Mamil said:
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.
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