Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[The Hitch]

I listened to a really interesting podcast with Michael Hutchinson the other day. It's called "Cycling Time Trial Podcast" and he was a guest.

During the course of the interview he talked about what team GB was doing to prepare for the 2012 Olympic team pursuit. First they assumed that it was take a world record time of 3:50 to win the gold medal. They they back calculated all of the power/speed requirements for EACH PERSON on the team. i.e., the first guy was going to take these pulls at these speeds at these power level's. Same for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th guys. Each person had a different set of requirements to fit and each person was on a similar but different training schedule.

That I think is an example of just how seriously they took winning their home Olympics. Take a ginormous budget, home olympic motivation, quality riders who are freed by their teams to focus on team pursuit and that level of detail and it's not terribly surprising that they won the gold medal is it?

Could they all have been doped to the gills? Who knows. But I hate this culture of assuming that any good performance is practically proof of "obvious doping" without anybody really knowing what is going on behind the scenes (non-doping).

I don't think that we should just assume that everybody is telling the truth about not doping, but that is no better than just assuming that they ARE doping. Both are just lazy thought processes.

Wait, you are offering that as an argument for why they wouldn't dope

It's exactly the opposite. If there is so much pressure to perform that explains why people would dope not why they would go clean.

You are going by the old long discredited approach of - doping is for lazy people.

It's precisely the opposite. All the biggest gym rats who trained the hardest like Armstrong 6 hours on the bike - doped. Because they had the mentality that they will go to -ALL lengths. Tim Montgommery said he didn't care if he died the second he crossed the finish line.

The whole idea that those who boast about how much science they use, wouldn't dope, has been put to bed anyway, by quotes, bennoti often posts them here, of cyclists ans teams from the 90's talking about all these scientific developments that were responsible for their performances. It meant squat.

 

[martinvickers]

Looks to me like you employ extremely different standards to Wiggins and froome than you do to makhloufi. What a surprise

I won't call out Makhloufi, because he hasn't pinged, and we don't have enough data. He's basically gone into hiding, and I don't like that, but what we have is a fog of doubt, not facts.

The turk already got banned for one offence. That kills benefit of doubt for me going forward when a second ping happens, as it has, and would kill it for an irish athlete too, for that matter.

 

[martinvickers]

Looks to me like you employ extremely different standards to Wiggins and froome than you do to makhloufi. What a surprise

Then you're looking wrong. Not for the first time, your bile is clouding your vision.

 

[martinvickers]

No.

Why, cause you say so?

From the opening lines of the opening post of the thread entitled, oddly enough "Brits don't dope" as written by OP Mr John Murphy

You see this quite often being wheeled out implicitly in the media (Harmon etc), by fans, riders etc.

1. 'Britain doesn't have a culture of doping, unlike Europe.'

2 .'In Britain people play by the rules'

3. 'I'd be crucified if I doped so I would never'

All pretty much lifted from the same page, nay the same paragraph of Ch 12 of "My Time" by Wiggins

From the book -compare and contrast, number to number.

1 "The attitude to doping in the UK is different to on the continent."

2. "Britain is a country where doping is not morally acceptable"

3. "If I doped, I would potentially stand to lose everything"

All within one paragraph. Pretty bl00dy obvious that thread, and that punchline of a thread heading, was set up from Wiggins book.

And I don't have time to read this essay at the moment, but I'm guessing it's your usual roundabout schtick to explain how your favourite country is superior to everyone else.

If you can't read, have the manners not just to make sh!t up, and stop trolling.

 

[the sceptic]

sky are so weird at the moment.. everyone sucks, except for Froome who seems to be buisness as usual.

 

[neineinei]

I listened to a really interesting podcast with Michael Hutchinson the other day. It's called "Cycling Time Trial Podcast" and he was a guest.

During the course of the interview he talked about what team GB was doing to prepare for the 2012 Olympic team pursuit. First they assumed that it was take a world record time of 3:50 to win the gold medal. They they back calculated all of the power/speed requirements for EACH PERSON on the team. i.e., the first guy was going to take these pulls at these speeds at these power level's. Same for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th guys. Each person had a different set of requirements to fit and each person was on a similar but different training schedule.

That I think is an example of just how seriously they took winning their home Olympics. Take a ginormous budget, home olympic motivation, quality riders who are freed by their teams to focus on team pursuit and that level of detail and it's not terribly surprising that they won the gold medal is it?

Could they all have been doped to the gills? Who knows. But I hate this culture of assuming that any good performance is practically proof of "obvious doping" without anybody really knowing what is going on behind the scenes (non-doping).

I don't think that we should just assume that everybody is telling the truth about not doping, but that is no better than just assuming that they ARE doping. Both are just lazy thought processes.

UK Anti-Doping did no testing of cyclists for the Athletes Biological Passport in 2012. Unlike the road cyclists the track cyclists weren't ABP tested by UCI either, so the UK track team were aproximatly as free to dope as the Jamacans prior to London 2012.

 

[martinvickers]

sky are so weird at the moment.. everyone sucks, except for Froome who seems to be buisness as usual.

He's barely raced since an admittedly dominant oman - lots of pullouts - let's see how he does in Romandie.

And to be accurate, Swift has done pretty well.and, bizarrely, Wiggins, hasn't done that badly. Thomas crashing is a hardy perrenial. Stannard had a great start and then nearly killed himself. Really only Richie Porte has looked the utter sh!t.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

sky are so weird at the moment.. everyone sucks, except for Froome who seems to be buisness as usual.

Yep Froome with another extraterrestrial performance. Today an astonishing 2.3 % faster than the rest....



... oh wait, he was 2.3 % slower than the winner, and only 13th overall. But WTF with reality if it fits the hate.

 

[del1962]

UK Anti-Doping did no testing of cyclists for the Athletes Biological Passport in 2012. Unlike the road cyclists the track cyclists weren't ABP tested by UCI either, so the UK track team were aproximatly as free to dope as the Jamacans prior to London 2012.

Are you sure about that, other than theose who where road cyclists, I think that elite track cyclists are part of the UCI ABP

 

[Netserk]

Yep Froome with another extraterrestrial performance. Today an astonishing 2.3 % faster than the rest....



... oh wait, he was 2.3 % slower than the winner, and only 13th overall. But WTF with reality if it fits the hate.

Given he has never top-10ed a flat prologue, I think it's fair to say that a 13th place is business as usual, but hey don't let facts get in the way...

 

[mikeoneill]

Are you sure about that, other than theose who where road cyclists, I think that elite track cyclists are part of the UCI ABP

think so

elite track team part of uci testing pool afaik

so they don't get tested by UKAD

 

[mikeoneill]

Are you sure about that, other than theose who where road cyclists, I think that elite track cyclists are part of the UCI ABP

yes..the track team are in the uci testing pool

are they subject to testing by both?

 

[20SecondsToComply]

I think you'll always get a bit of flag-waving around sports in every nation, and especially during large events like the Olympics. That is normal and it is not peculiar to the British.

And the 'funding' of so-called amateur athletes so that they can train full time. UK Lottery fundign was increased significantly in the years before 2012.

 

[the sceptic]

Yep Froome with another extraterrestrial performance. Today an astonishing 2.3 % faster than the rest....



... oh wait, he was 2.3 % slower than the winner, and only 13th overall. But WTF with reality if it fits the hate.

I see you are trying to troll and vortex as usual. Not falling for it though.

 

[Catwhoorg]

UK Anti-Doping did no testing of cyclists for the Athletes Biological Passport in 2012. Unlike the road cyclists the track cyclists weren't ABP tested by UCI either, so the UK track team were aproximately as free to dope as the Jamacans prior to London 2012.

The bold is true, as seen in the WADA testing report, but bio passport testing requires someone to be in the RTP, otherwise how can you develop a baseline for comparison. Anyone in the RTP and the UCI assumes the responsibility for the testing (and outsource very little to NADOs)

The second part is more open to question and interpretation. For sure the UCI testing pool contains track riders, specifics are here.

