Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 999 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
RownhamHill said:
WTF?

You're trying to pick a fight with me because, in trying to compliment another poster's post (in fact, in trying to clarify it was a compliment to another poster who'd questioned it) I para-phrased what the original poster had said rather than directly quoting.

Is that really is what is going on here?

So, sorry to answer a question with a question, but what evidence do you have that I've ever made any claim that Christopher 'Chris' Froome isn't doping? If you can find me any evidence that I've ever said that, then maybe I'll look at what I said and see if I can find any evidence to back it up. Maybe.

Until then, in the interests of board harmony, do you want to just drop it?
gillan1969 said:
apologies, let harmony resume....:)

to be fair it was the paraphrasing I was questioning....and hence, as a discussion forum, it was meant to be a contribution to a round table discussion rather than having, or pickling a fight. Or at least a fight wasn't the intention so apologies again if that's what was picked up...

..the case of christopher is so ridiculous as to be killer evidence all on its own...we don't need test results, disgruntled employeees or stuff found in bins....he mocks (clean) cycling with every ridicuous 'attack' .......
I feel like I'm in the middle of a sewing circle. WTF us up with this place? This is an intertubes forum, and civility will not be fu*king tolerated!

Now: LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!! Gentlemen, step back to your corners......FIGHT!!!
 
ChewbaccaD said:
I feel like I'm in the middle of a sewing circle. WTF us up with this place? This is an intertubes forum, and civility will not be fu*king tolerated!

Now: LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!! Gentlemen, step back to your corners......FIGHT!!!
<adopts cockney accent> Leave it Gill, he's not worth it</adopts cockney accent>
 
ChewbaccaD said:
I feel like I'm in the middle of a sewing circle. WTF us up with this place? This is an intertubes forum, and civility will not be fu*king tolerated!

Now: LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!! Gentlemen, step back to your corners......FIGHT!!!
<adopts cockney accent> Leave it Gill, he's not worth it</adopts cockney accent>
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
gillan1969 said:
apologies, let harmony resume....:)

to be fair it was the paraphrasing I was questioning....and hence, as a discussion forum, it was meant to be a contribution to a round table discussion rather than having, or pickling a fight. Or at least a fight wasn't the intention so apologies again if that's what was picked up...

..the case of christopher is so ridiculous as to be killer evidence all on its own...we don't need test results, disgruntled employeees or stuff found in bins....he mocks (clean) cycling with every ridicuous 'attack' .......
In the interest of a round table discussion - I have highlighted the tiny little word that is the difference between a personal opinion and a statement.

As much a I agree with your conclusions , there is no 'we' in this. It is just your opinion. This may seem a small point - but i have my marshmallows ready for roasting and I would recommend factor 30 or more.

ChewbaccaD said:
I feel like I'm in the middle of a sewing circle. WTF us up with this place? This is an intertubes forum, and civility will not be fu*king tolerated!

Now: LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!! Gentlemen, step back to your corners......FIGHT!!!
"Oh, dreadful language".
 
For anyone interested there leaving Mallorca and moving to the south of France:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/feb/05/team-sky-hub-france-nice-monaco

As Team Sky's plan for a hub in the south of France progresses, it seems likely that the proposal may be expanded to offer services to non team members and possibly to sports other than cycling.

"We've got good plans for developing the Nice/Monaco base," Sky's head, Sir Dave Brailsford, said this week at the team's training camp in Mallorca.

"There's a human performance centre, a team house and 14 riders living down there now.

"We've started thinking about a knowledge-based operation, which will be a bit more external and will look out to all walks of life."

In other words, eventually the services offered by the base won't be just about cycling.

The plan was first mooted by Brailsford in late 2012 and has developed steadily and unobtrusively since then, with many of Sky's riders moving to the south of France or Monaco – which is, most notably, the home of the 2013 Tour de France winner Chris Froome, and coaches Tim Kerrison and Shaun Stephens.

