Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Wallace and Gromit]

*Getting in position for the snipe*

(10.000 so close!)

I think we should all "holster our keyboards" for a while to leave the 10,000th post to The Hog. He deserves the honour!

 

[Tom375]

I think we should all "holster our keyboards" for a while to leave the 10,000th post to The Hog. He deserves the honour!

I was thinking of re-posting Libertine's excellent post from yesterday as the 10,000th post seemed to have a quality to it and nicely juxtaposed the arguments.
Anyhow's - keyboard is holstered!

 

[Netserk]

Are you ready Hog?

 

[Netserk]

The next is yours!

 

[Libertine Seguros]

while Libertine questions the sudden explosion of British cycling talent, it is precisely that track programme that has developed that.

Read me again. I'm not so suspicious of the guys (and girls) that have come from the protective nest of British Cycling and its track program.

I find it, however, rather too convenient that a country that has created only a handful of world class talents in the last 30 years (and I named Robert Millar and Boardman as the last ones before this current crop) suddenly has, at the same time as that development program that they've put so much time and effort into starts reaping its rewards, some absolutely world class riders coming extremely suddenly from absolutely nowhere... and who have nothing to do with the ongoing development program. The track program didn't develop Chris Froome. The track program didn't develop Jonathan Tiernan-Locke. Britain, apparently, just lucked into these spectacular natural talents at the right time.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Read me again. I'm not so suspicious of the guys (and girls) that have come from the protective nest of British Cycling and its track program.

I find it, however, rather too convenient that a country that has created only a handful of world class talents in the last 30 years (and I named Robert Millar and Boardman as the last ones before this current crop) suddenly has, at the same time as that development program that they've put so much time and effort into starts reaping its rewards, some absolutely world class riders coming extremely suddenly from absolutely nowhere... and who have nothing to do with the ongoing development program. The track program didn't develop Chris Froome. The track program didn't develop Jonathan Tiernan-Locke. Britain, apparently, just lucked into these spectacular natural talents at the right time.

I think you have to look at the history and culture (yes I did use the c word) of British cycling to find the answer. Road racing was banned from the early to mid-nineteenth century, so while the nascent sport was developing on the continent, with the long and spectacular one-day races and the early editions of the Tour, British cyclists were riding track and TT. It wasn't really until Simpson made a beachhead in the 50s and 60s by forming an ex-pat community in Ghent that British riders made serious inroads in to the European road race circuit. And when Simpson died on the slopes of Ventoux in '67 that sort of died with him. Had he lived we may have had a different story: he was the glue that held the community and the likes of Hoban and Denson together. His long term plans included a coaching centre in Ghent for British cyclists to come over and learn the 'trade' so to speak. Pretty sure he had even bought the land for it. Talk about bein ahead of his time: Brailsford is talking about doing the same thing now.

So while the suffering and spectacle of these great races were lived and breathed by the cyclists and public of Belgium, Holland, France, Spain and Italy but the Brits didn't really get it. The rarefied culture of TT and track didn't really produce great road riders, Simpson being an honourable exception. There's an anecdote about a British rider recently arrived in Ghent taking part in his first road race asking whether the other riders knew how long it was, so fast they were riding. Put mildly it was a culture shock: that channel of ours is more than just a stretch of water.

Since then only the odd talented and dedicated rider has made a breakthrough, and put simply the reason for that is its a minority sport in this country and talent would get siphoned off into better funded sport with greater popularity. However British Sport in the 1990s identified cycling as a sport they could target and win medals at, and they started to pump lottery funding into it, which meant the best talent isn't lost to other sports. At the same time there is an extensive scouting network for talent, as well as a lot of money going into technical advances in the bikes themselves.

I think we have to be clear that this isn't East Germany, we aren't feeding these talented kids steroids and Poe unbeknowst to them, this is a dedicated and well-funded programme to identify and nurture talent (despite what was suggested in the Olympics thread).

You mention Froome and JTL. Firstly while Froome has a British father he's only been carrying a British passport for 3 or 4 years. He did not grow up here or learn his trade on a bike here. You ask where we got him from, the answer is Kenya. BC has virtually nothing to do with Froome's development, and the fact he races under our flag is his choice. I certainly view him as more Kenyan than British (although I will stop short of going Daily Mail on him and calling him a plastic Brit).

JTL I'll put my hand up and say I know little about his development beyond his illness. I think it's a stretch calling him world-class yet though.

Wiggins and Cav we know all about, so who else? Stannard, Swift, Kennaugh, Thomas, Cummings, Dowsett, Rowe? Potential there certainly, and also the best pool of talent Britain has ever had to call upon, but largely untested and unrealised potential that may mostly end up as domestiques rather than all-singing all-dancing GC contenders. But not a sudden excess of world beaters in my opinion.

 

[thehog]

Are you ready Hog?

Mild mannered Froome zig zagging up mountains to Alien Froome!

 

[Froome19]

Read me again. I'm not so suspicious of the guys (and girls) that have come from the protective nest of British Cycling and its track program.

I find it, however, rather too convenient that a country that has created only a handful of world class talents in the last 30 years (and I named Robert Millar and Boardman as the last ones before this current crop) suddenly has, at the same time as that development program that they've put so much time and effort into starts reaping its rewards, some absolutely world class riders coming extremely suddenly from absolutely nowhere... and who have nothing to do with the ongoing development program. The track program didn't develop Chris Froome. The track program didn't develop Jonathan Tiernan-Locke. Britain, apparently, just lucked into these spectacular natural talents at the right time.

Those are two examples. Assuming that Britain did not have the infrastructure which they have developed then we still expect some riders to come through who are going to be good. Furthermore I find it perfectly acceptable to consider these two riders (tbh more like one) as anomalies. As the Hog has said many times what makes Sky suspicious are all the factors together. In isolation this is not all that suspicious, it is certainly not a stretch of the imagination to have a country such as Britain having two or even more such anomalies. If Britain had 5 of these riders then maybe there is something to get suspicious about but until then..

The Froome saga could be compared with what we do in cricket where we borrow all the good southern hemisphere players and bring them over to play for us. They have nothing to do with the system, just imports who are wearing the same kit.

And also what are you exactly accusing British Cycling of? Riders such as Froome and JTL are obviously talented regardless of whether they are taking drugs or not.

Oh and lets wait and see how good JTL is. We know he can be good but whether he is or will become world class is certainly something which is up to debate.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Mild mannered Froome zig zagging up mountains to Alien Froome!

If Wiggins takes the TdF route in '13, Froome will take racing to a new level. Pantani and Ricco will come across as wheelsuckers in the history books.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

And also what are you exactly accusing British Cycling of? Riders such as Froome and JTL are obviously talented regardless of whether they are taking drugs or not.

I'm not accusing British cycling of anything. I just think it's interesting that after several lean years regarding top level talent from the UK where the sum total of their top level riders were two Classics journeymen and a time trial specialist who we know was taking drugs, they just happened upon two at the same time who had nothing to do with the hard work they put in at BC to develop people.

That isn't any slight on the guys who came through British Cycling, because those are the natural product of creating such a cycling development program: they are what one might expect, i.e. a country that only sporadically produces top talent at the sport starts to create a focused program in order to improve that, and as a result starts having more success. Froome and JTL had freakish breakouts that had nothing to do with said program. And yes, places happen upon freakish talents, guys that would reach the top regardless of where they're from, and it happens all the time (Kelly and Roche, for example, more recently somebody like Sagan). But it is kind of interesting that these guys suddenly break out and show their immense natural talent, that had been hidden, only at a time like this, when British cycling is at the top. This will sound really harsh and unfair, and that's because it IS harsh and unfair, but a bit like all the people who come crawling out of the woodwork to claim the credit for the success, it feels like all of a sudden these hidden talents that few had anticipated (or at least few had anticipated at this kind of level) are emerging from outside BC's warm embrace to take their share of the spoils of victory.

 

[thehog]

If Wiggins takes the TdF route in '13, Froome will take racing to a new level. Pantani and Ricco will come across as wheelsuckers in the history books.

At the next training camp they'll raffle off the races each rider wants to win.

Because they can never test positive they know they can win whatever they want.

Froome will go full-dawg. At least Wiggins knows how to contain his performances when doped.

Froome can't help himself.

 

[thehog]

Froome dawg was riding mountain bikes in South Africa at 21 for fun.

A few years later he's "jumping all over the places". Which I guess that zig zagging up mountains.

He is a freak of nature. Never has someone looked so poor on a bike been able to rode with such power.

His Tour TT's were out of this world.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I'm not accusing British cycling of anything. I just think it's interesting that after several lean years regarding top level talent from the UK where the sum total of their top level riders were two Classics journeymen and a time trial specialist who we know was taking drugs, they just happened upon two at the same time who had nothing to do with the hard work they put in at BC to develop people.

That isn't any slight on the guys who came through British Cycling, because those are the natural product of creating such a cycling development program: they are what one might expect, i.e. a country that only sporadically produces top talent at the sport starts to create a focused program in order to improve that, and as a result starts having more success. Froome and JTL had freakish breakouts that had nothing to do with said program. And yes, places happen upon freakish talents, guys that would reach the top regardless of where they're from, and it happens all the time (Kelly and Roche, for example, more recently somebody like Sagan). But it is kind of interesting that these guys suddenly break out and show their immense natural talent, that had been hidden, only at a time like this, when British cycling is at the top. This will sound really harsh and unfair, and that's because it IS harsh and unfair, but a bit like all the people who come crawling out of the woodwork to claim the credit for the success, it feels like all of a sudden these hidden talents that few had anticipated (or at least few had anticipated at this kind of level) are emerging from outside BC's warm embrace to take their share of the spoils of victory.

I'm not sure I take your point: Britain is suspicious because its never been good at cycling bar a select few, which I hope I have addressed, or the fact the BC is taking credit for JTL and Froome? It's tantamount to saying Britain can never produce good cyclists, at least not with doping. The insinuation is that they are being engineered through nefarious means. One or two handy riders is ok, a dozen and we're doping?

There's another thread somewhere that was discussing what a British team would look like without Cav, Wiggins and Froome, and even though someone suggested a decent looking team it was laughed at, compared to the teams continental countries could produce. Hardly strength in depth compared to the top European countries, or Australia and the USA.

I'll take Froome is exceptional, and potentially a multi-GT winner, but JTL is completely unproven at the top level so I feel that argument lacks substance, and we'll have to reserve judgement on that 'immense natural talent' you have imbued him with.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I'm not sure I take your point: Britain is suspicious because its never been good at cycling bar a select few, which I hope I have addressed, or the fact the BC is taking credit for JTL and Froome? It's tantamount to saying Britain can never produce good cyclists, at least not with doping. The insinuation is that they are being engineered through nefarious means. One or two handy riders is ok, a dozen and we're doping?

There's another thread somewhere that was discussing what a British team would look like without Cav, Wiggins and Froome, and even though someone suggested a decent looking team it was laughed at, compared to the teams continental countries could produce. Hardly strength in depth compared to the top European countries, or Australia and the USA.

I'll take Froome is exceptional, and potentially a multi-GT winner, but JTL is completely unproven at the top level so I feel that argument lacks substance, and we'll have to reserve judgement on that 'immense natural talent' you have imbued him with.

No.

My point is like this:

- Great Britain has been able to produce a handful of top riders over the years, in fits and bursts.
- It isn't a strong traditional cycling nation, doesn't have its own strong national calendar, etc.
- this then means that the situation from point 1 is unlikely to change without further stimulation, and these top riders will continue to be ones chanced upon rather than developed.
- Great Britain has put a lot of work into a development program to end this reliance on luck when it comes to top level riders.
- It's quite a while since the chance/luck factor has led to Britain creating a top level talent
- This development program is starting to reap benefits, and has led to the creation of a very successful British-led team backed by several of these products.
- At the point of this team becoming successful, the chance/luck approach has coincidentally suddenly hit upon stars from unexpected sources too.

I'm not so much criticising British cycling or accusing them of doping, I'm just drawing attention to the fact that until recently all British cycling had in the top levels was a couple of aging classics journeymen. Now, not only do they have the top level talents developed through BC, but they have people who've been knocking around for a while suddenly discovering that they're that good too. And this just happens to coincide with the time when there are the best opportunities for them. The guys from inside the BC system? Well, they've been groomed for those opportunities, and they're part of a system that was designed specifically to create those opportunities for them. Now, there are guys coming out of absolutely nowhere (not part of the BC development system) to claim those opportunities that they wouldn't have had if they had happened to break out at any other time (i.e. not when the BC development system had created such a successful team and squad).

The question then is, how much of it is them being that good, and how much of it is the luck of the timing? If he was a 25-year-old hitting the European scene for the first time now, would Jamie Burrow be a potential GT winner, with the opportunities Sky present him? All I know is, it's a mighty convenient coincidence that these top level British talents have just suddenly started to perform at a time when there's a top level British team with top level support just waiting to give them a contract.

 

[The Hitch]

Froome is going to feel the same team support as Alberto in '09, and totally crush his own team (riding away from them in the TTT), only to have non on the team to fetch bottles for him, so Sky essentially is an 8 man team from the start, and Froome goes Gadret style!

The beauty of it is Sky would have to fetch him bottles. Bailsford is way too paranoid about skys image and more importantly his image to let any team infighting see the light of a newspaper writers eye.

 

[The Hitch]

I was anticipating whistle-blowing at some point given people think that Sky are doping on a USPS-level. My take is it is impossible to keep a lid on these things forever. Lance's doping was so obvious, and there were so many rumours, anecdotal evidence and eye-witness accounts that meant it was only a matter of time while he tried to protect his legacy through mafia-style enforcement and court action..

No the evidence against Lance doping came up because of how Armstrong behaved about his doping not because he was doping.

He never spoke out against doping, he defended and befriended those who doped, he attacked those who didnt dope, openly humiliated the people that helped him dope ffs - meaning you get eye witness accounts.

And he openly admitted doping to people behind closed doors. He frickin organized the doping.

Thats why he was caught, not because he was doped in the first place. The better question is how on earth he managed to get away with it till now.

The answer is that if Lance can get away with it for 12 years, than anyone with 2 braincells can get away with it for ever.

Once again, Big Mig did dope to USPS levels.
He even failed a drugs test? Why hasnt his lid been blown? Why are the same people calling wiggins a clean tour winner saying Big Mig was the last clean tour winner before that?

 

[thehog]

The beauty of it is Sky would have to fetch him bottles. Bailsford is way too paranoid about skys image and more importantly his image to let any team infighting see the light of a newspaper writers eye.

I look forward to next years marginal gains; Froome's Rasmussen styled track stands then jumping all around with Contador will be written down to 'new interval training' in remote location. TTT powerhouse abilities will be put down to specific numbers training with 'higher cadence' - in remote location. Porte and co. punching 465w for 17 stages running or 3 hours per day put down 'power based training' in remote location.

Team work. Believing in each other. Diet. Warming down.

 

[JimmyFingers]

No.

My point is like this:

- Great Britain has been able to produce a handful of top riders over the years, in fits and bursts.
- It isn't a strong traditional cycling nation, doesn't have its own strong national calendar, etc.
- this then means that the situation from point 1 is unlikely to change without further stimulation, and these top riders will continue to be ones chanced upon rather than developed.
- Great Britain has put a lot of work into a development program to end this reliance on luck when it comes to top level riders.
- It's quite a while since the chance/luck factor has led to Britain creating a top level talent
- This development program is starting to reap benefits, and has led to the creation of a very successful British-led team backed by several of these products.
- At the point of this team becoming successful, the chance/luck approach has coincidentally suddenly hit upon stars from unexpected sources too.

I'm not so much criticising British cycling or accusing them of doping, I'm just drawing attention to the fact that until recently all British cycling had in the top levels was a couple of aging classics journeymen. Now, not only do they have the top level talents developed through BC, but they have people who've been knocking around for a while suddenly discovering that they're that good too. And this just happens to coincide with the time when there are the best opportunities for them. The guys from inside the BC system? Well, they've been groomed for those opportunities, and they're part of a system that was designed specifically to create those opportunities for them. Now, there are guys coming out of absolutely nowhere (not part of the BC development system) to claim those opportunities that they wouldn't have had if they had happened to break out at any other time (i.e. not when the BC development system had created such a successful team and squad).

The question then is, how much of it is them being that good, and how much of it is the luck of the timing? If he was a 25-year-old hitting the European scene for the first time now, would Jamie Burrow be a potential GT winner, with the opportunities Sky present him? All I know is, it's a mighty convenient coincidence that these top level British talents have just suddenly started to perform at a time when there's a top level British team with top level support just waiting to give them a contract.

So we have talented riders, from in-house and out (pun not intended) and the infrastructure to nurture and support that talent. I don't understand why that is convenient if BC have been working to achieve this. You cite two riders in Froome and JTL that BC has 'lucked out' by emerging just as a British team, but I'm wondering what you are suggesting is behind it beyond convenience.

Sport ebbs and flows, from nation to nation from year to year. This is a truism, that form is temporary, although class is permanent. Performance is not locked in stone for all time, nations can emerge and have exceptional generations of talent and then fade away. Cycling is no different, although clouded by the spectre of drugs. But then they all are, only in differing degrees.

But to claim that a generation of talent is other than focussed nurture and investment, or luck is to suggest that it is a result of more nefarious means, and I would ask if you are suggesting their is some Eastern Bloc-style state-wide doping programme at play here.

It feels like you are saying we are cheating because we are suddenly good at sports.

Yet you acknowledge the work that has gone into British cycling. THE argument conflicts for me.

 

[JimmyFingers]

No the evidence against Lance doping came up because of how Armstrong behaved about his doping not because he was doping.

He never spoke out against doping, he defended and befriended those who doped, he attacked those who didnt dope, openly humiliated the people that helped him dope ffs - meaning you get eye witness accounts.

And he openly admitted doping to people behind closed doors. He frickin organized the doping.

Thats why he was caught, not because he was doped in the first place. The better question is how on earth he managed to get away with it till now.

The answer is that if Lance can get away with it for 12 years, than anyone with 2 braincells can get away with it for ever.

Once again, Big Mig did dope to USPS levels.
He even failed a drugs test? Why hasnt his lid been blown? Why are the same people calling wiggins a clean tour winner saying Big Mig was the last clean tour winner before that?

So basically he got caught because he was an arsehole. Isn't Wiggins one too? So many people come on here and tell us he is one. So many people post pictures of him smoking something, or wearing a funny coat, or with some indy rock star at an awards bash and seem to think it relevant to him doping.

I remember you saying you like to distance yourself from that. But this reads a little bit like do it like Lance, be a bully, alienate people get caught. Do it like Indurain, be a good guy, don't get people's backs up and you'll get away with it.

Nice guys do finish first. And don't get their titles taken away from them.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

So we have talented riders, from in-house and out (pun not intended) and the infrastructure to nurture and support that talent. I don't understand why that is convenient if BC have been working to achieve this. You cite two riders in Froome and JTL that BC has 'lucked out' by emerging just as a British team, but I'm wondering what you are suggesting is behind it beyond convenience.

Sport ebbs and flows, from nation to nation from year to year. This is a truism, that form is temporary, although class is permanent. Performance is not locked in stone for all time, nations can emerge and have exceptional generations of talent and then fade away. Cycling is no different, although clouded by the spectre of drugs. But then they all are, only in differing degrees.

But to claim that a generation of talent is other than focussed nurture and investment, or luck is to suggest that it is a result of more nefarious means, and I would ask if you are suggesting their is some Eastern Bloc-style state-wide doping programme at play here.

It feels like you are saying we are cheating because we are suddenly good at sports.

Yet you acknowledge the work that has gone into British cycling. THE argument conflicts for me.

That's because you are not separating the riders who have improved whilst under BC tutelage, from the sudden breakout performances from people not under that umbrella.

I am not suggesting an Eastern-Bloc-style statewide doping program; I am suggesting that it is not far-fetched to consider that, given that the British domestic calendar is pretty limited and Team Sky gives Britain a clear focus point to go to at the top level that has never been there before (previously British talents had to up and shop around on the continent, even as recently as Stannard, spending a year at Landbouwkrediet and a year at ISD before resurfacing at Sky), seeing such sudden and marked improvements from people who have not been through that development process but now see themselves becoming focal riders at Sky, is something that would - should - raise eyebrows. After all, these success stories of total out-of-nowhere-talents now find themselves in a position to benefit from all BC's hard work, a position that was never afforded previous generations of British talent.

Again - is it suspiciously convenient timing that these great riders have just happened to break out at the right time despite not really showing any previous signs that it was likely? Or is it just that talents of previous generations didn't get the nurturing, or without that clear and precise British goal to aspire to were more directionless as riders? After all, Jamie Burrow could, from his early results, feasibly have been better than Froome and Tiernan-Locke put together. Was it just that he was born at the wrong time and they were fortunate enough to be born at the right time?

You say that I'm saying a generation of talent is other than nurture and investment, but where is the nurture and investment in the case of guys like Froome and Tiernan-Locke? Yet they've made bigger strides, far more suddenly and far more intensely, than any of the guys that BC have been carefully developing. If we're going to credit BC for the upswing in British cycling talent, then how do we reconcile that with Froome and Tiernan-Locke, not within British Cycling, improving more, more quickly, and being better than, almost all of BC's pet projects who have received far more investment and nurture?

 

[The Hitch]

So basically he got caught because he was an arsehole. Isn't Wiggins one too? So many people come on here and tell us he is one.

Im amazed how stupid and reactionary your post is and posts(plural) recently, have become

"wah people say wiggins dopes like lance".

"Wah Wah people say wiggins is an arsehole"

Cry if you want but stop hijacking actual discussions that have nothing to do with these prior criticsism by constantly moaning about what people said 10 pages ago.

Since you missed it, I was actually explaining to you what Lance did that got him caught why it doesnt spell doom for every person who ever doped.

Since you seem incapable of understanding simple arguments like - "lance got caught because he made enemies of people that had the power to bring him down", maybe ill have a bit more luck by drawing you a picture.

2 criminals. Stiped white and blacked shirts, a bag over their shoulder and a mask over their head.

Criminal A - Shoots a person, tells 10 people about it and keeps the gun.

Criminal B - Shoots a person, tells his lawyer about it and throws the gun into the sea.

Do you understand why Criminal A was caught and what he could have done to avoid capture?

Or are you going to come back with some more moaning about how people dont like sky and say nasty things about them?

Edit: Ps, Criminal B is not Wiggins, just a hypothetical example of how people can get away with crimes if they put their head to it. Contrary to these imo stupid and childish ideas "you know youll eventually get caught" and "the lid will eventually come off".

 

[coinneach]

No.

My point is like this:

- Great Britain has been able to produce a handful of top riders over the years, in fits and bursts.
- It isn't a strong traditional cycling nation, doesn't have its own strong national calendar, etc.
- this then means that the situation from point 1 is unlikely to change without further stimulation, and these top riders will continue to be ones chanced upon rather than developed.
- Great Britain has put a lot of work into a development program to end this reliance on luck when it comes to top level riders.
- It's quite a while since the chance/luck factor has led to Britain creating a top level talent
- This development program is starting to reap benefits, and has led to the creation of a very successful British-led team backed by several of these products.
- At the point of this team becoming successful, the chance/luck approach has coincidentally suddenly hit upon stars from unexpected sources too.

I'm not so much criticising British cycling or accusing them of doping, I'm just drawing attention to the fact that until recently all British cycling had in the top levels was a couple of aging classics journeymen. Now, not only do they have the top level talents developed through BC, but they have people who've been knocking around for a while suddenly discovering that they're that good too. And this just happens to coincide with the time when there are the best opportunities for them. The guys from inside the BC system? Well, they've been groomed for those opportunities, and they're part of a system that was designed specifically to create those opportunities for them. Now, there are guys coming out of absolutely nowhere (not part of the BC development system) to claim those opportunities that they wouldn't have had if they had happened to break out at any other time (i.e. not when the BC development system had created such a successful team and squad).

The question then is, how much of it is them being that good, and how much of it is the luck of the timing? If he was a 25-year-old hitting the European scene for the first time now, would Jamie Burrow be a potential GT winner, with the opportunities Sky present him? All I know is, it's a mighty convenient coincidence that these top level British talents have just suddenly started to perform at a time when there's a top level British team with top level support just waiting to give them a contract.

The answer is all to simple, I'm afraid. MONEY!!!
There has always been sporting talent in the UK (though not as much as some other countries, as has been analyses before). More youngsters are attracted to cycling, and the drop-out rate of real talented folk has reduced. Folk like JTL would never have bothered coming back to cycling in the old days after years out. Froome would never have become British and we may even have lost Wiggins to Belgium (he threatened to go at one stage, so his strops are not some new feature!) But its still not brilliant: its heavily dependent on lottery money chasing Olympic gold and Sky chasing markets in the UK and Europe (and perhaps a better image)

So much of the focus on Sky misses the context.
I agree with a poster many pages ago who speculated that Sky success may be party due to an over-reliance on drugs by other teams/nations in the past, so that when that is reduced/lost they find they don't have the infrastructure & support to compete.

But I accept that is a gross generalisation and talented riders may now appear from a wider pool of talent.

 

[Parker]

. Now, there are guys coming out of absolutely nowhere (not part of the BC development system) to claim those opportunities that they wouldn't have had if they had happened to break out at any other time (i.e. not when the BC development system had created such a successful team and squad).

But Tiernan-Locke isn't coming out of nowhere. When he was 18 he was riding for GB u23s at the Worlds, around about the same time as Dan Martin (another one who didn't come through the track program). He had been identified as a talent (something BC have been better at since they had money) and was sent for successful time at a French amateur team and was interesting the French pro teams. Then he got ill and went to Uni. Then he came back on John Herety's team (his old GB boss).

 

[Libertine Seguros]

But Tiernan-Locke isn't coming out of nowhere. When he was 18 he was riding for GB u23s at the Worlds, around about the same time as Dan Martin (another one who didn't come through the track program). He had been identified as a talent (something BC have been better at since they had money) and was sent for successful time at a French amateur team and was interesting the French pro teams. Then he got ill and went to Uni. Then he came back on John Herety's team (his old GB boss).

That was still years ago, and he went from being a solid rider accumulating fairly good results in 2.2 races and getting an occasional win from a breakaway, to a strong rider beating much stronger fields by being the class of the field.

While his transformation is pretty easily explicable given the circumstances of his giving up cycling, studying etc., it's stretching the truth a bit to say that he didn't come out of nowhere.

 

[thehog]

But Tiernan-Locke isn't coming out of nowhere. When he was 18 he was riding for GB u23s at the Worlds, around about the same time as Dan Martin (another one who didn't come through the track program). He had been identified as a talent (something BC have been better at since they had money) and was sent for successful time at a French amateur team and was interesting the French pro teams. Then he got ill and went to Uni. Then he came back on John Herety's team (his old GB boss).

Simple. It's that easy.

All ProTour cyclists at a minimum were good at U23. There are 100's of French riders riding in their amatuter teams.

What's makes Froome II so special?

These breakthrough British riders appear to get "ill", disappear, then come back transformed into Indurian.

What's in the Ale over there in Blighty?