Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1373 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
red_flanders said:
TheSpud said:
blackcat said:
riddle me this Skysters, how does vroom lose ~6kg from this physique? he is already no bodyfat, no nonfunctional tissue, 30thousand miles a year professional. All functional muscle. Your control sample, is everyone who has been a pro in the last 50 years, even Rasmussen.

How does vroom become the thinnest ever pro when he was not that naturally, and he was doing 30k mile a year as a pro.

calorie deficit doesnt cut it Skysters

Its drugs
Many things I would have said:


  • Better diet (and yes calorie deficit to a certain extent).
    Better overall training for conditioning and fitness.
    Better targeted training of specific muscle groups - ie hit the legs, but let the arms go. Focus the weight on the power areas.
    OOC cortisone.
None of which are illegal ...

And, no, I wont bow to your direction that calorie deficit wont cut it. I've seen what calorie deficit can do (good and bad) so I will quote it above.
Other than OOC cortisone, not sure which of those things every team hasn't been doing since...forever. Literally all of that is covered in the Eddy B. book I read in 1989 (printed 1985). Better how? Specifically? Why do you believe Sky can just magically do it better when people have been optimizing this for as long as I've been in the sport? Curious.
I agree, and actually I would add in the OOC cortisone - I thought that was the choice of the French (and other teams)?

You say why are Sky better? Well, the 'riddle' above was the comparison between Barloworld and now - that is what I was responding to. Barloword - hardly a big budget team. I would expect Sky to p1ss all over them in terms of budget, training, coaches, and know how - so yes, thats why they would be some way ahead. I would imagine they are (much much) more disciplined (certainly than Barlow) and can (and do) organise / manage the team as a team rather than letting their riders just ride / train when they wanted. Thats where I was coming from in the comment above. I dont disagree that other (ProTour) teams are doing some / all of this - but that wasnt the comparison that was asked for.
Yeah, I get the specific comparison, I just don't get why people think that budget = better training. Maybe better nutrition and support? Maybe? More disciplined? Why? That's completely about team culture not budget. Why assume Barloworld "let their riders just ride / train when they wanted?" That seems comically unlikely. Is there some supporting information which points to any of this? Chris Froome claims in his book to ride/train the way he wants, not the way Sky wants.

I think Sky puts this out there to explain the unexplainable and people just believe it because they are looking for a reason to believe. I see no reason to believe it myself unless there are some corroborating facts. How did Wiggins become so great? Garmin had bad training? How does it explain riders sucking for a long time on team Sky, then all of a sudden becoming outstanding, all at different times? Sky training improvements are random and only take hold on certain people at certain times? I'm struggling to see why people believe this stuff...
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
TheSpud said:
I agree, and actually I would add in the OOC cortisone - I thought that was the choice of the French (and other teams)?

You say why are Sky better? Well, the 'riddle' above was the comparison between Barloworld and now - that is what I was responding to. Barloword - hardly a big budget team. I would expect Sky to p1ss all over them in terms of budget, training, coaches, and know how - so yes, thats why they would be some way ahead. I would imagine they are (much much) more disciplined (certainly than Barlow) and can (and do) organise / manage the team as a team rather than letting their riders just ride / train when they wanted. Thats where I was coming from in the comment above. I dont disagree that other (ProTour) teams are doing some / all of this - but that wasnt the comparison that was asked for.
Yeah, I get the specific comparison, I just don't get why people think that budget = better training. Maybe better nutrition and support? Maybe? More disciplined? Why? That's completely about team culture not budget. Why assume Barloworld "let their riders just ride / train when they wanted?" That seems comically unlikely. Is there some supporting information which points to any of this? Chris Froome claims in his book to ride/train the way he wants, not the way Sky wants.

I think Sky puts this out there to explain the unexplainable and people just believe it because they are looking for a reason to believe. I see no reason to believe it myself unless there are some corroborating facts. How did Wiggins become so great? Garmin had bad training? How does it explain riders sucking for a long time on team Sky, then all of a sudden becoming outstanding, all at different times? Sky training improvements are random and only take hold on certain people at certain times? I'm struggling to see why people believe this stuff...
I snipped the previous quotes so I can post.

You mention team culture - I'm not saying a low budget team isn't disciplined, but I would expect a team (like Sky) with $$$ and a controlling mentality to really control their riders : "train this way", "train at this time", "report here for tests", etc. I just dont see that happening with someone like Barloword because they didnt have the $ for it - and we are talking 7 years ago for that, long before Sky time and mega $.

You mention Froome training the way he wants - I believe he said he did what he was asked to do, and then did more. So he was never 'under' training. Again I think it points to Sky's controlling nature - you cant fiddle a power meter to show you doing more than you should, you can turn it off to hide when you do more than you should.

But my overriding point is that if you have more $ you can control more. Sky have €6m / year more than Tinkoff - on a €27m budget (Tinkoff) that is a huge amount, and that is probably just cash terms. You really think they pay for those Jaguar cars and the posh busses? Those will be provided free and probably not included in that €33m (same would be for Tinkoff and their cars probably too - although they are not €70k Jags ...). What does that pay for? More training camps and assessment sessions / centres.

So yes I do think a big budget can influence things. And maybe if €1m a year was spent on these magical 'ketones' that people talk about then there could be a huge difference. The ketones that have been referred to a number of times by a number of people - and yes I know DB specifically said they werent using those.

Well, most people on here (Hitch & Benotti especially) think he is a liar, therefore he must be lying when he said that, which actually means they are using those ketones ...
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
You mention team culture - I'm not saying a low budget team isn't disciplined, but I would expect a team (like Sky) with $$$ and a controlling mentality to really control their riders : "train this way", "train at this time", "report here for tests", etc. I just dont see that happening with someone like Barloword because they didnt have the $ for it - and we are talking 7 years ago for that, long before Sky time and mega $.
And that's exactly why Wiggo went from 2009 cycling god to 2010 hack. Seriously.

Here's what he had to say about 2010:
Looking back on it two months later, Wiggins says, "it just didn't happen, it's as simple as that" but he insists that he will learn from the mistakes and that he can still contend for the Tour de France podium next year. "My aim is just to do things my way," he says, as he sets out how he plans to turn things around in 2011.
...
Wiggins says that 2010 has been "a huge learning year in the sense of how not to do it and it showed what we can do differently next year. In terms of how I will approach things, I'm not going to be something I'm not, which means I'm not going to be this super 'everything by the book athlete', because that doesn't work for me. My biggest thing is just being relaxed and doing it my way.
(...)
All of a sudden, everyone was an expert on how to win the Tour de France. I had more advisers than the Prime minister. The year before, no one could give a monkey's about me."
ie the way he did it "at Garmin" in 2009. His own way.

Dave knew to get out of his way and let him do it his way.

Add a Kerrison beard and go.

Job done.
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
red_flanders said:
TheSpud said:
I agree, and actually I would add in the OOC cortisone - I thought that was the choice of the French (and other teams)?

You say why are Sky better? Well, the 'riddle' above was the comparison between Barloworld and now - that is what I was responding to. Barloword - hardly a big budget team. I would expect Sky to p1ss all over them in terms of budget, training, coaches, and know how - so yes, thats why they would be some way ahead. I would imagine they are (much much) more disciplined (certainly than Barlow) and can (and do) organise / manage the team as a team rather than letting their riders just ride / train when they wanted. Thats where I was coming from in the comment above. I dont disagree that other (ProTour) teams are doing some / all of this - but that wasnt the comparison that was asked for.
Yeah, I get the specific comparison, I just don't get why people think that budget = better training. Maybe better nutrition and support? Maybe? More disciplined? Why? That's completely about team culture not budget. Why assume Barloworld "let their riders just ride / train when they wanted?" That seems comically unlikely. Is there some supporting information which points to any of this? Chris Froome claims in his book to ride/train the way he wants, not the way Sky wants.

I think Sky puts this out there to explain the unexplainable and people just believe it because they are looking for a reason to believe. I see no reason to believe it myself unless there are some corroborating facts. How did Wiggins become so great? Garmin had bad training? How does it explain riders sucking for a long time on team Sky, then all of a sudden becoming outstanding, all at different times? Sky training improvements are random and only take hold on certain people at certain times? I'm struggling to see why people believe this stuff...
I snipped the previous quotes so I can post.

You mention team culture - I'm not saying a low budget team isn't disciplined, but I would expect a team (like Sky) with $$$ and a controlling mentality to really control their riders : "train this way", "train at this time", "report here for tests", etc. I just dont see that happening with someone like Barloword because they didnt have the $ for it - and we are talking 7 years ago for that, long before Sky time and mega $.

You mention Froome training the way he wants - I believe he said he did what he was asked to do, and then did more. So he was never 'under' training. Again I think it points to Sky's controlling nature - you cant fiddle a power meter to show you doing more than you should, you can turn it off to hide when you do more than you should.

But my overriding point is that if you have more $ you can control more. Sky have €6m / year more than Tinkoff - on a €27m budget (Tinkoff) that is a huge amount, and that is probably just cash terms. You really think they pay for those Jaguar cars and the posh busses? Those will be provided free and probably not included in that €33m (same would be for Tinkoff and their cars probably too - although they are not €70k Jags ...). What does that pay for? More training camps and assessment sessions / centres.

So yes I do think a big budget can influence things. And maybe if €1m a year was spent on these magical 'ketones' that people talk about then there could be a huge difference. The ketones that have been referred to a number of times by a number of people - and yes I know DB specifically said they werent using those.

Well, most people on here (Hitch & Benotti especially) think he is a liar, therefore he must be lying when he said that, which actually means they are using those ketones ...
Well he has lied, verifiably, about many things, so I'm not surprised that folks would tend to want verification on any claim he makes.

Basically it comes down to speculation in all your examples. You believe it is so because of the reasons listed, but none of it makes any sense to me, and certainly none of it has ever been confirmed by an outside source. Controlling is not necessarily better. Froome? You don't think over training is a concern? How can he do so much more training than everyone else? If it's his own free will, why didn't he do this at Barloworld, or why didn't it give the same results?

The culture thing makes no sense to me, great cultures in my profession are the domain of the smaller teams and units. The larger a team gets the worse generally the culture gets. There are exceptions, and I don't mean to make a parallel, I just mean to point out that I can't see any reason why a bigger budget team would have better training or nutrition.

Sky don't do wind tunnel testing (or so they claim, sometimes) which would be an example of expensive, big-budget training that Barloworld might be less likely (might) to do. It's all just vague, and unsupported. I really don't get why people believe it, especially from a team which has lied about so many things in regard to their performance.

Again, it just seem the reality is that some folks just want to believe it.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Straight out Stapleton's guidebook to TdF media,

Sky briefed selected British newspapers with the emotive and unsubstantiated claim that Froome’s power data from Mont Ventoux in 2013 had been hacked, yet that afternoon Brailsford refused point blank to answer questions on the allegation.

Sky and Froome would later apportion blame specifically to the French media (and Laurent Jalabert in particular), leading to some predictably jingoistic (mis)reporting of the situation in some sectors of the British press in the final week of the Tour, including from the BBC’s Newsnight programme.
SSDD

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/10-conclusions-from-the-2015-tour-de-france/
 
Can anyone enlighten me whether the research into Henao's strange hormone values and the possible influence of living at greater than average heights in Colombia on that? I distinctly remember Sky were commissioning independent scientific research into that. Has it been all crickets since then or have I actually managed to miss it? And will Froome's independent tests follow the same road to nowhere?
 

Irondan

Administrator
Moderator
Re:

GJB123 said:
Can anyone enlighten me whether the research into Henao's strange hormone values and the possible influence of living at greater than average heights in Colombia on that? I distinctly remember Sky were commissioning independent scientific research into that. Has it been all crickets since then or have I actually managed to miss it? And will Froome's independent tests follow the same road to nowhere?
That's a great question! I wish I knew the answer...

Hopefully someone can clarify.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Re:

GJB123 said:
Can anyone enlighten me whether the research into Henao's strange hormone values and the possible influence of living at greater than average heights in Colombia on that? I distinctly remember Sky were commissioning independent scientific research into that. Has it been all crickets since then or have I actually managed to miss it? And will Froome's independent tests follow the same road to nowhere?
The last I saw they were waiting for peer review before it was published? I think? Fuzzy memories!
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
GJB123 said:
Can anyone enlighten me whether the research into Henao's strange hormone values and the possible influence of living at greater than average heights in Colombia on that? I distinctly remember Sky were commissioning independent scientific research into that. Has it been all crickets since then or have I actually managed to miss it? And will Froome's independent tests follow the same road to nowhere?
The last I saw they were waiting for peer review before it was published? I think? Fuzzy memories!

“It’s still our intention to publish the results in the scientific literature. There are many processes to take into account when you write and publish scientific papers and delays of over a year are not unusual in these cases. We hope it can be done as soon as possible.”

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/06/university-of-sheffield-says-it-is-still-working-on-henao-biological-passport-study-publication-drawing-closer/
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
Well he has lied, verifiably, about many things, so I'm not surprised that folks would tend to want verification on any claim he makes.

Basically it comes down to speculation in all your examples. You believe it is so because of the reasons listed, but none of it makes any sense to me, and certainly none of it has ever been confirmed by an outside source. Controlling is not necessarily better. Froome? You don't think over training is a concern? How can he do so much more training than everyone else? If it's his own free will, why didn't he do this at Barloworld, or why didn't it give the same results?

The culture thing makes no sense to me, great cultures in my profession are the domain of the smaller teams and units. The larger a team gets the worse generally the culture gets. There are exceptions, and I don't mean to make a parallel, I just mean to point out that I can't see any reason why a bigger budget team would have better training or nutrition.

Sky don't do wind tunnel testing (or so they claim, sometimes) which would be an example of expensive, big-budget training that Barloworld might be less likely (might) to do. It's all just vague, and unsupported. I really don't get why people believe it, especially from a team which has lied about so many things in regard to their performance.

Again, it just seem the reality is that some folks just want to believe it.
Rather than get it to a huge p1ssing match, I'm going to suggest we agree to disagree ...
 
Jul 17, 2015
771
0
0
Why would a winning team tell the truth about their training and testing techniques?

Clean or dirty the answer is the same, so the lack of answers, or the provision of misleading or untruthful answers isn't going to tell you anything about the cleanliness or the dirtiness of the team.

This applies to any team in any sport.
 
Jul 23, 2015
73
0
0
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
Ironhead Slim said:
Handy Bendy Ghandi said:
coinneach said:
Dear Wiggo said:
So Froome can lose tonnes of weight but maintain his power, or even increase it. Nicholas Roche is asked to maintain his weight to keep his power. I don't know how the skybots manage to keep up.



http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jul/27/dave-brailsford-team-sky-chris-froome-tour-de-france-2015-win?CMP=twt_gu
+1 And why doesn't Fotheringham ask the obvious question?
Let's hope other journalists with more guts follow this quote up.

And to reiterate earlier posters, the sooner we have independent weighing of riders, the better......jockeys & F1 drivers do it
Personally, I think it would be far more useful if the team car to rider radio comms were made freely available (just like pit to car in F1)………….then we’d all be able to hear Brailsford talking to Froome:

“Slow down Chris your figures are looking abnormal…..”
“OK, you can speed up again now…….”
“No, no…..too fast….slow down again……and try to look like you’re suffering……”
“Oops, watch that cup of p!ss………pour some water over your head to wash it off….and don’t think I’m hugging you after the stage Sonny Jim……..damn, those poor podium girls have to kiss you on the cheek…..”
“OK…..your average W/Kg figure is way down now…….you can hammer it to the finish…”

And so on, and so on……….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzhCMADl_nY
Winner winner chicken dinner!!

Going to appropriate your suggestion for twitterlols.
:rolleyes:
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re:

wendybnt said:
Why would a winning team tell the truth about their training and testing techniques?

Clean or dirty the answer is the same, so the lack of answers, or the provision of misleading or untruthful answers isn't going to tell you anything about the cleanliness or the dirtiness of the team.

This applies to any team in any sport.
Well, when a team stated that they were not going to be like any other team and be completely transparent and then turn around and are not, they are going to get called on it.

Strangely no one is arguing that Astana (nor other WT teams) are clean, neither did Astana (nor other WT teams) make massive proclamations of doing it the clean way and will complete transparency while doing it.

Sky keep feeding their flavour of the month hacks this info about being completely transparent. They have Matt Syed in the TImes comparing other teams with security patrolling corridors of the hotels to keep journalists away, but Sky have no one because they have nothing to hide...........except Froome's vo2max and other data from pre '11.

Now you coming in here trying to say Sky are not doing anything different from other teams (who no one in here is defending a clean) is bollix. They are trying extremely hard to control the message, but behind that they behave exactly like the other teams.

So in here they are going to get ripped for it.
 
Jul 26, 2015
16
0
0
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
TheSpud said:
red_flanders said:
TheSpud said:
blackcat said:
riddle me this Skysters, how does vroom lose ~6kg from this physique? he is already no bodyfat, no nonfunctional tissue, 30thousand miles a year professional. All functional muscle. Your control sample, is everyone who has been a pro in the last 50 years, even Rasmussen.

How does vroom become the thinnest ever pro when he was not that naturally, and he was doing 30k mile a year as a pro.

calorie deficit doesnt cut it Skysters

Its drugs
Many things I would have said:


  • Better diet (and yes calorie deficit to a certain extent).
    Better overall training for conditioning and fitness.
    Better targeted training of specific muscle groups - ie hit the legs, but let the arms go. Focus the weight on the power areas.
    OOC cortisone.
None of which are illegal ...

And, no, I wont bow to your direction that calorie deficit wont cut it. I've seen what calorie deficit can do (good and bad) so I will quote it above.
Other than OOC cortisone, not sure which of those things every team hasn't been doing since...forever. Literally all of that is covered in the Eddy B. book I read in 1989 (printed 1985). Better how? Specifically? Why do you believe Sky can just magically do it better when people have been optimizing this for as long as I've been in the sport? Curious.
I agree, and actually I would add in the OOC cortisone - I thought that was the choice of the French (and other teams)?

You say why are Sky better? Well, the 'riddle' above was the comparison between Barloworld and now - that is what I was responding to. Barloword - hardly a big budget team. I would expect Sky to p1ss all over them in terms of budget, training, coaches, and know how - so yes, thats why they would be some way ahead. I would imagine they are (much much) more disciplined (certainly than Barlow) and can (and do) organise / manage the team as a team rather than letting their riders just ride / train when they wanted. Thats where I was coming from in the comment above. I dont disagree that other (ProTour) teams are doing some / all of this - but that wasnt the comparison that was asked for.
Yeah, I get the specific comparison, I just don't get why people think that budget = better training. Maybe better nutrition and support? Maybe? More disciplined? Why? That's completely about team culture not budget. Why assume Barloworld "let their riders just ride / train when they wanted?" That seems comically unlikely. Is there some supporting information which points to any of this? Chris Froome claims in his book to ride/train the way he wants, not the way Sky wants.

I think Sky puts this out there to explain the unexplainable and people just believe it because they are looking for a reason to believe. I see no reason to believe it myself unless there are some corroborating facts. How did Wiggins become so great? Garmin had bad training? How does it explain riders sucking for a long time on team Sky, then all of a sudden becoming outstanding, all at different times? Sky training improvements are random and only take hold on certain people at certain times? I'm struggling to see why people believe this stuff...

It seems perfectly acceptable and plausible to me. Professional athletes will improve at different times and not all together. You'd be more suspicious if 6 riders of varying age and ability joined Team Sky and after 6 months had all improved at the same rate and to the same level. The opinion that a rider can't improve from the benefit of much better coaching is a non starter as well surely? It's like saying a player going from West Ham to Chelsea won't improve although Barloworld to Team Sky is more like a player going from Norwich to Barcelona!
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

atak1978 said:
red_flanders said:
TheSpud said:
red_flanders said:
TheSpud said:
Many things I would have said:


  • Better diet (and yes calorie deficit to a certain extent).
    Better overall training for conditioning and fitness.
    Better targeted training of specific muscle groups - ie hit the legs, but let the arms go. Focus the weight on the power areas.
    OOC cortisone.
None of which are illegal ...

And, no, I wont bow to your direction that calorie deficit wont cut it. I've seen what calorie deficit can do (good and bad) so I will quote it above.
Other than OOC cortisone, not sure which of those things every team hasn't been doing since...forever. Literally all of that is covered in the Eddy B. book I read in 1989 (printed 1985). Better how? Specifically? Why do you believe Sky can just magically do it better when people have been optimizing this for as long as I've been in the sport? Curious.
I agree, and actually I would add in the OOC cortisone - I thought that was the choice of the French (and other teams)?

You say why are Sky better? Well, the 'riddle' above was the comparison between Barloworld and now - that is what I was responding to. Barloword - hardly a big budget team. I would expect Sky to p1ss all over them in terms of budget, training, coaches, and know how - so yes, thats why they would be some way ahead. I would imagine they are (much much) more disciplined (certainly than Barlow) and can (and do) organise / manage the team as a team rather than letting their riders just ride / train when they wanted. Thats where I was coming from in the comment above. I dont disagree that other (ProTour) teams are doing some / all of this - but that wasnt the comparison that was asked for.
Yeah, I get the specific comparison, I just don't get why people think that budget = better training. Maybe better nutrition and support? Maybe? More disciplined? Why? That's completely about team culture not budget. Why assume Barloworld "let their riders just ride / train when they wanted?" That seems comically unlikely. Is there some supporting information which points to any of this? Chris Froome claims in his book to ride/train the way he wants, not the way Sky wants.

I think Sky puts this out there to explain the unexplainable and people just believe it because they are looking for a reason to believe. I see no reason to believe it myself unless there are some corroborating facts. How did Wiggins become so great? Garmin had bad training? How does it explain riders sucking for a long time on team Sky, then all of a sudden becoming outstanding, all at different times? Sky training improvements are random and only take hold on certain people at certain times? I'm struggling to see why people believe this stuff...

It seems perfectly acceptable and plausible to me. Professional athletes will improve at different times and not all together. You'd be more suspicious if 6 riders of varying age and ability joined Team Sky and after 6 months had all improved at the same rate and to the same level. The opinion that a rider can't improve from the benefit of much better coaching is a non starter as well surely? It's like saying a player going from West Ham to Chelsea won't improve although Barloworld to Team Sky is more like a player going from Norwich to Barcelona!
Nope. You new to the sport?

Comparing football is way off.

In cycling, talent rears its head early. So teams will know who is talent by the time a rider is 23, much earlier if a team can get a rider in for testing. After that it truly is marginal (love that term dont you) how much a rider can improve, naturally. The rest of the improvement is down to doping and how well a rider responds to that doping.

So Froomes' improvement and massive jump in performance, never before seen in the sport, is doping,
 
Jul 17, 2015
771
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
wendybnt said:
Why would a winning team tell the truth about their training and testing techniques?

Clean or dirty the answer is the same, so the lack of answers, or the provision of misleading or untruthful answers isn't going to tell you anything about the cleanliness or the dirtiness of the team.

This applies to any team in any sport.
Well, when a team stated that they were not going to be like any other team and be completely transparent and then turn around and are not, they are going to get called on it.

Strangely no one is arguing that Astana (nor other WT teams) are clean, neither did Astana (nor other WT teams) make massive proclamations of doing it the clean way and will complete transparency while doing it.

Sky keep feeding their flavour of the month hacks this info about being completely transparent. They have Matt Syed in the TImes comparing other teams with security patrolling corridors of the hotels to keep journalists away, but Sky have no one because they have nothing to hide...........except Froome's vo2max and other data from pre '11.

Now you coming in here trying to say Sky are not doing anything different from other teams (who no one in here is defending a clean) is bollix. They are trying extremely hard to control the message, but behind that they behave exactly like the other teams.

So in here they are going to get ripped for it.

Yes, we know Sky had a much vaunted ZTP. Yes, we know they are hypocritical. My post isn't about their ZTP, it is about the fact that a clean winning team would be reluctant to give out training data. So would a dirty team. So the lack of it doesn't tell us anything.
 
Feb 24, 2015
241
0
0
Re:

GJB123 said:
Can anyone enlighten me whether the research into Henao's strange hormone values and the possible influence of living at greater than average heights in Colombia on that? I distinctly remember Sky were commissioning independent scientific research into that. Has it been all crickets since then or have I actually managed to miss it? And will Froome's independent tests follow the same road to nowhere?

This was another massive team sky PR stunt
Any quick search on this type of research proves the SKY point was complete BS
Sky stated that no one knew why Henao's data was the way it was. Yet any quick review will highlight that the fact is people from Colombia are among the most studied people on the planet for the exact same reason sky are trying to manipulate.
They live at incredible altitudes and don't seem to suffer any consequences and so mountain climbers / air forces and space programmes around the world have been studying their phsyiology for decades to understand what is different in their make up.

Yet another massive fail on the SKY PR campaign and complete BS.
 
Re:

wendybnt said:
Why would a winning team tell the truth about their training and testing techniques?

Clean or dirty the answer is the same, so the lack of answers, or the provision of misleading or untruthful answers isn't going to tell you anything about the cleanliness or the dirtiness of the team.

This applies to any team in any sport.
This ... ^
 
Re:

blackcat said:
How does vroom become the thinnest ever pro when he was not that naturally, and he was doing 30k mile a year as a pro.

calorie deficit doesnt cut it Skysters

Its drugs

Froome is thin naturally - there are many photos of him as a child / teenager in the Life Story documentary. Froome is a lanky stick thin youngster. Barking up the wrong rooibos there.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re: Re:

atak1978 said:
So you're saying that riders can't be coached to improve after a certain point? I understand a huge part of it is physiological but riders inprove their TT PBs season after season as they learn new diet, training methods and most of that is gleaned from otber riders at their clubs, magazines, online etc. Then imagine a rider with raw talent given the benefit of elite level coaching. Add in the pressure that you'd put on yourself to perform at that level.
Improve what though?

Historically, here's what happens:

- a 16 year old shows up and obviously "has it". They can ride and race with the Cat 1/2s in their first season.
- Soon they start winning everything in sight and catch attention from the larger national teams.
- If they continue to do well it's usually a combination of raw talent, dedication to the sport (eating well, not skipping training rides, not partying, etc) and some confidence.
- By 18 or 19 the ones with the talent and dedication start getting picked up by pro teams. They get thrown into the deep end of U23 racing in Europe to see who floats to the top.
- It's obvious in the first couple of years who is going to be a classics specialist, a pure climber, a huge GT talent (a la Merckx, Lemond, Hinault, etc) or a decent domestique.
- Before they're 23 the ones who don't wash out will find themselves on a big team and be introduced to the big races. Paris Roubaix, Lombardia, Vuelta, Tour, etc. The idea is to see how they respond to the change in length of race and speed. Some will take a couple of years to adapt. Guys like Lemond will be on the podium straight away. The rest probably won't adapt and will end up on a conti team.
- From there the best riders will gain confidence and rack up their palmares from their mid-20's until they hit their early thirties.
- Once you hit thirty there is a slow but steady decline. The best riders will still win once in a while, but generally retirement is only a few seasons away.

Having enough talent to get a ride on Sky as a domestique gets you to step 4 or 5 on my list and pretty much sets your career path from there. Waking up at age 26 and shifting from domestique to a Lemond is ludicrous. That is not down to training or equipment or what have you. If it was, they would have been weeded out as undisciplined as a 20 year old.

John Swanson
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re: Re:

Cycle Chic said:
Froome is thin naturally - there are many photos of him as a child / teenager in the Life Story documentary. Froome is a lanky stick thin youngster. Barking up the wrong rooibos there.
dispute none of this. this is perfectly correct.

you put Andy Schleck as a whippersnapper child in shorts at school, next to chris froome, and they are slither thin.

never disputed.

he was thin at Barlo, and in his first year at Sky. thin. Doing about 30 thousand miles a year, caloric equilibrium, training without hunger flats. He was still 71 kg. No weight to lose, to go catabolic and in caliric deficit means you cant train at 100%, you have hunger flats, you cannot build your threshold and sustainable power.

yeah, you could drop off to 66 and be an anorexic.

but, the point is, you cant do both, lose the weight but build your aerobic engine.

I dont single out Froome. Horner was on it. Wiggins too. And Nibali. probably others I have not seen pictures off.

If you look at Der Mannshaft the German 2014 winning foodball team at the World Cup, they are all on it. The soccer players have all cut weight too, they are all walking around with 31 inch waists. Why the change? a new drug, new strategies on the field to take advantage of this drug by being leaner, lighter, faster, more agile, and with the same strength and power, but superior power to weight.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts