Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1580 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Singer01

BANNED
Nov 18, 2013
2,043
2
5,485
Re: Re:

Mamil said:
Singer01 said:
Sky absolutely smashed it yesterday, there were GC contenders all down the mountain, the gaps were pretty big, the action started fairly far out, Valverde gave it a (misguided) go, Tom D had a proper crack at something. Something isn't boring just because the team you want to lose wins. Bunch of babies.
Do you seriously think there is the smallest chance that Froome won't win this race?
Based on past performance there is a 15% chance he doesn't finish, in addition his two biggest rivals are both excellent TT riders so he doesn't have that a cushion like he often has. So i'd say there is a decent chance he doesn't win (25-33%).
 
Jan 11, 2018
260
0
0
Re: Re:

Singer01 said:
Based on past performance there is a 15% chance he doesn't finish, in addition his two biggest rivals are both excellent TT riders so he doesn't have that a cushion like he often has. So i'd say there is a decent chance he doesn't win (25-33
Fair enough. I've already said that crashes remain a constant possibility, so excluding that you're giving him a 10-18% chance of not winning. Personally I think it's much lower - probably 5% at best. I think it's almost inevitable, and I believe that history, Froome's apparent form and the position and state of his rivals substantiate that, hence why I consider it predictable. But I accept that this is subjective, and others may read it differently.
 
Or Banesto back in the early 90s - equally as dull. Smash the first TT. Sit back and cover weak attacks.

Anyway, further proof of the circle of life, the UCI & IOC letting off the best rider in the world for Salbutamol, from wiki

In May 1994, Induráin tested positive for salbutamol following the Tour de L'Oise in France. Though the β2-adrenergic agonist, found in nasal inhalers, was on the controlled substances list of both the IOC and UCI, both organizations permitted sportsmen with asthma to use it. However, in France there was an outright ban on its use.[22] The IOC agreed with the UCI that Induráin would not be punished for using a drug banned outright in France because they accepted the salbutamol was contained in a nasal inhaler he had been using legitimately to aid his respiration. In Spain, the incident was interpreted as another case of the French attempting to hinder Induráin's domination of the sport.[23]
 
Jul 7, 2010
395
0
0
Re: Re:

Mamil said:
On another note, the real crime of Sky, beyond the doping, and even their insufferable attitude, is that they're boring. Their dominance is absolute. Baring a crash, you know from day 1 that Froome is going to win and that on most climbs it's going to be a Sky train bossing the bunch. It's a terrible spectacle. If it was purely based on being smarter, or just being naturally more talented, you could stomach it. But because its a mixture of money, resources, corporate greed, an obviously very well sorted doping program, arrogance and an ability to bend the sport's governance to their will, it's just utterly distasteful.
To be fair, I thought Richie Porte was a chance the past two years had he not fallen early.

I 100% believe Sky are doping, but their dominance has been exaggerated by their biggest competitor crashing out
 
Re:

Pantani Attacks said:
When will the Bernal separate thread be opened?
Go start one if you want. Me, I wish people would stop conflating "super talented riders that Sky buys as domestiques" like Bernal with "GT contenders that Sky manufactures out of thin air" like Froome and Thomas.
 
Re: Re:

hrotha said:
Pantani Attacks said:
When will the Bernal separate thread be opened?
Go start one if you want. Me, I wish people would stop conflating "super talented riders that Sky buys as domestiques" like Bernal from "GT contenders that Sky manufactures out of thin air" like Froome and Thomas.
Vmt. The likes of Kwiatkowski, Landa, Bernal, if you're being generous then maybe even Poels - these guys are all probably doping, but they are doing nothing especially suspicious by the standads of pro cycling. They proved their quality before Sky and would actually be far more credible GT winners. It's a completely different scenario than the almost overnight transformations of the British riders who suddenly turn into Tour de France winners.
 
Re:

roundabout said:
41'15'' for the climb for Thomas so nothing really extraterrestrial
A time of 41:15 is slow by 90s standards, but there still have not been many times faster than that since 2006. Per wiki, which may not have them all, but I think most:

Quintana (2)
Sastre
J Rod
Froome (2)
Valverde (2)
Porte

Quintana has two sub-40’ climbs up ADH, but apparently was slightly over 42' today. Froome's time today was slightly slower than his previous two times, but not by much. So just comparing those two, it was more about Quintana's poor performance than Froome's outstanding one.

I'd say that 41:15, while definitely slower than the unlimited blood doping riders, is so much faster than what just about everyone did before the 90s that you have to resort to better training, better equipment and/or different race tactics to explain it in clean terms. The W/kg value is below 6.0, though, which no one could argue is not plausible physiologically.
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
roundabout said:
41'15'' for the climb for Thomas so nothing really extraterrestrial
A time of 41:15 is slow by 90s standards, but there still have not been many times faster than that since 2006. Per wiki, which may not have them all, but I think most:

Quintana (2)
Sastre
J Rod
Froome (2)
Valverde (2)
Porte

Quintana has two sub-40’ climbs up ADH, but apparently was slightly over 42' today. Don't know about weather conditions.

I'd say that 41:15, while definitely slower than the unlimited blood doping riders, is so much faster than what just about everyone did before the 90s that you have to resort to better training, better equipment and/or different race tactics to explain it in clean terms. The W/kg value is below 6.0, though, which certainly sounds reasonable.
They messed about for a good km seeing who would take the lead. That’s why Nibali got within 15 seconds. Would have been sub 40 otherwise.
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
roundabout said:
41'15'' for the climb for Thomas so nothing really extraterrestrial
A time of 41:15 is slow by 90s standards, but there still have not been many times faster than that since 2006. Per wiki, which may not have them all, but I think most:

Quintana (2)
Sastre
J Rod
Froome (2)
Valverde (2)
Porte

Quintana has two sub-40’ climbs up ADH, but apparently was slightly over 42' today. Froome's time today was slightly slower than his previous two times, but not by much. So just comparing those two, it was more about Quintana's poor performance than Froome's outstanding one.

I'd say that 41:15, while definitely slower than the unlimited blood doping riders, is so much faster than what just about everyone did before the 90s that you have to resort to better training, better equipment and/or different race tactics to explain it in clean terms. The W/kg value is below 6.0, though, which no one could argue is not plausible physiologically.
Another couple of mitigating factors for a 'slower time' this year. than 2015 or 2013: this was a much harder and longer stage than 2015. And was also the third mountain stage in a row, compared with the first one like it was in 2013.
 
Feb 21, 2017
1,019
0
0
The gamesmanship at the end definitely skewed the time, so I'm not confident it can be compared to former editions.
 
Re:

GraftPunk said:
The gamesmanship at the end definitely skewed the time, so I'm not confident it can be compared to former editions.
I think there were some wasted seconds at the end, but hard to determine how much. The real time race log says they initially waited for Nibs following his crash, but apparently it was very brief, with Bardet not wanting to wait. Also, the time to go the next 500 m was about 1:30, in line with what they had been doing before (3 min per km, about what they averaged the whole way). So they couldn't have waited very long. At one point it says Nibs was 30 seconds down, then it says Nibs was 50 seconds down with 1 km to go. Surely there's no way he could have gained 30-35 seconds in the last km? Unless they were really dicking around?

In any case, I think a max of 30 seconds lost at the end, so maybe it could have been 40:45. The point about this being a different stage is valid, though Froome was much closer to his 2013 and 2015 times--maybe almost exactly the same if you allow 30 seconds wasted--than Quintana was.
 
I wonder what the cumulative climbing amount and time was? As in, not just the final ascent, but the total meters climbed and the speed of climbing/total VAM? That would be an interesting thing to track over time (someone must have already done this??)
 
Re: Re:

Ripper said:
hrotha said:
Pantani Attacks said:
When will the Bernal separate thread be opened?
Go start one if you want. Me, I wish people would stop conflating "super talented riders that Sky buys as domestiques" like Bernal with "GT contenders that Sky manufactures out of thin air" like Froome and Thomas.
They really need a like button on this forum
How long to the switcheroo when Dave takes Bernal aside and asks him to work for Tao!
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY