Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Don't be late Pedro]

based on 4-5 mountain tt's in the tour. ridden as mountain tts. dropping almost everyone.

Obviously it was not clear enough...

 

[Galic Ho]

What a massive backpeddle. During the TdF so many of you guys were saying that the doping program is a systematic team program and they are all on it. Many of you specifically pointed to the performances of Rogers, Froome and Porte as part of your corroborating "evidence" of this alleged fact.

Besides, how would you or anyone know what "team wide" means or how many of the riders on the team do or don't get a doping program that is managed by one of the team staff? Pie in the sky idle speculation.


Who cares if Wiggins, Froome, Rogers and Porte were not in the TTT? If their doping program is so good that it can make racehorses out of Froome, Rogers and Porte, then why can't it do the same for Stannard, Thomas and the rest?

You care. You brought it up. Then you confused yourself with some of the basics at work here. Then you tried to deflect away from your own diluted and warped understanding.

How come they can't do the same for Stannard and Thomas? Damn, man, you really are getting confused. They're anglo-saxon, they're on the same treatment program. Look at the Olympics FFS! They smashed their own world record. A track program DOES NOT EQUAL what a road program is. Nor does one race road in an Olympic year. Thomas will be on the squad next year, don't worry your mind over that. He meets the requirements, has the prospective long term ability and he is British or a derivative of British. Same with Stennard. They ride all season on the road, they'll be going to Tennerife in 2013 just you watch.

Once again it's simply wild speculation that Sky hire a dodgey doctor with the intent of overseeing a "team" program that the lot of you say has enabled them to maintain a season long dominating peak in performance, but then they just decide not to give the program to the WC squad?

Does not make any sense unless you want to believe they are doping and then you invent some crackpot theory to fit your belief. Following the Vuelta the theories got more and more convoluted and ridiculous, but you continue to deny the possibility of the most simple explanation for what looks a lot like a team that isn't doping.... they aren't doping.

And surely you can't be trying to compare average velocity for different TT courses and making some sort of conclusion about doping? Have you ever ridden a bike before in your entire life dude?

So do you know Tim Kerrison? Or is it Leinders? Seriously, do tell. This is quite interesting.

I do love the part how cycling has looked dirty EVERY year since 1991 and yet, this year, of all years, when Great Britain is at the forefront, it is ALL clean. Not just Sky, but by inference the entire peloton. Let's all pack up shop, tell WADA it's all clean and stop wasting what pitiful amounts of cash are spent on anti-doping on something better...say champagne to celebrate clean sports. Or maybe some cigars for Wiggins hey? You don't vote Labor by any chance do you...you sound like you'd fit in there.

 

[Galic Ho]

I am saying we will never know. Just because you have the best ITT riders does not mean that you will TT the best as a team. Is that clear enough for you?

Odds are next years Tour will have a TTT. You'll find out then.

Give us a break dude. Seriously. Didn't you watch the Olympic RR? That was a 4 man TTT for 200km. And even then they only just fell short. Add in Thomas, Porte and Rogers and they'd have it in the bag very, very easily.

Why don't they? argggghhhh, duh, resting up for next season. Off the juice ATM. Hence, they're crap ATM and will not race regardless. No point getting tested and posting odd values that truth be told, are your real markers. Or worse, show blood has been withdrawn. Everyone getting ready for next season is 'getting ready' for the real racing. That racing requires doping. Do the math. Ask Wiggins about his ride this last week. They all saw what happened to wannabe be boy Froome in Spain. They're cooling down, getting ready for the blood donations before next season. They'll need them. 3 GT's to win as they said. Need as many months to take out blood as they can get.

 

[JRanton]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rogers-ruled-out-of-australias-road-team-through-illness

Rogers out of the worlds due to illness.

 

[hrotha]

What a massive backpeddle. During the TdF so many of you guys were saying that the doping program is a systematic team program and they are all on it. Many of you specifically pointed to the performances of Rogers, Froome and Porte as part of your corroborating "evidence" of this alleged fact.

Read some of my posts and you'll see I've ALWAYS talked about "cadre"-wide doping and inner circles, about the Tenerife gang, and about how the classics squad didn't look particularly suspicious to me.

 

[Mellow Velo]

I am saying we will never know. Just because you have the best ITT riders does not mean that you will TT the best as a team. Is that clear enough for you?

I wouldn't waste my time.
Key here is BR using 4th place to make his point.
Why the oddly placed 4th team, not 1st?
Because that would mean a time gap jump from 28 seconds,
to 1 minute 32 seconds.

According to the logic coming out of the Tour ITT, that is a HUGE margin.
So much so, that it fuelled much of the speculation around here.

Far easily to make a sweeping assumption using 28 seconds, than over a minute and a half.

This time of the year, it's all about who has good, late season form and is hungry.

Odds are next years Tour will have a TTT. You'll find out then.

Give us a break dude. Seriously. Didn't you watch the Olympic RR? That was a 4 man TTT for 200km. And even then they only just fell short. Add in Thomas, Porte and Rogers and they'd have it in the bag very, very easily.

At 40kph. Same thing that HTC did, day in, day out, over a couple of TDFs.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Read some of my posts and you'll see I've ALWAYS talked about "cadre"-wide doping and inner circles, about the Tenerife gang, and about how the classics squad didn't look particularly suspicious to me.

While you may have made that point, the overall tone here hasn't been that specific, where usually team-wide doping is going on at Sky, expanded to the British track team during the Olympics and even to the entire British Olympic team at one point.

Krebs makes the point as performances don't play out the way the accusers have predicted the explanations grow ever more complicated and convoluted as to what is happening. For me this just further undermines these accusations: as I have said before the simplest explanation is usually the truest. Nothing Sky have done/are doing are beyond the capabilities of clean athletes. They haven't ridden at superhuman speeds at any point, just been very consistent after a very clear and thorough approach to the 3 early-season week long stage races and the Tour.

as for the TTT, interesting that even that is evidence of doping. I have never seen Sky win a TTT yet, and on paper that team looked strong

 

[Froomador]

How come they can't do the same for Stannard and Thomas? Thomas will be on the squad next year, don't worry your mind over that. He meets the requirements, has the prospective long term ability and he is British or a derivative of British. Same with Stennard. They ride all season on the road, they'll be going to Tennerife in 2013 just you watch.

Reading through the past few pages of this thread and I have to shake my head at the level of utter dross being spouted about.

I don't support Sky any more or less than I do other teams/riders, in fact I much prefer the excitement of Contador playing jack-in-the-box in the mountains or Boonen bouncing over cobbles than watching 9 carefully programmed metronomes methodically tap out a race result according to what their powermeter tells them.

That said, I just find the level of groundless garbage thrown towards them quite astounding. I guess it is similar to those who love/hate Manchester United. I personally do not support Man U, but I begrudgingly respect how Ferguson consistently manages them to deliver results. He does things the way he believes works and very often it does, much to the annoyance of others.

So back to Sky - Ask many of the people/riders who really work in professional cycling and they will tell you that pretty much every team are currently 3-5years behind Sky in terms of organisation, level of support and approach... I'm sure even Vaughters will agree on this.

Whilst a lot of this is helped by the considerable financial resource that they have, you still have to spend it wisely, which they apparently do. BMC has comparable financial muscle but has nowhere near the collective level of rider focus and scientific support that Sky provides its riders (I'm sure a number of the "experts" here will read "scientific support" as a reference to doping - I do not).

Everyone has the right to their opinion so continue to merrily throw up your theories, but for me until a member of Sky tests positive or is linked to doping in the same way USP/Festina have been, then the smoking gun for these accusations just does not exist, only a lot of frivolous hypothesis and rather subjective theories.

Whether we like it or not, they are currently the most organised and advanced team out there and have broken the mould for how cycling teams are structured and they get results because of it. In this respect, it is for the other teams to catch up, which they undoubtedly will given time.

Thankfully, despite their 3-5year organisational advantage, Sky remain 30-50 years behind in terms of race tactics!!!

PS Galic Ho - I'll be watching, but not too hard. I think you'll find Thomas and Stannard are being groomed for the Spring Classics so unlikely to focus on the first two GT's of the year.

 

[hrotha]

Funny thing, at the end of the disappointing 2010 season, Sky pretty much acknowledged all their talk about marginal gains and doing things in new ways other teams hadn't thought of wasn't really all that much, that they had overestimated their own approach, that maybe other teams knew what they were doing too and that they should concentrate on racing and shutting up. Xabier Zandio said the stories about Sky were exaggerated and that it really wasn't all that different from other top teams.

Come the 2012 explosion, and the marginal gains talk is back in full force to justify truly outstanding results.

 

[richtea]

To be fair though, the recent marginal gains talk has not been led by Sky, but by the media. I think Brailsford was quoted during the TDF as saying he wished he'd never mentioned that 'aggregation of marginal gains' phrase many years ago, as its like an albatross round his neck now, a convenient device for journalists...

 

[the big ring]

To be fair though, the recent marginal gains talk has not been led by Sky, but by the media. I think Brailsford was quoted during the TDF as saying he wished he'd never mentioned that 'aggregation of marginal gains' phrase many years ago, as its like an albatross round his neck now, a convenient device for journalists...

An interview with David Brailsford on the 8th of August appears to undermine your position.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/19174302

On the final morning of the Olympic track cycling competition - a "competition" his team had almost completely subverted - British Cycling's performance director Dave Brailsford went on BBC Breakfast and gave the game away.

So Dave, came the question, tell us about these "marginal gains" that underpin everything you do?

"The whole principle came from the idea that if you broke down everything you could think of that goes into riding a bike, and then improved it by 1%, you will get a significant increase when you put them all together," he explained, without looking at all like the evil mastermind of a mysterious sect.
Play media
Sir Chris Hoy

"There's fitness and conditioning, of course, but there are other things that might seem on the periphery, like sleeping in the right position, having the same pillow when you are away and training in different places.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

An interview with David Brailsford on the 8th of August appears to undermine your position.

Not really seeing as he was asked a question about it rather than being the one to introduce it into the conversation (At least not in this instance). In fact it proves exactly what rich tea just said.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Not really seeing as he was asked a question about it rather than being the one to introduce it into the conversation (At least not in this instance). In fact it proves exactly what rich tea just said.

It litters the Sky documentary though, or at least it did in the one episode I have seen. However it's a fairly moot point anyway: either you believe it or see it as a smokescreen for doping, although of course now it's only 'cadre-wide' or elite rider doping.

 

[the big ring]

Reading through the past few pages of this thread and I have to shake my head at the level of utter dross being spouted about.
.

Never fear. We are shaking our heads at the spurious "arguments" presented by the Sky apologists. So it's even Stevens.

I'll give you an example:

So back to Sky - Ask many of the people/riders who really work in professional cycling and they will tell you that pretty much every team are currently 3-5years behind Sky in terms of organisation, level of support and approach... I'm sure even Vaughters will agree on this.
.

This presupposes the other teams know what Sky are doing. If that were true, and it was actually making the difference in the races, surely the other teams would already be doing it, or started doing it back in March when Sky began trouncing them in every muti-stage race on offer.

Like the osymmetric chain rings. That Brad used in 2009 when on Garmin's team. Do you really expect us to believe they provide a 10% power improvement - as claimed by their inventor - and that JV witnessed this improvement in Brad and IGNORED ITS SOURCE.

I think not.

 

[the big ring]

Position:

Brailsford was quoted during the TDF as saying he wished he'd never mentioned that 'aggregation of marginal gains' phrase

Refutation:

An interview with David Brailsford on the 8th of August appears to undermine your position.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/19174302

"There's fitness and conditioning, of course, but there are other things that might seem on the periphery, like sleeping in the right position, having the same pillow when you are away and training in different places.

"Do you really know how to clean your hands? Without leaving the bits between your fingers?

Not really seeing as he was asked a question about it rather than being the one to introduce it into the conversation (At least not in this instance). In fact it proves exactly what rich tea just said.

I disagree with the position presented that Brailsford regrets ever talking about "marginal gains". It is the mantra that explains all improvements.

 

[richtea]

I will dig the actual quote out this evening, it was in ProCycling magazine. It's not a case of adopting a 'position' - he either said it or he didn't.

I wouldn't have through it would be particularly surprising, since every journalist now asks him a question like the one you just quoted: 'So Dave, came the question, tell us about these "marginal gains" that underpin everything you do?'

 

[Cycle Chic]

Marginal Gains - Edgar ??

I wonder if the joke's on all of us and 'Marginal Gains' is code like Edgar Allan Poe was

 

[sniper]

I wonder if the joke's on all of us and 'Marginal Gains' is code like Edgar Allan Poe was

perhaps it is an anagram:
garmin gains al(l)?
but then whatabout sky.

 

[OnePercenter]

I wonder if the joke's on all of us and 'Marginal Gains' is code like Edgar Allan Poe was

Whatever it is, it's twice as good as Chris Carmichael's half a percent 'small gains'

After that humbling experience, I went across town to see Edmund Burke, a former physiologist for the U.S. Olympic cycling team, who has written several books on training for cyclists (including one with Carmichael). “I think the genius of Chris is that he understands how much small gains matter,” Burke said. “In fact, small gains are all you will ever see. People will say, ‘You have shown only half a per cent of improvement.’ Well, half a per cent is huge. I am not talking marketing or sales here. I am talking about élite athletic performance.”

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/07/15/020715fa_fact1?currentPage=all

 

[Froomador]

Never fear. We are shaking our heads at the spurious "arguments" presented by the Sky apologists. So it's even Stevens.

I'll give you an example:


This presupposes the other teams know what Sky are doing. If that were true, and it was actually making the difference in the races, surely the other teams would already be doing it, or started doing it back in March when Sky began trouncing them in every muti-stage race on offer.

Like the osymmetric chain rings. That Brad used in 2009 when on Garmin's team. Do you really expect us to believe they provide a 10% power improvement - as claimed by their inventor - and that JV witnessed this improvement in Brad and IGNORED ITS SOURCE.

I think not.

It is inevitable that slowly but surely Sky's methods will become common knowledge and others will adopt them (if they feel they make a difference). Riders and staff etc of different teams talk amongst each other all the time so of course they will share methods.

In addition, Sky have a lot of riders leaving this year and they take that knowledge with them. However, not all teams have the financial means or resource to adopt Sky's practices such as individual carers, nutritionists and the amount of physiological testing and research that they carry out, so they can only adopt what they can afford. Don't believe me, then you need to speak with more teams.

Big Ring - My comments were to highlight the high level of organization within Sky compared to other teams. You seem to overlook this but tell me - am I right in suggesting this or do you know of an equal or better managed cycling team in terms of rider support and resource?

Jonathan Vaughters and his Garmin team do a pretty impressive job of getting great results from limited resources compared to Sky. I believe Garmin took the same holistic approach to rider support as Sky before Sky even came along and well before the much touted "marginal gains" phrase even came into existence. I'm sure Vaughters with access to similar finances and resource could achieve similar success - would you then lend the same accusations towards him as you do Brailsford?

Vaughters seems to be fairly accessible on the net, why don't you seek his opinions on this subject as I'm sure he has far more insight into Sky and their 'advantage' than you or I.

As for Osymmetric chainrings - I'm sure the inventor and his product ambassadors would claim they reverse baldness and improve erections in middle-aged men as long as it sold more chainrings! The thing is there are some people who believe they work for them and others who don't... the choice is theirs.

 

[pmcg76]

I love the SKY persecution complex in this thread. Have you guys ever read any of the numerous threads on Garmin and doping and they were happening long before recent events. You guys think SKY get it rough

It is the exact same group of guys(about 10) thrashing SKY/Garmin and any other rider/team who does anything of note. They see doping in everything, even when two things are polar opposite, they are still both evidence of doping to this particular sub-group. Garmin and SKY get the roughest time as they are the most vocal in shouting about how clean they are and are Englsih speaking teams.

Ironically the first team boss to mention marginal gains was JV in 08 when Team Slipstream were upgrading. The accumulation of marginal gains was seen as an alternative way of improving performance versus doping. I dont think JV ever tried to deny the fact that some of his team/management had skeletons in the closet, he just believed in drawing a line in the sand, leaving the past in the past and starting anew. Clearly this is not sufficent to appease some poster's and is currently coming back to bite JV in the ***.

SKY on the other hand claimed they would not hire anyone associated with doping which as JV recently pointed out is folly considering the era that just happened previously. They have Yates who has a positive test to his name as manager and Knaven, De Jongh as DS, both who were at TVM in 98 when they got dragged into the Festina whirlwind. Of cousre Leinders as well.

They have Michael Barry who was outed by Landis and they have employed at least 5-6 former Banesto/Caisse d'Epargne who are not exactly noted for being a clean team. There might be little to no hard evidence against them but to suggest that no rider has had any links to doping is ridiculous.

When SKY were launched in 2010, they were pretty aggresive in the posturing and how they were going to revolutionize pro cycling and they fell promptly on their faces in 2010. ORICA-Greenedge have had a better debut season than SKY without the marginal gains BS.

Even now the only riders who seem to have improved at SKY have been Froome(out of this world transformation) Wiggins(amazing transformation) and Porte/Rogers(smaller improvement's) maybe Nordhaug as well. I see no major changes in the performances of guys like Flecha, Lokvist, Hagen, Uran etc from before.

People talk about SKY being years ahead of their rivals in certain areas but what are these areas because they seemingly dont apply across the board at SKY. Why is it only a few riders have benefited from the marginal gains mantra? Look at JTL, a guy who has gone through a transformation outside of SKY and is now better ranked than most of the SKY team. What is he doing that the SKY boys cant and on a continental team at that?

So this then leads us onto Wiggins who was vocally anti-doping a few seasons ago but now is wishy-washy at best. The question is why has he gone from staunch to wishy-washy? I think its a question worthy of a proper answer but we aint receiving one. It would definitely help alleviate the ire of the cynics but in fairness his rant at the Tour has torpedoed any credibility in the eyes of the cynics.

People are also claiming there is no comparison with US Postal as there was loads of incriminating evidence against US Postal. Well most of the evidence against Postal occured from about 04 onwards. Before that there was the Ferrari connection(sub in Leinders) and the 99 positive which was a non-event until Emma O'Reilly spilled the beans in LA Confidential which was 02 I think. That was it. Who knows what may come out of the SKY in the next few years.

The only thing SKY have over Postal in their favour is their power outputs but then power outputs were not analysed half as much 10-15 years ago as they are now. SKY may be clean and opertaing within the limits but they are inconsistent in their approach and stance which automatically leads to suspicion. It is what happens when you operate at the top level.

I happen to think suspicion is good as it pushes the teams to constanlty try and prove themsleves instead of slipping back into a pre-Festina stupor where the signs were obvious but nobody questioned anything.

 

[the big ring]

Big Ring - My comments were to highlight the high level of organization within Sky compared to other teams. You seem to overlook this but tell me - am I right in suggesting this or do you know of an equal or better managed cycling team in terms of rider support and resource?

Froomador - you seem to accept whatever people in Sky tell you. Am I right in suggesting this, or do you have an "in" with Sky that allows you to see first hand what is going on.

Paul Kimmage had permission from David Brailsford to be in the SKy bus at this year's tour, but Wiggins cancelled that.

Jonathan Vaughters and his Garmin team do a pretty impressive job of getting great results from limited resources compared to Sky. I believe Garmin took the same holistic approach to rider support as Sky before Sky even came along and well before the much touted "marginal gains" phrase even came into existence.

Marginal gains was in existence long before Vaughters had a pro team.

You seem to think professional riders and teams do not want to win the Tour de France etc and refuse to do the simplest things that will help them win.

This is not logic. This is fantasy.

I'm sure Vaughters with access to similar finances and resource could achieve similar success - would you then lend the same accusations towards him as you do Brailsford?

My feelings on Vaughters are not hidden. If he took a rider who had done nothing on the road and did nothing in 2010 then 2 years later won every multi-stage race he entered I would be saying exactly the same thing.

Vaughters seems to be fairly accessible on the net, why don't you seek his opinions on this subject as I'm sure he has far more insight into Sky and their 'advantage' than you or I.

Because he's a spin artist, and will say whatever gets him the best deal in the professional cycling bubble. I asked him multiple times if he could guarantee his team in the Tour of 2009 were clean but he ignored it. Multiple times.

As for Osymmetric chainrings - I'm sure the inventor and his product ambassadors would claim they reverse baldness and improve erections in middle-aged men as long as it sold more chainrings! The thing is there are some people who believe they work for them and others who don't... the choice is theirs.

So like a Sky person to try and muddy the message with references to balding and other things. Let's play a logic game here:

1. Do osymmetric rings give you 10% (or any) more power, as their inventor suggests?
2. If so, why is noone on Garmin using them?
3. If not, why is almost everyone on Sky using them?

 

[sniper]

Whatever it is, it's twice as good as Chris Carmichael's half a percent 'small gains'



http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/07/15/020715fa_fact1?currentPage=all

nice find.
as if I hear JV speaking.
“I think the genius of guys like me and Dave is that we understand how much small gains matter”

 

[the big ring]

Ironically the first team boss to mention marginal gains was JV in 08 when Team Slipstream were upgrading. The accumulation of marginal gains was seen as an alternative way of improving performance versus doping.

Not quite

http://roadcyclinguk.com/tech/tech-features/dave-brailsford-talks-to-rcuk.html
David Brailsford, 04/12/2006

...
Always pushing, trying to find those little marginal gains, if you aggregate them all together they’ll actually give you that performance enhancement. So, yeah good

In 2008 England smashed the Olympics on the track. All the people wanting to win races on the road were watching. Apparently, noone tried to find out what they did. And none of it worked on the road in 2010.

Weird.

What's especially weird is Rob Hayles testing at 50.3% Hct for the first time ever in 2008.

 

[sniper]

...
What's especially weird is Rob Hayles testing at 50.3% Hct for the first time ever in 2008.

So Dave had a good reason to hire Leinders. He needed someone who can guarantee such 'lab errors' will not occur again.