Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[sniper]

the darkest part imo is how Sky used and will no doubt continue to use Txema's death as a pretext/excuse for the hiring of Leinders.
Imo that's in the same category as Armstrong's cancer shield.

 

[blackcat]

No, Leinders is the Variable (call it n).

Event A (Wiggins & Brailsford Olympic & Track Success for 10 years)
Event B (Wiggins & Brailsford Road Success for 2 years)

The argument is Event A has happened without (n), so who is Variable (n) in Event A to support theory that Variable n in Event B was the reason for it to happen/e claimed?

is not event B independent of event A?

Event B does or does not need a preparatore. And the preparatore would contribute more or less or neutral. or, may even inverse (negative) effect.

I dont buy the Leinders thesis on this board.

Why?

Raimondas Rumsas. Edita Rumsas. motowoman.

Neutralise that 2003 TdF, or the one where Beloki was second, Rumsas third, neutralise the team timetrial of ONCE v Lampre.

Rumsas then beats Beloki for second. Think the time behing Armstrong sans TTT is ~3 minutes.

If Edita Rumsas can do it, you dont need LEinders. ergo, Sky's success =/= Leinders effect.

 

[blackcat]

the darkest part imo is how Sky used and will no doubt continue to use Txema's death as a pretext/excuse for the hiring of Leinders.
Imo that's in the same category as Armstrong's cancer shield.

not quite.


definitely unedifying. and it goes to their craven nature and ethics.

 

[blackcat]

Other than my Godson, I am quite possibly Sir Brad's biggest fan, but even so, I have to acknowledge that different riders respond differently to the same doping regime and it's quite possible that Sir Brad simply responded better to the regime than Leinders' previous riders. I'm not saying this is the case, but there is plenty of evidence of "super-responders", in particular, Lance. He wasn't the first rider that Ferrari had in his "workshop", but he responded particularly (uniquely?) well to the treatment.

Such super-responders aren't that common by definition (not everyone can be "super", obviously) and having Froome and Wiggins in that category in the same team at the same time might be considered unlikely, though again, not impossible.

thats not it.

Boogerd hit the sport at a high water mark. Ullrich, Armstrong. When they were off their peak, Boogerd was on the slide. Gesink went too young, an burnt out. He was around the level of Andy Schleck, and ahead of Roman Kreuziger, and if he continued his dramatic arc with the same doping, he would have competed.

he is much better than the current Rabo/Belkin riders. Mollema et al.

But I reckon he burnt out, cos cycling is tough.

And at the TdF 3 week level, it is all about bloodbags and recovery doping, and testo patches. And you only need a Freddy Viaene. Dont need a Leinders.

 

[samhocking]

is not event B independent of event A?

Event B does or does not need a preparatore. And the preparatore would contribute more or less or neutral. or, may even inverse (negative) effect.

I dont buy the Leinders thesis on this board.

Why?

Raimondas Rumsas. Edita Rumsas. motowoman.

Neutralise that 2003 TdF, or the one where Beloki was second, Rumsas third, neutralise the team timetrial of ONCE v Lampre.

Rumsas then beats Beloki for second. Think the time behing Armstrong sans TTT is ~3 minutes.

If Edita Rumsas can do it, you dont need LEinders. ergo, Sky's success =/= Leinders effect.

How did Event A happen then? Along comes Brailsford & Wiggins & Pendleton & Hoy after decades of GB failure on the track and become multiple Olympic & World champions in various events - repeatedly year after year! Move the structure of Team GB to the road and the same pattern looks to be happening. Sure it's going to be random in its success because that is the nature of road racing is, but it's overall a success, I would claim, to win Tour twice with two riders like they have.

Who was Variable n in Event A, this is my original question and it's entirely related to Event B because the two key players in the success of Event B are the same in Event A.

To put it another way, if Armstrong & Bruyneel had switched to track and become multiple champions like Wiggins did the other way, would you not consider the success of Armstrong on the road with Bruyneel related to similar success they both had on the track? I would.

It's a simple argument - Who is Brailsford's Ferrari/Leinders on the track to support claim on the road that this success is because of Leinders with the two key players consisten in both events.

 

[bobbins]

In the same way that I've heard the details of the road program, I've heard that the track program is squeaky clean.

That's not to say that there might be individuals doing their own thing but as far as a top down managed program goes, I have heard nothing to suggest that this exists with the track team.

 

[blackcat]

How did Event A happen then? Along comes Brailsford & Wiggins & Pendleton & Hoy after decades of GB failure on the track and become multiple Olympic & World champions in various events - repeatedly year after year! Move the structure of Team GB to the road and the same pattern looks to be happening. Sure it's going to be random in its success because that is the nature of road racing is, but it's overall a success, I would claim, to win Tour twice with two riders like they have.

Who was Variable n in Event A, this is my original question and it's entirely related to Event B because the two key players in the success of Event B are the same in Event A.

To put it another way, if Armstrong & Bruyneel had switched to track and become multiple champions like Wiggins did the other way, would you not consider the success of Armstrong on the road with Bruyneel related to similar success they both had on the track? I would.

It's a simple argument - Who is Brailsford's Ferrari/Leinders on the track to support claim on the road that this success is because of Leinders with the two key players consisten in both events.

ok, track cycling, a very shallow pond.

track cycling, invest resources, you can get great return.

The best track cyclists migrated to the road.

All the central and eastern european riders, they moved across to a pro road career for an income. The 2000 decade was bereft of talent, and of depth.

With a few resources, Australia could achieve a domination in 2000 and 2004 and the first half of the first decade.

If Mcgee and Cooke and OGrady rode their entire career like Clancy, on the track, the GB team would not have had the success.

Mcgee had Wiggins measure through 2008 Beijing, if both were full time trackies imo.

But Wiggins had the golds and won those races, cos he hit an underpar on the track, McGee.

Hoy, as a 23yo, he was an Olympic athlete, a fine athlete, like all Olympic athletes are.

But with the resources from the Lotteries sport foundation, and the doping and full-time commitment, Hoy could marshal what genetic talents he had. and he did have copius talent. But just not if everyone else gets the money and has the commitment and the sport. Was Hoy at Edinburgh Uni, he is a smart cookie, a few, no, multiple levels above pro athletes. His best talent, may have been his intelligence, and working out how to his the sweetspots in the sport, for the best results. He had no choice to give up the kilo, since they took it out of the Olympics. But he managed to parlay that kilo endurance, into his keirin strategy, and win keirins like a knife and butter. obviously a talented athlete. but not that talented.

but with his intelligence, he marshalled every scintilla of physical ability, and could take advantage of the weaknesses of his competitors and the weaknesses in the sport.

But the success in GB track, is mostly down to a full time track program, and the resources underwriting this, and the former USSR track programs sliced diced and atomised and their talented athletes not able to fulfill their ability, and no major sprint divisions coming out of the combined Germany.

quite simple really. doping yes, but most of the doping can be neutralised by their competitors on the continent in Europe, so the GB team DONT have the monopoly on doping advancements. advancements there have been, but no monopoly on this.

 

[blackcat]

In the same way that I've heard the details of the road program, I've heard that the track program is squeaky clean.

That's not to say that there might be individuals doing their own thing but as far as a top down managed program goes, I have heard nothing to suggest that this exists with the track team.

well, they are like the ROW, athletes between themselves will share sources, protocols, techniques, resources, expertise, doctors.

you have not made the qualifier, that it is damn risky, too risky, for a national federation in the West, to run an institutional doping program. So, it is diffuse(d), individual, off-campus.

If Australia do it, England will match them, France too, US and Canada too, and Germany too. It is not one versus the other, they all can rule-of-thumb, neutralise opportunities to get advantage over their competitor nations.

Professor Don Catlin said something akin to this "we have to give the athletes a wide berth to prepare and compete on the international sphere before major international meets and Olympics". Catlin was nothing if not politically expedient.

 

[samhocking]

Team Sky is largely Team GB though from the top down though? For a start up until 2012 Brailsford headed both and his key staff making any decisions are the same between Road & Track squads. Training camps, medical staff, doctors etc are shared by Team GB & Team Sky at the same time of the success in both camps. They are simply different sides of Brailsford's winning coin.

 

[bobbins]

Team Sky is largely Team GB though from the top down though? For a start up until 2012 Brailsford headed both and his key staff making any decisions are the same between Road & Track squads. Training camps, medical staff, doctors etc are shared by Team GB & Team Sky at the same time of the success in both camps. They are simply different sides of Brailsford's winning coin.

Not really. Dave B might have been the man at the top but staff like Julich, Leinders, Yates, De Jongh, Portal etc. were Sky only. There were only a few full time staff that were both Sky and BC. Dave B, Shane Sutton, Rod Ellingworth, Phil Burt, Doc Rich Freeman.

Sky were in their supposed to reimburse BC for staff time when they used people like the physio, doctor etc.

 

[blackcat]

It's a simple argument - Who is Brailsford's Ferrari/Leinders on the track to support claim on the road that this success is because of Leinders with the two key players consisten in both events.

respect to this point and this dialogue, but i think this is a fundamental misinterpretation of training, peaking, tapering, preparation wrt difference in track v road.

road's influence lies in the recovery doping during TdF. (also training to move your FTP to a new peak threshold), mostly recovery doping.


track is, one velodrome, home city, home apartment, home doc, and androgens to pique your physiology in training to hit those new personal records or personal speed/power/explosivity/strength/weights.

even the track endurance program, which would p'raps be 60% on asphalt.

I am willing to concede errors, my thoughts are all intutition, and NO expertise, and NO experience. So I prolly defer to you in all facets. <emoji thumb up>

 

[ebandit]

?

which book was that? have details been verified? was boardmans success

not earlier than brailsford / bc performance plan?

Mark L

anyone else know the answer to my ? re diggers post which mentioned but

did not name book stating that boardman used EPO

thanks!
Mark L

 

[samhocking]

So your argument blackcat is Team GB won and continue to win for a decade on the track because every other nation is simply weak and without investment, but when the same key players achieve it on the road it's because they are doping. Great logic there pal!

 

[bobbins]

So your argument blackcat is Team GB won and continue to win for a decade on the track because every other nation is simply weak and without investment, but when the same key players achieve it on the road it's because they are doping. Great logic there pal!

To succeed on the track, all they needed to do was invest money and be sensible with it as far as getting the best coaches etc went.

On the road, there's more to it than that, as their first year demonstrated.

There is a lot more scrutiny on the track team and it would be much harder to hide or lose a positive.

 

[samhocking]

anyone else know the answer to my ? re diggers post which mentioned but

did not name book stating that boardman used EPO

thanks!
Mark L

If something written in a book claiming he took EPO means more than the daily time-limit chasing Tour rider he was day after day at Tour de France it's an odd claim to make. I mean was he such a bad rider that he could only just scrape the time limits even on epo alongside the sprinters and doms one day and then smash a fastest TT the next. EPO is not a button you switch on and off for success, it's much longer term than that before you notice effects. Maybe Boardman was clever and rode the mountain stages on his own chasing the time limit just so nobody would be suspicious when he smashed everyone in the TT the following day lol!

 

[bobbins]

If something written in a book claiming he took EPO means more than the daily time-limit chasing Tour rider he was day after day at Tour de France it's an odd claim to make. I mean was he such a bad rider that he could only just scrape the time limits even on epo alongside the sprinters and doms one day and then smash a fastest TT the next. EPO is not a button you switch on and off for success, it's much longer term than that before you notice effects. Maybe Boardman was clever and rode the mountain stages on his own chasing the time limit just so nobody would be suspicious when he smashed everyone in the TT the following day lol!

He was quite good actually. But apart from that glaring error your summary is quite good. Mind you, why would he do anything else in the mountains but scrape in the time limit? Finish 20th or 120th, same difference.

Possibly it relates to the time before his pro road career.

 

[del1962]

anyone else know the answer to my ? re diggers post which mentioned but

did not name book stating that boardman used EPO

thanks!
Mark L

Alledgedly in the book Prisonnier du dopage by Phillipe Gaumont, its in French.

But as names where removed you will have difficulty verifying the claim.

 

[samhocking]

To succeed on the track, all they needed to do was invest money and be sensible with it as far as getting the best coaches etc went.

On the road, there's more to it than that, as their first year demonstrated.

There is a lot more scrutiny on the track team and it would be much harder to hide or lose a positive.

