Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[blackcat]

Another 20 Watts.

maybe even 25

 

[The Hitch]

Chef doing chefy stuff == marginal gain:





Except...

Great find dw. Really smashes marginal gains theory out of the water. This is the type of question journos should ask Brailsford while he's going over his prepared "it is so unfair that we are tarnished by this" speeches in his head.

 

[biokemguy]

Swim coach

I've been wondering how a swim coach can be so brilliant in cycling.

Do swimmers have nearly the level of training data available compared to cyclists?

No power meters in swimming...do they even use HR monitors (not sure they'd work in water)?

How is a swim coach gonna be able to interpret all this data to improve performance?

There probably is a legit answer to this, like he's not the only coach, and quick learner, but why hire somebody who has no experience with the type of performance data used in cycling?

 

[BroDeal]

I've been wondering how a swim coach can be so brilliant in cycling.

Do swimmers have nearly the level of training data available compared to cyclists?

No power meters in swimming...do they even use HR monitors (not sure they'd work in water)?

How is a swim coach gonna be able to interpret all this data to improve performance?

There probably is a legit answer to this, like he's not the only coach, and quick learner, but why hire somebody who has no experience with the type of performance data used in cycling?

Evidently specificity only applies to athletes, not coaches.

Someone needs to send this to David Hogwalsh. This chef thing is the exact sort of BS he has been using to claim Sky is so different.

 

[DirtyWorks]

So we are still waiting for any evidence .I was going to say you couldn't make it up but sadly you lot do

What year is this again? It feels like 2005.

Simple question, what precisely constitutes "proof" that at least a few riders on Sky have doped for their grand tour podiums? Please, be specific.

 

[trevim]

Also according to some posters on Parlamento Mike Snow has grown a full 4 cm's since he joined Sky (according to the stats on the team website). . . Marginal gains i guess

I'm fine with them turning monkeys into Skyborgs but please don't do that to the epic Mike Snow

 

[thehog]

I'm fine with them turning monkeys into Skyborgs but please don't do that to the epic Mike Snow

Brailsford calls it "the triangle of change" when he gives motivational talks.

 

[the sceptic]

What year is this again? It feels like 2005.

Simple question, what precisely constitutes "proof" that at least a few riders on Sky have doped for their grand tour podiums? Please, be specific.

I bet he hasnt even read the thread.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

I've been wondering how a swim coach can be so brilliant in cycling.

Do swimmers have nearly the level of training data available compared to cyclists?

No power meters in swimming...do they even use HR monitors (not sure they'd work in water)?

How is a swim coach gonna be able to interpret all this data to improve performance?

There probably is a legit answer to this, like he's not the only coach, and quick learner, but why hire somebody who has no experience with the type of performance data used in cycling?

To be fair, a lot of seminal work on blood lactate, VO2, and the interaction of other systems was done on behalf of swimmers. Also, many of us armchair DSs picked up a solid foundation pretty quickly (maybe sky visited the same bodybuilding forums?). Not like sky made their stylized impact right away either.

 

[BroDeal]

Brailsford calls it "the triangle of change" when he gives motivational talks.

It looks like you got the version he gives to outsiders and David Walsh. The presentation to the white lunch bag crew is more like this.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I've been wondering how a swim coach can be so brilliant in cycling.

Do swimmers have nearly the level of training data available compared to cyclists?

No power meters in swimming...do they even use HR monitors (not sure they'd work in water)?

How is a swim coach gonna be able to interpret all this data to improve performance?

There probably is a legit answer to this, like he's not the only coach, and quick learner, but why hire somebody who has no experience with the type of performance data used in cycling?

I can't find the article now, but apparently, they started using Trainingpeaks. Spent a year just gathering data (2010? When did Kerrison start?) and then knew what it would take to win, and started to train the riders based on that TSS, etc, stuff that Coggan et al use.

Add in some swimming-specific phrases like "reverse periodisation" (which still irks me, given you're training for a 3 week friggin' race, and the technique is used more for sprint swimmers, and the longest Oly swim event is the 1500m, over in ~15 minutes but I digress) and Bob's your uncle.

Throw in some video analysis of another rider, ignoring that rider's physiology and riding history, slow the cadence of your rider down (3rpm, from memory), and he will win every TT that year, due to rolling resistance and the gears and stuff. (sic)

That's Wiggo's 2012 in a nutshell.

Oh, and lose 13kg from your track days.

 

[thehog]

It looks like you got the version he gives to outsiders and David Walsh. The presentation to the white lunch bag crew is more like this.

Bro that is legendary!

Froome was right. 3 step plan. Love it.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

It looks like you got the version he gives to outsiders and David Walsh. The presentation to the white lunch bag crew is more like this.

I'm in tears.

 

[ebandit]

demo

gone

 

[RownhamHill]

What year is this again? It feels like 2005.

Simple question, what precisely constitutes "proof" that at least a few riders on Sky have doped for their grand tour podiums? Please, be specific.

Off the top of my head, specific things that might constitute proof could be:

- a positive drugs test
- a first person confession
- credible first hand eye-witness testimony of doping practise
- documentary evidence of the logistics of doping
- a collection of credible (ish) second-hand testimonies/circumstantial events that cross-reference against each other to paint a compelling picture

There are probably others.

Likewise, here's a list of things that don't - for me - constitute proof that Sky riders have doped for their grand tour podiums.

- Riders on Sky reaching Grand Tour podiums
- Riders on Sky training
- Riders on Sky being professional cyclists
- Riders using the C bomb in press conferences
- Coaches who used to work in elite sports other than cycling
- Other cycling teams employing chefs
- Hack journalists writing poorly edited books to cash in on the Christmas market

And so on. . .

 

[Benotti69]

<snipped>


- Riders (from the Grupetto)on Sky reaching Grand Tour podiums

- Riders on Sky training (training harder than racing)

- Riders on Sky being professional cyclists (just like every other rider in the peloton but Sky say they are more professional)

- Riders using the C bomb in press conferences (you mean riders slagging fans that doubt them)

- Coaches who used to work in elite sports other than cycling (yet their techniques remain unexplained, except by PR speak like reverse periodisation)

- Other cycling teams employing chefs (employing chef from another team yet claiming they do it different from everyone else)

- Hack journalists writing poorly edited books to cash in on the Christmas market (I wouldn't call Walsh a Hack but feel free to do so on his Sky work)

And so on. . .and on and on do Sky fail in their transparency and explanations for hiring doping riders, doping doctors, etc etc etc

Red text used to correct, free of charge.

 

[the sceptic]

It looks like you got the version he gives to outsiders and David Walsh. The presentation to the white lunch bag crew is more like this.

lolol. should post that over on BikeRetard to see what they say

 

[Catwhoorg]

Add in some swimming-specific phrases like "reverse periodisation" (which still irks me, given you're training for a 3 week friggin' race, and the technique is used more for sprint swimmers, and the longest Oly swim event is the 1500m, over in ~15 minutes but I digress) and Bob's your uncle.

Not that it matters one jot to your argument, but minor point FYI.

There is a 10K open water swim at the olympics, takes about 2 hours for women, about 10 mins faster for men.

(Was a targeted event in 2012 for a UK medal, but Keri-Anne Paine came 4th).

 

[Ferminal]

Sadly Kerrison's fellow QLD'ers were garbage in the 10km.

(By Australian standards)

 

[del1962]

Red text used to correct, free of charge.

I will take that as no compelling evidence then

 

[Benotti69]

I will take that as mo compelling evidence then

you can take 'mo' you want from it.....

 

[del1962]

you can take 'mo' you want from it.....

oh dear, typo

 

[Benotti69]

I will take that as no compelling evidence then

Well, i find the red bits compelling, but then I am aware of the history of the sport from the 80's to now and I have not seen anything that makes me beliee there has been a cultural shift from doping.

Here is what Scott Sunderland was stating in 2004

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2004-07-24/armstrong-settles-scores-with-simeoni/2014526

....talking about what happened in 1996 when things were a bit out of control. Since then things have really moved on as far as fighting against doping is concerned," Sunderland added.

We are being fed the exact same crap now, oh that was Armstrong's era, 10 years ago......yadayada.....they cant even tell decent lies, Armstrong retired in 2010!

Sky are another pro team in the peloton doing what pro teams do and have done forever int he sport. Those who dont dope dont ride for pro teams.

 

[RichWalk]

I still try and keep pace with you guys comments, I personally see little change, the same 'suspicious performances' updated rhetoric (read BS) and a steady stream of confessions from older riders combined with current pro's getting caught.

One view I think deserves some merit is that of the general (sports folk, sports followers). Go back 2 years and most weren't that interested in bike racing, the few that were occupied a sceptical view to pro racing, often like me from an amateur racing background. Step to today and post LA, many have a view that not only is pro cycling riddled with drug cheats, but so are most performance based pro sports.

With this view becoming more prevalent pro teams (clean or not) are, media wise, on the back foot before they start! As was said many times regarding Vaughters' Garmin being a clever exercise in PR, the bubble has burst and suspicion reigns.

Pro Teams' response in a media lead world has been both naive and at best ill thought out, rather than providing and reassurances they resemble cornered rats. The fact that Sky excel at these failings is beyond irony!

Many of us who have taken a detailed view of doping may never be fully convinced however if the Teams and potential sponsors are to allay the fears of the sports fans worldwide they have a very long way to go......

 

[DirtyWorks]

Off the top of my head, specific things that might constitute proof could be:

- a positive drugs test

hmm. Yes. You mean the federation that hides positives is going to suddenly stop hiding them? Or do you mean the national federation (USA Cycling, no wait BC) that will enforce anti-doping? Because the Pro team and the sports federation supposedly doing rules enforcement and creating grand tour champions are really one.

- a first person confession

After the statute of limitations of course! What good will it do then?

- credible first hand eye-witness testimony of doping practise
- documentary evidence of the logistics of doping
- a collection of credible (ish) second-hand testimonies/circumstantial events that cross-reference against each other to paint a compelling picture

All of which were present during Armstrong's fraud. All of them explained away by the most ridiculous reasons since Santa Claus. Similarly, all legitimate warnings are explained away in 2014.

Feels like 2005 all over again.