Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1002 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
ebandit said:
ha ha! wiggo coped with the climbs he were never the 2nd best or even near

as usual you twist things to try and appear clever

Mark L


My bad, you're right, nowhere near

Final mountain stage of Tour de France

ESP VALVERDE BELMONTE Alejandro MOV 4h12'11" 80
2. GBR FROOME Chris SKY 19" 50
3. GBR WIGGINS Bradley SKY 19"
35
4. FRA PINOT Thibaut FDJ 22" 25
5. FRA ROLLAND Pierre EUC 26" 15
6. BEL VAN DEN BROECK Jurgen LTB 26" 10
7. ITA NIBALI Vincenzo LIQ 37" 5
8. USA VAN GARDEREN Tejay BMC 54" 3
9. USA HORNER Chris RNT 01'02" 2
10. IRL MARTIN Daniel GRS 01'11" 1
11. GER KLÖDEN Andreas RNT 01'14" 0
12. IRL ROCHE Nicolas ALM 01'30" 0
13. BEL VANENDERT Jelle LTB 01'39" 0
14. AUS PORTE Richie SKY 01'46" 0
15. RUS MENCHOV Denis KAT 01'55" 0
16. FRA KERN Christophe EUC 02'10" 0
17. SLO BRAJKOVIC Janez AST 02'10" 0
18. AUS EVANS Cadel BMC 02'10"
 

EnacheV

BANNED
Jul 7, 2013
1,441
0
0
hey guys how its going ?

dropping here to see if the first hint at sky doping arrived.

no? not yet?

it takes time, sometime 10+ years, dont give up!
 
right

The Hitch said:
My bad, you're right, nowhere near
you're right there 2nd best climber in the world is as much a subjective view

position in individual climbs is hardly proof............let alone evidence of doping

and as usual squabbling over such shows how little there is discuss about

team sky

Mark L
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
EnacheV said:
hey guys how its going ?

dropping here to see if the first hint at sky doping arrived.

no? not yet?

it takes time, sometime 10+ years, dont give up!
You must have missed the news on Jonathan Tirenan Locke,
Your'e welcome.
 

Graham_S

BANNED
Jan 8, 2014
68
0
0
red_flanders said:
Graham, welcome to the forum.
Cheers, sorry for the slow response. I didn’t join to try and convince people Sky are clean, more to hold up my own reasoning to take a battering, see if there are facts I am not aware of and to reassess my beliefs.

I am totally aware that some of my opinions are based on some thin stuff… which is kinda why I am here.

red_flanders said:
"Convicted" is a loaded term. Many people are convinced Sky are doping, but of course there have been no sanctions for lack of analytical findings

If sports science has "maybe" not been fully exploited (big if), how have Sky exploited it better than all other cycling teams who have been at it longer and exhibit both traditional and modern approaches to training? What specifically are they doing better? .
My understanding is that a traditional team spends a huge amount on wages and skimps elsewhere, Sky has come into the sport with top notch support staff throughout the team who can get the best out of riders. I am basing this mainly on what I have read from the likes of Millar, Rogers and I think Dowsett and Cav who have suggested Sky are ahead on training plans and, an important thing I missed initially, getting their riders recovered for the next days training. I admit the sources aren’t bullet proof but I have never heard a pro move to or from Sky and suggest their new or old team were on a par.

red_flanders said:
"Better equipment than what? As you mentioned, bike weights have been limited for quite some time and all teams face the same limits. What is Sky's advantage? There isn't one so I take it you're referring to historical performances? If so how does that explain the performances of Froome and Wiggins?
Ahh… I didn’t clarify… my post was a confusing mix of comparing Sky’s times up mountains to past dopers and the current competition. The tech is clearly something that really mainly/only applies to the former.

red_flanders said:
Why is pacing up a climb faster?
I’m certainly quicker up a climb going at a single pace than I am spurting…. My argument is weak but it sounds obvious that those gripping battles between Contador and Schlek with the attacks and the dirty looks wasn’t the quickest way up the mountain.

red_flanders said:
It only works if several riders on your team are stronger than the rest of the peloton's top riders. How is it possible that Sky took riders who were at best mediocre climbers and turned them into riders dominating GTs, and trouncing the top riders who used to beat them by 20-30 minutes on a climb?
I would say the development of Porte and Kennaugh isn’t unrealistic, Wiggins was always a great rider and the drastic weight loss combined with the sport cleaning up satisfies me. I admit Froome is more complicated.

red_flanders said:
What evidence is there that riders on limited programs (would be great to hear your definition for this) are matching the times of full-program dopers? Why can't clean riders match the times? I would ask how is it remotely possible to believe they can? Either the dope doesn't work (proven fact that it does) or human physiology has taken a leap in 3 years the likes of which has never been achieved in human history...or even close. You have to have some kind of detailed explanation of how this is possible in order to believe it, don't you?
I thought I saw some lists of times up mountains that had a micro dosing Lance Armstrong above riders from the “anything goes” era. Could be wrong. Another example would be swimming where a lot of records set by East German woman have been beaten by modern athletes with modern training techniques…. I know the obvious response is that the modern athletes are doped up too but I can’t be that cynical.

red_flanders said:
I will say we disagree strongly on the likelihood that European training helped Froome. I don't doubt he had Badzilla, I simply see no evidence that it affected his performance in the varied and inconsistent ways Sky have claimed. It's a thin story, inconsistently told. The are lies in ther somewhere, and the simple explanation is that it's been used as an explanation for unbelievable performances.

I'm sure others will add more. Thanks for the discussion, hope you stick with it.
What are the inconsistancies?
 

Graham_S

BANNED
Jan 8, 2014
68
0
0
Originally Posted by SundayRider
Armstrong and Ullrich looked like track riders all of their careers didn't do them much harm. Even at their racing weights they were arguably bigger built than Wiggins was during his track years.

Yep, certainly a big tick in favour of Wiggo being clean.


Red Lobster said:
Er, how so?
Because he wasn't competitive when built like a track rider. He was a competitve climber when built like a climber.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
Graham_S said:
Originally Posted by SundayRider
Armstrong and Ullrich looked like track riders all of their careers didn't do them much harm. Even at their racing weights they were arguably bigger built than Wiggins was during his track years.

Yep, certainly a big tick in favour of Wiggo being clean.




Because he wasn't competitive when built like a track rider. He was a competitve climber when built like a climber.
Yet he was a better TTer when he looked like a climber!
 
Graham_S said:
Originally Posted by SundayRider
Armstrong and Ullrich looked like track riders all of their careers didn't do them much harm. Even at their racing weights they were arguably bigger built than Wiggins was during his track years.

Yep, certainly a big tick in favour of Wiggo being clean.




Because he wasn't competitive when built like a track rider. He was a competitve climber when built like a climber.
Funny how he blew everyone away in the Olympic tt and every other tt he did that year while being built like a climber eh?
 
Graham_S said:
Originally Posted by SundayRider
Armstrong and Ullrich looked like track riders all of their careers didn't do them much harm. Even at their racing weights they were arguably bigger built than Wiggins was during his track years.

Yep, certainly a big tick in favour of Wiggo being clean.




Because he wasn't competitive when built like a track rider. He was a competitve climber when built like a climber.
And he was also able to produce more power at much lower weight. Woah, now that is some trick. Maybe you could explain that also.
 
Jun 22, 2009
334
0
0
Graham_S said:
Because he wasn't competitive when built like a track rider. He was a competitve climber when built like a climber.
Yeah, as other have noted, he not only became a better climber, he became better in the chrono too. Which, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, is utterly at odds with what normally happens with dramatic weight loss ... i.e., you lose power. Ok, maybe the weight loss more than offsets the power loss so you improve climbing, but you never improve your chrono by crashing your bodyweight. At least without availing yourself of certain naughty substances, that is.
 
Red Lobster said:
Yeah, as other have noted, he not only became a better climber, he became better in the chrono too. Which, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, is utterly at odds with what normally happens with dramatic weight loss ... i.e., you lose power. Ok, maybe the weight loss more than offsets the power loss so you improve climbing, but you never improve your chrono by crashing your bodyweight. At least without availing yourself of certain naughty substances, that is.
Did he become better, or did others become worse?
 
red_flanders said:
Graham, welcome to the forum.

"Convicted" is a loaded term. Many people are convinced Sky are doping, but of course there have been no sanctions for lack of analytical findings.
There's an important detail here. We know the UCI has suppressed positives before. And we also know there are huge holes in testing. So when Armstrong repeated the phrase "Never tested positive", "most tested athlete" as proof of his not doping, it's proof of nothing. No positives doesn't mean not doping.
 
Graham_S said:
Sky has come into the sport with top notch support staff throughout the team who can get the best out of riders.
Boy, that could be true for just about any program though. It gets messy once you start asking for evidence though.

Who are/WERE they?
What were their credentials prior to Team Sky?
How can BC possibly enforce the UCI's rules when they are responsible for Sky's success?

One of the forgotten Brailsford messages was his claims of maximum transparency. Any news on that transparency policy/reporting Dave?
 
the sceptic said:
http://www.cyclingpowerlab.com/OlympicTimeTrial.aspx

this is pretty funny compared to the actual results.
Actual results from London TT:

1 WIGGINS Bradley [www.procyclingstats.com] Sky Procycling 100 300 50:39
2 MARTIN Tony Omega Pharma - Quick-Step 70 220 0:42
3 FROOME Christopher Sky Procycling 40 170 1:08
4 PHINNEY Taylor BMC Racing Team 30 130 1:58
5 PINOTTI Marco [www.procyclingstats.com] BMC Racing Team 25 100 2:09
6 ROGERS Michael Sky Procycling 20 90 2:11
 
DirtyWorks said:
There's an important detail here. We know the UCI has suppressed positives before. And we also know there are huge holes in testing. So when Armstrong repeated the phrase "Never tested positive", "most tested athlete" as proof of his not doping, it's proof of nothing. No positives doesn't mean not doping.
Lets be fair.
Lance wasn't even the most tested American cyclist with the surname Armstrong.

The first phrase is fairly meaningless in terms of cleanliness I grant you.
The second was the outright lie.
 
Jun 22, 2009
334
0
0
RownhamHill said:
Did he become better, or did others become worse?
Uh huh, they all got way worse, except for Wigans and teammate Froome who, in a state of skeletal emaciation, manage to steal the lunchmoney of chrono studs like Martin and Cancellara.
 
Red Lobster said:
Uh huh, they all got way worse, except for Wigans and teammate Froome who, in a state of skeletal emaciation, manage to steal the lunchmoney of chrono studs like Martin and Cancellara.
Both of whom had nasty crashes earlier in the year missed a lot of training and certainly were not in peak form.
Cancellara had a lesser repeat performance in the Olympic Road race.

Just a point to bear in mind when using them as a becnhmark.
 
Jun 22, 2009
334
0
0
Catwhoorg said:
Both of whom had nasty crashes earlier in the year missed a lot of training and certainly were not in peak form.
Cancellara had a lesser repeat performance in the Olympic Road race.

Just a point to bear in mind when using them as a becnhmark.
I'm not thinking of just one race here.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS