Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[del1962]

in case people forgot.

Surely power to weight depends on the lenght of the effort,

he was matched by an geriatric Aussie who was suffering a season long virus that day as well

 

[Libertine Seguros]

in case people forgot.

Mustafa Sayar "66 kg": 13:51, 22.83 Kph, VAM 1677 m/h, 6.33 W/kg.

(same source)

 

[Taxus4a]

in case people forgot.

Not just Froome, it was a TTT, so it is not that alone. I have read about 6,3 W/kg.

But anyway, even considering 6,6 Lance did as well in Hautacam 6,6, more than the double long climb, without the training of SKY, with worse bike, etc...

 

[Benotti69]

Not just Froome, it was a TTT, so it is not that alone. I have read about 6,3 W/kg.

But anyway, even considering 6,6 Lance did as well in Hautacam 6,6, more than the double long climb, without the training of SKY, with worse bike, etc...

USPS had all the excuses......etc

 

[the sceptic]

Taxis, have you ever asked yourself. "If Froome is clean and climbing as fast as Armstrong, I wonder what would happens if he starts doping"

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Not just Froome, it was a TTT, so it is not that alone. I have read about 6,3 W/kg.

But anyway, even considering 6,6 Lance did as well in Hautacam 6,6, more than the double long climb, without the training of SKY, with worse bike, etc...

I'm pretty sure that citing the performances of the most infamous doper in cycling history to try to prove that a "clean" rider is doing the same performances "clean" is not going to work out too well for your argument...

 

[Taxus4a]

Taxis, have you ever asked yourself. "If Froome is clean and climbing as fast as Armstrong, I wonder what would happens if he starts doping"

He is not as fast as Lance.

He is very good, and for very good people doping is not a big advantage.
If he dope he wouldnt need long training camps in Tenerife and another things, but for the performance, the improvement wouldnt be big. Anyway, with doping he will improve the performe of Lance, so he would have won over Quintana by 10 minutes and relaxing the last days.

Quintana told a friend of mine, I cant win now if I ride in Colombia with my performance of the Tour.

Froome or Quintana without doping cant win clásico RCN or Vuelta a Colombia, that is for sure.

 

[martinvickers]

I'm pretty sure that citing the performances of the most infamous doper in cycling history to try to prove that a "clean" rider is doing the same performances "clean" is not going to work out too well for your argument...

I take your point - but doing 6.6 for 16 minutes is not the same performance as doing it for 30-40 minutes, either, to be fair.

And while Armstrong was and is certainly the most 'infamous' doper, he's not, IMO the doper who produced THE most outlandish statistical performances - a lot of those records are pre-EPO Pantani numbers - Armstrong was more notable in a relative sense, especially in the years immeidately after festina when lumps of the peloton had dialled it back a fair bit out of fear of the french police. Armstrong alone seemed to be allowed at least one outrageous pre-99 style day per Tour. But not necessarily every day on every climb.

Given it's looking more and more likely Hein was actively protecting him while selectively dropping others, that's not hard to understand in retrospect.

 

[the sceptic]

He is not as fast as Lance.

He is very good, and for very good people doping is not a big advantage.
If he dope he wouldnt need long training camps in Tenerife and another things, but for the performance, the improvement wouldnt be big. Anyway, with doping he will improve the performe of Lance, so he would have won over Quintana by 10 minutes and relaxing the last days.

Quintana told a friend of mine, I cant win now if I ride in Colombia with my performance of the Tour.

Froome or Quintana without doping cant win clásico RCN or Vuelta a Colombia, that is for sure.

This troll post is almost too perfect.

I have to ask. Everyone is dopings so much in some backwater race in Colombia so its impossible to win clean, even for the most talented clean rider of all time?

I must admit, im struggling to wrap my head around the idea that everyone is juiced up to the eyeballs in Colombia, yet somehow the only riders that manage to escape to europe are the ones that are clean. And of course its a bit hard to understand the logic of everyone doping in some crappy race noone cares about, yet the biggest race of the year is where everyone is cleans. Please educate me though, fascinating stuff.

 

[red_flanders]

Armstrong alone seemed to be allowed at least one outrageous pre-99 style day per Tour. But not necessarily every day on every climb.

Not sure what "allowed" means in this case. Once you're ahead of all the climbers, as he would tend to be after day 1 in the mountains where he obliterated everyone, he simply didn't need to take large chunks of time. He wasn't going to lose time in the TT's. He could simply ride along with the leaders and then dash away for wins.

Unless someone had the nerve to attack him, like Beloki on Ventoux, then he'd hammer them.

Clearly he had a lot left in the tank he never had to use up. And that's exactly what we all saw last year with Froome.

I can't imagine any protection he might have been getting from the UCI had restrictions on when he could attack. There's simply no evidence of that, but not sure that's what you meant.

 

[Taxus4a]

This troll post is almost too perfect.

I have to ask. Everyone is dopings so much in some backwater race in Colombia so its impossible to win clean, even for the most talented clean rider of all time?

I must admit, im struggling to wrap my head around the idea that everyone is juiced up to the eyeballs in Colombia, yet somehow the only riders that manage to escape to europe are the ones that are clean. And of course its a bit hard to understand the logic of everyone doping in some crappy race noone cares about, yet the biggest race of the year is where everyone is cleans. Please educate me though, fascinating stuff.

Yes, that is, but I though people that writte here know already this basic things about the current cycling.

I have writed more times about that.

Colombian riders that came to Europe is becouse thay are good, the same that Acevedo. But superlative Infantino that won easily to Heano in RCN is not going to came to Europe, of course.

Iran had 6 riders to ride de Worlds. Nobody went. Everybody knows (inside cycling, maybe in this forum no, I dont know) that Pretrochemical use EPO. They had nothing to do in the Worlds, but they in Asia are with Rujano and that people (doped as well) but Rujano doped climb as the best Contador.

Quintana wouldnt improve a lot with EPO, and in a world with bood doping he will be a good climber more, not a man for podium in the Tour.

 

[Ferminal]

They didn't get visas...

 

[Taxus4a]

They didn't get visas...

Someone told me one month before they didnt want to go, but if you want to believe that, ok, no problem, you dont have reasons to believe me.

 

[Taxus4a]

Clearly he had a lot left in the tank he never had to use up. And that's exactly what we all saw last year with Froome.

Are you sure? I see him attacking every day, he always said he needed more time, he attacked on Ventoux, he gave everything in Alp d Huez, even that he losed time, and he attacked when they didnt need in the last mountain stage, where he dropped of Quintana and Purito (who did most of the climb)

You are right about Lance, you have to take for that reason always the W/Kg of the first mountain stage, as Hautacam, and that numbers are impossible for Froome, while year by year, cycling record should be improved, but that doent happend.

You cant compare the W/kg in Ax 3 Domaines, of 2003 with 2013, for several reasons. the first is that 2003 was clearly harder, and Ax 3 domaines was in the last week. In 2013 it was in the first week, in 2003 even Zubeldia droped Lance in Ax-3, and all of them could reach the same time than Froome.

So, you can compare numbers, ok, but taking into account the factors.

 

[red_flanders]

Are you sure?

It is my view that in several cases, including most notably Ventoux, he turned off the jets. <rhetorical>Are you sure he didn't?</rhetorical>

It would be cool if we knew his actual weight and saw his power files.

 

[Benotti69]

I take your point - but doing 6.6 for 16 minutes is not the same performance as doing it for 30-40 minutes, either, to be fair.

And while Armstrong was and is certainly the most 'infamous' doper, he's not, IMO the doper who produced THE most outlandish statistical performances - a lot of those records are pre-EPO Pantani numbers - Armstrong was more notable in a relative sense, especially in the years immeidately after festina when lumps of the peloton had dialled it back a fair bit out of fear of the french police. Armstrong alone seemed to be allowed at least one outrageous pre-99 style day per Tour. But not necessarily every day on every climb.

Given it's looking more and more likely Hein was actively protecting him while selectively dropping others, that's not hard to understand in retrospect.

How many minutes did Froome win the Tdf by? 4'20", Froome did not need to ride at 6.6 for 30 minutes, but watching him it seemed like he could if he wanted.

Froome won the tour at a walk.

 

[The Hitch]

How many minutes did Froome win the Tdf by? 4'20", Froome did not need to ride at 6.6 for 30 minutes, but watching him it seemed like he could if he wanted.

Froome won the tour at a walk.

Don't forget froome deliberately lost nearly a minute on the final stage so that he and sky would be able to ride in together and in their own time. His actual gap from the stages that were raced was over 5 mins to Quintana.

 

[Franklin]

without the training of SKY

Nothing new there and considering the background of Lance it's hard to imagine he used older methods. Actually when reading Wiggo's description of his training it's ridiculously old fashioned and ineffective, but let's wave that away as Wiggo spreading missinformation.

with worse bike, etc...

Errr whattttt? You want to say the curvy heavy Pinarello's are better than Lance no-nonsense Trek's? Sky uses beautiful bikes, but they are design wise hardly anything special

It's amazing that this myth is being parroted again and again. Neither methods or material are new or state-of-the-art.

 

[Benotti69]

Anyone seen this before?

TEAM SKY’S RULES

We will respect one another and watch each other’s backs
We will be honest with one another
We will respect team equipment
We will be on time
We will communicate openly and regularly
If we want our helmets cleaned we will leave them on the bus
We will pool all prize money from races and distribute at the end of the year
Any team bonuses from the team will be split between riders on that race
We will give 15% of all race bonuses and prize money to staff
We will speak English if we are in a group
We will debrief after every race
We will always wear team kit and apparel as instructed in the team dress code
We will not use our phones at dinner – if absolutely required we will leave the table to have the conversation
We will respect the bus
We will respect personnel and management
We will ask for any changes to be made to the bikes (gearing, wheel selection etc) the night before the race and not on race day
We will follow the RULES

No mention of riding clean!

Apparently this list is posted on the team sky bus.

http://cdn4.coresites.mpora.com/rcuk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/11-IMG_5665.jpg

 

[The Hitch]

Anyone seen this before?



No mention of riding clean!

Oh come off it. This isn't the first time you have suggested " they didn't deny they were doping in this particular line of this speech" as proof of something. Thats just stupid.

They've lied 10 million times already, whats stopping them doing it on the back of some team bus list no one cares about?

 

[Benotti69]

Oh come off it. This isn't the first time you have suggested " they didn't deny they were doping in this particular line of this speech" as proof of something. Thats just stupid.

They've lied 10 million times already, whats stopping them doing it on the back of some team bus list no one cares about?

Just adding to the minestrone of a Sky thread, Hitch, dont read anymore into than that.

It is amusing to me that the so called 'cleanest' team has a list of 'rules' printed out on the bus and it doesn't list no doping.

Make of that what you will.

 

[EnacheV]

It is amusing to me that the so called 'cleanest' team has a list of 'rules' printed out on the bus and it doesn't list no doping.

this is the kind of stuff i was waiting for.

the conclusion is sealed, you can close the thread.

 

[Digger]

Don't forget froome deliberately lost nearly a minute on the final stage so that he and sky would be able to ride in together and in their own time. His actual gap from the stages that were raced was over 5 mins to Quintana.

And the minute he lost the day of the split - which had nothing to do with strength or fitness...just unlucky...so conceivably it was up on 6mins

 

[The Hitch]

And the minute he lost the day of the split - which had nothing to do with strength or fitness...just unlucky...so conceivably it was up on 6mins

Yeah but that minute was only to Contador and Mollema who were 4th and 6th. to Quintana and Rodriguez he didn't lose any time that day so without it the gap would remain the same.

 

[leon7766]

So that's another month and nothing