Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[iZnoGouD]

Now i'am not saying they're clean, but i'am pretty sure they don't dope more than the others, whatever that is

 

[D-Queued]

What i meant was cycling was way behind in terms of training and now is catching up with sky, but only sky it seems i don't think any other team has changed much.

Fair enough, but if you will indulge me, I would both support and argue with this statement.

A great example of the lack of basic sophistication is a story about Ekimov and the wind tunnel.

As accomplished as he was, Ekimov was convinced that the most aerodynamically efficient descending position was with one crankarm down as opposed to horizontal cranks. He had to have a wind tunnel evaluation to convince him of the errors in his judgment.

Clearly doping could overcome many poor decisions.

That said, USPS/Disco spent a ton of money on training and equipment and arguably met an equivalent sophistication as they employed in doping.

A second, and more current, example is the new handlebar designs.

Riding with your hands on the hoods is the least aerodynamically efficient hand position, independent of how low your bars are. Riding with your hands in the 'climbing' position is actually more aero (but not very stable) if your back is at the same angle. If you don't believe this, feel welcome to spend thousands in the wind tunnel to dispute it.

Yet, the new-fangled trend is to reduce the amount of drop because of some sort of stated (not established) trend to lower the handlebars instead of riding in the drops.

So long as the pro peloton is ignoring the impact of the biggest resistance force, then it stands to reason they remain in the dark ages on training techniques.

The above noted reference to JV is an interesting one. We know in the case of one of his riders that he had absolutely no idea what he was doing in terms of his off-season training. How can you run a sophisticated training program if you aren't at least monitoring the workouts of the riders?

Dave.

 

[DirtyWorks]

What i meant was cycling was way behind in terms of training and now is catching up with sky, but only sky it seems i don't think any other team has changed much.

What year is this? I recall hearing this argument a number of other times from athletes who turned out to be dopers.

It might be true. I doubt it very much. But it might be true.

 

[DirtyWorks]

If that happens, expect to read a lot about tailwind, improved tarmac, better diets and more rational training.

Agreed. It's been posted when journalists saw NOT NORMAL with Armstrong at the TdF, the TdF made it clear on the spot that no questions were to be asked about it.

Lots and lots of organized resistance out there to reporting WTF moments in cycling.

 

[BroDeal]

British Cycling was the model/template for Sky: clean at its core, and expecting a bit of latitude for any murky issues on the side.

I find the idea of the Olympics being a model for clean sport and a template for anti-doping to be absolutely ludicrous. The Olympics are the dirtiest sporting event there is. You don't use marginal gains to beat countries with national doping programs and national pride on the line.

 

[mikehammer67]

What year is this? I recall hearing this argument a number of other times from athletes who turned out to be dopers.

It might be true. I doubt it very much. But it might be true.

there's always a gimmick to explain exceptional performances

training advances
gadgets
magic soup

it usually turns out to be peds unfortunately

 

[iZnoGouD]

I guarantee you that a huge part of their supremacy over other teams comes from training alone
I tell you more, they probably use the "marginal gains" thing to disguise this, they don't want others to know what they know

 

[the sceptic]

Agreed. Never underestimate the importance of training. Other teams just show up to races. But sky train hard and smart. Sometimes for many hours every day.

 

[The Hitch]

If that happens, expect to read a lot about tailwind, improved tarmac, better diets and more rational training.

And denials that they even broke the record. Like harmonn on eurosport making wiggins and portes eze times out to be a lot worse than they were.

Look at how they say the times were slower in the 2012 tour.Its 1 of the main talking points everytime the issue gets addressed in the mainstream

But how can they say it was slower if there were no hc or cat 1 mtfs at that tour so one cant compare.

Times were slower at the 2011 tour, but wiggins crashed out and froome, hillariously, wasnt good enough to get picked

Theres also the peyresoudes time which some posted on here which said wiggins froome nibali went as fast as contador rasmussen though i cant remember what the source was.

 

[iZnoGouD]

Agreed. Never underestimate the importance of training. Other teams just show up to races. But sky train hard and smart. Sometimes for many hours every day.

stop being ironic and start your opening your mind a little

 

[The Hitch]

I find the idea of the Olympics being a model for clean sport and a template for anti-doping to be absolutely ludicrous. The Olympics are the dirtiest sporting event there is. You don't use marginal gains to beat countries with national doping programs and national pride on the line.

There was an interview with the UKADA chief in a british tabloid yesterday,

He made a very very good comment about how British people claim doping is something that only foreigners do and that they need to wake up and realize that all athletes dope.

But then he went and spoiled it all by saying something stupid like a) track cycling is clean but road cycling is the one with the problems, and worse b) that he hopes the commonwealth games will be like the olympics in that they pass off with no major scandal.

Seems like the Ukada chief is more intelligent than 99% of the world when it comes to doping, but his understanding is still ***.

 

[Granville57]

there's always a gimmick to explain exceptional performances

I've no idea what you're talking about.

http://www.thestick.co.nz/cycling.html

In this regard, Spencer's work in preparing for the Tour is never done. When he isn't attending to riders at a Postal training camp in the U.S. or Europe, he's busy searching for new technologies - "modalities" as he calls them - that can be applied to the needs of the team. When he ships out for the Tour, Spencer will be taking along almost $60,000 of equipment that will be used to treat the various wounds, strains and other physical issues that may present themselves.

The current lineup of gear that Spencer is willing to talk about runs from the exotic to the prosaic. An Erchonia cold laser is used to "treat everything," says Spencer, from wounds to nerve function. Another device called an "H-Wave" helps treat muscular pain. Then there's a silver-colored fabric that Spencer shows, but refuses to disclose any details about, except that it's just another tool in his arsenal to help Postal riders recover from injuries.

 

[doolols]

I've just watched Dan LLoyd's "Giro 2nd week" thing

http://road.cc/content/news/83097-video-giro-ditalia-2013-second-week-insight

where he cheerfully talks about Wiggins aiming for 6.3 W/kg for the ITT (at around 3:15, 'cos the rest is boring). Hmm. Holding 450W for 54km?

 

[iZnoGouD]

Sound about right, 6.3w/kg is close to what is humanly possible, 6.3w/kg on a TT bike is huge
Butfi there's anyone who can hold is him, he looks like a machine, doesn't move a bit

 

[the sceptic]

I've just watched Dan LLoyd's "Giro 2nd week" thing

http://road.cc/content/news/83097-video-giro-ditalia-2013-second-week-insight

where he cheerfully talks about Wiggins aiming for 6.3 W/kg for the ITT (at around 3:15, 'cos the rest is boring). Hmm. Holding 450W for 54km?

Thats nothing, he did 480 watts last year.

 

[martinvickers]

Right there. Pretending that any other earlier sort of doping is comparable is the exact same thing.

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense; I never said, or implied, they were 'comparable' - indeed, i made it clear they were different in degree - but NOT in quality - i.e. they are both doping, one was clearly productive of a different order (degree) they BOTH make it impossible to know exactly what clean riders could do.

You may wish to think pre EPO they were 'ordinary, decent dopers". They weren't. They doped with the best that was available at the time, and it made an appreciable difference. Just because EPO made several times as much difference doesn't change that fact.

And if you can't understand simple english, that's not my problem, it's yours.

 

[martinvickers]

I assume you are talking about the road race. Boy, they sure tried. Sky was dragging everyone around until what, the last 10?, 20K?

Sky will be amused to find out they are a country. And David Millar will be particularly amused to find himself a citizen.

I generally agree with what you are saying. I think it got far bigger than they planned. It doesn't invalidate my claim. From the UCI's perspective, what's not to like about more viewers? ASO sold Versus a number of their events! That's Pat's version of growing cycling in a nutshell.

IMHO, the TdF win combined with the London games wins changed that. It made a British champion. And now, ASO's interest in running the Tour of Britain suggests something sure has changed.

The london games on the road were an afterthought after Le Tour. The 'london games' on the track has been building since before London ever bid for the games.

Even though I disagree with some of your posts, I enjoy your contributions. We can agree to disagree on some of these issues. As I've posted before, some of my ideas are probably wrong and badly wrong. If we get a clearer picture, I don't care about being wrong. The goal is digging out the truth buried underneath ephemeral twins, enlarged hearts and so on.

Fair enough. I've noted that I've implied I was unsure about your honesty on some of these points. I'd like to apologise, retract that if i may, that was unfair.

I think some of it is bonkers, but I'm willing to accept it's legitimately held bonkers

 

[martinvickers]

How do you know it is clean at its core?

That Brailsford has done 'murky' business with Sky means to me that the track side probably is not clean. No one is interested in track compared to road so doesn't get the same attention or scrutiny. Every 4 years the golds come in and no one wants to go against national fervour.

See what happened in Ireland when Michelle Smith won 3 golds and 3 journalists questioned her performances. The media and public were verbally hanging Kimmage and Walsh. Not going to happen in litigous UK.

True, to a point. But look, whatever about not believing in Sky, BC cycling has been building steadily on the track for near 15 years now. It's not new, and it's not sudden. It's also incredibly well funded, well resourced. You may believe, you may not. But there is a story of incremental improvement which is to be expected from such an incredibly (relatively) well resources programme.

Michelle Smith was practically unfunded, had nothing behind her in terms of Irish swimming, not even a SINGLE 50m pool in the country, was a complete also-ran at international level at 24 - then married a renowned doper (and that was known AT THE TIME) whence she proceeded at c. 26 to blow apart her opposition, winning olympic golds in her non-specialist events, just for fun, while developing shoulders normally associated with the uglier parts of the Dallas Cowboys Offensive line.

Hell, Janet Evans accused her within MINUTES of leaving the pool. Clinton liked the girls, but he wasn't huggin' wee Michelle for her winsome looks. It was a PR exercise.

I mean, Michelle was obvious in ways not seen since the days of Koch.

The truth is, the two aren't remotely comparable on evidence terms.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense; I never said, or implied, they were 'comparable' - indeed, i made it clear they were different in degree - but NOT in quality - i.e. they are both doping, one was clearly productive of a different order (degree) they BOTH make it impossible to know exactly what clean riders could do.

You may wish to think pre EPO they were 'ordinary, decent dopers". They weren't. They doped with the best that was available at the time, and it made an appreciable difference. Just because EPO made several times as much difference doesn't change that fact.

And if you can't understand simple english, that's not my problem, it's yours.

The point is a clean rider could win right up until the advent of the blood vector doping era, after that I really don't think so, at least not the big races. So therefore it is not "impossible to know what a clean rider could do", in the pre blood vector days they could win. Since then a clean rider could not win. So not the same, right?
And I never said anybody was an "ordinary, decent doper", but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth.
I understand Engish just fine, I only have a bit of a problem with your words.

 

[Spectacleur]

Can't wait. How much do I have to pay to find out?

They say 8,90
http://www.alternativeditions.com/21-counts/order/

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

The point is a clean rider could win right up until the advent of the blood vector doping era, after that I really don't think so, at least not the big races. So therefore it is not "impossible to know what a clean rider could do", in the pre blood vector days they could win. Since then a clean rider could not win. So not the same, right?
And I never said anybody was an "ordinary, decent doper", but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth.
I understand Engish just fine, I only have a bit of a problem with your words.

Would this be the marginal gain EpO would give?

Tour de France 1990
Luz Ardiden
Pedro Delgado 41.18

Vuelta a Espana 1992
Pedro Delgado 37.56

Note:
2011 Franck Schleck 37.20
Jelle Vanendert 37.36
1992 Tony Rominger 36.32
1990 Indurain 39.40
1990 Delion 41.40

La Plagne 1987:
Parra 54.15

La Plagne 1995:
Indurain 45.40

You may wish to think pre EPO they were 'ordinary, decent dopers". They weren't. They doped with the best that was available at the time, and it made an appreciable difference. Just because EPO made several times as much difference doesn't change that fact

La Plagne 1987
Roche 54.33
Parra 54.15
Fignon 56.34

Bet you remember that climb.

1984
Fignon 52.41
LeMond 53.46
Delgado 54.08

1995:
Alvaro Meija 51.09


1. Alex Zülle (Sui) en 4h41'18" (/Moy : 34.127 km/h/)
14. Mejia à 7'31"

Michael Boogerd 2002
53.27
Dead on his bike after attacking all day and yet...

Are you sure on your statement?

 

[JimmyFingers]

The point is a clean rider could win right up until the advent of the blood vector doping era, after that I really don't think so, at least not the big races. So therefore it is not "impossible to know what a clean rider could do", in the pre blood vector days they could win. Since then a clean rider could not win. So not the same, right?
And I never said anybody was an "ordinary, decent doper", but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth.
I understand Engish just fine, I only have a bit of a problem with your words.

Fausto Coppi when asked by a reporter if he used La Bomba answered 'when I need it'. The reporter then asked when is that? He answer was 'all the time'.

Early racing was incredibly hard; longer distances, worse roads, heavy bikes and a heavier schedule. Riders were much less fiscally stable: being able to race mattered, and winning meant bonuses and invitations to other races. All the top riders doped and doped heavily: cocaine drops in their eyes, amphetamine pills, morphine injections into the legs at night to dull the pain. They raced the entire year round, spending the winter on the track.

So a clean rider may have been able to win the odd race but be up there with the top echelon of riders and earning the top money? I seriously doubt it. There's a an anecdote I read about a couple of English riders going over in the late fifties or early 60s and on entering their first race and being amazed at how fast everyone was going, thinking they hadn't realised how long the race was.

Yes EPO is a turbo charger, but it doesn't fit drawing some sort of moral distinction between early drug use and later. The degree of the advantage may be different but you're still seeking an advantage by nefarious means.

 

[Benotti69]

True, to a point. But look, whatever about not believing in Sky, BC cycling has been building steadily on the track for near 15 years now. It's not new, and it's not sudden. It's also incredibly well funded, well resourced. You may believe, you may not. But there is a story of incremental improvement which is to be expected from such an incredibly (relatively) well resources programme.

Michelle Smith was practically unfunded, had nothing behind her in terms of Irish swimming, not even a SINGLE 50m pool in the country, was a complete also-ran at international level at 24 - then married a renowned doper (and that was known AT THE TIME) whence she proceeded at c. 26 to blow apart her opposition, winning olympic golds in her non-specialist events, just for fun, while developing shoulders normally associated with the uglier parts of the Dallas Cowboys Offensive line.

Hell, Janet Evans accused her within MINUTES of leaving the pool. Clinton liked the girls, but he wasn't huggin' wee Michelle for her winsome looks. It was a PR exercise.

I mean, Michelle was obvious in ways not seen since the days of Koch.

The truth is, the two aren't remotely comparable on evidence terms.

USAC were building as well with Weisel

Building slowly does not mean they did it clean.

 

[thehog]

Sound about right, 6.3w/kg is close to what is humanly possible, 6.3w/kg on a TT bike is huge
Butfi there's anyone who can hold is him, he looks like a machine, doesn't move a bit

His legs move.

 

[Netserk]

His legs move.

So does his mouth.