Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Don't be late Pedro]

You still don't get it. BMCs top guns Thor and Evans have been ill pretty much the whole season. Evans struggled to even make the Tour, and basically bombed out half way. He is still out. Thor has missed the season. As to why they are ill long term? Who knows, but this is not commensurate with being at top of game then transfusing a bad blood bag. Perhaps it is a sign they are both suffering from advanced decrepitude? Could be anything, being ill in itself is not suspicious.

Well, look for the thread about stomach bugs. Seems to be people that would disagree with you. And though you seem to drone on about it where exactly did I accuse them of transfusing bad blood. Go back and read the post.

And no, the AFL has changed, but it is due to changes of tactics. The style has changed, and the build has changed to match the style. And funding is essentially not in the equation. Its not like soccer.

Tactics... sure. No change in training would explain the below.

The body shape of the players has very quickly evolved since the 70s from heavy thighed mud sloggers to super strong upper bodies in the 90s to lean and lithe speedsters now.

Simple question for you that you seem to want to evade. Given a team that is very well funded... Is it possible that the team of riders could benefit from changing their training. Leave doping out of the equation here. Simple yes or no.

 

[sittingbison]

...Simple question for you that you seem to want to evade. Given a team that is very well funded... Is it possible that the team of riders could benefit from changing their training. Leave doping out of the equation here. Simple yes or no.

1) I have and never evade anything. Barking up the wrong tree with that one.
2) Yes....and no

What YOU seem to want to evade, is the TEAM has not benefited from anything Sky has done, training or otherwise. A cabal WITHIN the team has certainly benefited from something Sky has done, because until this year they were all mere shadows of their 2012 selves. Wiggo has demonstrated over a long road career he is broom wagon material. Froome was an irrelevance, and not even his own trainer Bobby Julich had ever heard of him. Rogers was a broken down wreck, waning with age. Porte could not domestique for AC the year before, and kept getting dropped the moment a hill appeared on the horizon (forget talking about the 2010 Giro). Suddenly the four of them saw off all comers with ease for three weeks, including their own team mates. Rogers even happy to admit to his best figures EVER by 7% (this is a guy from Telekom lol)

As to the general question of getting benefits from new training, I doubt it for seasoned pros. The sport is 100 years old, it has seen and done pretty much everything possible. The human body is adaptable, but does not seem to evolve particularly quickly. Scientific method? Again, every rider is trying their utmost to be as competitive as possible. They ALL do it. Warm down rollers? Reconnoitering the course?? Training in mountains in snow??? Carbo loading???? Been there done that. Wiggo has been a track champ for a decade, Rogers was at AIS and a three time ITT world champ, so no I doubt they would respond at all to any "new" training, because there isn't any such thing at this elite level.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

1) I have and never evade anything. Barking up the wrong tree with that one.
2) Yes....and no

What YOU seem to want to evade, is the TEAM has not benefited from anything Sky has done, training or otherwise. A cabal WITHIN the team has certainly benefited from something Sky has done, because until this year they were all mere shadows of their 2012 selves. Wiggo has demonstrated over a long road career he is broom wagon material. Froome was an irrelevance, and not even his own trainer Bobby Julich had ever heard of him. Rogers was a broken down wreck, waning with age. Porte could not domestique for AC the year before, and kept getting dropped the moment a hill appeared on the horizon (forget talking about the 2010 Giro). Suddenly the four of them saw off all comers with ease for three weeks, including their own team mates. Rogers even happy to admit to his best figures EVER by 7% (this is a guy from Telekom lol)

As to the general question of getting benefits from new training, I doubt it for seasoned pros. The sport is 100 years old, it has seen and done pretty much everything possible. The human body is adaptable, but does not seem to evolve particularly quickly. Scientific method? Again, every rider is trying their utmost to be as competitive as possible. They ALL do it. Warm down rollers? Reconnoitering the course?? Training in mountains in snow??? Carbo loading???? Been there done that. Wiggo has been a track champ for a decade, Rogers was at AIS and a three time ITT world champ, so no I doubt they would respond at all to any "new" training, because there isn't any such thing at this elite level.

The only point I'd take issue with in your post is the analysis of Porte's performance. His 2011 Tour performance was distorted by him having successfully domestiqued for Berto in the Giro. Even so, in the 2012 Tour he finished 1 hour 20 down on the winner, and in the 2011 Tour he was 2:07 down on the winner. So, Porte's performance in the Tour this year isn't actually the stuff of legend, particularly compared to his 2010 Giro performance. This 2010 performance should not be forgotten, as although he benefitted from being in a lucky(ish) break, even allowing for that, he demonstrated a performance level that is actually in excess of anything he showed in 2012.

To emphasise, this relates solely to Porte. There's a lot of other suspicious stuff about Sky, particularly Rogers.

 

[the big ring]

To emphasise, this relates solely to Porte. There's a lot of other suspicious stuff about Sky, particularly Rogers.

And Wiggins and Froome and Brailsford and Hayles and Leindeers.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

And Wiggins and Froome and Brailsford and Hayles and Leindeers.

I actually think Rogers' efforts this year are hardest to explain by legitimate means.

For Wiggins and Froome, you can construct plausible arguments, even if they aren't true: (Wiggins: Massive engine, as proven on the track, never concentrated on the road until 2009; Froome: Outside any serious team structure until 2008, performance compromised until 2011 by illness.)

Even with my metaphorical Sky fanboy hat on, I can't come up with anything non-dodgy to explain Rogers' efforts as demostrated on the road this year vs previous years. (I do think his quoted numbers are as much propaganda as accurate measurements. If he was producing the watts he says he was, he'd be winning the Tour, not domestiquing for Wiggo.)

 

[the big ring]

I actually think Rogers' efforts this year are hardest to explain by legitimate means.

For Wiggins and Froome, you can construct plausible arguments, even if they aren't true: (Wiggins: Massive engine, as proven on the track, never concentrated on the road until 2009; Froome: Outside any serious team structure until 2008, performance compromised until 2011 by illness.)

Even with my metaphorical Sky fanboy hat on, I can't come up with anything non-dodgy to explain Rogers' efforts as demostrated on the road this year vs previous years. (I do think his quoted numbers are as much propaganda as accurate measurements. If he was producing the watts he says he was, he'd be winning the Tour, not domestiquing for Wiggo.)

Mick Rogers: 3 time world champ in the TT, numerous podiums in TTs and 9th in the TdF in 2006, and consistently podiums in countless multi-stage races from 2003 - 2010.

Compared to Brad Wiggins, who is good at riding 4km quick and has a few TT results on the road.

Brad, who then wins races from March to August including the Tour de France coz he started to "concentrate on the road" a bit in 2009.

NB: The scales are different. That Wiggins blip in 2009 is the same as Mick's relatively consistent and IMO believable results since 2003.

Your fanboy hat is on a little too tight.

I'm not saying Rogers is clean. But he's far more believable this year to me than Wiggins.

 

[RichWalk]

Compared to Brad Wiggins, who is good at riding 4km quick and has a few TT results on the road.

Brad, who then wins races from March to August including the Tour de France coz he started to "concentrate on the road" a bit in 2009.

Should be great news for any frustrated BMX guys, couple of years at Sky and who knows what they could do.........

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Your fanboy hat is on a little too tight.

I'm not saying Rogers is clean. But he's far more believable this year to me than Wiggins.

You're missing the point, which is nothing to do with relative past performances of Wiggo and Rogers and all to do with the existence or otherwise of a vaguely plausible explanation for this year's efforts.

Rogers is performing at a level this year that he's only previously achieved whilst riding at a team where doping was the norm. Thus, there's no "left field" explanation for his performance this year.

Wiggins on the other hand genuinely did focus on the track prior to 2009 and lose weight for the 2009 season. Now, you don't buy this story and neither do I, but in the absence of a positive test or reliable eye-witness testimony, Wiggo only has to win the PR battle, and in PR terms, the "Former trackie realises full potential once focusing on the road" is a highly plausible story. It's impossible to disprove, and to be frank, Wiggo's target audience just want to believe.

Rogers has no such cover story. If one wants to believe in Rogers, one has to accept that he's marginal gained himself back to his 2006 form this year.

Rogers was a decent trackie in his youth, if memory serves. How far do you think he could have gone on the boards had he continued, do you think? (Genuine question - there's no booby traps to try and get you to admit that Wiggins is any good at anything!!)

 

[the big ring]

You're missing the point, which is nothing to do with relative past performances of Wiggo and Rogers and all to do with the existence or otherwise of a vaguely plausible explanation for this year's efforts.

Rogers is performing at a level this year that he's only previously achieved whilst riding at a team where doping was the norm. Thus, there's no "left field" explanation for his performance this year.

Wiggins on the other hand genuinely did focus on the track prior to 2009 and lose weight for the 2009 season. Now, you don't buy this story and neither do I, but in the absence of a positive test or reliable eye-witness testimony, Wiggo only has to win the PR battle, and in PR terms, the "Former trackie realises full potential once focusing on the road" is a highly plausible story. It's impossible to disprove, and to be frank, Wiggo's target audience just want to believe.

Rogers has no such cover story. If one wants to believe in Rogers, one has to accept that he's marginal gained himself back to his 2006 form this year.

Rogers was a decent trackie in his youth, if memory serves. How far do you think he could have gone on the boards had he continued, do you think? (Genuine question - there's no booby traps to try and get you to admit that Wiggins is any good at anything!!)

No idea how Rogers would have gone on the track, to be honest, but I see Rogers performing consistently for every year since 2003, and only doing something top 10 at the Tour after a few goes at it. 2011 was crap for him, but he gets mono and I think he had that or something last year.

I don't think Rogers is doing his 2006 level but have not looked too closely. This is just based on the graph which is based on points earned in pro races.

You are singing a very different tune to "I don't care if he doped, I want Wiggo to give it to Johnny Foreigner".

I'm not buying IPer to GT winner. And I never will. Not with the utter rubbish he did on the road till 2009.

Compare young road pro Wiggins to Nathan Haas who has literally stepped off the boat from Australia from racing the local national road series here and came 2nd overall in the Tour of Britain. By contrast, Wiggins was a world champion on the track and a ghost on the road. (Haas is 23, Wiggins was 23 when he became IP world champ).

Wiggins is 29 when he wins Sun Tour - Haas did it at 22, then headed to Japan and won the Japan cup - trouncing Cunego in the process.

That's talent right there.

It probably sounds like I am comparing Haas to Wiggins, but it is more to reinforce the point that Wiggins was a nobody on the road. They ride a lot further than 4km when training for the pursuit, btw. Brad just never had it.

Then magically, one day, he did. Zero to hero. Poor 2010 then WHAM: 1st Dauphine, 3rd Paris-Nice, 3rd Vuelta in 2011. Then 3rd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st TdF in 5 multi-stage races he did in 2012, capped off with TT gold medal. At 31/32 years of age.

I don't believe in magic.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

1) I have and never evade anything. Barking up the wrong tree with that one.
2) Yes....and no

What YOU seem to want to evade, is the TEAM has not benefited from anything Sky has done, training or otherwise. A cabal WITHIN the team has certainly benefited from something Sky has done, because until this year they were all mere shadows of their 2012 selves. Wiggo has demonstrated over a long road career he is broom wagon material. Froome was an irrelevance, and not even his own trainer Bobby Julich had ever heard of him. Rogers was a broken down wreck, waning with age. Porte could not domestique for AC the year before, and kept getting dropped the moment a hill appeared on the horizon (forget talking about the 2010 Giro). Suddenly the four of them saw off all comers with ease for three weeks, including their own team mates. Rogers even happy to admit to his best figures EVER by 7% (this is a guy from Telekom lol)

As to the general question of getting benefits from new training, I doubt it for seasoned pros. The sport is 100 years old, it has seen and done pretty much everything possible. The human body is adaptable, but does not seem to evolve particularly quickly. Scientific method? Again, every rider is trying their utmost to be as competitive as possible. They ALL do it. Warm down rollers? Reconnoitering the course?? Training in mountains in snow??? Carbo loading???? Been there done that. Wiggo has been a track champ for a decade, Rogers was at AIS and a three time ITT world champ, so no I doubt they would respond at all to any "new" training, because there isn't any such thing at this elite level.

Again, more evasion. You put keep posting the same stuff but avoid a simple question.

Given a team that is very well funded... Is it possible that the team of riders could benefit from changing their training. Leave doping out of the equation here. Simple yes or no.

Answer the question, Claire.

You yourself have already said that AFL has made huge changes since 2010. How is that possible? Surely they would not respond with any 'new' training.

 

[zigmeister]

Mick Rogers: 3 time world champ in the TT, numerous podiums in TTs and 9th in the TdF in 2006, and consistently podiums in countless multi-stage races from 2003 - 2010.

Compared to Brad Wiggins, who is good at riding 4km quick and has a few TT results on the road.

Brad, who then wins races from March to August including the Tour de France coz he started to "concentrate on the road" a bit in 2009.

NB: The scales are different. That Wiggins blip in 2009 is the same as Mick's relatively consistent and IMO believable results since 2003.

Your fanboy hat is on a little too tight.

I'm not saying Rogers is clean. But he's far more believable this year to me than Wiggins.

Does that chart include his Olympic and Track experience before road racing? Since he was primarily a track rider...it only makes sense now that he is focusing on road that it would look like that wouldn't you agree?!?!

 

[sittingbison]

Asked and answered, very clearly without evasion. I'm done with you Pedro, you are now being obtuse. A particularly distasteful attitude on a discussion forum.

The only poster I have ignored was one LauraLyn. That number has now doubled. Congratulations.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

They ride a lot further than 4km when training for the pursuit, btw.

I've heard it said that the physiological demands of pursuiting are similar to rowing regatta distances, and I've had enough experience of the latter to render my back next to useless, so I can take a reasonable punt at what pursuit training would comprise. I certainly wouldn't recommend it as a means of preparing for a multi-hour bike race, though how much difference proper training for stage races would make to a pursuiter with a big engine is indeed a question that probably wouldn't yield a good answer for Sky / Wiggo fanboys who are bothered about the doping thing. I'm genuinely not - I just like a good debate!

 

[D-Queued]

...

Then magically, one day, he did. Zero to hero. Poor 2010 then WHAM: 1st Dauphine, 3rd Paris-Nice, 3rd Vuelta in 2011. Then 3rd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st TdF in 5 multi-stage races he did in 2012, capped off with TT gold medal. At 31/32 years of age.

I don't believe in magic.

I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry that you can't dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in magic.

Dave.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Again, more evasion. You put keep posting the same stuff but avoid a simple question.

Given a team that is very well funded... Is it possible that the team of riders could benefit from changing their training. Leave doping out of the equation here. Simple yes or no.

Answer the question, Claire.

You yourself have already said that AFL has made huge changes since 2010. How is that possible? Surely they would not respond with any 'new' training.

They answered your question and quite rightly gave a full answer.
You are the one who wants to make a complicated question simple. Why?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Given a team that is very well funded... Is it possible that the team of riders could benefit from changing their training. Leave doping out of the equation here. Simple yes or no.

Let's define the vague word "benefit."

Benefit: consistently 10th place or less Grand Tour GC rider to top-3. No
Benefit: consistently allergic to hills to MTF stage contender. No
Benefit: consistently low-end of a top-10 TT to TT top-3. Yes
Benefit: consistently suffering off-podium placing to Grand Tour killers, plural. No

In Wiggo's case, yes it's possible for him to podium TT's on training changes alone. I would argue it's not likely. Even then, that's not what transpired in 2012. We are talking Merckx/Lemond/Hinault domination from riders who had nothing in their past to show this potential.

 

[bianchigirl]

Again, more evasion. You put keep posting the same stuff but avoid a simple question.

Given a team that is very well funded... Is it possible that the team of riders could benefit from changing their training. Leave doping out of the equation here. Simple yes or no.

Answer the question, Claire.

You yourself have already said that AFL has made huge changes since 2010. How is that possible? Surely they would not respond with any 'new' training.

Surely the point is that the doping doesn't produce the results per se but facilitates the training that makes the results achievable - this is made quite clear in hamilton's book

Fairly impossible to leave doping out of that equation - particularly when training personnel like kerrison have questionable pasts

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

They answered your question and quite rightly gave a full answer.
You are the one who wants to make a complicated question simple. Why?

He stated about the 1% idea in AFL and that things have changed hugely in that sport. Those guys are seasoned pros, right? Yet, they were still able to makes gains. I believe changes in training can bring on much improved performance even for guys that have been doing to for years. I am not saying that kind of change should allow you to suddenly win the Tour but perhaps a certain amount of improvement. This may mean being able to extend your career or change the type of rider you are e.g. sprinter to classics racer. You would be able to do this without doping. Would you agree/disagree?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Let's define the vague word "benefit."

Benefit: consistently 10th place or less Grand Tour GC rider to top-3. No
Benefit: consistently allergic to hills to MTF stage contender. No
Benefit: consistently low-end of a top-10 TT to TT top-3. Yes
Benefit: consistently suffering off-podium placing to Grand Tour killers, plural. No

In Wiggo's case, yes it's possible for him to podium TT's on training changes alone. I would argue it's not likely. Even then, that's not what transpired in 2012. We are talking Merckx/Lemond/Hinault domination from riders who had nothing in their past to show this potential.

See my above post.

 

[the big ring]

He stated about the 1% idea in AFL and that things have changed hugely in that sport. Those guys are seasoned pros, right? Yet, they were still able to makes gains. I believe changes in training can bring on much improved performance even for guys that have been doing to for years. I am not saying that kind of change should allow you to suddenly win the Tour but perhaps a certain amount of improvement. This may mean being able to extend your career or change the type of rider you are e.g. sprinter to classics racer. You would be able to do this without doping. Would you agree/disagree?

I may have to go back and read the posts (ok I just did, to hopefully make sure I am on track), and may be completely off the mark here, as I do not watch much football and always found the analysis more interesting than the matches. My timeline may also be out (ie massive change since 2010). But I will give it a shot.

This is what I think sittingbison is trying to say:

1. coaches basically used 1% as a catch-phrase, and it didn't really mean anything. I think it was more something to use to rally the troops and motivate them to lift mid-match or mid-season. Or to convince the media and hence the paying public that they were "on the job". The point being, a coach saying, "we're being mindful of all the 1%ers" was a smokescreen, coz AFL player fluidity is high, and all the teams were doing all the same things. You can attend any training session (or peer through the locked fence) as they are held at local football ovals. It's not like you're 1000s of kms away in Tenerife, 100+km away from the hotel with a couple of your team mates and a soigneur and a team car on some random mountain somewhere.

2. the AFL game changed massively due to tactics developed by one or two clever game analysts. Flooding is a good example, and I remember hearing much whinging ... er I mean analysis by people saying it was too effective.

Other tactics implemented can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_football_tactics_and_skills although it's only interesting to those with an IQ below 12. Kidding!

Now there are tactics in cycling, no question. Contador's recent post-recovery day Vuelta attack from another state out was a good example.

But tactics do not explain Sky's domination of the Tour or 2012 or the Olympic TT at all. Sky simply got on the front and went too fast for most riders to stay with them, let alone successfully attack them. This is not new. This is US Postal 2.0.

3. the AFL game changed massively in terms of the physiology of the players involved meeting the requirements of the way the game is now played. Game style rather than discrete tactics per se. You can't hip and shoulder people into a hospital any more, and as the game evolves from a possession to a passing style (for example), the different physiologies (small and quick for a "running style game" vs big and strong for a "stand your ground and bomb goals from the 50m line style game") have a more dramatic impact. The great changes in the AFL were not individual players' physiological improvements or changes, but individuals being replaced with others that had similarly elite yet different phsyiologies.

I hope that makes some sense.

 

[sittingbison]

He stated about the 1% idea in AFL and that things have changed hugely in that sport. Those guys are seasoned pros, right? Yet, they were still able to makes gains...

perhaps there is some confusion, perhaps by not understanding AFL to an intrinsic level, for which I apologise. The 1% is almost a McGuffin. I will try to be clear.

1) The term 1%ers is equivalent to "marginal gains"
2) Term has been used by coaches for more than 20 years
3) They are small things, tiny efforts that collectively might make the difference between winning and losing
4) They are NOT used by a single coach or team, but by ALL coaches and teams
5) Every possible moment of a game is studied by stats people now, players cannot slacken off in any way, they ALL do the 1%ers.

Here is the important bit

6) The current players, with all the sports medicine, scientific coaching, stats, psychologists etc have made NO gains in 1%ers, the exact same 1%ers still apply now as they did 20 years ago.
7) Their physique and athleticism follows the game style, not the opposite.
8) The heavy build of the 90s is replaced by a lithe build today, because the coaches have changed the way the game is played, not through training or anything else.
9) The game today is faster, the skill is in the speed. The skills of the past are relevant to the way the game was played then. Its like arguments in cricket, is Tendulkar better than Bradman? Is Steyn better than Lillee? Not better, different.

To summarise, the 1%ers haven't changed, and it was a myth anyway instigated to explain how one team of players improved dramatically without looking at their dramatic increase bulk and speed from steroids.

To answer you further YES an elite athlete can get an improvement with a change in program. NO, it would be miniscule not game changing. It would not turn a 32yo from broom wagon to Maillot jeune, it would not turn a 32yo broken down ex ITTer into a super domestique, it would not turn a donkey into a racehorse. It would be the difference between say Evans being 2nd by say 20 seconds to becoming 1st (as he has done).

And finally as I and others have said repeatedly, if there WAS some magic new swimming coach inspired scientific team based training at Sky that led to vast improvements, the WHOLE team would be expected to benefit, which it has not. Only the Fab Four. The other 5 TdF team mates, and the donkeys at the Veulta are totally unchanged.

EDIT: what big ring said

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

1. coaches basically used 1% as a catch-phrase, and it didn't really mean anything. I think it was more something to use to rally the troops and motivate them to lift mid-match or mid-season. Or to convince the media and hence the paying public that they were "on the job". The point being, a coach saying, "we're being mindful of all the 1%ers" was a smokescreen, coz AFL player fluidity is high, and all the teams were doing all the same things.

I (think I) know what you are saying. Its the classic instance of people saying 'I trained harder and was more dedicated then my rivals' when everyone is training just as hard, right? Maybe I am missing something but from the below

As to AFL, the game has dramatically changed since the 70s, hell it has dramatically changed since 2010. The body shape of the players has very quickly evolved since the 70s from heavy thighed mud sloggers to super strong upper bodies in the 90s to lean and lithe speedsters now. The game is terrifically fast and fluent now. The skills are incredible. However, the 1%ers still apply, the small things that can make a difference. And yes, everyone does them. There are a horde of back room boffins counting every possible stat, and if a player slackens intensity they are out.

It sounds like there are small changes that can be made but since everyone is doing that then they kind of get negated. However, the post that kick started this for me is that not everyone does do this even if they have the money to do so. At BMC it sounds like the riders are just left to train as they see fit. For some people this is probably fine. But I am sure there are cases where riders would improve in certain areas from being 'molly coddled'. Younger riders can probably get away with bad habits that will catch up with them later.

2. the AFL game changed massively due to tactics developed by one or two clever game analysts. Flooding is a good example, and I remember hearing much whinging ... er I mean analysis by people saying it was too effective.

Other tactics implemented can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_football_tactics_and_skills although it's only interesting to those with an IQ below 12. Kidding!

Now there are tactics in cycling, no question. Contador's recent post-recovery day Vuelta attack from another state out was a good example.

But tactics do not explain Sky's domination of the Tour or 2012 or the Olympic TT at all. Sky simply got on the front and went too fast for most riders to stay with them, let alone successfully attack them. This is not new. This is US Postal 2.0.

I don't watch enough AFL to comment on that tactics aspect. As to the other point. Yep, I appreciate that and there have been a number of posts about the wattages of these guys. Some people say they are possible. Others say they are possible but not for all the Sky guys to be doing this at the same time.

3. the AFL game changed massively in terms of the physiology of the players involved meeting the requirements of the way the game is now played. Game style rather than discrete tactics per se. You can't hip and shoulder people into a hospital any more, and as the game evolves from a possession to a passing style (for example), the different physiologies (small and quick for a "running style game" vs big and strong for a "stand your ground and bomb goals from the 50m line style game") have a more dramatic impact. The great changes in the AFL were not individuial physiological improvements or changes, but individuals being replaced with others that had similarly elite yet different phsyiologies.

I hope that makes some sense.

Again, on the tactics side you are losing me but you make an interesting point in bold. So you would say that the elite guys of the 70s were only really different in from a physiological point of view i.e. build to modern day players? I must admit I would be surprised if that was the case. i.e. That although the training has changed to reflect the needs of people with different builds it would also be far more scientific. Even, basic changes in diet would make a difference in longevity.

I would cite someone like Wayne Rooney who is at Man Utd. Huge club, lots of money and yet he still turns up to his first game overweight and unfit. That seems amazing to me. He is someone that would not do well being left to his own devices I suspect.

 

[the big ring]

I wanted to start a new thread but not sure it's worth it.

It would be interesting to look at the career of Sky's latest signing: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rasch-joins-boasson-hagen-at-sky-for-2013

Rasch has reportedly now signed a one-year deal with the British Sky team however, the intention is to remain with the squad for two seasons. It’s a promising sign for the former Garmin-Cervélo rider who found himself without a team at the end of last season until FDJ-BigMat came along.

2009-2010 Cervelo test team, no real results to mention.
2011 Garmin "new age", no real results to mention.
2012 FDJ-BigMat "old skool", no real results again.
2013 IAM briefly but now with Sky "new age".

At 36 years of age (37 next year and 38 the year after), I am curious what Sky believe he is going to bring to the table.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

It would not turn a 32yo from broom wagon to Maillot Jaune

Assuming you're talking about Wiggo here, this description is somewhat misleading, for as you well know, Wiggo was a Tour contender three years ago, so there are actually two changes in Wiggo:

1 - The change aged 28-29 from autobus fodder, albeit as a track specialist, to podium contender against the last two "best riders of their generation" ie a strong field

2 - The change from to age 32 to be a GT winner against a very weak field

The 2010 Tour performance can be explained numerous ways, depending on how one thinks 1 and 2 happened.

 

[simo1733]

I wanted to start a new thread but not sure it's worth it.

It would be interesting to look at the career of Sky's latest signing: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rasch-joins-boasson-hagen-at-sky-for-2013



2009-2010 Cervelo test team, no real results to mention.
2011 Garmin "new age", no real results to mention.
2012 FDJ-BigMat "old skool", no real results again.
2013 IAM briefly but now with Sky "new age".

At 36 years of age (37 next year and 38 the year after), I am curious what Sky believe he is going to bring to the table.

What he will bring is some hard miles on the front of the bunch.Just likeJez Hunt (Retired)