Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Rob27172]

Re: Re:

It would appear that Sky are monitoring Twitter very closely and blocking anyone asking the wrong( read right) type of questions about performance. They can even be blocked for for being a follower of certain tweeters.

The paranoia builds. A bad sign for a clean sky. Circling the wagons means they are hiding something and in pro cycling that means cheating/doping.

No, it means they're filtering out the idiots

No it means they are filtering IN the gullible imbeciles that buy anything they are selling

 

[The Carrot]

For the love of all that was holy!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/11774146/Tour-de-France-TV-coup-should-be-the-BBCs-No-1-goal.html

If you thought things could not get any more bonkers, wait and see how bad things get if the ministry for truth get to broadcast this,

 

[Archibald]

Re: Re:

What Spud says is in line with what Tinkov is trying to claim and explain in the link wendy posted.

A Murdoch Empire backed cycling entity would have a distinct financial advantage over BMC and Tinkov or any other team.

But it is irrelevant when it comes to performance.

oleg-tinkov-chapeau-to-team-sky-but-theyre-going-to-kill-the-business ...the cycling news article = link wendy posted earlier.

You don't think there is an advantage when it comes to performance having a 5- 10 yr. budget and ability to be secure planning into the future? That's the very point Tinkov is making.

The key point there is "having time to develop riders".

They did not develop Froome. He went from zero to hero.

They did not develop Wiggo. He went from 4th to nothing.

Their budget is not what is winning them grand tours.

reckon it's got to help - no way they could do what they do on Euskaltel's budget...
In fact, if that was Sky's budget, I doubt DB n Co could have matched the Carrot's acheivements

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

What Spud says is in line with what Tinkov is trying to claim and explain in the link wendy posted.

A Murdoch Empire backed cycling entity would have a distinct financial advantage over BMC and Tinkov or any other team.

But it is irrelevant when it comes to performance.

oleg-tinkov-chapeau-to-team-sky-but-theyre-going-to-kill-the-business ...the cycling news article = link wendy posted earlier.

You don't think there is an advantage when it comes to performance having a 5- 10 yr. budget and ability to be secure planning into the future? That's the very point Tinkov is making.

The key point there is "having time to develop riders".

They did not develop Froome. He went from zero to hero.

They did not develop Wiggo. He went from 4th to nothing.

Their budget is not what is winning them grand tours.

reckon it's got to help - no way they could do what they do on Euskaltel's budget...
In fact, if that was Sky's budget, I doubt DB n Co could have matched the Carrot's acheivements

The reason I say it's not winning them grand tours is because the cost of winning the GT is being borne by the rider paying the doctor and dope suppliers, not the team.

I give bikes and clothing etc 1% max, but Froome is killing people by more than 1%.

 

[wendybnt]

1% of what?

 

[gooner]

Re:

For the love of all that was holy!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/11774146/Tour-de-France-TV-coup-should-be-the-BBCs-No-1-goal.html

If you thought things could not get any more bonkers, wait and see how bad things get if the ministry for truth get to broadcast this,

What's wrong with this? Don't we want the sport to grow?

Jim White is correct. Taking it off a channel like ITV4 and giving it to the BBC will only enhance viewing figures. ITV like a lot of the other sports they cover, don't even put it on their main channel. The BBC would.

 

[Handy Bendy Ghandi]

Re:

It would appear that Sky are monitoring Twitter very closely and blocking anyone asking the wrong( read right) type of questions about performance. They can even be blocked for for being a follower of certain tweeters.

The paranoia builds. A bad sign for a clean sky. Circling the wagons means they are hiding something and in pro cycling that means cheating/doping.

Ahhhhh......I see what you did there............

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

The reason I say it's not winning them grand tours is because the cost of winning the GT is being borne by the rider paying the doctor and dope suppliers, not the team.

I give bikes and clothing etc 1% max, but Froome is killing people by more than 1%.

The top 16 were all within 1% of Froome.

 

[wendybnt]

Again, 1% of what?

 

[TheSpud]

Re:

Again, 1% of what?

Total race time for my comment.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

The top 16 were all within 1% of Froome.

You know that's a ridiculous argument. That means the 40 minutes of riding up Pierre Saint Martin is measured the same as any 40 minutes of riding on a stage where the peloton rides slowly lets a breakaway win.

On every MTF where Froome had to dig in he put far more than 1% on everyone bar Quintana.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

The reason I say it's not winning them grand tours is because the cost of winning the GT is being borne by the rider paying the doctor and dope suppliers, not the team.

I give bikes and clothing etc 1% max, but Froome is killing people by more than 1%.

The top 16 were all within 1% of Froome.

The top 30 were within 1% of Lance Armstrong in 1999.
The top 25 were within 1% of Lance Armstrong in 2006.

The 1% max was a throw away hat tip to the "rounding error on a doping program" attributed to the marginal gain BS that gets touted as the reason [rider of choice] won a GT.

This year it's Team Sky and Froome. In another year it was Horner at the Vuelta. Nibali at the Tour in 2014.

The budget is immaterial, teams no longer dope their riders IMO. Ok maybe Astana. Let's not go there

The performance (cf Voekler in 2004) comes from a doped rider paying his doping medico and doping supplier for the dope he needs to win.

 

[The Carrot]

Re: Re:

For the love of all that was holy!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/11774146/Tour-de-France-TV-coup-should-be-the-BBCs-No-1-goal.html

If you thought things could not get any more bonkers, wait and see how bad things get if the ministry for truth get to broadcast this,

What's wrong with this? Don't we want the sport to grow?

Jim White is correct. Taking it off a channel like ITV4 and giving it to the BBC will only enhance viewing figures. ITV like a lot of the other sports they cover, don't even put it on their main channel. The BBC would.

I'd agree if pro cycling was actually a sport and not a show (I used to love cycling until the penny dropped). All the same, the BBC would take the 'nothing to see here' modus operandi to new ridiculous levels and would bombard us at every radio and TV show they could, brainwashing the general populous that cycling is clean. The difference between this and ITV4 is, it's very hard in the UK to avoid the BBC and their agenda, hell even it's illegal not to sign up to them. So, from a clinician's point of view, I wouldn't like the BBC to own this. I don't think it will happen though, the tone of the article is one of page filling and arse licking.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

The top 16 were all within 1% of Froome.

You know that's a ridiculous argument. That means the 40 minutes of riding up Pierre Saint Martin is measured the same as any 40 minutes of riding on a stage where the peloton rides slowly lets a breakaway win.

On every MTF where Froome had to dig in he put far more than 1% on everyone bar Quintana.

And thats *** - DW said Froome beat people by a massive amount. Over the 3 weeks he won by less than 2 minutes, which is such a small percentage its stupid.

You cant have it both ways - did CF hammer people by miles and miles or did he actually beat the top 16 by less than 1% in overall time??? The TDF is judged by the quickest over 3 weeks - ergo, the fastest time ...

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

The reason I say it's not winning them grand tours is because the cost of winning the GT is being borne by the rider paying the doctor and dope suppliers, not the team.

I give bikes and clothing etc 1% max, but Froome is killing people by more than 1%.

The top 16 were all within 1% of Froome.

The top 30 were within 1% of Lance Armstrong in 1999.
The top 25 were within 1% of Lance Armstrong in 2006.

The 1% max was a throw away hat tip to the "rounding error on a doping program" attributed to the marginal gain BS that gets touted as the reason [rider of choice] won a GT.

This year it's Team Sky and Froome. In another year it was Horner at the Vuelta. Nibali at the Tour in 2014.

The budget is immaterial, teams no longer dope their riders IMO. Ok maybe Astana. Let's not go there

The performance (cf Voekler in 2004) comes from a doped rider paying his doping medico and doping supplier for the dope he needs to win.

So is the 1% a throw away comment (which shows you know *** all) or is it due to bikes & technology????? Make your mind up.

 

[noddy69]

Re: Re:

The top 16 were all within 1% of Froome.

You know that's a ridiculous argument. That means the 40 minutes of riding up Pierre Saint Martin is measured the same as any 40 minutes of riding on a stage where the peloton rides slowly lets a breakaway win.

On every MTF where Froome had to dig in he put far more than 1% on everyone bar Quintana.

And thats *** - DW said Froome beat people by a massive amount. Over the 3 weeks he won by less than 2 minutes, which is such a small percentage its stupid.

You cant have it both ways - did CF hammer people by miles and miles or did he actually beat the top 16 by less than 1% in overall time??? The TDF is judged by the quickest over 3 weeks - ergo, the fastest time ...

Ok then you keep believing..Its judged by the quickest over 3 weeks but the manner of your win must be taken into account: The 1% over time is pure rubbish, its not a TT. He did what he did with relative ease in he first week then sauntered in. There was no need to go hell for leather, the only one anywhere near him was Quintana and he was too far behind for Chris to be worried. Lets face it we all saw the duo beat Quintana with ease in the first week, and not bother chase him in the last. If he was worried he would have gone after him.

 

[Saint Unix]

Lets not forget he had bronchitis in the final week and still dropped everyone but the two Movi boys on all the MTFs.

 

[FroomehasneverdopedX]

you forgot the one thing.

froome had the yellow jersey on alpe d'huez, over time almost 100% of those with a yellow jersey on stage 21 won tour de france, meaning that a guy with a yellow jersey on stage 20 will have a high chance of getting it on stage 21, therefore you can say that froome got boosted by let's say 20% performance due to the fact that he wore the yellow jersey since almost the start of the tour. This means that to win tour de france you 99% chance need to wear the yellow jersey.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

The reason I say it's not winning them grand tours is because the cost of winning the GT is being borne by the rider paying the doctor and dope suppliers, not the team.

I give bikes and clothing etc 1% max, but Froome is killing people by more than 1%.

The top 16 were all within 1% of Froome.

The top 30 were within 1% of Lance Armstrong in 1999.
The top 25 were within 1% of Lance Armstrong in 2006.

The 1% max was a throw away hat tip to the "rounding error on a doping program" attributed to the marginal gain BS that gets touted as the reason [rider of choice] won a GT.

This year it's Team Sky and Froome. In another year it was Horner at the Vuelta. Nibali at the Tour in 2014.

The budget is immaterial, teams no longer dope their riders IMO. Ok maybe Astana. Let's not go there

The performance (cf Voekler in 2004) comes from a doped rider paying his doping medico and doping supplier for the dope he needs to win.

So is the 1% a throw away comment (which shows you know **** all) or is it due to bikes & technology????? Make your mind up.

The guy who repeats the "Froome was only 1% ahead of # 16" argument (ie says it twice because it's so important) reads that Lance was only 1% ahead of twice as many people and

*crickets*

tells me using a curse word that I know **** all.

Be that as it may, I do know Lance had more people close to him with all his advantages than Froome did in 2015.

Does the poster acknowledge this, seeing the futility of his 16 within 1% argument?

Nope. Throws around personal insults.

The mark of someone with no argument of their own.

Sorry to give you such false hope on that 1% thing. I saw a few people desperately cling to it. So sorry.

 

[cyclinglife]

Sky is my favorite team.Support Sky team forever

 

[Ramon Koran]

The 1% argument of course is flawed, but if Froome had his oval chainring throughout the tour on the flat stages he would have been saving huge amounts of energy allowing him to get to the mouintains with more energy than the others, hence he beats them. This needs to be taken into account when looking at perfs in the mountains.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

The 1% argument of course is flawed, but if Froome had his oval chainring throughout the tour on the flat stages he would have been saving huge amounts of energy allowing him to get to the mouintains with more energy than the others, hence he beats them. This needs to be taken into account when looking at perfs in the mountains.

The oval chain rings don't save huge amounts of energy on the flat stages.

 

[thrawn]

Re:

The 1% argument of course is flawed, but if Froome had his oval chainring throughout the tour on the flat stages he would have been saving huge amounts of energy allowing him to get to the mouintains with more energy than the others, hence he beats them. This needs to be taken into account when looking at perfs in the mountains.

How much energy per stage? Also a source on this would be great.

 

[poupou]

Re:

The 1% argument of course is flawed, but if Froome had his oval chainring throughout the tour on the flat stages he would have been saving huge amounts of energy allowing him to get to the mouintains with more energy than the others, hence he beats them. This needs to be taken into account when looking at perfs in the mountains.

Oval chainring exists for years. Do you seriously believe that other riders would not use it if it gave a such advantage?

 

[Ramon Koran]

Re: Re:

The 1% argument of course is flawed, but if Froome had his oval chainring throughout the tour on the flat stages he would have been saving huge amounts of energy allowing him to get to the mouintains with more energy than the others, hence he beats them. This needs to be taken into account when looking at perfs in the mountains.

How much energy per stage? Also a source on this would be great.

Why would i need a source, sky are telling us that you use 6% less power therefor 6%less power throughout a stage over 8 stages is probably equivalent to 30-40% less energy used.