Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[pmcg76]

Specifically, what are they doing now that they weren't doing then? Periodization? They were doing that. Has it gotten better? Probably. Enough to make a 10% difference at the elite level?

Why have such gains never been made previously in any sport over a 10 year period? I'm using riders from the late 80's and early to late 90's. You can't really believe that a natural progression without dope would lead to such gains, especially when we know dope was the cause?

I think we're largely on the same page. Progress would have been made, but the differences are so extreme between then and now there's no way training explains it.

Well the last time I checked, 1989 to 2014 is 25 years, ironically the length of time I have been following cycling. For sure it was EPO that made the difference from the lates 80s to the mid 90s, some of those fastest times on climbs you posted were from 1994, of course that is not logical. Over a 25 years period and with advancements in training, diet, technology it is much more feasible, especially when it is the odd athelte such as Froome doing those times rather than a whole bunch like in the 90s.

It would be interesting to see how times from 1965 compared to 1989.

To me Aix-3-Domaines is the real deal-breaker on Froome, people were saying he had a tail-wind and it was the first day in the mountains etc but then those factors should have applied to everyone on that day but the other guys are mostly well down the fastest times list. Froome was simply miles in front of everyone else that day. Made zero sense. Either the other factors apply to everyone or they don't.

 

[red_flanders]

Well the last time I checked, 1989 to 2014 is 25 years, ironically the length of time I have been following cycling.

Clearly not my point. It's not the relevant comparison.

Dopers, with all the advantages of the most up to date equipment and training, were not faster than Froome is now, some 3 to 5 years later. Those are the only facts we have. What training would have looked like if everyone were clean the whole 25 years is not known and one can only wildly speculate.

What Sky would have us believe is that the top doped riders were somehow not getting the quality of training that Sky has on offer. This despite the fact that some or most of these people were riding for the top teams, with the top DS, staff, doctors and guys like Ferrari, who has forgotten more about training riders than a Tim Kerrison will ever know.

In those 3-5 years a "clean" rider is equalling those times. No matter how one tries to dress it up, it's utter bullsnot. It's not possible.

 

[red_flanders]

Two successful attempts. Far more actual attempts.

We'll see this year. Cancellara has scheduled an attempt during one of his peaks in form, so after P-R or TdF.

If he smashes the record I'll easily concede my point. Until then, Boardman only beating it by a few meters tells me that even uniquely gifted time triallers struggle to push the boundaries of what's humanly possible by more than just a fraction.

Well said. And welcome to the forum!

 

[pmcg76]

Clearly not my point. It's not the relevant comparison.

Dopers, with all the advantages of the most up to date equipment and training, were not faster than Froome is now, some 3 to 5 years later. Those are the only facts we have. What training would have looked like if everyone were clean the whole 25 years is not known and one can only wildly speculate.

What Sky would have us believe is that the top doped riders were somehow not getting the quality of training that Sky has on offer. This despite the fact that some or most of these people were riding for the top teams, with the top DS, staff, doctors and guys like Ferrari, who has forgotten more about training riders than a Tim Kerrison will ever know.

In those 3-5 years a "clean" rider is equalling those times. No matter how one tries to dress it up, it's utter bullsnot. It's not possible.

Well like I said I don't really believe in Froome either but overall, current times are more in line with what a linear progression would have looked like over a 25 years period. You don't really need to look back at the times of LeMond, Delgado to make the point. Just compare Froome with the EPO era times and you have your smoking gun already.

 

[Graham_S]

Of course they are. This stuff plays the same in the US all the same. We all want to believe our guys are doing it better.

Putting my rampant nationalism hat on.... a bunch of borderline OCD guys tediously banging away at each aspect of cycling and getting each bit better and better is believable.

A plot to launch a sophisticated doping program (possibly developing a brand new drug?), a coorporation as big as Sky throwing money at something nearly gauranteed to damage it's already ropey reputation, keeping it quiet in an atmosphere where cycling has never been under so much scrutiny, getting a Brit in charge of the UCI to cover it up, getting the journalist who chased Armstrong for decades to defect to the dark side.... and all the other fantastic conspiracies floating about on these boards. Could us Brits pull this off without cocking up somewhere? Pull the other, it's got bells on it.

 

[Granville57]

Pull the other, it's got bells on it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Putting my rampant nationalism hat on.... a bunch of borderline OCD guys tediously banging away at each aspect of cycling and getting each bit better and better is believable.

A plot to launch a sophisticated doping program (possibly developing a brand new drug?), a coorporation as big as Sky throwing money at something nearly gauranteed to damage it's already ropey reputation, keeping it quiet in an atmosphere where cycling has never been under so much scrutiny, getting a Brit in charge of the UCI to cover it up, getting the journalist who chased Armstrong for decades to defect to the dark side.... and all the other fantastic conspiracies floating about on these boards. Could us Brits pull this off without cocking up somewhere? Pull the other, it's got bells on it.

I will just do a few small amendments:

Putting my rampant nationalism hat on.... a bunch of borderline OCD guys tediously banging away at each aspect of cycling and getting each bit better and better is believable.

A plot to launch a sophisticated doping program (possibly developing a brand new drug?), a coorporation as big as USPS throwing money at something nearly gauranteed to damage it's already ropey reputation, keeping it quiet in an atmosphere where cycling has never been under so much scrutiny, paying off the guy in charge of the UCI to cover it up, getting the l"equipe who chased doping for decades to defect to the dark side.... and all the other fantastic conspiracies floating about on these boards. Could us Americans pull this off without cocking up somewhere? Pull the other, it's got bells on it.

Ding, ding.

 

[Graham_S]

Why does it mean anything to you that they said they were going to do it? How have they done it? How specifically have they gotten riders (who were not elite riders in the peloton) to ride as fast (and faster) as Armstrong era dopers? Particularly since no one ever has bridged the massive gap between clean and blood doped/EPO riders, or even come close?

The 1% notion is completely erroneous. Please read this article from the Science of Sport for a more realistic view of the improvement modern doping can give riders.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/the-effect-of-epo-on-performance/

I have to say if your information on cycling consists of re-stating Sky PR, you have a lot to learn about cycling. Kudos to you for coming here and asking questions. I hope the above information is helpful.

Interesting link thank you.

Clearly I am out of my depth arguing the science of marginal gains vs doping, came here to fact find rather than take on the board. Mastering taking a drink without falling off my rollers this morning may have lead me to believe there is nothing anyone can tell me about cycling.

Not entirely sure what Sky have acheived that would be impossible without PED's.... that French chap that went through Froome's data during the Tour, how was that discredited on these boards?

 

[sittingbison]

trolling

Gentle(wo)men,
I have made a decision to permanently ban Graham_S. Something I am ordinarily extremely loathe to do.

I have looked at their entire posting history, clearly trolling the clinic via the Sky thread which was only going to rehash the entire Sky thread...incessant clogging...and contribute nada.

Sorry if any sensibilities have been offended by this action, it is however IMO entirely necessary

cheers
bison

 

[del1962]

Strange and unwelcome decision

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Specifically, what are they doing now that they weren't doing then? Periodization? They were doing that. Has it gotten better? Probably. Enough to make a 10% difference at the elite level?

It's complete and utter BS anyway. Aldo Sassi (RIP) built a business around training athletes using power meters and monitoring blood values. Been doing it for years and years.

Froome was being coached at the World Cycling Center long before SKy.

 

[martinvickers]

So no one should've been able to enjoy anything from the 90's (cycling wise)?

That would be one of them there ... non-sequitors, boy.

It's very simple. In my view, knowing what we know of the history doped deaths in cycling, to knowingly enjoy a doped performance is ghoulish, at best.

 

[martinvickers]

Sorry to pull a Hog, but:

Again, doesn't pass the razor.

If they weren't bothered by his doping why did they either a) stop it, or b change it? Because both his results and the fact of a passport violation seems to make it pretty clear something about the 'regime' changed.

'Cos a combination of him sucking like a hoover all year, and what looks suspiciously like a biopassport violation of someone coming OFF the sauce for 213, and thus being caught for previous misdemeanors makes zero sense if Sky are perfectly happy for him to dope.

sorry Red, but you're bending the facts to suit your preferred theory, and while i understand why you prefer it, Sherlock doesn't buy that.

 

[red_flanders]

Again, doesn't pass the razor.

If they weren't bothered by his doping why did they either a) stop it, or b change it? Because both his results and the fact of a passport violation seems to make it pretty clear something about the 'regime' changed.

'Cos a combination of him sucking like a hoover all year, and what looks suspiciously like a biopassport violation of someone coming OFF the sauce for 213, and thus being caught for previous misdemeanors makes zero sense if Sky are perfectly happy for him to dope.

sorry Red, but you're bending the facts to suit your preferred theory, and while i understand why you prefer it, Sherlock doesn't buy that.

It's simply another equally if not more likely scenario that wasn't being discussed. I disagree with your analysis. Just because they had to be suspicious doesn't mean they started him on a program. I didn't say Sky doped him, you inferred that.

 

[42x16ss]

It's complete and utter BS anyway. Aldo Sassi (RIP) built a business around training athletes using power meters and monitoring blood values. Been doing it for years and years.

Froome was being coached at the World Cycling Center long before SKy.

Greg Lemond was one of the very first adopters of SRMs back in 1990! Because they weighed a tonne back then he only used it for training.

Physiologists such as Conconi, Sassi and Ferrari were using them to work out FTP and training thresholds shortly afterwards. One of our posters - ACoggan - has been working on power modeling and training techniques since about this time as well and many of these techniques are now in use by Team Sky and other Pro Teams.

Remember the 2004 film Overcoming? Basso, Sastre and Julich were training on the Alpe d'Huez for the ITT, when one of the soigneurs *** their fingers shortly after one of the mountain repeats. Why? To test their lactic threshold.

David Walsh made a big noise in his book about Chris Froome riding back to the team hotel after a stage of an early season race. He needs to go to the Tour Down Under, because at least 2/3's of the peleton do this there and it's not due to a lack of transport!

When push comes to shove, noone can ever seem to say what Sky do that is apparently so groundbreaking...

 

[Netserk]

That would be one of them there ... non-sequitors, boy.

It's very simple. In my view, knowing what we know of the history doped deaths in cycling, to knowingly enjoy a doped performance is ghoulish, at best.

So it's only okay to enjoy watching (most) professional sports if one chooses to be naive?

 

[Benotti69]

So it's only okay to enjoy watching (most) professional sports if one chooses to be naive?

No, you must self flagulate while watching the sport chanting incessantly to yourself "play the ball not the man"

 

[The Hitch]

Greg Lemond was one of the very first adopters of SRMs back in 1990! Because they weighed a tonne back then he only used it for training.

Physiologists such as Conconi, Sassi and Ferrari were using them to work out FTP and training thresholds shortly afterwards. One of our posters - ACoggan - has been working on power modeling and training techniques since about this time as well and many of these techniques are now in use by Team Sky and other Pro Teams.

Remember the 2004 film Overcoming? Basso, Sastre and Julich were training on the Alpe d'Huez for the ITT, when one of the soigneurs *** their fingers shortly after one of the mountain repeats. Why? To test their lactic threshold.

David Walsh made a big noise in his book about Chris Froome riding back to the team hotel after a stage of an early season race. He needs to go to the Tour Down Under, because at least 2/3's of the peleton do this there and it's not due to a lack of transport!

When push comes to shove, noone can ever seem to say what Sky do that is apparently so groundbreaking...

Good post good info.

 

[Benotti69]

Greg Lemond was one of the very first adopters of SRMs back in 1990! Because they weighed a tonne back then he only used it for training.

Physiologists such as Conconi, Sassi and Ferrari were using them to work out FTP and training thresholds shortly afterwards. One of our posters - ACoggan - has been working on power modeling and training techniques since about this time as well and many of these techniques are now in use by Team Sky and other Pro Teams.

Remember the 2004 film Overcoming? Basso, Sastre and Julich were training on the Alpe d'Huez for the ITT, when one of the soigneurs *** their fingers shortly after one of the mountain repeats. Why? To test their lactic threshold.

David Walsh made a big noise in his book about Chris Froome riding back to the team hotel after a stage of an early season race. He needs to go to the Tour Down Under, because at least 2/3's of the peleton do this there and it's not due to a lack of transport!

When push comes to shove, noone can ever seem to say what Sky do that is apparently so groundbreaking...

i remember reading that guys after races like Tour De Romandie and Tour de Suisse used to ride for an extra 30 kms after a stage to get extra kms and training into their legs in prep for the TdF. This was in the 80s.

 

[Alphabet]

To me Aix-3-Domaines is the real deal-breaker on Froome, people were saying he had a tail-wind and it was the first day in the mountains etc but then those factors should have applied to everyone on that day but the other guys are mostly well down the fastest times list. Froome was simply miles in front of everyone else that day. Made zero sense. Either the other factors apply to everyone or they don't.

Froome wasn't the only guy. Porte was on fire, too.

Although Quintana might have been able to go with one of them, if he hadn't attacked from a long way out. Then again, he was only a domestique for Valverde at that stage of the race.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Greetings fellow bike race fans. I'm a long time lurker, first time reader As such it strikes me that some of the tired old tropes need a tune-up. Let's start with the strange notion that cycling is the only sport that cannot benefit from coaching, management and motivation - marginal gains if you'll pardon the phrase.

Would someone please explain why this is the case?

That some people/teams are better than others at teaching, managing, motivating, is uncontroversial in any human endeavour I can think of. Yet we repeatedly applaud the idea that cycling cannot take advantage of any developments in science since Lemond's day. I cite the following among many examples.

Greg Lemond was one of the very first adopters of SRMs back in 1990! Because they weighed a tonne back then he only used it for training.

Physiologists such as Conconi, Sassi and Ferrari were using them to work out FTP and training thresholds shortly afterwards. One of our posters - ACoggan - has been working on power modeling and training techniques since about this time as well and many of these techniques are now in use by Team Sky and other Pro Teams.

Remember the 2004 film Overcoming? Basso, Sastre and Julich were training on the Alpe d'Huez for the ITT, when one of the soigneurs *** their fingers shortly after one of the mountain repeats. Why? To test their lactic threshold.

David Walsh made a big noise in his book about Chris Froome riding back to the team hotel after a stage of an early season race. He needs to go to the Tour Down Under, because at least 2/3's of the peleton do this there and it's not due to a lack of transport!

When push comes to shove, noone can ever seem to say what Sky do that is apparently so groundbreaking...

Maybe they do enough of them just better enough than others to make a difference.

Of course it could just be placebo. Although to read about the shambles in another high budget team until this year - no goals? - you have to wonder how pro pro cycling is:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/02/news/van-garderen-enjoying-peipers-goal-oriented-approach-at-bmc-racing_317343

 

[Cyivel]

WB Graham.

 

[Netserk]

Let's see if the reply rate will be the same as last time.

 

[GuyIncognito]

Of course it could just be placebo. Although to read about the shambles in another high budget team until this year - no goals? - you have to wonder how pro pro cycling is:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/02/news/van-garderen-enjoying-peipers-goal-oriented-approach-at-bmc-racing_317343

BMC had been a laughing stock inside the peloton for years -in the same way Milram was - for living in the 1970s.

Precisely because no other team is like that. They are (were? we'll see) the exception, not the rule

 

[M Sport]

Greetings fellow bike race fans. I'm a long time lurker, first time reader As such it strikes me that some of the tired old tropes need a tune-up. Let's start with the strange notion that cycling is the only sport that cannot benefit from coaching, management and motivation - marginal gains if you'll pardon the phrase.

I always wonder why cycling is the only physical sport that is not supposed to benefit from strength training in the gym. Seems ridiculous to me.

Disclaimer: I do think that Wigan and Froome are doperz though.