Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Justinr]

No, I was seeking more an understanding of your experience with cycling given the seat bolt account as released by BC. Sometimes people give a bit of background (lawyers, PhD in physiology, Cat 1, etc are examples) as it relates to their posting. I did not mean offence or to get personal per se.

No offence taken. And i feel i can comment with some knowledge since i spent my final year at uni studying hydrodynamics...

What I do know also is what i have seen in those thirty years including but not limited to: Bikes are now made from oval / skinny tubing not round, cables are hidden wherever possible, carbon is extensively used, spokes are flat not round. If manufacturers can research and implement these gains why cant a team with a big budget apply the same principles?

 

[Ventoux Boar]

I feel like we've just had our homework analysed by the headmaster ...

Just trying to head off another visit from nurse

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Memes fly better with wings. Let's give them names:

1. Wall Street - the unscrupulous dumping of worthless stocks, comfortably in Brailsford's moral wheelhouse. Eh, Hoggster?

2. Animal House

3. Born Free

4. Inception

All with reference to my post above.

 

[sniper]

No offence taken. And i feel i can comment with some knowledge since i spent my final year at uni studying hydrodynamics...

What I do know also is what i have seen in those thirty years including but not limited to: Bikes are now made from oval / skinny tubing not round, cables are hidden wherever possible, carbon is extensively used, spokes are flat not round. If manufacturers can research and implement these gains why cant a team with a big budget apply the same principles?

they can and should of course.
and you would indeed expect said material improvements to trigger marginal gains.
froome's gains haven't been marginal.

 

[Granville57]

What I do know also is what i have seen in those thirty years including but not limited to: Bikes are now made from oval / skinny tubing not round, cables are hidden wherever possible, carbon is extensively used, spokes are flat not round. If manufacturers can research and implement these gains why cant a team with a big budget apply the same principles?

The problem with that analogy is that there aren't really any "gains" to be had. It's all relative, as every team has all the latest and greatest new equipment. And much like many of the claims made by Sky, much of what they brag about has been done for years already by other teams, or is currently so commonplace as to not be worth mentioning as any sort of "advantage."

 

[SundayRider]

To be honest they did get a bit of luck with a flat 2012 tour, a banned Contador and lots of TTs. Brad wouldnt have won in 2011 or 2013.

I think he could have won in 2011 actually, probably would have matched Evans and then out TT'd on the penultimate day.

 

[SundayRider]

The problem with that analogy is that there aren't really any "gains" to be had. It's all relative, as every team has all the latest and greatest new equipment. And much like many of the claims made by Sky, much of what they brag about has been done for years already by other teams, or is currently so commonplace as to not be worth mentioning as any sort of "advantage."

The 'we warm down after races' marginal gain makes me laugh the most.

 

[sniper]

and if sky's success were really down to marginal gains through technical improvement, why the need for a doc like leinders.
ow right, saddle sore.
gimme a break.

edit: so many holes in the marginal-gain theory, it's all been discussed at length already in different threads including this one. it's a red herring, one that we know all too well from the usps era.

 

[deviant]

and if sky's success were really down to marginal gains through technical improvement, why the need for a doc like leinders.
ow right, saddle sore.
gimme a break.

edit: so many holes in the marginal-gain theory, it's all been discussed at length already in different threads including this one. it's a red herring, one that we know all too well from the usps era.

I dont think the 'marginal gains' mantra is taken as gospel by serious cycling fans....its a catchy, media friendly term that casual observers can easily regurgitate in the pub when discussing the TdF in their once yearly cycling chat with mates.

That said, the little things do add up to better performance....to suggest otherwise makes one sound ignorant.
Do you think the bikes we ride now are made from the materials they are, or look they way they do for the fun of it?....no, they are how they are because they have been shown to be lighter, faster, more aero etc etc than the previous generation of blocky, heavy machines.
Riders dont sit on the start line munching cheeseburgers because research from dieticians and nutritionists has shown that is probably not best for the race, its just little things but they do add up....ask why F1 teams spend so much on aerodynamics if marginal gains is a bogus theory?

For the quizzical and the skeptical then hearing 'marginal gains' must grate as 'doping' often better explains a rider's performance....but if the science of small improvements didnt work then lets go back to heavy bikes, woolen cycling gear etc....if none of the small, modern improvements have made any difference then times wont suffer at all.

Look at how much better the Hour records were when Obree, Boardman et al were able to use aero bikes and riding positions designed to reduce their frontal area....the UCI didnt like it and took the rules back to having to ride traditional style drop bars etc....and times have suffered as a result, barely moving beyond Merckx's 1970's time.

 

[martinvickers]

You are completely undecided arent you? Both are equally likely in your mind? Last time I checked that makes it 50/50.

You clearly don't have a clue about agnosticism.

The idea that because I recognise I do not and can not know something, means I think there's an evens chance of it happening is so ridiculous it doesn't bare any scrutiny.

There is plenty of evidence out there, in both directions. Maybe you should review it, and see if you can get an opinion that way?

See my sig on opinions.

I find it hard to believe that someone can spend thousands of hours and posts on a forum without having any opinion on what they are discussing.

What you find hard to believe is of absolutely no interest to me.

Quite frankly, it seems like you are just trolling.

Ball, not man.

 

[martinvickers]

I realize you never posted anything like this, BUT, I find this an interesting question.

What's the probability Froome is doping? Just that one rider.

I haven't a clue. I have nothing like the information available to make a statistical analysis.

To be frank, your question reads a little like an attempt to give a somewhat spurious mathematical costume to a question that's really about relatively unevidenced hunches.

 

[sniper]

...

good post valid points.

That said, the little things do add up to better performance....to suggest otherwise makes one sound ignorant.
Do you think the bikes we ride now are made from the materials they are, or look they way they do for the fun of it?....no, they are how they are because they have been shown to be lighter, faster, more aero etc etc than the previous generation of blocky, heavy machines.
Riders dont sit on the start line munching cheeseburgers because research from dieticians and nutritionists has shown that is probably not best for the race, its just little things but they do add up....ask why F1 teams spend so much on aerodynamics if marginal gains is a bogus theory?

i've already agreed with this (on the previous page).
it's just that our friend froome is not an example of marginal gains.
it takes quite a stretch of imagination to explain the way he crushed contador and quintana in last years tdf as a result of better materials/equipment.

or we should start talking motorized bikes again.
but then:
- why aren't sky winning monuments.
- why is it working for some sky riders and not for others.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

and if sky's success were really down to marginal gains through technical improvement, why the need for a doc like leinders.
ow right, saddle sore.
gimme a break.

edit: so many holes in the marginal-gain theory, it's all been discussed at length already in different threads including this one. it's a red herring, one that we know all too well from the usps era.

No need to bring it up again. We were discussing immaculate transformations. Which hypothesis do you favour?

 

[Saint Unix]

I dont think the 'marginal gains' mantra is taken as gospel by serious cycling fans....its a catchy, media friendly term that casual observers can easily regurgitate in the pub when discussing the TdF in their once yearly cycling chat with mates.

That said, the little things do add up to better performance....to suggest otherwise makes one sound ignorant.
Do you think the bikes we ride now are made from the materials they are, or look they way they do for the fun of it?....no, they are how they are because they have been shown to be lighter, faster, more aero etc etc than the previous generation of blocky, heavy machines.
Riders dont sit on the start line munching cheeseburgers because research from dieticians and nutritionists has shown that is probably not best for the race, its just little things but they do add up....ask why F1 teams spend so much on aerodynamics if marginal gains is a bogus theory?

For the quizzical and the skeptical then hearing 'marginal gains' must grate as 'doping' often better explains a rider's performance....but if the science of small improvements didnt work then lets go back to heavy bikes, woolen cycling gear etc....if none of the small, modern improvements have made any difference then times wont suffer at all.

Look at how much better the Hour records were when Obree, Boardman et al were able to use aero bikes and riding positions designed to reduce their frontal area....the UCI didnt like it and took the rules back to having to ride traditional style drop bars etc....and times have suffered as a result, barely moving beyond Merckx's 1970's time.

That would be valid if:

1) Froome wasn't outperforming riders who are proven blood dopers and who used gear that is pretty similar in terms of weight and aerodynamics to what Froome is using now. Also, Froome is the only rider in the so-called clean peloton to post times that are even close to those set by the riders from the EPO era.

2) Sky's bikes were different to that of the rest of the peloton, but their Dogma frames and Shimano wheels and group sets are no different than the Dogma frames and Shimano wheels and group sets the rest of the peloton use.

3) Sky were actually serious about their marginal gains, but they have released contradictory statements time and time again. For example, Froome didn't even go to a wind tunnel until some time in 2013. If aerodynamics were so important, surely he would have gone to one as soon as they realised he wasn't a complete donkey after all?

4) The possibilites of increasing aerodynamics and gear when riding a bike up a hill were as significant as they were when riding around a flat track. Weird head movements and gangly posture aside, Froome sits on his bike the same way as all the EPO users sat on their bikes when they were flying up the mountains in the nineties and early noughties.

There's just no way Sky have stumbled on to ways to naturally increase performance so much that riders can ride as fast as the best dopers of the previous generation. That's not possible.

And then there's the whole donkey to racehorse story with Froome that can't be explained by minor changes to his diet and training program either. Unless that diet includes illegal substances.

 

[sniper]

No need to bring it up again. We were discussing immaculate transformations. Which hypothesis do you favour?

the hypotheses you nicely summarized don't exclude each other.
i like the holistic approach.

or give us a plausible alternative and i might consider it.

edit: good post Saint Unix

 

[Ventoux Boar]

the hypotheses you nicely summarized don't exclude each other.
i like the holistic approach.

or give us a plausible alternative and i might consider it.

edit: good post Saint Unix

I don't pretend to know if there are dark arts involved or not. You appear to be pretty certain. I'm asking about how certain you are about the transformation - presumably a keystone of your belief? - did Sky dope Froome after Poland, or did he go Freelance?

Or feel free to add to Hitch's non-doping hypothesis.

But please don't repeat the same tired old stuff.

Hint - look at the Sergio revelations. What's new?

 

[SundayRider]

good post valid points.

i've already agreed with this (on the previous page).
it's just that our friend froome is not an example of marginal gains.
it takes quite a stretch of imagination to explain the way he crushed contador and quintana in last years tdf as a result of better materials/equipment.

or we should start talking motorized bikes again.
but then:
- why aren't sky winning monuments.
- why is it working for some sky riders and not for others.

USPS didn't win much outside of the Tour and stage races did they. Didn't mean they were clean did it.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

USPS didn't win much outside of the Tour and stage races did they. Didn't mean they were clean did it.

Still going down at the helm of the Wall St (nee Titanic) hypothesis, Sunday? Or do you concede some difficulties in the narrative in light of Clinic disarray?

USPS - Not much to show for 18 months in the echo chamber, is it?

 

[GreasyMonkey]

good post valid points.

but then:
- why aren't sky winning monuments.

They were riding around the Teneriffe moonscape at 2000 metres ASL where there are no cobbles or rain, wind and cold weather.......

 

[sniper]

They were riding around the Teneriffe moonscape at 2000 metres ASL where there are no cobbles or rain, wind and cold weather.......

true story...

 

[deviant]

That would be valid if:

1) Froome wasn't outperforming riders who are proven blood dopers and who used gear that is pretty similar in terms of weight and aerodynamics to what Froome is using now. Also, Froome is the only rider in the so-called clean peloton to post times that are even close to those set by the riders from the EPO era.

2) Sky's bikes were different to that of the rest of the peloton, but their Dogma frames and Shimano wheels and group sets are no different than the Dogma frames and Shimano wheels and group sets the rest of the peloton use.

3) Sky were actually serious about their marginal gains, but they have released contradictory statements time and time again. For example, Froome didn't even go to a wind tunnel until some time in 2013. If aerodynamics were so important, surely he would have gone to one as soon as they realised he wasn't a complete donkey after all?

4) The possibilites of increasing aerodynamics and gear when riding a bike up a hill were as significant as they were when riding around a flat track. Weird head movements and gangly posture aside, Froome sits on his bike the same way as all the EPO users sat on their bikes when they were flying up the mountains in the nineties and early noughties.

There's just no way Sky have stumbled on to ways to naturally increase performance so much that riders can ride as fast as the best dopers of the previous generation. That's not possible.

And then there's the whole donkey to racehorse story with Froome that can't be explained by minor changes to his diet and training program either. Unless that diet includes illegal substances.

Forget Froome, my post was a response to previous posts that i interpreted as suggesting that marginal gains was a nonsensical notion in cycling.

My opinion is that dismissing marginal gains makes one sound ignorant....all the teams subscribe to the marginal gains theory without actually saying as much, they all have their own physios, own DRs, own chefs, own dieticians, psychologists etc etc....they all work with the bike manufacturers to continually evolve the machines they ride, they work with clothing manufacturers etc etc....they are looking for every little advantage over their rivals, this is indisputable and its not exclusive to SKY.

Is Froome doping?....i dont know, i dont have proof.
I reckon most of the top guys are pushing the envelope as to what is legal and what isnt.
Plenty of people on here like to put forth their evidence of doping but there is a difference between evidence and proof.
Evidence might be suspicious race times, power outputs etc etc, missed doping controls, CCTV footage of riders meeting with dodgy DRs and so on and so forth but that is not proof....proof is an admission of doping or a failed test, there are plenty of accusations thrown around on this forum but until someone can prove a rider is doping then its all just conjecture.

Froome's transformation is suspicious but until he either admits doping or fails a test i'll give him the benefit of the doubt and enjoy the racing.

 

[sniper]

Forget Froome, my post was a response to previous posts that i interpreted as suggesting that marginal gains was a nonsensical notion in cycling.

My opinion is that dismissing marginal gains makes one sound ignorant...

nobody denies or has denied the use of marginal gains.
the only claim is that they can't explain froome's (sky's) non-marginal improvement.

 

[The Hitch]

That would be valid if:

1) Froome wasn't outperforming riders who are proven blood dopers and who used gear that is pretty similar in terms of weight and aerodynamics to what Froome is using now. Also, Froome is the only rider in the so-called clean peloton to post times that are even close to those set by the riders from the EPO era.

2) Sky's bikes were different to that of the rest of the peloton, but their Dogma frames and Shimano wheels and group sets are no different than the Dogma frames and Shimano wheels and group sets the rest of the peloton use.

3) Sky were actually serious about their marginal gains, but they have released contradictory statements time and time again. For example, Froome didn't even go to a wind tunnel until some time in 2013. If aerodynamics were so important, surely he would have gone to one as soon as they realised he wasn't a complete donkey after all?

4) The possibilites of increasing aerodynamics and gear when riding a bike up a hill were as significant as they were when riding around a flat track. Weird head movements and gangly posture aside, Froome sits on his bike the same way as all the EPO users sat on their bikes when they were flying up the mountains in the nineties and early noughties.

There's just no way Sky have stumbled on to ways to naturally increase performance so much that riders can ride as fast as the best dopers of the previous generation. That's not possible.

And then there's the whole donkey to racehorse story with Froome that can't be explained by minor changes to his diet and training program either. Unless that diet includes illegal substances.

Great well organized summary.

 

[Col Okey]

Haven't the last few pages just flown by? Good show, chaps

But I have to say I'm surprised at the lack of rigour around this miraculous 6 week pre-Vuelta transformation mystery. Various theories have been offered:

1. The slack orthodoxy that Sky gave him the good gear just prior to ditching his contract - that's right they planned to tool him up and turf him out - falls apart on its face. Yet that was the reflex response of The Clinic to the question. Poor.

2. Some bluster along the lines of - of course they dope how do you explain XXX otherwise - notably from Hog, completely failed to come to grips with the detail of the question. Deliberately so? Irrelevant contributions regardless.

3. Froome going freelance in a desperate attempt to save his skyride - vanishingly short 6 week window, granted - is not immediately ridiculous. (Not possible to have escaped post-Vuelta power file analysis so no way it stayed freelance).

Is this the consensus? What does that say about Sky's internal program? Wiggo happy with the local warm ales while Froome glams it up with something chilled and imported? Is this the root cause of their antipathy?

4. Hitch, possibly inadvertently gave us a truism - that most rider's don't achieve their potential - and then excluded Froome from the class of riders when he realised his mistake.

More rigour, please.

How would you explain Froome's drastic improvement? Why did marginal gains take 18 months to kick in? If SKY knew he always had potential why let his contract run down?
How do you reconcile Froome's 2012 season(terrible for the first 6 months then crushing it at the Tour) with his 6 month peak of 2013?
His breakout season coinciding with the hiring of a doping Doctor
How could anybody on this forum know exactly how SKY are doping ?
I also thought Cobo and Horner were dopers but could I tell you how they ran their programs? no? have I seen any proof? no, so now I'm agnostic on their doping would you agree?

 

[Ventoux Boar]

How would you explain Froome's drastic improvement? Why did marginal gains take 18 months to kick in? If SKY knew he always had potential why let his contract run down?
How do you reconcile Froome's 2012 season(terrible for the first 6 months then crushing it at the Tour) with his 6 month peak of 2013?
His breakout season coinciding with the hiring of a doping Doctor
How could anybody on this forum know exactly how SKY are doping ?
I also thought Cobo and Horner were dopers but could I tell you how they ran their programs? no? have I seen any proof? no, so now I'm agnostic on their doping would you agree?

I can't explain his improvement. (Paradoxically the more drastic you make it, the less plausible a 6 week program sounds).

But then I haven't been banging on about it for 18 months. A casual examination of the miraculous 6-week September hypothesis has people all over the place.

And you're suggesting I'm the one with the explaining to do? I don't think so.