Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1374 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re: Re:

blackcat said:
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.
there are a few champs who are earlier on the curve, and win straight away, Cav and Boonen. But they are the only two I know of. Andy Shleck and Contador were younger too. everyone else represents your linear development, and the ones i invoked are the once-in-a-generation examples, and Cav the best ever sprinter of all time
 
Re: Re:

blackcat said:
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.
So if you believe others like Nibali are taking it too, where's the advantage to Sky? You assuming UCI Sky protection so they can administer it more effectively than Astana and the others?
 
Jul 17, 2015
771
0
0
Where was the advantage to USPS and Discovery? ;)

My personal view is that all the top riders are medically enhanced, but some might be more enhanced than others. 'Marginal gains' might well extend into pharmcological advances. That said, I don't think Sky have the edge that USPS had, it is more marginal. You can dope all you like but you still have to win the race, and so far they've only won two GTs which isn't the best palmares ever.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Re:

wendybnt said:
Where was the advantage to USPS and Discovery? ;)

My personal view is that all the top riders are medically enhanced, but some might be more enhanced than others. 'Marginal gains' might well extend into pharmcological advances. That said, I don't think Sky have the edge that USPS had, it is more marginal. You can dope all you like but you still have to win the race, and so far they've only won two GTs which isn't the best palmares ever.
Which one of the three don't count? :p

I would say most teams would be quite pleased with winning the TDF every other year on average..
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
So if you believe others like Nibali are taking it too, where's the advantage to Sky? You assuming UCI Sky protection so they can administer it more effectively than Astana and the others?
Did he/she say there was an advantage to Sky? I am missing it if so.

There certainly could be an advantage happening, given the UCI's history, the current administration and the clear desire to expand the British market which was clearly the push going into and through 2012. But none of that has anything to do with the points being made in this discussion right now.

That Sky are doping seems obvious. That they have an advantage over the other teams seems possible, but what the nature of that advantage is, or if it actually exists is ripe for discussion and debate, and answers there are unclear. It would surprise a few folks if it eventually turns out they did, but will also surprise a few if we look back in 10 years and they didn't. But the doping? Clear.
 
Sky clearly send the strongest squad they can to Tour de France each year, but team Sky's first 5 years are completely different than Postals first 5 with Armstrong other than Tour de France victories. Sky have a much broader success around Tour de France with other riders. This simply doesn't exist for Postal which when Armstrong started in 1998 through to 2002. They clearly targeted only Tour de France victory and little else until 2005 which was 7/8 years later.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

TheSpud 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.
This ... ^
Why would a team set out to tell the world they are going to do it clean and they will ell everyone how they do it. Full transparency. Then when the teams win after a first dodgy season, shuts up shop about how they do it. In cycling that equals doping. If sky or their fans don't like it, they can blame sky. The got into the cesspool of a sport and swam in it as much as anyone. To win in cycling means doping.

No one asked TeamSky to be up front about being a clean team or transparent, they decided that with the launch of the team. They cant have it both ways, claiming to be clean and transparent, giving none, acting like worse than other teams and then crying that other teams aren't transparent.

Quite a few top riders release their data.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
samhocking said:
So if you believe others like Nibali are taking it too, where's the advantage to Sky? You assuming UCI Sky protection so they can administer it more effectively than Astana and the others?
Did he/she say there was an advantage to Sky? I am missing it if so.

There certainly could be an advantage happening, given the UCI's history, the current administration and the clear desire to expand the British market which was clearly the push going into and through 2012. But none of that has anything to do with the points being made in this discussion right now.

That Sky are doping seems obvious. That they have an advantage over the other teams seems possible, but what the nature of that advantage is, or if it actually exists is ripe for discussion and debate, and answers there are unclear. It would surprise a few folks if it eventually turns out they did, but will also surprise a few if we look back in 10 years and they didn't. But the doping? Clear.
Fine then, so Sky are doping with with same end result as everyone else in terms of weight loss or we can move on to what else might be the reason for riding up mountains more quickly I guess?
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
TheSpud 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.
This ... ^
Why would a team set out to tell the world they are going to do it clean and they will ell everyone how they do it. Full transparency. Then when the teams win after a first dodgy season, shuts up shop about how they do it. In cycling that equals doping. If sky or their fans don't like it, they can blame sky. The got into the cesspool of a sport and swam in it as much as anyone. To win in cycling means doping.

No one asked TeamSky to be up front about being a clean team or transparent, they decided that with the launch of the team. They cant have it both ways, claiming to be clean and transparent, giving none, acting like worse than other teams and then crying that other teams aren't transparent.

Quite a few top riders release their data.
That's not what he means. He means if they're clean, going transparent is the end of the team because everyone will catch up overnight. Going transparent and telling everyone you're doping is the end of the team too. They will never be fully transparent, doping or clean because it would be the end.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Davide Appollino in 2011 to cycling weekly;

I watched the races on televisoon in the past and i can see that cycling's changed, changed for the better.

All of this is better for the young riders, who now have a chance to express themselves better and step up in the ranks. I know the story, but I've been lucky to avoid it all
oooops, must have forgot how to use his marginal gains. :rolleyes:

On June 30 2015, Appollonio gave an adverse analytical finding for EPO, on June 14 – two weeks after completing the Giro d'Italia, and was provisionally suspended.
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
Benotti69 said:
TheSpud 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.
This ... ^
Why would a team set out to tell the world they are going to do it clean and they will ell everyone how they do it. Full transparency. Then when the teams win after a first dodgy season, shuts up shop about how they do it. In cycling that equals doping. If sky or their fans don't like it, they can blame sky. The got into the cesspool of a sport and swam in it as much as anyone. To win in cycling means doping.

No one asked TeamSky to be up front about being a clean team or transparent, they decided that with the launch of the team. They cant have it both ways, claiming to be clean and transparent, giving none, acting like worse than other teams and then crying that other teams aren't transparent.

Quite a few top riders release their data.
That's not what he means. He means if they're clean, going transparent is the end of the team because everyone will catch up overnight. Going transparent and telling everyone you're doping is the end of the team too. They will never be fully transparent, doping or clean because it would be the end.
nobody is asking for testing techniques...testing is scientific and has an established methodology...its the results of the tests that people want to see. Likewise nobody want to see training techniques...these are the teams USP and should remain the preserve of coach/athlete...

However, if athlete A has a VO2 of 94 and athlete B one of 76...do you really think that athlete B by the sheer knowledge of knowing athlete A's score can subsequently close that gap?

releasing the result of tests should harm nobody...
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Sky clearly send the strongest squad they can to Tour de France each year, but team Sky's first 5 years are completely different than Postals first 5 with Armstrong other than Tour de France victories. Sky have a much broader success around Tour de France with other riders. This simply doesn't exist for Postal which when Armstrong started in 1998 through to 2002. They clearly targeted only Tour de France victory and little else until 2005 which was 7/8 years later.
the sport and the world is a very different place in 2010-15 than 98-02. No one team or individual had transcended the sport and brought it to a whole new market (both geographically and socio-economically) with the riches which then flowed. It is difficult not to look back with a cynical eye on the following...

"I arrived here on Sunday night and the papers here are just full of cycling," said UCI President and IOC member Pat McQuaid. "All of the IOC people were delighted that it [Bradley Wiggins' Tour victory] happened the week before the Games. They were opening the newspapers and seeing Wiggins, Wiggins, Wiggins."

Knowing what we know about FIFA, about the UCI about the IOC about the WWF (don't laugh its not a stretch of the imagination :) ) its not too difficult to think that a SKY victory may have been expedited with Wiggo as the chosen one...perhaps an arm's length test year at Garmin to see how he responded before being brought into the SKY fold to allow the the fairy tale to continue...and you really couldn't make McQuaid up....

"It would be great if it happened because it's another edition to this fairy-tale story," McQuaid told The Associated Press.

the pot of soup has become larger and those supping have increased in number...there are many mature cycling markets and many not mature...growth is sought in those less mature markets...the pot will become larger and larger

sales and participants and BC members are at record levels...

we will soon be 'mature and then the next growth market can be targeted...whilst insular and arguably backwards...there is something rather quaint and noble about the pro-cycling game before 'mondialisation'..
 
Well from what Brailsford has said so far, he doesn't have a problem releasing all data they have going back 23 years to Boardmans 1992 Gold if they want it. His problem is who it's released to. Sounds like unless it's to UCI, WADA or UKAD for inclusion in Passport and everyone else does the same it won't ever be released.
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
samhocking said:
Sky clearly send the strongest squad they can to Tour de France each year, but team Sky's first 5 years are completely different than Postals first 5 with Armstrong other than Tour de France victories. Sky have a much broader success around Tour de France with other riders. This simply doesn't exist for Postal which when Armstrong started in 1998 through to 2002. They clearly targeted only Tour de France victory and little else until 2005 which was 7/8 years later.
the sport and the world is a very different place in 2010-15 than 98-02. No one team or individual had transcended the sport and brought it to a whole new market (both geographically and socio-economically) with the riches which then flowed. It is difficult not to look back with a cynical eye on the following...

"I arrived here on Sunday night and the papers here are just full of cycling," said UCI President and IOC member Pat McQuaid. "All of the IOC people were delighted that it [Bradley Wiggins' Tour victory] happened the week before the Games. They were opening the newspapers and seeing Wiggins, Wiggins, Wiggins."

Knowing what we know about FIFA, about the UCI about the IOC about the WWF (don't laugh its not a stretch of the imagination :) ) its not too difficult to think that a SKY victory may have been expedited with Wiggo as the chosen one...perhaps an arm's length test year at Garmin to see how he responded before being brought into the SKY fold to allow the the fairy tale to continue...and you really couldn't make McQuaid up....

"It would be great if it happened because it's another edition to this fairy-tale story," McQuaid told The Associated Press.

the pot of soup has become larger and those supping have increased in number...there are many mature cycling markets and many not mature...growth is sought in those less mature markets...the pot will become larger and larger

sales and participants and BC members are at record levels...

we will soon be 'mature and then the next growth market can be targeted...whilst insular and arguably backwards...there is something rather quaint and noble about the pro-cycling game before 'mondialisation'..
That's kind of my point. Comparisons are made with Postal to support a theory about Sky probably doping using a similar program/ethic or how they might go about it. I just thought it was interesting looking at their first 5 years, the lack of success Postal actually had outside Tour de France.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
gillan1969 said:
samhocking said:
Sky clearly send the strongest squad they can to Tour de France each year, but team Sky's first 5 years are completely different than Postals first 5 with Armstrong other than Tour de France victories. Sky have a much broader success around Tour de France with other riders. This simply doesn't exist for Postal which when Armstrong started in 1998 through to 2002. They clearly targeted only Tour de France victory and little else until 2005 which was 7/8 years later.
the sport and the world is a very different place in 2010-15 than 98-02. No one team or individual had transcended the sport and brought it to a whole new market (both geographically and socio-economically) with the riches which then flowed. It is difficult not to look back with a cynical eye on the following...

"I arrived here on Sunday night and the papers here are just full of cycling," said UCI President and IOC member Pat McQuaid. "All of the IOC people were delighted that it [Bradley Wiggins' Tour victory] happened the week before the Games. They were opening the newspapers and seeing Wiggins, Wiggins, Wiggins."

Knowing what we know about FIFA, about the UCI about the IOC about the WWF (don't laugh its not a stretch of the imagination :) ) its not too difficult to think that a SKY victory may have been expedited with Wiggo as the chosen one...perhaps an arm's length test year at Garmin to see how he responded before being brought into the SKY fold to allow the the fairy tale to continue...and you really couldn't make McQuaid up....

"It would be great if it happened because it's another edition to this fairy-tale story," McQuaid told The Associated Press.

the pot of soup has become larger and those supping have increased in number...there are many mature cycling markets and many not mature...growth is sought in those less mature markets...the pot will become larger and larger

sales and participants and BC members are at record levels...

we will soon be 'mature and then the next growth market can be targeted...whilst insular and arguably backwards...there is something rather quaint and noble about the pro-cycling game before 'mondialisation'..
That's kind of my point. Comparisons are made with Postal to support a theory about Sky probably doping using a similar program/ethic or how they might go about it. I just thought it was interesting looking at their first 5 years, the lack of success Postal actually had outside Tour de France.
Astana, Katusha, Tinkoff and BMC are at least as rich as TeamSky as was pointed out previously.

The comparisons between USPS are well founded as have been posted.

That are Sky are not the exact same, does not mean comparisons cannot be made.
 
Jul 26, 2015
16
0
0
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
samhocking said:
Benotti69 said:
TheSpud 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.
This ... ^
Why would a team set out to tell the world they are going to do it clean and they will ell everyone how they do it. Full transparency. Then when the teams win after a first dodgy season, shuts up shop about how they do it. In cycling that equals doping. If sky or their fans don't like it, they can blame sky. The got into the cesspool of a sport and swam in it as much as anyone. To win in cycling means doping.

No one asked TeamSky to be up front about being a clean team or transparent, they decided that with the launch of the team. They cant have it both ways, claiming to be clean and transparent, giving none, acting like worse than other teams and then crying that other teams aren't transparent.

Quite a few top riders release their data.
That's not what he means. He means if they're clean, going transparent is the end of the team because everyone will catch up overnight. Going transparent and telling everyone you're doping is the end of the team too. They will never be fully transparent, doping or clean because it would be the end.
nobody is asking for testing techniques...testing is scientific and has an established methodology...its the results of the tests that people want to see. Likewise nobody want to see training techniques...these are the teams USP and should remain the preserve of coach/athlete...

However, if athlete A has a VO2 of 94 and athlete B one of 76...do you really think that athlete B by the sheer knowledge of knowing athlete A's score can subsequently close that gap?

releasing the result of tests should harm nobody...

To save me a lot of time reading back over years of posts, are you saying then Team Sky are using Ketones? Is that the main accusation?
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
red_flanders said:
samhocking said:
So if you believe others like Nibali are taking it too, where's the advantage to Sky? You assuming UCI Sky protection so they can administer it more effectively than Astana and the others?
Did he/she say there was an advantage to Sky? I am missing it if so.

There certainly could be an advantage happening, given the UCI's history, the current administration and the clear desire to expand the British market which was clearly the push going into and through 2012. But none of that has anything to do with the points being made in this discussion right now.

That Sky are doping seems obvious. That they have an advantage over the other teams seems possible, but what the nature of that advantage is, or if it actually exists is ripe for discussion and debate, and answers there are unclear. It would surprise a few folks if it eventually turns out they did, but will also surprise a few if we look back in 10 years and they didn't. But the doping? Clear.
Fine then, so Sky are doping with with same end result as everyone else in terms of weight loss or we can move on to what else might be the reason for riding up mountains more quickly I guess?
There are and have been many good discussions to that effect. You should post about it. I don't think hoping "we" as a member base will move on from discussing Sky or any other team doping is particularly realistic. But certainly the discussion of how they're being successful in this environment, given what the other teams are likely doing is a more interesting discussion than "are they doping". IMO.
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
Benotti69 said:
TheSpud 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.
This ... ^
Why would a team set out to tell the world they are going to do it clean and they will ell everyone how they do it. Full transparency. Then when the teams win after a first dodgy season, shuts up shop about how they do it. In cycling that equals doping. If sky or their fans don't like it, they can blame sky. The got into the cesspool of a sport and swam in it as much as anyone. To win in cycling means doping.

No one asked TeamSky to be up front about being a clean team or transparent, they decided that with the launch of the team. They cant have it both ways, claiming to be clean and transparent, giving none, acting like worse than other teams and then crying that other teams aren't transparent.

Quite a few top riders release their data.
That's not what he means. He means if they're clean, going transparent is the end of the team because everyone will catch up overnight. Going transparent and telling everyone you're doping is the end of the team too. They will never be fully transparent, doping or clean because it would be the end.
Yep, and its consistent with what I've said before - they will never tell us what they are doing since that is their 'trade secret' if you like (whether you believe that is doping or not). Its like the 'marginal gains' mantra - i don't doubt that they are doing those little things (own mattresses, etc.) but I don't see that as being the be all and end all. Its more of a 'keep the little things under control so they don't blow up and screw other things up' type of thing (and the whole pineapple juice thing wasn't broadcast by Sky, that was Walsh).

So they will never be truly transparent in the way some people on here would like, but i don't see why things they do measure (power, etc.) shouldn't be published. And I'd like to see riders' blood profiles published by UCI/WADA too - they would probably have to be anonymised (EU law...), but maybe the team of the rider could be identified.
 
Re: Re:

atak1978 said:
To save me a lot of time reading back over years of posts, are you saying then Team Sky are using Ketones? Is that the main accusation?
No, they are saying they are EPO, AICAR & Transfusion users (or similar). Ketones have been mentioned a few times but the info is sketchy.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
samhocking said:
red_flanders said:
samhocking said:
So if you believe others like Nibali are taking it too, where's the advantage to Sky? You assuming UCI Sky protection so they can administer it more effectively than Astana and the others?
Did he/she say there was an advantage to Sky? I am missing it if so.

There certainly could be an advantage happening, given the UCI's history, the current administration and the clear desire to expand the British market which was clearly the push going into and through 2012. But none of that has anything to do with the points being made in this discussion right now.

That Sky are doping seems obvious. That they have an advantage over the other teams seems possible, but what the nature of that advantage is, or if it actually exists is ripe for discussion and debate, and answers there are unclear. It would surprise a few folks if it eventually turns out they did, but will also surprise a few if we look back in 10 years and they didn't. But the doping? Clear.
Fine then, so Sky are doping with with same end result as everyone else in terms of weight loss or we can move on to what else might be the reason for riding up mountains more quickly I guess?
There are and have been many good discussions to that effect. You should post about it. I don't think hoping "we" as a member base will move on from discussing Sky or any other team doping is particularly realistic. But certainly the discussion of how they're being successful in this environment, given what the other teams are likely doing is a more interesting discussion than "are they doping". IMO.
Personally (and RF will have seen me say this before) I don't discount that they are being chemically helped, but that they are really pushing the boundaries of what is legal (and are probably past the boundary of what is ethical).

In the past, some or all of : Xenon, Telmisartan, Tramadol, Ventolin, OOC cortisone, Thyroid medicine perhaps, etc. together with the special Ketones. The 'legal' drugs that get you a performance increase. I believe that is where the Leinders connection comes in - hire a doping doctor who knows what is what (ie what is grey and what isnt) and knows Zorzoli as well (who would also know the grey areas). I don't believe they are abusing TUEs in competition (lets not cover the TdR one again) since that kind of information could easily be leaked / found out.
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
Personally (and RF will have seen me say this before) I don't discount that they are being chemically helped, but that they are really pushing the boundaries of what is legal (and are probably past the boundary of what is ethical).

In the past, some or all of : Xenon, Telmisartan, Tramadol, Ventolin, OOC cortisone, Thyroid medicine perhaps, etc. together with the special Ketones. The 'legal' drugs that get you a performance increase. I believe that is where the Leinders connection comes in - hire a doping doctor who knows what is what (ie what is grey and what isnt) and knows Zorzoli as well (who would also know the grey areas). I don't believe they are abusing TUEs in competition (lets not cover the TdR one again) since that kind of information could easily be leaked / found out.
I also do think they are pursuing the 'MGs' on the bikes / kit as well - people scoff, but if they could get a 1%-1.5% boost by spending more than others (and they do have a BIG budget) then why not? Its like F1 - teams spend millions for small gains. In cycling terms if it saves a rider 1%-1.5% of their energy then its probably seen by Sky as being worth it - after all every second could count, ask LeMond & Fignon (RIP).
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Astana, Katusha, Tinkoff and BMC are at least as rich as TeamSky as was pointed out previously.

The comparisons between USPS are well founded as have been posted.

That are Sky are not the exact same, does not mean comparisons cannot be made.
I disagree on the Tinkoff budget comparison : €33m v €27m is not the same, its 22% more - that is a big big difference. I can't comment on the others though.

It also depends on what the money is spent on (which we will never really know) but I have seen €4m / year for Bertie mentioned before (which is about £3m at the moment). The number I heard for Wiggo was £2m, so maybe Froome would be the same - that could be €1.3m more Sky can spend elsewhere just on the difference in #1 rider money. Pure speculation I know, its just meant to illustrate a point - it could well be the other way round, who knows. I can see Bertie asking for a lot as a multiple GT winner.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS