarding ten dam and mollema why can't they also improve? You say you expected froome to beat them by a minute 20 s but presumably last year that would have been 30 s and the year before it would have been reverse and about 5 minutes. Cyclists change. Usually not as dramatically as froome and Porte but it's certainly possible that mollema and ten dam could also improve. In mollemas case he was quite a good climber always anyway and started cycling later than froome (so the he will become good later argument applies). They didn't just beat Contador afterall but also murito who last year was arguably the best climber in the world, Moreno, talansky, Evans, fuglsang etc
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on July 07, 2013, 04:05
Good points.

Mollema has always had the talent I think - just a matter of staying on his bike, and gaining some experience at measuring his effort.

And no - I didnt realise it was that fast.   While that is concerning ...  it was a fairly short climb and early in the Tour

wow - that sounds like I am making excuses :fp   But the truth is I suppose that I am already convinced with Froome anyway, so I just didnt find this ride that surprising. 
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on July 07, 2013, 04:27
Good points.

Mollema has always had the talent I think - just a matter of staying on his bike, and gaining some experience at measuring his effort.

And no - I didnt realise it was that fast.   While that is concerning ...  it was a fairly short climb and early in the Tour

wow - that sounds like I am making excuses :fp   But the truth is I suppose that I am already convinced with Froome anyway, so I just didnt find this ride that surprising.
What about Porte?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 07, 2013, 06:05
No you just made that up.

Ooh, an accusation of lying. classy.

You know very well its true. Go and have a read in your beloved 'clinic' where any and every attempt is made to draw parallels between Sky and USPS.

Quote
It was Bailsford who said that attack less cycling = clean cycling.

...and do you disagree with that?


I don't. But I guess you'll be telling me next that Maurice Garin used EPO.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on July 07, 2013, 06:58
enough.

Hitch and Joachim - be polite and friendly.  If you cannot, posts will be deleted and you will incur infractions.

We can have this conversation without the snarky-ness. 
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on July 07, 2013, 07:02
What about Porte?

mmm - yeah.

Porte I am still on the fence - actually he had the benefit of the doubt for me.   I guess thats where Hitch's points come in ... fastest for Froome means right up there for Porte ...

He does have that amount of talent.  Its not just developed all of a sudden, he has shown that he had it right from the word go, that it would develop into this kind of ability isnt an enormous surprise. 

Its a hard one.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 07, 2013, 07:23
Froome time is scary

It does not mean doping ( we need evidence more than our thoughts ) , but the results in cycling will probably mean another arms race.

I have said my piece 're froome , I am just waiting for the evidence.

My feeling is they are not doping as Wada code says, but the code will have to changed to included the x tech used by sky.

The excuse of weak field etc does not count for much now as froome would have been smashing it with generation epo.

Jumbled thoughts
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 07, 2013, 07:46
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/clean-performances-to-surpass-doped.html

Timely tucker blog 're clean beating doped times
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Mellow Velo on July 07, 2013, 09:07
Did you hear that froome went faster than Armstrong ullrich vino etc 03 and only a couple of seconds slower than Armstrong 01?

That's the info that truly shocked everyone. Anyway regarding ten dam and mollema why can't they also improve? You say you expected froome to beat them by a minute 20 s but presumably last year that would have been 30 s and the year before it would have been reverse and about 5 minutes. Cyclists change. Usually not as dramatically as froome and Porte but it's certainly possible that mollema and ten dam could also improve. In mollemas case he was quite a good climber always anyway and started cycling later than froome (so the he will become good later argument applies). They didn't just beat Contador afterall but also murito who last year was arguably the best climber in the world, Moreno, talansky, Evans, fuglsang etc

 I can't remember the exact circumstances of 2001, other than Roberto Laiseka winning.
 I shall have to dig the whole thing out of my library and watch again.

  2003 on the other hand, is hard to forget.
 Aix Trois was straight after the Cap Decouverte debacle, which saw a de-hydrated Armstrong crack completely in the extreme heat.
 The extreme heat persisted for this stage. Armstrong was sick, weakened and bluffing.
He had his team set a steady tempo all the away up the Col de Pailhères that meant there was a very big bunch at the top.
 

 Final climb: What did Ullrich, Vino et al do? Very little, a few accelerations, sit up and slow down.
 Finally, with 2kms or so to go did Ullrich and Vino ride away from Lance.

 So, this comparison at least, is a shoe that totally does not fit.

 
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: myth1908 on July 07, 2013, 09:26
I can't remember the exact circumstances of 2001, other than Roberto Laiseka winning.
 I shall have to dig the whole thing out of my library and watch again.

  2003 on the other hand, is hard to forget.
 Aix Trois was straight after the Cap Decouverte debacle, which saw a de-hydrated Armstrong crack completely in the extreme heat.
 The extreme heat persisted for this stage. Armstrong was sick, weakened and bluffing.
He had his team set a steady tempo all the away up the Col de Pailhères that meant there was a very big bunch at the top.
 

 Final climb: What did Ullrich, Vino et al do? Very little, a few accelerations, sit up and slow down.
 Finally, with 2kms or so to go did Ullrich and Vino ride away from Lance.

 So, this comparison at least, is a shoe that totally does not fit.
In 2001, Laiseka won from a breakaway. Armstrong came on 2nd after he attacked Ullrich.
These were the times on Ax 3 Domaines:
Laiseka      22:57 (2001)
Armstrong 22:59 (2001)
Froome      23:14 2013 (2013)
Giving the fact that it was epo era back then, and given the fact that both Armstrong are Laiseka are better, well..., Froome..., something smells.
oh, and here is the race from 2001 (90 minutes): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QJXabYTLp8
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 07, 2013, 09:36
It does not mean doping ( we need evidence more than our thoughts ) , but the results in cycling will probably mean another arms race.

I have said my piece 're froome , I am just waiting for the evidence.

My feeling is they are not doping as Wada code says, but the code will have to changed to included the x tech used by sky.

This is top level professional sport. You can be sure that everybody has the tips of their toes right up against the line....and of course some, like Di Luca, have been shown to have stepped over.

I'd agree that the line will need moving if riders are found to be adopting dubious techniques that give them an advantage.  At the moment it is 'if'. Nothing more.

Quote
The excuse of weak field etc does not count for much now as froome would have been smashing it with generation epo.

Jumbled thoughts

There is a massive problem with hypothetical comparisons and Mellow Velo's last post illustrates it perfectly. Unfortunately, easily digested alleged 'facts' such as 'faster ever TT/climb etc etc spread like wildfire on the internet and quickly become assumed truisms upon which new theories are built.

If the premises are shaky then so are the conclusions......although by sheer coincidence they may also be true ;)

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Havetts on July 07, 2013, 10:31
I wasnt too surprised today. Froome looked right on the rivet, Contador, Evans were both pretty poor.. Hell, Belkin filled two of the top 5 spots.. :fp

Why does it matter who you gain time on? Why cant the other guys improve like supposedly Cleany Chris did? Plus, it doesnt matter who you drop if you ride the climb faster than Armstrong did in 2001, so the argument that Froome brought forward that its only possible to do this in a non-doped era is stupid because he rode faster than Armstrong in 2001, he only lost time on the flat part at the end of the climb.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Mellow Velo on July 07, 2013, 10:41
 Well, If Myth's post is accurate, then we can see that he didn't climb it faster than Armstrong in 2001.

 The trouble with direct time comparisons are that there are a whole clutch of variables that cannot be factored in.
 Obvious with the 2003 ascent and also true of 2001.
 Folks will take what they want from the limited data available.
 Some accurate (non-forum) power stats would be preferable.


 Anyhow, I hear there's a race going on in the LC.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 07, 2013, 12:10
Why does it matter who you gain time on? Why cant the other guys improve like supposedly Cleany Chris did? Plus, it doesnt matter who you drop if you ride the climb faster than Armstrong did in 2001, so the argument that Froome brought forward that its only possible to do this in a non-doped era is stupid because he rode faster than Armstrong in 2001, he only lost time on the flat part at the end of the climb.
Because we're all trying to benchmark that performance. The :fp was a bit mean perhaps, but the point that the winning margin was so big because those riders who had been expected to finish between LTD /Mollema and Froome didn't perform, has some merit.

Personally, it stretched credibility but it's not a black and white thing.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on July 07, 2013, 12:22
Well, If Myth's post is accurate, then we can see that he didn't climb it faster than Armstrong in 2001.


No. He climbed it a couple of seconds slower. Would have been 3rd on that stage.

So what your saying is clean chris froome is a couple of seconds slower than Armstrong on a doping programme immune from drug test.

How fast would froome have gone if you put him on an doping programme then? Madone it would have been like watching 2009 Contador ride the Tour de Lavenir.  And that isnt hyperbole.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Kvinto on July 07, 2013, 14:43
Having Wiggo as a good example I tend to think that for the sheer sake of cycling Froome should be knighted in advance   :niceday
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Mellow Velo on July 07, 2013, 16:19
No. He climbed it a couple of seconds slower. Would have been 3rd on that stage.

So what your saying is clean chris froome is a couple of seconds slower than Armstrong on a doping programme immune from drug test.

How fast would froome have gone if you put him on an doping programme then? Madone it would have been like watching 2009 Contador ride the Tour de Lavenir.  And that isnt hyperbole.

No. I am not saying that.
I'm saying that the stage was raced quite differently and a different point in the event, so it isn't possible just to compare times to reach an accurate conclusion.

Oddly enough, I'm just catching up with last night's Avondetappe and it's the exact topic on the table.
With the same responses, too.



Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on July 07, 2013, 16:43
Firstly, im not making any comments about wether Froome is or is not doping, but for me, the idea of taking purely timings on climbs as some sort of evidence is borderline pointless.

First up:
Timings - Ive no idea who worked out the timings and decided Froome's time v Lance. Ive timed the climb from the exact point the climb officially starts and his climb time was 21m31 for the 7800 metres of climbing.  Armstrongs time for the same stretch based on a four minute gap when the leader hit the climb is approx 19m22, assuming a leaway of about a minute by the time Armstrongs group actually hit the climb, we can put Armstrongs time at a max of 20m22 (the comms ive seen claim teh gap was 3 minutes by the climb)

Tactics Armstrong started the day with a considerable lead over Ullrich, nearly five minutes, and did not attack on the climb till less than 1km from the summit. Froome attacked with more than 4km to go, and started the day seperated by only seconds from the other GC contenders.

Stage Position IN 2001 the stage was preceded by a mountain time trial, and a stage to Alpe d'Huez - in 2013 It was the first mountain stage after a relatively easy first week.

In short, to compare times for a climb, especially when innacurate, when there is a difference in tactics, a difference in position of the stage within the race, is utterly pointless and totally innacurate science.

This isnt a defence of Froome, this is an attack of pointless logic. We can possible look at climbing times over the entire three weeks, look at overall mountain performance, and then make judgement, but we cant make judgements over one stage.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on July 07, 2013, 16:48
... based on a four minute gap when Bartoli hit the climb is approx 19m22 ...

Bettini?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on July 07, 2013, 16:50
yeh, sorry, my bad, was writing, watching tweeting all at once.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on July 07, 2013, 16:53
yeh, sorry, my bad, was writing, watching tweeting all at once.

It's probably the Wimbledon influence, right?  :D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 07, 2013, 21:07
David Miller's blog in L'Equipe might pee a few people off  :D


http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Actualites/-on-a-montre-l-exemple/384270
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: KeithJamesMc on July 07, 2013, 21:49
David Miller's blog in L'Equipe might pee a few people off  :D
Why? It is great and spot on. I love #garmin for what they did today.

How do you beat the numbers and calculations of Sky?

You throw in a scenario that they hadn't planned for, of course.
And use collective team spirit and the will to try something different.
If not out innovate, at least confuse the opposition.
#garmin are effectively embracing guerilla warfare to beet the collective might of #sky
Even better is that they are saying to the rest of the peloton "Come and join in the fun in the Alps and lay waste to the Kerrison Spreadsheets"

But what #garmin exposed today is the low IQ and hubris of Froome.
- why did he put all his team into the red on the first climb?
- why did he try to block the road which resulted in his #3 SkyTrain Kennaugh in the ditch? The planned #3 Thomas is in a personal "broken hip" ditch trying best to help out, but not really that useful. His #4 Kiryenka has been eliminated. And #5 Lopez and #6 Siutso are suffering from a real drop in form. Did the spreadsheets not tell them that?
- but most importantly, the wish to do something different to the #tdf2012 proven model and be seen as more exciting than Wiggo is pathetic. Or, at least, when Kerrison and Brailsford sit down on the rest day and crunch the numbers, risky.

I am very confident that if #sky had Sean Yates in the car, Shane Sutton barking orders off the road and Mick Rogers barking orders on the road - none of this would have happened.

Now rather than having confidence that spreadsheets and scenario planning will work out, Brailsford and Kerrison are crossing their fingers.

I love that and thank you Vaughters and Wegelius and #garmin
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on July 07, 2013, 22:20
Riche Porte was barely tired giving an interview as he crossed the finish line yesterday after pacing Froome and then continuing on for second and today was dropped?

Froome didn't look troubled at all today?

Was it part of some elaborate plan?

This sport has produced so much unbelievable stuff in its history that anything is possible.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 07, 2013, 22:35
Why? It is great and spot on. I love #garmin for what they did today.

How do you beat the numbers and calculations of Sky?

You throw in a scenario that they hadn't planned for, of course.
And use collective team spirit and the will to try something different.
If not out innovate, at least confuse the opposition.
#garmin are effectively embracing guerilla warfare to beet the collective might of #sky
Even better is that they are saying to the rest of the peloton "Come and join in the fun in the Alps and lay waste to the Kerrison Spreadsheets"

But what #garmin exposed today is the low IQ and hubris of Froome.
- why did he put all his team into the red on the first climb?
- why did he try to block the road which resulted in his #3 SkyTrain Kennaugh in the ditch? The planned #3 Thomas is in a personal "broken hip" ditch trying best to help out, but not really that useful. His #4 Kiryenka has been eliminated. And #5 Lopez and #6 Siutso are suffering from a real drop in form. Did the spreadsheets not tell them that?
- but most importantly, the wish to do something different to the #tdf2012 proven model and be seen as more exciting than Wiggo is pathetic. Or, at least, when Kerrison and Brailsford sit down on the rest day and crunch the numbers, risky.

I am very confident that if #sky had Sean Yates in the car, Shane Sutton barking orders off the road and Mick Rogers barking orders on the road - none of this would have happened.

Now rather than having confidence that spreadsheets and scenario planning will work out, Brailsford and Kerrison are crossing their fingers.

