Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

They go for all that thinks, everybody try to train in altitude for stimulate boold cells as well, why Kerrison said another thing, I dont mind, Kerrison say a lot of stupid things.. maybe for to get confused the rivals.. I dont know... he is not clever saying stupid things in a team that lot of people is always looking... but I wouldnt give that a lot of importance

Ah, so, it seems like people on SKY all are a bit of enigmas.

BS.

 

[mattghg]

There have over the last few pages been a few interesting contributions, especially lanarks about the history of "superior training". Yet the only respnse you and a bunch of other sky fans have offered have been the same lame sarcastic "oh even my dog must be doping according to the clinic : smiley."

Lanark's post was very interesting and very relevant to the discussion considering how popular the belief is that sky brought in superior training. Do any of you have any opinion on it, or would that not be part of the game?

A few points:
- I'm not trying to play games, although I admit I do sometimes get sucked in. Go back through my posts and you'll see that.
- 'the clinic' is not an amorphous entity that speaks with a single voice. Some contributions are intelligent. Others aren't, like Dear Wiggo's suggestion that because some riders got ill even this is a sign of doping (which was the main target of my comment that you've quoted).
- I'm just not impressed by people saying 'Trust me, I've seen x before and it turned out to be doping then, so it must be doping this time', especially when the connection between x and actual evidence of doping is tenuous.

With respect to the superior training claim in particular:
- As Taxus4a pointed out (in admittedly broken English), what do you expect them to say? Whether they're clean or dirty, 'our training must be better' is about all that they could say, other than 'our riders are just better' or 'I don't know' (or 'you got me, we have the best doping programme', I suppose...).
- I don't accept that there's no room for improvement in cycling training, or that there hasn't been over the last few years. I certainly don't think that this has been demonstrated.
- So maybe Sky do have better training. Just because other teams claimed this before and it turned out not to be true, doesn't mean that it isn't true this time. Or maybe they're doping. Or maybe both. Or maybe neither.

 

[spalco]

There have over the last few pages been a few interesting contributions, especially lanarks about the history of "superior training". Yet the only respnse you and a bunch of other sky fans have offered have been the same lame sarcastic "oh even my dog must be doping according to the clinic : smiley."

Lanark's post was very interesting and very relevant to the discussion considering how popular the belief is that sky brought in superior training. Do any of you have any opinion on it, or would that not be part of the game?

Again, a possible answer is that the others previously just did the talking, and Sky does the walking.

Meaning, that other teams in the past used these arguments as a cover for doping while Sky actually does some things differently.

How convincing that is is another question. On the one hand, I'm absolutely not buying that Riis was any sort of coaching guru, so why should I believe CSC/Saxo was progressive in sports science at all? On the other hand, of course Lanark's quotes have a somewhat crushing logic, especially considering that in the past in cycling, if something looked to be too good to be true, it was almost always fishy.

 

[Cycle Chic]

It's funny, I first came to the forums a couple of years ago, though had been reading the front end of CN for years prior. I certainly didn't come because of SKY, having a massive antipathy to the brand and deep misgivings about their association with BC.
Those things remain, although my feelings are complicated by the fact that I have enjoyed watching British cyclists like Cav and Wiggins having success on the road....Froome too, for that matter.
When I first came to the clinic I found it depressing...then funny. I'd always worked from the presumption that the sport was filthy and that almost everyone at the front end was using PEDs of one sort or another. It was only when reading the sports science guys' analysis of climbing power output and reading Ashenden (when he was still involved) that gave me reason the think that things were improving.
The entrenchment of the views is what makes the place entertaining...some of The Hog's most spurious claims in particular just make for amusement. It's like the snug of the local pub that has been invaded by argumentative types with a low boredom threshold who all happen to like cycling. There are some on here who hold a contrary view to mine who I respect greatly....others are just mad people who want to win the internet (I won't name names).
Why do I come here? Because it's more fun than the main forum.

Sounds like YOU should be in the snug of your local pub.

Cycling News is one of / if not THE home of WORLD CYCLING. The forums and the Clinic are frequented/used by journalists/pro staff/riders who have knowledge which is valuable and relevant to the Cycling World.

