Sports science is a real thing that maybe hadn’t been fully exploited in cycling previously.
Maybe. But basing your argument on a maybe is interesting. Froome killed everyone without even fine-tuning his TT position in a wind tunnel.
Geert Leinders agrees with you - sports science is not only real, but one particular branch of it started with Conconi, in Italy, back in the late 80s / early 90s, and has made leaps and bounds ever since.
• Better equipment, although the weight limit on bikes limits this somewhat modern bikes do give an advantage.
Sky's equipment is no better than anyone else's.
• Most to the staff or riders going in and out of Sky suggest they are on another level with their sports science.
You are new, so this is an understandable mistake. as en eg, their chef worked for CSC for 5 years before joining Sky, and even their nutritionist - touted as the bees knees in the field, says the chef does what he knows and is able to consult the nutritionist at any time. <conjecture>If you know any chefs you'll know how that pans out in real life</conjecture>
• It seems logical that a team attacking climbs from the bottom and pacing their way up with a high cadence would be faster than the old style of riders alternating between attacks and starring contests.
One of Conconi's star pupils was a strong advocate of high cadence in the mountains, as evidenced by his star cyclist, who was subsequently stripped of all 7 of his Tour victories. Highly recommend you watch or re-watch the Tours from 1999-2005.
• All endurance sports show improvement with records tumbling over time, it was never a question of if clean riders could beat doping performance of the past put when.
I think you'll find it is a matter of if. It boils down to efficiency and Hgb. They are inversely related, more often than not, and there's a big bonus for low Hgb and high efficiency. If you use a lot of drugs for recovery, your training load can have a massive impact on enzyme, blood vessel and heart muscle production, all the while reducing your weight. Even if IC drug or doping is curtailed, your life in training (cf reduced racing and increased training becoming the norm) with the subsequent reduction in ease of testing, and the known lack of OOC testing points to a different narrative.
• Riders with limited doping programs could be as fast as riders who could get away with anything five years before, so why can’t riders with no doping do the same?
See above, and if you can provide examples of the first bit, I'd appreciate it.
• Although Froome blew the field apart at the tour last year the 2nd place rider was a small child… which suggests that maybe the rest of the field isn’t all that strong at the moment.
Your tone and language here is revolting and insulting. Your derision of Quintana is noted. There's a certain colonial flavour to it, I do hope you're not from that little island in the North with the sh!t weather.
• It is perfectly feasible that Froome’s massive step up in class is down to a combination him not having the structured training of a European team until he was much older than normal, some people do develop late and the bilharzia – until an actual expert in bilharzia says his story is suspect I’m going to take that at face value.
Do a search - there were experts posting in the forum debunking the Bilzharia cure time / protocol shenanigans touted by Froome. As for structured training. Good grief. Just. Boggled. He was at the world cycling academy, receiving coaching from the UCI itself. Do you have any idea what you are suggesting here?
The main objective of the WCC is :
to detect and train the most promising athletes so that they reach international level.