So, you're basically claiming then, if you take a weak rider and naive manager with cash from a weak pool of track cycling success in UK and simply add Leinders from Rabobank and try and win Tour de France, you can win it just 6 months later, despite your opposition team managers having a combined expedience of perhaps 100 years winning the same event through the dark history of doping in road cycling you claim is not so easy to do like the track because all it takes to win on the track is investment and coaches?

 

[ebandit]

ta

Alledgedly in the book Prisonnier du dopage by Phillipe Gaumont, its in French.

thanks! much appreciated....................so it's probably a claim with

no substance........................not as though it reflects on DB/team sky

being a whole lot earlier

but that can be the clinic.............join the dots...............any dots

Mark L

 

[bobbins]

So, you're basically claiming then, if you take a weak rider and naive manager with cash from a weak pool of track cycling success in UK and simply add Leinders from Rabobank and try and win Tour de France, you can win it just 6 months later, despite your opposition team managers having a combined expedience of perhaps 100 years winning the same event through the dark history of doping in road cycling you claim is not so easy to do like the track because all it takes to win on the track is investment and coaches?

Sorry, where did I say this?

I said that the track team is clean. They achieved their results through funding enabling better preparation and to be able to afford better coaches. The track circuit is also a small world with limited opposition.

The Sky road team isn't, for many reasons mentioned elsewhere.

 

[samhocking]

Sorry, where did I say this?

I said that the track team is clean. They achieved their results through funding enabling better preparation and to be able to afford better coaches. The track circuit is also a small world with limited opposition.

The Sky road team isn't, for many reasons mentioned elsewhere.

You're implying Team Sky is not the same as Team GB because you say Team GB only wins on the track because all it takes there is preparation and to be able to afford better coaches to get wins without doping. Yet, those same coaches, staff and riders with no experience of doping from that track success simply have added Leinders to the staff list and 6 months is all it takes of doping and bingo the magic formula to beat all the other teams proven to be doping just like Leinders doped Rabobank can be beaten so easily? I assume that's where relating how Sky ride like Postal domination comes from huh?

If the two are unrelated and the only difference is Leinders, why did Leinders magic not work with an experienced road team like Rabobank over 14 years but did with an inexperience non-doping track team coming over to the road to win Tour de France in just 6 months. This is what doesn't add up. It's not simply luck to win Tour de France twice if you're claiming the road is not like the track.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Maybe Boardman was clever and rode the mountain stages on his own chasing the time limit just so nobody would be suspicious when he smashed everyone in the TT the following day lol!

Boardman never "smashed" a TT in a major stage race though. In the last ITT in 1996 (his best year) he was 2:29 down on Ullrich and in both the 1999 ITTs he was circa 3:30 down on Lance.

 

[bobbins]

You're implying Team Sky is not the same as Team GB because you say Team GB only wins on the track because all it takes there is preparation and to be able to afford better coaches to get wins without doping. Yet, those same coaches, staff and riders with no experience of doping from that track success simply have added Leinders to the staff list and 6 months is all it takes of doping and bingo the magic formula to beat all the other teams proven to be doping just like Leinders doped Rabobank can be beaten so easily? I assume that's where relating how Sky ride like Postal domination comes from huh?

If the two are unrelated and the only difference is Leinders, why did Leinders magic not work with an experienced road team like Rabobank over 14 years but did with an inexperience non-doping track team coming over to the road to win Tour de France in just 6 months. This is what doesn't add up. It's not simply luck to win Tour de France twice.

I thought I'd already pointed out that Team Sky has different staff to BC.

Where did I say that the staff and riders had no experience of doping?

Any lastly, it didn't take them 6 months.

Have a read back through the various Sky threads and you'll be able to join the dots without making all these assumptions.

 

[samhocking]

Boardman never "smashed" a TT in a major stage race though. In the last ITT in 1996 (his best year) he was 2:29 down on Ullrich and in both the 1999 ITTs he was circa 3:30 down on Lance.

I'm referring to his fastest ever TT in 1994 as the smash. He was hanging off the back on every climb and only scraping time limits after that and Indurain beat him by over 5 minutes in the longer TT. Must have been great EPO he was on : )

 

[bobbins]

I'm referring to his fastest ever TT in 1994 as the smash. He was hanging off the back on every climb and only scraping time limits after that and Indurain beat him by over 5 minutes in the longer TT. Must have been great EPO he was on : )

Does the book say he was on it in 1994?