Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Benotti69]

Funny how sky fans, including JV are all saying that Sky are lacking in PR skills and communication skills, they are backed by the biggest media owned company in the world..........too funny.

What Sky are lacking in is cleanliness and when a team lacks cleanliness they flounder in bad PR and bad communication skills because lying doesn't work especially in these days of the social media beast that rips them a new one every new little utterance that lacks any backing in truth or transparency.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

Sure fine yeah you must be right, I won't bring up that he had no elite coaching/infrastructure until 2010 and was irritating Team Sky by the fact they could see the talent and data to say he is great rider but he would be very inconsistent, which they found out in 2011 was due to a bacterial infection.

Schistosomiasis is not a bacterial infection, and Barloworld was not a total cycling backwater.

Meant parasite you knew what I meant and true but where would you rate their infrastructure/coaching levels for neo-pros?

Lemond came out of cycling backwater with little to no infrastructure... Killing it by age 20. Most talented riders do. I remember one challenging race I did that had 200 meters climbing on a 9 km lap. A young guy in baggy shorts, riding an old 80's vintage Pinarello (6-speed downtube). Never really raced before. Sat on the front all day and won easily.

Talent shows. Early.

Froome did not show Lemond levels of talent prior to 2011 and even a cursory study of Schistosomiasis (Cambridge University - http://old-www.path.cam.ac.uk/~schisto/) would tell you that wasn't it. About a year ago I analyzed every single one of Froome's flat TT results to get an idea of how his FTP had changed. Literally overnight, starting with the Tour de Suisse in 2011 his FTP improved by ~15%. This is based on going from a steady top 25% placing at a deficit of 6 sec/km (first place) to consistent top 5% finish with no real deficit to the winners. In fact since TdS 2011 he has never had a "bad" TT that was anywhere near his best TT pre 2011. No steady progession. He turned on a switch and he's been "lit" ever since.

John Swanson[/quote]

But he did show signs at the Commonwealth same level as he was by the the Vuelta no. I'm saying he is undoubtedly 100% clean, there are definitely odd things about him that don't make sense. But I'm also a strong believer that cycling isn't so special that late bloomers can't exist, when they can exist in other sports. If he had no talent whatsoever he would never have even been in the pro peleton at first[/quote]
No. At the Comm games he got his a$$ handed to him by Nathan O'Neill. A good TT'er, sure but not GT stage winning level by any means.[/quote]

I'm sure the Kenyan road bikes and skin suits were a similar quality for performance as Australia's, as the 20 year old Kenyan went against the Australian TT champ

 

[Irondan]

If your going to multi-quote, please get it right. Scienceiscool is quoted there ^^^ but it's too hard to see where..

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

If you're not questioning the logic of this line of reasoning, why question anything about the position?

Because it leaves Sky in a bad place? Well that's fits the old, "not liking where the logic leads" problem. It's akin to climate denier arguments. No real argument about the facts, but since we all hate the conclusion, some subset of the populace will react to the inconvenient truth of the situation and argue from a place of frustration, anger, defensiveness, etc., and resort to "arguments" like "Why is everyone picking on Sky" or "Nothing they can do will change your mind", and so on. None of which address the evidence that they're doping, but are simply a manifestation at the fan's frustration that they can't refute the evidence and look for alternate routes of attack or argumentation.

No. I'm not debating the "facts" -though in my view they're still mostly opinion and speculation, at best estimated probabilities and educated deductions. But looking at how best to obtain new data in order to better ascertain them (in my view there is still work to be done).

I agree completely that the original sins (there are many, including transformations, unbelievable performances, hiring doping enablers and doctors, lying about a great many things) cannot be undone. So there is little point in being transparent now, that's true.

Exactly. In my view that runs counter to what you were saying before. If your mind can't be changed, why would you call on transparency from a team you "know" to be cheating? What's the point? What would be their incentive?

Of course the simple reality is that they can't be truly transparent, because of course they're doping and true transparency would simply be proof of and an admission of guilt. "Full transparency" is not on the table. Not because it would prove nothing, but because it would prove everything.

No it wouldn't. It would confirm what we you know, that Froome and friends have had an unusual progression. Looking at the ride data wouldn't tell you anything you don't already know from the VAM models and the leaks. Looking at the blood data wouldn't tell you anything the bio-passport guys don't already know.

I was just trying to pick at a question that was posted previously, but I think it led me somewhere. Full transparency from Sky wouldn't convince anyone of anything. It would not help Sky in any way either. I think that's an interesting conclusion from an incentives perspective that could be examined in order to work out how to actually achieve better transparency, or it could just turn out to be an inconvenient truth.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I'm sure the Kenyan road bikes and skin suits were a similar quality for performance as Australia's, as the 20 year old Kenyan went against the Australian TT champ

You forgot the sandshoes bit.........got to keep the myth straight......something Froomey and Sky cant seem to do.

Skinsuits do make 15% difference, don't they?

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

I'm sure the Kenyan road bikes and skin suits were a similar quality for performance as Australia's, as the 20 year old Kenyan went against the Australian TT champ

Froome during his 2010 Commonwealth ride when he placed 5th. That looks like top-of-the-line Sky gear to me.

He finished 2'20" behind winner St. David of Millar, 1'20" behind a 19-year-old Luke Durbridge and six seconds behind world famous TT whizz Mitchell Hutchinson.



By the way, I intenionally misspelt Hutch's name. Did you notice? Did you care? Doubt it.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

....snipped......for ..brevity........


Full transparency from Sky wouldn't convince anyone of anything. It would not help Sky in any way either. I think that's an interesting conclusion from an incentives perspective that could be examined in order to work out how to actually achieve better transparency, or it could just turn out to be an inconvenient truth.

Full transparency would show that Froome was doping, hence why they wont do it. Why did Sky not invite, say the ASO doctor to the press conference with a weighing scales and they weighed Froome in front of everyone?

Achieving better transparency is easy if people are telling the truth. Sky are not. Walsh went out of his way in his pursuit of Armstrong to get stuff explained so he could point at Armstrong and say this is not right. Walsh is now coming across as someone who is closing his eyes to what most can see, in order to avoid the obvious.

Plenty have pointed out in the last 10 pages the massive questions hanging over Sky. They have done nothing, nothing to answer those questions. All they have done is create more questions and more disbelief.

Remember when this team started out they wanted questions about everything, now they claim they are being persecuted and blaming the French!

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is pretty safe to assume it is a duck.

Sky doping, cor blimey luv a duck!

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I'm sure the Kenyan road bikes and skin suits were a similar quality for performance as Australia's, as the 20 year old Kenyan went against the Australian TT champ

Froome during his 2010 Commonwealth ride when he placed 5th. That looks like top-of-the-line Sky gear to me.

He finished 2'20" behind winner St. David of Millar, 1'20" behind a 19-year-old Luke Durbridge and six seconds behind world famous TT whizz Mitchell Hutchinson.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

I'm sure the Kenyan road bikes and skin suits were a similar quality for performance as Australia's, as the 20 year old Kenyan went against the Australian TT champ

Froome during his 2010 Commonwealth ride when he placed 5th. That looks like top-of-the-line Sky gear to me.

He finished 2'20" behind winner St. David of Millar, 1'20" behind a 19-year-old Luke Durbridge and six seconds behind world famous TT whizz Mitchell Hutchinson.



By the way, I intenionally misspelt Hutch's name. Did you notice? Did you care? Doubt it.

What's your point?

 

[Saint Unix]

That Froome went from finishing behind someone who is a complete unknown to most people to finishing second behind the best time trialler in the world less than a year later at the Vuelta.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Sure fine yeah you must be right, I won't bring up that he had no elite coaching/infrastructure until 2010 and was irritating Team Sky by the fact they could see the talent and data to say he is great rider but he would be very inconsistent, which they found out in 2011 was due to a bacterial infection.

If you haven't yet, you should familiarize yourself with this thread: viewtopic.php?t=21198

It deals in great length to the parasite Froome claims to have had. I don't have any reason to doubt that he had it, but I have no reason to believe it was the cause of the transformation, as you will see outlined in this thread. Multiple stories of when and how he contracted it, when and how it was treated, when and how it affected his performance, etc. He's lying about it, without question, as he can't keep his story straight. Worth a read.

Almost fell of my chair, never I thought would see someone actually use links to support the facts they are using in the Clinic.

Whilst parts of the Froome story don't add up the guy who put up the links does contradict himself with the links, which if Froome does not clarify himself clearly (he isn't a doctor) can be seen to be him lying. E.G Where BroDeal says it should be a one off treatment not over 18 months. Froome says he goes once every 6 months, which is plausible as the link provided says the treatment is a single dose (one off) annually. It's a similar story with being off the bike for a week, which Froome doesn't go into detail about but is potentially true.

However if I was a journalist at the I would question why it would have taken Froome having a pill three times before the side affects wore off. And if I was Sky I would have would of got the Dr to explain the infection not the rider or Brailsford

I don't think you're reading closely, but understandable it's a long thread with many deviations. You do not need to be treated more than once except if you are repeatedly exposed to the parasite, which a european living and training in Monaco would not be. So the re-infection angle is very hard to believe. You also have at least 3 versions of how and when he contracted it from Froome, as well as several versions of when and how it was treated/cured. The simple, Occam's razor conclusion is that he's lying about the story. It's a convenient cover for his transformation. The problem as is, however, that he claims to have been infected and re-treated while he was getting post-transformation results. He claims that his blood parameters weren't affected but that bilharzia caused his lack of performance due to it "eating his red blood cells". If it's "eating his red blood cells" enough to affect performance, how does that not show up in his blood profile? If the parasite was the cause of his (years long, near permanent until Sept. 2011) average performances, why did it suddenly not affect his performance after Sept 2011?

None of it adds up. It makes no sense. The simple answer is that he's lying about it and his transformation is a result of doping...just like every other transformation in the history of cycling.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

If you're not questioning the logic of this line of reasoning, why question anything about the position?

Because it leaves Sky in a bad place? Well that's fits the old, "not liking where the logic leads" problem. It's akin to climate denier arguments. No real argument about the facts, but since we all hate the conclusion, some subset of the populace will react to the inconvenient truth of the situation and argue from a place of frustration, anger, defensiveness, etc., and resort to "arguments" like "Why is everyone picking on Sky" or "Nothing they can do will change your mind", and so on. None of which address the evidence that they're doping, but are simply a manifestation at the fan's frustration that they can't refute the evidence and look for alternate routes of attack or argumentation.

No. I'm not debating the "facts" -though in my view they're still mostly opinion and speculation, at best estimated probabilities and educated deductions. But looking at how best to obtain new data in order to better ascertain them (in my view there is still work to be done).

I agree completely that the original sins (there are many, including transformations, unbelievable performances, hiring doping enablers and doctors, lying about a great many things) cannot be undone. So there is little point in being transparent now, that's true.

Exactly. In my view that runs counter to what you were saying before. If your mind can't be changed, why would you call on transparency from a team you "know" to be cheating? What's the point? What would be their incentive?

Of course the simple reality is that they can't be truly transparent, because of course they're doping and true transparency would simply be proof of and an admission of guilt. "Full transparency" is not on the table. Not because it would prove nothing, but because it would prove everything.

No it wouldn't. It would confirm what we you know, that Froome and friends have had an unusual progression. Looking at the ride data wouldn't tell you anything you don't already know from the VAM models and the leaks. Looking at the blood data wouldn't tell you anything the bio-passport guys don't already know.

I was just trying to pick at a question that was posted previously, but I think it led me somewhere. Full transparency from Sky wouldn't convince anyone of anything. It would not help Sky in any way either. I think that's an interesting conclusion from an incentives perspective that could be examined in order to work out how to actually achieve better transparency, or it could just turn out to be an inconvenient truth.

We can debate about full transparency with Sky when they offer it. Until then this is pointless. They never will, because they can't. If they do, and it shows why several of their riders have gone from pack fodder to world beaters, then we have something to talk about.

So far we have nothing of the sort. And I never have called for it or expect it for obvious reasons already stated.

 

[carton]

Achieving better transparency is easy if people are telling the truth.

No. No it's not. Name me one organization in the world that you think is efficient and entirely transparent. Any major corporation, government, or entity of any sort. I bet you won't find 100% consensus on any you can put out there. The boy scouts? The church (whatever denomination)? The government of Greece? The European Central Bank? The FAO? ICANN? Your favorite star's charity? Astana? FDJ? The ATP? FIFA? Apple? Microsoft? Toshiba? The New York Times? HuffPo? The BBC?

Transparency is very, very hard. Every step taking towards it, even the half-assed, self-serving ones should be lauded, IMHO.

 

[42x16ss]

Re:

Achieving better transparency is easy if people are telling the truth.

No. No it's not. Name me one organization in the world that you think is efficient and entirely transparent. Any major corporation, government, or entity of any sort. I bet you won't find 100% consensus on any you can put out there. The boy scouts? The church (whatever denomination)? The government of Greece? The European Central Bank? The FAO? ICANN? Your favorite star's charity? Astana? FDJ? The ATP? FIFA? Apple? Microsoft? Toshiba? The New York Times? HuffPo? The BBC?

Transparency is very, very hard. Every step taking towards it, even the half-assed, self-serving ones should be lauded, IMHO.

Transparency is very very hard because it often ends up being very very damaging

 

[Melo]

Re:

Achieving better transparency is easy if people are telling the truth.

Transparency is very, very hard. Every step taking towards it, even the half-assed, self-serving ones should be lauded, IMHO.

So in this case let's praise Sky that they release whatever data they want so they can manipulate in every possible way. Like I said before, no data or full transparency, there is no middle term in this problem. They made a poor decision PR wise to release just the data they wanted, this just adds more to suspicion.

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

Achieving better transparency is easy if people are telling the truth.

Transparency is very, very hard. Every step taking towards it, even the half-assed, self-serving ones should be lauded, IMHO.

So in this case let's praise Sky that they release whatever data they want so they can manipulate in every possible way. Like I said before, no data or full transparency, there is no middle term in this problem. They made a poor decision PR wise to release just the data they wanted, this just adds more to suspicion.

Yes bad PR decision. The explanations and W/kg estimates weren't great. But I think the data is useful. See this:

So Froome would have had to ridden at a higher w/kg avg than Gesink to put 1:30 into him. Is there any way to calculate what that w/kg avg would have had to been?

Sure. Let’s assume Gesink loses 30” because of riding unprotected longer. This reduces Froome’s gap to about a minute, IOW, without that extra loss, Gesink would have finished at about 42:30. Gesink’s power was about 5.90 W/kg., so Froome’s should be about (42.5/41.5) x 5.90 = 6.04 W/kg.

As Ross Tucker pointed out, if one assumes Froome’s weight was really 66 kg, as a lot of evidence and statements in the past imply it would be at most, then one could take the 414 W value furnished by Sky, reduce it by 4% rather than 6% (because the manufacturer estimated 4-5% correction for oval chainrings), and get 6.03. This is also very close to Sallet's estimate. I think we can pretty confidently conclude that Froome's power was in the range of 6.0-6.1 W/kg.

Having more data points is a good thing, me thinks. Like asking for more testing. Like having a no tolerance policy, however sieve-like. If the end, if they are caught, you can go to the next guys and say, this is the baseline. This is what the guys that were cheating were doing. This is the bare minimum. That advances the game. From the days of Mr. 60% to today, we have seen some progress, transparency-wise. We will get to all bio data and power data being released.

There is no full transparency. Just better transparency.

 

[red_flanders]

Better as in "makes fans feel better". Better as in getting closer to the truth? Not happening.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

For me transparency is binary. You either are or you aren't.

The data release from Sky -- including what they fed Grappe (and who they fed it to) -- is the opposite of transparency. It makes the picture murkier, less clear.

 

[Ripper]

Re:

Transparency is very, very hard. Every step taking towards it, even the half-assed, self-serving ones should be lauded, IMHO.

Transparency is not that hard.

Partial, self-serving transparency should not be lauded unless it leads to the ultimate goal. Stopping where it is, it is simply self serving and therefore, not transparent at all.

 

[Ripper]

Re:

Better as in "makes fans feel better". Better as in getting closer to the truth? Not happening.

Red, this forum still needs a like button. Not only does this help a fan base feel better, but it is the perfect marketing spin that some media (I believe such as the Times?) love to hype.

 

[42x16ss]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sources-say-landa-intxausti-and-the-izagirre-brothers-to-join-team-sky

I thought Movistar, Astana, and particularly Landa were meant to be dirty

Tsk Tsk.

 

[yespatterns]

Not to kick a dead horse, but sky still needs to address data from before Froomes miraculous turnaround...

 

[Archibald]

Re: Re:

I'm sure the Kenyan road bikes and skin suits were a similar quality for performance as Australia's, as the 20 year old Kenyan went against the Australian TT champ

Froome during his 2010 Commonwealth ride when he placed 5th. That looks like top-of-the-line Sky gear to me.

He finished 2'20" behind winner St. David of Millar, 1'20" behind a 19-year-old Luke Durbridge and six seconds behind world famous TT whizz Mitchell Hutchinson.



By the way, I intenionally misspelt Hutch's name. Did you notice? Did you care? Doubt it.

You left of the 'Dr' part?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re:

Not to kick a dead horse, but sky still needs to address data from before Froomes miraculous turnaround...

Bingo, show Froome's 2011 Brixia Tour numbers.

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

I'm sure the Kenyan road bikes and skin suits were a similar quality for performance as Australia's, as the 20 year old Kenyan went against the Australian TT champ

Froome during his 2010 Commonwealth ride when he placed 5th. That looks like top-of-the-line Sky gear to me.

He finished 2'20" behind winner St. David of Millar, 1'20" behind a 19-year-old Luke Durbridge and six seconds behind world famous TT whizz Mitchell Hutchinson.



By the way, I intenionally misspelt Hutch's name. Did you notice? Did you care? Doubt it.

Froome was also using an English skinsuit as he was representing England by 2010.

Oops.