red_flanders said:
Graham, welcome to the forum.
Cheers, sorry for the slow response. I didn’t join to try and convince people Sky are clean, more to hold up my own reasoning to take a battering, see if there are facts I am not aware of and to reassess my beliefs.
I am totally aware that some of my opinions are based on some thin stuff… which is kinda why I am here.
red_flanders said:
"Convicted" is a loaded term. Many people are convinced Sky are doping, but of course there have been no sanctions for lack of analytical findings
If sports science has "maybe" not been fully exploited (big if), how have Sky exploited it better than all other cycling teams who have been at it longer and exhibit both traditional and modern approaches to training? What specifically are they doing better? .
My understanding is that a traditional team spends a huge amount on wages and skimps elsewhere, Sky has come into the sport with top notch support staff throughout the team who can get the best out of riders. I am basing this mainly on what I have read from the likes of Millar, Rogers and I think Dowsett and Cav who have suggested Sky are ahead on training plans and, an important thing I missed initially, getting their riders recovered for the next days training. I admit the sources aren’t bullet proof but I have never heard a pro move to or from Sky and suggest their new or old team were on a par.
red_flanders said:
"Better equipment than what? As you mentioned, bike weights have been limited for quite some time and all teams face the same limits. What is Sky's advantage? There isn't one so I take it you're referring to historical performances? If so how does that explain the performances of Froome and Wiggins?
Ahh… I didn’t clarify… my post was a confusing mix of comparing Sky’s times up mountains to past dopers and the current competition. The tech is clearly something that really mainly/only applies to the former.
red_flanders said:
Why is pacing up a climb faster?
I’m certainly quicker up a climb going at a single pace than I am spurting…. My argument is weak but it sounds obvious that those gripping battles between Contador and Schlek with the attacks and the dirty looks wasn’t the quickest way up the mountain.
red_flanders said:
It only works if several riders on your team are stronger than the rest of the peloton's top riders. How is it possible that Sky took riders who were at best mediocre climbers and turned them into riders dominating GTs, and trouncing the top riders who used to beat them by 20-30 minutes on a climb?
I would say the development of Porte and Kennaugh isn’t unrealistic, Wiggins was always a great rider and the drastic weight loss combined with the sport cleaning up satisfies me. I admit Froome is more complicated.
red_flanders said:
What evidence is there that riders on limited programs (would be great to hear your definition for this) are matching the times of full-program dopers? Why can't clean riders match the times? I would ask how is it remotely possible to believe they can? Either the dope doesn't work (proven fact that it does) or human physiology has taken a leap in 3 years the likes of which has never been achieved in human history...or even close. You have to have some kind of detailed explanation of how this is possible in order to believe it, don't you?
I thought I saw some lists of times up mountains that had a micro dosing Lance Armstrong above riders from the “anything goes” era. Could be wrong. Another example would be swimming where a lot of records set by East German woman have been beaten by modern athletes with modern training techniques…. I know the obvious response is that the modern athletes are doped up too but I can’t be that cynical.
red_flanders said:
I will say we disagree strongly on the likelihood that European training helped Froome. I don't doubt he had Badzilla, I simply see no evidence that it affected his performance in the varied and inconsistent ways Sky have claimed. It's a thin story, inconsistently told. The are lies in ther somewhere, and the simple explanation is that it's been used as an explanation for unbelievable performances.
I'm sure others will add more. Thanks for the discussion, hope you stick with it.
What are the inconsistancies?