Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Franklin]

Whereas, immediately post Lance, the GTs were transformed by ex-mountain bikers, Landis, Rasmussen and yours truly.

Yeah, much more solid ground.

I must say I'm completely at a loss what your point is.

Are you implying we should question every TdF winner? Considering your continued giving Sky a pass even though it was clear from july that there was at least duplicity considering Leinders I would think that is not your point...

I would love to know what your idea is for good policies about hiring doctors. And how you feel about a manager who clearly is not telling the truth on his hiring practices.

 

[coinneach]

I must say I'm completely at a loss what your point is.

Are you implying we should question every TdF winner? Considering your continued giving Sky a pass even though it was clear from july that there was at least duplicity considering Leinders I would think that is not your point...

I would love to know what your idea is for good policies about hiring doctors. And how you feel about a manager who clearly is not telling the truth on his hiring practices.

Apart from Franklin's recent post, none of the last few pages has anything more to do with Sky than any Pro Team......should they not go in to a new thread?

I do think, even though we may not have hard evidence, that its more interesting to speculate on NEW methods of enhancing performances which may or may not be legal at this time, than old stuff about Ferrari.

And, for all us Brits who genuinely believe British Cycling is generally clean, there's a worrying article in today's Glasgow Herald about the golden days of British Athletics "riddled with doping and race fixing":

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...nes&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email+alert

 

[Ferminal]

Yet,as i understand it, the climbing speeds and power outputs in the tour were noticably down on the super-lance era. Am I wrong in that?

EPO test didn't come into full swing until the latter days of Lance's reign, but he had a license to fail tests anyway. ABP is effective in reducing the number/volume of blood bags during a GT whilst not eliminating them. It does not stop doping OoC or the ability to turn up to a race in "great shape", OoC EPO tests are most important in that regard.

 

[sniper]

I was about to post something similar. There are 4 recent items re: bio passport / doping in the pro peloton now:

1. Ashenden leaves UCI's BP panel due to restrictions on being critical of it or its processes. He is no longer part of it, so won't know what's going wrong, but if something was going wrong, he would not have been allowed to say things like what he found out in

2. Ashenden's study which showed you can boost your Hgb pretty much to similar levels of doping as before and not get pinged by the BP. He has also spoken to people in the scene and

3. Ashenden claims there are pockets of sophisticated dopers even within the "new age" teams. This is finaly backed up by our friend

4. Benedetto Roberti, who says not only is doping ongoing, but there are new EPO products in use that are undetectable, AICAR is being used as some kind of genetic doping, and Michele Ferrari is still doing training plans - only - for riders, for 10s of 1000s of dollars each, despite being banned.

With all this being affirmed by experts / people with their finger firmly on the pulse, Sky pull off one of the most dominating displays at the TdF in years (14 days straight in yellow?) and one of the most dominating displays for the 2012 pro tour + Olympic calendar.

+1
So the question is: can you be clean and beat AICAR and Z-EPO by means of marginal gains? Vaughters and Brailsford claim you can.

I'm intrigued by those Clinic posters who are willing to buy Vaughters' message, but not Sky's, even though the messages are essentially the same. Dr. Maserati and 131313 spring to mind, but there are others.
RaceRadio is a supporter of Vaughters.
I doubt whether RR thinks Sky are clean, though.

 

[Froome19]

+1
So the question is: can you be clean and beat AICAR and Z-EPO by means of marginal gains? Vaughters and Brailsford claim you can.

I'm intrigued by those Clinic posters who are willing to buy Vaughters' message, but not Sky's, even though the messages are essentially the same. Dr. Maserati and 131313 spring to mind, but there are others.
RaceRadio is a supporter of Vaughters.
I doubt whether RR thinks Sky are clean, though.

Vaughters has not made the same ambitious statements which Sky have made nor fallen where Sky have fallen.

JV is effectively a much better PR machine than Sky will ever be.

 

[Joachim]

4. Benedetto Roberti, who says not only is doping ongoing, but there are new EPO products in use that are undetectable, AICAR is being used as some kind of genetic doping, and Michele Ferrari is still doing training plans - only - for riders, for 10s of 1000s of dollars each, despite being banned.

Ah yes. The man who talks of new, undectable forms of Chinese EPO that were 'The Queen of the Olympics', but he doesn't know the name of it, and he doesn't appear to explain how he knows it was heavily used in the Olympics if it is indetectable and he doesn't know the name of it.

Yes. Very credible He really sounds like he's got his finger on the pulse...

With all this being affirmed by experts / people with their finger firmly on the pulse, Sky pull off one of the most dominating displays at the TdF in years (14 days straight in yellow?) and one of the most dominating displays for the 2012 pro tour + Olympic calendar.

Here's an informed view on that, from Robert Millar...

And so to the subject of the Team Sky preparation, a subject which has been and will be debated on the cycling fora with much vigour. The fact is you will never know , you can only hope. All the team on the front or having four guys out of fifteen in the front group isn't unusual, it isn't proof of anything. It's what happens when you have the yellow jersey in the Tour, as a helper you turn yourself inside out everyday for that cause , you ride until you can't keep that pace and then you do it again the next day. A good pro can do that better than you would believe possible and if you have a strong team it looks and feels impressive to be part of that.
Speculation on what former Rabobank doctor Leinders role is or was , or stuff like the remoteness from the testers of the Mount Tiede training camps , the metamorphosis of Wiggins, the emergence of Froome, the revival of Rogers and Porte is all just speculation. You can calmly explain each point if you want or equally you can make an iffy story about any of them. At the end of the day sport is about entertainment and which aspect of that you find enjoyment in is entirely personal.

Caveat: Millar is one of my favourite riders of all time.

 

[red_flanders]

Ah yes. The man who talks of new, undectable forms of Chinese EPO that were 'The Queen of the Olympics', but he doesn't know the name of it, and he doesn't appear to explain how he knows it was heavily used in the Olympics if it is indetectable and he doesn't know the name of it.

Yes. Very credible He really sounds like he's got his finger on the pulse...

Pretty hard o determine the extent of his knowledge from the quote posted here. Certainly follow up questions are in order but to dismiss out of hand?.

Here's an informed view on that, from Robert Millar...

And so to the subject of the Team Sky preparation, a subject which has been and will be debated on the cycling fora with much vigour. The fact is you will never know , you can only hope. All the team on the front or having four guys out of fifteen in the front group isn't unusual, it isn't proof of anything. It's what happens when you have the yellow jersey in the Tour, as a helper you turn yourself inside out everyday for that cause , you ride until you can't keep that pace and then you do it again the next day. A good pro can do that better than you would believe possible and if you have a strong team it looks and feels impressive to be part of that.
Speculation on what former Rabobank doctor Leinders role is or was , or stuff like the remoteness from the testers of the Mount Tiede training camps , the metamorphosis of Wiggins, the emergence of Froome, the revival of Rogers and Porte is all just speculation. You can calmly explain each point if you want or equally you can make an iffy story about any of them. At the end of the day sport is about entertainment and which aspect of that you find enjoyment in is entirely personal.

Caveat: Millar is one of my favourite riders of all time.

I don't see anyone saying Sky have been proven to be doping. It is all speculation...at this point, but there's plenty to speculate about.

 

[Joachim]

Let's put this bit in bold shall we...

"All the team on the front or having four guys out of fifteen in the front group isn't unusual, it isn't proof of anything. It's what happens when you have the yellow jersey in the Tour, as a helper you turn yourself inside out everyday for that cause , you ride until you can't keep that pace and then you do it again the next day. A good pro can do that better than you would believe possible and if you have a strong team it looks and feels impressive to be part of that."

I'll take the authoritative view of an ex-pro, who has experienced pre-EPO and EPO era racing, over those of a few forum posters

I can't see that Millar would have any axe to grind frankly. He has been surplanted by Wiggins as Britains highest placed TdF rider.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Yet,as i understand it, the climbing speeds and power outputs in the tour were noticably down on the super-lance era. Am I wrong in that?

The climbing speeds were enough to drop other contenders, and solidify Wiggins' lead, which was never under serious threat on the climbs.

No attacks succeeded. None. Wiggins himself dropped Nibali when he wanted to.

Will be interesting to see what happens to the climbing speeds with some real climbers in there.

 

[sniper]

Vaughters has not made the same ambitious statements which Sky have made nor fallen where Sky have fallen.

JV is effectively a much better PR machine than Sky will ever be.

true
10 chars

 

[martinvickers]

EPO test didn't come into full swing until the latter days of Lance's reign, but he had a license to fail tests anyway. ABP is effective in reducing the number/volume of blood bags during a GT whilst not eliminating them. It does not stop doping OoC or the ability to turn up to a race in "great shape", OoC EPO tests are most important in that regard.

I understand all that, truly, but it actually reinforces my point - if doping is, or can be, as bad as ever, why are the climbing and power outputs not as good as ever?

 

[martinvickers]

+1
So the question is: can you be clean and beat AICAR and Z-EPO by means of marginal gains? Vaughters and Brailsford claim you can.

I'm intrigued by those Clinic posters who are willing to buy Vaughters' message, but not Sky's, even though the messages are essentially the same. Dr. Maserati and 131313 spring to mind, but there are others.
RaceRadio is a supporter of Vaughters.
I doubt whether RR thinks Sky are clean, though.

Kimmage road with Garmin, and came away a believer. A lot of Garmin's 'trst' dates back to that...

 

[martinvickers]

Pretty hard o determine the extent of his knowledge from the quote posted here. Certainly follow up questions are in order but to dismiss out of hand?.




I don't see anyone saying Sky have been proven to be doping. It is all speculation...at this point, but there's plenty to speculate about.

I honestly think that's the fairest assessment. Don't pretend we know they're clean. Don't pretend we know they're dirty. I'm trying to do that.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I understand all that, truly, but it actually reinforces my point - if doping is, or can be, as bad as ever, why are the climbing and power outputs not as good as ever?

We didn't see the limit of the climbing speeds - we only saw what was necessary. Wiggins said they were training harder than they raced, right?

 

[martinvickers]

The climbing speeds were enough to drop other contenders, and solidify Wiggins' lead, which was never under serious threat on the climbs.

I accept that. But surely relative strength/speed is not the same as absolute strength/speed. Your analysis essentially seems to result in, anyone who wins probably dopes, as axiomatic truth.

I come back to - If the EPO tests are useless, biopassport broadly useless and AICAR undetectable, why are the power outputs and climbing speeds down from the superlance era, when no AICAR was even available as far as I know.

Will be interesting to see what happens to the climbing speeds with some real climbers in there.

I agree.

 

[Ferminal]

I understand all that, truly, but it actually reinforces my point - if doping is, or can be, as bad as ever, why are the climbing and power outputs not as good as ever?

I'm not sure there's anyone (ok maybe thehog) who believes that current athletes are O2 boosting to the levels which were seen pre haemoglobin limits, pre EPO test, pre ABP (although I think the jury is still out on the latter). That this is the case does not confirm or deny that those at the top are still using banned substances/methods to some degree.

 

[Froome19]

We didn't see the limit of the climbing speeds - we only saw what was necessary. Wiggins said they were training harder than they raced, right?

That is a big claim to make...

I just reread that again to make sure I read what I read...
Anyways I would say that at least PDBF they would certainly have got full out, though it is quite bizzare to claim they toned down at all. This is the Tour we are talking about, they do so much to win (according to you even crossing legal boundaries) and then they tone it down and decrease their chances... not for anything..

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Some may wish to take the word of an ex-pro who has not raced for decades.

I'll stick with the anti-doping expert and the guy currently investigating doping with today's contemporary cyclists and doping doctor(s).

If they say there is doping, I am inclined to believe them.

If someone or some team dominates while that is true, I have to believe they are doing something as good as doping, or doping.

 

[martinvickers]

We didn't see the limit of the climbing speeds - we only saw what was necessary. Wiggins said they were training harder than they raced, right?

sorry, didn't see this before my last post.

Are we not relying rather a lot on speculation (on our part) and possibly bravado (on wiggins part)?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

sorry, didn't see this before my last post.

Are we not relying rather a lot on speculation (on our part) and possibly bravado (on wiggins part)?

We will find out when real climbers compete at the TdF.

 

[Captain Sensible]

We will find out when real climbers compete at the TdF.

Do we still have real climbers anymore ? I mean the type that would set out to win a great stage with attacking a couple of climbs before the stage finish.
The fraud that was Richard Virenque killed off that era sadlyand the use of power meters nowadays doesn't help .

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Do we still have real climbers anymore ? I mean the type that would set out to win a great stage with attacking a couple of climbs before the stage finish.

You just described exactly what Contador did at this year's 2012 Vuelta, so I'd say that's a resounding YES.

 

[sniper]

We didn't see the limit of the climbing speeds - we only saw what was necessary. Wiggins said they were training harder than they raced, right?

I thought of this as well. Froome and Wiggo have hardly been put to the test in the TdF.
Plus, we have the passport in place, so full-throttle blood doping is no longer an option. It's sophisticated bandwidth doping that we're dealing with now. This is certainly a change in doping culture in cycling, and what we're seeing is, I guess, symptoms of a peloton adjusting to the new 'rules', seeing how far they can go, readjusting, experimenting in the margins. Some obviously have adjusted quicker than others. Seems safe to assume that teams with money and medical know-how have a proportionally high ability to adjust to the new system.

Fact (not speculation) is that considerable parts of the peloton are still doping, so Froome19, martinvickers and others have to explain (or at least attempt to explain) how Sky are able to beat doped competitors.
Which marginal gains are the crucial ones? Or is talent the key? In case of the latter, we must assume Brailsford is one hell of a talent spotter.

 

[Captain Sensible]

You just described exactly what Contador did at this year's 2012 Vuelta, so I'd say that's a resounding YES.

I agree with you but Contador while being a great climber is a rider who is there to win the race overall,what I would like to see is climbers not interested in the GC and aim to win the KOM instead.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Here's an informed view on that, from Robert Millar...

And so to the subject of the Team Sky preparation, a subject which has been and will be debated on the cycling fora with much vigour. The fact is you will never know , you can only hope. All the team on the front or having four guys out of fifteen in the front group isn't unusual, it isn't proof of anything. It's what happens when you have the yellow jersey in the Tour, as a helper you turn yourself inside out everyday for that cause , you ride until you can't keep that pace and then you do it again the next day. A good pro can do that better than you would believe possible and if you have a strong team it looks and feels impressive to be part of that.
Speculation on what former Rabobank doctor Leinders role is or was , or stuff like the remoteness from the testers of the Mount Tiede training camps , the metamorphosis of Wiggins, the emergence of Froome, the revival of Rogers and Porte is all just speculation. You can calmly explain each point if you want or equally you can make an iffy story about any of them. At the end of the day sport is about entertainment and which aspect of that you find enjoyment in is entirely personal.

Caveat: Millar is one of my favourite riders of all time.

Let us analyzi this:

The fact is you will never know , you can only hope.

Hope?
I read this as ''it is suspicious but I have no evidence''

All the team on the front or having four guys out of fifteen in the front group isn't unusual, it isn't proof of anything.

The only time a team had that kinda force in front was with la Vie Claiire, the dreamteam of clean cycling. Not a bunch of anglosaxons on the Geert Leinders special, Robert.

Note: Greg LeMond had no - one in 1989, and guess, he won that Tour Robert, remember?

Speculation on what former Rabobank doctor Leinders role is or was , or stuff like the remoteness from the testers of the Mount Tiede training camps , the metamorphosis of Wiggins, the emergence of Froome, the revival of Rogers and Porte is all just speculation.

Dear Robert could be anyone here in the Clinic Sky thread, that is for sure, only that nasty Omerta keeps him from delivering the true message.

Robert Millar = 'the Hog'

At the end of the day sport is about entertainment and which aspect of that you find enjoyment in is entirely personal.

True, clean sport is.

Millar is one of my favourite riders of all time.

Care to explain that?

We didn't see the limit of the climbing speeds - we only saw what was necessary. Wiggins said they were training harder than they raced, right?

It is just like Indurain, he didn't have to kill everyone in the mountains because he killed everyone in the TT's. Alien Froome would have won this Tour was it not for the team orders. We would have seen 6,5w/k climbing if Froome was let loose.

Edit: only when Big Mig was ****ed off he showed his true EPO mountain face, like in 1994, Hautacam, ridiculous. Even Pantani shook his head.