Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1530 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

MmeDesgrange said:
The Hegelian said:
Can we take the thread back to reality?

If Thomas hadn't crashed out, Sky would have three very plausible ways to win the tdf. And could potentially win + take the two podium spots. And without Froome's little blip, hold the jersey from start to finish. All of this is unprecedented.

So: a bit more rage about what's happening in reality. And a bit less inference piled on inference grounded in pure speculation.
Actually none of this is unprecedented - the Jersey has been held start to finish by the same team a number of times, most recently by Merckx's Faemino–Faema team in 1970. And for a truly dominant team take a look at Peugeot. There is nothing new in cycling and it's a fair bet that anything Sky claim to have done for the first time will have been done before - including every single 'marginal gain'.
Peugeot: won 10 Tours de France in something like 60 years. Were they ever - in all that time - in a position to put three on the podium??

Sky: won 4 in less than a decade, probably soon to be 5.

In recent times, Banesto only ever had one genuine contender. US Postal could have plausibly gone for three on the podium at various points........but if you need to lean on US Postal to make your point, then I'm afraid your point is well and truly lost.
 
Sep 10, 2016
158
0
0
Re: Re:

The Hegelian said:
MmeDesgrange said:
The Hegelian said:
Can we take the thread back to reality?

If Thomas hadn't crashed out, Sky would have three very plausible ways to win the tdf. And could potentially win + take the two podium spots. And without Froome's little blip, hold the jersey from start to finish. All of this is unprecedented.

So: a bit more rage about what's happening in reality. And a bit less inference piled on inference grounded in pure speculation.
Actually none of this is unprecedented - the Jersey has been held start to finish by the same team a number of times, most recently by Merckx's Faemino–Faema team in 1970. And for a truly dominant team take a look at Peugeot. There is nothing new in cycling and it's a fair bet that anything Sky claim to have done for the first time will have been done before - including every single 'marginal gain'.
Peugeot: won 10 Tours de France in something like 60 years. Were they ever - in all that time - in a position to put three on the podium??

Sky: won 4 in less than a decade, probably soon to be 5.

In recent times, Banesto only ever had one genuine contender. US Postal could have plausibly gone for three on the podium at various points........but if you need to lean on US Postal to make your point, then I'm afraid your point is well and truly lost.
Let's see: Peugeot riders won every Your between 1905-1908 while also winning every Classic in sight. And I won't need to tell such a student of the sport as yourself about the primitive roads and equipment. length of stages etc etc. As to your question 'were they ever - on all that time - in a position to put three on the podium??' Let me settle your disbelief that any team bar the mighty Sky might ever threaten this feat.

Let's take the 1908 Tour - there were 7 Peugeot riders in the top 10, with Peugeot riders filling the top 4 places on GC. In addition Peugeot riders won 12 of the 14 stages - the shortest of which was 251 km - and the 2 riders who won the other stages were riding for the Griffon-Peugeot team. Peugeot also took the top 4 on GC in 1906 and had the top 5 on GC in 1907, a feat the Alcyon team replicated in 1909.

I hope that answers the questions, and perhaps puts in perspective just how ordinary Team Sky are in the very much bigger scheme of things?
 
Well, I'm kind of on your side, but comparisons to a time when riders had to weld their own fork together on the roadside, don't seem very meaningful to me either.

I just had a quick look through the GC after WWII, although maybe I should have started in the 80s, because the national team era of course was different also, but notable team results are:
1949: Italy 1,2
1952: Italy 1, 4, 6, 9
1953: France 1, 7, 8, 9
1955: France 1, 5, 6, 10
1960: Italy 1, 2, 7, 10
1962: Saint-Raphael: 1, 5
1963: Saint-Raphael: 1, 4
1967: France 1, 6, 9
1979: Renault: 1, 4
1984: Renault: 1, 3
1985: La Vie Claire: 1,2
1986: La Vie Claire: 1, 2, 4, 7 (probably most dominant team ever from the result)
1989: PDM: 4, 7, 8, 9
1992: Carrera: 2, 8, 9
1995: ONCE: 2, 4, 6
1996: Telekom 1,2 and Festina 3, 4
1998: Cofidis 3, 4, 7
2002: ONCE 2, 5, 6 (#1 DSQ)
2004: T-Mobile 2, 4 (#1 DSQ)
2007: Discovery 1, *3 (Leipheimer DSQ), 8
2008: Astana 1, *3 (Armstrong DSQ), 5
2011: Leopard 2, 3
2012: Sky 1,2
2015: Movistar 2, 3

There's a bunch more where 2 or 3 riders from one team made the top10 but didn't win, I didn't copy all of them.

Just going by the GC this years Tour de France doesn't show extraordinary team strength, but that ist clearly an incomplete analysis, because for example US Postal/Discovery doesn't show up here.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Good stuff.
fwiw, I see Sky has never won the TdF team classification, but they're leading the table this year.
 
Sep 10, 2016
158
0
0
I understand your point Spalco, but the somewhat scoffing question asked was whether Peugeot had ever come close to sweeping the podium. They did, several times. It's way they are by some distance the best team ever

You could also have added that, in 1986, La Vie Claire were the best team, Hinault the best climber and Hampsten the best young rider. Hinault and Lemond also placed 3 and 4 on the points competition. That's dominance.
 
Re:

MmeDesgrange said:
I understand your point Spalco, but the somewhat scoffing question asked was whether Peugeot had ever come close to sweeping the podium. They did, several times. It's way they are by some distance the best team ever

You could also have added that, in 1986, La Vie Claire were the best team, Hinault the best climber and Hampsten the best young rider. Hinault and Lemond also placed 3 and 4 on the points competition. That's dominance.
We need an '86 LVC thread!

I'm only half joking. If Sky 2012-present brings a 3,000-post thread, surely you could ask what Hinault, LeMond, Bauer, Hampsten et cie were doing in what is a somewhat unexamined cycling era? We know that blood doping was happening, but probably pre-EPO, and yet the East Germans' secrets were probably filtering through Europe at the time...
 
Re:

MmeDesgrange said:
I understand your point Spalco, but the somewhat scoffing question asked was whether Peugeot had ever come close to sweeping the podium. They did, several times. It's way they are by some distance the best team ever

You could also have added that, in 1986, La Vie Claire were the best team, Hinault the best climber and Hampsten the best young rider. Hinault and Lemond also placed 3 and 4 on the points competition. That's dominance.
It wasn't a scoffing question, it was a genuine question. Thankyou for the historical facts.

Nonetheless, I'm not sure these facts help your argument in the slightest. Let me formulate your position as charitably as I can:

Proposition 1 - There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about Sky's dominance.
Argument 1 - In 1908, one team put three riders on the podium.
Argument 2 - In 1986, one team put 4 riders in the top 10 + won various other categories.
Conclusion - Sky's performance over the last 5 years is unremarkable.


My response: Appealing to 1908 simply supports the claim that Sky's dominance is indeed remarkable, highly unusual etc. If you have to go that far back to find three of the one team on the podium, this basically establishes the utter rarity of such a thing. I'm happy to retract the word 'unprecedented.' However, we will have agree that it is unprecedented in the modern era - and we can start that as early as post WWII.

The second argument is far more compelling. Bernard Tapie + Hinault operated a bit like Sky and US Postal, by buying top GC talent and putting them at service instead of facing them as competition. But even so, look at the time gaps in the top 10 of 1986. Hampsten is 4th - over 18 minutes down. That would maybe buy you a top 15 in a modern tour. So again, this affirms that if Froome, Thomas and Landa were 123 and all within about 5 minutes of eachother, it would indeed be **unprecedented in the modern era**.

The key point would be this: it is very common to have two GC leaders in a team, and sometimes, they both do well at the same time. It is extraordinarily uncommon to have three. And especially, two of the three who come in as domestiques and end up performing better than the GC leaders of other teams.

And then the big question is: why all the effort to downplaying this? It is historically exceptional. We can make of that what we will - I think eyebrows raised is well justified.
 
Re: Re:

The Hegelian said:
It wasn't a scoffing question, it was a genuine question. Thankyou for the historical facts.

Nonetheless, I'm not sure these facts help your argument in the slightest. Let me formulate your position as charitably as I can:

Proposition 1 - There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about Sky's dominance.
Argument 1 - In 1908, one team put three riders on the podium.
Argument 2 - In 1986, one team put 4 riders in the top 10 + won various other categories.
Conclusion - Sky's performance over the last 5 years is unremarkable.


My response: Appealing to 1908 simply supports the claim that Sky's dominance is indeed remarkable, highly unusual etc. If you have to go that far back to find three of the one team on the podium, this basically establishes the utter rarity of such a thing. I'm happy to retract the word 'unprecedented.' However, we will have agree that it is unprecedented in the modern era - and we can start that as early as post WWII.

The second argument is far more compelling. Bernard Tapie + Hinault operated a bit like Sky and US Postal, by buying top GC talent and putting them at service instead of facing them as competition. But even so, look at the time gaps in the top 10 of 1986. Hampsten is 4th - over 18 minutes down. That would maybe buy you a top 15 in a modern tour. So again, this affirms that if Froome, Thomas and Landa were 123 and all within about 5 minutes of eachother, it would indeed be **unprecedented in the modern era**.

The key point would be this: it is very common to have two GC leaders in a team, and sometimes, they both do well at the same time. It is extraordinarily uncommon to have three. And especially, two of the three who come in as domestiques and end up performing better than the GC leaders of other teams.

And then the big question is: why all the effort to downplaying this? It is historically exceptional. We can make of that what we will - I think eyebrows raised is well justified.
Sky's budget size (plus the free help from British Cycling) can not be over looked.
 
Indeed, budget alone explains it.

A no-doping argument would be: the money gets spread far and wide to get the best talent, technology, pillows, marginal gains.

The doping argument would be: all of the above + the best medical minds/resources to extract everything necessary to preform.

Post-Wiggins, it's hardly speculation to assert the latter. It is simply how they (and Brit Cycling) operate.
 
Re:

The Hegelian said:
Indeed, budget alone explains it.

A no-doping argument would be: the money gets spread far and wide to get the best talent, technology, pillows, marginal gains.

The doping argument would be: all of the above + the best medical minds/resources to extract everything necessary to preform.

Post-Wiggins, it's hardly speculation to assert the latter. It is simply how they (and Brit Cycling) operate.
But wouldnt their best doping methods be known to certain teams?
I dont think they can keep such things hidden for long..
Porte, Roche to BMC...BMC riders going to different teams...
Yates at Orica...etc etc
 
Re: Re:

silvergrenade said:
The Hegelian said:
Indeed, budget alone explains it.

A no-doping argument would be: the money gets spread far and wide to get the best talent, technology, pillows, marginal gains.

The doping argument would be: all of the above + the best medical minds/resources to extract everything necessary to preform.

Post-Wiggins, it's hardly speculation to assert the latter. It is simply how they (and Brit Cycling) operate.
But wouldnt their best doping methods be known to certain teams?
I dont think they can keep such things hidden for long..
Porte, Roche to BMC...BMC riders going to different teams...
Yates at Orica...etc etc
I think so. I thought for example, that Rogers brought a certain weight-loss/power-up expertise to Tinkoff when he moved across. They all looked a lot leaner and fitter in 2014 compared with 2012. I'm convinced Contador would have won that tdf.

Nonetheless, Sky still have a much bigger budget than all other teams, and it stands to reason that - let's call it 'medical technology' - is the single most important area to invest in, with the single most tangible returns.
 
Re: Re:

The Hegelian said:
And then the big question is: why all the effort to downplaying this? It is historically exceptional. We can make of that what we will - I think eyebrows raised is well justified.
But it also isn't happening this year.

I mean, you could say that's just bad luck because Thomas crashed, but that could equally apply in previous years for other teams, crashes happen. At the very least you'd have to look deeper in the data to see how common having three or four potential contenders in one team is, even if they don't get a high placement in Paris.

I think you're going down a dead-end with this argument, because it just isn't a very meaningful statistic for team strength to just look at GC placements imo.
As I indicated earlier, between 1999 and 2005 the only Armstrong team members who made the top10 were Heras 2002 (#9) and Acevedo 2004 (#5). Did he not have a dominant team?

The opposite would be more convincing, if it happened, but it hasn't yet with Sky. A 1,2 in the Tour is rare, but not that out of line if the race develops favourably for the riders involved, and it was five years ago.
 
'medical technology' - exactly. Sky's whole team's daily recovery is remarkable. A big budget is good for getting the best riders, but keeping them at 100% is key.

How many other teams have a psychiatrist? :confused:
 
Re: Re:

spalco said:
The Hegelian said:
And then the big question is: why all the effort to downplaying this? It is historically exceptional. We can make of that what we will - I think eyebrows raised is well justified.
But it also isn't happening this year.

I mean, you could say that's just bad luck because Thomas crashed, but that could equally apply in previous years for other teams, crashes happen. At the very least you'd have to look deeper in the data to see how common having three or four potential contenders in one team is, even if they don't get a high placement in Paris.

I think you're going down a dead-end with this argument, because it just isn't a very meaningful statistic for team strength to just look at GC placements imo.
As I indicated earlier, between 1999 and 2005 the only Armstrong team members who made the top10 were Heras 2002 (#9) and Acevedo 2004 (#5). Did he not have a dominant team?

The opposite would be more convincing, if it happened, but it hasn't yet with Sky. A 1,2 in the Tour is rare, but not that out of line if the race develops favourably for the riders involved, and it was five years ago.
What I'm trying to say is basically this: there is something eyebrow raising about the way Sky doms ride stronger than GC leaders on other teams.

We're not talking about Lemond and Hinualt, or Delgado and Indurain. We're talking Froome, Thomas and Landa. In other years it has been a different combination - Froome himself was a massive surprise in 2012.

It was eyebrow raising to see Thomas win a prologue, without taking risks - ahead of the specialists who clearly did.

It is eyebrow raising to see Landa look so good, despite riding his guts out in the Giro. He's fresh as a daisy - but Quintana is gone.

Last year it was Poels: kept the elite of the elite in the red all the way through the mountains.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
If I'm not mistaken long sleeves is meanignful (as in indicative of a transfusion), but the lack of long sleeves means nothing either way.

As far as I understood the longsleeves are mostly about hiding bruises(?)
But not everybody develops bruises after a needle injection, so not everybody will need longsleeves (?)
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re:

sniper said:
If I'm not mistaken long sleeves is meanignful (as in indicative of a transfusion), but the lack of long sleeves means nothing either way.

As far as I understood the longsleeves are mostly about hiding bruises(?)
But not everybody develops bruises after a needle injection, so not everybody will need longsleeves (?)
Hamilton talked about feeling the chill. ( ie cold) after a transfusion hence the extra long sleeve layer.

There are a few places apart from the arm to do a transfusion.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re:

Dekker_Tifosi said:
with the strange behaviour against media they really turned untrustworthy 100%. They are now US Postal to me
They were UKPostal a good few years ago with their blue train.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
^indeed.
Brailsford's habit of intimidating press (editors and journos alike) goes back several years.
That includes finding out identities and backgrounds of people who wrote/write sceptical about him/Sky.
Controlling the press was a big part of what he meant when in 2008 he said:
"We did our homework. We know what it takes to win the TdF".
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Funny how people like Richard Moore are so omerta'd up they cant even help themselves.

Here's his tweet

Richard Moore‏ @richardmoore73

TdF Prediction: the biggest story to come out of today's rest day press conferences will be Team Sky's refusal to do a press conference.
A proper journalist would ask why are Sky refusing journalists.

A proper journalist would remind Sky they out started in the sport with massive declarations and a 'tome' of how they were going to be transparent. They insinuated everyone else was cheating/doping but they were going to different, be clean, be transparent, be honest, be open.......

A proper journalist would remind Sky that denying journalists the right to ask hard questions points to the obvious.

Moore is a fan with a typewriter sniffing for some copy. Moore shooting the messengers of which he supposed to be one. What a joke.

Chapeau CN and Barry Ryan.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS