Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1363 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

gazr99 said:
red_flanders said:
gazr99 said:
red_flanders said:
You all get that with every transfer, the other teams see rider data and get information about other riders right? Yet people lap up this "competitive advantage" stuff like it's a real difference maker. The fact is that every other team knows exactly what training methods and power numbers the other teams use/have at this point.

But good folks found a reason to believe and keep the facts shielded. That's what PR does, it tells people the lies they want to hear.
Does the rider take the data with them or does it belong to the team? Yes of course riders will tell their new team training methods but trying to gain a competitive advantage through training methods is still an aim, as the team would have benefitted from this training for at least a year before the rider left.

The methods of training and diet are constantly evolving/changing, so S&C coaches are always trying to find out what the opposition are doing and how they benefit.

Say if Sky introduced something new this year, how would the other teams know about it?
Per JV on this forum, he sees the exact data and physiological parameters of potential hires.

If Sky are doing something new this year, it explains nothing about the previous 4+ years.

Simple answer here is obvious.
Potential hires being the key phrase. For example, When Tinkoff signed Michael Rogers they would have seen his data but not Froome's or Wiggins.

My point about changing methods is that they are constantly evolving/changing, so a rider could go to another team say what he did the previous year at a rival team, but then the rival team may evolve the training in the new season. Training methods very rarely stay the exact same for more than two years at most
Potential hires is only key in that you don't even have to hire the guy to know.

I hope the argument here isn't that training methods are so quick to evolve that they account for clean riders being able to beat riders using EPO microdosing and other methods, because that's nonsensical. Did Froome find a new training method in fall of 2011 which completely changed him as a rider and then never find any more gains?

Or are we back to Bilharzia to explain that.
 
Jul 20, 2015
653
0
0
Re: Re:

jalep said:
gazr99 said:
Potential hires being the key phrase. For example, When Tinkoff signed Michael Rogers they would have seen his data but not Froome's or Wiggins.

My point about changing methods is that they are constantly evolving/changing, so a rider could go to another team say what he did the previous year at a rival team, but then the rival team may evolve the training in the new season. Training methods very rarely stay the exact same for more than two years at most
Yes, think about the exciting prospect for Sky fans next year. With the budget they have, there is the potential there to buy both Quintana and Valverde. Both have been great this TdF and their tactics impress me with those of someone trying to impress Sky. They shoot for 2nd place for Quintana and how can they overlook the help Valverde has been when chasing down Contador.

But that's really a stretch of imagination...or is it? Not beyond consideration is what I think.

What is more real is the rumor of Mikel Landa going to Sky. So, you really believe Landa going from Astana (a team vilified and treading on thin doping ice) to Sky will be believed as clean at Sky? Even Walsh didn't believe Landa's performance at the Giro d'Italia. Even me, a relative newbie to following pro cycling and a big fan of Nibali's style of riding, can't get on board with Landa as clean. Going to Sky...it takes a wall of willful denial or an acute case of adult magical thinking to digest such a whopper.

At least drop the CLEAN act. Stop trying to lie about that, it's offensive.

That link and article by the professor Wendy posted - it's a lot of whining about the ill-treatment Sky/Froome get. lol, really. So this year, we have the Lars Boom controversy and the screws are tightened on Astana - the message is sent and he leaves the race eliminated from helping Nibali; last year Krueziger is eliminated from helping Contador. Sky however gets the completely believable transmutation Geraint Thomas to help Froome. That is progress, that is a fair and proper leg-up on the competition.

Next year everyone will be defending Landa in his supportive role and he was mocked as a doper riding the GdI for Astana. No surprise to you simply because Sky has superior methods / constantly evolving and changing. Mmm, that's convenient, huh
I presume/hope the first part is sarcasm.

They will definitely increase the pressure on themselves by signing Landa.

Boom was allowed in the Tour, helped Nibali on the stages he was expected to help and like many of riders this year has apaprently pulled out due to illness, in case you haven't noticed he isn't the only one.

The article wasn't whining that Sky get mistreated, it simply puts across the argument its sad that cycling has been forced into a state where leaders of the TDF are under such a microscope, which is near impossible to get away from whatever they do. No team will want their rivals knowing their data and training methods, which makes full transparency (which is a great idea) very tough to achieve. Basically its a never-ending circle for any team/rider, this year its Sky and Froome, which has been caused by those who cheated in the past
 
Jul 20, 2015
653
0
0
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
gazr99 said:
red_flanders said:
gazr99 said:
red_flanders said:
You all get that with every transfer, the other teams see rider data and get information about other riders right? Yet people lap up this "competitive advantage" stuff like it's a real difference maker. The fact is that every other team knows exactly what training methods and power numbers the other teams use/have at this point.

But good folks found a reason to believe and keep the facts shielded. That's what PR does, it tells people the lies they want to hear.
Does the rider take the data with them or does it belong to the team? Yes of course riders will tell their new team training methods but trying to gain a competitive advantage through training methods is still an aim, as the team would have benefitted from this training for at least a year before the rider left.

The methods of training and diet are constantly evolving/changing, so S&C coaches are always trying to find out what the opposition are doing and how they benefit.

Say if Sky introduced something new this year, how would the other teams know about it?
Per JV on this forum, he sees the exact data and physiological parameters of potential hires.

If Sky are doing something new this year, it explains nothing about the previous 4+ years.

Simple answer here is obvious.
Potential hires being the key phrase. For example, When Tinkoff signed Michael Rogers they would have seen his data but not Froome's or Wiggins.

My point about changing methods is that they are constantly evolving/changing, so a rider could go to another team say what he did the previous year at a rival team, but then the rival team may evolve the training in the new season. Training methods very rarely stay the exact same for more than two years at most
Potential hires is only key in that you don't even have to hire the guy to know.

I hope the argument here isn't that training methods are so quick to evolve that they account for clean riders being able to beat riders using EPO microdosing and other methods, because that's nonsensical. Did Froome find a new training method in fall of 2011 which completely changed him as a rider and then never find any more gains?

Or are we back to Bilharzia to explain that.
You're the one who said teams get data of riders they may potentially hire. They don't just get any riders data, Movistar can't just go we might hire Froome so can we have his data.

Where did I say that? I'm not quite sure what you are reading at times as it's not what I put.

I said training methods change most years to improve performance, so a new rider could tell a new team about past training but that new team wouldn't have the full picture, as the old team may introduce new methods and nutrition plans
 
Jun 8, 2015
306
0
0
Re: Re:

[quote="gazr99"

I presume/hope the first part is sarcasm.

They will definitely increase the pressure on themselves by signing Landa.

Boom was allowed in the Tour, helped Nibali on the stages he was expected to help and like many of riders this year has apaprently pulled out due to illness, in case you haven't noticed he isn't the only one.

The article wasn't whining that Sky get mistreated, it simply puts across the argument its sad that cycling has been forced into a state where leaders of the TDF are under such a microscope, which is near impossible to get away from whatever they do. No team will want their rivals knowing their data and training methods, which makes full transparency (which is a great idea) very tough to achieve. Basically its a never-ending circle for any team/rider, this year its Sky and Froome, which has been caused by those who cheated in the past[/quote]
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sure, he left because of illness, my bad :rolleyes: sorry if I doubt the truth in reporting. It definitely had an impact on the strength of support for Nibali. The whole timing of Krueziger's elimination last year from TdF was mere coincidence too. okay.

Well it's sad about cycling that's true. But poor little Sky are not helping the sport's image :eek: :D
 
Re: Re:

gazr99 said:
You're the one who said teams get data of riders they may potentially hire. They don't just get any riders data, Movistar can't just go we might hire Froome so can we have his data.

Where did I say that? I'm not quite sure what you are reading at times as it's not what I put.

I said training methods change most years to improve performance, so a new rider could tell a new team about past training but that new team wouldn't have the full picture, as the old team may introduce new methods and nutrition plans
Actually, per JV he had a look at several riders' files and more who he didn't hire. Posted in the JV thread several times. Have a look.

