Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[JimmyFingers]

If he can do this in a one day race he'd win: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwzfWal4kE4

His problem is he has no racing brain or tactical sense. Niballi schooled him at TA. Froome was clearly stronger but Niballi got in his head about powermeters and then attacked him on a ridge and descended like a madman.

Froome and by extension team GB/Sky are tactical dunces when it comes to one day races. The WC RR was evidence of such. 270km and its p!ssing down with rain. It was a day to hide until to the last lap. What do Team GB do? Get on the front for the opening 100km! Crazy stuff. They blew themselves up.

The new Chris Froome can put away any rider on the planet. If he was the real deal he'd show us he can win a one day race like LeMond. Sadly Froome the Dawg was made in a laboratory on CO juice.

But yes. He is pure GC rider. Whereby powers of recovery are everything and having a team dialed in at 450w for 6 hours each day.

Actually agree with most of this, esp the bit about them riding on the front during the WC RR.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

What I don't get is the idea that they've suddenly decided to go off the juice for the Worlds but are perfectly happy to juice for races like Paris-Nice and Tirreno-Adriatico. That argument doesn't make any sense to me, sorry.

I also did not say that. As I pointed to the fact Sky did an altitude block in Colorado and were pretty good in the Team Time Trial at the Worlds. A week later they were sh@te, and dont forget Wiggins and Stannard had some form in the fourth GT of this year too. Wiggins being second in the Worlds TT proved some form too.

Can everything be explained due to the rain and the lack of hilly classic riders? Given the comments of Ellingworth or whats his name, they were prepared for the race, not top form like july, but acceptable form. The difference between top form and lesser form is too big for me. Even in rainy conditions.

Just like with some other non - Sky - riders I would like to add.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I think you're reading too much into it (although most posts here are the same ). The team had a bad day, tactically messed it up, Wiggins went missing, Froome had back problems and caught behind crashes etc etc. I don't think their poor performance can be laid at the doping door surely, else basically any combination of form or performance can be attributed to dope.

 

[del1962]

I think more of the Sky TTT finished the road race than the TTT winners

 

[thehog]

I think you're reading too much into it (although most posts here are the same ). The team had a bad day, tactically messed it up, Wiggins went missing, Froome had back problems and caught behind crashes etc etc. I don't think their poor performance can be laid at the doping door surely, else basically any combination of form or performance can be attributed to dope.

I would agree.

They just messed up tactically and Wiggins wanted to be somewhere else. Which appeared to infect everyone else with the “seasons over” bug.

 

[The Hitch]

And Contador concentrates 100% on grand tours because he has a much better chance of winning them than one day races. Just like Froome.



I don't think I am exaggerating. Froome was on his own off the back of the main chase group for quite a while and never contributed to the chase when he managed to bridge despite being in the leader's jersey. And of course those guys are 3 of the strongest hill riders in the world. Much better than Froome clearly and a pretty good reason as to why in all probability he'll never win a major one day race or even podium.



How do you know he didn't care about Leige? Seems an odd decision to ride it in that case given there's a pretty high chance of crashing. I agree that we probably do need more evidence and I'm perfectly happy to take a Carlton Kirby avatar for a year if Froome top 5's on that Tirreno wall next year or top 10's at L-B-L.

Frank Schleck is much more explosive on short hills than Froome and Ivan hardly has a stellar one day palmares. One significant win nine years ago?



Well mostly 20-25 minutes (and some of those are at the end of mountain stages which is obviously going to suit Froome). Much different to the 3-5 minute explosive efforts that are needed in most hilly classic races.

That Oman stage doesn't mean a great deal in the middle of an early season stage race.

Contador probably focuses on gts more because for a Spaniard they are worth so much more than the classics and because its easier for anyone to win a gt just by being the strongest whereas it doesnt work that way in classics. That does not under any circumstances mean he doesn't have the ability for them. This is a guy who maybe could have won Liege in 2010 and was up there on average form in Lombardia 2012. Same with Froome. not doing something does not mean not being able to do something.*

Case in point Indurain. How many classics did he win during his Tour reign. *How many monuments did he top 10. Was he not suited to them? well there are 1 or 2 examples of when he tried where he turned out actually to be quite good afterall like when the Tour did a Liege like stage he was the best, and at the worlds in Boyaca and Norway he was also the best.*


As for Froome and Liege, I remember when Itv were advertising Liege highlights they said that wiggins was doing it but didnt say word 1 about Froome. But even if he did care about Liege, there are a hundred different reasons why someone suited to do well in Liege might not perform in Liege. As I said Rodriguez 2010-11-12 is a perfect example. He clearly had the form. he clearly has the ability to perform in Liege. Yet on those occasions he was nowhere.

I think its a stretch to say that Froome can be the most explosive rider in the world at long mountains, and the most explosive person in the world on medium mountains and**the most explosive person in the world on short mountains, but that he would be nowhere on hill explosivity, when every other rider who has good acceleration at the end of mountains can manage it on hills as well.

Its almost like saying that someone who wins a 50k time trial by 2 minutes should not be expected to ever come top 10 in a 30k one.*

 

[roundabout]

I believe the better analogy would be to ask why Martin is slightly less competitive in prologues.

 

[Netserk]

What's up with the * and **?

 

[thehog]

Of course it's a red flag when it's Chris Froome doing it. But actually a naturally talented rider should be able to perform consistently well over that period of time.

Do you disagree?

This is a very good question.

Doping has shifted.

Prior to 08. It was train and hide then race big, once, twice and that's it. With no or very little OOC much easier to dope and train than dope and race. Reduced risk.

Anglo riders could afford to do this. The Tour was really what was reported outside of Europe.

Teams with European sponsors required wins season long.

So you got a lot of Euro getting banged up for doping.

Now with the passport, ADAMS and OOC, consistency is the name of the game.

You need to appear your top form doping form is normal - your faux baseline.

Mix in altitude and sickness around the schedule to fluctuate irregularities and you're good.

So, yes, now I see those whom are doping are doing so 60% of the year and keeping performances high.

Sky, Horner, Fabian to name a few. 60% at the right time.

Interestingly enough Horner had blood injected into his knee to help it heal better. I don't really see that flagging up on his passport.

Back to your original point. Consistency pre-EPo was the rom for a good rider. Now it appears the template or a doper.

Does this answer the question?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Interestingly enough Horner had blood injected into his knee to help it heal better. I don't really see that flagging up on his passport.

Very interesting. Got a link?

 

[thehog]

Got a link?

As always

“Finally I opted to with surgery, a really new procedure called Tenex…it is a really new procedure. They go in there orthoscopically, they clean up the IT band around the knee and all that stuff. They then do PRP, where they take some blood out of your arm, they spin it and they put the blood platelets in the knee to help recovery.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...g-form-for-Vuelta-a-Espana.aspx#ixzz2h5ngcHNh

 

[sittingbison]

At least Horner didn't go and see Dr Richard Steadman and get some calves blood (Actovegin?) injected into his knee....or that German guy whats his name? Mueller-Wolfart? Something like that.

Anyway this thread is about shenanigans at Sky, so lets not have a long discussion about Horner until Sir Dave signs him up like he did a contractless Dawg after THAT Veulta

cheers
bison

 

[Catwhoorg]

As always



http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...g-form-for-Vuelta-a-Espana.aspx#ixzz2h5ngcHNh

That's platelet rich plasma, not whole blood.

It is allowed under the WADA code (heck there is a Q&A on the 2014 code specifically about it) as its not performance enhancing.


Of course any science based examination of the efficacy shows little evidence for it doing anything to actually promote healing either.
Its obviously not going to be enough to affect the passport (its just a small amount taken out).


Did you know that donating blood is allowed under the WADA code, but that donating plasma isn't ?

 

[MartinGT]

If he can do this in a one day race he'd win: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwzfWal4kE4

His problem is he has no racing brain or tactical sense. Niballi schooled him at TA. Froome was clearly stronger but Niballi got in his head about powermeters and then attacked him on a ridge and descended like a madman.

Froome and by extension team GB/Sky are tactical dunces when it comes to one day races. The WC RR was evidence of such. 270km and its p!ssing down with rain. It was a day to hide until to the last lap. What do Team GB do? Get on the front for the opening 100km! Crazy stuff. They blew themselves up.

The new Chris Froome can put away any rider on the planet. If he was the real deal he'd show us he can win a one day race like LeMond. Sadly Froome the Dawg was made in a laboratory on CO juice.

But yes. He is pure GC rider. Whereby powers of recovery are everything and having a team dialed in at 450w for 6 hours each day.

Say's it all for me.

That attack that day was laughable

 

[DirtyWorks]

Buried in this thread long, long ago was my crackpot theory that the UCI is enabling the sky sports fraud program for various reasons including growing viewers and Olympics revenue.

Specifically, the 2012 TdF win as a precursor to lots of British viewers/interest in cycling. With the release of the UCI's 2012 financial report we now know what the UCI earned, 21.5 million CHF. http://inrng.com/2013/10/2012-uci-financial-accounts

Pat's claiming a 79% increase in Olympics revenue way back in May: http://m.cyclingnews.com/news/ioc-confirms-cyclings-status-in-olympics-for-2016

So, yes, the UCI has a vested interest in picking winners by ignoring anti-doping rules. We know they already did it with Armstrong to great effect. Why not do it again? Look how much money it officially made the UCI!

 

[Alex76]

The new Chris Froome can put away any rider on the planet. If he was the real deal he'd show us he can win a one day race like LeMond. Sadly Froome the Dawg was made in a laboratory on CO juice. [\I]

The Dawg on CO.... ? Thought that was rumoured to be another GT winner.....

 

[thehog]

The new Chris Froome can put away any rider on the planet. If he was the real deal he'd show us he can win a one day race like LeMond. Sadly Froome the Dawg was made in a laboratory on CO juice. [\I]

The Dawg on CO.... ? Thought that was rumoured to be another GT winner.....

Shhhh.......

 

[Parker]

Buried in this thread long, long ago was my crackpot theory that the UCI is enabling the sky sports fraud program for various reasons including growing viewers and Olympics revenue.

Specifically, the 2012 TdF win as a precursor to lots of British viewers/interest in cycling. With the release of the UCI's 2012 financial report we now know what the UCI earned, 21.5 million CHF. http://inrng.com/2013/10/2012-uci-financial-accounts

Pat's claiming a 79% increase in Olympics revenue way back in May: http://m.cyclingnews.com/news/ioc-confirms-cyclings-status-in-olympics-for-2016

So, yes, the UCI has a vested interest in picking winners by ignoring anti-doping rules. We know they already did it with Armstrong to great effect. Why not do it again? Look how much money it officially made the UCI!

The Olympics revenue comes primarily from TV rights and sponsorship deals sold by the IOC. The TV deals were signed in 2008 - two years before Sky had even done a race. The sponsorship - barely any of which was with British companies - was done similarly.

Whether Sky were successful or not had absolutely zero effect on the IOC's income. I somehow doubt that the finances of the next Olympics are reliant on Murilo Fischer's results, do you?

 

[EnacheV]

The Olympics revenue comes primarily from TV rights and sponsorship deals sold by the IOC. The TV deals were signed in 2008 - two years before Sky had even done a race. The sponsorship - barely any of which was with British companies - was done similarly.

Whether Sky were successful or not had absolutely zero effect on the IOC's income.

please don't destroy his dreams with facts

 

[DirtyWorks]

The Olympics revenue comes primarily from TV rights and sponsorship deals sold by the IOC. The TV deals were signed in 2008 - two years before Sky had even done a race. The sponsorship - barely any of which was with British companies - was done similarly.

Whether Sky were successful or not had absolutely zero effect on the IOC's income. I somehow doubt that the finances of the next Olympics are reliant on Murilo Fischer's results, do you?

The IOC's formula for distributing revenue factors in television viewers and attendance. It's why swimming got bumped up to the highest tier of revenue distribution that was the sole domain of track and field for many Olympic cycles.

I know this is a bit old, but the IOC is clearly paying attention to viewership and demand for media access among other factors: http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Co...mmission/REPORT_26_CORE_SPORTS_2016_GAMES.pdf See page 214. Yes, it's a long document.

Here's a newer, shorter one. http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Co...-criteria-for-sports-and-disciplines.docx.pdf Hey, look at that they look at spectators, number of media credential requests, website traffic, Youtube hits, facebooking his, television coverage. What a shocker, the IOC goes to great lengths to measure/report factors related to viewer demand.

Don't let what facts we have about the IOC get in the way of a firmly held belief.

 

[Parker]

The IOC's formula for distributing revenue factors in television viewers and attendance. It's why swimming got bumped up to the highest tier of revenue distribution that was the sole domain of track and field for many Olympic cycles.

I know this is a bit old, but the IOC is clearly paying attention to viewership and demand for media access among other factors: http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Co...mmission/REPORT_26_CORE_SPORTS_2016_GAMES.pdf See page 214. Yes, it's a long document.

Here's a newer, shorter one. http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Co...-criteria-for-sports-and-disciplines.docx.pdf Hey, look at that they look at spectators, number of media credential requests, website traffic, Youtube hits, facebooking his, television coverage. What a shocker, the IOC goes to great lengths to measure/report factors related to viewer demand.

Don't let what facts we have about the IOC get in the way of a firmly held belief.

It's Worldwide figures - and especially US figures - that matter not GB figures. Did swimming get bumped up because of the popularity of swimming in Britain? No of course not
Whether Wiggins had won the Tour or crashed out on stage one would have had no impact on any of this. Not one single criteria would have been effected.

 

[DirtyWorks]

It's Worldwide figures - and especially US figures - that matter not GB figures. Did swimming get bumped up because of the popularity of swimming in Britain? No of course not
Whether Wiggins had won the Tour or crashed out on stage one would have had no impact on any of this. Not one single criteria would have been effected.

#1 worldwide doesn't include Britain?
#2 If Wiggo crashed out of the TdF, Froome was second with third a loooong way back!
#3 Attendance increases for road and track.

Seems like helping Sky is a win for globalising cycling the same way they helped Armstrong/Wiesel.

 

[Parker]

#1 worldwide doesn't include Britain?
#2 If Wiggo crashed out of the TdF, Froome was second with third a loooong way back!
#3 Attendance increases for road and track.

Seems like helping Sky is a win for globalising cycling the same way they helped Armstrong/Wiesel.

#1 It's a fairly small part
#2 My point is that who won was irrelevant to the IOC finances in every way
#3 The track sold out long before the Tour. So did handball, which Britain don't even play. The British turned in huge numbers to watch the 2007 Tour prologue, with nothing more than two neo-pros, a trackie and a convicted doper to cheer for. Why did they need a Tour win to boost interest?

 

[JRanton]

I also did not say that. As I pointed to the fact Sky did an altitude block in Colorado and were pretty good in the Team Time Trial at the Worlds. A week later they were sh@te, and dont forget Wiggins and Stannard had some form in the fourth GT of this year too. Wiggins being second in the Worlds TT proved some form too.

Can everything be explained due to the rain and the lack of hilly classic riders? Given the comments of Ellingworth or whats his name, they were prepared for the race, not top form like july, but acceptable form. The difference between top form and lesser form is too big for me. Even in rainy conditions.

Just like with some other non - Sky - riders I would like to add.

Ok, so what's your explanation then for the road race performance?

 

[JRanton]

Contador probably focuses on gts more because for a Spaniard they are worth so much more than the classics and because its easier for anyone to win a gt just by being the strongest whereas it doesnt work that way in classics. That does not under any circumstances mean he doesn't have the ability for them. This is a guy who maybe could have won Liege in 2010 and was up there on average form in Lombardia 2012. Same with Froome. not doing something does not mean not being able to do something.*

Case in point Indurain. How many classics did he win during his Tour reign. *How many monuments did he top 10. Was he not suited to them? well there are 1 or 2 examples of when he tried where he turned out actually to be quite good afterall like when the Tour did a Liege like stage he was the best, and at the worlds in Boyaca and Norway he was also the best.*

As for Froome and Liege, I remember when Itv were advertising Liege highlights they said that wiggins was doing it but didnt say word 1 about Froome. But even if he did care about Liege, there are a hundred different reasons why someone suited to do well in Liege might not perform in Liege. As I said Rodriguez 2010-11-12 is a perfect example. He clearly had the form. he clearly has the ability to perform in Liege. Yet on those occasions he was nowhere.

I think its a stretch to say that Froome can be the most explosive rider in the world at long mountains, and the most explosive person in the world on medium mountains and**the most explosive person in the world on short mountains, but that he would be nowhere on hill explosivity, when every other rider who has good acceleration at the end of mountains can manage it on hills as well.

Its almost like saying that someone who wins a 50k time trial by 2 minutes should not be expected to ever come top 10 in a 30k one.*

On the basis of the above you can pretty much keep on saying that Froome could win classics if he really wanted to no matter how much evidence stacks up to suggest otherwise.