Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[coinneach]

The obvious reason, on unfamiliar roads, is to identify the location and extent of any severe gradients. Even at Weekend Warrior level, one trains differently to tackle long, steady "French" climbs than one does for short, short, almost vertical "English" climbs.

Whilst one would expect all pros to train to be able to deal with all sorts of terrain, there may be a "margin" to be "gained" from optimising the amount of time spent training for different terrain, given the expected out-turn of the race. However much one can control a race, a series of pitches at 15%+ will require a different distribution of effort to dieseling up a constant 7% gradient.

Reccying the route seems more use from a tactical viewpoint tbh. eg make sure the riders aren't overgeared (eg Wiggo in 2011 Vuelta) and knowing where there are narrow sections where it's imperative to be at the front (eg Wiggo crashing mid-pack in 2011 Tour).

Yeh but, Sky dieseled up everything, and as for gears, they can be changed on the day (what about the wind??)
I remember Dave Harmon talking with Sean Kelly about the Ventoux on commentary, describing how the gradient changed at different parts and that. Kelly said I don't know what you are talking about: I just remember it from who was attacking when.

But maybe its the whole british cycling mentality "control what you can, don't worry about anything else"...I still find it strange that they work their whole training round what the routes look like

 

[Avoriaz]

The problem for all the pro cycling doping/omerta upholders (incl. Brailsford, McQuaid, etc etc) is that there is a significant minority of hardcore fans who know the sport pretty well and call the BS as it is, including the team Sky ZT policy. And many of those are vocal and do shape opinion of the broader fanbase. So they will remain a problem.

It's a fair comment, but I think it actually works both ways. As we hardcore fans have followed the sport for a while, we have been presented with 20 years of BS. That BS is so deeply ingrained that we are no longer easily able to tell the difference, so have a default setting that all is BS. And remains BS until proved otherwise. Which is difficult.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Yeh but, Sky dieseled up everything, and as for gears, they can be changed on the day (what about the wind??)

But how would the mechanics know the optimum gearing for the expected terrain without prior knowledge of the course? And where does reliable knowledge of a course come from?

Sky dieseled up everything in the Tour last year, but all the climbs were dieselable (if such a word exits!)

Even as far back as 2008, Berto rode the Motirolo stage in the Giro on a rear cassette cobbled together by his mechanics from some SRAM mountain bike parts. There was nothing in the SRAM road range at the time that went as low as Berto wanted to get close to optimising his cadence. (This was the forerunner of SRAM Apex, which goes down to 34*32.)

It's always better to find these things out in advance (Berto Giro 2008) than on the day (Wiggo Angliru 2011).

For me, the key point is that reccying the course probably isn't unique to Sky. That reccying the course is "a good thing" seems indisputable. There is no downside to so doing, as even if you discover nothing that wouldn't be covered by normal training, you've still done good training whilst reccying.

 

[coinneach]

But how would the mechanics know the optimum gearing for the expected terrain without prior knowledge of the course? And where does reliable knowledge of a course come from?

Sky dieseled up everything in the Tour last year, but all the climbs were dieselable (if such a word exits!)

Even as far back as 2008, Berto rode the Motirolo stage in the Giro on a rear cassette cobbled together by his mechanics from some SRAM mountain bike parts. There was nothing in the SRAM road range at the time that went as low as Berto wanted to get close to optimising his cadence. (This was the forerunner of SRAM Apex, which goes down to 34*32.)

It's always better to find these things out in advance (Berto Giro 2008) than on the day (Wiggo Angliru 2011).

For me, the key point is that reccying the course probably isn't unique to Sky. That reccying the course is "a good thing" seems indisputable. There is no downside to so doing, as even if you discover nothing that wouldn't be covered by normal training, you've still done good training whilst reccying.

I totally agree with you about gearing (and am amazed at this years Vuelta, how many were hopelessly overgeared)
But Sky are not talking about reccying for that purpose, but to base their entire training programme on! So what if Contador attackes one day but not the next: surely those days will require completely different effort??

 

[JimmyFingers]

I totally agree with you about gearing (and am amazed at this years Vuelta, how many were hopelessly overgeared)
But Sky are not talking about reccying for that purpose, but to base their entire training programme on! So what if Contador attackes one day but not the next: surely those days will require completely different effort??

I'm waiting for someone to quote Roger's 'pushing 450w' line. Sky don't ride like that, one of the reasons they're disliked. They'll look to ride tempo up climbs, maintaining a steady pace rather than reacting to opponents i.e. let them attack, wait till they slow down then ride back up to them. Reccying a climb gives them tons of data on their riders as well as bikes requirements. The team and staff will know what each rider is capable of, when and where, and they will likely stick to that.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

But Sky are not talking about reccying for that purpose, but to base their entire training programme on! So what if Contador attackes one day but not the next: surely those days will require completely different effort??

OK. I've got your point now...

I suspect that this sort of talk is a good "filler" for interviews. It will sound impressive to the masses, and is a subject matter unlikely to spill over into more controversial areas. Thus, media obligations can be fulfilled without having to risk wheeling a grumpy Wiggins out for a chat!

It might also be code: Lance always claimed an advantage over Ullrich by reccying the route and Lance was a doper. Thus, Sky are simply telling everyone that they're doping like Lance did. Seems obvious to me!

 

[horsinabout]

I think DB joined British Cycling in 1996 to try and maximise the cash coming to cycling from Lottery funding. He then became programme director, before becoming performance director in 2004, so he wasnt headhunted to become performance director in 1996.

He's obviously a charismatic guy who can talk the hind leg off a donkey, so it may be the he simply bullsh*tted his way into his first role in 1996. I'm sure most of us have at least tried to bullsh*t our way into a job we really wanted.

Reading the autobiographies of various GB and Sky riders, it's pretty clear that DB isn't a coach. Sir Chris refers frequently to Iain Dyer, Jan van Eijden and Scott Gardner, whilst Sir Brad refers to Sutton and Tim Kerrison.

DB's role is the strategy/facilitiation side of things. It's pretty clear in an organisation who's good at this sort of stuff and who isn't. Those that are good tend to move rapidly towards the top. They make things happen; not by doing it themselves, but by getting others to do it for them.

Clive Woodward's role with the England rugby team was similar. Prior to appointment as head coach in 1997, he'd only coached Henley in one of the minor leagues. He was - and still is - a prize bullsh*tter - but on his watch, England were the dominant force in rugby. He did no coaching (Andy Robinson did that) and in the world cup final when he tried to give Martin Johnson some tactical advice in the closing stages, Johnno told him where to go and did his own thing. Sir Clive's role was mainly about persuading clubs to release players for squad training and to avoid over training / over playing key guys when not on international duty.

Firstly anyone who bullsh*ts their way into a job (and this is a more serious point here) is basically taking the place of another person who may have better credentials FACT.

Call me naive, but I have never heard of someone "joining in" for an appointment or post of employment in an advisory or directorship role, without any credentials to back them up - sounds like a case of gross favourtism or at worst gross incompetance on someones part.

No I don't think or have ever implied that DB was a coach or a scientist. I am viewing him in the context of his stated role, performance director for BC.

My view on his role is one of an interface or PR officer between BC and the riders and to some extent so was Shane Sutton. The real people who are making things happen in British Cycling performance successes are the other staff as you have mentioned, in brief the sports scientists, doctors, physio's and so on.

However, and for me here is the big ?????'s why isn't the real science behind these outstanding performances being published. Why arn't they releasing power out put data and other real scientific processes of training an elite performer. How is it scienticically being achieved?

No all we hear is good old Dave Brailsford's PR hyperbole and sudo science about marginal gains, incremental steps, looking at every minute detail to see if we have dotted all the I's and crossed all the T's. looking at our equipment and erodynamics and blar, blar, blar.

Well his PR performance is going down the skidds without a paddel at the moment to mix my metaphors. And perhaps this is fitting for an individual who was allowed to bullsh*t his way to the top.

The chickens are well and truely coming home to roost.


P.S It DB has charisma then so does a wet lettice

 

[horsinabout]

The problem for Brailsford is not the believers, they are easily decieved, it is the non believers that are the problem, no matter how much of a minority the fans would like to believe they are it would not take too much to change in the current climate cycling has created for itself to convince people that all is not what it seems as Sky. Brailsford is probably all too aware of that, hence the clear out of the personal with skeletons lurking in closets.

Are the believers...what are we going to do with them?

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Firstly anyone who bullsh*ts their way into a job (and this is a more serious point here) is basically taking the place of another person who may have better credentials FACT.

Call me naive, but I have never heard of someone "joining in" for an appointment or post of employment in an advisory or directorship role, without any credentials to back them up - sounds like a case of gross favourtism or at worst gross incompetance on someones part.

No I don't think or have ever implied that DB was a coach or a scientist. I am viewing him in the context of his stated role, performance director for BC.

My view on his role is one of an interface or PR officer between BC and the riders and to some extent so was Shane Sutton. The real people who are making things happen in British Cycling performance successes are the other staff as you have mentioned, in brief the sports scientists, doctors, physio's and so on.

However, and for me here is the big ?????'s why isn't the real science behind these outstanding performances being published. Why arn't they releasing power out put data and other real scientific processes of training an elite performer. How is it scienticically being achieved?

No all we hear is good old Dave Brailsford's PR hyperbole and sudo science about marginal gains, incremental steps, looking at every minute detail to see if we have dotted all the I's and crossed all the T's. looking at our equipment and erodynamics and blar, blar, blar.

Well his PR performance is going down the skidds without a paddel at the moment to mix my metaphors. And perhaps this is fitting for an individual who was allowed to bullsh*t his way to the top.

The chickens are well and truely coming home to roost.


P.S It DB has charisma then so does a wet lettice

Anyone reading this who didn't know anything about Brailsford would assume the guy was a walking disaster area. It would be interesting to see how someone much better qualified would have got on running British cycling.

 

[D-Queued]

But how would the mechanics know the optimum gearing for the expected terrain without prior knowledge of the course? And where does reliable knowledge of a course come from?

Sky dieseled up everything in the Tour last year, but all the climbs were dieselable (if such a word exits!)

Even as far back as 2008, Berto rode the Motirolo stage in the Giro on a rear cassette cobbled together by his mechanics from some SRAM mountain bike parts. There was nothing in the SRAM road range at the time that went as low as Berto wanted to get close to optimising his cadence. (This was the forerunner of SRAM Apex, which goes down to 34*32.)

It's always better to find these things out in advance (Berto Giro 2008) than on the day (Wiggo Angliru 2011).

For me, the key point is that reccying the course probably isn't unique to Sky. That reccying the course is "a good thing" seems indisputable. There is no downside to so doing, as even if you discover nothing that wouldn't be covered by normal training, you've still done good training whilst reccying.

Is that the answer? Gear Ratio?

Goodness. I know that there is quite a bit of superstition around an 18T cog, and I refuse to ride with one. But, wow, if I had an 18-1/2T Cog I could win the Tour.

Amazing.

Dave.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Firstly anyone who bullsh*ts their way into a job (and this is a more serious point here) is basically taking the place of another person who may have better credentials FACT.

Call me naive, but I have never heard of someone "joining in" for an appointment or post of employment in an advisory or directorship role, without any credentials to back them up - sounds like a case of gross favourtism or at worst gross incompetance on someones part.

No I don't think or have ever implied that DB was a coach or a scientist. I am viewing him in the context of his stated role, performance director for BC.

My view on his role is one of an interface or PR officer between BC and the riders and to some extent so was Shane Sutton. The real people who are making things happen in British Cycling performance successes are the other staff as you have mentioned, in brief the sports scientists, doctors, physio's and so on.

However, and for me here is the big ?????'s why isn't the real science behind these outstanding performances being published. Why arn't they releasing power out put data and other real scientific processes of training an elite performer. How is it scienticically being achieved?

No all we hear is good old Dave Brailsford's PR hyperbole and sudo science about marginal gains, incremental steps, looking at every minute detail to see if we have dotted all the I's and crossed all the T's. looking at our equipment and erodynamics and blar, blar, blar.

Well his PR performance is going down the skidds without a paddel at the moment to mix my metaphors. And perhaps this is fitting for an individual who was allowed to bullsh*t his way to the top.

The chickens are well and truely coming home to roost.


P.S It DB has charisma then so does a wet lettice

I see that the old satire didn't last long. Still a day is a day.

Just an observation, but this post looks remarkably like something a Clinic old hand would dish up, not a 10 day old Noob.

 

[mastersracer]

Firstly anyone who bullsh*ts their way into a job (and this is a more serious point here) is basically taking the place of another person who may have better credentials FACT.

Call me naive, but I have never heard of someone "joining in" for an appointment or post of employment in an advisory or directorship role, without any credentials to back them up - sounds like a case of gross favourtism or at worst gross incompetance on someones part.

No I don't think or have ever implied that DB was a coach or a scientist. I am viewing him in the context of his stated role, performance director for BC.

My view on his role is one of an interface or PR officer between BC and the riders and to some extent so was Shane Sutton. The real people who are making things happen in British Cycling performance successes are the other staff as you have mentioned, in brief the sports scientists, doctors, physio's and so on.

However, and for me here is the big ?????'s why isn't the real science behind these outstanding performances being published. Why arn't they releasing power out put data and other real scientific processes of training an elite performer. How is it scienticically being achieved?

No all we hear is good old Dave Brailsford's PR hyperbole and sudo science about marginal gains, incremental steps, looking at every minute detail to see if we have dotted all the I's and crossed all the T's. looking at our equipment and erodynamics and blar, blar, blar.

Well his PR performance is going down the skidds without a paddel at the moment to mix my metaphors. And perhaps this is fitting for an individual who was allowed to bullsh*t his way to the top.

The chickens are well and truely coming home to roost.


P.S It DB has charisma then so does a wet lettice

1.It's cycling - the number of people in team management roles who had to choose between a Rhodes scholarship and a life in cycling is vanishingly small.

2. Are your spelling errors intentional, or do you just not know how to spell?

 

[JimmyFingers]

1.It's cycling - the number of people in team management roles who had to choose between a Rhodes scholarship and a life in cycling is vanishingly small.

2. Are your spelling errors intentional, or do you just not know how to spell?

I'm assuming it's misdirection. Quite clear who this poster is to me.

 

[horsinabout]

Anyone reading this who didn't know anything about Brailsford would assume the guy was a walking disaster area. It would be interesting to see how someone much better qualified would have got on running British cycling.

Anyone reading this who didn't know anything about Brailsford would assume the guy was a walking disaster area. It would be interesting to see how someone much better qualified would have got on running British cycling.

I am presenting facts here. Trying to get to some truths. What do you know FACTUALLY about Brailsford? please add to the debate constructively. Now come on, none of that sychophancy emotive stuff, how many medals he's single handly produced. Along with putting the Sir infront of his name etc...

I am not impressed by DB, I have presented a case as to why I don't buy into him? And no one has presented proof to make me believe other wise.

Other than I like him... he is such a great guy if not a bullsh*ter. Not good enough, sorry.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

I am presenting facts here. Trying to get to some truths. What do you know FACTUALLY about Brailsford? please add to the debate constructively. Now come on, none of that sychophancy emotive stuff, how many medals he's single handly produced. Along with putting the Sir infront of his name etc...

I am not impressed by DB, I have presented a case as to why I don't buy into him? And no one has presented proof to make me believe other wise.

Other than I like him... he is such a great guy if not a bullsh*ter. Not good enough, sorry.

Personally I dislike Brailsford, to me he comes across as smug, patronising and untrustworthy. It's hard to argue he is doing a bad job though given the results (any possible doping matters aside). Personally I don't see what relevance his life before he joined British cycling has to what he is achieving now and it's not something I am especially interested in to be honest.

 

[mastersracer]

I'm assuming it's misdirection. Quite clear who this poster is to me.

good point - more Sky squealing from that one...

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Is that the answer? Gear Ratio?

Goodness. I know that there is quite a bit of superstition around an 18T cog, and I refuse to ride with one. But, wow, if I had an 18-1/2T Cog I could win the Tour.

Amazing.

Dave.

As you well know, gear ratios are one of many things that won't win you the Tour but can certainly lose it for you.

Why do you think Contador had his mechanics cobble together a rear cassette out of spare parts for the Plan De Corones TT in Giro in 2008? Was it, perchance, because he thought he needed a specific (in this case low - 34*32) gear ratio given the challenge the TT presented?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

No I don't think or have ever implied that DB was a coach or a scientist. I am viewing him in the context of his stated role, performance director for BC.

You stated in a previous post that he was head-hunted to become performance director in 1996.

This is not true, as he became performance director in 2004, 8 years after joining BC.

I'm sure the big cheeses in British Cycling had enough time to assess in the intervening 8 years if DB was the right man for the job, and based on results - the only currency that counts in sport - they were right.

Remember that being a director is all about making strategic decisions and getting other people to put them into action.

 

[the sceptic]

Leinders was running quite the doping program at Rabo wasnt he? Brailsford must be shocked that such a man was employed on his team. Luckily he got rid of him before this mess broke though.

 

[SundayRider]

Leinders was running quite the doping program at Rabo wasnt he? Brailsford must be shocked that such a man was employed on his team. Luckily he got rid of him before this mess broke though.

Leinders will have done lasting damage to Sky

 

[horsinabout]

You stated in a previous post that he was head-hunted to become performance director in 1996.

This is not true, as he became performance director in 2004, 8 years after joining BC.

I'm sure the big cheeses in British Cycling had enough time to assess in the intervening 8 years if DB was the right man for the job, and based on results - the only currency that counts in sport - they were right.

Remember that being a director is all about making strategic decisions and getting other people to put them into action.

Dave Brailsford took over Peter Keen's role, he (PK), was Performance director of the WCPP in 2003 you are correct I got my facts wrong here. He (DB) was a financial adviser in 1996 and recruited as a business manager in 1998 becoming performance director in 2003/4.

This still does not explain his lack of publicly announced work experience for the job of financial adviser he took up in 1996 on the BC's payroll and why he was chosen for this role in the first place. Not sure if any of those positions were ever advertised or were competed for? Seems as though BC or PK, have it as you will, were grooming DB for the jobs. Not the same as proving your worth on the job.

Another thing, what objectively and strategically has DB done in his role? Alot of what I read he gains influence from the models of other managers by his own admittion, has DB got any originality?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

And the Giro and all the classics, yes. If you look at their accrued race performance points, they were ~50% higher than second place. For me that's enough of an indication of dominance over the entire season.

I did see some Sky train towards Roubaix, they weren't good enough to capture the one man Jose Tom Taus train...

Two teams in one team, just like the ........ - train...

Kimmage didn't win the Tour, didn't ride for an elite team and didn't win a race as a pro, so her description covers Kimmage perfectly! (I do accept she probably intended the description to apply to Sir Dave...)

Do your research W, RMO was a very big team, no sh@t!

Please, stop insulting people who do know their cycling history, and, were around to see.

Cheerio.

 

[horsinabout]

I see that the old satire didn't last long. Still a day is a day.

Just an observation, but this post looks remarkably like something a Clinic old hand would dish up, not a 10 day old Noob.

Learning on the Job old chap...learning on the job. Just like Mr DB, i'll drop the Sir stuff if it's all the same..

 

[mastersracer]

Dave Brailsford took over Peter Keen's role, he (PK), was Performance director of the WCPP in 2003 you are correct I got my facts wrong here. He (DB) was a financial adviser in 1996 and recruited as a business manager in 1998 becoming performance director in 2003/4.

This still does not explain his lack of publicly announced work experience for the job of financial adviser he took up in 1996 on the BC's payroll and why he was chosen for this role in the first place. Not sure if any of those positions were ever advertised or were competed for? Seems as though BC or PK, have it as you will, were grooming DB for the jobs. Not the same as proving your worth on the job.

Another thing, what objectively and strategically has DB done in his role? Alot of what I read he gains influence from the models of other managers by his own admittion, has DB got any originality?

in your other persona you accuse DB of running the most sophisticated doping program in cycling and in this persona you accuse him of no originality. Nothing like playing all the angles, but this line is a complete waste of virtual spacetime.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Red herring, much like the lengthy debate on whether Wiggins was from Maida Vale or Kilburn. Same MO