I didn't say you "said that", I said, "I hope the argument isn't...".

Yes, a team could change its training methods. Not sure what the ramifications of that fact are. Does that make a difference? Since this is the Sky thread, is not the implication as has been stated over and over by the Sky PR machine and those who listen to it that Sky train better than everyone else and this is why they are winning? If that's not what you mean by making the point that training methods change, what do you mean? What is the value of that fact? Does it make a difference in performance? Maybe. It would need to be proven. Is it some big secret that teams must protect? Sure, who's saying they can't?

The calls from some quarters for transparency tend to fall in the area of performance data. People want to see Froome's physiological tests from before his transformation as well as after. They want to see his power data from before and after. None of that includes "trade secrets" of their training methods, it's simply data on the results of any training and data on a rider's potential performance ceiling.

Confounding that with "full access to all our secrets" is the goal of this article and a technique which Sky use to (ironically) muddy the waters around the term "transparency" and act like they're being persecuted. They called for transparency. As such, they're being grilled for faking it, lying about the nature of what's being asked for, and releasing partial data. As they should be.
 
Re: Re:

Tommy79 said:
70% sure and rising that Sky are clean based on what we know at the moment.

I can only think of Tinkoff that will have a real insight into Sky's training. Not so much Movistar and Astana.

As far as I'm concerned they have a right to keep their training data a secret. And power data isn't going to prove anything either way.
70% sure and rising (!) they're beating doped riders and matching or beating the best doped times ever clean. OK. Not much point in continuing, and you are certainly entitled to your belief.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
You do also get that other teams who do know their riders' actual weights are riding up the same climbs, right? As such, they know exactly what power numbers riders from other teams are putting out on the climbs.

Do you really think any of the GT contenders think that Sky or anyone else at the sharp end are clean? You can't really be that naive, can you?
That comment from Brailsford when he fudged yet another answer by saying he didn't know Froome's weight was a pure shark-jumping moment, amazed that more people didn't pick up on it to be honest. Mr Marginal Gains himself, DS of the team who supposedly pay minute attention to detail in every aspect of the team's preparation, special pillows and all that good stuff but he doesn't know the racing weight of his TdF GC contender? Puhlease.

The comment linked above re Kennaughs weight loss is also remarkable, I mean appropriately enough in view of your avatar it's like something from the Simpsons. "Yes, that question that you asked me is definitely a question that could be answered" is not an answer.

The thing with old Sir Dave is that at first and even second glance he appears plausible and almost a svengali-like figure to those without an enquiring mind, the kind of people who will just accept something at face value and not feel the need to challenge it. Scratch the surface though and he begins to look like the slipperiest snake-oil salesman you have ever seen.
 
Jul 20, 2015
653
0
0
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
gazr99 said:
You're the one who said teams get data of riders they may potentially hire. They don't just get any riders data, Movistar can't just go we might hire Froome so can we have his data.

Where did I say that? I'm not quite sure what you are reading at times as it's not what I put.

I said training methods change most years to improve performance, so a new rider could tell a new team about past training but that new team wouldn't have the full picture, as the old team may introduce new methods and nutrition plans
Actually, per JV he had a look at several riders' files and more who he didn't hire. Posted in the JV thread several times. Have a look.

I didn't say you "said that", I said, "I hope the argument isn't...".

Yes, a team could change its training methods. Not sure what the ramifications of that fact are. Does that make a difference? Since this is the Sky thread, is not the implication as has been stated over and over by the Sky PR machine and those who listen to it that Sky train better than everyone else and this is why they are winning? If that's not what you mean by making the point that training methods change, what do you mean? What is the value of that fact? Does it make a difference in performance? Maybe. It would need to be proven. Is it some big secret that teams must protect? Sure, who's saying they can't?

The calls from some quarters for transparency tend to fall in the area of performance data. People want to see Froome's physiological tests from before his transformation as well as after. They want to see his power data from before and after. None of that includes "trade secrets" of their training methods, it's simply data on the results of any training and data on a rider's potential performance ceiling.

Confounding that with "full access to all our secrets" is the goal of this article and a technique which Sky use to (ironically) muddy the waters around the term "transparency" and act like they're being persecuted. They called for transparency. As such, they're being grilled for faking it, lying about the nature of what's being asked for, and releasing partial data. As they should be.
You said a rider could change team and will tell his new team about everything the old team did to be successful, so everyone knows what each other are doing. Training methods change not just in cycling but all sports most years to improve performance and data from training to a trained coach will give away what the team does to prepare for certain races. Maybe it's a coincidence the amount of teams that started training on Mt Teide to prepare for the TDF.

I don't blame people for wanting people to see Froome's performance data pre & 2011 Vuelta. But yes the data would show what type of training Froome did, as well as how he got to the level he did.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
The formatting is awful, but here's the data I collected on Froome's flat time trial performance (non-prologue):

From his start as a pro until mid 2011 at Romandie, he was mediocre at best. On average he placed in the top 27% of the field and lost an average of 6.4 seconds/km to the winner (i.e., 5 minutes in a 50 km race). Since TdS 2011 he consistently places on or near the podium and loses on average a second/km to the winner.

There it is in numbers. He flipped a switch. Vrooooom!!

John Swanson


Placing Distance Year Race Time Loss per km (s) Placing (%)

16/145 53 km 2008 TdF -3:00 3.4 11.0%
33/176 29 km 2008 TdF -1:49 3.8 18.8%
32/169 15 km 2009 Giro -1:00 4.0 18.9%
34/186 62 km 2009 Giro -5:36 5.4 18.3%
71/117 17 km 2010 Eneco -2:01 7.1 60.7%
14/127 26 km 2010 Osterreich -1:26 3.3 11.0%
39/154 13 km 2010 Giro -3:47 17.5 25.3%
62/103 22 km 2010 Murcia -3:35 9.8 60.2%
22/131 24 km 2011 ToC -1:39 4.1 16.8%
50/141 21 km 2011 Romandie -1:49 5.2 35.5%
Avg 6.4 27.6%

9/139 32 km 2011 TdS -1:02 1.9 6.5%
2/185 40 km 2011 Vuelta -0:59 1.5 1.1%
3/193 39 km 2012 Vuelta -0:39 1.0 1.6%
2/153 52 km 2012 TdF -1:16 1.5 1.3%
2/178 38 km 2012 TdF -0:35 0.9 1.1%
6/171 54 km 2012 Dauphine -1:33 1.7 3.5%
39/133 17 km 2012 Romandie -1:45 6.2 29.3%
1/177 32 km 2013 TdF -0:00 0.0 0.6%
2/182 33 km 2013 TdF -0:12 0.4 1.1%
3/172 33 km 2013 Dauphine -0:52 1.6 1.7%
3/115 19 km 2013 Romandie -0:34 1.8 2.6%
6/107 9 km 2013 Tirreno -0:15 1.7 5.6%
Avg 1.7 4.7%
I'm no scientist, but is it possible that the 60% margins in your first sample skew the data? And how do you know you're comparing similar efforts? Ta
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Ventoux Boar said:
Benotti69 said:
Ventoux Boar said:
where the peepee? i see someone spitting, but no peepee, did Sky lie about peepee?

Roche was spat at in 87 in Italy. Merckx was punched in 71...
Thought I'd save you and others the embarrassment of calling people liars. Most people grow out of that.
Sky are liars.
J. Kaggestad of NTV2 said TeamSky chef Orre told them TeamSky weigh all riders every morning.

Sky are lying about not knowing riders weight.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
You have historical precedent, contemporary precedent (even a pic, above) and eye-witness testimony. What else do you need? Positive tests?
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Re:

Ventoux Boar said:
You have historical precedent, contemporary precedent (even a pic, above) and eye-witness testimony. What else do you need? Positive tests?
The picture show someone spitting not throwing piss. Neither are acceptable but so far there are no pictures of pissgate.
 
Apr 7, 2015
656
0
0
Froome was bullied at school but his teachers didn't believe him. Here's the evidence that Froome was right.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY