Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[SundayRider]

What I find stranger than DZ or GH not winning, is Bradley Wiggins winning. And not just winning; dominating for 2 weeks, untouchable in the mountains (apart from Froome) and smashing all and sundry in the final TT. And sustaining that for 6 months of the year. You know. Cadence and rolling resistance and stuff.

NOT normal.

If it was just a case of eating less and getting skinnier and then et voila Tour contender, I'm sure some of the other TT specialists (those who were actually better than Wiggins pre-transformation) would have done it as well.

 

[King Boonen]

Just out of curiosity: dont you find that track focus a little bit odd? Like the money involved in track racing is comparable with the millions of pounds he is getting now on the road scene? Him being that GT king he always had the talent for given his 4k pursuit powers?

To me his prologue results of his track focus years say a lot. When you are hired by teams for being a one trick pony - win prologues - and dont deliver one could think that track pedigree isnt all that amazing after all.

Not really, track racing was where the money was. The British public shunned road racing during the EPO era and most don't really care now. We like to think our athletes don't dope, but some of us know better.

The TdF is like Wimbledon over here, pretty much the only event in that sport anyone cares about, but less so than Wimbledon. It would have been foolish of him to give up a lucrative track deal and Gold Medal fame to focus on the road and disappear, we all know he loves the limelight.

Wiggins is not a technically good road rider which no doubt costs him, based on the numbers posted up thread DZ would have needed to be putting out 8-9 watts/kg to win by 11 seconds if both perform at their theoretical best and that didn't happen, so there is obviously more to it. Track racing is pretty much purely about power and power management (aerodynamics help you win the medal, but to get there you need the legs) but to translate it to road he needed a very strong team dedicated to protecting him so he felt confident to ride how he can. We've seen what happens when this doesn't happen in the Giro.

Also, as noted up thread which I didn't know about DZ pretty much admitted to using EPO during that period and there are other names there that are not very clean. You could easily argue that as the peloton cleaned up, Wiggins started to deliver on a more level playing field. I'm not arguing that, but it's certainly a logical argument.

 

[SundayRider]

Not really, track racing was where the money was. The British public shunned road racing during the EPO era and most don't really care now. We like to think our athletes don't dope, but some of us know better.

The TdF is like Wimbledon over here, pretty much the only event in that sport anyone cares about, but less so than Wimbledon. It would have been foolish of him to give up a lucrative track deal and Gold Medal fame to focus on the road and disappear, we all know he loves the limelight.

Wiggins is not a technically good road rider which no doubt costs him, based on the numbers posted up thread DZ would have needed to be putting out 8-9 watts/kg to win by 11 seconds if both perform at their theoretical best and that didn't happen, so there is obviously more to it. Track racing is pretty much purely about power and power management (aerodynamics help you win the medal, but to get there you need the legs) but to translate it to road he needed a very strong team dedicated to protecting him so he felt confident to ride how he can. We've seen what happens when this doesn't happen in the Giro.

Also, as noted up thread which I didn't know about DZ pretty much admitted to using EPO during that period and there are other names there that are not very clean. You could easily argue that as the peloton cleaned up, Wiggins started to deliver on a more level playing field. I'm not arguing that, but it's certainly a logical argument.

If it was only his TT results that improved relative to everyone else then I could buy that. It's the fact that his climbing imprved so so much without sacrificing that top end TT power.

 

[SundayRider]

Not really, track racing was where the money was. The British public shunned road racing during the EPO era and most don't really care now. We like to think our athletes don't dope, but some of us know better.

The TdF is like Wimbledon over here, pretty much the only event in that sport anyone cares about, but less so than Wimbledon. It would have been foolish of him to give up a lucrative track deal and Gold Medal fame to focus on the road and disappear, we all know he loves the limelight.

Wiggins is not a technically good road rider which no doubt costs him, based on the numbers posted up thread DZ would have needed to be putting out 8-9 watts/kg to win by 11 seconds if both perform at their theoretical best and that didn't happen, so there is obviously more to it. Track racing is pretty much purely about power and power management (aerodynamics help you win the medal, but to get there you need the legs) but to translate it to road he needed a very strong team dedicated to protecting him so he felt confident to ride how he can. We've seen what happens when this doesn't happen in the Giro.

Also, as noted up thread which I didn't know about DZ pretty much admitted to using EPO during that period and there are other names there that are not very clean. You could easily argue that as the peloton cleaned up, Wiggins started to deliver on a more level playing field. I'm not arguing that, but it's certainly a logical argument.

If track money was was where the money was then why in his words was he skint after the Olympics?

 

[King Boonen]

What I find stranger than DZ or GH not winning, is Bradley Wiggins winning. And not just winning; dominating for 2 weeks, untouchable in the mountains (apart from Froome) and smashing all and sundry in the final TT. And sustaining that for 6 months of the year. You know. Cadence and rolling resistance and stuff.

NOT normal.

That has to be taken in context, he had over a two minute lead already and Nibali for one made a lot of attacks that would have tired him out on several stages because he had to try and make the time up and, in fact, take time due to the final TT.

If they had been a few seconds apart without the prospect of another TT Wiggins was going to dominate then I'm sure Nibali's tactics would have been different and I'm pretty sure we would have seen him take time out of Wiggins.

 

[The Hitch]

Out of interest Hitch, could you make the argument for 2009 being the dirtiest TdF ever? Dirtier than let's say 1996, or 1998, or 2005 for that matter? I'm interested how you've reached that conclusion.

Your right it probably was not the dirtiest tour ever but it's up there, as a contender and thats why I say arguably. What it does have in it's favour is first of all a 37 yo Armstrong hailed as comeback hero while making a micky out of antidoping on the podium. This, unlike his 7tdf wins, is after several revelations have emerged about doping in cycling, about him, about his team, and still he strolls in praised by the sport as a savour. and he's 37yo.

Secondly it has a popped winner, ok many tdfs have that but I'm not saying it wins these categories just that it holds it's own. It also has 3rd 5th and 6th place popped and the kom.
So less than other tours but having said that we need to take into account that all the tours it is being compared to have had far more time to identify the dopers. Armstrong fell 7-13 years after his victories, Levi with him. Riis fell 10 years after his victory. So 2009, which has only had 4 and a half years pass is pretty shady with already 4 of the top 6 down and one of them is Andy Schleck who stands on a technicality.

Finally the joker card the 2009 tdf holds is verbier, Vam record fastest ever, with ventoux the fastest yawnfest ascent up a mountain ever, playing a supporting role. the fastest anyone ever went in the epo era was a doper in 2009. That's important. And together with the other things on which it scores high, a reason why it holds it's own in the DOAT argument.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Your right it probably was not the dirtiest tour ever but it's up there, as a contender and thats why I say arguably.

Surely the 94-97 Tours were the dirtiest. By '94, EPO use was prevelant throughout the peloton, riders had stopped dying in their sleep as technology improved, there was no EPO testing and no-one had got scared into being vaguely sensible post Festina.

Other than Lance's 2001 and 2004 efforts, the entire Alpe D'Huez top ten came from these years.

 

[The Hitch]

Out of interest Hitch, could you make the argument for 2009 being the dirtiest TdF ever? Dirtier than let's say 1996, or 1998, or 2005 for that matter? I'm interested how you've reached that conclusion.

Your right it probably was not the dirtiest tour ever but it's up there, as a contender and thats why I say arguably. What it does have in it's favour is first of all a 37 yo Armstrong hailed as comeback hero while making a micky out of antidoping on the podium. This, unlike his 7tdf wins, is after several revelations have emerged about doping in cycling, about him, about his team, and still he strolls in praised by the sport as a savour. and he's 37yo.

Secondly it has a popped winner, ok many tdfs have that but I'm not saying it wins these categories just that it holds it's own. It also has 3rd 5th and 6th place popped and the kom.
So less than other tours but having said that we need to take into account that all the tours it is being compared to have had far more time to identify the dopers. Armstrong fell 7-13 years after his victories, Levi with him. Riis fell 10 years after his victory. So 2009, which has only had 4 and a half years pass is pretty shady with already 4 of the top 6 down and one of them is Andy Schleck who stands on a technicality.

Finally the joker card the 2009 tdf holds is verbier, Vam record fastest ever, with ventoux the fastest yawnfest ascent up a mountain ever, playing a supporting role. the fastest anyone ever went in the epo era was a doper in 2009. That's important. And together with the other things on which it scores high, a reason why it holds it's own in the DOAT argument.

 

[nomapnocompass]

You are assuming EPO is the be all and end all of blood vector doping. It isn't. EPO usage in the 90's was quite a crude, 'more is better' affair. In the 00's doping became a much more refined combination of blood transfusions, EPO microdosing and other products.

It is suspected that in 2009 AICAR was heavily in us along with other, perhaps unknown products.

Today doping is even more refined than ever, as Froome's performances prove.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Given that out of 365 days, top riders race ~50 days, that's an awful lot of time spent training.

Add in the fact that OOC testing is ridiculously easy to "game" in terms of doping product clearance, and I think you'd agree that the doping during training has the potential for at least a similar impact on performance / results as IC doping, if not more (for one day races), in a cost vs benefit analysis.

There's a key element to OOC testing that was made a whole lot easier on cyclists in 2008 - the whereabouts system.

It's only 1 hour a day that you need to be locatable. Outside that you can be anywhere, doing just about anything. The likelihood you will be tested outside that hour - nominated by you - is very low.

 

[SundayRider]

Your right it probably was not the dirtiest tour ever but it's up there, as a contender and thats why I say arguably. What it does have in it's favour is first of all a 37 yo Armstrong hailed as comeback hero while making a micky out of antidoping on the podium. This, unlike his 7tdf wins, is after several revelations have emerged about doping in cycling, about him, about his team, and still he strolls in praised by the sport as a savour. and he's 37yo.

Secondly it has a popped winner, ok many tdfs have that but I'm not saying it wins these categories just that it holds it's own. It also has 3rd 5th and 6th place popped and the kom.
So less than other tours but having said that we need to take into account that all the tours it is being compared to have had far more time to identify the dopers. Armstrong fell 7-13 years after his victories, Levi with him. Riis fell 10 years after his victory. So 2009, which has only had 4 and a half years pass is pretty shady with already 4 of the top 6 down and one of them is Andy Schleck who stands on a technicality.

Finally the joker card the 2009 tdf holds is verbier, Vam record fastest ever, with ventoux the fastest yawnfest ascent up a mountain ever, playing a supporting role. the fastest anyone ever went in the epo era was a doper in 2009. That's important. And together with the other things on which it scores high, a reason why it holds it's own in the DOAT argument.

Wiggins didn't think Contador was guilty either. "I'm big fan of Contador. I don’t think he's guilty."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/video-wiggins-back-to-his-best-for-tour-de-france

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

You are assuming EPO is the be all and end all of blood vector doping. It isn't. EPO usage in the 90's was quite a crude, 'more is better' affair. In the 00's doping became a much more refined combination of blood transfusions, EPO microdosing and other products.

It is suspected that in 2009 AICAR was heavily in us along with other, perhaps unknown products.

Today doping is even more refined than ever, as Froome's performances prove.

Didn't the approach post 2000 develop out of necessity due to EPO testing? I don't doubt that EPO-era methods were crude, but as there was no testing to avoid, they didn't need to be particularly sophisticated. (You just needed to avoid killing yourself, which was not that hard by '94.)

The concentration of all time fastest ascents of Alpe D'Huez in 94-97 tells its own story. Despite the hype about current speeds, even the winner on the Alpe this year would have been trailing a hairpin or so behind the riders in 94-97.

Watching the videos of that era on YouTube is quite instructive. Mig outclimbed Pantani on the Hautacam in 1994, and from the rear view, you get an idea of just how big he really was. The guy's a*se was the size of Lance's ego. It takes a cement lorry of EPO to get that big a backside up a hill so quickly. At least the current suspects have the decency to be as skinny as rakes.

 

[Benotti69]

Two opinions here:

1. Wiggins does well on the track but not road, then starts doping for road and wins

2. Wiggins does well on track but not road, then everyone else (Dave Z etc.) stops doping - Wiggins wins

Ok from pure logic 1 is much more likely than 2 but I don't think this discussion on prologue results during the track years adds any information to sway opinions from 1-->2 or 2-->1

When and where did everyone stop doping? Hardly likely under McQuaid's watch!

Why did only Sky grupetto fodder suddenly improve, why not others back there with Wiggins and Froome?

 

[King Boonen]

If track money was was where the money was then why in his words was he skint after the Olympics?

I didn't say it was big money, it was lucrative because it was enough to keep him on a bike and riding, I'm sure he couldn't have done that on the road.

I've also noted he's full of crap and I have a hard time believing anything he says, that doesn't make him a cheat though, even if it does make it more likely.


As for TT results and climbing, hasn't pretty much every TdF winner performed well in the TT's and on the climbs? (Except Schleck). It's kind of a prerequisite isn't it? Problem here is I'm not old enough to remember anything before Indurain and even that's a problem...

 

[Benotti69]

Given that out of 365 days, top riders race ~50 days, that's an awful lot of time spent training.

Add in the fact that OOC testing is ridiculously easy to "game" in terms of doping product clearance, and I think you'd agree that the doping during training has the potential for at least a similar impact on performance / results as IC doping, if not more (for one day races), in a cost vs benefit analysis.

There's a key element to OOC testing that was made a whole lot easier on cyclists in 2008 - the whereabouts system.

It's only 1 hour a day that you need to be locatable. Outside that you can be anywhere, doing just about anything. The likelihood you will be tested outside that hour - nominated by you - is very low.

Bingo. This is why doping is still the 'training' tool in the pro peloton and why you have to be extremely unlucky or dumb to get caught.

 

[RownhamHill]

Your right it probably was not the dirtiest tour ever but it's up there, as a contender and thats why I say arguably. What it does have in it's favour is first of all a 37 yo Armstrong hailed as comeback hero while making a micky out of antidoping on the podium. This, unlike his 7tdf wins, is after several revelations have emerged about doping in cycling, about him, about his team, and still he strolls in praised by the sport as a savour. and he's 37yo.

Secondly it has a popped winner, ok many tdfs have that but I'm not saying it wins these categories just that it holds it's own. It also has 3rd 5th and 6th place popped and the kom.
So less than other tours but having said that we need to take into account that all the tours it is being compared to have had far more time to identify the dopers. Armstrong fell 7-13 years after his victories, Levi with him. Riis fell 10 years after his victory. So 2009, which has only had 4 and a half years pass is pretty shady with already 4 of the top 6 down and one of them is Andy Schleck who stands on a technicality.

Finally the joker card the 2009 tdf holds is verbier, Vam record fastest ever, with ventoux the fastest yawnfest ascent up a mountain ever, playing a supporting role. the fastest anyone ever went in the epo era was a doper in 2009. That's important. And together with the other things on which it scores high, a reason why it holds it's own in the DOAT argument.

Fair enough - I know you said arguably, which is why I just wanted to see what the argument was.

In the against argument I'd throw in a fairly easy route that (from memory) only seemed to see any actual GC racing in three (possibly 4) of the stages (Contador razzing up to Arcalis on the first mountain stage, Contador razzing up to Verbier (both of which were short climbs at the end of easy stages having not had mountains before), that stage to Grand Bonnard, and possibly Ventoux (though didn't they all just ride for their own podium places at that stage?).

Also has Kloeden ever actually been popped/admitted drugs use? (Not to say he wasn't doping when he came 2nd in the tour, but still)

Compare that to say (randomly picked) the 1997 tour, where I think the top four all subsequently had failed tests, as did the green jersey (though that was an admission) and the KOM (who came second overall). A slightly closer looks shows that - in parallel with 2009 - the eventual winner (Ulrrich) took the yellow journey on the climb to Arcalis. A climb he did two and a half minutes quicker than Contador (and three minutes quicker than the rest of the pack in 2009).

I'm not saying 97 was even particularly dirty for its era (since the year before Mr 60% knocked the extraterrestrial Big Mig of his perch, while the following year was Festina and all that). I'm also not arguing 09 was dirty - but the dirtiest of all time? Not convinced.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Compare that to say (randomly picked) the 1997 tour, where I think the top four all subsequently had failed tests, as did the green jersey (though that was an admission) and the KOM (who came second overall). A slightly closer looks shows that - in parallel with 2009 - the eventual winner (Ulrrich) took the yellow journey on the climb to Arcalis. A climb he did two and a half minutes quicker than Contador (and three minutes quicker than the rest of the pack in 2009).

Because of the team situation on Arcalis Contador was beholden not to attack. He didn't go until Andy Schleck attacked; once that happened Contador went up and over him. It gave him the excuse to go off the front and take the GC position back from Armstrong and assert leadership. They had gone from "fully backing Contador, Lance does Giro" to "Lance does Giro then Tour in support of Contador" to "we'll see after a week who's ahead on GC". Contador couldn't attack his own teammates without consequences, but after the La-Grande-Motte stage he needed to take back the GC position from Lance that would give him leadership, and so he counterattacked and then went over the attacker to take the time. We'll never know what he may have been capable of without the echelon stage.

 

[blackcat]

I didn't say it was big money, it was lucrative because it was enough to keep him on a bike and riding, I'm sure he couldn't have done that on the road.

I've also noted he's full of crap and I have a hard time believing anything he says, that doesn't make him a cheat though, even if it does make it more likely.


As for TT results and climbing, hasn't pretty much every TdF winner performed well in the TT's and on the climbs? (Except Schleck). It's kind of a prerequisite isn't it? Problem here is I'm not old enough to remember anything before Indurain and even that's a problem...

schleck in his Giro debut at 22, he chron'ed very well. woulda been on the podium of the world u23 if he focused on the discipline. if he focused on the discipline like a malori or cancellara, and packed on 5 kgs, he mighta won it.

Frank otoh, if we are talking Frnak, he is about one rung above Rasmussen.

 

[RownhamHill]

Because of the team situation on Arcalis Contador was beholden not to attack. He didn't go until Andy Schleck attacked; once that happened Contador went up and over him. It gave him the excuse to go off the front and take the GC position back from Armstrong and assert leadership. They had gone from "fully backing Contador, Lance does Giro" to "Lance does Giro then Tour in support of Contador" to "we'll see after a week who's ahead on GC". Contador couldn't attack his own teammates without consequences, but after the La-Grande-Motte stage he needed to take back the GC position from Lance that would give him leadership, and so he counterattacked and then went over the attacker to take the time. We'll never know what he may have been capable of without the echelon stage.

I'm sure that's all true, but since we'll never know what he could have done it's not really compelling evidence either way, is it?

 

[the sceptic]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...y-to-toe-the-team-sky-party-line-9171980.html

This constant stream of horse**** is the reason why I hate sky. If they just went about their doping quietly without insulting the fans intelligence it would be easier to forgive them.

 

[The Hitch]

Surely the 94-97 Tours were the dirtiest. By '94, EPO use was prevelant throughout the peloton, riders had stopped dying in their sleep as technology improved, there was no EPO testing and no-one had got scared into being vaguely sensible post Festina.

Other than Lance's 2001 and 2004 efforts, the entire Alpe D'Huez top ten came from these years.

They didn't do alpe in 2009 though. While the full epo charging of 1990's dors classify as the height of dodginess, I wouldn't necessarily say it was a never to be reached again peak for doping, because while epo may not be as free to use, other techniques and drugs have emerged and evolved behind the curtain that cycling's 1 issue war on blood doping bas created. Which is why some years and some races times go back to the dirtiest levels.

 

[The Hitch]

Wiggins had ridden GTs but with very little focus on the road.

Very little focus on the road? 2006 was 2 years before the Olympics and 2007 was 1 year. Both years it was a major goal for him. Let's not pretend like he turned up drunk and overweight without a care in the world. Riding the tdf was a childhood dream of his, he didn't take it lightly and in 2007 especially it was his main season aim, he trained specifically for the tts and had a massive whinge after it about how by not winning them he had lost all the money he had hoped for.

 

[blackcat]

he put in major time to the 2007 prologue that Hincapie Klodi and Cancellara got him in London

 

[The Hitch]

]

I've always viewed Wiggins as good for a quote but he probably doesn't think about it much, so I've tended to ignore what he says,otherwise... well... It's hard to believe anything he says to be honest but I'm not convinced he's lying about doping. Yet...

.

Based on what do you say he doesn't think about what he says? How convenient btw. Like dictators and mafia bosses who fall too ill to stand trial when they finally get caught (no I'm not equating the 2 on moral terms)

In the real world what people say does matter anr it can count against them if they say things that betray their inner *******. Wiggins does not get to be exempt from this, especially as there is absolutely no evidence that he is mentally unfit to be taken at his word. If Wiggins - probably doesn't mean what he says, then one can say the same thing for anyone who ever practiced omerta or said something bad. - oh they didn't mean it. Yeah right.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

They didn't do alpe in 2009 though. While the full epo charging of 1990's dors classify as the height of dodginess, I wouldn't necessarily say it was a never to be reached again peak for doping, because while epo may not be as free to use, other techniques and drugs have emerged and evolved behind the curtain that cycling's 1 issue war on blood doping bas created. Which is why some years and some races times go back to the dirtiest levels.

In recent years when the Alpe has been climbed, times have been well down on the EPO era. If memory serves, there's only been one sub-40 clocking in a Tour stage since 2006, albeit the race doesn't go there every year. It seems a bit of a stretch to believe that in 2009 they'd have pulled one out of the bag and brought back the spirit of Pantani with a sub 37 minute ascent.

I think the hoohah about Lance has, in general, obscured just how fast the climbs were in the EPO era. Because Lance was the most obnoxious and blatant doper of his era, there seems to be a perception that his performances were the most outrageous. Relative to the opposition and what he'd shown in his early career they might have been, but in absolute terms, he was no match for the EPO era guys.

You could be right about 2009, though. Berto did look like he was riding a sportive most of the time that year and probably had a bit in reserve.