Nice was chosen due to its centrality within Europe, its international airport, the quality of the roads and the weather.
 
pastronef said:
I don't think they'd leave Mallorca. they plan to create a year long hub near Nice-Monaco, but their hotel in Alcudia will be reserved anyway from mid Dec to mid Feb
They're moving away from Alcudia but will still have a training base on the island.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
1
0
good to know cyclingnews are fully on the sky bandwagon

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/review-of-british-cycling-role-for-dave-brailsford-after-world-track-championships

Brailsford, anxious not to "stretch" himself too much ahead of the Rio de Janeiro Olympics in 2016, is seen as one of the foremost sporting coaches in world for masterminding British Cycling's rise to prominence over the past two decades. Since 2010 he has overseen the success of Team Sky who have won the last two editions of the Tour de France courtesy of Bradley Wiggins and Chris Froome.
Walsh couldnt have said it better himself
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
the sceptic said:
good to know cyclingnews are fully on the sky bandwagon

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/review-of-british-cycling-role-for-dave-brailsford-after-world-track-championships



Walsh couldnt have said it better himself
I have looked at this a bit, and in theory, any time the author is "Cycling News" (like the link you posted), it's regurgitated content. Do a search on a critical sentence or half and you'll find something like this:

By Tom Cary
10:30PM GMT 16 Feb 2014

Sir Dave Brailsford will review his role at British Cycling following the World Track Championships in Colombia later this month after admitting it is getting increasingly difficult to juggle his twin responsibilities as performance director of the national body and general manager of Team Sky. Brailsford said he was anxious not to “stretch” himself too much ahead of the next Olympics in Rio de Janeiro in 2016.

One of the foremost coaches in world, let alone British, sport, Brailsford is credited with masterminding British Cycling’s rise to prominence over the past two decades. Since 2010, he has also overseen the stunning success of Team Sky, for whom Sir Bradley Wiggins and Chris Froome have won the last two Tour de France titles.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/10642671/Sir-Dave-Brailsford-will-review-his-role-at-British-Cycling-after-World-Track-Championships.html
By: Cycling News Published: February 16, 23:13, Updated: February 16, 23:14

For Sir Dave Brailsford combining twin roles as performance director of British Cycling and general manager of Team Sky has increasingly become difficult to manage, resulting in the British knight stating that following the World Track Championships in Colombia later this month he will review his role with the national body.

Brailsford, anxious not to "stretch" himself too much ahead of the Rio de Janeiro Olympics in 2016, is seen as one of the foremost sporting coaches in world for masterminding British Cycling's rise to prominence over the past two decades. Since 2010 he has overseen the success of Team Sky who have won the last two editions of the Tour de France courtesy of Bradley Wiggins and Chris Froome.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/review-of-british-cycling-role-for-dave-brailsford-after-world-track-championships
It's possibly just as bad when they do regurgitate, but for me I find original content that carries on like this (eg: by Walsh) even more repugnant.
 

Graham_S

BANNED
Jan 8, 2014
68
0
0
New here. Sky seem to have mainly been convicted on this board solely down to their performances with the whole sports science, nutrition and marginal gains thing being dismissed as cover for a doping program. I have even seen people use “science” as a nudge nudge wink wink code for doping.

The only other people I have seen put quotation mark around the word “science” like that were trying to convince me the world was 6,000 years old.

From what I have seen and read Sky’s performances appear credible, certainly not conclusive proof of anything for the following reasons.

• Sports science is a real thing that maybe hadn’t been fully exploited in cycling previously.
• Better equipment, although the weight limit on bikes limits this somewhat modern bikes do give an advantage.
• Most to the staff or riders going in and out of Sky suggest they are on another level with their sports science.
• It seems logical that a team attacking climbs from the bottom and pacing their way up with a high cadence would be faster than the old style of riders alternating between attacks and starring contests.
• All endurance sports show improvement with records tumbling over time, it was never a question of if clean riders could beat doping performance of the past put when.
• Riders with limited doping programs could be as fast as riders who could get away with anything five years before, so why can’t riders with no doping do the same?
• Although Froome blew the field apart at the tour last year the 2nd place rider was a small child… which suggests that maybe the rest of the field isn’t all that strong at the moment.
• It is perfectly feasible that Froome’s massive step up in class is down to a combination him not having the structured training of a European team until he was much older than normal, some people do develop late and the bilharzia – until an actual expert in bilharzia says his story is suspect I’m going to take that at face value.

Anyone know of somewhere where the counter arguments are put intelligently as all I can find is ranting and bile? I would be interested to have a read. As I say my current opinion is that sky are clean, but anyone who is 100% sure either way is probably best ignored.
 
Oct 21, 2012
1,106
0
0
Graham_S said:
• Sports science is a real thing that maybe hadn’t been fully exploited in cycling previously.
Certainly not. Cycling is a very modernised sport.

• Better equipment, although the weight limit on bikes limits this somewhat modern bikes do give an advantage.
An advantage over previous riders, certainly. But everybody has access to good bikes.

• Most to the staff or riders going in and out of Sky suggest they are on another level with their sports science.
Why would they say anything to the contrary? If they are asked about why Sky are so good, they can hardly say 'because they dope'. Nobody is going to break omerta. The only way they can rationalize Sky's performances to the media is to trot out the sports science stuff.

Put yourself in the position of a cyclist. They aren't going to jeopardize their own as well as their fellow cyclists' futures in the sport, their careers and livelihoods, just to tell the truth to some random journalist. If they were grand juried, they probably would, but otherwise, there is no way any current cyclist is going to accuse Sky of doping.

• It seems logical that a team attacking climbs from the bottom and pacing their way up with a high cadence would be faster than the old style of riders alternating between attacks and starring contests.
Perhaps so, but this has been their MO for two seasons now. Wouldn't other teams have cottoned on to this tactical shift and adjusted accordingly?

• All endurance sports show improvement with records tumbling over time, it was never a question of if clean riders could beat doping performance of the past put when.
If a clean cyclist today was able to beat doped performances from prior to the blood doping era, then that's more than feasible. Blood doping gives far too much of an advantage for dopers to be beaten by clean cyclists. Especially just a few years after the worst excesses of the blood doping era.

• Riders with limited doping programs could be as fast as riders who could get away with anything five years before, so why can’t riders with no doping do the same?
But how do you know that the average doper today is on a limited program? Sure, they may be microdosing the same stuff that was being used carte blanche a few years ago, but it is equally probable that the peloton has switched over to something new, something that is as yet undetectable.

• Although Froome blew the field apart at the tour last year the 2nd place rider was a small child… which suggests that maybe the rest of the field isn’t all that strong at the moment.
Come on now, Contador, one of the great stage racers in cycling history by weight of palmares, is still around. And there are a whole host of other multiple Grand Tour winners that are still active in pro cycling.

• It is perfectly feasible that Froome’s massive step up in class is down to a combination him not having the structured training of a European team until he was much older than normal, some people do develop late and the bilharzia – until an actual expert in bilharzia says his story is suspect I’m going to take that at face value.
Well, of course, none of us here are bilharzia experts, but the fact of the matter is that bilharzia is an extremely serious disease. With some very painful, and very obvious symptoms. It's beyond belief that somebody could have it for months or years and not know something was seriously wrong with their body.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Sports science is a real thing that maybe hadn’t been fully exploited in cycling previously.
Maybe. But basing your argument on a maybe is interesting. Froome killed everyone without even fine-tuning his TT position in a wind tunnel.

Geert Leinders agrees with you - sports science is not only real, but one particular branch of it started with Conconi, in Italy, back in the late 80s / early 90s, and has made leaps and bounds ever since.

• Better equipment, although the weight limit on bikes limits this somewhat modern bikes do give an advantage.
Sky's equipment is no better than anyone else's.

• Most to the staff or riders going in and out of Sky suggest they are on another level with their sports science.
You are new, so this is an understandable mistake. as en eg, their chef worked for CSC for 5 years before joining Sky, and even their nutritionist - touted as the bees knees in the field, says the chef does what he knows and is able to consult the nutritionist at any time. <conjecture>If you know any chefs you'll know how that pans out in real life</conjecture>

• It seems logical that a team attacking climbs from the bottom and pacing their way up with a high cadence would be faster than the old style of riders alternating between attacks and starring contests.
One of Conconi's star pupils was a strong advocate of high cadence in the mountains, as evidenced by his star cyclist, who was subsequently stripped of all 7 of his Tour victories. Highly recommend you watch or re-watch the Tours from 1999-2005.

• All endurance sports show improvement with records tumbling over time, it was never a question of if clean riders could beat doping performance of the past put when.
I think you'll find it is a matter of if. It boils down to efficiency and Hgb. They are inversely related, more often than not, and there's a big bonus for low Hgb and high efficiency. If you use a lot of drugs for recovery, your training load can have a massive impact on enzyme, blood vessel and heart muscle production, all the while reducing your weight. Even if IC drug or doping is curtailed, your life in training (cf reduced racing and increased training becoming the norm) with the subsequent reduction in ease of testing, and the known lack of OOC testing points to a different narrative.

• Riders with limited doping programs could be as fast as riders who could get away with anything five years before, so why can’t riders with no doping do the same?
See above, and if you can provide examples of the first bit, I'd appreciate it.

• Although Froome blew the field apart at the tour last year the 2nd place rider was a small child… which suggests that maybe the rest of the field isn’t all that strong at the moment.
Your tone and language here is revolting and insulting. Your derision of Quintana is noted. There's a certain colonial flavour to it, I do hope you're not from that little island in the North with the sh!t weather.

• It is perfectly feasible that Froome’s massive step up in class is down to a combination him not having the structured training of a European team until he was much older than normal, some people do develop late and the bilharzia – until an actual expert in bilharzia says his story is suspect I’m going to take that at face value.
Do a search - there were experts posting in the forum debunking the Bilzharia cure time / protocol shenanigans touted by Froome. As for structured training. Good grief. Just. Boggled. He was at the world cycling academy, receiving coaching from the UCI itself. Do you have any idea what you are suggesting here?

The main objective of the WCC is :

to detect and train the most promising athletes so that they reach international level.
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
Graham_S said:
New here. Sky seem to have mainly been convicted on this board solely down to their performances with the whole sports science, nutrition and marginal gains thing being dismissed as cover for a doping program. I have even seen people use “science” as a nudge nudge wink wink code for doping.

The only other people I have seen put quotation mark around the word “science” like that were trying to convince me the world was 6,000 years old.

From what I have seen and read Sky’s performances appear credible, certainly not conclusive proof of anything for the following reasons.

• Sports science is a real thing that maybe hadn’t been fully exploited in cycling previously.
• Better equipment, although the weight limit on bikes limits this somewhat modern bikes do give an advantage.
• Most to the staff or riders going in and out of Sky suggest they are on another level with their sports science.
• It seems logical that a team attacking climbs from the bottom and pacing their way up with a high cadence would be faster than the old style of riders alternating between attacks and starring contests.
• All endurance sports show improvement with records tumbling over time, it was never a question of if clean riders could beat doping performance of the past put when.
• Riders with limited doping programs could be as fast as riders who could get away with anything five years before, so why can’t riders with no doping do the same?
• Although Froome blew the field apart at the tour last year the 2nd place rider was a small child… which suggests that maybe the rest of the field isn’t all that strong at the moment.
• It is perfectly feasible that Froome’s massive step up in class is down to a combination him not having the structured training of a European team until he was much older than normal, some people do develop late and the bilharzia – until an actual expert in bilharzia says his story is suspect I’m going to take that at face value.

Anyone know of somewhere where the counter arguments are put intelligently as all I can find is ranting and bile? I would be interested to have a read. As I say my current opinion is that sky are clean, but anyone who is 100% sure either way is probably best ignored.
Is this 2001?? Change Sky to USPS and Froome to Armstrong and we are right back thirteen years!
 
Graham_S said:
New here. Sky seem to have mainly been convicted on this board solely down to their performances with the whole sports science, nutrition and marginal gains thing being dismissed as cover for a doping program. I have even seen people use “science” as a nudge nudge wink wink code for doping.

The only other people I have seen put quotation mark around the word “science” like that were trying to convince me the world was 6,000 years old.

From what I have seen and read Sky’s performances appear credible, certainly not conclusive proof of anything for the following reasons.

• Sports science is a real thing that maybe hadn’t been fully exploited in cycling previously.
• Better equipment, although the weight limit on bikes limits this somewhat modern bikes do give an advantage.
• Most to the staff or riders going in and out of Sky suggest they are on another level with their sports science.
• It seems logical that a team attacking climbs from the bottom and pacing their way up with a high cadence would be faster than the old style of riders alternating between attacks and starring contests.
• All endurance sports show improvement with records tumbling over time, it was never a question of if clean riders could beat doping performance of the past put when.
• Riders with limited doping programs could be as fast as riders who could get away with anything five years before, so why can’t riders with no doping do the same?
• Although Froome blew the field apart at the tour last year the 2nd place rider was a small child… which suggests that maybe the rest of the field isn’t all that strong at the moment.
• It is perfectly feasible that Froome’s massive step up in class is down to a combination him not having the structured training of a European team until he was much older than normal, some people do develop late and the bilharzia – until an actual expert in bilharzia says his story is suspect I’m going to take that at face value.

Anyone know of somewhere where the counter arguments are put intelligently as all I can find is ranting and bile? I would be interested to have a read. As I say my current opinion is that sky are clean, but anyone who is 100% sure either way is probably best ignored.
Graham, welcome to the forum.

"Convicted" is a loaded term. Many people are convinced Sky are doping, but of course there have been no sanctions for lack of analytical findings.

If sports science has "maybe" not been fully exploited (big if), how have Sky exploited it better than all other cycling teams who have been at it longer and exhibit both traditional and modern approaches to training? What specifically are they doing better?

"Better equipment than what? As you mentioned, bike weights have been limited for quite some time and all teams face the same limits. What is Sky's advantage? There isn't one so I take it you're referring to historical performances? If so how does that explain the performances of Froome and Wiggins?

Why is pacing up a climb faster? It only works if several riders on your team are stronger than the rest of the peloton's top riders. How is it possible that Sky took riders who were at best mediocre climbers and turned them into riders dominating GTs, and trouncing the top riders who used to beat them by 20-30 minutes on a climb? The only other teams who have done this were all eventually outed as dopers (despite the blatant and obvious doping that most could plainly see). How are they riding at speeds only ever achieved by dopers, which is so far in excess of what we think are clean rides that the difference can't be chalked up to natural performance improvement over time? They are matching times set by full-program dopers 3 years ago. Has human performance moved 5-15% at the elite level of sport in three years?

What evidence is there that riders on limited programs (would be great to hear your definition for this) are matching the times of full-program dopers? Why can't clean riders match the times? I would ask how is it remotely possible to believe they can? Either the dope doesn't work (proven fact that it does) or human physiology has taken a leap in 3 years the likes of which has never been achieved in human history...or even close. You have to have some kind of detailed explanation of how this is possible in order to believe it, don't you?

I will say we disagree strongly on the likelihood that European training helped Froome. I don't doubt he had Badzilla, I simply see no evidence that it affected his performance in the varied and inconsistent ways Sky have claimed. It's a thin story, inconsistently told. The are lies in ther somewhere, and the simple explanation is that it's been used as an explanation for unbelievable performances.

I'm sure others will add more. Thanks for the discussion, hope you stick with it.
 
Jan 27, 2010
921
0
0
Graham_S said:
• Sports science is a real thing that maybe hadn’t been fully exploited in cycling previously.
Nothing is fully exploited, but it sure is easier to dope. Genetics are binary, unless you dope...are you aware of any 'clean' ways to exploit DNA strands? When you're at altitude and your Lactate enzymes and Vo2 max are at 99.9% of their capabilities...please suggest what sports science could assist Sky?

• Better equipment, although the weight limit on bikes limits this somewhat modern bikes do give an advantage.
What equipment does Sky have that others do not?

• Most to the staff or riders going in and out of Sky suggest they are on another level with their sports science.
Some that have left are dopers: M. Barry, S. Yates, G. Leinders...

• It seems logical that a team attacking climbs from the bottom and pacing their way up with a high cadence would be faster than the old style of riders alternating between attacks and starring contests.
Since you're new...have you ever heard of Lance Armstrong/USPS/DISCO...been there, done that...on EPO/ABT
 
the debate continues

Neworld said:
Since you're new...have you ever heard of Lance Armstrong/USPS/DISCO...been there, done that...on EPO/ABT
doubt in team sky is valid but unlike USPS no-one is truly pointing the finger
'I saw............' etc

omerta may be blamed but team sky don't appear to be working overtime to shut people up............i don't mean verbal defence but no court action

Mark L
 
Oct 24, 2012
71
0
0
Graham_S said:
The only other people I have seen put quotation mark around the word “science” like that were trying to convince me the world was 6,000 years old.
As much as I enjoy the comparison to the new earth nonsense, the main difference to me seems to be that here in these discussions science gets abused by both sides of the argument. As a bonus the 'sport scientist' generally seem to demand the right not be able to say much of anything about the subject of doping. And while I do agree that anyone 100% in this discussion can probably be ignored, I doubt you have issues with people who are 100% sure the world is older than 6000 years. Even if it would be more correct to go with 99.999...%.

Anyway, I'm no use to your actual question. As absurd as the discussion is at times, following the whole mess as it happens is a fairly big reason for my own opinions and doubts. It's like following the (un)happy marriage of cycling & doping through tabloid journalism. Nobody knows for sure what is going on and sometimes timing feels more important than the things being said. And there's no guarantees that we'll ever find out one way or the other.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY