Great Innovations in Cycling (Presented by Sky)

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
BroDeal said:
It will be interesting to hear this excuse again after Froome smashes Contador in the Vuelta.
It'll be interesting to see. If Froome is a wunderkind (he looks like he's going to be a hell of a GT rider, doping or not), I can see him and Contador slugging it out over the climbs. That's if Sky let Froome loose. I'm presuming Froome will ride the Vuelta and Wiggins won't.
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
1
0
gustienordic said:
I can't believe no one has mentioned this yet:



Weight loss method. Drink enough to vomit to induce weight loss.
Don't forget can also be used to cause memory loss! Especially that crucial "Selective" memory loss :eek:
 
What I find odd in the rhetoric from Sky in regards to the improvements gained from their innovations is the assumption that every other team is standing still. ie not innovating nor improving.

If they're gaining 5%, 10% and other riders/teams have gained 2% then their improvements are even greater.

I was recently reading an article On LiquiGas. Over winter they were doing group mediation and breathing exercises. They were also doing specific yoga exercises. The breathing elements were stated to be of great value when under duress during racing. ie keeping the breathing relaxed when at maximum output.

Being an English language we miss the fact that European teams are also innovating.

Which leads me to believe a lot of the published Sky is to draw in the Dummy's guide readers to cycling and to explain some of the gratiatious gains that have probably come from a needle rather than any thing else.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
thehog said:
What I find odd in the rhetoric from Sky in regards to the improvements gained from their innovations is the assumption that every other team is standing still. ie not innovating nor improving.

If they're gaining 5%, 10% and other riders/teams have gained 2% then their improvements are even greater.

I was recently reading an article On LiquiGas. Over winter they were doing group mediation and breathing exercises. They were also doing specific yoga exercises. The breathing elements were stated to be of great value when under duress during racing. ie keeping the breathing relaxed when at maximum output.

Being an English language we miss the fact that European teams are also innovating.

Which leads me to believe a lot of the published Sky is to draw in the Dummy's guide readers to cycling and to explain some of the gratiatious gains that have probably come from a needle rather than any thing else.
Man! That drives me nuts!
 
X) attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings ;)

Also (and not trying to hijack the thread), I couldn't resist this gem:

doolols said:
Wiggins comes from a track background, team pursuit....How does he climb - off the front like Contador, Armstrong, Ricco?...Sky only ever have 4 people in the team on the climb (Wiggins, Froome, Rogers, Porte). USPS used to have more.
I hope he doesn't go off the front like that trio of brios ;) - although he did personally stick it to Nibali in the Pyrenees.

doolols, you have subconsciously stated the single greatest problem, that has never been adequately explained (I'm not getting into a debate with krebs) - how does a pursuit rider, who for years was in the groupetto trying to avoid the broom cart, suddenly be compared to the best climbers in the world? And how does that quartet drive the peleton in the mountains and destroy the yellow jersey group at will? Day after day?

Anyway, these have been discussed to death, not trying to start it all over again in this thread, just thought it funny to see it from a fanboy
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
doolols said:
I can see what you're saying. Thanks for the non-abuse.

Wiggins is not like Armstrong. Wiggins does not climb like Contador, as someone else said. Whoever thinks that hasn't been watching cycling. Wiggins comes from a track background, team pursuit, that sort of thing, where the ability to set a pace and vary that pace slightly brings success. Because he was good at it. Lots of Olympic and championship medals show that.

So, can we say that he should be a good time trialler. It's what he doesn, it's the way he rides.

So, the climbing. How does he climb - off the front like Contador, Armstrong, Ricco? No, he sticks behind his team mates, they do the work for him, mostly, and they stick to a set pace. When Froome lights up and moves away, Wiggins has no answer. Once he had to come back because he was dragging Nibali with him away from Wiggins, and once because he thought it was the thing he should do (or Yates told him to).

What we saw in the tour would have been very different if Contador or A Schleck had been there. Sky would have had to leave Wiggins, because he had no reply.

So, in truth, although I see some similarities between Sky and US Postal, Sky only ever have 4 people in the team on the climb (Wiggins, Froome, Rogers, Porte). USPS used to have more.
Is not the biggest indictment the economics argument, and intelligence.

A top 10 GC rider at the Tour, could earn over 500k euros per, for the last decade.

Anyone know what Wiggins wealth was before his last Slipstream contrat?

Lets say, 200k GBP. At 28. 200k GBP. A lawyers annual salary in the City.

So, Wiggins forgos this moolah, for why? British pride? Olympic gold.

I call BS. The economic argument is the most sound, by the Ascot straight.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
thehog said:
What I find odd in the rhetoric from Sky in regards to the improvements gained from their innovations is the assumption that every other team is standing still. ie not innovating nor improving.

If they're gaining 5%, 10% and other riders/teams have gained 2% then their improvements are even greater.

I was recently reading an article On LiquiGas. Over winter they were doing group mediation and breathing exercises. They were also doing specific yoga exercises. The breathing elements were stated to be of great value when under duress during racing. ie keeping the breathing relaxed when at maximum output.

Being an English language we miss the fact that European teams are also innovating.

Which leads me to believe a lot of the published Sky is to draw in the Dummy's guide readers to cycling and to explain some of the gratiatious gains that have probably come from a needle rather than any thing else.
if Brailsford would just admit they are gains with declining utility.

That such miniscule gains, make zipp difference when you are in the middle of the peloton, the gains you wish to see, are at the end of the stage/classic/GT chrono/Queen stage, the gains in the final 20 minute effort when you are a peak exertion.

Thee "gains" at sub max, mean crap for 250 minutes of racing. If you get gains for the last 30 minutes, then we talk.
 
Apr 11, 2009
2,250
0
0
7) Ultramarathoning, 24 hr pacelines, 24 hours on the TT bike at a stretch. ;)

Marginal gains of diminishing returns.

8) Publishing their methods and Kerrison's insights for: (a) speculative dopeheads on forums (a high priority of theirs); and (b) other teams' perusal.
 
Jun 25, 2012
283
0
0
doolols said:
You guys crack me up, you really do. Same old crap, just repeated in (yet) another thread. Seriously, when are you going to either:

a) give it up

or

b) come up with some evidence of doping (as opposed to the "they're winning, so they must be doping" or "they're using a doctor who was once associated with a team who was doping" or "they're racing in a way that we don't like - i.e. using steady, efficient pace, rather than the more exciting dash and fall back - so they must be doping")

Dear God, how many Sky / GB-related threads are there now?

I'd be very interested to see any real evidence of wrongdoing by Wiggins, Froome, Sky, or Team GB. But I expect I'll just get a load of abuse now, and the core issue will be ignored. Same old, same old.
I like posters like you... you come in here and shoot everybody for seeing the obivous... then you go on with the same rabble thats been going on for ages.. "rabble rabble rabble.. never tested postive, nobody videotaped the act of guilt, rabble rabble rabble"

Next thing you will do is to call all fat and uneducated... then you will claim that no other team/riders had the same harrashment...... really... comeon... there is a reason for these threads and there is a reason why half my friends stopped watching pro cycling many many years ago. (a few of them came back, but they are gone after this year again)


I've seen many, really many good post with the evidence pointed more on guilty than innocent, but the vast majority is not "judging full" they are however suspisious and tries to get some proper answers from the "sky fans" but every single post I've made about certain indications, to why they seem dirty, nobody dares answer them or give a logical explanation, instead.. the call me fat, lazy and a witch hunter... (it seems I am only a witch hunter when its Sky rider I am after)


If you have no interest in joining the clinic and the suspision here, why are you even looking and posting ?? why not say at the road forum without doping talk... only people that deep down knowns doping is a huge part and problem in pro cycling is coming here, admit it or not.


Last... let people vent their anger abit, I think they deserved it due to this season... its looks like a new Dark Age...


Now if you really want to contribute to the clinic, ask some of the hard questions and remember to distinguish between some of the more funny threads here and the serious ones.
 
Jun 25, 2012
283
0
0
BroDeal said:
It will be interesting to hear this excuse again after Froome smashes Contador in the Vuelta.
I don't think that will happen, I am certain that the vast majority of other teams, that really wanna win! will suddenly be better all around ^^

I will even bet you that the poor sbtb team will smash sky suddenly. I've learned one thing from watching pro cycling many years.

"When one walks the dark path and gets away with it, the rest soon follows.."
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
doolols said:
"they're using a doctor who was once associated with a team who was doping"
You realize that you are whitewashing this doctor's role with his previous team with the biggest barrel of bleach avaialable? ;)
 
Jul 26, 2012
4
0
0
I pretty much believe Sky and any other top athlete in the world does some kind of dope. Their results even show they do it well. My main problem is about method, because in the 90's, and surely after '98 we all knew about EPO and that it was then untraceble and all that stuff, after we all knew about blood doping, HGH, Testosterone - and all this stuff made enormous impact on performances, we all know. But while it is definitely possible to cheat the biological passport, at least in the parameters they have now, I can't see how is possible to cheat in a significant way, like having your crit level at .43 instead of .41, or not letting it drop to .39. Yeah, sure there are very strong evidences of such management of performances - since 90 I fail to see many bad days of top riders, it used to be common-, but it mainly works by getting riders at their optimal rather than making them do a Sestriere or Hautacam. At least from what I know this is what Sky should be doing, unless there are any unknown methods/drugs no one (or at least me) knows about. And I can't see how that can be different from what many, or most, other teams should be doing now.
 
doolols said:
You guys crack me up, you really do. Same old crap, just repeated in (yet) another thread. Seriously, when are you going to either:

a) give it up

or

b) come up with some evidence of doping (as opposed to the "they're winning, so they must be doping" or "they're using a doctor who was once associated with a team who was doping" or "they're racing in a way that we don't like - i.e. using steady, efficient pace, rather than the more exciting dash and fall back - so they must be doping")

Dear God, how many Sky / GB-related threads are there now?

I'd be very interested to see any real evidence of wrongdoing by Wiggins, Froome, Sky, or Team GB. But I expect I'll just get a load of abuse now, and the core issue will be ignored. Same old, same old.
Hee hee, those cheating Yanks just hate having their a$$es handed to them by the Brits.
It simply has to be doping. The alternative is just too un-American to comprehend.
 
BroDeal said:
It will be interesting to hear this excuse again after Froome smashes Contador in the Vuelta.
I imagine the naysayers already have that one in the bag too:

i) if he wins, he is clearly doping
ii) if he doesn't win, he was clearly only doping at the Tour

There is a slight possibility, with a small window (say 8th place only), that he may be given a reprieve
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Avoriaz said:
I imagine the naysayers already have that one in the bag too:

i) if he wins, he is clearly doping
ii) if he doesn't win, he was clearly only doping at the Tour

There is a slight possibility, with a small window (say 8th place only), that he may be given a reprieve
Its gonna be interesting alright. Sky could have Uran, Henao, and Porte in the mountains with Froome. Thats an impressive line up for the bumps if they go that way.
It really depends on how the whole team do not just the one guy,but on a harder tour mountain wise it should show if there is anything going on team wide.I am actually looking forward to it more than the farce that was le tour.
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
doolols said:
You guys crack me up, you really do. Same old crap, just repeated in (yet) another thread. Seriously, when are you going to either:

a) give it up

or

b) come up with some evidence of doping (as opposed to the "they're winning, so they must be doping" or "they're using a doctor who was once associated with a team who was doping" or "they're racing in a way that we don't like - i.e. using steady, efficient pace, rather than the more exciting dash and fall back - so they must be doping")

Dear God, how many Sky / GB-related threads are there now?

I'd be very interested to see any real evidence of wrongdoing by Wiggins, Froome, Sky, or Team GB. But I expect I'll just get a load of abuse now, and the core issue will be ignored. Same old, same old.
I have to say, there's a certain faction amongst the regular Clinicians who provide better entertainment than anything free-to-view TV in the UK can provide. That said, we could do with some innovation from said Clinicians. The current subject matter is getting rather dull.

On a serious note, no-one should knock marginal gains re weight loss. If a typical spoon of sugar is 5g, then that's approximately 20 calories. Thus, reducing your sugar intake by one spoon a day for a year means you've shovelled 7300 fewer calories down you over the year, all other things equal. This will result in a weight loss of circa 1.5 pounds. Those marginal losses all add up.

This is a general comment about weight loss, not as a defence of Sky. It is, of course, perfectly possible to dope and drink your coffee without sugar.
 
blackcat said:
Is not the biggest indictment the economics argument, and intelligence.

A top 10 GC rider at the Tour, could earn over 500k euros per, for the last decade.

Anyone know what Wiggins wealth was before his last Slipstream contrat?

Lets say, 200k GBP. At 28. 200k GBP. A lawyers annual salary in the City.

So, Wiggins forgos this moolah, for why? British pride? Olympic gold.

I call BS. The economic argument is the most sound, by the Ascot straight.
But what exactly is the economic argument you're making? That in 2009, Wiggins suddenly checked his bank account, and thought 'hold on, if I start doping I'll be able to double my salary. Pass me the epo'?

However, if this economic incentive to dope is so powerful and sound, then why didn't he think the same thing in, say, 2008? Or in 2007? or in 2006? (A period when doping was, by all accounts, much more rife than it is now). Why did the economic 'argument' only kick in at 28, when he was already a triple olympic champion, making a comfortable living from his trade (£200k a year is what, eight times higher than the average UK salary?)

I don't really understand what the argument is you're making, other than pointing out that prior to 2009 Wiggins concentrated on one aspect of cycling that was less lucrative than the one he started concentrating on after 2009.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
I completely dismiss the economic incentives... it really is a red herring.

Just look at the Goldman Dillema. It's quite simple, the fame and glory are enough incentive. A side-note, the Goldman Dilemma is also why you should just grin at the claims that sport "X" has no monetary incentive and thus no doping.

It's why the tear-wrenching tales about rowing in the 90's being clean and rowers to naive to even know where to start are nonsense. If fifty percent is willing to die within 5 years for a medal, the incentive with much less lethal (and undetectable) drugs must have been tremendous. *

If knitting was an Olympic Sport people would be ready to do anything to get a medal for that discipline.



*Microdosing, Autologous transfusion, HGH (until recently?) and Aicar are as yet undetectable, which also begs the question about the recent cleaning of cycling.
 
Apr 3, 2011
2,301
0
0
GB/Sky turned to be so ridiculous that McQuack himself came to the press to list some of their marginal inventios (these wouldf work also in the
'dope names" thread)

----
"There is a lot of cynicism of success of Team Sky. I think a lot of that is misguided," McQuaid said before the Games commenced.

"They have constant communication between their support personnel and the athletes: they have doctors, physiologists, psychologists, sports psychologists, psychiatrists, sports psychiatrists, kinesiologists, chiropractors, nutritionists, dieticians, even an acupuncturist.
-----

ufff, he did not mention gynaecologist
 
doperhopper said:
GB/Sky turned to be so ridiculous that McQuack himself came to the press to list some of their marginal inventios (these wouldf work also in the
'dope names" thread)

----
"There is a lot of cynicism of success of Team Sky. I think a lot of that is misguided," McQuaid said before the Games commenced.
You know that something is up if McQuaid feels the need to use his ham-handed public relation skills to manage its perception. If McQuaid actually acknowledges that there may be smoke then there it is actually a raging ten story tall bonfire buring on the lawn outside UCI headquarters.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
doperhopper said:
----
"There is a lot of cynicism of success of Team Sky. I think a lot of that is misguided," McQuaid said before the Games commenced.

-----
So Pat says there is indeed a good part of correct suspicions? Note he didn't say "I think that is missguided" or even: "I think most of that is missguided".

If that quote is correct it's a foot in mouth action and should get scorn from all sides of this discussion.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
BlueRoads The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY