Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[red_flanders]

Yeah because surely if we'd all witnessed something like this happen in one country we wouldn't be so easily fooled if someone tried it in another country right?

A great many of us were not fooled the first time. At least not for long.

 

[del1962]

Some of the riders who have been with Sky (Rogers for example) generally if a rider of his age and experience if they got 2% improvement on their best it would be amazing, but 15%

Haha, you crack me up Graham lad, nice one.

Where does this 15% thing comes from, I assume it is the 15% you got from EPO, my assumption is that it relates to times when you could have over 50% hct, I don't think we will ever see those times again like Pantani's of Alpe D'Huez,

What % of advantage did you get from EPO when you had to stick under 50% hct?

 

[therhodeo]

What % of advantage did you get from EPO when you had to stick under 50% hct?

Depends on where you started from.

 

[Netserk]

Where does this 15% thing comes from, I assume it is the 15% you got from EPO, my assumption is that it relates to times when you could have over 50% hct, I don't think we will ever see those times again like Pantani's of Alpe D'Huez,

What % of advantage did you get from EPO when you had to stick under 50% hct?

It comes from here:

Armstrong Era dopers? They said it was doable when the team launched and they appear to have nailed it. Have they found 15 things making a 1% difference each or are they using the same 1 thing? The former feels right to me.

 

[red_flanders]

Where does this 15% thing comes from, I assume it is the 15% you got from EPO, my assumption is that it relates to times when you could have over 50% hct, I don't think we will ever see those times again like Pantani's of Alpe D'Huez,

What % of advantage did you get from EPO when you had to stick under 50% hct?

We don't know who was and wasn't clean, so let's look at it like this. Fastest time for Herrerra, Delgado, Fignon was at about 42 mins. Fastest times for Armstrong Pantani and Ullrich around 38 minutes.

Doubtful that the former 3 were on EPO. Likely 2 of them at least were on steroids. Certain that the latter 3 were on EPO/Blood Doping. Armstrong's time came with the 50% limit and was fueled by blood doping, Pantani and Ullrich pre 50% rule and done with EPO.

Time difference of those particular riders on that particular mountain is ~9%. Absolutely massive and completely outside of the realm of training improvement. Studies have suggested 15% is more common and 5% is conservative (see science of sport article linked above).

No marginal gains will get you from low-grade doping to oxygen vector doping or even close. Not remotely. And the idea that you could move from clean to oxygen vector doping? Laughable. And utterly unexplained. Just stated for PR and people eat it up.

 

[Graham_S]

I think people are willing to grant that a team could come into cycling and have some innovative ideas and get a 1% performance. There's precious little evidence that this has actually happened, but it's possible.

The objection you hear is on several levels. The first is that 1% is fantasy. The difference between clean times of the past and the times immediately following from EPO and BB boosted riders is on the order of 15%, which is absolutely stunning, a massive increase.

The second is that Sky knows this. They'd be completely uninformed if they didn't, quite the opposite of the position they hold publicly that they're smarter than everyone else. That means that for them to promote the idea that the difference is small enough to be eliminated by warming down and bringing their own pillows means that they are lying. They can't possibly believe that such massive differences can be made up by "training improvements" in a sport where training improvements have been constant and happened for decades.

Which is why you get the reaction you see from people who understand what is and what isn't possible.

I suppose it all depends how well cycling was utilising sports science before Sky, the bio's and interviews I have read had genuinely suggested "not very well".

Sky's PR is meant to appeal to the British nationalistic idea that "we're smarter and we're doing it better than they are, we do it with fair play and that's why we win." A very compelling argument to the British, who have historically believed this about their own national character versus the continentals for centuries. It plays all day long.

Ha! Pre Sky that statement had been true in British sport twice in my life. Woodward's Rugby team for a few glorious years and Brailsford's track cycling team. The rest of the time the real British view or our sporting prowess is better expressed by substituting our football managers head for a turnip. It is a surprise and a joy to be good at something, and far from an expectation.