Looking at 2012 riders in the 2014 RTP (only one I can find)
Jason Kenny - in
(Pendleton is retired and obviously not in the current one, but its fair to assume she was in as one of the worlds best)
Trott - in
Hindes (probably not) and Hoy (Hoy for sure would be in)
Jess Varnish (probably not)
Clancy and Burke (probably not)
Kennuagh and Thomas (both in and would have been through Sky)
Dani King and Jo Roswell (again probably not)

Especially on the men sides the link between Sky and the BC track team, led to more riders being included than might be otherwise (all the protour riders are in)
The big names of the track, are shown as being in the RTP as of now, the two big names who retired (Pendleton and Hoy) woudl be at the top of the world and almost certain to be in the RTP.

The RTP for track events doesn't go as deep as I would like it, but isn't that a general issue, not a UK cycling issue

 

[oldcrank]

I listened to a really interesting podcast with Michael Hutchinson the other day. It's called "Cycling Time Trial Podcast" and he was a guest.

During the course of the interview he talked about what team GB was doing to prepare for the 2012 Olympic team pursuit. First they assumed that it was take a world record time of 3:50 to win the gold medal. They they back calculated all of the power/speed requirements for EACH PERSON on the team. i.e., the first guy was going to take these pulls at these speeds at these power level's. Same for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th guys. Each person had a different set of requirements to fit and each person was on a similar but different training schedule.

That I think is an example of just how seriously they took winning their home Olympics. Take a ginormous budget, home olympic motivation, qualityriders who are freed by their teams to focus on team pursuit and that level of detail and it's not terribly surprising that they won the gold medal is it?

Could they all have been doped to the gills? Who knows. But I hate this culture of assuming that any good performance is practically proof of "obvious doping" without anybody really knowing what is going on behind the scenes (non-doping).

I don't think that we should just assume that everybody is telling the truth about not doping, but that is no better than just assuming that they ARE doping. Both are just lazy thought processes.

Yes, my friend, and a touch of wheels in the qualifying
round and four years of sacrifices, planning, & training
could disappear in a split second with no chance of any
sort of redemption for at least four years but in actuality,
probably not ever.

Well done to the lads, I say.
(EDIT: and of course well done to the lassies as well)

 

[Benotti69]

I listened to a really interesting podcast with Michael Hutchinson the other day. It's called "Cycling Time Trial Podcast" and he was a guest.

During the course of the interview he talked about what team GB was doing to prepare for the 2012 Olympic team pursuit. First they assumed that it was take a world record time of 3:50 to win the gold medal. They they back calculated all of the power/speed requirements for EACH PERSON on the team. i.e., the first guy was going to take these pulls at these speeds at these power level's. Same for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th guys. Each person had a different set of requirements to fit and each person was on a similar but different training schedule.

That I think is an example of just how seriously they took winning their home Olympics. Take a ginormous budget, home olympic motivation, quality riders who are freed by their teams to focus on team pursuit and that level of detail and it's not terribly surprising that they won the gold medal is it?

Could they all have been doped to the gills? Who knows. But I hate this culture of assuming that any good performance is practically proof of "obvious doping" without anybody really knowing what is going on behind the scenes (non-doping).

I don't think that we should just assume that everybody is telling the truth about not doping, but that is no better than just assuming that they ARE doping. Both are just lazy thought processes.

We have a pretty damn good idea what is going on behind the scenes in the sport. The players of cycling are the same from the 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s where doping was and still is part of the fabric. When and where did they change? I dont see that moment where there was a change, where the majority said no more doping or where anti doping became so tough to beat that the risk was no longer worth taking.

Remember 1996 Mapei, 1, 2 and 3 at Roubaix, DS Lefevere now running OPQS

Domo farm Frites 2002 Paris Roubaix, 1,2 and 3 podium, DS Lefevere now running OPQS. Servais Knaven who won is now a DS at Sky.

Where did the culture of doping end? It didn't.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I see you are trying to troll and vortex as usual. Not falling for it though.

LOL. I had the same thought of you. I mean look at your posts. Pure drivel, day in, day out. And then you wonder...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Given he has never top-10ed a flat prologue, I think it's fair to say that a 13th place is business as usual, but hey don't let facts get in the way...

True. Facts would only disturb... And I felt into the trap of taking it for real, that Froomes "business as usal" was finishing high on flat ITTs. But hey, if guys have no arguments why not twisting reality, until it fits?

 

[mikeoneill]

The bold is true, as seen in the WADA testing report, but bio passport testing requires someone to be in the RTP, otherwise how can you develop a baseline for comparison. Anyone in the RTP and the UCI assumes the responsibility for the testing (and outsource very little to NADOs)

The second part is more open to question and interpretation. For sure the UCI testing pool contains track riders, specifics are here.

Looking at 2012 riders in the 2014 RTP (only one I can find)
Jason Kenny - in
(Pendleton is retired and obviously not in the current one, but its fair to assume she was in as one of the worlds best)
Trott - in
Hindes (probably not) and Hoy (Hoy for sure would be in)
Jess Varnish (probably not)
Clancy and Burke (probably not)
Kennuagh and Thomas (both in and would have been through Sky)
Dani King and Jo Roswell (again probably not)

Especially on the men sides the link between Sky and the BC track team, led to more riders being included than might be otherwise (all the protour riders are in)
The big names of the track, are shown as being in the RTP as of now, the two big names who retired (Pendleton and Hoy) woudl be at the top of the world and almost certain to be in the RTP.

The RTP for track events doesn't go as deep as I would like it, but isn't that a general issue, not a UK cycling issue

would that not have been a conflict of interest for Dr Peters

..employee of British cycling

..member of TUE panel UK sport

 

[the sceptic]

True. Facts would only disturb... And I felt into the trap of taking it for real, that Froomes "business as usal" was finishing high on flat ITTs. But hey, if guys have no arguments why not twisting reality, until it fits?

keep trolling. maybe the mods will notice one of these days.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

keep trolling. maybe the mods will notice one of these days.

Yeah. Maybe. And it wouldn´t look good on you. Never start a fire if you can´t take the heat. Maybe you learn something off it...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The RTP for track events doesn't go as deep as I would like it, but isn't that a general issue, not a UK cycling issue

Here's the list from 2012:

GREAT BRITAIN - GRANDE BRETAGNE GBR
ARMITSTEAD ELIZABETH GBR19881218
BLYTHE ADAM GBR19891001
CAVENDISH MARK GBR19850521
CLANCY EDWARD GBR19850312
COOKE NICOLE GBR19830413
CUMMINGS STEPHEN GBR19810319
CUNDY JODY GBR19781014
DOWSETT ALEX EDWARD ALBERT GBR19881003
FENN ANDREW GBR19900701
FROOME CHRISTOPHER GBR19850520
HOUVENAGHEL WENDY GBR19741127
HOY CHRIS GBR19760323
HUNT JEREMY GBR19740312
KENNAUGH PETER GBR19890615
KENNY JASON GBR19880323
MILLAR DAVID GBR19770104
PENDLETON VICTORIA GBR19800924
POOLEY EMMA GBR19821003
ROWE LUKE GBR19900310
STANNARD IAN GBR19870525
STOREY SARAH GBR19771026
SWIFT BEN GBR19871105
THOMAS GERAINT HOWELL GBR19860525
TIERNAN-LOCKE JONATHAN GBR19841226
WIGGINS BRADLEY GBR19800428
WYMAN Helen GBR19810304

 

[the sceptic]

Yeah. Maybe. And it wouldn´t look good on you. Never start a fire if you can´t take the heat. Maybe you learn something off it...

 

[ferryman]

Yeah. Maybe. And it wouldn´t look good on you. Never start a fire if you can´t take the heat. Maybe you learn something off it...

Heh heh looks like a fist fight..remember the rules though lads. Gloves up, nothing below the belt and defend yourself at all times (within forum rules obviously). I really don't want to step in to stop it Bon chance.