Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Pentacycle]

Here's the freaking graph again:

If fine print isn't your thing:

And now I hope to never see that thing again...

 

[northstar]

Im confused. Does the graph shows what Bailsford thought of his riders in 2011, or is it a fabrication?

My interpretation of the graph is that it's not the original Team Sky graph but a replication of it. The original graph was on Brailsford’s computer and Lionel Birnie viewed the graph during an interview in May 2011. Birnie then wrote an article about Brailsford’s theory of the trajectory of a cyclist’s career and replicated the graph. Not sure if the replicated graph is 100% true to original, but I bet it is very close. The graph shows Froome as classified as type 5, being a borderline rider that at best could podium in a pro conti level.

 

[mastersracer]

i was wondering about something . . . seems like the "human limit" argument is the one being used the most by the sky fans.

what happens when somebody beats sky? i mean they are at the limit of human ability so if some1 beats them they are over it and must be doping, right?

which means no1 can beat sky clean, right?

just trying to understand where "clean cycling" stands at the moment

Froome's performance today wasn't at a human limit. In fact, today's ride indicated he hasn't reached peak form. It was a good early season final climb, but slower than he was at the Tour. Despite all the histrionics about Sky, the final climb today is consistent with the lower power outputs seen over the last few years. Not sure why everyone is making such a big deal out of today's ride and/or not asking why so many other riders have slowed down since 2009.

 

[Franklin]

Would Contador have beaten Wiggins in Paris-Nice?
He was nearly beaten by Westra, certainly would have been by Contador or even Nibali.

Would Contador have beaten Wiggins in the Tour? Maybe

Wiggins was clearly not in great climbing form in Romandie and I believe that many riders far from Contador's level could have beaten him.

Oh and Imo Contador could also have beaten Wiggins in the Dauphine.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. But I try to deal with facts.

Wiggo did have a flawless run up and did say he was only at 95% (the new no-peak strategy).

The simple fact that his run was amazing is enough to ring alarm bells. it's not proof of doping, but considering similar succes has unfailingly been linked to doping in the past should give anyone, even the biggest fan, some pause.

And that's before we look at his team and the management, where we know that the staff contrary to the beautiful P.R. had a dirty past. And a manager at the top who has no qualms about flat out lieing about a doctor.

It's not proof that Wiggo is a doper, but it's also very disconcerting.

 

[gerundium]

Froome's performance today wasn't at a human limit. In fact, today's ride indicated he hasn't reached peak form. It was a good early season final climb, but slower than he was at the Tour. Despite all the histrionics about Sky, the final climb today is consistent with the lower power outputs seen over the last few years. Not sure why everyone is making such a big deal out of today's ride and/or not asking why so many other riders have slowed down since 2009.

the fact they are slower doesn't mean they aren't still charged.

 

[will10]

My interpretation of the graph is that it's not the original Team Sky graph but a replication of it. The original graph was on Brailsford’s computer and Lionel Birnie viewed the graph during an interview in May 2011. Birnie then wrote an article about Brailsford’s theory of the trajectory of a cyclist’s career and replicated the graph. Not sure if the replicated graph is 100% true to original, but I bet it is very close. The graph shows Froome as classified as type 5, being a borderline rider that at best could podium in a pro conti level.

Prior to the Vuelta in 2011, anyone who knew anything about pro cycling would've stuck Froome there or thereabouts on that graph, too.

Or perhaps more accurately, they'd have said "who?"

 

[The Hitch]

My interpretation of the graph is that it's not the original Team Sky graph but a replication of it. The original graph was on Brailsford’s computer and Lionel Birnie viewed the graph during an interview in May 2011. Birnie then wrote an article about Brailsford’s theory of the trajectory of a cyclist’s career and replicated the graph. Not sure if the replicated graph is 100% true to original, but I bet it is very close. The graph shows Froome as classified as type 5, being a borderline rider that at best could podium in a pro conti level.

Thank you,

So the original question to Froome still stands. Does the fact that Bailsford rated Froome so low give you food for thought?

Or did you think the journalist made up CF's score on that graph.

 

[mastersracer]

the fact they are slower doesn't mean they aren't still charged.

no, but it means looking at a 5.9 watts/kg final climb and yelling doping is the equivalent of intellectual flatulence.

 

[thirteen]

Do not understand why some are hating on Sky so much. They are playing to their strenghts as much as anyone else. Sure it is boring as hell to watch and that annoys me, but all this whining about Sky are so evil is kinda childish is it not?

i don't see any whining, merely trying to counteract the massive trolling...

the hating? well, thank god i missed a majority of last year's racing due to family health issues or i would be probably be frothing at the mouth. you can call me childish, but it does more than annoy me!

i was so excited to be back in the time zone and then i saw Sky in all its glory, boring me to ****ing tears and putting me to sleep. hello? ffs! i'm sorry, but the improvements are just not normal. maybe some, but definitely not all.

and if this is what i have to look forward to when watching cycling, i may have just lost the love for the sport.

give me guts. give me glory. give me passion and soul. give me back Vino, but, please, take Sky out of the equation! expertly doped robots that can follow instructions in their earpieces are of no interest to me.

and, yes, i'll have some cheese with that. Époisses, s'il vous plaît. runny, stinky, but at least it has character which is more than i can say for Sky

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Froome's performance today wasn't at a human limit. In fact, today's ride indicated he hasn't reached peak form. It was a good early season final climb, but slower than he was at the Tour. Despite all the histrionics about Sky, the final climb today is consistent with the lower power outputs seen over the last few years. Not sure why everyone is making such a big deal out of today's ride and/or not asking why so many other riders have slowed down since 2009.

I do hope you get a good paycheck out of this, in normal life you wouldn't.

 

[the sceptic]

no, but it means looking at a 5.9 watts/kg final climb and yelling doping is the equivalent of intellectual flatulence.

Do you think Froome was doing 5.9 w/kg when he could barely get up a hill in 2009 as well?

 

[Pentacycle]

Thank you,

So the original question to Froome still stands. Does the fact that Bailsford rated Froome so low give you food for thought?

Or did you think the journalist made up CF's score on that graph.

Read my previous post in this thread, it's an interpretation. You don't need that graph to tell whether Froome had shown anything before the Vuelta '11.

 

[Benotti69]

no, but it means looking at a 5.9 watts/kg final climb and yelling doping is the equivalent of intellectual flatulence.

No it doesnt and to suggest so is facetious. Only few atheltes are able to reach the human peak. Most would need to dope to get even near it. Do you think a LeMond comes along every year?

 

[The Hitch]

Read my previous post in this thread, it's an interpretation. You don't need that graph to tell whether Froome had shown anything before the Vuelta '11.

Its not about whether Froome has shown anything or not but about whether even Bailsford thought Froome was a donkey at first.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Do you think Froome was doing 5.9 w/kg when he could barely get up a hill in 2009 as well?

The guy had bilharzia back then, do not muck that sceptic!

 

[Franklin]

no, but it means looking at a 5.9 watts/kg final climb and yelling doping is the equivalent of intellectual flatulence.

Indeed. And it's absolutely not a problem to see that the same riders who took out Mencov, Ricco, Leipheimer etc. are only beaten by the Black and Blue armada.

Who would dare to look at the near history and ask these hard questions?

it's absolutely intelectual flatulence to be critical! The facts, the history, how dare we point them out?

 

[Franklin]

No it doesnt and to suggest so is facetious. Only few atheltes are able to reach the human peak. Most would need to dope to get even near it. Do you think a LeMond comes along every year?

Considering last year we would think a new Hinault/Lemond have arisen.

Or a Riis/Ulrich....

 

[Benotti69]

Froome's performance today wasn't at a human limit. In fact, today's ride indicated he hasn't reached peak form. It was a good early season final climb, but slower than he was at the Tour. Despite all the histrionics about Sky, the final climb today is consistent with the lower power outputs seen over the last few years. Not sure why everyone is making such a big deal out of today's ride and/or not asking why so many other riders have slowed down since 2009.

Becuase Froome beat riders who are known to have doped, who ride for doping DS and who ride on teams with dodgy doctors.

Did they stop doping?

Why and what made them stop?

Where is the evidence that the doping is over and now the lovely clean teams, by the way why is that other clean team not winning, Garmin?

the doping is not statospheric but I dont know what would make them give it up.

Remember doping is intself a micro industry that makes lots of money for lots of people, docs, ds, soigneurs etc, they all knocked it on the head because....?????

 

[Benotti69]

Considering last year we would think a new Hinault/Lemond have arisen.

Or a Riis/Ulrich....

Or a Pantani/Indurain.....

 

[Markyboyzx6r]

I fancy chipping-in. I don't comment much these days cause I've kind of lost interest in cycling given that nothing changed in the UCI post LA.

I always defended Sky, right up to and beyond the 2012 Tour. However the parallels between my support for USPS back in the day and Sky are too obvious to ignore. I've kind of aired on the side of giving Sky the benefit of the doubt, but just as I could not longer ignore what I was seeing in 2001, so it's the same now.

The Richie Porte performance did it for me yesterday. I was reading Nicholas Roche's article in the Irish Independant this morning and he said at the top of yesterday's climb he couldn't have pedalled another turn. But Porte, well he smashed them, totally blitzed them. He didn't even look like he was suffering either. So Nicholas Roche is on the redline and another rider puts 30 seconds into him in 1.3kms? Just how much in reserve would Porte need to have to produce that level of performance?

No. I'm not buying it. I then switched over to Eurosport after the France Televisions live coverage had finished to watch another Sky train bombing along on Eurosport in Tirreno-Adriatico.

I'm not the brightest, but I'm not stupid either. Sky (I'm afraid to say) must be doping. I've been watching cycling for 25 years, I know when things look wrong. Sky looks very, very wrong.

 

[mastersracer]

Becuase Froome beat riders who are known to have doped, who ride for doping DS and who ride on teams with dodgy doctors.

Did they stop doping?

Why and what made them stop?

Where is the evidence that the doping is over and now the lovely clean teams, by the way why is that other clean team not winning, Garmin?

the doping is not statospheric but I dont know what would make them give it up.

Remember doping is intself a micro industry that makes lots of money for lots of people, docs, ds, soigneurs etc, they all knocked it on the head because....?????

Here's Vaughter's reply to your question - said it today: "Give me Sky's payroll, and you'd see even greater dominance." The sentiment is exactly right and something that seems to be sorely missed on most people.

 

[the sceptic]

Here's Vaughter's reply to your question - said it today: "Give me Sky's payroll, and you'd see even greater dominance." The sentiment is exactly right and something that seems to be sorely missed on most people.

What exactly is it that the extra money is gonna do? Its not like sky are buying up all the best talent.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

no, but it means looking at a 5.9 watts/kg final climb and yelling doping is the equivalent of intellectual flatulence.

Just to be clear.
5.9w/kg is the new magic number.
Any performance under this is done without doping - is that your position?

And I think people normally look at all the statistics - including how performances are against their peers.

 

[willbick]

precisely. SKY can afford to get the best guys and look after/train them in the best way, virtually no expense spared, using all the technical knowledge gained from the GB track cycling years. its hardly surprising that they are capable of putting out a very strong performance on mountain stages and TTs, which is what they concentrate on the most as that is the way to win grand tours

 

[Benotti69]

precisely. SKY can afford to get the best guys and look after/train them in the best way, virtually no expense spared, using all the technical knowledge gained from the GB track cycling years. its hardly surprising that they are capable of putting out a very strong performance on mountain stages and TTs, which is what they concentrate on the most as that is the way to win grand tours

Still back with the road is made of wood argument.

All those other track stars that won GTs using their track experience. Why did the road teams not cop on to it before.

Chirs Hoy should make the transition, there is a TdF or 2 in it for him