 

[del1962]

We don't know who was and wasn't clean, so let's look at it like this. Fastest time for Herrerra, Delgado, Fignon was at about 42 mins. Fastest times for Armstrong Pantani and Ullrich around 38 minutes.

Doubtful that the former 3 were on EPO. Likely 2 of them at least were on steroids. Certain that the latter 3 were on EPO/Blood Doping. Armstrong's time came with the 50% limit and was fueled by blood doping, Pantani and Ullrich pre 50% rule and done with EPO.

Time difference of those particular riders on that particular mountain is ~9%. Absolutely massive and completely outside of the realm of training improvement. Studies have suggested 15% is more common and 5% is conservative (see science of sport article linked above).

No marginal gains will get you from low-grade doping to oxygen vector doping or even close. Not remotely. And the idea that you could move from clean to oxygen vector doping? Laughable. And utterly unexplained. Just stated for PR and people eat it up.

On the Alpe Pantani's 1994 time was nearly a minute faster than anything from the 2000s though, the real question is the 1997 time from Pantani, but we know that he played fairly loose with hct even swapping results with a teamate.

Quintana would have been a long way down, I think with the passport any gains from doping are a lot lower than 15% on a clean rider.

I also think that bike technology and nutrition have moved on since the 90s, but having said that I don't think anyone will come anywhere close to Pantani's 1995 time, that time is full advantage of doping.

 

[therhodeo]

Ha! Pre Sky that statement had been true in British sport twice in my life. Woodward's Rugby team for a few glorious years and Brailsford's track cycling team. The rest of the time the real British view or our sporting prowess is better expressed by substituting our football managers head for a turnip. It is a surprise and a joy to be good at something, and far from an expectation.

Which might just make one a bit precious about the idea of their cycling team doping no?

 

[DirtyWorks]

I suppose it all depends how well cycling was utilising sports science before Sky,

No. This is an excuse used by dopers to justify their performance.

Please understand human-scale performance improvements are incredibly tiny for long periods of time. Then some human-scale discovery is made and times fall. But, then the inescapable grind of tiny, occasional improvements returns until the next discovery, which is never secret for very long.

So, if in fact Sky were doing something truly innovative and dope-free, at minimum staff that have left the team would have taken the ideas with them. Moreover, the whole idea of Sky's super-precision-science has been so thoroughly discredited at this point it is only propaganda.

Alternately, lightning strikes and a Hinault, or Van Hooydonck, or a Vos finds their way to cycling and dominate the sport from the lowest categories onward occasionally setting a record-breaking time.

To be complete, all of this takes place in cycling where courses change, distances have been decreasing for decades, weather matters, race circumstances change, the structure of the race has changed. So, it's almost impossible to do meaningful comparisons. Oxygen vector doping and more recently blood doping is such a dramatic performance improvement one can almost draw a line in results between pre-EPO and EPO results.

 

[the sceptic]

So, if in fact Sky were doing something truly innovative and dope-free, at minimum staff that have left the team would have taken the ideas with them. Moreover, the whole idea of Sky's super-precision-science has been so thoroughly discredited at this point it is only propaganda.

exactly, and we dont even need the staff for that, sky have been openly talking about marginal gains for years now! if it was so good, they would either keep their mouths shut, or everyone else would start to take advantage too. So its pretty obvious marginal gains is just a PR campaign.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I think with the passport any gains from doping are a lot lower than 15% on a clean rider.

I also think that bike technology and nutrition have moved on since the 90s, but having said that I don't think anyone will come anywhere close to Pantani's 1995 time, that time is full advantage of doping.

But, there are two things happening with the passport specific to grand tours.

1. It appears there is little to no longitudinal analysis such that a Horner profile is "never tested positive." It seems like the system is mostly set up for "race day" doping.

2. Even if there was intensive longitudinal analysis, we know the federation and event organizers have not opened cases on positives to minimize controversy.

And finally, we have podium contenders mostly producing more power in the third week of a grand tour than the first AND skinnier than ever throughout. That defies human biology and 80 years of the sport prior to EPO, HGH and transfusions.

While I agree nutrition and equipment has improved along with shorter distances, the improvements are tiny compared to the doping.

 

[red_flanders]

I suppose it all depends how well cycling was utilising sports science before Sky, the bio's and interviews I have read had genuinely suggested "not very well".

What evidence, let alone proof exists to support this? I have been hearing the "better training and methods" story for decades now, from various teams.

Again, do you believe they actually have moved the needle and moved it so far they have been able to transform clean, previously un-accomplished climbers into world-beaters who match the times of Armstrong and Pantani?

Is this not absurd? Is it not more absurd when no details or particulars are added to the assertions of how such a miraculous improvement has occurred?

It's difficult to believe anyone genuinely buys into this stuff.

 

[SundayRider]

Sky's PR is meant to appeal to the British nationalistic idea that "we're smarter and we're doing it better than they are, we do it with fair play and that's why we win." A very compelling argument to the British, who have historically believed this about their own national character versus the continentals for centuries. It plays all day long.

It does however break down instantly on examination of the facts.

I am British, have lived in Britain all my life. Believe me British people and organisations/systems etc are just as corrupt as any other country. That whole ideology is defunct now, a Victorian ideal perhaps and a stereotype from a bygone age.

 

[red_flanders]

I am British, have lived in Britain all my life. Believe me British people and organisations/systems etc are just as corrupt as any other country. That whole ideology is defunct now, a Victorian ideal perhaps and a stereotype from a bygone age.

Of course they are. This stuff plays the same in the US all the same. We all want to believe our guys are doing it better.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I am British, have lived in Britain all my life. Believe me British people and organisations/systems etc are just as corrupt as any other country. That whole ideology is defunct now, a Victorian ideal perhaps and a stereotype from a bygone age.

But thats only because you let all those foreigners in....... (joke).

The Nationalism angle is there - but that is standard in sport in a lot of countries.
Nothing gets more fans involved than some flag waving. And almost every country believes and promotes that their athletes have superior morals than other countries.

 

[Saint Unix]

While equipment might have gotten marginally better since the darkest days of the EPO era, I have three words for those claiming that Sky are doing things in training that improve the capabilities of the person sitting on the bike without being illegal.

Those three words are: The Hour Record. How much has that improved in the last 42 years? Especially if we ignore Sosenka, who himself was very likely a blood doper.


The hour record proves that human beings haven't naturally developed to ride significantly harder and faster over the last four decades. The fact that all pro teams have access to the best equipment should prove that Sky haven't gotten hold of some sort of rocket bike to fire them up the mountains at doping pace.

The only explanation left is... well, yeah.

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

We don't know who was and wasn't clean, so let's look at it like this. Fastest time for Herrerra, Delgado, Fignon was at about 42 mins. Fastest times for Armstrong Pantani and Ullrich around 38 minutes.

Doubtful that the former 3 were on EPO. Likely 2 of them at least were on steroids. Certain that the latter 3 were on EPO/Blood Doping. Armstrong's time came with the 50% limit and was fueled by blood doping, Pantani and Ullrich pre 50% rule and done with EPO.

Time difference of those particular riders on that particular mountain is ~9%. Absolutely massive and completely outside of the realm of training improvement. Studies have suggested 15% is more common and 5% is conservative (see science of sport article linked above).

No marginal gains will get you from low-grade doping to oxygen vector doping or even close. Not remotely. And the idea that you could move from clean to oxygen vector doping? Laughable. And utterly unexplained. Just stated for PR and people eat it up.

Wasn't Froome's time about 41 minutes though? Nowhere near Pantani or Armstrong

 

[del1962]

While equipment might have gotten marginally better since the darkest days of the EPO era, I have three words for those claiming that Sky are doing things in training that improve the capabilities of the person sitting on the bike without being illegal.

Those three words are: The Hour Record. How much has that improved in the last 42 years? Especially if we ignore Sosenka, who himself was very likely a blood doper.


The hour record proves that human beings haven't naturally developed to ride significantly harder and faster over the last four decades. The fact that all pro teams have access to the best equipment should prove that Sky haven't gotten hold of some sort of rocket bike to fire them up the mountains at doping pace.

The only explanation left is... well, yeah.

Mmmm, Moser was blood doped for the record before blood doping became popular, add to that the UCI restricions on bikes used for this record and you points become lame

 

[Catwhoorg]

Most of the 80's and 90's records that were reclassified to a different category.

So in 40 years, you have had 2 serious attempts at what is now called the hour record. Hardly a sound basis for analysis.

It would be fascinating to see what Tony, Fabian and Wiggo could do.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Mmmm, Moser was blood doped for the record before blood doping became popular, add to that the UCI restricions on bikes used for this record and you points become lame

Which is why the said 42 years ago. That would be the 1972 record of Merckx, which was 49.4k.

 

[Saint Unix]

Two successful attempts. Far more actual attempts.

We'll see this year. Cancellara has scheduled an attempt during one of his peaks in form, so after P-R or TdF.

If he smashes the record I'll easily concede my point. Until then, Boardman only beating it by a few meters tells me that even uniquely gifted time triallers struggle to push the boundaries of what's humanly possible by more than just a fraction.

 

[pmcg76]

We don't know who was and wasn't clean, so let's look at it like this. Fastest time for Herrerra, Delgado, Fignon was at about 42 mins. Fastest times for Armstrong Pantani and Ullrich around 38 minutes.

Doubtful that the former 3 were on EPO. Likely 2 of them at least were on steroids. Certain that the latter 3 were on EPO/Blood Doping. Armstrong's time came with the 50% limit and was fueled by blood doping, Pantani and Ullrich pre 50% rule and done with EPO.

Time difference of those particular riders on that particular mountain is ~9%. Absolutely massive and completely outside of the realm of training improvement. Studies have suggested 15% is more common and 5% is conservative (see science of sport article linked above).

No marginal gains will get you from low-grade doping to oxygen vector doping or even close. Not remotely. And the idea that you could move from clean to oxygen vector doping? Laughable. And utterly unexplained. Just stated for PR and people eat it up.

Not defending SKY as like most on here I find Froome/Wiggins kinda unbelievable but I do take issue with people using riders from the 80s as the benchmark of what is possible. Specialised training/ Sports science in the 80s was simply minimal to non-existent, especially in cycling, it was just miles, miles and more miles as training. Even LeMond said the best trainer he ever had was Adrie Van Diemen and that was for the last few years of his career when unfortunately LeMond was already done and EPO was becoming widespread.

I would suggest that those athletes you mentioned using modern training techniques etc would be a lot quicker and more in line with what we are seeing nowadays overall. No way would they be near Armstrong et al but I think progress would be more linear.

 

[red_flanders]

Wasn't Froome's time about 41 minutes though? Nowhere near Pantani or Armstrong

Sure, it's worth noting. The story was he bonked and took an illegal feed for which he was penalized 20 seconds.

My point in using the Alpe is less about Froome and more about that there are a lot of times recorded there over the years with a lot of riders. Froome matches the oxygen vector dopers on climbs like Ventoux (much harder than Alpe d'Huez) and AX3.

AX3:
1. Laiseka 22:57, 2001 (doper)
2. Armstrong 22:59, 2001 (doper)
3. Froome 23:14, 2013
4. Ulrich 23:17, 2003
 (doper)
5. Zubeldia 23:19, 2003 (doper)
6. Ulrich 23:22, 2001 (doper)
7. Armstrong 23:24, 2003 (doper)
8. Vinokourov 23:34, 2003 (doper)
9. Basso 23:36, 2003 (doper)
10. Armstrong 23:40, 2005 (doper)

Ventoux
TT results are irrelevant and removed. Non TT list:

1. 1994: 57:34 Marco Pantani 22.41 km/h (doper)
2. 2009: 58:45 Andy Schleck 21.96 km/h (doper)
3. 2009: 58:45 Alberto Contador 21.96 km/h (doper)
4. 2009: 58:48 Lance Armstrong 21.94 km/h (doper)
5. 2009: 58:50 Fränk Schleck 21.93 km/h (doper)
6. 2009: 58:53 Roman Kreuziger 21.91 km/h (doper)
7. 2002: 59:00 Lance Armstrong 21.86 km/h (doper)
8. 2013: 59:00 Chris Froome 21.86 km/h
9. 1994: 59:02 Richard Virenque 21.85 km/h (doper)
10. 1994: 59:02 Armand De Las Cuevas 21.85 km/h (doper)

But sure, he's clean.

 

[red_flanders]

Not defending SKY as like most on here I find Froome/Wiggins kinda unbelievable but I do take issue with people using riders from the 80s as the benchmark of what is possible. Specialised training/ Sports science in the 80s was simply minimal to non-existent, especially in cycling, it was just miles, miles and more miles as training. Even LeMond said the best trainer he ever had was Adrie Van Diemen and that was for the last few years of his career when unfortunately LeMond was already done and EPO was becoming widespread.

I would suggest that those athletes you mentioned using modern training techniques etc would be a lot quicker and more in line with what we are seeing nowadays overall. No way would they be near Armstrong et al but I think progress would be more linear.

Specifically, what are they doing now that they weren't doing then? Periodization? They were doing that. Has it gotten better? Probably. Enough to make a 10% difference at the elite level?

Why have such gains never been made previously in any sport over a 10 year period? I'm using riders from the late 80's and early to late 90's. You can't really believe that a natural progression without dope would lead to such gains, especially when we know dope was the cause?

I think we're largely on the same page. Progress would have been made, but the differences are so extreme between then and now there's no way training explains it.

 

[BYOP88]

Sure, it's worth noting. The story was he bonked and took an illegal feed for which he was penalized 20 seconds.

My point in using the Alpe is less about Froome and more about that there are a lot of times recorded there over the years with a lot of riders. Froome matches the oxygen vector dopers on climbs like Ventoux (much harder than Alpe d'Huez) and AX3.

AX3:
1. Laiseka 22:57, 2001 (doper)
2. Armstrong 22:59, 2001 (doper)
3. Froome 23:14, 2013
4. Ulrich 23:17, 2003
 (doper)
5. Zubeldia 23:19, 2003 (doper)
6. Ulrich 23:22, 2001 (doper)
7. Armstrong 23:24, 2003 (doper)
8. Vinokourov 23:34, 2003 (doper)
9. Basso 23:36, 2003 (doper)
10. Armstrong 23:40, 2005 (doper)

Ventoux
TT results are irrelevant and removed. Non TT list:

1. 1994: 57:34 Marco Pantani 22.41 km/h (doper)
2. 2009: 58:45 Andy Schleck 21.96 km/h (doper)
3. 2009: 58:45 Alberto Contador 21.96 km/h (doper)
4. 2009: 58:48 Lance Armstrong 21.94 km/h (doper)
5. 2009: 58:50 Fränk Schleck 21.93 km/h (doper)
6. 2009: 58:53 Roman Kreuziger 21.91 km/h (doper)
7. 2002: 59:00 Lance Armstrong 21.86 km/h (doper)
8. 2013: 59:00 Chris Froome 21.86 km/h
9. 1994: 59:02 Richard Virenque 21.85 km/h (doper)
10. 1994: 59:02 Armand De Las Cuevas 21.85 km/h (doper)

But sure, he's clean.

Froome has a tailwind.