Brailsford rethinking his hiring standards

[smaryka]

I can't find the original article in L'equipe, but there's a little write-up on the 39teeth blog here

Basically Brailsford says he may need to rethink his staunch anti-doping stance when it comes to taking on riders for Sky. So maybe Millar has a shot there after all?

Wonder what brought about this big change in view, is it Barry being implicated in the Flandis thing?

I notice that coincidentally (or not) Wiggins has pulled out of Worlds and the Commonwealth games now, essentially ending his season.

 

[Squares]

Brailsford got burned by paying so much to buy out Wiggy's contract. That is the hiring practice he should abandon, spending money to hire a rider that had a fluke result in the Tour.

 

[Square-pedaller]

I can't find the original article in L'equipe

Here it is (from yesterday):
http://www.lequipe.fr/Quotidien/millibris.php?DATE=2010-07-26
I'm not sure if it will work, as it's in the paid online version.

The article is about what went wrong with Sky. It starts with a section listing reasons reasons that individual riders didn't do well, and then say, apart from those reasons, that it's the "Sky method" - a strategy based on extreme rationalisation of the paramters - that's the problem. Bob Stapleton is quoted as saying they're not pragmatic enough, and that not everything in cycling works by numbers; Jonathan Vaughters says that road is different from track - In track you can reduce chance to 1-2%, but only to about 25% in road racing; Sean Yates "acquiesces" that you can have the most aerodynamic position possible, but if you don't have the legs, it's not much use." They cite the prologue as a supporting example, where Sky took expert meteoroligcal advice and because it was wrong, Wiggins rode in the rain. It continues with the section that's translated in the Inner Ring, and ends with a quote from Vaughters pointng out that they still have 5 years to achieve their goal, and a reminder of the Sky budget.

 

[Square-pedaller]

Should have said the article is part way down page 7. Here's the link to the HTML:
http://www.lequipe.fr/Quotidien/article_html.php?ID=eq_100726_2041327
Sky, si loin du ciel


Arrivée sur le Tour avec de grandes ambitions, l’équipe Sky rentre à Paris la musette vide. Pas de victoire d’étape

et personne dans le top 15.


BRADLEY WIGGINS sur le podium, une victoire d’étape pour Edvald Boasson Hagen... L’équipe britannique avait débarqué à Rotterdam avec son bus futuriste, ses Jaguar clinquantes, ses méthodes scientifiques et des ambitions plein le coffre. Trop pour un premier Tour de France. À Paris, le break Sky est resté bien vide. Quatrième en 2009 chez Garmin, « Wiggo » est perdu à la vingt-quatrième place, à 39’24’’ d’Alberto Contador. Ce n’est même pas le coureur le mieux classé de l’équipe : le Suédois Thomas Löfkvist le précède de sept places. Quant à Boasson Hagen, il a seulement réussi à accrocher deux troisièmes places dans des sprints. Le meilleur résultat du team Sky sur ce Tour ? Une deuxième place à Arenberg pour le jeune champion de Grande-Bretagne Geraint Thomas.

Dave Brailsford, le grand patron de l’équipe, ne peut que constater le raté de sa première Grande Boucle. « Bradley est peut-être 10 % moins fort que l’an dernier, c’est suffisant pour être relégué assez loin au général », estime le sorcier de la piste britannique, pour l’instant moins efficace sur la route.


Recherche

directeurs sportifs


Brailsford a une explication à tout. « Giro plus difficile que celui de l’an dernier » pour justifier le mauvais Tour de Wiggins ; tendinite printanière de Boasson Hagen, « celui qu’on a vu cette année, ce n’est pas le vrai Edvald » ; abandon précoce de Simon Gerrans, « c’était notre joker si Bradley ne marchait pas ».

Au-delà des échecs individuels des uns et des autres, c’est la méthode Sky qui pose problème. Un système basé sur la rationalisation extrême de tous les paramètres. « Ils ne sont pas assez pragmatiques. Dans le cyclisme, tout ne tient pas dans des chiffres », juge Bob Stapleton, le patron de l’équipe HTC-Columbia. « La route, c’est très différent de la piste. Sur piste, vous pouvez réduire le facteur “imprévu” à 1 %, 2 %, confirme Jonathan Vaughters, le manager général de Garmin-Transitions. Sur route, vous pouvez l’abaisser à 25 %, pas plus. Il y a toujours un tas de trucs qui vous tombent dessus sans que vous puissiez faire quoi que ce soit. »

Sean Yates, directeur sportif de Sky sur le Tour, acquiesce : « Vous pouvez avoir le meilleur aérodynamisme possible, si vous n’avez pas les jambes, ça ne sert à rien. »

Symbole de la science défaillante des Britanniques : le prologue. Les météorologues maison avaient prévu un orage en soirée, du coup, Wiggins s’était élancé en milieu d’après-midi. Sous une pluie battante. Résultat : une 77e place indigne du triple champion olympique de poursuite.

Comme Brailsford est loin d’être un imbécile, des changements importants sont déjà annoncés pour la suite. Notamment dans un encadrement trop tendre pour la course la plus dure au monde. « Je recherche un ou deux directeurs sportifs, avoue Brailsford. Au départ, je ne voulais personne ayant été mêlé à une affaire de dopage, mais dès qu’on recherche quelqu’un de plus de trente-cinq ans et de très expérimenté, on n’en trouve quasiment pas qui n’ont jamais eu de soucis. Je vais peut-être devoir revoir mon jugement. » Le seul atout du team Sky, c’est le temps. « Ils disent qu’ils veulent donner un vainqueur britannique au Tour de France dans les cinq ans, rappelle Vaughters. Bon, il leur en reste encore quatre. »

Reste à durer. Avec un budget annuel estimé au minimum à 11 millions d’euros, la grande maison Murdoch, sponsor de l’équipe via Sky, n’acceptera sans doute pas un Tour 2011 du même cru que le 2010.


VINCENT HUBÉ

 

[smaryka]

Here it is (from yesterday):
http://www.lequipe.fr/Quotidien/millibris.php?DATE=2010-07-26
I'm not sure if it will work, as it's in the paid online version.

Thanks for the summary, the link doesn't work unless you're a paid online user.

Interesting stuff though. I do think that Brailsford was a bit nuts to gamble on the weather like that in the prologue. Bringing their own beds, warming up behind a black screen, etc. aside, Vaughters is right that you can't control every little thing and will end up losing big time if you try to do that.

But what stuck out for me was how he went from insisting a year ago that no riders who'd ever had a sniff of doping would ever ride for his team, then when Barry was implicated he said he'd ask him about it but "unless the allegations were substatiated" nothing would come of it, and now he's saying he is rethinking his strict anti-doping stance basically because circumstances in cycling have forced his hand. Sounds pretty soft to me.

There's no way he could be involved in top-level cycling all these years and not know how deep the doping goes, so now he just comes across as a liar and a fraud. As if we were stupid enough to believe Team Sky could exist, let alone win, without a single link to any doper.

 

[Square-pedaller]

Basically Brailsford says he may need to rethink his staunch anti-doping stance when it comes to taking on riders for Sky. So maybe Millar has a shot there after all?

I just noticed that there is a major misconception in your post. Brailsford was NOT referring to RIDERS. He was speaking ONLY ABOUT DIRECTEURS SPORTIFS.

I'm not experienced enough to comment on whether Brailsford was or wasn't being sincere in his original no dopers stance. I think L'Equipe have hit the nail on the head with the comments on the 'Sky method', though.

 

[Animal]

The guy's between a rock and a hard place isn't he?

Those big hostage to fortune statements he made to the credulous non-cycling british public who only see Olympic track success, and think the Tour is the same. (They'll be the brit equivalent of blinkered Armstrong fanboys)

And then Murdoch* on the line saying "I don't give a **** how you do it, but I want a Sky rider to win the Tour, and if you can't do it you're fired."

* Or a minion

 

[thingswelike]

Interesting topic. I guess some of these 'fixes' need you to first of all view the first SKY year as a failure (or at least a partial failure). I'm not too sure that's true.

They've won a few stages here and there and won some minor races.

They've delivered a good return for their sponsors imo as they've been very visible, commented and blogged about, the British fanbase seems to have warmed to them. Their branding has certainly been one of their biggest successes imo.

They were in the mix, and for a first year (and with a team most thought lacked strength-in-depth), I thought they did ok - they certainly gave me something to cheer for.

I hope they don't throw the baby out with the bathwater as some things were definitely working well.
If Wiggo hadn't done the Giro and had done a bit of altitude stuff at the most optimal time for the tour, and if the wind hadn't been against him in the final tour TT, things could have been very different. All small changes.

The only thing I would criticise really is that they seemed to assume that they could take on Columbia in the sprint leadouts. A similar mistake to Garmin last year (especially on the Champs-Élysées), thinking that speed and commitment was all you need.

 

[mortailcoil]

Like most things British. Glossy cover and kit (packaging), less substance.

But I do not feel they did too badly - what more were they expecting? That is arrogance. They should be glad they got their face out there.

 

[BroDeal]

If Wiggo hadn't done the Giro and had done a bit of altitude stuff at the most optimal time for the tour, and if the wind hadn't been against him in the final tour TT, things could have been very different.

Yeah, Wigans could have lost even more time and not had any easy excuses.

 

[bobbins]

Brailsford has obviously believed his own bull$hit for too long and is now realising that road cycling is a very different kettle of fish.

He should stick to what he is good at, get a good team around that do all the work and let him collect the awards. He shouldn't be in the team cars or around the riders all tour, surely that is a controllable pressure they can do without?

Anyone have a clue who's running the British Cycling team these days? All the coaches seem to be full time with Team Sky. They must be the only Pro team getting coaches for around £15k a piece!!

 

[Colm.Murphy]

For a first year PT outfit, they have been respectable.

Brailsford has miscalculated Wiggans by a lightyear. Wiggans will no sooner challenge for GC in any GT than Lance will.

As for the team, they do need a GC rider, and judging from the talent on the avail, they have the budget to get one. If they bring in Millar, then I will throw my hands up.

 

[BroDeal]

As for the team, they do need a GC rider, and judging from the talent on the avail, they have the budget to get one.

They had the budget to get one. They blew their wad on Wigans. Some estimates put the per year figure for Wigans at 2 million pounds when the Garmin buyout is factored in. That kind of money could buy a real TdF podium contender who could also win the Giro or Vuelta.

 

[Nick C.]

I don't get the whole blaming it on doing the Giro nonsense they were trying to pawn off. Didn't he ride it the year before and finish 4th??? Its not as if he busted his *** doing it.

 

[joe1265]

Geraint!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[L'arriviste]

Two things I got out of this:

1. There should be a middle way between squeaky clean backgrounds and murky backgrounds.

2. Science doesn't always have the answer. For Sky, it's now time to do something human and learn to adapt to circumstances.

Hoorah for pragmatism.

 

[Hawkwood]

Like most things British. Glossy cover and kit (packaging), less substance.

But I do not feel they did too badly - what more were they expecting? That is arrogance. They should be glad they got their face out there.

I thought the British way is rubbish packaging even if the product is great.

 

[Realist]

Here it is (from yesterday):
http://www.lequipe.fr/Quotidien/millibris.php?DATE=2010-07-26
I'm not sure if it will work, as it's in the paid online version.

The article is about what went wrong with Sky. It starts with a section listing reasons reasons that individual riders didn't do well, and then say, apart from those reasons, that it's the "Sky method" - a strategy based on extreme rationalisation of the paramters - that's the problem. Bob Stapleton is quoted as saying they're not pragmatic enough, and that not everything in cycling works by numbers; Jonathan Vaughters says that road is different from track - In track you can reduce chance to 1-2%, but only to about 25% in road racing; Sean Yates "acquiesces" that you can have the most aerodynamic position possible, but if you don't have the legs, it's not much use." They cite the prologue as a supporting example, where Sky took expert meteoroligcal advice and because it was wrong, Wiggins rode in the rain. It continues with the section that's translated in the Inner Ring, and ends with a quote from Vaughters pointng out that they still have 5 years to achieve their goal, and a reminder of the Sky budget.

The meteorological advice may have led to an unfortunate outcome, but it is not wrong just because the most probably outcome did not eventuate. I don't get how people don't get this. If it was a smart decision beforehand, it is still a smart decision after. And for mine, relying on the best advice available is a smart decision. If it had rained on Cancellara but not Wiggo, Wiggo might have had a shot. If they both got the same conditions, probably not. This means even if rain was more probable for Wiggo's start, they payoffs are still better for him starting early. That the rain was less likely then only made it even more in his favour.

Now someone will try to point out that the rain was not less likely when Wiggo started because it rained. And I will try to IP trace them so I can find them and play poker with them. Probabilistic reasoning, people.

 

[Realist]

2. Science doesn't always have the answer. For Sky, it's now time to do something human and learn to adapt to circumstances

Certainly, there are unquantifiable variables at play. There are two things going on... one is that measurement of some variables is hard, the other is that science makes probabilistic statements not definite ones, so you can't judge much from a single event. There is certainly a problem with the misperception of science and its application in strategic decision making. But I guess in some complex sense it is true that science doesn't have all the answers - as long as people realise noone serious would claim it does.

 

[hrotha]

The meteorological advice may have led to an unfortunate outcome, but it is not wrong just because the most probably outcome did not eventuate. I don't get how people don't get this. If it was a smart decision beforehand, it is still a smart decision after. And for mine, relying on the best advice available is a smart decision. If it had rained on Cancellara but not Wiggo, Wiggo might have had a shot. If they both got the same conditions, probably not. This means even if rain was more probable for Wiggo's start, they payoffs are still better for him starting early. That the rain was less likely then only made it even more in his favour.

Now someone will try to point out that the rain was not less likely when Wiggo started because it rained. And I will try to IP trace them so I can find them and play poker with them. Probabilistic reasoning, people.

It was a wise decision if the goal was to have Wiggins win the prologue. If the goal was to have Wiggins be a GC contender, then it wasn't necessarily a wise decision, it was a gamble. If Wiggins starts with the other contenders, it's a matter of who time-trials better, and in that situation Wiggins wouldn't (theoretically) lose.

 

[Ferminal]

Don't listen to them Dave... keep running a clean team. Don't let the BS from Stapleton and JV drag you into it.

I was very happy to see Wiggins do nothing this year as I think it proved a few things.

 

[Realist]

It was a wise decision if the goal was to have Wiggins win the prologue. If the goal was to have Wiggins be a GC contender, then it wasn't necessarily a wise decision, it was a gamble. If Wiggins starts with the other contenders, it's a matter of who time-trials better, and in that situation Wiggins wouldn't (theoretically) lose.

Mmmm I can see where you are coming from with this. It is a gamble either way. If Wiggins TT's better than the GC guys and he gets to ride in the dry and they don't, he maybe gets a bit of a buffer. Every second counts and all that. As it turns out, he would have needed to have ridden the prologue in a negative number of minutes, which would have been difficult for sure. Either way is a gamble. It just depends how you view the payoffs.

There is a game theory/decision making study of soccer players which finds that they allocate their penalty kicks between left and right close to optimally, but don't kick to the middle of goal quite as often as they should to maximize their chance of scoring. The theory being that if you don't score while shooting to the middle, you look stupid. I think this is what happened to Sky.

 

[Martin318is]

The meteorological advice may have led to an unfortunate outcome, but it is not wrong just because the most probably outcome did not eventuate. I don't get how people don't get this. If it was a smart decision beforehand, it is still a smart decision after. And for mine, relying on the best advice available is a smart decision. If it had rained on Cancellara but not Wiggo, Wiggo might have had a shot. If they both got the same conditions, probably not. This means even if rain was more probable for Wiggo's start, they payoffs are still better for him starting early. That the rain was less likely then only made it even more in his favour.

Now someone will try to point out that the rain was not less likely when Wiggo started because it rained. And I will try to IP trace them so I can find them and play poker with them. Probabilistic reasoning, people.

That was gold!

 

[Martin318is]

Mmmm I can see where you are coming from with this. It is a gamble either way. If Wiggins TT's better than the GC guys and he gets to ride in the dry and they don't, he maybe gets a bit of a buffer. Every second counts and all that. As it turns out, he would have needed to have ridden the prologue in a negative number of minutes, which would have been difficult for sure. Either way is a gamble. It just depends how you view the payoffs.

There is a game theory/decision making study of soccer players which finds that they allocate their penalty kicks between left and right close to optimally, but don't kick to the middle of goal quite as often as they should to maximize their chance of scoring. The theory being that if you don't score while shooting to the middle, you look stupid. I think this is what happened to Sky.

Not wishing to take things off topic but to confirm that point, I did see the same study in the press. it also said that if golkeepers stood still they would block more goals than they missed, but the keepers instinctively know that if they jump and are wrong they look better to the public.

20/20 hindsight is terrible in situations like that of Wigan(s). If he rode with everyone else and the rain happened as the prediction suggested then he would have just been one of the many unlucky ones. Instead they stuck their necks out. If they'd been right they would have been lauded (in hindsight) but instead he is the only big loser (in hindsight) and gets laughted at for it. tricky

 

[Hugh Januss]

Don't listen to them Dave... keep running a clean team. Don't let the BS from Stapleton and JV drag you into it.

I was very happy to see Wiggins do nothing this year as I think it proved a few things.

That Wigans sux?