Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[pmcg76]

Definition of elite? This is obviously subjective, but in my view, this would be a team that - on targeted major races - is expected to be competing for the overall title or aiming for a significant number of stage wins, not hoping for a lucky break. I guess this is quite a narrow definition, but pro sport is not school sports day, so accolades have to be earned!

Re Kimmage vs Brailsford as riders, this is an obvious "no brainer" and unfortunate proof that being good at sport isn't necessarily going to make you happy.

Well, to me your standards for elite would include maybe the Top 10 teams in the world and that would be about it.

Trying to equate RMO(86-88) to a modern day team and I would be thinking along the lines of AG2R, Lfdjeux or Cofidis. I don't know if you consider those teams as elite.

 

[horsinabout]

What do you think he might have been up to? He left university in around 1990 and started with Sky in 1996 so I am assuming the clinic isn't far away from reaching the conclusion that between these dates he was instrumental in introducing EPO doping in cycling. The dates fit, the BSC would have helped and the massive secrecy about his whereabouts in these years certainly suggests he has something to hide.

Look when I said to appraise the rise of cycling more deeply I wasn't suggesting that you went all out down the conspiracy theory route...that on a par with David Icke. Minus the Lizzards. DB didn't join Sky, as back in 1996 Sky was still to be dreamed up.

 

[Caruut]

Well I think there was a saying that if you made it past your first contract, then you had achieved something as a pro. Most rider's didn't make it past their first contract.

I agree that RMO were not a top team when they first formed but also interested to hear what you consider as elite. I would think a team that rode the Tour every year it existed would be considered an elite team.

RMO might have been towards the bottom end of the elite list but they were in that category as regular Tour participants. Don't forget that Kimmage moved to Fagor and was also picked for their Tour team. I think Fagor would fall into the elite category as well.

I think it is clear in Rough Ride that Kimmage didn't have the mental toughness to survive in pro-cycling. Everything seemed to get him down and he seemed to lack in self-confidence and was always looking for a way-out.

Not that it really matter's but if we are comparing the cycling career's of Bralisford and Kimmage, then clearly Kimmage is several rungs above Bralisford and even Shane Sutton for that matter.

When Kimmage rode for Fagor, Roche was the leader. Sure he might not have gotten the gig had he not been mates with Roche, but it was most likely a situation of "we need a low-ranking dom, any preferences Stephen?". A team lead by a triple crown winner is pretty much elite by definition.

On the subject of lacking the mental toughness, in Rough Ride he talks about discussing extreme pain with Kelly. Essentially, it was only once or twice that Kimmage put himself in the kind of pain Kelly routinely subjected himself to during major races. Not that I think any less of Kimmage for lacking the mental strength to be a pro rider. I lacked the mental strength to complete a frickin' degree (first time around).

 

[horsinabout]

is that true?............peter likes horses too..............grooming seems more like too much work for me all that shovelling cak

once at a country fair i did take a shine to the pretty young things in their jodhpurs

but peter did know a thing about sports science.................success which
in it's way helped pave the way to team sky

but what is the merit here pondering if team sky are indeed clean

Grooming horses, no last thing on earth he would be grooming. I refer to grooming those wanna be performance directors. PK a sports scientist na, he was promoted, probably by himself, to a physiologist, which basically means sudo science, dressed up as something more legitimate. I tell you what if I need a physiologist i'll stick to the NHS thanks.

PK did a Phd doctorate, going from memory here I don't think he was awarded it. Had a few failed attempts anyway. Don't know if he was sucessfull in the end.

 

[ebandit]

skeptologist

Grooming horses, no last thing on earth he would be grooming. PK a sports scientist na, he was promoted, probalbly by himself, to a psysiologist, which basically means sudo science, dressed up as something more legitimate. I tell you what if I need a physiologist i'll stick to the NHS thanks.

PK did a Phd doctorate, going from memory here I don't think he was awarded it. Had a few failed attempts anyway. Don't know if he was sucessfull in the end.

so i'm a skeptologist ...........how's this equate to observation on if team sky

are clean?...........honestly...some folk do go on................and on

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Look when I said to appraise the rise of cycling more deeply I wasn't suggesting that you went all out down the conspiracy theory route...that on a par with David Icke. Minus the Lizzards. DB didn't join Sky, as back in 1996 Sky was still to be dreamed up.

Apologies, easy mistake to make when you're dreaming up conspiracy theories. It has to be said though that, at best, the fact that Brailsford's 'missing years' clash with the beginning of the EPO era is a rather unfortunate coincidence.

 

[horsinabout]

Apologies, easy mistake to make when you're dreaming up conspiracy theories. It has to be said though that, at best, the fact that Brailsford's 'missing years' clash with the beginning of the EPO era is a rather unfortunate coincidence.

Brailsford the "missing years" ha ha I like it ...thats funny!

His none existant years more like, must have gone into hiding after the French federation caught him racing without a licence! And receiving money as an amature for slowing up the bunch following the breakaways.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No. I know a lot of sporting trivia, but this is beyond my limit!

So, you are well versed on the history of British cycling but you cannot answer a simple question about Brailsfords cycling career.

Now here's a question for you, and indeed anyone interested...

Can a team place 4 riders in the top 7 of the final GC of the Tour de France with 2 of the 4 riders concerned doing it clean?

This is a deflection the North Koreans would be proud to launch.
But to answer your question - in the 80's yes. It hasn't been the 80s for some time now.

 

[horsinabout]

so i'm a skeptologist ...........how's this equate to observation on if team sky

are clean?...........honestly...some folk do go on................and on

Insert edit "I refer to grooming those wanna be performance directors " wouldn't want any wrong impressions.

 

[horsinabout]

So, you are well versed on the history of British cycling but you cannot answer a simple question about Brailsfords cycling career.

No one knows....not even Brailsford. It has all become a bit of a daze,...a distant memory, his head is still spinning from his good fortune that has surpassed all his expectations, to become so damed popular in the eyes of the admiring British public that he can hardly breath.

 

[ebandit]

edit

Insert edit "I refer to grooming those wanna be performance directors " wouldn't want any wrong impressions.

edit..........'so we're gonna have another 1000 pages of bollox'.....gotcha

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

It hasn't been the 80s for some time now.

Blimey. You're on fire today, Doc.

I was just about to head out and put 1000 Pesetas each way on a promising youngster call Miguel to win the Tour within the next 5 years. Thanks for reminding me to check the date!

Notwithstanding that much more was possible in the 80s, La Vie Claire's GC performance in 1986 is better than has been claimed (not by you, who I consider to be a beacon of reasonableness and sense) on behalf of Sky for 2012 and nearly twice as dominant as Sky actually achieved.

Thought-provoking at least, given that climbing performances are more 1980s and 90s/00s these day.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Blimey. You're on fire today, Doc.

I was just about to head out and put 1000 Pesetas each way on a promising youngster call Miguel to win the Tour within the next 5 years. Thanks for reminding me to check the date!

Notwithstanding that much more was possible in the 80s, La Vie Claire's GC performance in 1986 is better than has been claimed (not by you, who I consider to be a beacon of reasonableness and sense) on behalf of Sky for 2012 and nearly twice as dominant as Sky actually achieved.

Thought-provoking at least, given that climbing performances are more 1980s and 90s/00s these day.

You don't really want to go down the route of comparing Hampsten & LeMond with Froome & Wiggins, do you? Because whatever currency you wish to use you will lose.

Lets stick to subject of Team Sky.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

You don't really want to go down the route of comparing Hampsten & LeMond with Froome & Wiggins, do you? Because whatever currency you wish to use you will lose.

I choose my currency as GT performances.

LeMond obviously takes top spot, but Wiggo beats Hampsten, so it's a potential score draw. (I could be really mean and chose Olympic track golds as my currency, but I won't..., even though you allowed me to choose)

I wouldn't dispute an assessment that as a duo, LeMond and Hampsten would beat Froome and Wiggins, though, in their respective primes.

I was thinking more from the angle of probability of extreme events. Much has been made of the fact that whilst Sky's performances are individually just about believable, collectively they are "impossible".

My thought, though, is how is this assessment of "impossible" determined? La Vie Claire's performance - by your assessment a possibility in the 80s - provides a benchmark for possibility that hasn't really been considered.

If something more extreme than something currently considered impossible has actually happened, then surely the definition of "impossible" has to be reconsidered? If not, then very specific factors would need to be stated and proved as to why the precedent situation is no longer relevant.

 

[mastersracer]

You don't really want to go down the route of comparing Hampsten & LeMond with Froome & Wiggins, do you? Because whatever currency you wish to use you will lose.

Lets stick to subject of Team Sky.

you mean like having 3 riders in the top 4, one a neo-pro who also won a major stage race that same year, winning the Tour team GC by 2 hours, and having the most memorable stage involve the two team leaders drop the entire peloton and have such a big gap on the final climb that they could talk out their differences?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I choose my currency as GT performances.

You would be better off sticking with Pesetas as it has about the same value to your argument.

Did LeMond or Hampsten spend their early years sitting in the gruppeto?

LeMond obviously takes top spot, but Wiggo beats Hampsten, so it's a potential score draw. (I could be really mean and chose Olympic track golds as my currency, but I won't..., even though you allowed me to choose)

I wouldn't dispute an assessment that as a duo, LeMond and Hampsten would beat Froome and Wiggins, though, in their respective primes.

I was thinking more from the angle of probability of extreme events. Much has been made of the fact that whilst Sky's performances are individually just about believable, collectively they are "impossible".

My thought, though, is how is this assessment of "impossible" determined? La Vie Claire's performance - by your assessment a possibility in the 80s - provides a benchmark for possibility that hasn't really been considered.

If something more extreme than something currently considered impossible has actually happened, then surely the definition of "impossible" has to be reconsidered? If not, then very specific factors would need to be stated and proved as to why the precedent situation is no longer relevant.

Interesting choices here - you wish to discuss "extremes" and "possibiltys" - why not just stick to facts?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

You would be better off sticking with Pesetas as it has about the same value to your argument.

Did LeMond or Hampsten spend their early years sitting in the gruppeto?


Interesting choices here - you wish to discuss "extremes" and "possibiltys" - why not just stick to facts?

Doc, I'm disappointed in your first comment. I thought you were better than that. Play the ball, not the man.

Re second comment, you raise a valid point: Should you assess a rider's merit by his best years, or a career average? I genuinely don't know. As always with Wiggins, the easy (if not valid) justification for the grupetto years is that he was winning a sack load of medals on the track.

Re the final point, if we stick to the facts then all we have is that Wiggo has won a sack load of races legitimately, accompanied by some unfounded allegations and some dodgy PR.

I'm quite happy to "stick" at that, but I'm more interested in considering what's actually possible based on historical precendent with open-minded posters. I'm sorry if I mistakenly assumed you were such a poster.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Doc, I'm disappointed in your first comment. I thought you were better than that. Play the ball, not the man.

"The ball"? That would be Sky, you want to talk about anything but Sky.
Brailsfords past is questioned, you bring up Kimmage.
Skys dominance is questioned you bring up La Vie Claire.
Laughably you try nd compare Froome/Wiggins with Hampsten/LeMond.

Re second comment, you raise a valid point: Should you assess a rider's merit by his best years, or a career average? I genuinely don't know. As always with Wiggins, the easy (if not valid) justification for the grupetto years is that he was winning a sack load of medals on the track.

Re the final point, if we stick to the facts then all we have is that Wiggo has won a sack load of races legitimately, accompanied by some unfounded allegations and some dodgy PR.

I'm quite happy to "stick" at that, but I'm more interested in considering what's actually possible based on historical precendent with open-minded posters. I'm sorry if I mistakenly assumed you were such a poster.

The only point in here worth mentioning - what "unfounded allegations"?
I am talking about very valid suspicions.

 

[Caruut]

I choose my currency as GT performances.

LeMond obviously takes top spot, but Wiggo beats Hampsten, so it's a potential score draw. (I could be really mean and chose Olympic track golds as my currency, but I won't..., even though you allowed me to choose)

I wouldn't dispute an assessment that as a duo, LeMond and Hampsten would beat Froome and Wiggins, though, in their respective primes.

I was thinking more from the angle of probability of extreme events. Much has been made of the fact that whilst Sky's performances are individually just about believable, collectively they are "impossible".

My thought, though, is how is this assessment of "impossible" determined? La Vie Claire's performance - by your assessment a possibility in the 80s - provides a benchmark for possibility that hasn't really been considered.

If something more extreme than something currently considered impossible has actually happened, then surely the definition of "impossible" has to be reconsidered? If not, then very specific factors would need to be stated and proved as to why the precedent situation is no longer relevant.

I don't think anyone is really claiming they are truly impossible. A lot of people of this thread are saying that they feel they are so far out of the ordinary that dope is, sadly, the most likely conclusion. It is telling that Team Sky's performances must be compared to the original super-team, which had hired two of the greatest riders ever. Bernard Hinault is second only to Merckx in GT wins and has 5 monuments and a world championship to his name as well, while LeMond is widely regarded to have been possibly the most naturally talented cyclist to ever ride a bike, at least in terms of VO2max.

Bernard Hinault follows the classic GT rider's progression: start good, stay good. He won his first 4 Grand Tours, only skipping a beat with a withdrawal from the 1980 Tour due a knee injury before winning the next 4 as well. Yes, he won the first 8 Grand Tours that he finished. This glittering run only halts when he comes second to the great Laurent Fignon in the 1984 Tour before claiming a casual Giro-Tour double in '85 and then finishing second to LeMond himself in '86.

LeMond's timeline is less impressive, but frankly less impressive than Hinault is hardly an insult. A withdrawal in his first Vuelta is followed by podiums in his first two Tours (supporting the winner each time) before winning his first Tour as leader. Then you have the lost years post-shooting. After that he wins the next two Tours (each time posting a poor Giro beforehand - I assume as training) before EPO puts paid to the rest of his potential career.

Either way right there you have two of the most ludicrously talented bike riders ever - marked as future greats from the very first major races they entered. Wiggins and Froome between them have not yet achieved as much as Hinault did in his first two years as a pro taking LBL, GW, GP des Nations and the Dauphiné in 1977 and the Vuelta, Tour and GP de Nations in 1978. Up until their breakout performances (the 2009 Tour and 2011 Vuelta) Wiggins and Froome had each spent 4 years as a professional and yet their best GT performances were 71st and 36th, respectively, at the 2009 Giro. How can you use Hinault and LeMond as baselines for what these two could achieve?

 

[JimmyFingers]

Either way right there you have two of the most ludicrously talented bike riders ever - marked as future greats from the very first major races they entered. Wiggins and Froome between them have not yet achieved as much as Hinault did in his first two years as a pro taking LBL, GW, GP des Nations and the Dauphiné in 1977 and the Vuelta, Tour and GP de Nations in 1978. Up until their breakout performances (the 2009 Tour and 2011 Vuelta) Wiggins and Froome had each spent 4 years as a professional and yet their best GT performances were 71st and 36th, respectively, at the 2009 Giro. How can you use Hinault and LeMond as baselines for what these two could achieve?

Very good post, all of it. Just a query: clearly Froome's and Wiggins' palmares are poor for two of the top GT riders, one of the facts frequently pointed by people asserting they are doping. It is of course a fair accusation, but neither have followed the usual pro-path have they? Froome started his pro-career in South Africa and of course despite riding the road professionally since what, 2005?, Wiggins was from a track background. Given their circuitous route into the pro-ranks, isn't there some credence to the argument that they would find their feet in the pro-tour more slowly than a continental pro like Hinault?

JV has said he didn't sign Wiggins as a GT rider, he signed him to sell some shirts on the back of his Olympic title and to compete in time trials.

Is there no way that good riders from various disciplines can develope into GT riders? Clearly MTBers have had success on the road, and road pros for years rode the track in the off-season. I have debated this before, because so much is placed on the palmares of a rider. In these days of deep cynicism unless you show sufficient talent from a early stage, junior stage and maintain it throughout your career you are marked as suspicious (well, more suspicious). Surely there is mileage in the argument that had Wiggins and Froome being riding the road in a more traditional career trajectory they might have the palmares to make their recent successes less suspicious?

Another point is you have to pay your dues. You're not going to finish high up a GT classification if you don't have the support of the team. Henao and Uran are two potential GT winners of the future, yet last year they were let off the leash at the Giro as a sort of wildcard since the rest of the Sky team was set up to win Cav stages, and then used as climbing domestiques in the Vuelta. It was painful watching them get burnt up in the early parts of the climbs to support Froome (particularly since Sky would have been better off saving them to support him in the later stages of the climbs when he was isolated against the Armada). they will get their shot, but they have to wait their turn.

I guess what I am saying is that unless you're a phenom like Hinault or LeMond you're not going to be walking into pro-teams and winning races by the bucketload.

I'm not saying this is fact btw, just presenting it as an alternative narrative.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

"The ball"? That would be Sky, you want to talk about anything but Sky.
Brailsfords past is questioned, you bring up Kimmage.
Skys dominance is questioned you bring up La Vie Claire.
Laughably you try nd compare Froome/Wiggins with Hampsten/LeMond.


The only point in here worth mentioning - what "unfounded allegations"?
I am talking about very valid suspicions.

Doc,

Re Sky, I'm quite happy to restate my position: I think Froome is very dodgy, Rodgers less so. Jury's out on Wiggo and Porte individually. Collectively, though, Sky are very suspicious.

Re Brailsford's business and cycling careers prior to joining BC, I genuinely fail to how they are relevant to anything. The guy is a prize bullsh*tter, to be sure. You don't need any great insight to deduce that. There are plenty of them around in the real world. He just happens to have a gift for deliverying the goods.

Re Kimmage, I will concede a slight malicious intent on my behalf there. The description Bianchigirl applied to dismiss Brailsford's cycling achievements just applies so well to Kimmage (albeit at a different level) and it was too good an opportunity to miss to make a mild dig at her, given her pro Kimmage / anti Sky position. If I'd known it would have stirred up so much angst, I'd have made the observation sooner, without the "".

