Originally Posted by BroDeal
That argument of Sky's was always a huge laugh. Armstrong was an a-hole and a doper, but he trained hard with the best training information available. Landis was legend for his work ethic. When Landis had to attend the TdF route announcement in Paris, instead of driving from Spain, he cycled it in one long day. To get back in shape after his arbitration so he could race Leadville, he did 150 miles a day in Colorado.
I entirely agree about Armstrong/Landis - but that was, in a way, the point.
i know I labour the comparison, but it bears multiple telling -there's a very strong similarity between the LA/Bruyneel doping and the '80s East Germans. Cutting edge dope - allied to cutting edge legit science - anything for the edge. A lot of country's doped in the 70's and 80's - But NONE like GDR, not even the soviets.
Hell, GDR AVERAGED
30+ golds in every summer games it took part in.
Now, looking at Armstrong et al, They saw a sport already choc full of dopers (Roche 87, Delgado 88 are good examples) - but what they brought to it was an amazing, alarming machine-like system - hire the 'best', pay the best, do the 'best' - and I don't think that an 'american' team doing that was an accident - compare with the example of Ullrich, who was a wunderkind, and also did serious dope - and then regularly f*cked it all up by partying and putting on weight. Result : Utter, utter domination by Arsmtrong and allies for best part of a decade. And the other teams never seemed to be able to ally the work with the dope...
Reading Hamilton's book, one thing struck me in his conversation with Riis - There was no doubt Riis was happily running a doping programme when he spoke to TH - but the odd thing was he asked TH , in a friendly and relaxed manner, what he and his former teammates were on/doing.
Can you imagine Bruyneel or Armstrong ever not already knowing that? Every scintilla of it? Can you imagine them letting anyone get one step ahead on the science. But Riis - certainly a serious customer - clearly did.
Entirely leaving aside whether Sky dope or not, i don't find it at all difficult to believe that they throw sports science at their team like evangelicals. the whole track programme was based on it.
now it could all be PR bull, but the new american on Sky has noted in an interview that other, more experienced, new arrivals with him this year at sky are very surprised at the sheer volume and 'science' in the training
exact quote -
“Talking to the older GC guys that are new to the team, like Dario Cataldo [from Omega Pharma-Quick Step] and David López [Movistar], they seemed really surprised about the training load in volume and structure at this point in the year,” Dombrowski said.
“They said almost all the other teams are not working this hard this early. There’s such a focus on details in training, which is perhaps different because the coaches and training plans come from within the team.”
Now, I repeat two things -
1. It makes no difference to whether Sky, or parts of Sky, dope or not.
2. It could very well just be PR bull.
But I do think the possiblity is worth noting that non-traditional teams, or riders, (not from the 'classic' road nations) can sometimes have non-traditional ideas. Sometimes, these ideas are just stupid. And occasionally, some of these can be effective.
Hell, I remember when Lemond's tri-bars were considered bonkers. Of course, that ended on the Champs elysee, but you get my point.