Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[RownhamHill]

Other teams don't make many claims. When asked they say "Yeah, sure, we're clean *snort snort". I don't trust them at all given the history of cycling. To me the history, the fact that nothing tangible has changed and the lack of any data means that my default position is that things are still at their historic norm: doping. If Sky want to be treated otherwise by me and people like me, then they should make an effort. If they don't then to me that's just another nail in the coffin of clean cycling. Media constantly shoving this clean team BS down my throat without ever questioning it and asking why exactly Sky deserve anything other than skepticism over their achievements.

Do people here criticising my suggestion think that Sky are cleaner than Lampre? If so, why?

EDIT: snort snort originally read s(n-word) s(n-word), so I changed it.

I'm a fairly new to cycling - only really been following it for the last couple of years - and I'm English, living in England, so I have most exposure to Sky in the media. So I'm no expert on what other teams, who predominantly speak in other languages, say.

But is that really true that every other team is simply s(n-word)ing at the camera every time they're asked about doping? Really? Didn't, for example, Katusha do something similar to Sky in terms of getting their riders to sign a pledge to be clean a year or so back? Are team Blanco - a team who have recently lost their long-term sponsor and hence in the market for a new one, while simultaneously being in court up to their eyeballs with the fall-out from their historic approach to team doping - really swanning around the Dutch media telling everyone with a nod wink that those days are gone now? And wasn't it just today that I read Ivan Basso asserting his own cleanliness since returning from his ban? Now you may not trust what they say in any given case, but to suggest every other team is not even pretending to be clean just doesn't ring true from what I do see of other teams approaches.

And to answer your question, I don't think Sky are intrinsically any cleaner or dirtier than Lampre. The reason being that, a) I haven't seen any convincing evidence that Sky are intrinsically dirty, and b) I haven't seen any convincing evidence that Lampre are intrinsically dirty. So I'm happy to hope for the best in both cases, while also hoping if one or the other or both are doping they get caught.

The thing is, maybe you're right, and all teams/riders should publish blood data as a matter of course - I completely agree there should be some skepticism about all teams, given the history from the last decade I read about every day. But I don't think there should be any special skepticism for one team based on your own subjective feelings towards them. It's just, well, silly.

 

[del1962]

Wow, 4 years pursuing his dream of winning the tour without ever getting into an elite team or troubling the scorers?

Ah well, those who can't and all that )

Those who can't spend all their time on internet forums, no?

+1
10 Chars

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Wow, 4 years pursuing his dream of winning the tour without ever getting into an elite team or troubling the scorers?

Ah well, those who can't and all that )

What's with the assumption that anybody who makes it running a cycling team has to come from a cycling background? Why, I remember a guy who had no cycling background whatsoever but went on to manage a successful team and even win GTs. Don't see much of him these days though. His name was something like Saíz. Might be a bad example.

(note: just because Saíz's teams doped doesn't mean Sky did, it's more that he's the only name of note recently to have been as successful as he was managing a team without a background in pro cycling, before Brailsford)

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Sky:

A team with no history in pro cycling,
Headed by a man with no pro cycling experience,
Coached by an swimming coach with no pro cycling experience,
Captained by a rider with no pro cycling results before 2009.

Totally dominating the 2012 pro cycling season.

 

[peloton]

Sky:

A team with no history in pro cycling,
Headed by a man with no pro cycling experience,
Coached by an swimming coach with no pro cycling experience,
Captained by a rider with no pro cycling results before 2009.

Totally dominating the 2012 pro cycling season.

And you wonder why people are suspicious?
Re-read what you just wrote..

 

[Dear Wiggo]

And you wonder why people are suspicious?
Re-read what you just wrote..

Suspicious of what?

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Sky:

A team with no history in pro cycling,
Headed by a man with no pro cycling experience,
Coached by an swimming coach with no pro cycling experience,
Captained by a rider with no pro cycling results before 2009.

Totally dominating the 2012 pro cycling season.

cough Vuelta.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

cough Vuelta.

And the Giro and all the classics, yes. If you look at their accrued race performance points, they were ~50% higher than second place. For me that's enough of an indication of dominance over the entire season.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Wow, 4 years pursuing his dream of winning the tour without ever getting into an elite team or troubling the scorers?

Ah well, those who can't and all that )

I'm not sure how a description of Kimmage's pro career is relevant here...

 

[horsinabout]

This thread seems to be missing the point here. DB was head hunted for the role of performance director back in 1996, a major role in sport when cycling was on the start of great changes. Usually people who are head hunted have a good employment history with experience in managing something successfully. Brailsford's employment background, at least that has been made public, has gaps in it to say the least.

There is nothing wrong with DB riding as an ameture in France to follow his dream, it sounds very brave at the tender age of 19 years, but what did he do to support himself? And what work did he do work experience wise to justify taking on the role of PD later in life.

I'm all for a rags to riches story, but DB doesn't come across as Erin Brockovich here. Even rags to riches story need a narrative, someone that has achieved something worthy of their role, in DB case PD role. Or are we going to accept that if we had put a monkey in charged of british cycling we would still have acheived greatness?

Knock Knock......
Who's there?...
Dave Brailsford
Dave Braislford who?
Exactly!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'm not sure how a description of Kimmage's pro career is relevant here...

Correction: Kimmage rode the Tour. DB didn't even make it onto a Tour team.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

This thread seems to be missing the point here. DB was head hunted for the role of performance director back in 1996, a major role in sport when cycling was on the start of great changes. Usually people who are head hunted have a good employment history with experience in managing something successfully. Brailsford's employment background, at least that has been made public, has gaps in it to say the least.

There is nothing wrong with DB riding as an ameture, it sounds very brave at the tender age of 19 years, but what did he do to support himself? And what work did he do to justify taking on the role of PD later in life.

I'm all for a rags to riches story, but DB doesn't come across as Erin Brockovich here. Even rags to riches story need a narrative, someone that has achieved something worthy of their role, in DB case PD role. Or are we going to accept that if we had put a monkey in charged of british cycling we would still have acheived greatness?

Knock Knock......
Who's there?...
Dave Brailsford
Dave Braislford who?
Exactly!

I think DB joined British Cycling in 1996 to try and maximise the cash coming to cycling from Lottery funding. He then became programme director, before becoming performance director in 2004, so he wasnt headhunted to become performance director in 1996.

He's obviously a charismatic guy who can talk the hind leg off a donkey, so it may be the he simply bullsh*tted his way into his first role in 1996. I'm sure most of us have at least tried to bullsh*t our way into a job we really wanted.

Reading the autobiographies of various GB and Sky riders, it's pretty clear that DB isn't a coach. Sir Chris refers frequently to Iain Dyer, Jan van Eijden and Scott Gardner, whilst Sir Brad refers to Sutton and Tim Kerrison.

DB's role is the strategy/facilitiation side of things. It's pretty clear in an organisation who's good at this sort of stuff and who isn't. Those that are good tend to move rapidly towards the top. They make things happen; not by doing it themselves, but by getting others to do it for them.

Clive Woodward's role with the England rugby team was similar. Prior to appointment as head coach in 1997, he'd only coached Henley in one of the minor leagues. He was - and still is - a prize bullsh*tter - but on his watch, England were the dominant force in rugby. He did no coaching (Andy Robinson did that) and in the world cup final when he tried to give Martin Johnson some tactical advice in the closing stages, Johnno told him where to go and did his own thing. Sir Clive's role was mainly about persuading clubs to release players for squad training and to avoid over training / over playing key guys when not on international duty.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Correction: Kimmage rode the Tour. DB didn't even make it onto a Tour team.

No correction necessary, old chap.

Bianchigirl made reference to winning the Tour, riding for an elite team and troubling the scorers.

Kimmage didn't win the Tour, didn't ride for an elite team and didn't win a race as a pro, so her description covers Kimmage perfectly! (I do accept she probably intended the description to apply to Sir Dave...)

 

[Dear Wiggo]

No correction necessary, old chap.

Bianchigirl made reference to winning the Tour, riding for an elite team and troubling the scorers.

Kimmage didn't win the Tour, didn't ride for an elite team and didn't win a race as a pro, so her description covers Kimmage perfectly! (I do accept she probably intended the description to apply to Sir Dave...)

Correction: Kimmage never mentioned wanting to win the Tour - or going to Europe to win the tour - that's a DB PR statement alone.

 

[Avoriaz]

What's with the assumption that anybody who makes it running a cycling team has to come from a cycling background? Why, I remember a guy who had no cycling background whatsoever but went on to manage a successful team and even win GTs. Don't see much of him these days though. His name was something like Saíz. Might be a bad example.

How about Paul Koechli? I don't recall he raced and that his background was sports science.

Edit: just checked he raced in the 60s. Was a pro for two years, rode the Tour de France once but didn't finish

 

[Avoriaz]

Sky:

A team with no history in pro cycling,
Headed by a man with no pro cycling experience,
Coached by an swimming coach with no pro cycling experience,
Captained by a rider with no pro cycling results before 2009.

Totally dominating the 2012 pro cycling season.

Don't all new teams have "no history in pro cycling" when they are formed, otherwise they wouldn't be new teams. It's not like they dragged a few blokes in off the street, put them in lycra and sent them out on shiny new bikes.

I referenced La Vie Claire in an earlier post - they were a new team in 1984. Admittedly, their captain had outstanding palmares, but just because a team is new it doesn't follow it should naturally be rubbish...

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Correction: Kimmage never mentioned wanting to win the Tour - or going to Europe to win the tour - that's a DB PR statement alone.

I was commenting on what BG posted, not what Kimmage or Sir Dave said!

Re winning the Tour, DB did what he does best: he got someone to do it for him, whilst still getting the same honours as the guy who turned the pedals.

For the avoidance of doubt, my original comment was a joke, hence the

 

[JimmyFingers]

I think DB joined British Cycling in 1996 to try and maximise the cash coming to cycling from Lottery funding. He then became programme director, before becoming performance director in 2004, so he wasnt headhunted to become performance director in 1996.

He's obviously a charismatic guy who can talk the hind leg off a donkey, so it may be the he simply bullsh*tted his way into his first role in 1996. I'm sure most of us have at least tried to bullsh*t our way into a job we really wanted.

Reading the autobiographies of various GB and Sky riders, it's pretty clear that DB isn't a coach. Sir Chris refers frequently to Iain Dyer, Jan van Eijden and Scott Gardner, whilst Sir Brad refers to Sutton and Tim Kerrison.

DB's role is the strategy/facilitiation side of things. It's pretty clear in an organisation who's good at this sort of stuff and who isn't. Those that are good tend to move rapidly towards the top. They make things happen; not by doing it themselves, but by getting others to do it for them.

Seems to be a fairly concise summation of Brailsford, although you missed out the 'drugs overlord' bit. At least I think that's what Hog was angling for.

 

[Benotti69]

I think DB joined British Cycling in 1996 to try and maximise the cash coming to cycling from Lottery funding. He then became programme director, before becoming performance director in 2004, so he wasnt headhunted to become performance director in 1996.

He's obviously a charismatic guy who can talk the hind leg off a donkey, so it may be the he simply bullsh*tted his way into his first role in 1996. I'm sure most of us have at least tried to bullsh*t our way into a job we really wanted.
.

He appears to have lost his charisma because all his talk is doing is making people believe sky are donkeys turned into racehorses.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

He appears to have lost his charisma because all his talk is doing is making people believe sky are donkeys turned into racehorses.

I think you'll find in pure numerical terms, the number who believe Sir Dave (the vast majority of the casual GB sporting fanbase ie the keen flag-wavers during the Olympics) far exceeds the non-believers.

Fortunately - which ever way the cookie ultimately crumbles - truth is not determined by consensus. The truth is what it is. (As yet, we don't know what it is, though!)

 

[Benotti69]

I think you'll find in pure numerical terms, the number who believe Sir Dave (the vast majority of the casual GB sporting fanbase ie the keen flag-wavers during the Olympics) far exceeds the non-believers.

Fortunately - which ever way the cookie ultimately crumbles - truth is not determined by consensus. The truth is what it is. (As yet, we don't know what it is, though!)

The problem for Brailsford is not the believers, they are easily decieved, it is the non believers that are the problem, no matter how much of a minority the fans would like to believe they are it would not take too much to change in the current climate cycling has created for itself to convince people that all is not what it seems as Sky. Brailsford is probably all too aware of that, hence the clear out of the personal with skeletons lurking in closets.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

The problem for Brailsford is not the believers, they are easily decieved, it is the non believers that are the problem, no matter how much of a minority the fans would like to believe they are it would not take too much to change in the current climate cycling has created for itself to convince people that all is not what it seems as Sky. Brailsford is probably all too aware of that, hence the clear out of the personal with skeletons lurking in closets.

Agreed. Sound observations.

 

[Tinman]

The problem for Brailsford is not the believers, they are easily decieved, it is the non believers that are the problem, no matter how much of a minority the fans would like to believe they are it would not take too much to change in the current climate cycling has created for itself to convince people that all is not what it seems as Sky. Brailsford is probably all too aware of that, hence the clear out of the personal with skeletons lurking in closets.

The problem for all the pro cycling doping/omerta upholders (incl. Brailsford, McQuaid, etc etc) is that there is a significant minority of hardcore fans who know the sport pretty well and call the BS as it is, including the team Sky ZT policy. And many of those are vocal and do shape opinion of the broader fanbase. So they will remain a problem.

 

[coinneach]

kerrison interview

I am slightly bemused by the interview on CN.
Can anyone explain the way round they do things?
How can reccing a course allow you to train for it?
Surely it depends on what OTHER riders are pushing at any given time & place?
Or are Sky just going to ignore them (a bit like they did for the first half of 12)

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I am slightly bemused by the interview on CN.
Can anyone explain the way round they do things?
How can reccing a course allow you to train for it?
Surely it depends on what OTHER riders are pushing at any given time & place?
Or are Sky just going to ignore them (a bit like they did for the first half of 12)

The obvious reason, on unfamiliar roads, is to identify the location and extent of any severe gradients. Even at Weekend Warrior level, one trains differently to tackle long, steady "French" climbs than one does for short, short, almost vertical "English" climbs.

Whilst one would expect all pros to train to be able to deal with all sorts of terrain, there may be a "margin" to be "gained" from optimising the amount of time spent training for different terrain, given the expected out-turn of the race. However much one can control a race, a series of pitches at 15%+ will require a different distribution of effort to dieseling up a constant 7% gradient.

Reccying the route seems more use from a tactical viewpoint tbh. eg make sure the riders aren't overgeared (eg Wiggo in 2011 Vuelta) and knowing where there are narrow sections where it's imperative to be at the front (eg Wiggo crashing mid-pack in 2011 Tour).