Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[thehog]

So why aren't all the other teams doing the same? Given that the accusation is that Sky does nothing unusual or novel in all other areas of their preparations (all of which require money as well!) then it seems odd that they can manage to do something spectacularly different on doping...

Money mainly. Risk. Team’s in Europe it’s much harder has doping is a crime in Italy, France and several other nations. Not Spain (yet).

Much easier for non-European teams to pull the en masse doping.

Doping costs money. You don’t just inject EPO and away you go. EPO is not a wonder drug. Its takes very good timing and you have to constantly track your parameters for its effectiveness and not to trip doping or passport tests. Transfusions are the same. As I said there’s no wonder drug but logistics is key and have helpers all around you does wonders. Back in the 90’s the riders would carry their doping kit in their suitcases! Can’t do that anymore. You need team Doctors and helpers to pull off a team wide program. There aren’t many teams with the resources to do so thus doping is on a much smaller scale.

I would also add and this is outside of doping. That for teams like USPS and Sky where there was one objective for the year they can spend a lot of money on the one race. Other teams need to do well in home races and also smaller races that English speaking fans have never heard of. Organizing a team wide program for one race works wonders. Never have to spread yourself to thin with riders disappearing off to all sort of races here, there and everywhere. Keep the core group together at all times.

 

[Darryl Webster]

I actually agree with you that employing Leinders is dumb, I actually thought employing Yates was even more risky if you want absolute zero taint..

Here in the UK Yates is looked upon as some kind of folk hero in the cycling fraternity. Along with , but not as lionised, Tom Simpson.
Tom is an interesting case, as there is little doubt the combination of drugs/ alcohol and dehydration / heat exhaustion were the cause of his death on Ventoux yet he,s viewed by both the UK cycling press and the great majority of UK cycling fans as a hero.
No one ever seems to consider that that fateful day was most certainly not the first time Tom used dope or the obvious contradiction of being so very critical of "Johny Foreigner " and there doping histories while lauding Tom at every opportunity.
I've always found it quite sickening.

 

[Aguirre]

with this program, someone like Urán might be a tour contender, allready this year!!!!!!! but we saw a more pretty normal result from him and henao at the Giro.
The Teide camp is the thread, whatever it happened at the Teide camp...

 

[Cycle Chic]

Here in the UK Yates is looked upon as some kind of folk hero in the cycling fraternity. Along with , but not as lionised, Tom Simpson.
Tom is an interesting case, as there is little doubt the combination of drugs/ alcohol and dehydration / heat exhaustion were the cause of his death on Ventoux yet he,s viewed by both the UK cycling press and the great majority of UK cycling fans as a hero.
No one ever seems to consider that that fateful day was most certainly not the first time Tom used dope or the obvious contradiction of being so very critical of "Johny Foreigner " and there doping histories while lauding Tom at every opportunity.
I've always found it quite sickening.

You are spot on - Yates and Simpson - known dopers. And for everyone to be paying pilgrimmage to Simpson - just dont get it.

 

[BroDeal]

Here in the UK Yates is looked upon as some kind of folk hero in the cycling fraternity. Along with , but not as lionised, Tom Simpson.
Tom is an interesting case, as there is little doubt the combination of drugs/ alcohol and dehydration / heat exhaustion were the cause of his death on Ventoux yet he,s viewed by both the UK cycling press and the great majority of UK cycling fans as a hero.
No one ever seems to consider that that fateful day was most certainly not the first time Tom used dope or the obvious contradiction of being so very critical of "Johny Foreigner " and there doping histories while lauding Tom at every opportunity.
I've always found it quite sickening.

I think Phil Ligget's idolization of Simpson goes a long way toward explaining Ligget's apologism about doping, and Ligget has done much to set the tone.

 

[Gloin22]

If you go back in the post this has been posted.

I commented that Sky's use of the death of someone as justification for hiring Leinders is disgusting.

This is the richest team in cycling. They could hire anyone, why a Doctor associated with doping?

Does he have a speciality to deal with serious viral bacterias and if so why is he not on the tour now?

Your lost me there.

Sky is not richest team in cycling.

BMC, Astana & Katusha have both biggeer budgets than Sky...

Sky is possibly richest company that sponsors a team... but other sponsors give their teams more money like BMC etc.

 

[roundabout]

Didn't one of Sky guys say that they can afford to have specialist staff members? Certainly not a sign of a poor team.

As for Astana and Katusha, considering where they are from, it wouldn't be a surprise to see the "bigger" budget used for something other than cycling.

 

[Bala Verde]

Your lost me there.

Sky is not richest team in cycling.