I love that and thank you Vaughters and Wegelius and #garmin

I missed the first part of the race, but from what I understand Garmin put on the hurt from the word go, with Movistar taking over and Saxo sitting there but not doing much. I think Sky got murdered, with the exception of Froome who was pretty impressive.  Garmin got the stage but I don't think that was a Sky objective. I would have thought that Sky would have just wanted to maintain their lead going into the rest day.

It is strange that Porte blew. I don't buy all this tin-foil hat stuff about him feigning. Why would you feign your way off the podium and gc and isolate your leader?

But anyway, the point I was making about Millars blog is that it was a bit of a eulogy for Sky and their analytical approach.

I think we'll see a repeat of todays tactics day in day out in the Alps, and if Froome still sports the yellow in Paris, he'll have earned it.

Alberto is the dark horse.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: KeithJamesMc on July 07, 2013, 23:05
Quote
I missed the first part of the race, but from what I understand Garmin put on the hurt from the word go, with Movistar taking over and Saxo sitting there but not doing much. I think Sky got murdered, with the exception of Froome who was pretty impressive.  Garmin got the stage but I don't think that was a Sky objective. I would have thought that Sky would have just wanted to maintain their lead going into the rest day.
#tdf2012 sky got 1-2
#tdf2013 sky will not get 1-2

#garmin created anarchy. I think #movistar was happy with Porte being out of contention for the podium.
Quote
It is strange that Porte blew. I don't buy all this tin-foil hat stuff about him feigning. Why would you feign your way off the podium and gc and isolate your leader?
Porte blew because he was shagged from yesterday and Froome asked him to work too hard on the first climb. Perhaps, Froome was worried about Kennaugh crashing. Porte was not feigning he was trying for three climbs to get back on, but Movistar set a pace to keep him away.

For Porte this stage was a disaster for his market value.
Quote
But anyway, the point I was making about Millars blog is that it was a bit of a eulogy for Sky and their analytical approach.
I read it as more as the need to adopt different tactics to beat the analytical approach. I may be wrong. Wegelius designed the stage strategy and I suspect he is more tuned to the "social" side of the sport (ie teamwork) than the "scientific" side of the sport (ie Watts)
Quote
I think we'll see a repeat of todays tactics day in day out in the Alps, and if Froome still sports the yellow in Paris, he'll have earned it.
Agree and furthermore there will be partnerships between teams.
Quote
Alberto is the dark horse.
Alberto was never the dark horse. He was and still is #2 for yellow. I think the dark horse is Quintana.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on July 07, 2013, 23:09
I missed the first part of the race, but from what I understand Garmin put on the hurt from the word go, with Movistar taking over and Saxo sitting there but not doing much. I think Sky got murdered, with the exception of Froome who was pretty impressive.  Garmin got the stage but I don't think that was a Sky objective. I would have thought that Sky would have just wanted to maintain their lead going into the rest day.

It is strange that Porte blew. I don't buy all this tin-foil hat stuff about him feigning. Why would you feign your way off the podium and gc and isolate your leader?

But anyway, the point I was making about Millars blog is that it was a bit of a eulogy for Sky and their analytical approach.

I think we'll see a repeat of todays tactics day in day out in the Alps, and if Froome still sports the yellow in Paris, he'll have earned it.

Alberto is the dark horse.
A eulogy very possibly, but the fact is that the end of the day Froome is the riders in the yellow jersey and I would bet on him taking it all the way to Paris. So Sky win the Tour de France two consecutive years in a row, I don't think they will be abandoning their analytical approach anytime soon.

What was interesting to me was the rise of #movistar I have read quite a bit from them and especially a couple of interviews from Alex Dowsett where he said that there really hasn't been much difference between Sky and Movistar, Movistar indeed also are very prepared and are constantly furthering their science etc. So to me they seem to be second in that arms race behind #sky and the results certainly for them are paying off. Conversely #bmc who are all the way at the back of the arms race and present a much more relaxed, less sciency approach are currently epicly failing. It does tell you something about where the future of cycling is heading in my opinion. Of course as Saint David says quite correctly that is not all about where it is at as #movistar showed today. Sky are too much weighted in that direction maybe, but nevertheless analytical racing does seem to be where all the trumps cards are and so what #garmin wins a stage, but #sky are still in the ascendancy and that is basically what Millar says as far as I see. It can maybe provide you with an edge and edges are always welcome in Pro cycling but in the long run you need more than just an edge (that is a bit of my own spin on the whole matter)

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 07, 2013, 23:16
Quintana couldn't unstick Froome, and if he was softening him up for a vlvde attack...well that never came.

Quintana will be on the podium, if that I am sure. The lad isn't a bad tt'er
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on July 08, 2013, 02:13
I was disappointed that he likes of Valverde and Mollema and Contador didnt attack Froome on the last climb.

I guess they were totally on their limit, but after having done all the work to completely isolate Wiggins, if they had took turns at going off the front on that climb (and held their nerve at not chasing each other ... leaving Froome to do it), they could have made the most of the chaos that Garmin had caused.

Garmin - :win   :pray    I love them for what they did today.   That was awesome racing.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on July 08, 2013, 08:30
Millar in English this time:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/millar-sky-dont-deserve-to-have-mud-thrown-at-them-at-the-tour

Quote
Millar has become a strong voice in the anti-doping fight since serving his own two-year suspension in 2004 after he admitted to doping offences and says that while the current maillot jaune Chris Froome has talent that is "off the scale", the team could do more to satisfy the general public. Team Sky "don't deserve to have mud thrown at them," said Millar on Twitter believing the squad doesn’t help it’s cause by remaining tight-lipped on what seems to be the winning training formula.

"They could be more open and not be so defensive at times, but you have to understand we are a professional sport and we are competing against each other," said Millar to AFP. "It's one thing satisfying the sceptics, but it's also about being professional and wanting to win races.

"For them [Sky] it's very difficult, it's a tightrope they're walking, trying to be transparent, but also keeping their trade secrets, which are the (way they conduct their) training," he added.

Connections were made between Lance Armstrong’s dominance during the US Postal days in the wake of Froome and Richie Porte’s stunning 1-2 display at the Tour’s first summit finish but this must be looked at from within the current environment. The sport has changed, says the 36-year-old and that is a big point of difference.

"They race in a very similar way to the US Postal team, but you have to take into perspective the fact that the sport is different now.

"There is more control and greater transparency than then, so even if we are saying that Sky aren't transparent it's night and day compared to Postal.

"The general public don't know how the sport has changed and what Sky are actually doing. There is a massive difference between them and Postal," he added.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on July 08, 2013, 08:31
And Kimmage with Frankie about Sky..

Please Click (http://www.independent.ie/videos/sport/day-12-of-paul-kimmages-tour-de-france-diary-29401404.html)

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on July 08, 2013, 15:18
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on July 08, 2013, 15:35
And Kimmage with Frankie about Sky..

Please Click (http://www.independent.ie/videos/sport/day-12-of-paul-kimmages-tour-de-france-diary-29401404.html)



some interesting body language there, especially after he'd finished talking to Frankie. Kimmage looks like the little boy with no friends.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 08, 2013, 17:17
Its amazing how people feel the need to exaggerate when it comes to Sky. There is an example in Slow Riders post where he says 'Sky win every race they enter.'

Guess Sky didnt race any Classics this year then.  Or the Giro, or the...

So why the need to exaggerate? Dont the facts mean much on their own ? ;)

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on July 08, 2013, 18:20
some interesting body language there, especially after he'd finished talking to Frankie. Kimmage looks like the little boy with no friends.
Just a few months ago, Kimmage and Walsh couldn't put a step wrong.. now watching that video and thinking how things have changed.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 08, 2013, 18:55
I posted this vid in the Kimmage thread, not realising it was here, but really....

What an asshat Kimmage is. Andreu makes Kimmage look like the ejit he is, and all Kimmage can do is try and twist Andreu's words to imply something completely different to what Andrei meant.

Kimmage belongs in the Clinic, in cn forum, not in a serious newspaper. No wonder the guy can't get a job.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: KeithJamesMc on July 08, 2013, 20:04
Brailsford has just been interviewed on ITV4. The reason Sky hasn't joined the MPCC is because the Sky zero tolerance policy is stronger whereas the MPCC allows doped riders back after a period. He also said that there should not be a need for voluntary orgainsations ergo implying that UCI/WADA should adopt Sky's zero tolerance policy to riders and back office staff.

Kimmage was also interviewed seperately and said TUEs should be in the public domain.

Brailsford said he would support sending power data to independent experts to assess similar to Biological Passport panel.

Hmmm... just saying not commentating.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on July 08, 2013, 20:23
Just a few months ago, Kimmage and Walsh couldn't put a step wrong.. now watching that video and thinking how things have changed.

Sorry, what step did Kimmage put wrong?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on July 08, 2013, 20:24
Millar in English this time:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/millar-sky-dont-deserve-to-have-mud-thrown-at-them-at-the-tour

Millar on Contador 2 years ago.  Also in English

Quote
Alberto Contador is untouchable as rider, he is a physical freak and we in the peloton have known that for a long time and respect his supreme talent. I would be very surprised if he didn't end up as the greatest Grand Tour rider in the history of the sport. It’s a tragedy that he has got mixed up in this Clenbuterol thing but I am keeping an open mind on his case,” Millar told the Telegraph.

"Does anybody out there seriously doubt that Contador was riding clean in the Giro d'Italia that has just finished? You don't win the biggest races in the world with such clockwork regularity and comparative ease, and in such style, by not being the supreme talent and clean. In my experience the profile of a doper is always much more erratic and unpredictable.”

"The rest of us mere mortals have "magic days" when every so often when we can take on the world. Contador's default setting is a "Magic day". His only departure from the norm is when he experiences merely an average day. They are the only two levels he rides at. My strong instinct is to trust that."


Out the window goes any value one can attach to David Millar calling people clean.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: KeithJamesMc on July 08, 2013, 20:28
Sorry, what step did Kimmage put wrong?
I watched the video and I didn't think of anything strange.

It just seemed like two mates having a chat and ribbing each other.

They didn't agree 100% but that is perfectly normal.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Havetts on July 08, 2013, 20:36
I watched the video and I didn't think of anything strange.

It just seemed like two mates having a chat and ribbing each other.

They didn't agree 100% but that is perfectly normal.

My thoughts exactly. Standard situation where friends dont agree with each other, cool down seperately and joke about the argument. Not sure how this concludes Kimmage is an incompetent journalist lol
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 08, 2013, 20:40
Garmin

  :D

But actually, your post is a non sequitur and nothing to do with mine, certainly not an answer. I'm talking about why people need to exagerrate....not asking for a guess that Sky are doping which would render their ztp hypocritical.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on July 08, 2013, 20:40

It is amusing how peoples hate of sky has become so great that they now champion Valverde and Contador, two banned dopers as the saviours.


Presumably you have some examples of people accusing sky and saying Valverde and Contador are "the saviours"?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 08, 2013, 20:41
Have a really close look at where the video is published....
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Havetts on July 08, 2013, 20:48
Garmin

  :D

But actually, your post is a non sequitur and nothing to do with mine, certainly not an answer. I'm talking about why people need to exagerrate....not asking for a guess that Sky are doping which would render their ztp hypocritical.



My response wasnt aimed at anything directly, else I wouldve quoted the person I was responding to. Exaggerating (sp?) is part of human nature, make your arguments more "powerful" and dramatic. But I guess that question is rhetorical.

But the only stage race Froome didnt win was Tirreno Adriatico. The classics were a fluke, they were dominated by Cancellara, Cancellara was talked about a lot, thats what you get for winning races so dominantly and crushingly. This is what happened this season with Froome and Nibali. One gets shot at and isnt really defended, Ferrari client et al. The other one is shot at and shouldnt be allowed in the line of fire, why have that double standard? Wiggins won every stage race he entered bar Volta a Algarve last year, Froome did the same this year but with Tirreno as an exception, how is that not utterly dominating the races? How is that not a point people can criticize, it isnt exaggerated when people say Sky wins every race they enter, because besides the classics they DO win almost ALL the races they enter.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 08, 2013, 20:54
Ah yes, I get what you are saying.

Sky win all races they enter.

Except for the ones they don't.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Havetts on July 08, 2013, 21:00
Ah yes, I get what you are saying.

Sky win all races they enter.

Except for the ones they don't.



No that is not my point. My point is if you do win so much races, you are a valid target for questions. Thats the reason I brought up Cancellara, thats the reason I brought up Nibali. Look at 2011, OPQS in the classics. They got targeted by questions because they were so dominant. Did you hear anyone complain about that? Even überbelgian Il Grillo realized its completely logical to question OPQS.

Valverde is nicknamed El Imbatido, the Unbeatable, because he destroyed everyone in the youth races. He won everything, went (almost) undefeated to his pro career, yet he has been the target of questions. He is involved in Puerto, eventhough he sturdily denies he is not. His team is surpreme on one stage, they get questions. Simple.

Then why shouldnt Sky be questioned? It wasnt even my point that its all about Sky. It was that if you dominate cycling in the path you specialize so heavily in, where other mega talented riders are, where known dopers are, where suspected dopers are, why is Sky not able to be questioned?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 08, 2013, 21:09
I think you might be answering a question I didn't ask and veering off on a tangent.

I'm all in favour of everybody being questioned, what I don't have any time for are arguments built up on a whole bunch of exagerrated premises (and to be clear, I'm not accusing you of this). Let the facts speak...don't try and exagerrate them into something else.

Regarding the claim that Sky win everything they enter, did you realise you then narrowed it down to Froome?

See what I mean? Sky does not equal Froome. It is very clear that the proposition 'Sky win everything they enter' is not true, and it I unf#ir of you to then try to exclude examples that don't suit your argument.

Ask yourself....of all the GTs that Sky have entered, how many did they win? All of them???

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on July 08, 2013, 21:21
Im generalising, and talking about the world outside this place, twitter, facebook, comments pages of news articles etc.

I know a few disilusioned Contador fans who's reaction to Contador not winning is to go hard after Sky on the doping.

I don't however recall any of them saying contador was the saviour of cycling. And i know most of them accepted some time ago that Contador was a doper.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Slow Rider on July 08, 2013, 22:11
Its amazing how people feel the need to exaggerate when it comes to Sky. There is an example in Slow Riders post where he says 'Sky win every race they enter.'

Guess Sky didnt race any Classics this year then.  Or the Giro, or the...

So why the need to exaggerate? Dont the facts mean much on their own ? ;)

Have a look at my post:
But perhaps, just perhaps, could it have something to do with the fact that they win every single flipping stage race they enter? Had Valverde won Oman, Criterium International, Romandie, Dauphiné and was halfway through winning the Tour, don't you think there would be some threads on him?

The fact is, Froome won every single stage race he entered this year but one: Tirreno, where he finished second to Nibali only on the strength of the latter's descending. That fact does indeed mean plenty on its own.