You write as if its your local rag newspaper with a few twerps chatting about the local racing.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

A few points:
- 'the clinic' is not an amorphous entity that speaks with a single voice. Some contributions are intelligent. Others aren't, like Dear Wiggo's suggestion that because some riders got ill even this is a sign of doping (which was the main target of my comment that you've quoted).

Not necessarily doping-related, no.

You are incorrect and possibly hard of reading. Go back and try again. School. My post. Whatever you need to learn English.

 

[armchairclimber]

Sounds like YOU should be in the snug of your local pub.

Cycling News is one of / if not THE home of WORLD CYCLING. The forums and the Clinic are frequented/used by journalists/pro staff/riders who have knowledge which is valuable and relevant to the Cycling World.

You write as if its your local rag newspaper with a few twerps chatting about the local racing.

Mine's a pint of Taylor's Landlord please.

 

[mattghg]

Sounds like YOU should be in the snug of your local pub.

Cycling News is one of / if not THE home of WORLD CYCLING. The forums and the Clinic are frequented/used by journalists/pro staff/riders who have knowledge which is valuable and relevant to the Cycling World.

Sure, those people are on here, along with the people that armchairclimber described.

 

[mattghg]

You are incorrect and possibly hard of reading. Go back and try again.

You want to make the suggestion while retaining deniability about having made the suggestion. 'Not necessarily, but ...'

It won't wash.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You want to make the suggestion while retaining deniability about having made the suggestion. 'Not necessarily, but ...'

It won't wash.

You want to twist my words into something else. My point, which follows on from what I have said (with no buts, it says "no" - again, more reading inabilty)

the whole premise of hiring a saddle sore doctor was coupled at the time with some diatribe from DB about washing hands properly. Like that had some impact or bearing on the virus that killed one person and forced others out of the Vuelta.

And years later, they are still getting sick.

THAT was my point.

I can't help your bias for twisting my words, but at least have the decency to own up to your twisting when it's pointed out to you.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Or maybe it was more recent:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/19174302
"Do you really know how to clean your hands? Without leaving the bits between your fingers?

That's one of the marginal gains.

Uh huh.

 

[JimmyFingers]

You want to twist my words into something else. My point, which follows on from what I have said (with no buts, it says "no" - again, more reading inabilty)

the whole premise of hiring a saddle sore doctor was coupled at the time with some diatribe from DB about washing hands properly. Like that had some impact or bearing on the virus that killed one person and forced others out of the Vuelta.

And years later, they are still getting sick.

THAT was my point.

I can't help your bias for twisting my words, but at least have the decency to own up to your twisting when it's pointed out to you.

Just to take up this point, this has been a very harsh winter in Europe, continuing well into spring. During the winter various bugs go round and round and round: colds, flus and other horrible things like winter vomiting disease. You know scientists are amazed by the last bug? It can take over a host with something like an initial infection of just 25 cells. Once you've got it, there's not much you can do about it.

And unless you think Sky doctors are very good indeed, science is yet to come up with a cure for the common cold.

 

[mattghg]

You want to twist my words into something else. My point, which follows on from what I have said (with no buts, it says "no" - again, more reading inabilty)

The next word after 'not necessarily doping, no' is 'but' in your original post.

The more charitable thing to say, rather than I'm 'twisting' what you said, is that I misunderstood it. In my defence I'll point out that I'm not the only person that interpreted what you said in that way.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1189339&postcount=17249
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1189428&postcount=17258
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1189532&postcount=17265
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1189566&postcount=17268

 

[horsinabout]

A few points:
-
With respect to the superior training claim in particular:
- As Taxus4a pointed out (in admittedly broken English), what do you expect them to say? Whether they're clean or dirty, 'our training must be better' is about all that they could say, other than 'our riders are just better' or 'I don't know' (or 'you got me, we have the best doping programme', I suppose...).
- I don't accept that there's no room for improvement in cycling training, or that there hasn't been over the last few years. I certainly don't think that this has been demonstrated.
- So maybe Sky do have better training. Just because other teams claimed this before and it turned out not to be true, doesn't mean that it isn't true this time. Or maybe they're doping. Or maybe both. Or maybe neither.

Sky may well have the best financial backing than other teams, possibly? However, Superior training is a statement that requires objective evidence to back it up, unless you are happy to accept it on face value. If you are a sports scientist or you know someone that is, back your credulity with evidence that they have better training method than their rivals

 

[Catwhoorg]

Good hand hygiene is know to reduce the risk of getting ill. Reduce the risks, get ill a little bit less.

Doesn't eliminate it.

Its been an awful winter and into Spring for bugs, pretty much across the whole Northern Hemisphere.

More cyclists across all teams seem to be getting ill this season. This is a perception not a rigorous analysis.

So having some Sky boys coming down with bugs isn't proof (or not proof) of anything, other than folks chase red herrings at times.

 

[mattghg]

If you are a sports scientist or you know someone that is

I'm not and I don't.

 

[zalacain]

Although I think Sky are the new USPS I want to continue riding on my standard Tuesday training session which Josh has been on since he was with Colpak and even prior. I do not want to be ousted by asking such questions.

So imagine what it is like when a Pro speaks out against the Omerta.

 

[Escarabajo]

Well, not really, since Henao was still in Colombia and hadn't yet surprised everyone with his GC chops there when Urán had been on the podium of a monument, and got tongues wagging with his final week performance in the mountains of the Tour de France. But I generally agree, Henao is a guy who has shown the talent from an early age and we expected would be a big star when he arrived in Europe and there's no real shock transformation taken place with him at all. He did win the Vuelta a Colombia riding around half the country arm in arm with Óscar Sevilla, though, if you really want something to hold against him.

They have been fighting against each other since younger age than that Libertine. Before Uran went to Europe.

 

[Cycle Chic]

Vaseline mode

I bet VASELINE Kiryienka washes his hands a lot

 

[el chava]

I believe they mentioned on Eurosport that any single rider on Sky have their own personal trainer. Can anyone confirm that?

 

[the sceptic]

Its nice to see that Contadors best domestiques have nothing on Sky B. If the 2012 tour was boring and predictable, imagine how much worse its gonna be this year.

 

[zalacain]

"any single rider on Sky have their own personal trainer"
Judging by Tiernan Locke this year that may be true. Or perhaps he just doesn't want to follow the same "progamme" as the others.

 

[Ferminal]

I believe they mentioned on Eurosport that any single rider on Sky have their own personal trainer. Can anyone confirm that?

Sky have 2-3 coaches on their team that they prefer riders to use. But it's not one coach for each rider if that's what you mean.

 

[Lanark]

72º 26 NORDHAUG, Lars Petter NOR BLA a 8:59
77º 94 ROGERS, Michael AUS TST a 9:22

Getting pretty close to their shape at Sky. Good for them!

 

[DirtyWorks]

I don't accept that there's no room for improvement in cycling training, or that there hasn't been over the last few years. I certainly don't think that this has been demonstrated.

The assumption built into this observation is it explains the Grand Tour team's transition from top-30-ish to complete domination. That shatters the notion of human-scale training improvements. Said another way, the performance improvements were/are revolutionary not adaptive. The revolutionary performances are a clear sign of doping.

- So maybe Sky do have better training. Just because other teams claimed this before and it turned out not to be true, doesn't mean that it isn't true this time. Or maybe they're doping. Or maybe both. Or maybe neither.

Again, the problem is the performances of the Grand Tour team are revolutionary. If Sagan or Phinney were riding for Sky and turning in slightly better performances we see from them, your notion that there is some magic training going on might work. But that's not what we see at all.

Are your relatively new to the sport? That would explain maintaining this position. It's okay. We'll get confirmation of the doping program at some point in the future.

 

[JimmyFingers]

72º 26 NORDHAUG, Lars Petter NOR BLA a 8:59
77º 94 ROGERS, Michael AUS TST a 9:22

Getting pretty close to their shape at Sky. Good for them!

Impressive Bertie was a minute and a half down on his 2009 time, finishing with Porte and Henao