BC spent that to eradicate saddle sores and labia swelling delaying/reducing training load in critical phases of the Olympic Cycle just before Olympics which was identified as an issue affecting performance. Something like 10% of the squad were suffering from them in training at any one time, now 0% are affected in training. You've never seen the 6x washing machines in the Death Star when other teams have 1 or 2 machines? Washing riders shorts together was one factor of many found to be a significant cause of saddle sores to develop and infection to spread due to not being able to wash lycra at high-enough temperatures as usually only low temp wash only. Now GC leaders kit is washed separately to the rest of the team which gets divided in the other 5 machines to minimise risks.
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
thehog
BANNED
Re:
Brailsford once said he hired Leinders to work with saddle sores. Look how far they’ve come now because of it
samhocking said:
Brailsford once said he hired Leinders to work with saddle sores. Look how far they’ve come now because of it
It was Freeman & Peters at BC who guided all that research for the track squad before Leinders. I believe Leinders took the work in Manchester to implement into Sky, hence why the Death Star now has 6 washing machines and all the medical treatments developed by Freeman that goes with it would have needed to be implemented on the road by Leinders I assume?
thehog
BANNED
Re:
Whilst this is the GT thread, one should assume Leinders had some hand in Thomas’s success now. Weight loss, cortisone, getting around dope controls etc. That was his speciality.
samhocking said:
Whilst this is the GT thread, one should assume Leinders had some hand in Thomas’s success now. Weight loss, cortisone, getting around dope controls etc. That was his speciality.
If you believe Thomas's success is based on what Leinders was doing at Rabobank upto 20 years ago, which is obviously known about and available to all teams competing against Thomas today, obviously not, no. That doesn't explain anything if all teams are doing it too or able to do it too.
thehog
BANNED
Re:
It’s not actually available to all teams, money, logistics, connections play important part. That’s why you hire Leinders. Doping is not a level playing field. You know that.
samhocking said:
It’s not actually available to all teams, money, logistics, connections play important part. That’s why you hire Leinders. Doping is not a level playing field. You know that.
Sam, you're arguing two contradictory things here - on the one hand you're saying why would Sky bother to spend a lot of money on doping, and on the other you're saying that they/BC spend a fortune just to treat saddle sores, and are investing in all sorts of costly sports science.
They're two sides of the same coin. Doping is one facet of medical/sports science, has been for at least 25 years now. If Sky are willing to spend big on science, then they're more than willing to spend on its doping component too. I agree, Sky probably do have a greater amount of resources sunk into sports science than others, simply because they can afford it where most of their rivals can't. But thereby gaining access to effective and likely expensive drugs and doping methods is part of that. Sky would of course argue that the 'clean' science alone is enough to make the difference, even to beat other doping riders, but I don't buy it. It is simply inconceivable to me that in a sport with the history and culture of cycling any one team can be consistently better based on improved science alone.
Rather the history says that success is a combination of cutting edge doping products, an expert means of using those products in an effective program, along with legal substances, and a good training regime. I don't believe that anybody, no matter how much more money they have, can succeed in the spot while missing any one of these elements. To go back to Postal, perhaps the thing isn't so much that they had any particular secret product, but they had the resources and influence to make optimum use of those products, secure exclusive expert assistance (Ferrari) and know that they could fly particularly 'close to the sun' without fear of being caught. That's still a distinct advantage that others couldn't get.
Same I strongly suspect with Sky - the best possible products with the best expert advice, coupled with a level of security under Cookson, though that last one has of course now gone. Their method in a sense is very simple and transparent, and has been commented on many times - lose every single tiny bit of fat and excess muscle while retaining immense power. The holy grail of endurance, aerobic sport. But achieving it is far more difficult. Clearly they've cracked it, and amongst their rivals only Dumoulin and Sunweb seem finally to be coming close to working it out. But they lack the money to really exploit it. Can you do it on science and legal methods alone? I highly highly doubt it.
They're two sides of the same coin. Doping is one facet of medical/sports science, has been for at least 25 years now. If Sky are willing to spend big on science, then they're more than willing to spend on its doping component too. I agree, Sky probably do have a greater amount of resources sunk into sports science than others, simply because they can afford it where most of their rivals can't. But thereby gaining access to effective and likely expensive drugs and doping methods is part of that. Sky would of course argue that the 'clean' science alone is enough to make the difference, even to beat other doping riders, but I don't buy it. It is simply inconceivable to me that in a sport with the history and culture of cycling any one team can be consistently better based on improved science alone.
Rather the history says that success is a combination of cutting edge doping products, an expert means of using those products in an effective program, along with legal substances, and a good training regime. I don't believe that anybody, no matter how much more money they have, can succeed in the spot while missing any one of these elements. To go back to Postal, perhaps the thing isn't so much that they had any particular secret product, but they had the resources and influence to make optimum use of those products, secure exclusive expert assistance (Ferrari) and know that they could fly particularly 'close to the sun' without fear of being caught. That's still a distinct advantage that others couldn't get.
Same I strongly suspect with Sky - the best possible products with the best expert advice, coupled with a level of security under Cookson, though that last one has of course now gone. Their method in a sense is very simple and transparent, and has been commented on many times - lose every single tiny bit of fat and excess muscle while retaining immense power. The holy grail of endurance, aerobic sport. But achieving it is far more difficult. Clearly they've cracked it, and amongst their rivals only Dumoulin and Sunweb seem finally to be coming close to working it out. But they lack the money to really exploit it. Can you do it on science and legal methods alone? I highly highly doubt it.
Re: Re:
Why not available to other teams? What suggests Leinders, Cortisone, money, logistics and connections is only a Sky monopoly? Did it all change within 1 years of a bunch of track riders and staff turning up and employing Leinders for a year, despite most teams having connected linearage going back through doping and team doctors and UCI for over over 100 years before Sky? It doesn't make sense.
If Leinders was so 'expensive' and so 'good' why did he never win Tour de France at Rabobank? As for Cortisone it costs £7 and is hardly new to cycling and weight loss!
Also, lets not foget Team LottoNL–Jumbo is Rabobank. If any team might have benefited from Leinders employment, his 13 years there, might carry more weight than 1 year at Sky today anyway surely? But Lotto don't win, so assume they must be the good guys huh?
thehog said:
Why not available to other teams? What suggests Leinders, Cortisone, money, logistics and connections is only a Sky monopoly? Did it all change within 1 years of a bunch of track riders and staff turning up and employing Leinders for a year, despite most teams having connected linearage going back through doping and team doctors and UCI for over over 100 years before Sky? It doesn't make sense.
If Leinders was so 'expensive' and so 'good' why did he never win Tour de France at Rabobank? As for Cortisone it costs £7 and is hardly new to cycling and weight loss!
Also, lets not foget Team LottoNL–Jumbo is Rabobank. If any team might have benefited from Leinders employment, his 13 years there, might carry more weight than 1 year at Sky today anyway surely? But Lotto don't win, so assume they must be the good guys huh?
Re: Re:
Stop over-simplifying. Obviously Leinders was only one piece of the puzzle, nobody is suggesting otherwise (he effectively did win the Tour too, with Rasmussen, but you've been told that before). Most likely he gave them insight into how to play the game in pro cycling and in Europe, and gave tips on passing the testing and on weight loss, a past Leinders speciality. But there have been plenty of others they have tapped into too. Kerrison for one was heavily involved in Swimming Australia's 1990s doping program, so he had useful experience from that. But all this acquired expertise needs money, and a lot of it, to gather, synthesise and exploit successfully. That's why Sky win and Lotto don't - they have the resources to make maximum use of the available expertise and products, and Lotto don't.
samhocking said:
Stop over-simplifying. Obviously Leinders was only one piece of the puzzle, nobody is suggesting otherwise (he effectively did win the Tour too, with Rasmussen, but you've been told that before). Most likely he gave them insight into how to play the game in pro cycling and in Europe, and gave tips on passing the testing and on weight loss, a past Leinders speciality. But there have been plenty of others they have tapped into too. Kerrison for one was heavily involved in Swimming Australia's 1990s doping program, so he had useful experience from that. But all this acquired expertise needs money, and a lot of it, to gather, synthesise and exploit successfully. That's why Sky win and Lotto don't - they have the resources to make maximum use of the available expertise and products, and Lotto don't.
Mamil said:
Cycling has never been cutting edge though in terms of doping or science? Everything known in cycling comes from known existing methods and techniques combined with substance experimentation and a lot of old wives tails and unproven tradition. When I began cycling in 1983 drinking more than 1 bottle of water in a race was frowned upon as bad for performance lol. Two bottle cages was seen as being a weak rider! That's how advanced sports science was in the 80's and 90s!
As for more expensive doping products, the transactions to Ferrari from Armstrong totalled $1Million dollars from 1996 to 2006. Typical yearly transaction was $14-$110K for a years doping program and one at $300K. £300K is available to any WT team and most PC team even. Crikey most of their lead riders earn several times that. Doping is not that expensive even via Ferrari to the most winning Tour de France rider in Cycling history?
2/21/1996: $14,089.65 CREDITO SWIFT NATIONSBANK NA 1, NATIONS HEADQUA O-LANCE ARMSTRONG AC- XXXXXXX RE F. XXXXXXXX USD 13615 – LESS CO USD 14'089.65 (bank record)
5/9/1996: $28,582.33 CREDITO SWIFT LANCE ARMSTRONG AC/XXXXXXX ./.SPESEN/SKA US 7.32 USD 28'582.33 (bank record)
7/24/1996: $42,082.33 CREDITO SWIFT LANCE ARMSTRONG . LINDA WALLING/RFB/XXXXXXXX/ CABLE ADV AT NOC USD 42'082.33 (bank record)
5/6/2002: $75,000.00 Armstrong L. – US$ 75’000. - (Journal entry)
8/29/2002: $75,000.00 Armstrong L. – US$ 75’000. - (Journal entry)
6/5/2003: $100,000.00 Lance Armstrong US$ 100’000. - (Journal entry)
9/10/2003: $75,000.00 Lance Armstrong US$ 75’000. - (Journal entry)
10/6/2003: $300,000.00 Lance Armstrong US$ 300’000. - (Journal entry)
7/2/2004: $110,000.00 AVIS DE CREDIT DONNEUR D’ORDRE: /LANCE ARMSTRONG XXXXXXXXX AUSTIN TEXAS 78703 USD 110,000.00 (bank record)
3/29/2005: $100,000.00 Avviso di accredito D’ORDINE DI LANCE ARMSTRONG USD 100 000.00 (bank record)
12/31/2006: $110,000.00 Lance Armstrong US$ 110’000. - (Journal entry)
Total $1,029,754.31
thehog
BANNED
Re: Re:
You’re in denial again (easy to tell as your posts get longer and longer), if we learnt anything from the Armstrong saga, doping is not a level playing field.
samhocking said:
You’re in denial again (easy to tell as your posts get longer and longer), if we learnt anything from the Armstrong saga, doping is not a level playing field.
Re: Re:
Too simple Hog. Simply explaining the playing field is not level between Sky/USP and all other teams is a catch-all for any logical discussion to not continue. Any team can level the playing field if they are all doping and all illegal, which they were in Armstrong's time.
thehog said:
Too simple Hog. Simply explaining the playing field is not level between Sky/USP and all other teams is a catch-all for any logical discussion to not continue. Any team can level the playing field if they are all doping and all illegal, which they were in Armstrong's time.
thehog
BANNED
Froome just proved to you that scouting around his positive test just like Armstrong that’s it’s not a level playing field. You know this. It’s very simple, otherwise Ulissi would not have been banned of 9 months. Denial.
This is precisely my point? If Ulissi was illegally doping with Salbutomol a level playing field doesn't apply, it's illegal, there is no level playing field whatsoever by definition of no rules applying! Why was Lampre not illegally buying Ullisis's innocence? Why didn't Astana buy Contadors innocence? Why didn't T-Mobile buy Ullrichs innocence or Phonak Landis's, Rabobank Rasmussens etc etc etc. Any team can buy innocence if they want to, if you think that is how winning a bike race works?
samhocking said:
Lovely anecdotal evidence there, but pretty much ever elite rider from the 80's and 90's had two cages on their bike so as far as using that as evidence of cycling pre-Sky being some sort of backwards sport stuck in the stone age you're wrong again.
Sky have successfully sold the smoke and mirrors of super slippery lube and fluffy pillows to you, but it's just a diversion at the end of the day. Froome rides an EPO-era time on the Ventoux? It's OK, they have extra washing machines. Thomas goes from winning cobbled classics to climbing with the elite climbers in a matter of months? It's cool, he's drinking pineapple juice and avoiding the Nutella. Come on.... Everything Sky says is basically a modernized version of the "I'm on my bike six hours a day" line, but in the end no amount of osymetric chain rings or round wheels will make up for the boost that proven dopers like Valverde and Zakarin are getting with their illegal methods, and Sky are still kicking both of their (and the rest of the peloton's) asses.
You basically said it yourself. Every team can afford a Ferrari. Why would any team spend half a million quid fighting saddle sores when they can spend less and get a sure-fire gain by paying a dirty doctor to supply them with the illegal substances and the know-how to avoid tripping the WADA wire?
It is curious that Sky sucked out loud in 2010 to the point where they would have been by far the worst team in the peloton if not for sprinter Boasson Hagen doing well in flat races, despite so-called genius Brailsford masterminding everything from the get-go, and then finally started winning consistently after they hired Leinders in 2011... Don't you think?
Gee knows that Brits love a galant loser so "England expects G to do his duty" and take one for the team.
(There's a Dawg/LRP joke there somewhere with "Kiss me Hardy" but I'll leave you all to have fun with that one)
(There's a Dawg/LRP joke there somewhere with "Kiss me Hardy" but I'll leave you all to have fun with that one)
Re:
It was conveniently being covered up for Contador except someone leaked the failed test just like what happened to your good friend Froome. Who knows if Astana paid money or UCI wanted to avoid reputational damage, either way the intention was to cover it up.
Who knows what other failed tests were covered up. We know numerous ones were for Armstrong.
Ullrich didn't fail a test he was implicated in Operation Puerto.
Landis failing the test was a weird one in my view. Could Armstrong have been behind it? Who knows?
samhocking said:
It was conveniently being covered up for Contador except someone leaked the failed test just like what happened to your good friend Froome. Who knows if Astana paid money or UCI wanted to avoid reputational damage, either way the intention was to cover it up.
Who knows what other failed tests were covered up. We know numerous ones were for Armstrong.
Ullrich didn't fail a test he was implicated in Operation Puerto.
Landis failing the test was a weird one in my view. Could Armstrong have been behind it? Who knows?
Saint Unix said:
Just to answer your specific question directly and without prejudice to the wider debate......because one option is legal and the other option is illegal and cheating
thehog
BANNED
Re: Re:
Fully agree.
Let’s not forget Armstrong had Ferrari on an exclusive contract not to work with other Top 20 riders. Sky did the same with Leinders by hiring him directly to the team. It was impossible to use Ferrari or Fuentes by 2012 due to wiretaps so Leinders became the next choice but Sky had him locked away.
ruamruam said:
Fully agree.
Let’s not forget Armstrong had Ferrari on an exclusive contract not to work with other Top 20 riders. Sky did the same with Leinders by hiring him directly to the team. It was impossible to use Ferrari or Fuentes by 2012 due to wiretaps so Leinders became the next choice but Sky had him locked away.
Re:
But Gee's a Taff and I doubt he cares what the English think.
As far as the whole it costs too much to develop new drugs, did anyone tell Marion Jones and Barry Bonds about this when they were successfully using the clear and the cream thanks to Patrick Arnold and Victor Conte.
Finally, on the whole Wiggins & Thomas comparisons, my understanding was that it was BC that transformed Wiggo whilst he was on Garmin. What I've never been able to square is the dreadful first year of Sky, did BC forget what they were doing when they became Sky and only remember when Leinders came along?
Or was Wiggo's transformation down to JV and the BC masterminding the change from trackie to GT rider a fanciful story?
Robert5091 said:
But Gee's a Taff and I doubt he cares what the English think.
As far as the whole it costs too much to develop new drugs, did anyone tell Marion Jones and Barry Bonds about this when they were successfully using the clear and the cream thanks to Patrick Arnold and Victor Conte.
Finally, on the whole Wiggins & Thomas comparisons, my understanding was that it was BC that transformed Wiggo whilst he was on Garmin. What I've never been able to square is the dreadful first year of Sky, did BC forget what they were doing when they became Sky and only remember when Leinders came along?
Or was Wiggo's transformation down to JV and the BC masterminding the change from trackie to GT rider a fanciful story?
For years and even in the present day, people would whitewash Wiggins's victory by saying the 2012 Tour had so much time-trialing and that it was a tailor-made course, as if Wiggins hadn't outclimbed everyone but his teammate and domestique, Froome.
I think we'll see much the same with Thomas's victory. The narrative will go on about how he had a ridiculously strong team that completely blocked the race, and they'll try not to remember Thomas outclimbing everyone else. Regularly.
I think we'll see much the same with Thomas's victory. The narrative will go on about how he had a ridiculously strong team that completely blocked the race, and they'll try not to remember Thomas outclimbing everyone else. Regularly.
Re:
Though didn't Thomas win 2 mountain stages this year.
Helps for Wiggins that a Valverde breakaway took away what should have been a 1,2 for him and Froome on the queen stgae
100% agree.hrotha said:
Though didn't Thomas win 2 mountain stages this year.
Helps for Wiggins that a Valverde breakaway took away what should have been a 1,2 for him and Froome on the queen stgae
I think that Sky may well have decided that Froome's reputation had simply become too toxic to allow him win this years tour. The roadside reaction will only have help cement this view. Thomas will get a semi free pass but if he wins the yellow jersey he will come under the same sort of scrutiny as Froome has experienced for several years and which Wiggins is still experiencing 6 years later.
If you had said that 3 British riders would win the tour by 2018 back in 2010 you would have been sectioned. He hasn't won it yet but providing he can stay on Dumoulin's wheel on Friday it is all over bar the shouting.
If you had said that 3 British riders would win the tour by 2018 back in 2010 you would have been sectioned. He hasn't won it yet but providing he can stay on Dumoulin's wheel on Friday it is all over bar the shouting.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 985
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
Latest posts
-
77th Tour de Romandie (2.UWT) // 23rd - 28th of April 2024- Latest: QueenStagiaire
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram