Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1450 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Cookson tells sky tell vromme to skip that extra bloodbag (and don't turn on that motor), et voila.
Not very complicated.
 
Re:

sniper said:
Cookson tells sky tell vromme to skip that extra bloodbag (and don't turn on that motor), et voila.
Not very complicated.

It's clear Froome thought today would be a nothing day. He kept the branded wheels on and he couldn't climb to save himself. If it wasn't for Astana chasing, Froome would have lost 4 minutes. He'll be back though. No doubt.
 
Jul 13, 2010
178
0
0
Re: Re:

[quote="thehog".[/quote]
It's clear Froome thought today would be a nothing day. He kept the branded wheels on and he couldn't climb to save himself. If it wasn't for Astana chasing, Froome would have lost 4 minutes. He'll be back though. No doubt.
Why would he take the risk?? Why not just leave the "magic" wheels on, just in case?
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
sniper said:
Cookson tells sky tell vromme to skip that extra bloodbag (and don't turn on that motor), et voila.
Not very complicated.

It's clear Froome thought today would be a nothing day. He kept the branded wheels on and he couldn't climb to save himself. If it wasn't for Astana chasing, Froome would have lost 4 minutes. He'll be back though. No doubt.
What's with the branded wheels ? Is the inference that the non-branded are special, as in somehow motorised ?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
Benotti69 said:
ASO have not got the balls to DQ team sky. No surprise there.
Just team sky, what about all the others ? Or did sky buy off the ASO for them too ? :rolleyes:
Where did i say 'buy' ?

Sky would have lost everyone bar Froome today to the time limit.

The big teams managed to have their riders inside the time limit according to the rules.

Sky have history of being in the room when rules are broken to suit Sky.

I would've liked to see 91 riders DQ'd today and teams fined for not racing to get inside the time limit.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
I expect a lot more teams and riders to start criticising Froome/Sky.

That the big slices of pie are going to Sky so obviously makes a mockery of the sport for them and their sponsors.
 
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
Fergoose said:
It is now clear that Froome intends to win the Vuelta, and perhaps I should have seen it coming with all the talk of changing his schedule to peak later. However, this makes it interesting in terms of Sky at the Vuelta as the entire team must also be geared towards winning the GC, as at the TdF, and we would expect therefore the team to dope at similar levels to the TdF if we assume (as many do here) that they are protected by the authorities.

But we aren't seeing that. Barring Konig, (who I would put in the same category as Porte, Pouls and Landa a well paid super domestique with a proven track record of performance) the team has completely failed to control the race and has left Froome repeatedly exposed at key moments. If Yates had been totally juiced and hadn't lost 1min 15 seconds to Chavez on the last climb then Froome would have been in danger, so that was a critical stage for the team to get right but they went AWOL again.

This to me supports the position that Sky domestiques excel at the TdF because they deploy their strongest team built of riders who would be GC leaders on other teams, but get paid more to be a domestique at Sky. The logic then being that the reduced performance at the Vuelta is primarily down to the lower quality of domestique selected rather than issues around doping.

In short, whilst I still cannot believe Froome is credible at all, I'm not convinced by claims that the whole of Sky are at it and I'm still waiting for another Sky rider to exhibit massively suspect performance at Sky compared to anything they have produced elsewhere.
Well today certainly supports what you say about the team, that's for sure, although Froome was asleep too at the start.
I was very lucky with the timing of my post but it reinforces my personal perception. I only saw highlights, but the entire Sky team seemed absolutely spent today and couldn't hold the gap to the breakaway, or even the gap from the third group to the Froome group (which wasn't going that fast). If Froome had a juiced up Sky team at his disposal (or a clean team filled with wall to wall superdomestiques) then its hard to think that the Contador move would have stood much chance despite there being a few Movistar and Tinkoff domestiques in it.

Context is everything but I think it's clear there was a lot at stake for Sky today, and they just weren't up to the job. I personally can't see this as a juiced up Sky team intentionally soft pedalling so as to avoid winning the race and look more believable. Particularly as it completely ruined Konig's race too. I also don't think Froome winning back to back GTs would be that much more unusual or suspicious to ASO than Nairo being 2nd at TdF and winning the Vuelta.

I do however believe that Froome personally intentionally rides slow in some scenarios (e.g. once he has mathematically won the TdF and can afford to lose time) but don't know if that was what we were seeing today. I suspect he has been genuinely trying to win the Vuelta this time but is more cautious in his Vuelta preparation than his TdF preparation. Perhaps considering his rivalry with Spanish riders and teams (and the willingness of Spanish authorities to publicly back their athletes that cheat (e.g. Contador)) as making it hostile territory. But that's purely speculative on my part.
 
Re: Re:

Fergoose said:
bigcog said:
Fergoose said:
It is now clear that Froome intends to win the Vuelta, and perhaps I should have seen it coming with all the talk of changing his schedule to peak later. However, this makes it interesting in terms of Sky at the Vuelta as the entire team must also be geared towards winning the GC, as at the TdF, and we would expect therefore the team to dope at similar levels to the TdF if we assume (as many do here) that they are protected by the authorities.

But we aren't seeing that. Barring Konig, (who I would put in the same category as Porte, Pouls and Landa a well paid super domestique with a proven track record of performance) the team has completely failed to control the race and has left Froome repeatedly exposed at key moments. If Yates had been totally juiced and hadn't lost 1min 15 seconds to Chavez on the last climb then Froome would have been in danger, so that was a critical stage for the team to get right but they went AWOL again.

This to me supports the position that Sky domestiques excel at the TdF because they deploy their strongest team built of riders who would be GC leaders on other teams, but get paid more to be a domestique at Sky. The logic then being that the reduced performance at the Vuelta is primarily down to the lower quality of domestique selected rather than issues around doping.

In short, whilst I still cannot believe Froome is credible at all, I'm not convinced by claims that the whole of Sky are at it and I'm still waiting for another Sky rider to exhibit massively suspect performance at Sky compared to anything they have produced elsewhere.
Well today certainly supports what you say about the team, that's for sure, although Froome was asleep too at the start.
I was very lucky with the timing of my post but it reinforces my personal perception. I only saw highlights, but the entire Sky team seemed absolutely spent today and couldn't hold the gap to the breakaway, or even the gap from the third group to the Froome group (which wasn't going that fast). If Froome had a juiced up Sky team at his disposal (or a clean team filled with wall to wall superdomestiques) then its hard to think that the Contador move would have stood much chance despite there being a few Movistar and Tinkoff domestiques in it.

Context is everything but I think it's clear there was a lot at stake for Sky today, and they just weren't up to the job. I personally can't see this as a juiced up Sky team intentionally soft pedalling so as to avoid winning the race and look more believable. Particularly as it completely ruined Konig's race too. I also don't think Froome winning back to back GTs would be that much more unusual or suspicious to ASO than Nairo being 2nd at TdF and winning the Vuelta.

I do however believe that Froome personally intentionally rides slow in some scenarios (e.g. once he has mathematically won the TdF and can afford to lose time) but don't know if that was what we were seeing today. I suspect he has been genuinely trying to win the Vuelta this time but is more cautious in his Vuelta preparation than his TdF preparation. Perhaps considering his rivalry with Spanish riders and teams (and the willingness of Spanish authorities to publicly back their athletes that cheat (e.g. Contador)) as making it hostile territory. But that's purely speculative on my part.

I think you need to factor in the riders who rode the Tour, flew to Brazil rode the road race with some doing the ITT then travelling to Spain before the Olympics were even over. Quintana and Contador did not go to Brazil. Froome went and is paying the price although he does appear to still have a burst of crazy speed up some climbs.

Should also factor that Sky sent a fairly strong squad to Giro to support Landa, looking at their Vuelta squad they are running out of decent riders to sit on the front all day. None of those guys could lead another team for GC. Koenig maybe but he was on a pro continental team pre sky.
 
Looks like Sky burned all their matches on stage 14 and had nothing left for Stage 15.

Tough to pin all the blame on Chris Froome when the stage looks like a collective team failure.

Well, it happens - even to the best of teams.
 
Re:

Benotti69 said:
ASO have not got the balls to DQ team sky. No surprise there.
Let me guess. The same ASO also decided no to DQ everyone at traingate in Roubaix two years ago to protect their precious Sky too

It's one thing to be suspicious, another to ignore everything that doesn't fit one particular theory

There's a chance there might be something going on with UCI and Sky but they sure as hell dont have ASO in their pockets, who didn't want to neutralise Ventoux either iirc
 
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
Benotti69 said:
ASO have not got the balls to DQ team sky. No surprise there.
Let me guess. The same ASO also decided no to DQ everyone at traingate in Roubaix two years ago to protect their precious Sky too

It's one thing to be suspicious, another to ignore everything that doesn't fit one particular theory

There's a chance there might be something going on with UCI and Sky but they sure as hell dont have ASO in their pockets, who didn't want to neutralise Ventoux either iirc
These posts are clueless. The UCI race jury decides not ASO. Although I think it stinks a little it was common sense to waive the ruling on this occasion. Clearly it wasn't just Sky adding in an additional rest day, they all decided to take it super easy. Tinkoff, Movistar are the teams that probably lost out the most but there really isn't a lot that can be done.

Sky paying Astana to ride he chase is more of a sin than sitting back in the 4th group all day.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
These posts are clueless. The UCI race jury decides not ASO. Although I think it stinks a little it was common sense to waive the ruling on this occasion. Clearly it wasn't just Sky adding in an additional rest day, they all decided to take it super easy. Tinkoff, Movistar are the teams that probably lost out the most but there really isn't a lot that can be done.
I'm gonna risk doing this from memory, but as far as I recall the relevant rule specifically says the race jury consults with the race organiser, so the tinfoil hats seeing the possibility of the hand of ASO in the decision are not totally off their tree, this time. However, and again doing this just from memory, so someone please feel free to correct me, you have to go back to 1977 to see a large grupetto chucked off a GT for turning the stage into a CTC day out, drum up and all.

So while in theory it can happen, and therefore in theory you can see the hand of ASO when it doesn't happen, the people who allow it to happen - the riders, their DSs - are rolling the dice, small though the risk of exclusion might be.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
These posts are clueless. The UCI race jury decides not ASO. Although I think it stinks a little it was common sense to waive the ruling on this occasion. Clearly it wasn't just Sky adding in an additional rest day, they all decided to take it super easy. Tinkoff, Movistar are the teams that probably lost out the most but there really isn't a lot that can be done.
I'm gonna risk doing this from memory, but as far as I recall the relevant rule specifically says the race jury consults with the race organiser, so the tinfoil hats seeing the possibility of the hand of ASO in the decision are not totally off their tree, this time. However, and again doing this just from memory, so someone please feel free to correct me, you have to go back to 1977 to see a large grupetto chucked off a GT for turning the stage into a CTC day out, drum up and all.

So while in theory it can happen, and therefore in theory you can see the hand of ASO when it doesn't happen, the people who allow it to happen - the riders, their DSs - are rolling the dice, small though the risk of exclusion might be.

Considering their were 90 riders from varying teams it wasn't just Sky, so even if ASO made the decision alone I don't see a conspiracy. It's unfortunate but there's nothing that really can be done. Time penalties, points subtractions make little difference.

The only method might be a little like F1 and the team is docked time for all riders but Movi had riders in the last group also so that might not work either.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Considering their were 90 riders from varying teams it wasn't just Sky, so even if ASO made the decision alone I don't see a conspiracy. It's unfortunate but there's nothing that really can be done. Time penalties, points subtractions make little difference.
Oh I'm agreeing with you, the conspiracy theory is totally nutso. No matter how much we all love that Desgrange myth about the one finisher, no one actually wants it. It's just that there is an element of risk - a teeny tiny risk, I admit - in what the grupetto did yesterday, as Peter Post's boys found out in 1977.

There is a mention in one report of TdF 2001 s8, when all bar 14 riders were 35 minutes down at the end of an easy enough five hour transition stage (allowing for a 10% co-efficient which I think would have been right for that stage that year that means they were all about five mins outside the limit) and were saved from execution. Doubtlessly the hand of ASO protecting LA (another story to add to the pile for those who see everything that happened with him as proof he was protected - I look forward to someone repeating it back to me in a few months to prove their argument).
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
Considering their were 90 riders from varying teams it wasn't just Sky, so even if ASO made the decision alone I don't see a conspiracy. It's unfortunate but there's nothing that really can be done. Time penalties, points subtractions make little difference.
Oh I'm agreeing with you, the conspiracy theory is totally nutso. No matter how much we all love that Desgrange myth about the one finisher, no one actually wants it. It's just that there is an element of risk - a teeny tiny risk, I admit - in what the grupetto did yesterday, as Peter Post's boys found out in 1977.

There is a mention in one report of TdF 2001 s8, when all bar 14 riders were 35 minutes down at the end of an easy enough five hour transition stage (allowing for a 10% co-efficient which I think would have been right for that stage that year that means they were all about five mins outside the limit) and were saved from execution. Doubtlessly the hand of ASO protecting LA (another story to add to the pile for those who see everything that happened with him as proof he was protected - I look forward to someone repeating it back to me in a few months to prove their argument).
Back in the good ole days, riding 'piano piano' for the first 100km was standard. With the speeds now and this Vuelta route I can see why so many just turned off the power meters and rolled in. Clearly many teams agreed that this was to be the approach, not just one team dictating to go slow.

Many also forget Koenig paid a heavy price for the poor Sky tactics, he was 5th and now he's nowhere.

The only conspiracy I see is Astana riding for Sky. If that didn't happen, Quintana & Comtador would be 1-2, 7 minutes ahead of 3rd.
 
Oh, forgot something, re
It's unfortunate but there's nothing that really can be done. Time penalties, points subtractions make little difference.
Again here from memory, so someone with a rulebook can correct me, but (IIRC) there should be a points deduction, can't recall whether the rule requires it or just allows it. Check the scores Saturday and Sunday, see if it was applied.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
The only conspiracy I see is Astana riding for Sky. If that didn't happen, Quintana & Comtador would be 1-2, 7 minutes ahead of 3rd.
I would love to believe Sky have a petty cash box or a slush fund for bribes, sorry, buying help, but after the reaction to the Worlds thing with Wegelius that's surely a hypocrisy too far, even for Brailsford? (I could imagine him 'not knowing' were a rider to do the deal though, if it suited.)

Serious question though: could such deals fall under the UK's (strong but poorly enfiorced) anti-bribery laws?
 
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Oh, forgot something, re
It's unfortunate but there's nothing that really can be done. Time penalties, points subtractions make little difference.
Again here from memory, so someone with a rulebook can correct me, but (IIRC) there should be a points deduction, can't recall whether the rule requires it or just allows it. Check the scores Saturday and Sunday, see if it was applied.
Yes it was applied, -25 point for all 90 which clearly is devastating for all involved ;)
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
The only conspiracy I see is Astana riding for Sky. If that didn't happen, Quintana & Comtador would be 1-2, 7 minutes ahead of 3rd.
I would love to believe Sky have a petty cash box or a slush fund for bribes, sorry, buying help, but after the reaction to the Worlds thing with Wegelius that's surely a hypocrisy too far, even for Brailsford? (I could imagine him 'not knowing' were a rider to do the deal though, if it suited.)

Serious question though: could such deals fall under the UK's (strong but poorly enfiorced) anti-bribery laws?
My understanding is they use prize money as the method. There is a series of IOU and after the race everyone gets squared up.

I would agree, sporting fraud and anti-bribery does come to mind but very hard to enforce as it would be treated as a "gift" for the efforts to help.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts