Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[martinvickers]

Question.

So what do people think Sky are doing that makes them so much better than others compared to expectations.

They are doping but nobody else is (don't buy that one)
They are being given more of a license to dope due to some sort of UCI help
They are using something nobody else is
Or something else?

Magic wheels, apparently. Rounder.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Question.

So what do people think Sky are doing that makes them so much better than others compared to expectations.

They are doping but nobody else is (don't buy that one)
They are being given more of a license to dope due to some sort of UCI help
They are using something nobody else is
Or something else?

Lets just say they have something that makes pack fillers into GT contenders. Marginal gains they call it.

 

[coinneach]

Question.

So what do people think Sky are doing that makes them so much better than others compared to expectations.

They are doping but nobody else is (don't buy that one)
They are being given more of a license to dope due to some sort of UCI help
They are using something nobody else is
Or something else?

A good question, worth exploring (though they are not so much better)

I´d go for the last two: using/doing something no else is (may be legal or on edge of legality)

& Better resourced and managed?

 

[Froome19]

A good question, worth exploring (though they are not so much better)

I´d go for the last two: using/doing something no else is (may be legal or on edge of legality)

& Better resourced and managed?

My question is if you say they have better resources and are better managed, then why can't that be used to assume they are riding clean and it is those better resources and better management which is giving them the boost?

 

[Cyivel]

A good question, worth exploring (though they are not so much better)

Sorry, I may not have explained that well, I meant so much better compared to where you would expect them to be, not that they are so much better than Contador et al.

Of course not everyone may share that view.

 

[the sceptic]

My question is if you say they have better resources and are better managed, then why can't that be used to assume they are riding clean and it is those better resources and better management which is giving them the boost?

Dont forget that all the other contenders were lazy and/or out of shape in every race that sky won.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

They are being given more of a license to dope due to some sort of UCI help

That was US Postal's model.

Team Sky is all about warmdowns and special ointments for the bum.

 

[Froome19]

Dont forget that all the other contenders were lazy and/or out of shape in every race that sky won.

Don't convince me.

It is everyone else who say that Sky's supremacy must be down to doping whom you are convincing.

 

[thehog]

My question is if you say they have better resources and are better managed, then why can't that be used to assume they are riding clean and it is those better resources and better management which is giving them the boost?

Who says the they better managed? The Sky PR department?

 

[coinneach]

Who says the they better managed? The Sky PR department?

No, me

 

[Froome19]

Who says the they better managed? The Sky PR department?

Just the man (?) I was looking for. Why do you believe Sky excel in the doping stakes?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

My question is if you say they have better resources and are better managed, then why can't that be used to assume they are riding clean and it is those better resources and better management which is giving them the boost?

Sky probably are better managed than (most) other teams thanks to their resources and budget, and having a better sense of team than other big money teams like, say, BMC. The other examples that could be pointed to are OPQS and Katyusha, with budgets and success but highly suspect people on board, but are being beaten by Sky.

The problem is, to believe that such sharp, almost unprecedented (only really precedented in cases that have all ended the same, negative way) improvements are entirely due to Sky's better resources and man management would then imply that, as they - often even with doping programs - are being left behind by the sharp improvements of the slicker, more professional Sky riders, almost every other team is managed by Dupont and Dupond. Much as I am happy to believe that the bilharzia existed/exists for Froome and explains much of his time as pack-filler, but am highly suspicious of its convenient timing and how insanely instant his transformation from looking-at-a-possible-domestique-gig-for-next-year to making-Contador-look-a-fool was (especially given that the bilharzia essentially makes his BP worthless as no real baseline can have existed because of the effect on his blood values of the disease), I am happy to believe that the Sky team gets some benefit from being organised better and having more resources than most of its competitors, but I am also unwilling to conclude that the improvements in resources and organisation alone can account for the sudden, marked and quite dramatic improvements shown by a number of key Sky riders. The presences of guys like Leinders, Yates and Rogers did not help, even though they're now gone.

 

[Froome19]

Sky probably are better managed than (most) other teams thanks to their resources and budget, and having a better sense of team than other big money teams like, say, BMC. The other examples that could be pointed to are OPQS and Katyusha, with budgets and success but highly suspect people on board, but are being beaten by Sky.

The problem is, to believe that such sharp, almost unprecedented (only really precedented in cases that have all ended the same, negative way) improvements are entirely due to Sky's better resources and man management would then imply that, as they - often even with doping programs - are being left behind by the sharp improvements of the slicker, more professional Sky riders, almost every other team is managed by Dupont and Dupond. Much as I am happy to believe that the bilharzia existed/exists for Froome and explains much of his time as pack-filler, but am highly suspicious of its convenient timing and how insanely instant his transformation from looking-at-a-possible-domestique-gig-for-next-year to making-Contador-look-a-fool was (especially given that the bilharzia essentially makes his BP worthless as no real baseline can have existed because of the effect on his blood values of the disease), I am happy to believe that the Sky team gets some benefit from being organised better and having more resources than most of its competitors, but I am also unwilling to conclude that the improvements in resources and organisation alone can account for the sudden, marked and quite dramatic improvements shown by a number of key Sky riders. The presences of guys like Leinders, Yates and Rogers did not help, even though they're now gone.

I agree with a lot of what you say and to deny that Sky are suspicious would be foolhardy. In short it is a combination of a lot of factors which add up to make them look suspicious. Froome's rise was unlikely but could be explained away, yet was it coincidence that at the time Leinders was on the team at the same time?

Every time I read something from Tim Kerrison I am slightly reassured as (when he is actually saying something rather than being forced to PR stunt) his insights seem very logical and steps like the classics squad training at Tenerife instead of PN/TA, Wiggins warming down and also skipping PN and TA in preparation for the Giro, these are steps other teams don't do and these are just the noticeable ones we hear about . The key to Sky being clean and the answer to their incredibly prowess for me has always been to look at the fact that cycling, whatever people like to think, is so far behind where it could be in terms of its technical development. People know that. Garmin and others are trying to catch up but with lesser budgets and a slow start they are still far behind.

Still I do wonder when people who like to think that the top Tour contenders are doping query Sky because of their superiority. Where does their superiority in doping come from? I understand they may have better techniques etc as US Postal surely did and some riders are effected more beneficially by doping than others but does all that explain their superiority? What is the defining difference between superior doping techniques and merely superior techniques? As someone who is pretty naive when it comes to the workings of doping I genuinely want to understand how one team can superior in the doping stakes?

 

[Wiggo Warrior]

Sky probably are better managed than (most) other teams thanks to their resources and budget, and having a better sense of team than other big money teams like, say, BMC. The other examples that could be pointed to are OPQS and Katyusha, with budgets and success but highly suspect people on board, but are being beaten by Sky.

The problem is, to believe that such sharp, almost unprecedented (only really precedented in cases that have all ended the same, negative way) improvements are entirely due to Sky's better resources and man management would then imply that, as they - often even with doping programs - are being left behind by the sharp improvements of the slicker, more professional Sky riders, almost every other team is managed by Dupont and Dupond. Much as I am happy to believe that the bilharzia existed/exists for Froome and explains much of his time as pack-filler, but am highly suspicious of its convenient timing and how insanely instant his transformation from looking-at-a-possible-domestique-gig-for-next-year to making-Contador-look-a-fool was (especially given that the bilharzia essentially makes his BP worthless as no real baseline can have existed because of the effect on his blood values of the disease), I am happy to believe that the Sky team gets some benefit from being organised better and having more resources than most of its competitors, but I am also unwilling to conclude that the improvements in resources and organisation alone can account for the sudden, marked and quite dramatic improvements shown by a number of key Sky riders. The presences of guys like Leinders, Yates and Rogers did not help, even though they're now gone.

Maybe that's already changing.

There was an interesting article in one of the australian papers about BMC setting up a rider support/performance team to co-ordinate nutrition, training etc. and headed by Peiper and Rihs putting millions into a new velodrome in Switzerland for this year. Something in there about three chefs too (one-upmanship ) The reasoning given was not getting left behind by the teams with close federation links like Orica Greenedge and Sky.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/b...-de-france-crown/story-fngr0c3f-1226558547973

Also this interview on the subject of the velodrome.

http://www.bmctempo.com/velodrome-suisse-250-meter-velodrome-to-open-in-early-2013/

On the second bolded bit, I've been following Oman on the race forum and Contador (and his fans) seem to think he's carrying about 2.5 kilos over race weight at the moment and no-one including me can see where Froome could lose any more from...

 

[workingclasshero]

steps like the classics squad training at Tenerife instead of PN/TA, Wiggins warming down and also skipping PN and TA in preparation for the Giro, these are steps other teams don't do

do you really believe that?

that is so ridiculous that when I saw Sky claimed it last year my instant thought was "boooooom, here we go, USPS mk II"

that's even worse than Armstrong being able to spread the myth that he was the only one training in the mountains used in the tour

 

[the sceptic]

My local soccer team warmed down when i was around 12 so i dont think Sir Wiggo can get credit for inventing that.

 

[BroDeal]

Maybe that's already changing.

There was an interesting article in one of the australian papers about BMC setting up a rider support/performance team to co-ordinate nutrition, training etc. and headed by Peiper and Rihs putting millions into a new velodrome in Switzerland for this year. Something in there about three chefs too (one-upmanship ) The reasoning given was not getting left behind by the teams with close federation links like Orica Greenedge and Sky.

It will all be for nought without mood lighting in the team bus.

 

[thehog]

do you really believe that?

that is so ridiculous that when I saw Sky claimed it last year my instant thought was "boooooom, here we go, USPS mk II"

that's even worse than Armstrong being able to spread the myth that he was the only one training in the mountains used in the tour

Yes no other team or rider has ever skipped a race to.... ummmm errrr..."prepare" for a Grand Tour...

That's a master stoke from Sky. Wiggins has won the Giro already by skipping PN, genius.

 

[The Hitch]

Every time I read something from Tim Kerrison I am slightly reassured as (when he is actually saying something rather than being forced to PR stunt) his insights seem very logical and steps like the classics squad training at Tenerife instead of PN/TA

Did you read Kimmages comment on twitter when he quoted some Sky Pr about Kerrison bringing fantastic never before used techniques to cycling and quipped - "is this the same new innovations Tim Kerrison I met at the Sky camp 2 years ago" (or words to that effect)

, Wiggins warming down and also skipping PN and TA in preparation for the Giro, these are steps other teams don't do and these are just the noticeable ones we hear about .

Last year- Wiggins does all these races on a heavy peak
Response - Oh look, sky are doing things different

This year - Wiggins does the total opposite and skips all these races and gets nowhere near a peak
Response - Oh look, Sky are doing things different

As for your last point

these are steps other teams don't do and these are just the noticeable ones we hear about

a very good ( i would even say conclusive) rebuttal of this came from Marc Madiot, when responding to all the hype about sky and the science behind them said

- We have windtunnels too. We just dont call a press conference about it.

So do Sky really have all these advantages over other teams we dont hear about? Highly doubtful. You guys sometimes act like everyone but Sky has the Scientific awareness of the middle ages. They smoke, stack up on Macky d's and use leaches to cure injuries.

I dont buy it. Lance was talking in 2005 about the marginal gains Ferrari gave. Sky came in and reinvented science vs they did the same thing everyone else always did.

For me 1 of those 2 makes far less sense than the other.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I don't know. Froome could TT reasonably well pre-2011 Vuelta.

+1

And eyeballing his TT position vs Wiggins I'd say they are much of a muchness.

 

[martinvickers]

+1

And eyeballing his TT position vs Wiggins I'd say they are much of a muchness.

Really??

Completely ignoring possible doping for a second, but to my admittedly lazy eye, Wiggins shape at speed is almost textbook -his rise to absolute no1 TTer may or may not be dope related, but the basics are there, to argue otherwsie would just be contrarianism for contrarianism's sake.

Froome, on the other hand, as has been pointed out, looks anything but textbook. narrow hands, tending to wide elbows, if you watch him, even his knees seem wrong sometimes. How he's got to the top table is another discussion, but 'shapewise'? no contest.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Really??

Assuming you understand what, "eyeballing" means... Keeping in mind, Wiggins is 2" taller than Froome.

Froome:

Wiggins:

Geraint Thomas for a quick comparison:

 

[ferryman]

Really??

Completely ignoring possible doping for a second, but to my admittedly lazy eye, Wiggins shape at speed is almost textbook -his rise to absolute no1 TTer may or may not be dope related, but the basics are there, to argue otherwsie would just be contrarianism for contrarianism's sake.

Froome, on the other hand, as has been pointed out, looks anything but textbook. narrow hands, tending to wide elbows, if you watch him, even his knees seem wrong sometimes. How he's got to the top table is another discussion, but 'shapewise'? no contest.

Shapewise, agreed no contest.

How they BOTH landed at the top table AT THE SAME TIME with both showing remarkable increases in their ITT and climbing skills coupled with severe weight loss is the other discussion.

 

[martinvickers]

Assuming you understand what, "eyeballing" means... Keeping in mind, Wiggins is 2" taller than Froome.

Froome:

Wiggins:

Geraint Thomas for a quick comparison:

Wiggins : Absolutely classic flat back - as i said, he may dope, he may not, but that shape profile is world class - he's a born tt'er, in shape anyway.

Thomas - not as natural as wiggins, maybe too top heavy, but clearly 'trained' profile. Attempting the flat back, knees almost identical to wiggins.

Froome - curled up in a ball, knees practically everywhere.

Look at your own pictures, Wiggo. Carefully.

 

[martinvickers]

Shapewise, agreed no contest.

How they BOTH landed at the top table AT THE SAME TIME with both showing remarkable increases in their ITT and climbing skills coupled with severe weight loss is the other discussion.

Absolutely. one can have different views on it, and it's not a problem.

My only point is, discuss what's actually there - not what we just wish was.

Wiggins and Froome TT look nothing like each other - to suggest there's little difference hints at not really knowing what you're talking about...or taking a position because it suits the orignal bias, regardless of, you know, actual facts. And I'm pretty sure Wiggo has some idea what he's talking about.

As sherlock says

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."