Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[The Hitch]

Btw remember how last year froome wasn't going to do the giro because it's too cold for him and he thrives in the 40 degree sun which is why he did so well at the vuelta and tour. Well, looking at tirreno and criterium it doesn't seem to bother him anymore.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Oh yeah, last years´ "programme" was realyl lackluster

Last year's program beat the peloton except for Sky, so given the peloton are unprofessional, unintelligent and clean, you'd expect him to continue beating them, yeah, even if Sky's newer updated program keeps them ahead of him, he should be at least matching the same power he had last year.... right????

 

[Cimber]

Btw remember how last year froome wasn't going to do the giro because it's too cold for him and he thrives in the 40 degree sun which is why he did so well at the vuelta and tour. Well, looking at tirreno and criterium it doesn't seem to bother him anymore.

To be fair in that really long, cold and wet TA stage he got distanced by especially Nibali but also Contador (who was also suffering badly).

 

[Ferminal]

Well the 2011 and 2012 information is consistently dismissed as - oh it was a 1 off, oh the field was crap, oh they had good tail wind, oh that was froome in his ideal Sumner conditions, etc.

everytime froome does it again, it becomes harder to explain that way. Especially since 2011 was a maximum peak over essentially 1 week in the vuelta. Today he's doing it in warmup race after warm-up race. Last year he sucked in then, now he's owning them

also yesterday was different because it wasn't just froome but Porte as well. The 1-2.

Btw, how many other teams have done the 1-2 in stage races the last few years. Sky have done it 3 times.

Heh, I'm reading the 2011 Vuelta thread, a few have changed their minds I guess.

Special mention to JRanton!

 

[Parrot23]

Let's suspend the laws of physics, for a moment.

Christopher H. would really approve, no?

 

[The Hitch]

I think his point is probably that people are complaining about complete domination. But when someone points out that, actually, its not exactly complete, the answer is "so what, proves nothing!!.

In which case, why raise it in the first place?

Basically there have been 2 stage races where the big guys turned up.

Sky won one and lost one.

If your nearest cpmetitor is tejay or telansky, then with the best will in the world, that ain't the elite, is it?

Froome is 1-1 with Nibali. Both are 2 up on berti, who looks a shadow of his Vuelta 2012 self. Evans and schleck are not at the races, so no good for comparison.

Wiggo just got creamed by purito, scarponi and quentana. My man Dan beat them all.

And this place is collectively losing its marbles because Froome, a clear gt gc contender can ride off tejay? Or porte can repeat almost exactly his late p'n burst to get away? Seriously?

Very convenient to dismiss coming 2nd by a handful of seconds as losing as if it were the same as coming 180th 40 minutes down.

On Mtfs froome has dropped everyone on 2 mtfs and everyone but Purito on the 3rd. Porte has dropped everyone also on 2 and won the third by a comfortable margin which was a mtt.

 

[will10]

It's probably the mere fact that Froome is a clear GT GC contender and Van Garderen isn't...

24 months ago Van Garderen had established a far better career (inc. u23) than Froome who is three years older and at that stage had three seasons as a pro against one for Van Garderen.

Spot on. No-one even mentioned Froome until August 2011. He wasn't evrn bad, he was just firmly anonymous.

Ps. Apologies to the Trekkies, I still have no idea what you are on about

 

[The Hitch]

No, they are not, but there are always ways to improve and professionalise training, and some people will know more about this than others.

I bet, if Manchester United picks at random 20 boys off the street and trains them to become football players and my club in Vienna does the same, 10 years later the former kick the ****ing **** out of the latter in any match anywhere.

Cycling's been around a long time, but that doesn't mean what's always been done is the best way.

So who are your club in Vienna? Astana, saxo? Wiggins already told us that Garmin is Wigan.

What makes you think that other wt teams have the training ethic of Sunday league teams compared to sky being man utd?

 

[Benotti69]

No, they are not, but there are always ways to improve and professionalise training, and some people will know more about this than others.

I bet, if Manchester United picks at random 20 boys off the street and trains them to become football players and my club in Vienna does the same, 10 years later the former kick the ****ing **** out of the latter in any match anywhere.

Cycling's been around a long time, but that doesn't mean what's always been done is the best way.

Great analogy of TeamSky being cycling's Man U, as we just saw that Rio Ferdinand cannot train with the English Nat Squad as he has to do 'special medical treatment' with Man U.

Doping by another name.

 

[The Hitch]

Its called team tactics.

Like when Thor beat EBH in the tour, its amazing what 2:1 odds do for your chances of victory at the pointy end of a stage.


Andy and Frank should have been doing this all along.

there's a big difference between a pan flat finish and a mountain.
Oh and its not tactics that always get sky more riders than any other team in the heads of state group (sometimes as much as 4:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1)

It's that their riders are always stronger than everyone else's.

 

[Galic Ho]

The only person going full *** is the person not getting the joke.

Google: 7 of 9, Jeri Ryan, borg, star trek.

A joke never works when you have to explain it...



non-sci fi infidels.

Star Wars fanboy more likely.

Fret not, there is place free from the SkyBorgs. Unimatrix 01. If you cross your fingers and think happy happy thoughts good ol 7 of 9 might pay you a visit there just like she did in Voyager.

 

[The Hitch]

The work doesn’t stop for Wiggins who will return to a training programme which has been ramped up once again compared to last season.

“Every year there’s a little bit more because you learn from the previous year. This year’s been harder because the stuff we did last year worked, so we’ve done more of that and maybe less of some of the stuff that didn’t work. It’s a continual process.

“The training we do now I never imagined we’d be doing three years ago. It just steps up each year, always trying to improve because we've never stopped and said ‘okay this works so we’ll do the same again’. It’s always to improve and be better.

“This year we’ve been working more on the explosive climbing and things like that because the racing is going that way more. The Giro climbs are more that way, and on Vallter a few days ago the first signs were that I still had good legs to attack. So it seems to be working.”


http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,27290,17553_8596409,00.html

Could explain why Rogers is now sucking, he's using last years outdated trainning plans.

So climbing is getting more explosive? I thought bailsford said that's precisely the type of racing we see doped, and the sky train is the great anti doping revolution.

 

[BYOP88]

So climbing is getting more explosive? I thought bailsford said that's precisely the type of racing we see doped, and the sky train is the great anti doping revolution.

It's only doping if a non-Sky rider is doing the explosive climbing. Dave Brailsford doesn't allow dopers on his team, and before he signs someone he looks them in the eye and says 'do you dope?'.

Also Brailsford's *** is saying a different message to that of his lips.

 

[DiscoPants]

Forgive my ignorance/innocence, but as a new member I'd like to ask a quick question.

I've been following cycling for years, and it has always been overshadowed by the bane of doping, and I'm not so naive to believe that the peloton today is 100% clean.

However, the general perception from having read around this forum for a while now is that not only is doping still prevalent, but it is almost universal, and that no matter what they say in public, Team Sky are at the forefront of it.

Is this just the overly-cynical view of a board that is explicitly set up to talk about doping, so sees it everywhere, and a minority opinion within cycling as a whole, or is it a generally accepted view that gets ignored (or explained away) by the cycling community for convenience, or wanting to believe, and that ignorance is bliss?

Or I guess there is also option C, which is that most people truly believe that Sky are clean, but they're wrong, and it's only a matter of time before Wiggins is sitting on a sofa telling Oprah how sorry he is.

 

[martinvickers]

It's only doping if a non-Sky rider is doing the explosive climbing. Dave Brailsford doesn't allow dopers on his team, and before he signs someone he looks them in the eye and says 'do you dope?'.

Also Brailsford's *** is saying a different message to that of his lips.

come on, guys; no straw men.

The quote from Brailsford was about people attacking "again and again" - and was pretty blooming obviously aimed at Contador.

He never said you couldn't attack - in fact he said the 'new' style, you attack once and make it stick - which is precisely what Froome and Porte (and wiggins tried once in Catalunya) have done all season - One key attack, so far, usually after either Contador or Tejay has blown all their matches.

When others have done clever attacks, rather than simply showy ones - Nibali's majestic descent, Dan Martin's Death or Glory ride, it's worked.

Now, that single attack may be dope fuelled it may not. but lets argue based on what was actually said by these people, rather than what we wanted them to have said...

 

[Galic Ho]

Forgive my ignorance/innocence, but as a new member I'd like to ask a quick question.

I've been following cycling for years, and it has always been overshadowed by the bane of doping, and I'm not so naive to believe that the peloton today is 100% clean.

However, the general perception from having read around this forum for a while now is that not only is doping still prevalent, but it is almost universal, and that no matter what they say in public, Team Sky are at the forefront of it.

Is this just the overly-cynical view of a board that is explicitly set up to talk about doping, so sees it everywhere, and a minority opinion within cycling as a whole, or is it a generally accepted view that gets ignored (or explained away) by the cycling community for convenience, or wanting to believe, and that ignorance is bliss?

Or I guess there is also option C, which is that most people truly believe that Sky are clean, but they're wrong, and it's only a matter of time before Wiggins is sitting on a sofa telling Oprah how sorry he is.

Everything about Landis that was mentioned in the Clinic was shown to be true. The lies and acting were called out. Floyd admitted it.

Meanwhile the Clinic talked non stop about the greater issue. Lance. What he'd done. In depth and rehashed again and again. The court cases, the bullying, the drug supplies, the sycophantic personality, the doping before the comeback and subsequently after it. Then came the talk about the rest. Plenty of riders fell to the way side, found to have been doping. All were called out.

Then USADA finally got the ball rolling when Floyd talked. He didn't hold back. Fast forward to last year and despite LA's pleas and lies stating he was a good boy, USADA banned him. Then they released their Reasoned Decision. Everything was filled in. We knew the general framework, all that was missing was specifics. Who he bullied and threatened on the side in the past and further more to that day. Only an idiot couldn't join the dots. USADA confirmed all of it. Then LA sensing his image needed to be buffered did the same, albeit after every personal sponsor abandoned him.

All that talk about Lance since the Clinic's inception up to August when USADA charged him and banned him was proven. The Clinic wasn't wrong on that. It's about human nature. Human weakness. Psychological behavioural tells. Cues that can be deciphered from simple pattern recognition. All you need is a functioning brain and some solid questioning and decent memory for recalling what happened. Not cynics. Realists first and foremost. People who couldn't give a rats rear end about upholding some lofty BS fairy tale status quo about riders rights. The Clinic see's what is going on. The obvious. Why? Because we've seen every trick and con that cycling has thought up and boy have they managed to concoct some doozies.

So if the Clinic was right about LA and all their hangers on. Right about doping for over a decade. Why now, all of a sudden, when a new US Postal has emerged, mirroring the play book LA and Bruyneel fashioned, even calling themselves the same thing and with their team leader praising LA no less in the same year he is proven to be a doping lying sycophant, are the Clinic wrong? What percentage chance do you think the Clinic has this wrong about Sky? Or any big name rider who is winning lots? Face it, historically numbers are against them being clean.

You're facing the greatest beast of all...the times. Because time is the great equaliser. If LA couldn't escape, Sky won't. It will come out. In Time. They will be judged by the times. By what they've done. By the idiot fans who aren't realists. Just like LA their facade will fade. Can't escape the great beast known as time. The only thing that trumps Time is the Truth.

 

[Cimber]

come on, guys; no straw men.

The quote from Brailsford was about people attacking "again and again" - and was pretty blooming obviously aimed at Contador.

He never said you couldn't attack - in fact he said the 'new' style, you attack once and make it stick - which is precisely what Froome and Porte (and wiggins tried once in Catalunya) have done all season - One key attack, so far, usually after either Contador or Tejay has blown all their matches.

When others have done clever attacks, rather than simply showy ones - Nibali's majestic descent, Dan Martin's Death or Glory ride, it's worked.

Now, that single attack may be dope fuelled it may not. but lets argue based on what was actually said by these people, rather than what we wanted them to have said...

Contador used to only have to attack once to make it stick. Its only since he has become more human that he has to try to attack several times.

Oh and Armstrong also only had to attack once. Not necessarily a healthy sign...

 

[BYOP88]

come on, guys; no straw men.

The quote from Brailsford was about people attacking "again and again" - and was pretty blooming obviously aimed at Contador.

He never said you couldn't attack - in fact he said the 'new' style, you attack once and make it stick - which is precisely what Froome and Porte (and wiggins tried once in Catalunya) have done all season - One key attack, so far, usually after either Contador or Tejay has blown all their matches.

When others have done clever attacks, rather than simply showy ones - Nibali's majestic descent, Dan Martin's Death or Glory ride, it's worked.

Now, that single attack may be dope fuelled it may not. but lets argue based on what was actually said by these people, rather than what we wanted them to have said...

So yesterday Froome attacked how many times?

Well Dave Brailsford is a big boy, why didn't he just say Contador? This attacking more than once equals doping, since when? I seem to remember Mancebo never attacking in the mountains yet he was a doper, why didn't he attack attack attack ala Contador and Froome?

 

[Ferminal]

Every doper has a climbing style like Contador.

 

[Cimber]

Every doper has a climbing style like Contador.

Indeed and every clean rider has a cimbing style like... Ullrich

 

[BYOP88]

Someone needs to pass that info on to the UCI and WADA.

 

[martinvickers]

So yesterday Froome attacked how many times?

Once. He slowed momentarily to try and 'recruit' the two guys, they wouldn't, he went on.

Well Dave Brailsford is a big boy, why didn't he just say Contador?

Libel laws i assume.

This attacking more than once equals doping, since when?

Don't ask me, I don't agree with Brailsford on this. I think he's wrong.

My point is not that he is correct. My point is you misrespresented him.

I seem to remember Mancebo never attacking in the mountains yet he was a doper, why didn't he attack attack attack ala Contador and Froome?

Contador and Froome are both mountain goats who can TT - but their style in the mountains is, to my eye, very different.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

He never said you couldn't attack - in fact he said the 'new' style, you attack once and make it stick - which is precisely what Froome and Porte (and wiggins tried once in Catalunya) have done all season - One key attack, so far, usually after either Contador or Tejay has blown all their matches.

You really should look better vickers.

Paris Nice: Talansky attacks 3 times, 3 times Porte JUMPS on his wheel [= a lot of matches for Porte normally] and then is able to make his attack stick.

Catalunya: Wiggins attacks from 1 K out till 400 metres from the finishline, a huge match we might say, Quintana/Valverde/Rodriguez attack and who is on Valverdes wheel at the finishline? Mountainsprinter Wiggo?

Criterium International: Froome attacks, gets to Tchopp, paddles down and then SPRINTS away
Porte idem dito, sprints away from van Garderen, comes to the back of the Mollema group and has another SPRINT match.

A lot of extra matches vickers.

But, let us not look at the facts. We just do not like Sky.

The quote from Brailsford was about people attacking "again and again" - and was pretty blooming obviously aimed at Contador.

And yet his riders are kicking the same wattages as the chicken. Now, tell me, how is that possible?

 

[mastersracer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lEGpv0xn0E8#t=444s

this is a good example of the facile, irrational analyses taking place by Sky haters. Froome was part of a 12-man 160km breakaway in mid-30's temperatures on that stage, which went over 5 climbs. He jumps on the last climb, fragments the break, and then cracks. He's clearly over-geared, as many riders were not properly geared for the ramps on the final. He ends up 6th on the stage. That's a flash of potential, pure and simple.

I guess many here have never tried to identify potential in an athlete. Froome ended up 7th in young rider GC on a small team and had virtually no professional exposure prior to 2008 or developmental experience of most riders. Not sure why the fact that he required a few years of development and experience is such a mysterious phenomenon. It's exactly what you'd expect would be required to develop a rider like that.

 

[Benotti69]

Everything about Landis that was mentioned in the Clinic was shown to be true. The lies and acting were called out. Floyd admitted it.

Meanwhile the Clinic talked non stop about the greater issue. Lance. What he'd done. In depth and rehashed again and again. The court cases, the bullying, the drug supplies, the sycophantic personality, the doping before the comeback and subsequently after it. Then came the talk about the rest. Plenty of riders fell to the way side, found to have been doping. All were called out.

Then USADA finally got the ball rolling when Floyd talked. He didn't hold back. Fast forward to last year and despite LA's pleas and lies stating he was a good boy, USADA banned him. Then they released their Reasoned Decision. Everything was filled in. We knew the general framework, all that was missing was specifics. Who he bullied and threatened on the side in the past and further more to that day. Only an idiot couldn't join the dots. USADA confirmed all of it. Then LA sensing his image needed to be buffered did the same, albeit after every personal sponsor abandoned him.

All that talk about Lance since the Clinic's inception up to August when USADA charged him and banned him was proven. The Clinic wasn't wrong on that. It's about human nature. Human weakness. Psychological behavioural tells. Cues that can be deciphered from simple pattern recognition. All you need is a functioning brain and some solid questioning and decent memory for recalling what happened. Not cynics. Realists first and foremost. People who couldn't give a rats rear end about upholding some lofty BS fairy tale status quo about riders rights. The Clinic see's what is going on. The obvious. Why? Because we've seen every trick and con that cycling has thought up and boy have they managed to concoct some doozies.

So if the Clinic was right about LA and all their hangers on. Right about doping for over a decade. Why now, all of a sudden, when a new US Postal has emerged, mirroring the play book LA and Bruyneel fashioned, even calling themselves the same thing and with their team leader praising LA no less in the same year he is proven to be a doping lying sycophant, are the Clinic wrong? What percentage chance do you think the Clinic has this wrong about Sky? Or any big name rider who is winning lots? Face it, historically numbers are against them being clean.

You're facing the greatest beast of all...the times. Because time is the great equaliser. If LA couldn't escape, Sky won't. It will come out. In Time. They will be judged by the times. By what they've done. By the idiot fans who aren't realists. Just like LA their facade will fade. Can't escape the great beast known as time. The only thing that trumps Time is the Truth.

Good post.

You know i think Wiggins is the weaklest link in Sky and will likely be the one who will tell all.