Kimmage on Wiggins, Sky

[Siriuscat]

Hahaha I know it's a trap.

Still fun to poke the trolls sometimes.

Michelle, is that you?

Funnily enough that occured to me.... my bad.. ;0) also sounds a bit like Airstream

 

[SeriousSam]

It's like they're saying "Sky is the only one with a wind tunnel and all these other pathetic loser teams don't have them, that's why we're better." It's just like attributing anything to cadence or "training harder". Talent, I'll buy. Tactics, I'll buy. "Had a good day" I'll buy. But marginal gains? Everyone can do what Sky does to have "marginal gains", but not everyone accelerates away from elite level climbers in their saddle because of it.

Think of the average Daily Mail reading July fan. That's exactly what that person wants to hear, and is inclined to believe. Hence that's the BS Sky spew ad nauseam despite of how absurd it comes across to people who aren't completely gullible .

 

[Ventoux Boar]

The question for me is why? Why attempt to separate Kerrison?

The interview had this overall tone that Sky don't really know what they are doing. And all of the advancements have been because of The Dawg natural instinct to do things differently, Michele's diet program and Bobby Julich along with the Chunge x 2.

The references to the road bike set up, lack of interest in finding Badzhilla, dismissal of the Kerrison program, not really knowing Leinders, Brailsford's ineptness, giving him the wrong roles in the team etc. you get the feeling there's not a lot of "Team Sky" about the Dawg. He's a one man show with a lady and a bit of Bobby Julich.

Because he thinks Kerrison is useless. He didn't spot Froome's talent, never mind develop it. He delivered him a team in 2013 that was cooked on arrival. There haven't been many signs of improvements this year. And he hasn't developed a single rider of note, with most seeming to plateau on arrival.

Sky would be nowhere without Froome. Froome thinks Kerrison has had quite enough credit for having nothing to do with it.

 

[RownhamHill]

I kinda agree with you. I'm not sure if we're making a mountain out of a molehill over this one quote. I can imagine two different deliveries of the same words, & in one, its very suspicious, & the other wouldn't raise an eyebrow. Its difficult to interpret without actually seeing the body language & the timing.

If as soon as asked the question, Froome immediately kind of snaps, that he never worked with Kerrison; then that would raise my interest. On the other hand, if he paused for a few seconds, & appears to think about it, before saying that he never worked with him, that would give the impression that it wasn't important, & he actually had a think about it before giving an honest answer, versus appearing to have a prepared line denying that he ever worked with someone.

There's a limit to what you can get from the written word, & that's why it would be nice to get PK's perspective, & I suspect we'll hear more before the tour.

Yep, agree with this.

 

[RownhamHill]

Because he thinks Kerrison is useless. He didn't spot Froome's talent, never mind develop it. He delivered him a team in 2013 that was cooked on arrival. There haven't been many signs of improvements this year. And he hasn't developed a single rider of note, with most seeming to plateau on arrival.

Sky would be nowhere without Froome. Froome thinks Kerrison has had quite enough credit for having nothing to do with it.

And very much this.

 

[red_flanders]

Every time I see or hear them talk about wind tunnel training, or lowering their seat posts or altitude training as the reason why they're so successful, I just get really confused. I mean those resources are available to all teams. It's like they're saying "Sky is the only one with a wind tunnel and all these other pathetic loser teams don't have them, that's why we're better." It's just like attributing anything to cadence or "training harder". Talent, I'll buy. Tactics, I'll buy. "Had a good day" I'll buy. But marginal gains? Everyone can do what Sky does to have "marginal gains", but not everyone accelerates away from elite level climbers in their saddle because of it.

Stop, you're making sense. We can't have this kind of logic go un-punished.

 

[red_flanders]

And for the marginal gain of a slightly reduced aerodynamic profile, there's a corresponding marginal loss, because you lose mechanical advantage by not standing in the pedals, & thus you're not getting the full effect of potential energy in your pedal stroke.

And anyone who has ever ridden a bike competitively (or ffs, recreationally) knows which that the aero "advantage" is indeed marginal, and the mechanical advantage is profound.

 

[thehog]

Stop, you're making sense. We can't have this kind of logic go un-punished.

And those pillows?

Cofidis & Cannondale had them way before Sky copied.

Technogel are an italian company now supplying "cushioning" to Fizik.

http://us.technogelworld.com/blog/how-do-pro-cycling-champions-sleep/

 

[mudbone]

I explain this earlier do you not believe less wind resistance when seated?...

i'm not disputing this, rather that Froome claimed immediately after mont ventoux not to have done any training on the method - ie: directly contradicting his words quoted above in the Kimmage interview.

I've found Froome's original explanation (in the press conference the day after Ventoux) when asked if he'd trained for the "high-cadence surging" attack on Contador...

"Um, I haven't actually done actually any specific training of high cadence or anything like that. Um, it must have just been, er, heat of the moment in the race. But, er, maybe it's something I should put into my training."

A couple of days later Fotheringham reported in the Guardian:

Inevitably the move raised eyebrows, given that seated accelerations at the high cadence Froome briefly produced are rarely seen on mountain climbs. But the Australian physiologist Tim Kerrison, who has revolutionised the way his charges at Team Sky build up to races such as the Tour, explained that such intense efforts when the body is already close to its limit are a key part of his proteges' training. In that sense, this was a relatively routine piece of riding for Froome.

"Pete Kennaugh was laughing at the end of the stage," said Kerrison. "He said the way Chris rode that climb was exactly what we do in training every second day. Our training is much more than just doing intervals at a constant pace for a set amount of time..."

 

[red_flanders]

i'm not disputing this, rather that Froome claimed immediately after mont ventoux not to have done any training on the method - ie: directly contradicting his words quoted above in the Kimmage interview.

I've found Froome's original explanation (in the press conference the day after Ventoux) when asked if he'd trained for the "high-cadence surging" attack on Contador...

A couple of days later Fotheringham reported in the Guardian:

Great stuff. How anyone can read that post and conclude anything but "they're all lying" is beyond me.

 

[The Hitch]

I'd need a physiologist to confirm, but my understanding is as follows:

If badzilla is affecting Froome's performance, you might think, logically, that as soon as it's cured, he can ride stronger, but I do not think that is necessarily the case.

Let's look at a doping example: testosterone.

Just taking testosterone alone will not make you stronger. You have to train to get stronger. The process is:

1. overload
2. recover
3. supercompensation --> getting fitter and stronger

If you only train as hard and as often as you did before taking testosterone, you're not going to improve any quicker, as the overload will be the same. Yes, you have better recovery, but you didn't stress your body more, so the greater recovery is not going to help any. With testosterone you recover quicker, so you can train as hard, but more often. ie the recovery has increased, therefore you can increase the overload, leading to a greater supercompensation. You get fitter and stronger, more quickly.

Now Froome is anti-doped with Bilharzia. Not only is his ability to overload reduced, but so too, apparently, is his recovery. His performances pre-Vuelta 2011, various interviews and biography all confirm his inability to recover.

If Froome can only overload like a Cat 1 rider, then he will only ride like a Cat 1 rider. He spends most of his pro life riding like a Cat 1 rider - not a top level pro.

As soon as the Bilharzia is cured, he can now

1. overload his body like a protour (PT) rider
2. recover like a PT rider
3. have the supercompensation of a PT rider

but this process takes time. He hasn't been overloading like a PT rider at all, nor recovering like one, since he turned pro.

It should take some time - up to a year or more - once the Bilharzia has been cured, to reach his "genetic potential".

You'd expect to see some improvement, over time, but in 7 weeks he went from Cat 1 domestique to world beater.

You are barking up the wrong tree though, since Froome now admits he wasn't cured of Bilharzia in 2011 afterall. He accidentally had been led to believe he was and told the media he was, but in reality, he now claims, it was still in him and continued to be until early 2013

 

[The Hitch]

Because he thinks Kerrison is useless. He didn't spot Froome's talent, never mind develop it. He delivered him a team in 2013 that was cooked on arrival. There haven't been many signs of improvements this year. And he hasn't developed a single rider of note, with most seeming to plateau on arrival.

Sky would be nowhere without Froome. Froome thinks Kerrison has had quite enough credit for having nothing to do with it.

So Froome's improvement has been totally independent of "genius Kerrison"?

Got to laugh at this post from 2 years back on velorooms from former resident CN Froome fan - Froome19

If you want to talk Sky and doping then this man is the one who you need to talk about..

He is either an amazing coach and an absolute genius... or a very dirty cheat..
He was the coach who Wiggins and the rest of the winning Tour team attributed for their incredible perfomances at the Tour.

So I will fill people in with some info on him..:

Kerrison was, as is infamously known, an Australian swimming coach until 2008 when he left and was contacted by the English cricket team, Brailsford managed to whisk him away at the last second.

A fellow coach at Aussie swimming.. said of Kerrison that it was "

Quote

A tremendous loss to Australian swimming and that Kerrison is taking with him substantial knowledge of very innovative practices"

In fact Kerrison, being the genius coach who he is, has developed a software which has also revolutionised British swimming called the HCSI

What was so surprising about the recruitment though was that Kerrison did not have a clue about cycling, it was not all that uncommon considering that many physiologists swap sports, but in retrospect it is particularly surprising.

Yet Brailsford seems to explain it by saying:
Quote

Tim's view is that the body is the body, whether it's swimming, rowing, cycling or any other sport. It is not tarnished by conventional wisdom

Makes pretty good sense to me..

Anyways, Kerrison's job seeing as he was clueless about the sport, was to follow the team around everywhere do nothing but observe, collating ideas and information.

Anyways after the 2010 season, Kerrison sat down with Brailsford to show him what Kerrison had observed and his overall conclusions. Brailsford said afterwards he was "blown away" by what Kerrison presented to him...


Here are his main conclusions...


What is startling from there primarily is how they make so much sense but due to the fact that they come from a mind which has not been whatsoever influenced by the sport and therefore does not concur with the stigmas and stereotypes which many of the tradiotional European teams have been influenced and therefore restricted by. Particularly as he says the reliance on doping, has stunted the coaching aspect of the sport whilst the best coaches and doctors in the past, have not been the ones who are the best trainers, but rather the ones who have the best doping techniques.

1) Kerrison could not understand why it was common practice for riders to use races for training.

This technique was instituted years ago due to prize money... now the top riders dont need the prize money all that much, then why do they still use the races as training and build up when they can do it in more controlled environments at their own leisure, when they were not subjected to the racing peloton who has a mind and rhythm of its own.

Yet people still believe that quality efforts would be done at the races, whilst the inter periods would be done at home for resting and lesser intensity training.

Edit: I found this quote which backs up this explanation.

Quote

Wiggins said last month, while on camp in Tenerife, that he doubted if any single day on the Dauphine would be as hard as his training in, on and around Mount Teide and he was manifestly right. To these eyes the one full day's hit out I witnessed in Tenerife was immeasurably tougher than either of the two high mountain stages at the Dauphine.

2) Another concept of his was "reverse periodisation". This is what people have witnessed with Porte, Wiggins and Rogers over the past year, where they have seemed to be at peak form, a step ahead of the other riders throughout the season.

Effectively it gets rid of the athlete originally focusing on his endurance and building an aerobic base, and then only afterwards to move only on to high intensity exercises only towards the end of the training period or cycle.

And instead it makes the rider focus on introducing all the power and speed work early on and then they would gradually increase the duration of the training of those attributes as the rider's fitness improved, AKA. in this case closer to the Tour.

In the Wiggins case this was very evident wherease many so called "experts" questioned as to whether Wiggins was not peaking a tad too early. If these "experts" had understood that the "reverse periodisation" allows Wiggins to produce maximal perfomances even prior to his peak they would have realised Wiggins was in perfect shape for the Tour.

They assumed that if riders are outputting maximal efforts then that would fastrack a rider into and out of the other side of their best form.

Once again this is another one of the misgiving which has stunted cycling and without it, it seems cyclists can perform much better.


Furthermore another example is that of Wiggins's time trialling which as markedly improved over the past two years. This is due to the fact that Kerrison has made Wiggins race his TTs at a lowed cadence.


Indeed Sky have rightfully applauded their genius coach and Wiggins has specifically attributed his Tour win down to Kerrison's coachin. Not only that but Rogers as well claimed that has increased his power threshold by 5-7% since working with Kerrison.

Even Brailsford has labelled Kerrison
Quote

"The best man in cycling"

Pretty big considering the quality of the coaches Brailsford has worked with, as Sky, GB and on the track.. DB doesnt give compliments all that easily, so one of this magnitude means something. And tbh I am not sure he is exaggerating all that much.

He even went as far as to note that he doesnt like singing Kerrison's praises too much as ..
Quote

We dont want to lose him. I dont want to say too much about how good he is.

Julich who worked for Riis at CSC said that he was used to Riis's method of training and said:
Quote
"At first when I saw the way Tim was working I was pretty skeptical. Then as soon as I'd figured it out, I was like, WOW! Why doesnt everyone else do it like this"
Doesnt seem to me like the supposed Omerta that Benotti is always going on about.

To me it seems like the quality of coaching in the sport, has been harmed by the prominence of doping and only with coaches like Kerrison can the sport start to focus on improving riders' perfomances in other ways than doping.

Draw your own conclusions, but to me it seems relatively possible that this man could have accomplished what he has done due to just pure tactics and the reasons he has given for them seem to very, very logical and it all seems to explain the improvements and perfomances of the Sky team and specifically the Tour team and the Fantastic 4; of Froome, Porte, Rogers and Wiggins.

It seems to me that cycling has been stunted by certain misgiving and that Sky with Kerrison who has not been subjected to the misgivings therefore have an advantage.

To me he merely seems to be a genius of a coach..

If Froome wasn't using "reverse periodization" to have his 6 month super peak last year, did SKy invent a second totally different none doping 6 month super peak exercise?

 

[BYOP88]

2012 was 2 years ago, 2013 was so last year. Kerrison comes up with new stuff every year, this year the plan was for Sky riders to get ill, ill and then ill some more it's the 2014 "reverse periodisation" theory.

 

[Granville57]

So Froome's improvement has been totally independent of "genius Kerrison"?

Got to laugh at this post from 2 years back on velorooms from former resident CN Froome fan - Froome19

I very well may have already responded to this, but I do wonder if this quote is from Kerrison...or LeMond.

Effectively it gets rid of the athlete originally focusing on his endurance and building an aerobic base, and then only afterwards to move only on to high intensity exercises only towards the end of the training period or cycle.

And instead it makes the rider focus on introducing all the power and speed work early on and then they would gradually increase the duration of the training of those attributes as the rider's fitness improved, AKA. in this case closer to the Tour.

Because Greg spoke of that approach, exactly, some years ago in one of the cycling mags (I'm not home at the moment, so can't offer more specifics. But I will, trust me).

LeMond also mentioned, very specifically in regards to this, that it was becoming the prevailing view among sports physiologists. It was direct challenge to the long-held notion of forming a "base" by slowly building up one's condition with long, not-too-intense efforts.

But then Kerrison comes along, after the fact, and discovers this all on his own. Brilliant!

Oh, and then Froome claims to not even pay much attention to Kerrison's methods anyway. So there's that...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I very well may have already responded to this, but I do wonder if this quote is from Kerrison...or LeMond.
Because Greg spoke of that approach, exactly, some years ago in one of the cycling mags (I'm not home at the moment, so can't offer more specifics. But I will, trust me).

LeMond also mentioned, very specifically in regards to this, that it was becoming the prevailing view among sports physiologists. It was direct challenge to the long-held notion of forming a "base" by slowly building up one's condition with long, not-too-intense efforts.

But then Kerrison comes along, after the fact, and discovers this all on his own. Brilliant!

Oh, and then Froome claims to not even pay much attention to Kerrison's methods anyway. So there's that...

Then there's this, from the wattage group:

A coach, whom I won't name, worked with Sky during the fall of 2012 and predicted that Wiggins would have a terrible upcoming 2013 season due to overdoing things way too early -- he was right. He also stated that he thought Sky was not at all "cutting edge" in its training concepts/methods.

 

[thehog]

I miss Froome19.

And the other 18 Froome's before him

 

[mewmewmew13]

Then there's this, from the wattage group:

"Quote:
A coach, whom I won't name, worked with Sky during the fall of 2012 and predicted that Wiggins would have a terrible upcoming 2013 season due to overdoing things way too early -- he was right. He also stated that he thought Sky was not at all "cutting edge" in its training concepts/methods."

lol
I really think only they think they are 'cutting edge'.

would love to ask Hendy in person what he thinks of Sky's stuff..

 

[thehog]

"Quote:
A coach, whom I won't name, worked with Sky during the fall of 2012 and predicted that Wiggins would have a terrible upcoming 2013 season due to overdoing things way too early -- he was right. He also stated that he thought Sky was not at all "cutting edge" in its training concepts/methods."

lol
I really think only they think they are 'cutting edge'.

would love to ask Hendy in person what he thinks of Sky's stuff..

We could ask David Walsh?

 

[Race Radio]

"Quote:
A coach, whom I won't name, worked with Sky during the fall of 2012 and predicted that Wiggins would have a terrible upcoming 2013 season due to overdoing things way too early -- he was right. He also stated that he thought Sky was not at all "cutting edge" in its training concepts/methods."

lol
I really think only they think they are 'cutting edge'.

would love to ask Hendy in person what he thinks of Sky's stuff..

