Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[the sceptic]

Ross Tucker on transparency.

Managers and coaches should make available EVERY possible item that helps to establish their innocence – after all, if there is nothing to hide, then why hide it? The response to this is that some data is important and crucial to a competitive advantage – we can’t tell you our numbers because you’ll know how to beat us. This is a convenient excuse – actually acting to turn data into an advantage is not the same thing as knowing the data. And they all know anyway – Usain Bolt’s rivals know that to beat him will require a time faster than 9.70s. Doesn’t mean they’re going to do it. So I don’t buy it.

Bottom line – transparency buys some degree of trust. And thus, half transparency is far worse than none. Rather stay silent than try to spin the truth with the selective use of facts (remember that numbers are not the only facts, and for some sports there may be no numbers – it’s not all cycling and power outputs). That’s what Sky did in 2012 and 2013, leading to my (and a number of others) skepticism of them. Put everything out there, co-operate with the independent authorities and intelligent people will come to the truth. If you’re not doping, then that’s where you want them, right?

I guess he must have an anti british agenda like the clinic.

 

[Parker]

Ross Tucker on transparency.


I guess he must have an anti british agenda like the clinic.

Tucker wants riders and teams to release details because it is to his own benefit that they do so.
He and others use such data (real or estimated) to boost their own profile. No-one's asking Tucker what he thinks of the Tour route are they? But with data he has set himself up as a media go to man for those who want a disapproving article (the passage you quoted being a case in point).

The likes of Sky don't release data for assessment of self-appointed guardians like of Tucker, Veloclinic and Vayer because they just don't trust their motives. They're all interested in their own publicity.

 

[the sceptic]

Tucker wants riders and teams to release details because it is to his own benefit that they do so.
He and others use such data (real or estimated) to boost their own profile. No-one's asking Tucker what he thinks of the Tour route are they? But with data he has set himself up as a media go to man for those who want a disapproving article (the passage you quoted being a case in point).

The likes of Sky don't release data for assessment of self-appointed guardians like of Tucker, Veloclinic and Vayer because they just don't trust their motives. They're all interested in their own publicity.

True, much better to release it to an independent expert like Walsh.

 

[thehog]

Tucker wants riders and teams to release details because it is to his own benefit that they do so.
He and others use such data (real or estimated) to boost their own profile. No-one's asking Tucker what he thinks of the Tour route are they? But with data he has set himself up as a media go to man for those who want a disapproving article (the passage you quoted being a case in point).

The likes of Sky don't release data for assessment of self-appointed guardians like of Tucker, Veloclinic and Vayer because they just don't trust their motives. They're all interested in their own publicity.

So the likes of Sky instead release half-baked, subsections of data to Grappe because of publicity?

Then hire Walsh to write books about the non-use of Nutella and that Froome was slower than Mayo on Ventoux.

Please, spare us.

 

[Parker]

So the likes of Sky instead release half-baked, subsections of data to Grappe because of publicity?

They gave it to L'Equipe. They chose Grappe.

But it emphasises my point. Whatever the data it can be used to illustrate any point - pro or anti doping. Expert assessments are provided by those with a profile which conveniently confirm the opinions of those that are paying them. When in reality the data really doesn't tell us anything with any kind of reliability.

 

[thehog]

They gave it to L'Equipe. They chose Grappe.

But it emphasises my point. Whatever the data it can be used to illustrate any point - pro or anti doping. Expert assessments are provided by those with a profile which conveniently confirm the opinions of those that are paying them. When in reality the data really doesn't tell us anything with any kind of reliability.

You're right. They gave select data to a newspaper for reasons of.... errr.... publicty?

Rather than direct to a series of scientists, whom could form their own opinions.

 

[Parker]

Rather than direct to a series of scientists, whom could form their own opinions.

Give data to a series of ten scientists. Nine say no conclusions and one says it gives them 'cause for suspicion' and 'concerns' and guess which opinion gets reported by the media. And not only that, but that one becomes the guy they pay for a column next time.

Any journalist worth his salt has a list of go-to guys willing to dole out the desired quotes in return for some media work down the line. It's a little symbiotic relationship and happens throughout media. It's a nice little earner if you can become one of the media's 'experts'.

 

[thehog]

Give data to a series of ten scientists. Nine say no conclusions and one says it gives them 'cause for suspicion' and 'concerns' and guess which opinion gets reported by the media. And not only that, but that one becomes the guy they pay for a column next time.

Any journalist worth his salt has a list of go-to guys willing to dole out the desired quotes in return for some media work down the line. It's a little symbiotic relationship and happens throughout media. It's a nice little earner if you can become one of the media's 'experts'.

Thanks.

Still not following. Tucker is a scientist, are you suggesting that he shouldn't publish, speak to his analysis? Via his own website?

What other method should he (they) use? A good portion of his research is released via established journals and institutions; http://sportsscientists.com/publications/ross-research/

You don't think that is appropriate or normal?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Christ almighty the persecution complex is bringing a tear to the eye, innit?

 

[Parker]

Thanks.

Still not following. Tucker is a scientist, are you suggesting that he shouldn't publish, speak to his analysis? Via his own website?

What other method should he (they) use? A good portion of his research is released via established journals and institutions; http://sportsscientists.com/publications/ross-research/

You don't think that is appropriate or normal?

He can do what he likes. But don't make the mistake of thinking that his calls for Sky or anyone else to publish data in the name of 'transparency' are motivated by anything but his own self-interest.

 

[TailWindHome]

Has Tucker published his methodology for determining doping in cyclists from performance data?

 

[the sceptic]

Thanks.

Still not following. Tucker is a scientist, are you suggesting that he shouldn't publish, speak to his analysis? Via his own website?

What other method should he (they) use? A good portion of his research is released via established journals and institutions; http://sportsscientists.com/publications/ross-research/

You don't think that is appropriate or normal?

I believe the mistake he made was that he wrote something negative about sky. If he wants to be a real scientist like Walsh and Grappe he must select the data that makes sky look cleans, and ignore everything else.

 

[thehog]

He can do what he likes. But don't make the mistake of thinking that his calls for Sky or anyone else to publish data in the name of 'transparency' are motivated by anything but his own self-interest.

Still not following. Tucker was suggesting data should be provided to one and all, not just himself. Not seeing that as "self interest".

Or to put it another way; if a team claims to be "on the vanguard of anti-doping" thus asserting to be transparent, releasing numbers to all shouldn't be a problem. But they don't.

Sky and others are acting with self-interest in wanting to have the kudos of anti-doping but do nothing to promote it. They use it as a marketing term. Not as a literal. That's the definition of "self interest".

I think you may have bias on this one.

 

[gooner]

That's grand and everything but lets not be disingenuous and portray this as possibly something that would help change some people's perceptions on here.

Costa, Roche, Deignan and Kwiatkowski have done this in recent times and I don't see anyone speaking up for them.

 

[the sceptic]

That's grand and everything but lets not be disingenuous and portray this as possibly something that would help change some people's perceptions on here.

Costa, Roche, Deignan and Kwiatkowski have done this in recent times and I don't see anyone speaking up for them.

Those guys havent had mutant transformations and won grand tours. A little different.

Sky will never become fully transparent, for a very good reason.

 

[neineinei]

That's grand and everything but lets not be disingenuous and portray this as possibly something that would help change some people's perceptions on here.

Costa, Roche, Deignan and Kwiatkowski have done this in recent times and I don't see anyone speaking up for them.

You can't prove you are clean. You can prove all your talk about transparency isn't just talk. Transparency was supposed to be a cure for not being able to prove your cleanness. When transparency means anything but straight talk and openness it becomes just as convincing as Scinto's promised publishing of Yellow Fluo's bio passport data.

 

[gooner]

Those guys havent had mutant transformations and won grand tours. A little different.

Sky will never become fully transparent, for a very good reason.

I have no problem with the more open minded posters on the forum highlighting this but again, don't be so disingenuous with saying transparency would make a difference with yourself and a select few around here. Pull the other one.

Those riders are perfectly right to be brought up. If they doing it doesn't make the slightest of difference to you and co., why would it be any different with other riders?

Dan Martin got this thrown at him after Lombardy and I said the same thing. The same crew would be throwing the doping accusations even if he did what was asked of him and he released his data.

I say this as someone who would like to see more Sky riders follow Deignan's suit but don't give me this nonsense that it would actually influencing any opinion of sort with some on here.

 

[Netserk]

Did you change your opinion on Horner because he released his passport data? Do you think anyone should do that?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Did you change your opinion on Horner because he released his passport data? Do you think anyone should do that?

I think the problem with individual blood profiles is they are a very tiny window into the physiology involved at the elite level.

If all the data were released, we could quickly see if there were similar patterns. Which is why I asked JV for a domestique or similar's blood values from pre-2012 Giro. I do not need to be an expert to see the values were high for everyone. Calculating an average and seeing the pre-Giro value is above average and close to the highest value of the season is something a child can do.

And provides some kind of irrefutable back up to a very dubious claim.

All the posters here saying - oh so and so released 3 month's data or one rider released all his data: this is not the point. And is as useful as examining the time for one rider up one climb in isolation.

If all riders went up the climb fast, or that rider went up the climb fast for the past 5 years, then no, it's not unusual that they did it today as well.

It's when they have no history of climbing that climb fast, or noone else did it fast that the single data point then gets value: from the context of the other data points.

I think the reason we won't see data is because the BP is a joke, and they (UCI, maybe WADA) don't want to be shown up for fools.

 

[the sceptic]

I have no problem with the more open minded posters on the forum highlighting this but again, don't be so disingenuous with saying transparency would make a difference with yourself and a select few around here. Pull the other one.

Those riders are perfectly right to be brought up. If they doing it doesn't make the slightest of difference to you and co., why would it be any different with other riders?

Dan Martin got this thrown at him after Lombardy and I said the same thing. The same crew would be throwing the doping accusations even if he did what was asked of him and he released his data.

I say this as someone who would like to see more Sky riders follow Deignan's suit but don't give me this nonsense that it would actually influencing any opinion of sort with some on here.

If Dan Martin were to release all his blood and power files (and they look human), I would be much more inclined to believe he is cleans. Same goes for other riders that seem somewhat human on the surface.

Sky will never become transparent, because it would make them look much worse than they already do. The fake transparency is better PR.

 

[Jack (6 ch)]

On the subject of data (and sorry to interrupt discussion) I can't help wanting to post this link to the Financial Times:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3d9bb4aa-587a-11e4-a31b-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk

Marginal gains now being applied to investment management.

Never quite saw Sutton behind a terminal with a phone to each ear, but there you are.

 

[gooner]

Did you change your opinion on Horner because he released his passport data? Do you think anyone should do that?

I like to see power data released for interest purposes where we can gauge performances between differing GTs. Pinot spoke about this regarding the Tour '12 and Vuelta '13. Like lots of talk would Horner have beating Froome where we could gain more certainty on it. I leave the desired experts with knowledge in the field analyse it more appropriately on the back of it.

 

[Electress]

Seems Cookson and Brailsford having a bit of a tiff…

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...oning-british-development-sir-dave-brailsford

 

[thehog]

Funniest comment I've ever read on the CN comments section;

Ellingsworth: "We will bring our best bikes to the Tour de France".

Rod Ellingsworth rocked the cycling world today by predicting Team Sky will indeed bring their best bicycles to next year's Tour. "It's imperative that we do this", he said in an unscheduled conference late Monday evening, clearly weary from the planning of this latest move. "We simply can't expect to perform at our best if we don't plan to bring the bicycles we have prepared to ride upon." Indeed while it is expected that other teams also plan to bring their bikes, Ellingsworth was coy, "I'm not saying this early what color we might go with or if we'll decide to bring the wheels and bottles etc. We just have to hold something back until we get closer. The other teams are saying they will bring their bikes now, but we know all too well things can change. It's bike racing." Indeed it is bike racing, but that doesn't mean we can casually assume every team will be bringing their bikes and more than we can assume they will be wearing socks. For that we will just have to wait and see.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Clearly Nathan is in error. How could he possibly learn something from non-team riders or other teams when he's a member of the most cutting edge, marginal gain, miraculous transformation, totally transparent team of all time since forever?

"As much as it was exciting and you're doing these amazing races, you're learning from others guys on the team who are the best cyclists in the world so you learn off them and also from observing what other cyclists and teams do. I'd say it was just a huge learning experience."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/first-year-at-sky-a-learning-experience-for-earle

Tongue firmly planted in cheek, in case you were wondering.