JRanton said:
The Hitch said:
JRanton said:
For a team with such a big budget that is apparently doping they aren't doing very well. Just 2 grand tour wins (from 16 attempts) and 0 monuments (from 29 attempts) in five and a half years.
If you can't immediately see like 50 massive flaws in this arguments then I think I may have overrated you as a poster.
Seriously though, even if we say that Sky haven't invested heavily on classics riders (which I agree) the Grand Tour record really isn't that impressive, is it?
Its not worse than anyone else.
They have 6 podiums which over the period they have been around is equal to Movistar/Caisse and better than everyone else. Considering only 1 of Movistar's was a win and only 1 was at the TDF, + one was a fluke breakaway, I would say Sky are decidedly more impressive.
If you want to just look at wins then yes they have 1 less than Saxo and Astana over this period, and its equal at 2-2-2 if we factor in doping disqualifications.
If we expand to other WT stage races Sky have by far the most of everyone over the period and its not close, so its no stretch at all to say they are the best stage race team of the era.
If we are talking about what is impressive then doing 1-2 at the Tour de France while winning 6 stages is definitely something that comes to mind.
If we are talking about impressive, getting Chris Froome inside the top 20 of a gt let alone having him win the TDF by 5 minutes and take 3 stages.
But anyway they don't have to be the best or even mediocre. Euskaltel were around 2 decades and never got a gt win. Lampre have been around 11 years longer than Sky and have 1 gt win (giro). Rabobank accomplished as many gt wins in 17 years as Sky did in 3 and none was the TDF. There's probably way better examples of this around. Most teams that doped don't do well. Sky have done much better than pretty much anyone.
And no they don't have to be doping everyone on the team. As Ashenden says its small pockets that dope.