BMC, Astana & Katusha have both biggeer budgets than Sky...

Sky is possibly richest company that sponsors a team... but other sponsors give their teams more money like BMC etc.

Last year; FY2011 (Courtesy Cyclingtips.com.au)

http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2011/07/le-tour-diary-stage-8-team-budgets/

SKY seems to have upped their budget for 2012 though:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/02/news/uci-claims-audit-shows-elite-pro-teams-on-rise_207432

The numbers did not reveal the range in budgets for individual teams, as there’s a growing gap between the super teams — such ProTeam squads as Team Sky, BMC and Astana, which boast budgets in excess of 15 million euros per year, to smaller teams, such as Euskaltel-Euskadi, which have a budget of 7 million euros

The other day on TV, some cycling journalist mentioned that the budget for team sky for FY2012 around 20m Euro.

 

[Benotti69]

Your lost me there.

Sky is not richest team in cycling.

BMC, Astana & Katusha have both biggeer budgets than Sky...

Sky is possibly richest company that sponsors a team... but other sponsors give their teams more money like BMC etc.

British Cycling received £26.4m in funding for 2012 Olympics, while Team Sky has a reported budget of around £10m

British Cycling and Team Sky share office space as well as coaching, back-up and administrative staff.

 

[Moller]

Leinders left rabobank in 2009, could wiggins have been working with him then? something drastic happned to wiggins in 09, theres no way a clean rider could finish in the top 5 of that year's tour, him and andy schleck are the only ones not charged with doping offences since.
Maybe Leinders was employed by sky because he was wiggin's own doctor?

 

[D Avoid]

Wiggigs training

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/533967/bradley-wiggins-s-tour-de-france-training.html


Part of me wants to believe but then I do the maffs an' it don'add up!!

 

[Darryl Webster]

Anyone fancy picking holes in this article? http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/533967/bradley-wiggins-s-tour-de-france-training.html

 

[Hawkwood]

Here in the UK Yates is looked upon as some kind of folk hero in the cycling fraternity. Along with , but not as lionised, Tom Simpson.
Tom is an interesting case, as there is little doubt the combination of drugs/ alcohol and dehydration / heat exhaustion were the cause of his death on Ventoux yet he,s viewed by both the UK cycling press and the great majority of UK cycling fans as a hero.
No one ever seems to consider that that fateful day was most certainly not the first time Tom used dope or the obvious contradiction of being so very critical of "Johny Foreigner " and there doping histories while lauding Tom at every opportunity.
I've always found it quite sickening.

I don't think it's that straightforward. I started racing in the north west in the 1970s, and older riders then did not have a positive view of Simpson at all, they regarded him as a cheat. As for Yates, I remember reading back in the 90s that his team got Armstrong to room with him so that Yates could show him the `ropes', the moment I read that I thought here we go.

 

[D Avoid]

Anyone fancy picking holes in this article? http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/533967/bradley-wiggins-s-tour-de-france-training.html

Excuse me, I was first, by 7 minutes!!

 

[Darryl Webster]

I don't think it's that straightforward. I started racing in the north west in the 1970s, and older riders then did not have a positive view of Simpson at all, they regarded him as a cheat. As for Yates, I remember reading back in the 90s that his team got Armstrong to room with him so that Yates could show him the `ropes', the moment I read that I thought here we go.

That's an interesting observation Hawk. I started my cycling in the mid 70,s and your right, the view of Simpson was rather different back then. Obviously most thought of it as tragic he,d lost his life and I recall many were incredulous that he,d been put back on his bike but I don't recall any thinking of him as hero.
Yates "teaching him the ropes" I might suggest was as much about Yates being trusted to keep his mouth shut about what Lance might be up to. Interesting also that Yates has some serious health issues that might well be the result of years of PED use.
As a little aside when I won the British individual pursuit champs in 84 and the national 25 mile champs in 85, on both occasions in what were then championship records , it was Yates ,s records I broke

 

[Darryl Webster]

Excuse me, I was first, by 7 minutes!!

Ooops, so you were D, sorry dude

 

[Telmisartan new]

So why aren't all the other teams doing the same? Given that the accusation is that Sky does nothing unusual or novel in all other areas of their preparations (all of which require money as well!) then it seems odd that they can manage to do something spectacularly different on doping...

Sky's mechanics work later than the other teams mechanics, this is one of the foundations of their incredible success....apparently..or so they tell us..

Or its Davey boy's marginal gains....

Or its sheer talent according to Knaven...

Or.....let me think.....Timmy and his proper training programs? (as opposed to the amateur programs all other teams must therefore be using)

Or maybe its because in Britain you just wouldn't dream of doping, would you?

Or its the threat of your wife leaving you (what a loyal lady obviously)

Or its this new fangled invention called altitude training.....

Or its the warmdowns (okay, this has been debated to death in this thread,so have the others probably, just a quick recap for my own benefit)

Wonder what it'll be tomorrow....can't wait....

 

[Krebs cycle]

You are missrepresenting the case against Armstrong by looking at the current situation. The clinic was railing against Armstrong before the solid evidence showed up. And they have been proven pretty much completely right.

Now if we look at Sky we certainly have reason to be critical (see the facts). We can just shut up or we can speak out against it and warn for a second USPS. So yes, I arrogantly denounce every one who blindly follows Sky without demanding transparency. Cycling isn't helped by giving Sky a jubilant pass if they are so mired in the murky history of cycling.

Yes but its interesting that I was railing hard against Armstrong years ago on this forum and I battled with Lance fanboy crazies (who all seem to have disappeared btw), but here and now I cannot find the same evidence of doping in the performances of Wiggins that were apparent in the EPO/transfusion days.

Yes everything you posted before are indeed facts. But those facts do not indicate doping. All they do is make suspicious and cynical clinic members more suspicious. Its like now that Lance has gone, the clinic has no Dr Evil anymore so you're just picking the best guy on the strongest team to direct your suspicions at, latching onto the smallest trivial detail (your "facts"), but you are completely ignoring the most important and objective facts we can lay our hands on and that is ITT performances (and hopefully biopassport data if Wiggins gets his way and they publish them). It has taken Wiggins a whole 4yrs to improve about 3 or 4% against Cancellara (something that Tony Martin achieved in a single year btw) in long ITTs but in short ITTs such as prologues there has been virtually no change between the two in 7yrs.

This is pretty much exactly what one would expect to happen when the world's fastest man over 4km alters his training and loses some weight so that he can improve his long ITT and hill climbing performances.

We would expect to see a sudden and non-linear increase in performance if Wiggins started doping at any time in his entire pro career, but here is the best and most objective FACT that we know for certain....

There is NO SUDDEN AND DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENT IN TT PERFORMANCE at any point in Wiggins' pro-career.

I also demand transparency but I denounce anyone who ignores the results but then comes along and repeats the lie "suddenly improved TT performance". It's not the nazi ministry of propaganda in here, if you keep repeating a lie it won't actually come true.

 

[doolols]

It has taken Wiggins a whole 4yrs to improve about 3 or 4% against Cancellara (something that Tony Martin achieved in a single year btw) in long ITTs but in short ITTs such as prologues there has been virtually no change between the two in 7yrs.

This is pretty much exactly what one would expect to happen when the world's fastest man over 4km alters his training and loses some weight so that he can improve his long ITT and hill climbing performances.

We would expect to see a sudden and non-linear increase in performance if Wiggins started doping at any time in his entire pro career, but here is the best and most objective FACT that we know for certain....

There is NO SUDDEN AND DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENT IN TT PERFORMANCE at any point in Wiggins' pro-career.

And all of the climbing figures that have come out (time to climb, W/kg) show nothing like the doping figures we've seen in the past. All is shows that there is a TEAM of riders that ride a certain way, which in this year without Andy Schleck and Contador, no one else has worked out how to break them. If you had either AC or AS, then you could see Nibali latching onto them, and then we'd see how the Sky Mountain Time Trial method works out. But they don't panic, they're efficient - compare the riding styles of any of Wiggins, Froome, Rogers or Porte with poor Cadel - up out of the saddle, bike jerking from side to side, wasting energy. They're an efficient team, working towards one goal.

 

[Caruut]

We would expect to see a sudden and non-linear increase in performance if Wiggins started doping at any time in his entire pro career, but here is the best and most objective FACT that we know for certain....

There is NO SUDDEN AND DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENT IN TT PERFORMANCE at any point in Wiggins' pro-career.

I also demand transparency but I denounce anyone who ignores the results but then comes along and repeats the lie "suddenly improved TT performance". It's not the nazi ministry of propaganda in here, if you keep repeating a lie it won't actually come true.

That all depends on exactly how you define improvement. To me, maintaining (and actually improving slightly) TT performance while climbing so much better than you were before is a big improvement. In that respect, I think 2009 is a sudden and dramatic improvement.

 

[ferryman]

Yes but its interesting that I was railing hard against Armstrong years ago on this forum and I battled with Lance fanboy crazies (who all seem to have disappeared btw), but here and now I cannot find the same evidence of doping in the performances of Wiggins that were apparent in the EPO/transfusion days.

Yes everything you posted before are indeed facts. But those facts do not indicate doping. All they do is make suspicious and cynical clinic members more suspicious. Its like now that Lance has gone, the clinic has no Dr Evil anymore so you're just picking the best guy on the strongest team to direct your suspicions at, latching onto the smallest trivial detail (your "facts"), but you are completely ignoring the most important and objective facts we can lay our hands on and that is ITT performances (and hopefully biopassport data if Wiggins gets his way and they publish them). It has taken Wiggins a whole 4yrs to improve about 3 or 4% against Cancellara (something that Tony Martin achieved in a single year btw) in long ITTs but in short ITTs such as prologues there has been virtually no change between the two in 7yrs.

This is pretty much exactly what one would expect to happen when the world's fastest man over 4km alters his training and loses some weight so that he can improve his long ITT and hill climbing performances.

We would expect to see a sudden and non-linear increase in performance if Wiggins started doping at any time in his entire pro career, but here is the best and most objective FACT that we know for certain....

There is NO SUDDEN AND DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENT IN TT PERFORMANCE at any point in Wiggins' pro-career.

I also demand transparency but I denounce anyone who ignores the results but then comes along and repeats the lie "suddenly improved TT performance". It's not the nazi ministry of propaganda in here, if you keep repeating a lie it won't actually come true.

Can I come and join your dream land? I think I would like it there.

 

[Bala Verde]

[...], but you are completely ignoring the most important and objective facts we can lay our hands on and that is ITT performances (and hopefully biopassport data if Wiggins gets his way and they publish them). It has taken Wiggins a whole 4yrs to improve about 3 or 4% against Cancellara (something that Tony Martin achieved in a single year btw) in long ITTs but in short ITTs such as prologues there has been virtually no change between the two in 7yrs.

This is pretty much exactly what one would expect to happen when the world's fastest man over 4km alters his training and loses some weight so that he can improve his long ITT and hill climbing performances.

[...]

Interesting. Can you expand on this, or if you have posted it before, show me where I can find it? Thanks.

 

[sittingbison]

...It has taken Wiggins a whole 4yrs to improve about 3 or 4% against Cancellara (something that Tony Martin achieved in a single year btw) in long ITTs but in short ITTs such as prologues there has been virtually no change between the two in 7yrs.

This is pretty much exactly what one would expect to happen when the world's fastest man over 4km alters his training and loses some weight so that he can improve his long ITT and hill climbing performances...There is NO SUDDEN AND DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENT IN TT PERFORMANCE at any point in Wiggins' pro-career

Krebs, can't you see the inconsistency in these statements? When he had the heavy physique and was the worlds fastest rider over 4km on the track he could not compete in the long ITT and hills, but could almost match it over the prologues. But when losing 12kg of muscle mass (there was no fat to lose) he has increased his long ITT performance to match and now better the best two multiple world champion ITTers of a decade (both heavy riders), and ALSO improve his climbing to kill off the worlds best climbers (excluding Andy and AC). Some of the climbers (not all) are good at ITT, but usually not at the same level as the specialists, and that in the last day of the tour, not the first week.

All the while not losing anything in the prologues?

How is this physiologically possible?

 

[BroDeal]

Krebs, can't you see the inconsistency in these statements? When he had the heavy physique and was the worlds fastest rider over 4km on the track he could not compete in the long ITT and hills, but could almost match it over the prologues. But when losing 12kg of muscle mass (there was no fat to lose) he has increased his long ITT performance to match and now better the best two multiple world champion ITTers of a decade (both heavy riders), and ALSO improve his climbing to kill off the worlds best climbers (excluding Andy and AC). Some of the climbers (not all) are good at ITT, but usually not at the same level as the specialists, and that in the last day of the tour, not the first week.

All the while not losing anything in the prologues?

How is this physiologically possible?

I smell another cyclimas story. "The Legend of the 12 Kilograms"

 

[Franklin]

It has taken Wiggins a whole 4yrs to improve about 3 or 4% against Cancellara (something that Tony Martin achieved in a single year btw) in long ITTs but in short ITTs such as prologues there has been virtually no change between the two in 7yrs.

This is pretty much exactly what one would expect to happen when the world's fastest man over 4km alters his training and loses some weight so that he can improve his long ITT and hill climbing performances.

Sorry Krebs, drop the posing as this truly takes it to another level.
You blandly state here that training for ITT's is the same as training for Mountains and that a key for both is weight loss.

I guess this surely explains why Michael Rasmussen suddenly was a pretty good TT specialist