GB Track Team

[lemoogle]

So why is Bolt a special case then?

Because, if you look at his body, then you can see he has the potential there. I think we all agree that kenny's body is not a natural advantage over the other sprint cyclits as Bolt's can be for 100m. Most of us are actually surprised by how skinny he looks for a Sprint specialist.

Also relevant, Bolt is a showman that only really cares about delivering when the world is watching, so he'll mostly work for the world/olympics events.

 

[lemoogle]

I think the bit that doesn't add up is that if they were doping in Beijing, then why weren't sky dominant in 2010?

A track doping program wouldn't directly translate to the road?

 

[red_death]

Franklin,
Surely, common sense dictates that if you are going to dope then at least try and moderate it to allow some semblance of respectability.

For this reason I genuinely don't think they are doping (in the conventional sense). To go this far I reckon they would have to be 100% convinced they won't ever get caught, even years down the line.

Daryl Webster has touched upon 'genetic modification' on the Sky thread. It's far too scientific for me to begin to understand it but I suspect 'cheating' of this type far more than I do conventional doping as we know and understand it now.

Marginal gains are interesting but just because you have marginal gains doesn't mean you don't also have significant gains. Sky/GB obviously do have significant gains as well and I think they must come from science that the world will acknowledge as 'cheating' but will allow the perpetrators to stick behind the 'not against the rules' mantra.

Or rather than believing in pixies and magic wheels you could apply a more logical/rational attempt to explain things ie fairly large nation with little historical interest in cycling is inspired by Boardman (trained by Peter Keen who pre-dated Brailsford at UK Cycling).

In turn inspires a new generation of cyclists: Queally, Wiggins, Cav, Hoy etc. Coincidentally lots of money now available to invest in new facilities and more importantly coaches from National Lottery.

Success starts to breed more interest, hence more competition for places and better riders.

Marginal gains seems to be more about out-psyching the opposition than real advantages in most cases.

But easier to blame your own failures on doping/magic wheels/genetic modification than to take responsibility...

 

[the big ring]

Except where is the evidence (even circumstantial?) that GB started doping in 2009?

Brailsford has been involved with British cycling a lot longer than 2009.

This is 60 pages of "magic wheels" nonsense...

Hence, "IF", in response to a post hypothesizing (essentially), "The head of the fish went rotten, but the rest of the fish stayed pristine and untouched".

Post context really is key here. My post has nothing to do with anything OTHER THAN the post to which I was responding.

 

[red_death]

Because, if you look at his body, then you can see he has the potential there. I think we all agree that kenny's body is not a natural advantage over the other sprint cyclits as Bolt's can be for 100m. Most of us are actually surprised by how skinny he looks for a Sprint specialist.

Really, so explain Victoria Pendleton then? Or Mark Cavendish? Or perhaps size isn't everything...look how easily Robert Forstemann gets beaten.

 

[wannab]

Team GB were successful on the track (and on the road for women) clean. They achieved this by working on the science of the sport (with a superior budget).

I repeatedly see people making these claims, but they are really cheap

1) As if only Team GB (and SKY) are doing the science. All top teams are doing this for YEARS. Greg Lemond was one of the first to train with an SRM if I remember correctly, that were the late 80's ... Much as happend since then. This statement is a mockery for all other teams and sport scientists doing their work for years.

2) I also keep hearing the budget, the budget. What another ignorant statement.
a) Pro teams all have large budgets, what could possible be so expensive that only SKY could afford it? (I can only think of organized team doping really)
b) Also it just isn't true, team leader Servais Knaven was very eager to dismiss this comment aswel on "De avondetappe" (late night show)
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xs8hf0_de-avondetappe-17-juli-2012_fun?start=2921

5 teams have a bigger budget that us (sky)

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Because, if you look at his body, then you can see he has the potential there. I think we all agree that kenny's body is not a natural advantage over the other sprint cyclits as Bolt's can be for 100m. Most of us are actually surprised by how skinny he looks for a Sprint specialist.

Also relevant, Bolt is a showman that only really cares about delivering when the world is watching, so he'll mostly work for the world/olympics events.

Pendleton is pretty skinny compared to her competition and seems have have done fairly well. Obviously you could argue that she is doping as well. Using that logic then Robert Forstemann should be head and shoulders (and quads) above everyone else, right?

And, if Kenny started to add some dancing to his pre and post race buildup you would give him a little credit for working hard during meets?

 

[red_death]

I repeatedly see people making these claims, but they are really cheap

1) As if only Team GB (and SKY) are doing the science. All top teams are doing this for YEARS. Greg Lemond was one of the first to train with an SRM if I remember correctly, that were the late 80's ... Much as happend since then. This statement is a mockery for all other teams and sport scientists doing their work for years.

2) I also keep hearing the budget, the budget. What another ignorant statement.
a) Pro teams all have large budgets, what could possible be so expensive that only SKY could afford it? (I can only think of organized team doping really)

Not half as cheap as whingeing about doping and magic wheels - pathetic.

Sports science and training evolves all the time. For Team GB it wasn't just a case of having a large budget, it was that the budget prior to 2000 was practically non-existent for the track, plus IIRC there was one indoor velodrome in the country which was hardly world class.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Really, so explain Victoria Pendleton then? Or Mark Cavendish? Or perhaps size isn't everything...look how easily Robert Forstemann gets beaten.

I'm no sport scientist (that much is obvious) but since 80% of cyclist's output is spent pushing said cyclist through the air, despite being able to generate lots of explosive power, riders like Forsteman and say Meares (baby got back) are disadvantaged by their size? On the GB team only Chris Hoy has got that muscle beach physique. Laura Trott looks like you could put her in your pocket.

So maybe it because these smaller riders are more aerodynamic and lighter. Just tossing anoher theory into the melting pot for good measure.

Except of course its nothing to do with doping UNLESS they have a new drug that makes their muslces smaller put twice as powerful.

Has the Secret Squirrels been discussed here at all?

 

[Ferminal]

08/09

Numbers in brackets = Olympic events. World cups are fairly poor indicator as it's not often that they send decent riders overseas.

Men

World Cups: 45 events, 10 gold, 3 silver, 0 bronze (20, 6, 0, 0)

World Champs: 10 events, 0 gold, 1 silver, 1 bronze (5, 0, 1, 0)

Women

World Cups: 40 events, 9 gold, 1 silver, 0 bronze (20, 5, 0, 0)

World Champs: 9 events, 1 gold, 3 silver, 2 bronze (5, 1, 0, 1)

 

[Dalakhani]

I repeatedly see people making these claims, but they are really cheap

I was talking about team GB, not team Sky. (That's why I mentioned track and women's road racing.)

After Beijing, we heard a lot about money=medals from the track cyclists, so I assumed (perhaps wrongly) they were spending more than other nations.

 

[red_death]

I'm no sport scientist (that much is obvious) but since 80% of cyclist's output is spent pushing said cyclist through the air, despite being able to generate lots of explosive power, riders like Forsteman and say Meares (baby got back) are disadvantaged by their size? On the GB team only Chris Hoy has got that muscle beach physique. Laura Trott looks like you could put her in your pocket.

Or perhaps it just shows that there is no one ideal shape....far more likely.

Has the Secret Squirrels been discussed here at all?

According to some it is cheating and nearly parity to doping...

 

[Ferminal]

09/10

Men

World Cups: 36 events, 6 gold, 2 silver, 1 bronze (16, 4, 0, 0)

World Champs: 10 events, 2 gold, 1 bronze, 1 silver (5, 2, 1, 1)

Women

World Cups: 32 events, 4 gold, 2 silver, 0 bronze (16, 2, 1, 0)

World Champs: 9 events, 1 gold, 4 silver, 0 bronze (5, 1, 3, 0

 

[JimmyFingers]

Or perhaps it just shows that there is no one ideal shape....far more likely.

According to some it is cheating and nearly parity to doping...

What, tech is cheating? Then they should petition UCI to make everyone ride the same bike, on the road and track, fixed gear, no brakes and they have to repair it at the local forge when it breaks.

On no that's cycling in the 19th century....

Anyway apparently the Sky bikes have a carbon crank molded around a metal centre which is them melted away (presumably some special compound) leaving a ridiculously strong, hollow crank arm alledgedly capable of holding up an elevator full of people. I want one

 

[lemoogle]

Pendleton is pretty skinny compared to her competition and seems have have done fairly well. Obviously you could argue that she is doping as well. Using that logic then Robert Forstemann should be head and shoulders (and quads) above everyone else, right?

And, if Kenny started to add some dancing to his pre and post race buildup you would give him a little credit for working hard during meets?

All I said was it was more plausible that bolt could improve more than his competitors in 3 months. Bolt proved that his physique could break the limits of what we thought. There have been many riders with the same physique as kenny , no 100m runner really has had the physique of Bolt. If you want to argue that bolt doesn't have a naturally gifted and different physique go ahead.

And the Robert Forstemann argument would have been valid if I had said that about more "built" physiques like Gay or Powell or other sprinters have been. But I said that about Bolt.

Also, I did not say skinny=doping. Each argument indicating doping should not be criticized on its own. It's all those arguments together that make the point.

If I tell you " clue A and clue B implies C " you can't go back and tell me " clue A doesn't necessarily imply C so C is false", you can't tell me either " so you're saying clue A implies C?" because I'm not .

 

[wannab]

I was talking about team GB, not team Sky. (That's why I mentioned track and women's road racing.)

After Beijing, we heard a lot about money=medals from the track cyclists, so I assumed (perhaps wrongly) they were spending more than other nations.

I mixed it up a little, because I always see these budget claims. For sky that's just plain wrong, I don't know about the track team.

I just wanted to point out that people rapidly make budget claims but do they even know the budgets.

Sports science and training evolves all the time.

Again, sport science "perfection", doesn't only apply to team GB/Sky, it annoy's me when people say that.

 

[lemoogle]

I'm no sport scientist (that much is obvious) but since 80% of cyclist's output is spent pushing said cyclist through the air, despite being able to generate lots of explosive power, riders like Forsteman and say Meares (baby got back) are disadvantaged by their size? On the GB team only Chris Hoy has got that muscle beach physique. Laura Trott looks like you could put her in your pocket.

So maybe it because these smaller riders are more aerodynamic and lighter. Just tossing anoher theory into the melting pot for good measure.

On thing you need to understand here, is that Forstermann's legs aren't massive because it's a defect, they're massive because that's what sprint training does to him and because working on getting more muscle in his legs actually improves his times. The guy is not an idiot. If he could build up the muscle strength without getting bigger thighs he would. Clearly Kenny can.

 

[Dalakhani]

Again, sport science "perfection", doesn't only apply to team GB/Sky, it annoy's me when people say that.

That doesn't mean every organisation is developing their ideas at the same speed.

One team's innovations aren't going to be identical to another team's innovations.

 

[red_death]

All I said was it was more plausible that bolt could improve more than his competitors in 3 months. Bolt proved that his physique could break the limits of what we thought. There have been many riders with the same physique as kenny , no 100m runner really has had the physique of Bolt. If you want to argue that bolt doesn't have a naturally gifted and different physique go ahead.

Your last sentence is a straw man - no one is claiming that. What they are saying is that Bolt was not considered to "fit the bill" for a typical 100m sprinter. In the same way that VP or Kenny was not considered to fit the bill for a typical track sprinter. History has shown us that those pre-conceptions were not necessarily valid, any more than only an East African can win medals in say a 10000m race. Generalisations just do not work (and why should they?).

And the Robert Forstemann argument would have been valid if I had said that about more "built" physiques like Gay or Powell or other sprinters have been. But I said that about Bolt.

Gay isn't really that well built, certainly no more so than Bolt. The main difference is Bolt is just taller.

Also, I did not say skinny=doping. Each argument indicating doping should not be criticized on its own. It's all those arguments together that make the point.

Actually no they don't, all they really give you in this case is innuendo...

 

[wannab]

That doesn't mean every organisation is developing their ideas at the same speed.

One team's innovations aren't going to be identical to another team's innovations.

Really, fundamentals of sport science don't change overday .. neither do they get developed by 1 track team in particular.

 

[Caruut]

Yes I can. Why don't you look it up if you are not sure. Defining it might not mean you agree though. But I think gambling is a moral corruption. This is not a wild or extreme position you realize.

You choose not to define it, though. Quite simply, there is no point bothering looking up what it means because you can easily feel it means something else. As soon as you refuse to define what you're actually saying, you tell me you're just making a point with no substance. Gambling is a grey area for me. If everyone knows the game, and knows that it is a losing game for the player then it is their choice to partake.

 

[red_death]

On thing you need to understand here, is that Forstermann's legs aren't massive because it's a defect, they're massive because that's what sprint training does to him and because working on getting more muscle in his legs actually improves his times. The guy is not an idiot. If he could build up the muscle strength without getting bigger thighs he would. Clearly Kenny can.

Or Forstemann is doing the wrong sort of training? Or he is genetically disposed to a certain body or muscle type?

The point is that you could make everything absolutely equal in terms of training, preparation and equipment and you would still see variations in performance (both from a physical and mental (eg choice of tactics) point of view).

 

[Markyboyzx6r]

Is there going to be any meat on the bones of this thread?

Can anyone name me one person, however tenuous their connection to GBTrack, who says that they know of doping within the team?

Otherwise, this truly is 60 pages of hot air.

 

[red_death]

Really, fundamentals of sport science don't change overday .. neither do they get developed by 1 track team in particular.

Well there is absolutely no reason why one track team couldn't develop its own work, but aside from that you are completely missing the point.

It is about trying to find the best solutions for all areas of a particular sport. Even if you can manage that then you still have the problem of adapting lots of variables for individuals.

Even then it is highly unlikely that you will find the best solution in every area for every individual, but even if you did you will still see differences in the results for a simple reason - genetics. If you didn't then sport would be boring.

 

[JimmyFingers]

On thing you need to understand here, is that Forstermann's legs aren't massive because it's a defect, they're massive because that's what sprint training does to him and because working on getting more muscle in his legs actually improves his times. The guy is not an idiot. If he could build up the muscle strength without getting bigger thighs he would. Clearly Kenny can.

I am sure it is more complex that that. The German sprinters all look huge and it must be down to the weight training programme they do to build muscle mass.

I look it like cars: if you have a heavy, un-aerodynamic car you need a big power source to push it through the air and go fast, while a smaller, lighter, more aerodynamic car can produce the same performance with a much smaller engine.

All complete ******** I'm sure. I guess I am saying there is more than one way to skin a cat. Not that I want to skin a cat