They are not. A friend is a coach for a large Pro Team and talked in detail with Julich......nothing special, nothing new.

As for the "reverse periodization" model, hmmm, lets see. Periods of short, intense, efforts that gradually become longer? Sounds like the model the sport has been following for 100 years.......Classics, Hilly classics, Grand Tours. Yup, been done.

Given the huge budget of Sky one would think these marginal gains would work on more then 2 guys.

As for working with Kerrison. I know Porte was working with Kerrison last May as he told me he was. Raved about how smart he is.

The #1 in coaching is not the workouts but making the rider feel they are special, that they are getting a secret, unique, program just for them. Coaching is a mental game.

 

[thehog]

Porte's not the smartest tool in the shed. Not hard to imagine that he thought someone was "smart" because they said so...

So, yeah, sounds about right.

Insert picture of Porte looking doepy:

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The #1 in coaching is not the workouts but making the rider feel they are special, that they are getting a secret, unique, program just for them. Coaching is a mental game.

In my experience the #1 thing in coaching is helping riders to not over train.

 

[Ripper]

They are not. A friend is a coach for a large Pro Team and talked in detail with Julich......nothing special, nothing new.

As for the "reverse periodization" model, hmmm, lets see. Periods of short, intense, efforts that gradually become longer? Sounds like the model the sport has been following for 100 years.......Classics, Hilly classics, Grand Tours. Yup, been done.

Given the huge budget of Sky one would think these marginal gains would work on more then 2 guys.

As for working with Kerrison. I know Porte was working with Kerrison last May as he told me he was. Raved about how smart he is.

The #1 in coaching is not the workouts but making the rider feel they are special, that they are getting a secret, unique, program just for them. Coaching is a mental game.

In my experience the #1 thing in coaching is helping riders to not over train.

Well, you're both right - coaching can be either or both. The thing is, unless your dumb or highly dysfunctional, you can figure it out after a season or two and then go on your own, perhaps using a coach as a periodic consultant. But let's face it, at the elite level, there's a lot of "needy" going around.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

So Froome's improvement has been totally independent of "genius Kerrison"?

Got to laugh at this post from 2 years back on velorooms from former resident CN Froome fan - Froome19

If Froome wasn't using "reverse periodization" to have his 6 month super peak last year, did SKy invent a second totally different none doping 6 month super peak exercise?

It doesn't have to be totally independent to be wildly overstated. Take Froome out of Sky and you have:

2011 Vuelta - Wiggins top 5?

2012 Giro - Uran 7th
2012 Tour - Wiggins but with more Nibali trouble in hills
2012 Vuelta - MIA?

2013 Giro - Uran 2nd
2013 Tour - Wiggins?
2013 Vuelta - MIA

2014 Giro - MIA
2014 Tour - ?

Kerrison's actual record, not the tabloid legend created to fill the acres of pixels and oceans of time devoted to sport, is mediocre. Crap, actually, considering his reputation and the dearth of any new talent identified and developed by his system.

Or perhaps the plateau in performance from Kiryienka etc is a good sign of natural levels being reached

Was the irrelevant Froome post from Velorooms (2012 edition) a bizarre attempt to undermine my argument? In the absence of Affadavits and USADA reports, you've resorted to forensic analysis of pulp fiction and tabloid screenplays. No wonder you find it so difficult to objectively analyse the sport.

 

[Ripper]

I very well may have already responded to this, but I do wonder if this quote is from Kerrison...or LeMond.
Because Greg spoke of that approach, exactly, some years ago in one of the cycling mags (I'm not home at the moment, so can't offer more specifics. But I will, trust me).

LeMond also mentioned, very specifically in regards to this, that it was becoming the prevailing view among sports physiologists. It was direct challenge to the long-held notion of forming a "base" by slowly building up one's condition with long, not-too-intense efforts.

But then Kerrison comes along, after the fact, and discovers this all on his own. Brilliant!

Oh, and then Froome claims to not even pay much attention to Kerrison's methods anyway. So there's that...

Yup, that was Lemond. Actually, what he was doing was mixing cross-training (cross country skiing - just aerobic stuff) with short, intense bike efforts. And he was skipping the long base riding.

 

[Race Radio]

But let's face it, at the elite level, there's a lot of "needy" going around.

Yes, I was referring to elite riders. Managing ego, insecurity, drama is critical. Guys like Ferrari and Cecchini were experts at this.