Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[mattghg]

Well, if Antoine Vayer said it, that changes everything!

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Top 10 in a Grand Tour is a lot more impressive than a stage win in the Giro del Trentino.

As I said, downplay the palmares to manufacture a leap in performance

The jump in climbing performance isn't manufactured at all. It's very real. I mean, he's no Kiryienka. Siutsou has never climbed like this before, not in the Giro, but not in other sh!t small races, either. He never ever did. The guy is 30 for god's sake, so I think it's okay to point that out.

Yes, a top 10 in the Giro is much more impressive than any stage win, but that's not the point at all, obviously. Decent climbers can get a top 10 in a GT if they recover better than superior climbers. The point is that he climbed like an elite climber yesterday... definitely a first for him.

 

[will10]

Top 10 in a Grand Tour is a lot more impressive than a stage win in the Giro del Trentino.

As I said, downplay the palmares to manufacture a leap in performance

Yeah, to be fair Sivstov hasn't made that much of a jump. He climbed very well in the Giro '11 and was up there on Etna IIRC. I think he gained a few minutes back in a break in the 2nd/3rd week though?

It's impressive that he's come back from a horrible crash nine months ago but he's far from top of the Sky suspicion board.

That said, I can see why some on here are seeing him as another tree in a continually expanding forest. Yet another Sky rider bumping along at 6.0w/kg.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

But the "weak" opposition argument does not work for all his SR wins.

Also, the advantage was not always small from the TT. He seems to have transformed himself to a world destroyer.

Must just be faith and training harder.

Wiggo won the Romadie TT by 1s from his nearest GC rival (Talansky). At PN, he pulled out a few stops and put 2s into Westra.

Admittedly, he did win the Dauphine TT by a long way, but he'd be almost in Tour form by that stage.

Re strength of opposition, this is always subjective, but who did he beat in the three wins prior to the Tour? There's not really a stellar cast anywhere.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

That said, I can see why some on here are seeing him as another tree in a continually expanding forest. Yet another Sky rider bumping along at 6.0w/kg.

If we assume this is what he could have done last TdF, and not had an accident, I believe his presence would have had an impact on the race for Sky. He was gone after stage 2.

 

[Ferminal]

People who were dismissive of Porte considered Siutsou their #1 climbing domestique. Some probably argued he was better than Wiggins even.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Comparing 2012 Wiggins to 2013 Wiggins is, for me, a pointless exercise to date.

Indeed. But you were the one who said you'd wait until the 2013 Giro!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Indeed. But you were the one who said you'd wait until the 2013 Giro!

I look forward to your answer to my question.

 

[Benotti69]

Well, if Antoine Vayer said it, that changes everything!

USPS slated the French too and made them the enemy, will Sky do the same

 

[JimmyFingers]

USPS slated the French too and made them the enemy, will Sky do the same

To be fair, everyone slates the French

 

[will10]

Wiggo won the Romadie TT by 1s from his nearest GC rival (Talansky). At PN, he pulled out a few stops and put 2s into Westra.

Admittedly, he did win the Dauphine TT by a long way, but he'd be almost in Tour form by that stage.

Re strength of opposition, this is always subjective, but who did he beat in the three wins prior to the Tour? There's not really a stellar cast anywhere.

That did include a mechanical.

And the Paris Nice TT, him and Westra were streets ahead of everyone, Westra was clearly in peak shape and got beaten by a Wiggins who was still months away from his own peak.

 

[Ferminal]

Beating guys like Westra, Talansky and Costa who peaked for those races is probably more impressive than beating an ordinary Sanchez, Valverde or Contador.

 

[Caruut]

Also, since when beating Lieuwe Westra mean you must be clean? The guy's not exactly beyond suspicion himself.

EDIT:

 

[Ferminal]

Yeh, Mende time as good as Valverde. Eze time one of the best ever as good as Wiggins/Porte. Nothing to show for it before or after.

Saying that he will probably top10 in the Tour.

 

[DirtyWorks]

How do Sky get most of their team up to the magical clean numbers that only a select few could make before EPO?

I can't emphasize enough how Sky simply transformed Wiggins and Froome. There's no other word for it. Historically, if a rider was delivering these kinds of performances, they'd do it throughout their development. But not Wiggins, not Froome. We know, since EPO use began in elite ranks, this is the profile/performance of a modern doper.

 

[JimmyFingers]

That did include a mechanical.

And the Paris Nice TT, him and Westra were streets ahead of everyone, Westra was clearly in peak shape and got beaten by a Wiggins who was still months away from his own peak.

Beating guys like Westra, Talansky and Costa who peaked for those races is probably more impressive than beating an ordinary Sanchez, Valverde or Contador.

No disrespect to either of you, but I do think this sort of reasoning gets very 'fuzzy' for want of a better word. We heard the accusations fly at Pais Vasco because they were beating Contador, even though Contador is patently very short of form. Now we're guessing who was or wasn't at peak form at any given point during last season, and comparing performances?

Again this goes back to my mantra of performance isn't proof. Its impossible to draw solid conclusions from these because they are simply anecdotal. Rider X was peaking but Rider Y was peaking later in the season but Y still won.

 

[mattghg]

I can't emphasize enough how Sky simply transformed Wiggins and Froome. There's no other word for it. Historically, if a rider was delivering these kinds of performances, they'd do it throughout their development. But not Wiggins, not Froome. We know, since EPO use began in elite ranks, this is the profile/performance of a modern doper.

If Wiggins had a transformation it was before he joined Sky

 

[The Hitch]

Wiggo won the Romadie TT by 1s from his nearest GC rival (Talansky). At PN, he pulled out a few stops and put 2s into Westra.

Not the first time youve posted results without context. In the Crans Montania tt (thats the Romandie won) wiggins punctured, waited for a car to come, change the wheel then had to start all over again on uphill gradient. Afterwards he was really proud at not having thrown the bike down in fury.

 

[Avoriaz]

Not the first time youve posted results without context. In the Crans Montania tt (thats the Romandie won) wiggins punctured, waited for a car to come, change the wheel then had to start all over again on uphill gradient. Afterwards he was really proud at not having thrown the bike down in fury.

Was it not a jammed chain rather than a puncture?

 

[Caruut]

No disrespect to either of you, but I do think this sort of reasoning gets very 'fuzzy' for want of a better word. We heard the accusations fly at Pais Vasco because they were beating Contador, even though Contador is patently very short of form. Now we're guessing who was or wasn't at peak form at any given point during last season, and comparing performances?

Again this goes back to my mantra of performance isn't proof. Its impossible to draw solid conclusions from these because they are simply anecdotal. Rider X was peaking but Rider Y was peaking later in the season but Y still won.

Contador is patently short of form is he? How do you know that? I thought form couldn't be guessed. He may well be in fine form but out-doped. According to you, it's all relative.

"Performance isn't proof" - what a rubbish mantra. Sounds like something vaguely wise, but is actual total guff. Results are not anecdotal. Anecdotal would be "Bradley was riding very fast that one time, he must be doping". On that contrary, "Bradley was the best rider in the most prestigious stage race in the world" is a statement of fact. A concrete point.

I think you are either missing or avoiding the point here. Winning the Tour de France alone is not what, in many people's eyes, condemns Wiggins. It is a combination of many factors that, independently, would be largely irrelevant. When put together, however, they look rather damning to rather a lot of people.

Let's look at them:

Winning Le Tour. Not suspicious in itself, see Sastre. Someone has to be the best.

Improving. Not suspicious in itself, riders all have their best years at some point.

Hiring Leinders. Not suspicious in itself, if they had him and Brad was riding like he was in 2007 I wouldn't find much reason to accuse him.

Stopping talking about doping. Not suspicious in itself, again if he were riding like 2007 Brad and saying nothing I might assume it was just because he was tired of the hassle in the peloton.

4 things that on their own are not suspicious, but together start to make a suspicious picture. Add a few more factors and copy and paste this to a greater or lesser extent across about 4 or 5 riders and it really starts to become astounding.

None of the accusations against Sky are, on their own, significant. Put up for individual scrutiny they will all fall be insufficient. This isn't the point, though. They are not individual, and should not be treated as such. Performance is not proof, but no-one says it is. It is merely part of the wider picture.

 

[Caruut]

If Wiggins had a transformation it was before he joined Sky

I'm confused, when did he have one of the best stage-racing seasons by any rider ever before joining Sky?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Not the first time youve posted results without context. In the Crans Montania tt (thats the Romandie won) wiggins punctured, waited for a car to come, change the wheel then had to start all over again on uphill gradient. Afterwards he was really proud at not having thrown the bike down in fury.

Not relevant to the actual winning margin. Someone questioned my claim that in his 1-week stage race wins, Wiggo generally had small winning margins in the TTs. If he'd not had the puncture and won by a minute I wouldn't have claimed he had small margins!

 

[mattghg]

I'm confused, when did he have one of the best stage-racing seasons by any rider ever before joining Sky?

Did I say that??

Wiggins 2007->2009 is a bigger step up than Wiggins 2009->2012 IMO. If you're going to call something a 'transformation' surely the former is the better candidate...

 

[JimmyFingers]

Contador is patently short of form is he? How do you know that? I thought form couldn't be guessed. He may well be in fine form but out-doped. According to you, it's all relative.

"Performance isn't proof" - what a rubbish mantra. Sounds like something vaguely wise, but is actual total guff. Results are not anecdotal. Anecdotal would be "Bradley was riding very fast that one time, he must be doping". On that contrary, "Bradley was the best rider in the most prestigious stage race in the world" is a statement of fact. A concrete point.

I think you are either missing or avoiding the point here. Winning the Tour de France alone is not what, in many people's eyes, condemns Wiggins. It is a combination of many factors that, independently, would be largely irrelevant. When put together, however, they look rather damning to rather a lot of people.

Let's look at them:

Winning Le Tour. Not suspicious in itself, see Sastre. Someone has to be the best.

Improving. Not suspicious in itself, riders all have their best years at some point.

Hiring Leinders. Not suspicious in itself, if they had him and Brad was riding like he was in 2007 I wouldn't find much reason to accuse him.

Stopping talking about doping. Not suspicious in itself, again if he were riding like 2007 Brad and saying nothing I might assume it was just because he was tired of the hassle in the peloton.

4 things that on their own are not suspicious, but together start to make a suspicious picture. Add a few more factors and copy and paste this to a greater or lesser extent across about 4 or 5 riders and it really starts to become astounding.

None of the accusations against Sky are, on their own, significant. Put up for individual scrutiny they will all fall be insufficient. This isn't the point, though. They are not individual, and should not be treated as such. Performance is not proof, but no-one says it is. It is merely part of the wider picture.

"I couldn't find my right pace, though, I don't know if it was because of tiredness or because I've had quite a bit of time off in the last week."

"But I could see that my legs were not as good as I wanted them to be and that's why I decided to take things more calmly than usual."

Contador post FW. And I'm sure I could find similar things being said at Pais Vasco. Plus simply his results so far this season.

I wasn't questioning your conclusions, just that particular reasoning. As I said, no disrespect intended, it was more a point of order questioning those specific points, not the rest of it.

Maybe I'm a little anal but I'm not sitting here arguing Sky is clean, more questioning the various assertions I hear, like for example the chap saying Siutsov has had a jump in performance when he hasn't.

 

[xcleigh]

I'm confused, when did he have one of the best stage-racing seasons by any rider ever before joining Sky?

He didn't. I think the point was the transformation began at Garmin (3rd at Tour 2009) and the transformation reached a conclusion at SKY, 3 years later, 2012. That's how I read it.