When talking about a team dominating the Tour, any attempt to suppress discussion of La Vie Claire is pathetic, as they set a standard that Sky could only dream of. Their 1986 performance defines what is possible with clean riders (or else condemns LeMond as a doper, which I firmly believe not to be the case.)

Re comparisons, my view is that as a pair, the US duo is superior. My view is also that Wiggins' best is better than Hampsten's best. Who'd trade a Giro a brace of 4ths and some minor placings in the Tour for a Tour victory, I wonder? Not many, I suspect.

Re unfounded allegations, when we're talking about facts - which you wanted to, remember - suspicions, however valid, are simply that: unfounded allegations.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I don't think...

Great post. Thanks for taking the time to form a good argument as opposed to simply saying an opposing view is "laughable".

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Doc,

Re Sky, I'm quite happy to restate my position: I think Froome is very dodgy, Rodgers less so. Jury's out on Wiggo and Porte individually. Collectively, though, Sky are very suspicious.

Re Brailsford's business and cycling careers prior to joining BC, I genuinely fail to how they are relevant to anything. The guy is a prize bullsh*tter, to be sure. You don't need any great insight to deduce that. There are plenty of them around in the real world. He just happens to have a gift for deliverying the goods.

Re Kimmage, I will concede a slight malicious intent on my behalf there. The description Bianchigirl applied to dismiss Brailsford's cycling achievements just applies so well to Kimmage (albeit at a different level) and it was too good an opportunity to miss to make a mild dig at her, given her pro Kimmage / anti Sky position. If I'd known it would have stirred up so much angst, I'd have made the observation sooner, without the "".

When talking about a team dominating the Tour, any attempt to suppress discussion of La Vie Claire is pathetic, as they set a standard that Sky could only dream of. Their 1986 performance defines what is possible with clean riders (or else condemns LeMond as a doper, which I firmly believe not to be the case.)

Re comparisons, my view is that as a pair, the US duo is superior. My view is also that Wiggins' best is better than Hampsten's best. Who'd trade a Giro a brace of 4ths and some minor placings in the Tour for a Tour victory, I wonder? Not many, I suspect.

Re unfounded allegations, when we're talking about facts - which you wanted to, remember - suspicions, however valid, are simply that: unfounded allegations.

Why the need to rewrite crazy interpretations of things, "Unfounded allegations" are direct allegations of something that prove to be without merit.

Suspicions are very different - even you admit that you are suspicious. I am suspicious too,but based on facts, like Leinders and the constant change in position, the not quite zero tolerance policy etc.

 

[The Hitch]

I don't think anyone is really claiming they are truly impossible.

The achievement is not impossible in itself. But for Bradley Wiggins to do it suddenly going into his 30's(at the same time as having massive changes of opinion on doping)

Hmmm.

When i look at results or vidoes from 4 or 5 years ago half the riders i look at were 10 times the climbers wiggins was, and younger than him and now they are people who cant hold his wheel on a climb.

Some of them have been climbing all their lives, some of them are buit for it as well and yet despite these advantages wiggins suddenly 1 day decides - ill try this climbing thing, and the next day hes better than all of them.

Or even, away from the climbers look at Cancellara. Better tter check. Better prologue rider check. Better climber check. Younger, check. And yet people are still saying Cancellara cant win Lombardy for example.
While Wiggins, who was worse in every department has a Tour de France and 2 other gt podiums to his name and is favorite going into the major mountains of the giro. Cancellara goes into the same race wondering if he can win a stage.

Cancellara was being told that if he wanted to become a decent climber he would lose his tt speed. Yet Wiggins while making all the sacrifices neccesary to become that climber only goes and improves his tt massively. To the point where his speeds are faster than Cancellara ever was or Lance for that matter ever was.


How does that work that everyone else is trying to balance disciplines while wiggins going into his 30s just like that essentially overnight, goes and posts massive accross the board improvements in all disciplines. Even the ones that contradict the other ones.

 

[The Hitch]

Why the need to rewrite crazy interpretations of things, "Unfounded allegations" are direct allegations of something that prove to be without merit.

.

Hes saying that its unfounded against Wiggins. "Sky are very suspicious" as are "Froome" and everyone else, but not Wiggins.

Isnt this the poster who always said that he knows for a fact wiggins is clean. As if the virgin mary told him in a dream or something. Hes never explained it but always said that while everyone else at sky may dope, he knows 100% wiggins is clean.

Sorry if i got the wrong poster but i thought it was WandG who always said that.