More importantly though, you completely ignore the main argument of my post by focusing on this one exaggeration, distracting the discussion from the actual content towards non-arguments about whether people exaggerate more or less when it concerns Sky.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 08, 2013, 22:25
My post was entirely about people exagerrating, nothing more, and I cited your post as an example of that. You've just tacitly admitted it was an exagerration. Job done.

Now I could go off and find plenty more examples of the kind of thing I'm talking about. CN is a hotbed of it. What I'm getting at is the psychological process people go through of making an exagerrated proposition, which then gets used by others as a precept and soon becomes a truism, repeated as fact.

Let's be clear. I'm not having a dig at you. Yours was a very mild-mannered example that just happened to be on hand.

Now, we could have an entirely separate discussion of Froomes very recent success, and I would agree that he has been phenomenal. More so than Wiggins, as I think he is a true hard nut despite his unfortunate gawky appearance. He could be many things...phenomenal athlete or phenomenal doper are just two of them.



Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Slow Rider on July 08, 2013, 22:28
Im generalising, and talking about the world outside this place, twitter, facebook, comments pages of news articles etc.

Are those people honestly saying that Contador and Valverde are the saviours of clean cycling for fighting a doped up Team Sky? Or do they think the Spanish are saviours of cycling because they attack a boring and too dominant Team Sky? Again, there are plenty of reasons not to like Sky, and darkside issues are only a small part of that.

And if people do really believe Contador and Valverde are valiant knights of clean cycling who defeat an EPO-fueled evil Sky Empire on a diet of only water and bread, then you may need to reconsider whether those people are worth your time arguing with.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Havetts on July 08, 2013, 22:43
I think you might be answering a question I didn't ask and veering off on a tangent.

I'm all in favour of everybody being questioned, what I don't have any time for are arguments built up on a whole bunch of exagerrated premises (and to be clear, I'm not accusing you of this). Let the facts speak...don't try and exagerrate them into something else.

Regarding the claim that Sky win everything they enter, did you realise you then narrowed it down to Froome?

See what I mean? Sky does not equal Froome. It is very clear that the proposition 'Sky win everything they enter' is not true, and it I unf#ir of you to then try to exclude examples that don't suit your argument.

Ask yourself....of all the GTs that Sky have entered, how many did they win? All of them???

Okay. So lets look at GTs from 2010 on.

2010
Giro: Liquigas - Basso.
Tour: Radioshack - Andy Schleck.    ( dont start this discussion, im going with the official results ;) )
Vuelta: Liquigas - Nibali.

2011
Giro: Lampre - Scarponi.
Tour: BMC - Evans.
Vuelta: Geox - JJ Cobo.

2012:
Giro: Garmin - Hesjedal.
Tour: Sky - Wiggins.
Vuelta: Saxo Bank - Contador.

2013: Nibali - Astana.

---------
So. There is one team, that won more than one Grand Tour over the last three years. It is not an argument to say "He's clean, he's dirty". But if you want to go there; Liquigas: Pellizotti and Nibali are spotted training together with Dr Ferrari following them on a bicycle. Questionable. Then Pelizotti has his blood passport case, suspended. Then we have our good old friend Birillo. That nickname alone should set off alarms.  So the only team and only rider, besides Contador with his suspension, who have/has won more than one GT has suspicions above their heads.

Does that acquit Sky because they haven't won more than one GT? No it doesnt, its not a good argument, in fact its quite weak if you ask me. Its weak for both sides of the argument as winning GTs alone shouldnt be a reason to be guilty.


My question to you: What do you reckon is Sky's main focus; their stage race team or their classics squad. Which part does sky focus on and do you feel theyre equally important to Sky? Or is one of them an afterthought?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on July 09, 2013, 00:21
Worth  a listen

Ross from ScienceofSport
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: LukasCPH on July 09, 2013, 05:32
Froome's non-published TDF power output (http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/07/froomes-non-published-tdf-power-output.html)
Interesting thoughts by the very same (may be the same stuff as what he says in the podcast, I haven't listened to it yet).
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: myth1908 on July 09, 2013, 07:41
And Kimmage with Frankie about Sky..

Please Click (http://www.independent.ie/videos/sport/day-12-of-paul-kimmages-tour-de-france-diary-29401404.html)

all i could hear was bla bla bla bla bla bla, froome doped, bla bla bla, don't take his word for it, bla bla bla bla this performance is inhuman. nothing's gonna change my mind about it.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Mellow Velo on July 09, 2013, 09:22
all i could hear was bla bla bla bla bla bla, froome doped, bla bla bla, don't take his word for it, bla bla bla bla this performance is inhuman. nothing's gonna change my mind about it.

 In fairness, Kimmage doesn't say a whole lot, other than he was flat, cos the Tour was over-which we now know isn't the case.
Mostly it's Andreu pointing out the obvious: that you can't simply compare times
because of the racing variables.
 An example posted elsewhere, is the two semi finals of the Olympic 1500 metres. Same track, same conditions, one race 10 seconds faster than the other.

 Has Paul made a diary entry after Sunday's stage? Presumably, he's perked up again.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 09, 2013, 09:42
The 'flat' bit is the part I take issue with. After setting the context of doped performances, by discussing doped performances, Kimmage brings up Andreu's earlier pre-interview statement that he felt 'flat'. Andreu is clearly aware of the contextual spin Kimmage is attempting, and he tries to squash it by saying that he is flat because he thinks the Tour is possibly won already. Kimmage tries to stop Andreu from uttering this rationale, because Kimmage wants this out-of-context opinion to be seen in the context of the rest of the discussion...doping.

Now, that is all fine and well, unless you purport to be a serious journalist. Remember, also, that this video is hosted on Kimmage's newspaper blog page. If Kimmage had anything useful to say, he wouldn't need to resort to stunts like this.

Kimmage is in the luxurious position of only ever being able to be proved right. He can never be proved wrong, which is why if he wants to be considered a serious journalist of integrity he should do what Walsh is doing...keep quiet until there is something to say.

If he can't then he should stick to Internet forums.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Mellow Velo on July 09, 2013, 12:53
 I think you'd have to be a pretty ardent Sky fan to not have felt a bit flat,
after Saturday. It certainly looked then that the contest was going to be
an even more one sided affair than last year.
 I certainly felt "lifted" by much of Sunday's turn of events.

I'm a bit meh about trying to read too much into this report.
Let's face it, if Kimmage and Andreu are going to play good cop, bad cop
with Sky, there's only one casting.
As the bad cop, Kimmage wasn't so bad.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 09, 2013, 13:12
I'm very pleased with the turn of events. It is going to be an almighty war, with the likely winner being either Froome or somebody sitting quietly in the wings.

As for the 'flat' stuff, context is key. I don't care what Kimmage says, but he is allegedly a journalist, and this casts him in a bad light.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on July 09, 2013, 13:18
In fairness, Kimmage doesn't say a whole lot, other than he was flat, cos the Tour was over-which we now know isn't the case.
Mostly it's Andreu pointing out the obvious: that you can't simply compare times
because of the racing variables.
 An example posted elsewhere, is the two semi finals of the Olympic 1500 metres. Same track, same conditions, one race 10 seconds faster than the other.

There are 2 things to say to that. 1st of all in your semi final analogy it was the entire semi final (all competitors) who were affected by the speed.

In this Froome case however he was the ONLY one who went fast. The conditions do not suggest it was a particularly favorable day for a fast ascent because everyone else finished way down. Only Froome was able to challenge Armstrongs time.

Second of all the problem is 1 of the big arguments fed down our throats since 2011 has been how the times have been slower. This wasnt even true last year since Peyresoudes was climbed just as fast by wiggins froome nibali as by Contador and Rasmussen but its been repeated ad nauseum on all platforms.

So when Froome rides a mountain that fast it is very significant because it smashes that defence out of the water. and anyone who said that times were slower is being a massive hypocrite if they dont now say it is suspicious.
                                                                                             
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Flo on July 09, 2013, 14:01
@larry twit pic I can't quote

15.40 the moment I lost the last bit of respect for Froome I had left
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on July 09, 2013, 14:08
@larry twit pic I can't quote

15.40 the moment I lost the last bit of respect for Froome I had left

Florry, assuming you're talking about embedding a tweet, give me the link to the status.

For example:

https://twitter.com/vamosalberto/status/354576267007377410
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Flo on July 09, 2013, 14:12
Florry, assuming you're talking about embedding a tweet, give me the link to the status.

For example:

https://twitter.com/vamosalberto/status/354576267007377410

No larry my post was a quote of your post but it was a lot of code so I removed the quote.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on July 09, 2013, 14:30
No larry my post was a quote of your post but it was a lot of code so I removed the quote.

its because larri used html and members cant use html. At some point i will build a twitter bbcode
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 09, 2013, 21:01
Also I think the other teams get an easier 'ride' because they're not declaring to the world that they invented the wheel on a daily basis.

Neither are Sky
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 09, 2013, 21:09
Well you tell me.

What have they said today? You did say daily basis.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 09, 2013, 21:25
Ok we should take this to a Sky thread and not the Movistar one.

Today in an interview(not sure if it was from today or yesterday though) Froome said "we eat better now" so Sky eat all the right and correct food and riders on other teams are loading up on fries and burgers etc?

It was yesterday. He said this:

"Everyone knows that cycling has changed. That's clear. The training and the diet have evolved"

I really don't know how you arrived at the conclusion you did, and I think that if you are honest you will admit that.

By all means, be sceptical. I am too. But the constant exagerration and misquoting/misinterpretation that we get when it comes to Sky doesn't help anyone, and I mean that in the kindest, non-inflammatory way.




Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 09, 2013, 22:57
You've gone for the carpet bombing technique in that post. Lob in everything in the hope that one of them hits  :D

I'm trying to focus on specifics here, otherwise it is hard to maintain a coherent discussion.

Nevertheless, you make some very valid points, some of which I agree with, and the ones I don't I'm happy to discuss. I'm going to have to bow out for now, though, as my bed is calling me. I think we'll have to reconvene on another thread, though, as this one is about Movistar.

Goodnight!
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 10, 2013, 07:16
Byop you know where I stand on all of this ......

In the sport of cycling who are the clean legends ? LeMond , maybe and ummmm ..... ?



Riders who did not dope but finished 167th in the tour maybe legends in the eyes of Twitter but cycling legends nope. Now perhaps they should have stfu , but Armstrong is a cycling legend , asswhole etc but a legend as it Marco , Jan etc as far a your eye looks at records they're all *, except LeMond and I am on the fence.

Also as a rider Armstrong is very important as your pay checklist way better.

So perhaps best to say nothing but then you get called out for that,

Anyway a bit off topic but the sky riders in many respects would still thank Armstrong, pay checks , amount of fans etc

Just wanted to play devils lawyer
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 10, 2013, 09:31
I think that is a very pragmatic view and one I tend to agree with.

The problem with the Internet discussions and Armstrong is that he has become the new Godwin meme. Mentioning Armstrong elicits a frankly hysterical response from people, who then try to beat you round the head with it if you don't condemn him as some kind if incarnate Satan.

At least on the Internet. Out in the real world, as you say, the people involved in the sport know full well the difference pre and post Armstrong in terms of pay, and potential pay. Regardless of how Armstrong got there, they all know that during his reign he brought in massive exposure and with that, money. That is why there is a reluctance by many pros to parrot out what Armstrongs Internet forum critics want them to say. Coupled with that is the hypocrisy of pretending that he was the only guy doing this. He wasn't. They all were. He just happened to win, and win to the extent that the lies had to match the enormity of his success.

Now that always gets the hysterics jumping up and down and slinging what they consider to be the ultimate insult of 'Armstrong fanboy'.  These people should be ignored,  not only because they are idiots, but primarily because their demonization of this individual is preventing the truth coming out. Doping didnt start with Armstrong, and it didnt end with him.

The irony of this is that, personally, I stopped watching the TdF during 2000-2005 as I couldn't bear Armstrong and his Texan bullsh*t. I'm well aware of what an odious person he is, and his efforts to smash people into silence. I'm glad he's gone. He should never be allowed near the sport, but then I'd extend that to all convicted dopers. Valverde, Millar, Contador included.

Which brings us to this ridiculous attempt to judge current riders by their attitude to Armstrong, as if denouncing him on stage is proof of anything except hypocrisy.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: kabloemski on July 10, 2013, 11:33
Also as a rider Armstrong is very important as your pay checklist way better.

So perhaps best to say nothing but then you get called out for that,

Anyway a bit off topic but the sky riders in many respects would still thank Armstrong, pay checks , amount of fans etc

Spot on JSG!

http://touch.dailymotion.com/video/x22rmr_abba-money-money-money_music
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on July 10, 2013, 18:10
Byop you know where I stand on all of this ......

In the sport of cycling who are the clean legends ? LeMond , maybe and ummmm ..... ?



Riders who did not dope but finished 167th in the tour maybe legends in the eyes of Twitter but cycling legends nope. Now perhaps they should have stfu , but Armstrong is a cycling legend , asswhole etc but a legend as it Marco , Jan etc as far a your eye looks at records they're all *, except LeMond and I am on the fence.

Also as a rider Armstrong is very important as your pay checklist way better.

So perhaps best to say nothing but then you get called out for that,

Anyway a bit off topic but the sky riders in many respects would still thank Armstrong, pay checks , amount of fans etc

Just wanted to play devils lawyer

You dont make a great devil's lawyer ;)

Cycling has become popular despite Armstrong not because.

To praise a dope and a cheat can only mean 1 thing, that you dont have a problem with the method of doping and cheating as one is using the same method.

Sky riders lambasted Landis for coming clean, not because he was damaging the sport, how much more damaged can a sport be, the general public already thought they all doped anyway so why lambast Landis, because he was breaking the golden rule of cycling 'never spit in the soup'.

Bike sales are on the increase yet sponsorship is down in the sport. They can thank the doping for that.

Sky are doing what all the big teams have done down find an edge and push it to the maximum. I would hazard a guess that they have UCI/ASO in their back pockets with a standard doping program. That they have exclusive rights with UCI/ASO seems to be the order of the day lightly sprinkled with whatever chemical they have chosen.

Will we find out how they won 2 TdFs and possibily more, I guess we will, we have always done, some times it takes longer than others, but someone always spills the beans.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Havetts on July 10, 2013, 18:57
Bahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaahahhaa. You can't expect anyone to take this serious, right?

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/news/the-story-of-brailsfords-froome-discovery-dates-back-to-2006_294574

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 10, 2013, 19:23
Have a read of cycling news report of the 2006 Commonwealth Games...

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/mar06/commgames06/?id=results/men_rr

Quote
time-trial revelation Chris Froome


Here is the relevant section of the TT report:

Quote
The first of 72 riders off recorded an impressive time which made a mockery of his ranking for the event. Kenyan Christopher Froome stopped the clock in 53.58.01, a time which kept him on top of the standings for almost an hour as the next forty-nine starters failed to better his effort! Kiwi Logan Hutchings was next to impress, lowering the time to beat by two minutes, but his hopes of a gold medal were short lived when the next rider home, Paul Manning (England) came in faster.

So if cycling news noticed Froome, why not Brailsford?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on July 10, 2013, 20:26
Why is Paul Manning not winning GTs  :fail
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on July 10, 2013, 20:31
Why is Paul Manning not winning GTs  :fail

Because like Wiggins, he was a track rider, mainly in the Pursuit. Im guessing in '06 for the commonwealth's he had access to one of Boardmans supermachines. Froome meanwhile was riding a steel frame with shifters on the downtube.. ;)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on July 10, 2013, 20:44
Because like Wiggins, he was a track rider, mainly in the Pursuit. Im guessing in '06 for the commonwealth's he had access to one of Boardmans supermachines. Froome meanwhile was riding a steel frame with shifters on the downtube.. ;)

I knew it Sky/BC are doping the bikes, its not the riders at all.........
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on July 10, 2013, 21:56
Have a read of cycling news report of the 2006 Commonwealth Games...

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/mar06/commgames06/?id=results/men_rr


Here is the relevant section of the TT report:

So if cycling news noticed Froome, why not Brailsford?

They noticed he existed. His parents probably noticed he existed 20 years before that. Doesn't mean they thought he would one day become a contender for best gt rider of all time.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 10, 2013, 22:00
Contender for best gt rider of all time?

Remind me, how many has he won so far?

(Clue: its a round number)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on July 10, 2013, 22:13
The title greatest gt rider of all time is ambiguous. It could mean who won the most gts, but it could also mean, who's one off gt form was the greatest.  Eg  Rasmussen 2007 vs Merckx 1969. Froome's never won a gt but he is 10 times the rider of Nibali who has won 2 and Menchov who (still) has 3.

Also it is not that out of this world to suggest that the guy who has been the best gt rider of the last 3 years, has the biggest lead for this stage of the TDF in well over a decade ( and that was a breakaway) and who with the exception of 1 tiny blipp has won every race he has targeted in 6 months, is  well on his way to becoming a contender for that title.

Anyway Since i have no interests in back and forth over semantics, ill just rephrase:

Quote
They noticed he existed. His parents probably noticed he existed 20 years before that. Doesn't mean they thought he would one day be outclimb and out tt for minutes every other contender at the Tour de France.

The point stands. To highlight a mandatory mention in a 7 year old report into a u23 race as a sign that CN noticed his talent is a massive stretch.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 10, 2013, 22:23
They clearly noticed his talent, otherwise they wouldn't have referred to him as 'time-trial revelation' and devoted a whole paragraph to him.

It is you attempting to extrapolate this to 'contender for greatest gt rider of all time', not CN, nor David Brailsford.

Finally, I don't think you will convince anybody that a man who has never won a GT is a contender for 'greatest GT rider of all time'. It isn't that ambiguous. I think he probably needs to win at least eleven first.

You have heard of Eddy Merckx, haven't you?

Hardly semantics. 11 vs 0.

Besides, you've revised your post, and yes...you are quite right, it doesn't mean that they thought he would get ahead in a GT, but who said that they did?

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on July 10, 2013, 22:34
Maybe he got a paragraph devoted to him somewhere else but in the quote you gave he got 1 sentence and he was mentioned just the once.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 10, 2013, 22:42
He got half a paragraph, but the length doesn't matter, the content does. The other quote about him being a revelation comes from the road race report. I think the word 'revelation' says it all. He clearly got himself noticed

My original post was in reply to Havetts who seemed to be ridiculing the notion that Froome was noticed at the CW 2006 games. I've posted the Cycling news reports as unequivocal proof that he was noticed.

End of really, isn't t.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on July 11, 2013, 01:34
settle down guys.

trying to on-up each other isnt going to happen anymore.

Talk about the topic (ie when Chris Froome developed his talent) ... not what each of you said when.

thanks
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: lancasterke on July 11, 2013, 10:02
at the vuelta '11 i was delighted initially that there was a british cyclist who could climb and attack.

i did remember him from his barloworld days but wondered what he'd been doing in the interim.

i don't ever remember him being discussed as a future champion (in the manner that wilco kelderman, bauke mollema, diego ullissi, eddy boss, thomas dekker, G thomas,  Quintana, Sicard, tjvg etc etc have been on CN forums).

from my (non scientific) experience of all sports i follow many youngsters are touted as the future champion best ever, most don't make it. the champions that do make it almost always have spent there life dominating at pretty much every level. (as an aside i'd compare wilkinson and cipriani in rugby, both were the future of international rugby from the age of about 16, one has had a great career, one has been a talented but underperforming journeyman pro; or in football wayne rooney and jermaine defoe again both touted from a young age broke all sorts of records, played premiership young etc, but one became an england star, the other is a good level pro).
very rarely do the stars and champions of maturity, come from the group of guys not touted as the future of all things good. I'm not saying that it never happens (kurt warner in the nfl, tom brady in the nfl, possibly you could say didier drogba) , but it's rare that sportspeople are good but not great at 24 and brilliant at 26 without a reason.

in froome's favour african cycling is less well covered than european cycling (but i've heard lots of chat about dan teklahaimot (sp?), daryl impey, adrien niyonshuti, reinart janse van rensburg, john-lee augustyn so it's not zero coverage).
the other thing that might explain it would be illness/allergies etc which again are possible.
finally late bloomer a la kurt warner.

the career trajectory of chris froome is strikingly different, both in results and level of hype from his current competitors (valverde, contador, quintana, mollema, (at the tour) and nibali)

the current cyclist who's late blooming career best matches froome is rodriguez (i think) but even he aged 23 won a stage of paris nice and a stage of the vuelta and 26th overall, and now is deeply flawed as a GC contender.

this is just my thoughts but i find froome's career trajectory weird. not impossible. just weird.

the fact that he is currently doing what contador did at his doped peak to contador and valverde makes me think that he is dirty. i'm not sure in my own mind he's dirty but to put it the other way, i've very little confidence that froome is clean.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 11, 2013, 10:13
I'd agree. I think his trajectory is not typical. I also think his performances are exceptional.

He might be doping, or he might not. I'm open minded. But what we don't need are the hysterical overreactions and exaggerations of his feats. It really doesn't add any value.

Any claim (from both sides) needs to be examined calmly and clinically (no pun intended).
For sure, the vitriol that seems to occur on some forums is both childish and unneccesary.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on July 11, 2013, 10:58

For sure, the vitriol that seems to occur on some forums is both childish and unneccesary.

Where is this vitriol you speak of? I haven't seen much of it here.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 11, 2013, 11:08
I said 'some forums', not 'this forum'.

'This forum' is refreshingly free of it, and I'd hope that people can continue to hold differing views with recourse to childishness.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on July 11, 2013, 11:22
We need not concern ourselves with what has been said on other forums unless that adds something of genuine value to the thread.

Please make your case with specifics rather than vague allusions to things unseen or otherwise diaphanous.

(http://www.therecycler.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/crystal-ball.jpg)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 11, 2013, 11:58
I'm hoping that what it adds is a reminder that inflammatory topics can be discussed in a pleasant way, with differing views maintained, provided that people holding those views work at it by not behaving disrespectfully.

I'm sure that is what we all want, isn't it?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on July 11, 2013, 13:50
I'm hoping that what it adds is a reminder that inflammatory topics can be discussed in a pleasant way, with differing views maintained, provided that people holding those views work at it by not behaving disrespectfully.

I'm sure that is what we all want, isn't it?

Don't worry about it. :) We can all continue to post respectfully without turning threads into head-to-head discussions and just leave any decisions about what is inflammatory to the moderators. Please carry on, folks!
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 11, 2013, 14:10
Carry on?

Ag just told us to stop!  :D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on July 11, 2013, 14:16
settle down guys.

trying to on-up each other isnt going to happen anymore.

Talk about the topic (ie when Chris Froome developed his talent) ... not what each of you said when.

thanks

actually AG said carry on ... but about the topic    :D  :D  :D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 11, 2013, 14:36
Ok, so as I was saying......

Regarding Havetts velonews link concerning Froome being noticed at the 06 Commonwealth Games, there is some documented evidence to support this in the form of Cyclingnews reports (links posted previously)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: doolols on July 11, 2013, 15:06
I wonder if a lot of the animosity that people feel towards Sky, especially Wiggins and Froome, is because they haven't had the traditional European career, winning a minor race here and there, a stage of a GT occasionally, gradually improving.

I remember when Wiggins won last year, I kept reading semi-hysterical rants about him coming from nowhere. Obviously, Wiggins has had a long and illustrious cycling career, especially on the track. Watch the Wiggins style, it's the steady tempo riding used with success on the boards, and last year's parcours suited him with the long time trials, after which his team doggedly defended him against all-comers.

Now again, we have Froome who has come from "nowhere" to be a GT contender / winner maybe, when in fact he's been prominent for some years, but not via the 'traditional' route.

Something I read a few days ago put forward the idea that Sky have been working on non-doping performance enhancement for years (on track and off), and yet most other pro tour teams have put all their efforts into doping-related developments. Without doping and other illegal enhancement, they are a year or two behind Sky / BC with their performance developments. This seems possible, to me. Maybe Sky are able to boost blood performance without doping / transfusing? Or maybe they're using methods and products which will be banned in years to come?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 11, 2013, 15:24
All those things are possible.

In a nutshell, the sceptics think the (slight) performance edge over competitors that is needed for a win cannot be down to training. They might be right, but they might also be wrong. I think we will be able to make a clearer judgement in a couple of years when Sky is old enough to have lost more riders to other teams and training methods leak out.( or, indeed, doping methods)

I will say two things. There have been some non-Sky riders who have commented on Sky's training methods with amazement, in a positive way. One of them was David Millar, and of course there will be those that don't regards anything he says as having any value or integrity.

The other thing I will say is that Sandro Donati wrote a very interesting piece about the EPO years, and one of the most striking comments was that he found that EPO made riders lazy in their training.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on July 11, 2013, 20:04
I wonder if a lot of the animosity that people feel towards Sky, especially Wiggins and Froome, is because they haven't had the traditional European career, winning a minor race here and there, a stage of a GT occasionally, gradually improving.

I remember when Wiggins won last year, I kept reading semi-hysterical rants about him coming from nowhere. Obviously, Wiggins has had a long and illustrious cycling career, especially on the track. Watch the Wiggins style, it's the steady tempo riding used with success on the boards, and last year's parcours suited him with the long time trials, after which his team doggedly defended him against all-comers.

Now again, we have Froome who has come from "nowhere" to be a GT contender / winner maybe, when in fact he's been prominent for some years, but not via the 'traditional' route.

Something I read a few days ago put forward the idea that Sky have been working on non-doping performance enhancement for years (on track and off), and yet most other pro tour teams have put all their efforts into doping-related developments. Without doping and other illegal enhancement, they are a year or two behind Sky / BC with their performance developments. This seems possible, to me. Maybe Sky are able to boost blood performance without doping / transfusing? Or maybe they're using methods and products which will be banned in years to come?

Froome was prominant a few years climbing with the help of motorbikes in the Giro, hanging on to them ;)

Myths abound. Wiggins has been racing in europe since 2002, Froome with Barloworld 5 years ago. Some pros barely last 2 or 3 years. Froome was heading that way till the amazing jump to the podium of La Vuelta. Totally unforseen by everyone, even his team who were losing interest in him.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on July 11, 2013, 22:57
I wonder if a lot of the animosity that people feel towards Sky, especially Wiggins and Froome, is because they haven't had the traditional European career, winning a minor race here and there, a stage of a GT occasionally, gradually improving.

I remember when Wiggins won last year, I kept reading semi-hysterical rants about him coming from nowhere. Obviously, Wiggins has had a long and illustrious cycling career, especially on the track. Watch the Wiggins style, it's the steady tempo riding used with success on the boards, and last year's parcours suited him with the long time trials, after which his team doggedly defended him against all-comers.

Now again, we have Froome who has come from "nowhere" to be a GT contender / winner maybe, when in fact he's been prominent for some years, but not via the 'traditional' route.

You are trying to make a black and white issue look ambiguous by rephrasing it . Froome had perhaps the most insane  transformation ever. Ever. He was average at best before August 2011, then overnight became the best rider in the world. At the age of 26.

Its not a question of people having animosity towards him.  Its simple logic to scratch ones head over a rider mysteriously catapulting out of the bottle carrier role to beating the worlds best gt riders by minutes on both mountains and tts.

And even people who dont question froome dont seem to have a problem with this in other cases. EG The bbc said that people should have known armstrong was doped  because he wasnt a gt rider before 1999. Half the British media including the BBC and the Daily Fail publicly accused olympic 1500m champion Taolik Makhloufi of doping because they didnt have him down as a favourite before the event. Kittel accused Mustafa Sayer of doping for the same reasons. Universal sports accused quintana who they thought had never won a race before Pais Vasco. Kwiatkowski is getting some of the same treatment now etc.

Quote
Something I read a few days ago put forward the idea that Sky have been working on non-doping performance enhancement for years (on track and off), and yet most other pro tour teams have put all their efforts into doping-related developments. Without doping and other illegal enhancement, they are a year or two behind Sky / BC with their performance developments. This seems possible, to me. Maybe Sky are able to boost blood performance without doping / transfusing? Or maybe they're using methods and products which will be banned in years to come?


The bit about other teams being too reliant on doping   was started by Bailsford last year and is most notable for shockingly liberal "assume they are all doing it" attitude  to doping that Bailsford and the sky fans claim to oppose.

Not to mention its very flawed. So all teams invested heavily in doping until 2011? Then overnight they stopped? For no reason. And sky allegedly opposed to doping the whole time, presumably the only team if they have such an advantage (what about garmin) have this advantage? Over everyone. Really?

Anyway i read somewhere that Anti doping does not just talk about specific drugs and practices that already exist but also alludes to ones that may be discovered in the future that clearly cause health risks. Also what practise could they possibly have sole access to and manage to keep it a secret for 2 years?

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: DinZ on July 12, 2013, 00:26
But the problem is every time anyone offers an explanation for why froome improved and to give examples of the fact that the improvement is not nearly as great as people are claiming are just ignored or you respond with well that is what someone who is doping would say. ignoring the fact that it is obviously what someone who is not doping would also say.

You have decided that Froome is doping and sky are the new evil and no amount of logic will convince you otherwise.

you are still churning out the same lines you were a year ago despite loads of stuff posted in that time that show that 'your viewpoint' (yes it is your viewpoint despite the way you through it around like it is fact) that froome went from donkey to race horse overnight with no explanation is flawed.

I know your response will be 'what is all this evidence'
it has been posted many times before, you have ignored it then, so i am not going to spend time digging it all out and posting again for you to ignore again.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 12, 2013, 05:57
"Froome came from nowhere"

No, Froome can from Kenya, that well-known hotbed of cycling where potential talent is recognised at an early age and nurtured in the excellent Kenyan cycling academies renowned throughout the world for their excellent facilities and plethora of Kenyan ex-pros on hand to offer advice, from their Pro Tour experience.

No wonder he thrived at such a young age. Hard not to, coming from a country with such a rich legacy in cycling.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on July 12, 2013, 06:25
I thought his cycling development occurred in South Africa?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: DinZ on July 12, 2013, 06:30
Yeah a good chunk of it was in South Africa. think he moved there when 14 or 15. did not turn pro till 22 though and the point that has been made by many people that worked with him then was he was a long way from professional. he had very poor bike handling skills, had bad nutrition knowledge, and generally spent a fair amount of time just getting up to speed as a pro rider.

He did not have the skills that most youngsters that came up through the Euro system had

even with those issues he showed signs of promise. 16th in tour TT. 36th in Giro

even when he joined Sky he had clear issues with tactical knowledge. he was frequently criticised for attacking every time he felt vaguely good then losing loads of time. As his knowledge improved so did his results but he still struggled. then he had two break throughs, one was finding the Bilharzia which has been discussed at length before, and that helped him physically and the second was the mental break through at Vuelta

by having to work for Brad, Chris learnt loads about when to go and when to hold back. at times when he wanted to attack he couldn't because he had to wait for Brad and that showed him that by holding back at times he would be more successful. That race also gave him massive confidence.

When you take all of that into account, his late development as a rider, his issues and then his progress it is not the miracle some make it out to be.

the first was
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 12, 2013, 06:39
I thought his cycling development occurred in South Africa?

That other hotbed of cycling success.

At about the same age, Contador left school and joined the youth team run by Manolo Saiz.  Manolo Saiz, manager of ONCE. A man with a channel straight into the peloton and years of experience of cycling at its highest level.

Who did Froome have?

Froome's detractors love to ridicule the almost total lack of bike handling skills he had on joining the euro pro peloton. They don't think deep enough to realise why that might be, and why he is a late bloomer.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on July 12, 2013, 06:41
That seems purely subjective, he rode for a decent continental team, he had support from the WCC(?). By the time he turned pro he had raced on 4 continents from Commonwealth Games, Continental Championships to World Championships to the Asian circuit to the typical espoirs races in Europe. Keeping in mind he turned pro only into his 23rd year which is later than average these days (look at Gesink, or even Mollema who himself didn't start racing until he left school). Based purely on that there isn't a lot to say he was well behind the average neopro when he turned pro at an established team under good management.

I mean everyone looks bad compared to the RB3 and AIS alumni.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 12, 2013, 06:48
. Based purely on that there isn't a lot to say he was well behind the average neopro when he turned pro at an established team under good management

Why base it purely on that? Why not base it purely on the whole picture?

Are we saying that being in a team aged 16, managed by Manolo Saiz gives no advantage over being in an unknown team managed by a nobody in a country with no cycling heritage? Really?

I think his roughness as a bike rider in Barlo speaks volumes for the mentoring he didn't get.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on July 12, 2013, 06:49
What does Contador have to do with anything?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: DinZ on July 12, 2013, 07:34
That seems purely subjective, he rode for a decent continental team, he had support from the WCC(?). By the time he turned pro he had raced on 4 continents from Commonwealth Games, Continental Championships to World Championships to the Asian circuit to the typical espoirs races in Europe. Keeping in mind he turned pro only into his 23rd year which is later than average these days (look at Gesink, or even Mollema who himself didn't start racing until he left school). Based purely on that there isn't a lot to say he was well behind the average neopro when he turned pro at an established team under good management.

I mean everyone looks bad compared to the RB3 and AIS alumni.

it was more based on comments i have seen that said he seemed to be behind the other riders in his 'racing knowledge' when he turned pro
he had some raw talent but lacked the other stuff.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 12, 2013, 08:25
What does Contador have to do with anything?

As a basis for comparison.

Two talents, one mainlined into the heart of world pro cycling culture.

The other in Kenya/SA.

If you think nurturing and support doesn't matter and talent will break through on its own have a look at the history of UK cycling.

70s, 80s, 90's pretty insignificant.

Then British Cycling gets a bunch of funding, develops support systems and produces best in the world riders like Cavendish, plus a whole host of top pros like Stannard, G Thomas and Kennaugh.




Title: Re: Sky
Post by: sublimit on July 12, 2013, 08:32
I agree that there wasn't anything to suggest he would become a GT contender from his performances at Konica and then Barloworld but there's nothing to suggest he wouldn't either.   The Vuelta performance he put 1.50 overall into Bauke Mollema and Maxine Monfort et al for heavens sake - not earth shattering but solid.   

Personally I never thought of him as a contender from following his results at Barloworld but more a climbing domestique and a possible top 20 finisher in GT's.  Obviously he's taken that a stage further but if you take out the disastrous, illness hit first year at Sky its not the miraculous transformation that people want you to believe.   
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on July 12, 2013, 09:27
As a basis for comparison.

Yeh, and Contador's results pre-comeback are hardly better than Froome's at Barloworld...

Then he started doping like a maniac and within a few years became the dominant GT rider.

Froome could have had far better results 2008-2009 and it would still make his 2011 Vuelta onwards performances extraordinary relative to his previous accomplishments. You would basically need a P-N top3, a GT top15, a Worlds TT top10 etc in the first couple of years to make the dominant GT rider of a period's progression appear "normal". Froome's ascension in 2011 was unbelievable, whether or not that makes him a doper is something I couldn't care less about, but it is what it is.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 12, 2013, 09:34
Yeh, and Contador's results pre-comeback are hardly better than Froome's at Barloworld...

Is that sarcasm?

If it is then you are supporting my argument, not yours. If it isn't sarcasm then you are factually incorrect.

Quote
Then he started doping like a maniac and within a few years became the dominant GT rider.

Who? Froome or Contador? Either way, that is pure speculation, although of course Contador has had a doping ban, and there were the mysterious plasticisers in his blood.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on July 12, 2013, 09:36
What results of Contador's 2003-2004 indicated GT greatness?

Glad we are now bogged down discussing the progression of Contador instead of referencing the average development experience of professionals.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 12, 2013, 09:49
We weren't.

We were comparing the relative levels of support of two riders who seem to have reasonable equal capabilities. You brought in results to the discussion.

But since you ask about Contador 03-04, and ask for results demonstrating promise, you must surely know that there was no 03-04 for Contador. 03 was his first year as a pro, in which he won a stage in a tour, but in 04 he was out with serious brain issues by may.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on July 12, 2013, 09:52
Yes, exactly my point... It was only after his comeback that he showed glimpses of being a superstar. All the training and expert help from Manolo wasn't enough in 03-04.

Yet poor Froome who left his village in Kenya to take a pro contract in 2008-2009 performed at a level not too dissimilar from Contador.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: doolols on July 12, 2013, 10:03
he had some raw talent but lacked the other stuff.

I think so. Comments about bike handling skills and nutritional knowledge is nonsense. Like these things can't be learnt in a season.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 12, 2013, 10:14
@Arb

Contador didn't have an 03-04. He was out of the peloton by May.

I understand the point you are making. The corollary of that argument is that you must then align Contador with Froome as riders who 'came out of nowhere', which would then, of course, present difficulties for using that as an argument against Froome's progress.

It's tricky, isn't it. In the absence of solid data we have to resort to making comparisons in order to be able to try and find a suitable metric by which to gauge Froome. Problem is, how do know that any of our assumptions are correct?

Nice talking to you. Will catch up later.





Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Sizzle on July 12, 2013, 10:37
Last Tour the Skyborgs seemed so much stronger than any other team, in that classic USPostal ride-em-off-our-wheels style. They looked invincible. Debate raged about whether or not they were clean. I didn't know, but I did wonder, even if the peloton was clean, on the luck of Sky turning up as the only team in form. And if the peloton wasn't clean-ish, how could Sky be doing it?

Perhaps it's good management and training methods as Sky claim, of course. Unfortunately for Sky, this has an awful echoes of cadence talk and such like and, as such, it isn't automatically convincing.

This Tour we have Froome apparently able to ride all the other GC riders off his wheel by great lengths. The same questions have returned.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 12, 2013, 10:41
I think so. Comments about bike handling skills and nutritional knowledge is nonsense. Like these things can't be learnt in a season.
I dunno, there are cyclists who retired from the pro ranks because they never learnt how to ride efficiently in a peleton, I imagine that it's one of those things you get better at with practice.

And nutritional knowledge won't improve if your training consists of solo rides up the nearest hill to your home. The size of the step change in Sky's nutritional analysis methods depends on what Froome was used to before and how much he bought into it.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on July 12, 2013, 10:57
Nice article on the issue:

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/07/can-performance-be-used-as-an-indicator-of-doping/
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on July 12, 2013, 11:12
I agree that there wasn't anything to suggest he would become a GT contender from his performances at Konica and then Barloworld but there's nothing to suggest he wouldn't either.   The Vuelta performance he put 1.50 overall into Bauke Mollema and Maxine Monfort et al for heavens sake - not earth shattering but solid.   

Personally I never thought of him as a contender from following his results at Barloworld but more a climbing domestique and a possible top 20 finisher in GT's.  Obviously he's taken that a stage further but if you take out the disastrous, illness hit first year at Sky its not the miraculous transformation that people want you to believe.

That's because froome was on the leash for all but the last htf which was 7k. He spent the rest of the race domestiquing for Wiggins even while wearing the red jersey.

The fact that he was so far ahead of everyone but cobo on the 1 stage he was finally allowed to ride strongly suggests the gap between him and the others in ability was far greater.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: KeithJamesMc on July 12, 2013, 11:27
In Tyler Hamilton's autobiography, he described and made infamous the use of "white bags" in cycling

Here is a picture of Team Sky's
 White Bags (http://www.teamsky.com/gallery/0,27401,17548_8820147,00.html#photo=3)

Rather than for PED's, they seem to be for the support staff's lunch :D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: LukasCPH on July 12, 2013, 11:43
Nice article on the issue:

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/07/can-performance-be-used-as-an-indicator-of-doping/
One key quote from that:
Quote
That is, you can do whatever you like as long as you’re within the limit. And just because you’re under the limit doesn’t mean you’re not doping.
Staying below 6 watts/kg doesn't mean you're clean, it's as arbitrary as the 50% hematocrit threshold. Going above it however makes it hard to convince people that your performance hasn't been "enhanced".

I would like to hear more about Brailsford's argument that in time, cyclists will be (are?) able to beat that figure of LeMond's.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on July 12, 2013, 11:49
Actually I dont doubt that in time, cyclists will be able to match Le Monds time/power etc.

the history of competitive sport is that people are trying to do the same thing faster, further, stronger or better.   Its why world records are set and broken every year.

Riders get better, they learn more about the body, nutrition, training etc.  Technology improves allowing lighter, stronger, faster bikes .. more aero equipment, all kinds of things.

It will happen.    That doesnt mean it has happened yet, or that when it does it will definitely be due to natural or allowable progress. 

Its a hard call for fans with the kind of history that cycling has to believe in the 'natural'.   We have pretty strong reasons to be cynical.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: sublimit on July 12, 2013, 12:02
That's because froome was on the leash for all but the last htf which was 7k. He spent the rest of the race domestiquing for Wiggins even while wearing the red jersey.

The fact that he was so far ahead of everyone but cobo on the 1 stage he was finally allowed to ride strongly suggests the gap between him and the others in ability was far greater.

Yes but he came in relatively fresh compared to some of the others, he had a very solid Romandie earlier in the season and so in an uninspiring field of Vuelta riders he produced a very strong performance..    The only thing that was an earth shattering transformation was consistency.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: doolols on July 12, 2013, 12:12
Nice article on the issue:
http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/07/can-performance-be-used-as-an-indicator-of-doping/

It's a great article. I liked the bit from Tim Kerrison:
Quote
“The human body is a machine that’s frankly not very efficient. It’s somewhere around 20% efficient. So it only takes a small evolution of training practices, or a particularly efficient human specimen to go from 20% to 21% (for argument sake). It’s only 1%, but results in a 4 or 5% increase in power output.

But then, he would say that  :D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 12, 2013, 12:16

Its a hard call for fans with the kind of history that cycling has to believe in the 'natural'.   We have pretty strong reasons to be cynical.

Actually,  you've hit the nail on the head with that.

Being a cynic doesn't put one in a good position to be objective.

Sceptical? Yes. Cynical? Probably not.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on July 12, 2013, 12:18
I think all cycling fans need to ask themselves the question:

When that occurs and cyclists can manage such an accomplishment, will we nevertheless adamantly accuse them of doping?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Sizzle on July 12, 2013, 13:06
I think all cycling fans need to ask themselves the question:

When that occurs and cyclists can manage such an accomplishment, will we nevertheless adamantly accuse them of doping?

Yes, because with so much money in the sport there will always be people seeking advantage wherever they can get it, legal or otherwise. The trouble is that we, the fans, can never know whether what we are seeing is 'legit' or not, and we can't trust what the cyclists or their teams tell us.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: doolols on July 12, 2013, 13:14
and we can't trust what the cyclists or their teams tell us.

.. or the UCI, at the moment. Hopefully, a new president will put clean cycling above clean PR, and work with other sports (anyone for tennis?) to do likewise.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on July 12, 2013, 13:20
Yes, because with so much money in the sport there will always be people seeking advantage wherever they can get it, legal or otherwise. The trouble is that we, the fans, can never know whether what we are seeing is 'legit' or not, and we can't trust what the cyclists or their teams tell us.
But where is, if there is, a line between being skeptical and remaining adamant and disillusioned?

I don't know if this should be in the Sky thread, but it does pertain to Sky in some way.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on July 12, 2013, 15:11
The myth of riding for Barloworld meant Froome could achieve does not hold up.

How come argos shimano area able to achieve better than OPQS? Surely they are a new 'rough' pro outfit mixing it up with the big long established

Froome did not show GT potential before the meteoric rise to 2nd spot on the podium at La Vuelta. If he did why what were the odds for him to win the '11 Vuelta?

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on July 13, 2013, 02:27
Sky looking a little more at risk now.

No EBH or Kiryenka, and some of the major players not doing so well.  Porte dropped off early which must be a concern for them.   The others - well, they did ok but still in the end were not strong enough to protect Froome against the team tactics and hard racing of others.

It has certainly shown the other teams that they are vulnerable, and can be attacked.   Froome still has a good buffer, and with a TT to come is still in a great position - but the Tour isnt over.  Not by a long way.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Sizzle on July 13, 2013, 04:03
But where is, if there is, a line between being skeptical and remaining adamant and disillusioned?

I don't know if this should be in the Sky thread, but it does pertain to Sky in some way.

To me it seems that cycling is full of ambiguities and grey areas, rather than black & white certainties or cleanly delineated either/or frameworks. It's one of the things I love about the sport. And to me this is another of those grey areas and I negotiate it differently within myself at different times. Sometimes I am skeptical, sometimes I am disillusioned, sometimes I see signs of hope, sometimes I think a rider might be/is probably clean, sometimes I think the sport will always be 'corrupt', sometimes I think the racing on the road is all that matters.

Last tour it was Sky prompting this inner negotiation for me, and this year it has been Froome, although it could just as easily be many others.

As AG says, though, it certainly seems that Froome is not going to have an easy ride to Paris, as it initially seemed when he rode everyone off his wheel last Saturday. (Was it only a week ago?!) I may well do several more circuits of the inner negotiation in the days ahead.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: DinZ on July 13, 2013, 05:33
Think the big threat also comes from the double double threat.  Two teams with two riders that can attack and counter.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on July 13, 2013, 06:37
Think the big threat also comes from the double double threat.  Two teams with two riders that can attack and counter.

This. It was being discussed with barely-concealed excitement on RTBF yesterday. A unique situation that affords possibly the best chance to crack Froome if the teams are willing to take it.


Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 17, 2013, 10:09
interesting read  - Team Sky chief Sir Dave Brailsford driven to brink of quitting over fallout from Lance Armstrong drug scandal (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/10184087/Team-Sky-chief-Sir-Dave-Brailsford-driven-to-brink-of-quitting-over-fallout-from-Lance-Armstrong-drug-scandal.html)

Brailsford also realised that there were other sources of contagion.
He spent that day, Oct 13, thinking about the problem. There were three   options:
1.  Resign and walk away.
2.  Abandon the zero-tolerance policy and, as some other teams were doing, embrace 'truth and reconciliation’.
3.  Reinforce zero tolerance and sack anyone who confessed, or was considered a liability.
For once, Brailsford did not call people; instead, he turned to a book he had been reading, The Seven Signs of Ethical Collapse by Marianne Jennings. From Enron to United Health Care, Jennings, professor of legal and ethical studies at Arizona State University, looks at companies who have crossed an ethical line.
Those seven signs, as they pertained to Team Sky, provided a checklist:
1.  Pressure to maintain numbers. Did the team want to win at any cost?
2.  Fear and silence. Did a culture of fear exist among riders and staff that meant they did not feel they could speak openly?
3.  Larger‑than-life chief. Had Brailsford got carried away with his own fame?
4.  Weak board. Did Brailsford have too much power over the board that managed Team Sky?
5.  Conflicts. There were big characters at Team Sky: Mark Cavendish and Bradley Wiggins, the coach Shane Sutton among the staff. Each could be abrasive.
6.  Innovation like no other. Brailsford had talked of “going right to the line” of what was legal – but had they crossed it?
7.  Goodness in some areas atoning for evil in others. The Lance Armstrong case had exposed the effectiveness of such a strategy, his work for cancer acting as a protective shield.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 17, 2013, 10:10
Brailsford had talked of “going right to the line” of what was legal – but had they crossed it? this is not really a Sky question but if the line moves have you been doping ?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: LukasCPH on July 17, 2013, 10:29
Technically, no, you haven't.
Morally though, you have.

If Sky are currently using methods that are not banned, but are aware that these methods are performance-enhancing and might later become banned, they're not "clean".
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 17, 2013, 10:34
Technically, no, you haven't.
Morally though, you have.

If Sky are currently using methods that are not banned, but are aware that these methods are performance-enhancing and might later become banned, they're not "clean".

that has been a question or questions I guess  I want answered by all teams or riders

1. Are you clean ?- which everyone says yes too and is a stupid question

2. What is a clean rider or Does a rider mean not taking products on the WADA code or more than that ?

and then see what the answer is and build from there

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: taiwan on July 23, 2013, 01:00
Is Ferrari involvement really in tinfoil territory? Weight loss, riding by numbers, Tenerife, Tour winning credentials, unavoidably large profile in cycling...
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Rodrego Hernandez on July 26, 2013, 09:06
interesting read  - Team Sky chief Sir Dave Brailsford driven to brink of quitting over fallout from Lance Armstrong drug scandal (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/10184087/Team-Sky-chief-Sir-Dave-Brailsford-driven-to-brink-of-quitting-over-fallout-from-Lance-Armstrong-drug-scandal.html)

Brailsford also realised that there were other sources of contagion.
He spent that day, Oct 13, thinking about the problem. There were three   options:
1.  Resign and walk away.
2.  Abandon the zero-tolerance policy and, as some other teams were doing, embrace 'truth and reconciliation’.
3.  Reinforce zero tolerance and sack anyone who confessed, or was considered a liability.
For once, Brailsford did not call people; instead, he turned to a book he had been reading, The Seven Signs of Ethical Collapse by Marianne Jennings. From Enron to United Health Care, Jennings, professor of legal and ethical studies at Arizona State University, looks at companies who have crossed an ethical line.
Those seven signs, as they pertained to Team Sky, provided a checklist:
1.  Pressure to maintain numbers. Did the team want to win at any cost?
2.  Fear and silence. Did a culture of fear exist among riders and staff that meant they did not feel they could speak openly?
3.  Larger‑than-life chief. Had Brailsford got carried away with his own fame?
4.  Weak board. Did Brailsford have too much power over the board that managed Team Sky?
5.  Conflicts. There were big characters at Team Sky: Mark Cavendish and Bradley Wiggins, the coach Shane Sutton among the staff. Each could be abrasive.
6.  Innovation like no other. Brailsford had talked of “going right to the line” of what was legal – but had they crossed it?
7.  Goodness in some areas atoning for evil in others. The Lance Armstrong case had exposed the effectiveness of such a strategy, his work for cancer acting as a protective shield.

This is a classic Brailsford approach.  Dodge the issue by making it all about him.  He won't ever resign.  He makes far too much money out of his Sky job and still takes a massive wage for the BC job that he no longer performs.

He's a snake oil salesman and has Sky right where he wants them.   Complicit in whatever he's been up to and now past the point of no return.

Win.  Win.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on July 26, 2013, 10:14
How much is the "far too much" money that Brailsford makes from Sky?

How much is the "massive" salary paid to him by British Cycling?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Jamsque on July 26, 2013, 10:31
I don't think you know/understand what 'snake oil salesman' means. The implication of that phrase is that someone is selling placebos and fake cures, whatever you think of Brailsford he definitely isn't peddling sugar water.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 26, 2013, 11:46
I think the snake oil means the fake news. Brailsford needs to stop harrassing all these cycling journalists, inundating them with stories about how Sky achieve their success, and let them get on with their real jobs reporting on the latest royal birth or something.

The not snake oil would be to reveal how Brailsford runs a massive team wide doping campaign. We know what the truth is, we don't need any evidence, and Brailsford is just lying until he tells us what we know to be true.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dim on July 27, 2013, 14:25
Not sure what to say about this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHJistBOCu8

uploaders comments
Quote
Team Sky staff altercation with supporters during Tour de France 2013 - Stage 20 / At the end of stage 20, finishing up Semnoz pass, a Sky car was hit by a camper van backing up. When the Sky staff got out to check they were attacked by supporters, in particular the camper van driver. They didn't answered back the knocks and were surprised by the violence of the attack. In the end, you can see them leaving the scene as advised by my brother (the one with the grey backpack), who was actually the only guy speaking english and therefore able to advise the Sky guys. We heard a lot of anti-sky, anti-english comments, treating them of "all juiced" and telling them to "go back home" (those comments were in French). Personally, me, my brothers and my friend, we were shocked and disgusted by the attitude of those people, clearly they spent all the day drinking and the nice weather heated up everybody. And they were quick to attack and insult anybody. We tried our best to advise and sort out the situation, it was unexpected, and hopefully very rare. It was a cool day supporting every rider we saw inculding the Sky ones, good memories and "Vive le Tour !"
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on July 27, 2013, 14:31
Not sure what to say about this


That fans dont like what they see at Sky. Why are they picking on Sky? Because they are the ones winning and winning easily?

I for one am glad to see fans getting upset, but wish they would direct it against all teams.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on July 27, 2013, 14:36
Not sure what to say about this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHJistBOCu8

uploaders comments

The person holding the camera says, "it's sad, they're the best team in the Tour ... such racism ..."

I tried to figure out what the crowd was shouting but it wasn't very clear. It's ridiculous though, I have never known such a bad attitude at the roadside of any race. Obviously, this was much later on if a camper van was moving off, but I cannot understand the mob mentality.

Tasteless behaviour and completely without context. Sod all the Dark Side issues, they're not applicable here. If it were football, I'd expect it, but the experience of watching pro cycling isn't supposed to be like that, with an edgy atmosphere after the race.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Rodrego Hernandez on July 27, 2013, 17:52
How much is the "far too much" money that Brailsford makes from Sky?

How much is the "massive" salary paid to him by British Cycling?

Well over a mil a year by all accounts plus cars and expenses.  Not sure what the split is but he's not short.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: horsinabout on July 27, 2013, 18:04
Not sure what to say about this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHJistBOCu8

uploaders comments

I think this is what they call a lynch mob.  Not terribly pleasant.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: kabloemski on July 27, 2013, 18:31
How awful.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: wwabbit on July 28, 2013, 17:24
Not sure what to say about this

It's terrible, but hopefully no one blames an entire country for a few bad apples.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dave Bruyneel on July 28, 2013, 23:43
Wiggins back in the gruppetto where he belongs. Must have forgotten to warm down lately
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: doolols on July 28, 2013, 23:52
*sigh*

Welcome, Mr. Bruyneel.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: The Hitch on July 29, 2013, 00:35
*sigh*

Welcome, Mr. Bruyneel.

That's "Sir David", to you.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dave Bruyneel on July 29, 2013, 01:06
*sigh*

Welcome, Mr. Bruyneel.

Thanks.

So what is happening? He suddenly forgot that he is the biggest talent in the sport since Lemond?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: doolols on July 29, 2013, 01:13
So what is happening? He suddenly forgot that he is the biggest talent in the sport since Lemond?

Probably that he's not the designated leader for this race, therefore he's working for Henao.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on July 29, 2013, 15:32
The real goal is to try and Armstrong Froome next July.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: chmod_775 on July 29, 2013, 15:52
Wasn't the Giro the last time he raced and given the lack of form he's showed this year, it would be more of a shock if he did something.

He was doing the Sky domination thing headed into the Giro though.  Then the wheels fell off the grand tour destroyer's season.  If in fact he's actually naturally a peloton destroyer, we should see some indication before the World Championships. 

In theory, he could ride the Vuelta and collect a podium spot by just showing up.  I wouldn't argue with anyone who would claim the Vuelta's course is not suited to him so a podium is unlikely.  In that case, he'd dominate the TT's and a couple of mountains, right? :D
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Dave Bruyneel on July 29, 2013, 15:56
The real goal is to try and Armstrong Froome next July.

"Hopefully in two years time when I return to the Tour I might be the Prologue winner or I might win the Time Trial and be a credible Time Trial winner because I haven't beaten someone by two and a half minutes. Credible, clean riders are what's gonna be the future of the sport."

Sir Brad Wiggins
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on July 30, 2013, 07:14
still think Wiggo goes for P-R next year after winning the WITT or trying too, then rides the Tour in support for Porte before saying enough is enough only be spotted on the Track getting ready for Rio Gold

Weight needs to come back on , so he does not get sick and then for the Track 2015-16
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on July 30, 2013, 07:24
dunno about P-R ... but I agree about the World TT and then going back to the track in 2015 ...
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Velomuso on August 02, 2013, 20:19
P-R, then back to the track and a tilt at the 'Hour'

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Zam on August 03, 2013, 06:21
one of the worst meme ever

(http://i.imgur.com/1vAwFqk.jpg)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: DB-Coop on August 06, 2013, 17:35
Sky keeps saying that what they do is preparing differently, apperently beetroot juice is a natural blood enhancer, might this be what they are doing?

http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/truth-about-beetroot-juice
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on August 06, 2013, 19:13
Sky keeps saying that what they do is preparing differently, apperently beetroot juice is a natural blood enhancer, might this be what they are doing?

http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/truth-about-beetroot-juice

Beetroot juice has been around the block , so not too new
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on August 06, 2013, 19:23
Ask yourself what the difference is between Sky and BMC.

Both teams have similar budgets.....and yet, one of the two teams is visibly slick, confident and organised, on and off the bikes, and the other is a shambles.

Why is this? What mystery dope does this??

What effect does this slickness have on team morale and motivation? What effect would the lack of it have?

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: oitallefotua on August 06, 2013, 21:31
Ask yourself what the difference is between Sky and BMC.

Both teams have similar budgets.....and yet, one of the two teams is visibly slick, confident and organised, on and off the bikes, and the other is a shambles.

Why is this? What mystery dope does this??


What effect does this slickness have on team morale and motivation? What effect would the lack of it have?

Corruption.

EDIT: And I believe they also had a bigger budget than US Postal, yet still couldn't get the same results...
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Mellow Velo on August 06, 2013, 22:22
Corruption.

EDIT: And I believe they also had a bigger budget than US Postal, yet still couldn't get the same results...

LOL. Nobody wants those results.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on August 07, 2013, 08:25
Corruption.

EDIT: And I believe they also had a bigger budget than US Postal, yet still couldn't get the same results...

That's because USPS were massive dopers with the UCI in their pocket (allegedly)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: chmod_775 on August 07, 2013, 09:12
That's because USPS were massive dopers with the UCI in their pocket (allegedly)

There is far more than allegations.

The endless vigorous defense of Armstrong's results as clean.  Even after the guy retired they produced a letter for Hamilton's 60 Minutes segment defending Dopestrong.  How many retired riders would get the time of day from someone at the UCI, much less a formal letter denying claims. Later still,  Pat and Hein were both reluctant to enforce the USADA ban.   

Until Doprah, then their story changed.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Havetts on August 12, 2013, 22:43
Why is Wiggins gaining 8 kilograms of weight for the Worlds individual time trial? He was destroying everyone when he looked like he was on 0% fat ratio already, why does he need to gain so much weight? Why break the winning formula? And how is Wiggins able to gain and lose so much weight so quickly? 8 kilograms of muscle, I assume that its not fat, is a HUGE amount and not done in a few weeks, normally.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on August 12, 2013, 22:58
Why is Wiggins gaining 8 kilograms of weight for the Worlds individual time trial? He was destroying everyone when he looked like he was on 0% fat ratio already, why does he need to gain so much weight? Why break the winning formula? And how is Wiggins able to gain and lose so much weight so quickly? 8 kilograms of muscle, I assume that its not fat, is a HUGE amount and not done in a few weeks, normally.

The magic of sky.........................
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on August 13, 2013, 05:05
Does this mean he will be now as good as he was in 2006?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on August 13, 2013, 05:32
Does this mean he will be now as good as he was in 2006?

Exactly heavy brad gets his ass kicked by anorexic brad climbing and tting
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Mellow Velo on August 13, 2013, 08:19
Does this mean he will be now as good as he was in 2006?

If yesterday's performance is anything to go by, then the answer is yes.

The magic of sky.........................

More likely the magic of beer.  ;)
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Claudio Cappuccino on August 13, 2013, 12:33
I must admit I didnt see the Tour of Poland TT but when I read the report on CN something odd struck me:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/races/tour-de-pologne-2013/stage-7/results
Quote
Wiggins looked comfortable from the moment he rolled down the start ramp and settled immediately into his familiar high cadence. Unlike at the Giro d’Italia time trial at Saltara – incidentally, his only other individual time trial this season – there were no mechanical mishaps, and Wiggins duly crossed the finish line with a time some 56 seconds quicker than Cancellara and 1:14 faster than Taylor Phinney (BMC).
Didnt we learn from Wiggins last year he lowered his cadence? To be able to match Tony Martin's TT skills?

So, low cadence at low weight. High cadence at 8 kiloos extra? Or does he need some extra pies to reach the magic 8 kiloos extra, what would set him at 77 kilo for the Worlds TT?

One thing he is very clear at, with those 8 kilo extra he cant climb anymore. It would be interesting to ask him how he was timetrialling at the same level last year with all those less kiloos on board.

It is good he is back in the media, I missed him. He is a funny oll chap.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: LukasCPH on August 13, 2013, 12:35
You know journalists.
They just write whatever comes into their heads.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: KeithJamesMc on August 13, 2013, 13:00
Watch the interview Sir Wiggo gave before the start of the Eneco Tour
http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pcNncLkgaVc&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DpcNncLkgaVc%26feature%3Dplayer_detailpage

He gives zero respect to any and all journalists. He simply says anything.
Some say he is eccentric, others annoying, but he is consistent.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: LukasCPH on August 13, 2013, 13:08
"Looking at it [the parcours] one day at a time"?
Very unlike Sky if true.
Marginal gains, playing your cards as best you can, identifying the days to take time - are we to believe they don't do any of this for the ENECO Tour?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: KeithJamesMc on August 13, 2013, 13:24
"Looking at it [the parcours] one day at a time"?
Very unlike Sky if true.
Marginal gains, playing your cards as best you can, identifying the days to take time - are we to believe they don't do any of this for the ENECO Tour?
As I said, Wiggins says any old rubbish.
Wiggins is at ENECO for the TT, he will check out the parcours beforehand.
I suspect that the only Sky riders here who can win is Stannard and Hayman with the last two stages effectively being classic stages.
Both of them will be especially motivated with their contracts being up at the end of the season.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Archieboy on August 13, 2013, 13:45
Bet he had a look at the parcours for the USA Pro Challenge ITT (Stg5) and thought " Let the Dawg do that monster"
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: KeithJamesMc on August 14, 2013, 23:39
Wow - David Walsh on a general talking head sports show on Sky tonight:

Paraphrasing Dave Brailsford - "It is not important to have harmony in the team and that old idea of camaraderie. It is great if you have it, but ultimately if everyone is working to the same goal, it doesn't matter.

Hmmm - seems to me that Brailsford is doing a tad of cognitive dissonance again about the situation he faces and Walsh is buying it. I think Wiggo v Froome is a problem, especially since the marketable guy is not winning.

Walsh comparing the Wiggo and Froome situation to van Persie and Rooney at Man Utd said it is completely different - Van Persie enjoys playing with Rooney. Wiggins didn't ride the Tour de France because he was injured, but most people within the team believe, rightly or wrongly,  that even if Wiggo was 100% fit he wouldn't have ridden the Tour de France. The reason he wouldn't have ridden is that Wiggo would have found it too difficult to be the 1st lieutenant, because they don't get on.

Hmmm, exactly that same situation - last years hero has been replaced.

Walsh also on accommodation arrangements - Froome didn't want the privilege of having a single room. He preferred to share with Porte, Gabi Lopez got the single room. Walsh thinks this was a huge gesture that said something about Froome as a leader.

Hmmm, I suspect little gestures are important, but perhaps Froome wanted a familiar environment.

Walsh on marginal gains - "Clive Woodward did it before in Rugby. But where Brailsford has been impressive is applying it in a sport where doping has been a large part of it. We have much better testing, much less doping. There is a vacuum and the other teams who have been doping, now have a challenge. You can't fill the guys with drugs  so what are you going to do to make them go faster? Brailsford came from Track Cycling where there wasn't a culture of doping so he'd been applying science for years and years, so when he came into road racing it was the perfect time. He has won two tours because he understood the science and the other teams have been so slow to cotton on to what Team Sky have been doing"

Hmmm, not so sure that Garmin and Movistar agree with this.

Walsh is defo walking the line here. Not a cyclists fan, but as a managers fan. Walsh seems in awe of Brailsford.

 
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: LukasCPH on August 15, 2013, 07:44
Poor David Lopez.
Not only was he the only Spanish-speaker on the Tour team, but he even had to take the room his team leader didn't want. :D

Walsh on marginal gains - "Clive Woodward did it before in Rugby. But where Brailsford has been impressive is applying it in a sport where doping has been a large part of it.
Yeah, rugby players are as pure as newborn babies. :rolleye

"He has won two tours because he understood the science and the other teams have been so slow to cotton on to what Team Sky have been doing"
Brailsford's science - I'd say it goes like this in racing: Plan A, every rider gets an output he has to reach. Plan B, repeat plan A. Plan C, repeat plan A. Plan D, REPEAT PLAN A!
Walsh has a point in the sentence I quoted - plan A has worked for two Tours, and arguably for one Vuelta (2011). But it relies very much on the other teams "playing along" and acting expectedly - if the racing gets chaotic it fails, and so do plans B-D. Examples are this year's Giro, and stages 9 (Bagnères-de-Bigorre) & 13 (echelons) of this year's Tour; possibly the 2012 Vuelta as well (with the Fuente Dé stage in particular). That one also shows that if the last section of your rocket doesn't fire, the whole rocket isn't much good.

I'll argue that Brailsford is still very much restricted by his track background where things are much more planable than in road racing. There's a reason why Sky haven't excelled in classics yet - they don't lend themselves to pre-planned tactics at all.

In my opinion, Sky haven't won two Tours because of their scientific approach, but despite disregarding "old ideas": Any pro rider is capable of riding like a robot at a limit you've set him and do what was agreed to before the race (or at least he should be); but far from all of them have the nous and daring to throw the playbook out the window, adapt to the situation that's formed on the road and seize opportunities.

Paraphrasing Dave Brailsford - "It is not important to have harmony in the team and that old idea of camaraderie. It is great if you have it, but ultimately if everyone is working to the same goal, it doesn't matter.
And that's where this comes in: If plan A works, you'll have a number of somewhat disgruntled (but handsomely paid) robots working towards what the boss has set out as the common goal.
But if plan A doesn't work, people that don't particularly care about their teammates one way or the other may simply resort to "Dienst nach Vorschrift", doing what they're told to do, and only that. If you had team spirit, and riders were gladly willing to bury themselves for each other, you could rescue the situation - or take an unexpected opportunity when it presents itself.

Sky may not be doping (technically, or morally), I can't know; but their racing is simply one-dimensional and unintelligent.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: KeithJamesMc on August 15, 2013, 10:28
Quote
Sky may not be doping (technically, or morally), I can't know; but their racing is simply one-dimensional and unintelligent
Personally, I think Sky were very lucky in this years Tour de France, especially compared perfect team display in the Wiggo victory, and the main reason they won is that the other teams were not aggressive enough:
1. Sky came into the race with several riders under-par. I am thinking of Lopez, Suitsou and Boassen-Hagen specifically. My gut feel is the same as the Classics squad - they over trained. I am not sure but I suspect the Kerrison training plans do not work for everyone. Tiernan-Locke has publicly said that his appalling 2013 form is due to over training.
2. Sky was exposed on the second mountain stage into Bagneres when Froome was isolated and Kiryenka eliminated. Garmin kicked off the days fireworks, but really only Movistar out of the GT contenders tried attacking Froome - on the flat with Valverde and on the final climb with Quintana. I was completely baffled in that stage - why didn't Katusha and Saxo attack? Why didn't Movistar attack with both Quintana and Valverde at the same time?
3. The other teams did not figure out the lessons from that stage - that Froome's mountain helpers Kennaugh and Porte fell apart on the second effort day of climbing. It may have been too late in the Alps but I expected it all to kick off on the Col de la Madeleine. Perhaps the others riders were knackered at this point also?
Having said that clearly Froome was the strongest individual rider and perhaps he just didn't need the Herculean team effort that took Wiggo to victory in the previous year?

I also think that others, specifically Astana, Movistar and OPQS, are catching up quick to Team Sky and next year it will extremely difficult to make it 3 TdF's in a row.

Regarding the Classics, I think where Sky suffer most is that they do not have a decent DS on the team and are missing Sean Yates. Don't get me started on Servais Knaven, but given he is a previous Paris-Roubaix winner his tactics are completely inept. However, did you see how he won in 2001? Complete domination of the selection by Domo-Frites and attacking by individual riders one after the other. I am sure that Lefevre wanted Museeuw to win that day, but strange things happen in cycling and one for the team was a good consolation prize. Servais Knaven needs to remember that next year.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: fiftyfifteenfixed on August 15, 2013, 16:49
their racing is simply one-dimensional and unintelligent.
But nevertheless quite successful at the Tour de France and a
large number of one week tours over the last couple of years.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: KeithJamesMc on August 19, 2013, 11:40
Excellent interview with Wiggins in todays' Times:

1) No more GT leadership, but would like to ride next years tour as a domestique
2) Plan to finish off road career next year - targeting one day races and time trials
3) Plan to finish off career competing for a place on the track at Rio
4) Lot of bad blood with Froome and his girlfriend. Hasn't rang him because doesn't have phone number, but plans to congratulate at the Worlds
5) Team backed Froome over him, natural successor is Porte. Sutton and Brailsford told him in June.
6) He would never leave Team Sky for another team.
7) Bit of a blow to his ego be he is getting over it. Froome is better GT rider.
8) Fame and Celebrity disrupted his training, but he enjoyed it.
9) He did watch the TdF whilst training in Majorca.

Very good. Much better than the pointless rubbish that Froome and his girlfriend come out with.

ps: I didn't post a link as access to the Times is by subscription only
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Claudio Cappuccino on August 20, 2013, 14:32
Excellent interview with Wiggins in todays' Times:
9) He did watch the TdF whilst training in Majorca.

Very good. Much better than the pointless rubbish that Froome and his girlfriend come out with.

ps: I didn't post a link as access to the Times is by subscription only
(http://www.disneyplaatjes.paintingfun.nl/Pinokkio/pinokkio13.gif)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2380102/I-watch-Heartache-stopped-Wiggins-living-Froomes-Tour-victory.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2380137/Sir-Bradley-Wiggins-I-watch-Tour-France.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/10206732/Sir-Bradley-Wiggins-says-he-could-not-watch-Chris-Froome-win-Tour-de-France-after-pulling-out.html
http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/news/must-read-wiggins-couldnt-bear-to-watch-tour_297330

etc etc

Moral of the story? Well, everyone can make that up for themself. Good to have Brad back in the media, two in a row.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: KeithJamesMc on August 20, 2013, 14:41

etc etc

Moral of the story? Well, everyone can make that up for themself. Good to have Brad back in the media, two in a row.

Well I have said on numerous occassions that only a sucker believes what Wiggo spouts because he is sometimes winding up the jouno's or will change his mind in the next day.

The key questions the journo didn't ask him are:
- do you think your boss will ask you to take a pay cut now that you plan to be a domestique?
- how will you feel when your personal sponsorship deals are cut back because of the reduced exposure for them?
- how will you feel if Froome-dawg doesn't want you on his 2014 team?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: KeithJamesMc on August 26, 2013, 09:17
Great interview with Tiernan-Locke in Velonation
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15326/Jonathan-Tiernan-Locke-feature-Returning-to-an-old-approach-in-order-to-get-back-to-top-form.aspx

Key message is that his poor results this season are a result of over training. And he doesn't blame the coaches, he shares the blame.
Quote
The big diesel engines may be able to absorb lots of slog, to soldier through repeated high-kilometre days of training or huge blocks of racing, but Tiernan Locke feels that his motor needs slightly different stimulation. Certainly, hard racing and training, but also periods of rest and recovery in order to keep the balance right for his own physiology.

“I guess some of what happened this year is my fault, in terms of not being more communicative with my coaches,” he admits, stating that if he had given more feedback the issue would have been pinpointed sooner.

“Still, I have learned a lot this season and I have definitely contributed to the team’s success. I’ve been a useful team member.

In my opinion, the interview shows a lot of maturity: there has been a problem and he knows how to address it. Tiernan-Locke admits he now knows that he is not a GT contender, but can do well in the Ardennes Classics and lighter 1-week races.

It also provides a clue as to why Sky are arriving at GT's with so many of the domestiques out of form. I think we saw it yesterday in the Vuelta: Henao, Kiryienka and Cataldo should have easily coped with that last climb but were nowhere. Uran who does his own thing managed it easily.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on August 26, 2013, 09:22
Great interview with Tiernan-Locke in Velonation
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15326/Jonathan-Tiernan-Locke-feature-Returning-to-an-old-approach-in-order-to-get-back-to-top-form.aspx

Key message is that his poor results this season are a result of over training. And he doesn't blame the coaches, he shares the blame.
In my opinion, the interview shows a lot of maturity: there has been a problem and he knows how to address it. Tiernan-Locke admits he now knows that he is not a GT contender, but can do well in the Ardennes Classics and lighter 1-week races.

It also provides a clue as to why Sky are arriving at GT's with so many of the domestiques out of form. I think we saw it yesterday in the Vuelta: Henao, Kiryienka and Cataldo should have easily coped with that last climb but were nowhere. Uran who does his own thing managed it easily.

and gives a bit of an insight into my thoughts on why Froome is getting 6 monthly treatments still - stops him from getting sick and run down
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: froome19 on August 26, 2013, 09:33
Bit weird.. you would have thought they would have worked it out a while back.
It seems like Sky's approach has the potential to really work and get the best or even better out of some, but alternatively it is simply too much for the riders and they end up under performing.

From what I have heard of the training camps especially in Tenerife that would definitely make sense.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on August 26, 2013, 09:50
Bit weird.. you would have thought they would have worked it out a while back.
It seems like Sky's approach has the potential to really work and get the best or even better out of some, but alternatively it is simply too much for the riders and they end up under performing.

From what I have heard of the training camps especially in Tenerife that would definitely make sense.

Very East German or well Eastern Block , the harderest and most gifted survive type approach
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: LukasCPH on August 26, 2013, 10:23
So the famous Sky training - marginal gains, new insights, etc. bla-bla - is simply down to "train hard, train long, then train a bit more".
It has brought them results, no doubt: 2 Tours (one of them a 1-2), three other GT podium places (2 in the Vuelta, 1 in the Giro), a bunch of one-week races - but it comes at a cost: Strongmen like Stannard, EBH, Thomas, Kiryienka etc. (some of whom could be brilliant classics riders) are more or less reduced to pacing machines, and even they have to give in eventually as we see now (and already saw in the Tour); riders that are physically just not as ever-present, like JTL, and Wiggins to some extent, pay the price sooner or later (I think Wiggins just doesn't want to "live like a monk" anymore, and is scaling down his GT ambitions for that reason).

Could the reason that Sky bring through a new pretender to the GT crown every year simply be that the sitting GT king is "burned out" and has to be "discarded"?
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: KeithJamesMc on August 26, 2013, 10:32
Very East German or well Eastern Block , the harderest and most gifted survive type approach
I think it is just a sign of the relative youth of the team and the riders desires.

1) The team started off with purely GT objectives - "putting a Brit on the podium on the TdF within 5 years". It seems to me most of the resources were placed on achieving this ultra-endurance objective. This year Sky added an objective of doing well in the Classics - they spectacularly failed. Just like they did in their first 2010 at the GT's. Let us see how they adapt and change in the Classics next year.

2) Riders always dream to ride and do well in the GT's. It is inevitable that they try and achieve this goal first. It is telling that Cav realised very quickly his sprinting dreams were incompatible and would always be secondary to Sky's GT ambitions. Perhaps others will realise this and quit?  I am thinking most here of Eddie Boassen Hagen, who I don't think has realised his potential and should be doing well in the Classics as well as wining the odd Stage.
 
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on August 26, 2013, 10:49
Pretty amazing for a team who claims to have a superior approach to training and reportedly an unparalleled attention to detail can let a rider's season be destroyed by a couple of months of "overtraining".
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: KeithJamesMc on August 26, 2013, 11:15
It is not just JTL. I would place him in the same category as Dombrowski, Boswell, Cataldo and Kiryenka - first year team member who are adapting (or not) to a new regime.

The worst is EBH who has showed almost no progress. Apparently this is the first year he has ditched his old trainer and signed on fully to the Sky training regime - and he has gone backwards.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: KeithJamesMc on August 26, 2013, 14:50
Unbelievable. You would have thought after the Alpe D'Huez Froome cock-up Team Sky would have learnt their lesson

http://twitter.com/mrconde/statuses/371987607120404480

No marginal gains, but macro-losses...

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Arb on August 26, 2013, 14:55
EBH's season has been no different to previous ones, except he got injured in the Tour so had nothing to show there and it may also affect his autumn.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Claudio Cappuccino on August 26, 2013, 18:00
It also provides a clue as to why Sky are arriving at GT's with so many of the domestiques out of form. I think we saw it yesterday in the Vuelta: Henao, Kiryienka and Cataldo should have easily coped with that last climb but were nowhere. Uran who does his own thing managed it easily.
An interesting observation. Why were the SKY doms of 2012 (Froome/Porte/Rogers/Sivstjov) in much better shape then the doms of this year?

We shouldnt exagerrate the weakness of the doms though, Kennaugh and the Portey were great in the Tour. Sivstjov rode the Giro, unbelievable he was made to ride the Tour, Lopez was crap indeed - has been so since the Dauphine - , what happened to Kirienka is still a big mystery. On the other hand, they didnt need them after all with the dominance of Froome who outclimbed everyone and put minutes into every GT 'contender' in the TT's.

For the Vuelta it is too soon to tell on how the SKY doms really are. Henao 'forgot to eat' yesterday but recuperated today. And, la Vuelta and the Giro arent the Tour, total chaos cant be controlled. That was a lesson Garmin and Movistar teached SKY in the Tour already.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: L'arri on August 26, 2013, 19:24
Lopez was crap indeed - has been so since the Dauphine -

His Eneco Tour stage win was awesome in its dominance. It was like watching him in LBL again.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Claudio Cappuccino on August 26, 2013, 21:57
Yep, the next day he was too tired to finish?

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: KeithJamesMc on August 26, 2013, 22:15
An interesting observation. Why were the SKY doms of 2012 (Froome/Porte/Rogers/Sivstjov) in much better shape then the doms of this year?
My hunch, and it is only a hunch, is that competition for places on the Tour this year was much tougher and therefore a lot of the team domestiques felt under pressure to show form early, train even harder than normal and make the numbers for the Kerriston spreadsheets. The form of some riders in the early week long stage racers was much better.
Quote
We shouldnt exagerrate the weakness of the doms though, Kennaugh and the Portey were great in the Tour. Sivstjov rode the Giro, unbelievable he was made to ride the Tour, Lopez was crap indeed - has been so since the Dauphine - , what happened to Kirienka is still a big mystery. On the other hand, they didnt need them after all with the dominance of Froome who outclimbed everyone and put minutes into every GT 'contender' in the TT's.
Yep. The strength of Froome hid the weakness of the SkyTrain compared to 2012. Froome attacked early in all the major climbs and left the train behind. Kennaugh did a good job, but he didn't string together two days climbing. Admittedly, Thomas was injured and therefore of limited use. Porte was good and was there when Froome really needed him. ie buddy for two weeks crit racing post Tdf :D

Quote
For the Vuelta it is too soon to tell on how the SKY doms really are. Henao 'forgot to eat' yesterday but recuperated today. And, la Vuelta and the Giro arent the Tour, total chaos cant be controlled. That was a lesson Garmin and Movistar teached SKY in the Tour already.
Agree. But the signs aren't good. I don't buy the Henao 'forgot to eat' excuse and even if he did where was the domestique on hand to give him a gel? The last two days are relatively simple climbs compared to what is come. Unfortunately,  I can see Uran being solo on all the major climbs which is not going to work out well.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Mellow Velo on October 02, 2013, 08:26
 Not that anyone is much interested in yesterday's news man,
but this article might bring a smile or two to those who think
that Wiggins's performance curve is starting to resemble
Mount Everest:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2439465/Sir-Bradley-Wiggins-starting-selfish-side.html

 Much as I would have like to post this in the reinvigorated Froome thread, I wasn't sure that it was sufficient in touch with "on topic".
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Vespertine on October 02, 2013, 14:23
Not that anyone is much interested in yesterday's news man,
but this article might bring a smile or two to those who think
that Wiggins's performance curve is starting to resemble
Mount Everest:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2439465/Sir-Bradley-Wiggins-starting-selfish-side.html

 Much as I would have like to post this in the reinvigorated Froome thread, I wasn't sure that it was sufficient in touch with "on topic".

I find the article to be an outright attack, I don't so much dispute the facts laid out in it, however the grotesquely obvious spin is the first time I have seen it done in this direction in anything that resembles mainstream. We are still talking about the Daily Mail, yet it has been put out there to their readership, and that counts with regards to public perception and opinion.

Personally I find a lot of worthy of comment, on the other hand sometimes I read it and think it is farcical so not worthy of comment.

What do statements like his mean?

Champagne moment: Wiggins celebrates winning the Tour of Britain - but it was a selfish win

Why did he say that? I don't understand.

I mean they have gone right for the jugular on anything but doping.

Before we moved this over here, you were talking about "the lone rider" and doping and whether perhaps this might suggest that Wiggins is a Lone Rider and goes off and dopes himself whilst training. The machine is too big for "Plausible Deniability" to stand up in the long run I think. Look at Murdoch with a pie in his face for something that he probably thought that he would never get fingered for, or at least have plausible deniability for. So I think that notion is off the table, and if that is the case then it is systematic doping, super controlled.

Yet still your point might be even more interesting if we put one spin on the entire article. It would be fun to rewrite it using the facts but simply whipping up something else.

We could say that they doping is systematic in SKY, Wiggins really didn't want to be part of it, he was in too deep to be able to  get out, the wheels were set in motion.

What we have seen following that is him being peesed off with them for tricking him into it in the first pace and he has let his legs do the talking, aside from when he is drunk.

Which of course they hammer in nearly every photo and write about. Yes we have all heard it before, I simply think that he is simply doing when other people do when they are drunk and gobbing off. Is there anyone who gets drunk who doesn't say almost exactly the same kind of crap that he does? I have...

The pressure must have been and still be immense, especially if he does indeed dope.

Imagine if you have go a conscience and did it, and said all that crap, and you were a bit insecure in the first place as you had been brought up by an abusive parent.

Whether he has doped or not, I do not see this guy as he article lays out. Some might say that it would be petty to take revenge. Take things in our own lives that we have done similar over, then magnify them by 100 which is what they have to. It would be too much for me I think, especially if I knew that I had lied.

Thanks for posting that, it surprised me. It is pretty strong really.

 











Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 04, 2013, 13:50
Not sure which book one of the 12 459 wiggo has his name on.....

Anyways he discussed leinders and says something along the lines that Geert seemed the most sensible from that time.

Digger forum retweet the exact quote.

Quote
Wiggins on Geert: 'He never agreed with what was going on, and was one of the sane people who were in the sport at the time' @Digger_forum11:08am - 4 Oct 13

DB will be happy as it cans the we did not know excuse.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: KeithJamesMc on October 04, 2013, 14:15
Not sure which book one of the 12 459 wiggo has his name on.....
Bradley Wiggins - My Time.

I have a copy of the book and the quote is taken out of context. It is in the middle of several pages which explains his position on doping in general and Lance Armstrong and being interviewed by Kimmage.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 11, 2013, 09:40


Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Jimmythecuckoo on October 11, 2013, 10:10
Lance link worked with Froome and Porte?

Wow.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on October 11, 2013, 10:12
Tylers book also confirmed that Philippe Maire was "motoman".

Didnt know he worked with Froome and Porte though  :o   That isnt a good look for 'zero tolerance' Sky    :shh
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on October 11, 2013, 10:29
Consider this....

Who would be left in the peloton, and in the support teams ,if everyone who had any connection with doping, however tenuous, were removed?

Frankly, I'd be amazed if there was anybody left.

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: AG on October 11, 2013, 10:31
umm - you dont think there are any other bike mechanics in Monaco?

seriously?

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Claudio Cappuccino on October 11, 2013, 10:37
umm - you dont think there are any other bike mechanics in Monaco?

seriously?
http://www.annuairedemonaco.net/sites/Monaco_Bike_Pro/page/Magasin-de-Cycle-a-Monaco--Monaco-Bike-Pro.html

Bad reputation this shop.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 11, 2013, 10:43
I think the major thing here is Yates and the BS from Sky and him about not knowing or seeing anything.

but he retired for health reasons, and then slags off the team saying no one knows about bike racing there

it is dripping off the walls there is that much of it.

But no one asks any more Yates , Knaven etc etc etc etc
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on October 11, 2013, 10:45
umm - you dont think there are any other bike mechanics in Monaco?

seriously?

If I was running a top level team, and recruiting support staff, I would be looking for somebody with experience of the exact job I wanted them to do, not some numpty from a backstreet cycle shop.

Having 'experience' of the world of pro cycling is likely to mean having 'experience' or contact, however tenuous, with doping...certainly in the 90's and early 00's.

It wasn't exactly a secret. Everyone knew. Everyone was complicit in that knowledge. Some were actively complicit, who they were may be harder to ascertain.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: just some guy on October 11, 2013, 10:48
If I was running a top level team, and recruiting support staff, I would be looking for somebody with experience of the exact job I wanted them to do, not some numpty from a backstreet cycle shop.

Having 'experience' of the world of pro cycling is likely to mean having 'experience' or contact, however tenuous, with doping...certainly in the 90's and early 00's.

It wasn't exactly a secret. Everyone knew. Everyone was complicit in that knowledge. Some were actively complicit, who they were may be harder to ascertain.

how do you know he is good ?

My memory , all we know was he did Gardening and odd jobs for LA and was a PED mule , and wanted to open a Bike shop so was using LA to get contacts

Title: Re: Sky
Post by: taiwan on October 11, 2013, 11:08
Just gets harder not to conclude that Sky is reheated USPS.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on October 11, 2013, 11:53
If I was running a top level team, and recruiting support staff, I would be looking for somebody with experience of the exact job I wanted them to do, not some numpty from a backstreet cycle shop.

Having 'experience' of the world of pro cycling is likely to mean having 'experience' or contact, however tenuous, with doping...certainly in the 90's and early 00's.

It wasn't exactly a secret. Everyone knew. Everyone was complicit in that knowledge. Some were actively complicit, who they were may be harder to ascertain.

If i was running a top bike squad that was clean, i wouldn't be using anyone like 'motoman' whose association with USPS is well known and not for fixing bikes.


Another black mark against Sky and another crack in their so called clean team image.
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: Joachim on October 11, 2013, 11:56
how do you know he is good ?

My memory , all we know was he did Gardening and odd jobs for LA and was a PED mule , and wanted to open a Bike shop so was using LA to get contacts

Wasn't talking specifically about motoman, but in general. But wrt to motoman, I guess it's about contacts.  "Who do you know that can do odd jobs" etc.

I seriously doubt that Brailsford said "Who do you know who can ferry blood bags about?" and Yates said "oh, motoman. He's the guy we all know about that ferried Lance's bags"

More likely they were mates and Yates wanted to do a favour for a mate.

I don't know if Brailsford knew from the outset when he said he wanted clean people that he would be employing people with a past. If he didn't, it certainly bit him on the arse. Maybe he did and he's totally cynical, but it isn't impossible that he's discovered that hes in a barrel and all the apples are tainted.

...which is why the full truth must come out so that this whole parallel universe can end
Title: Re: Sky
Post by: benotti69 on October 11, 2013, 12:02
Not all the apples are tainted. There are orchards that have never been near the pro scene. But Brailsford for all his talk went to the barrel that they all feed from.

Sky said they wanted to win the TdF in 5 years.

That gave t