Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[pastronef]

Re:

Tour of California ? Is that ASO ?

Won in 2014, 3rd 2015.


To be fair how many non-ASO events do they (not just Sky but WT teams) race ?

Andalucia, Trentino, Catalunya, Omloop, E3, Romandie are not Aso

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Tour of California ? Is that ASO ?

Won in 2014, 3rd 2015.

To be fair how many non-ASO events do they (not just Sky but WT teams) race ?

To be fair....Sky are able to get riders to peak for 6months, Paris Nice to TdF and sometimes beyond.

Now there are a lot big races not ASO owned and not in France. Sky appear to just show up to these even though they are extremely prestigious. It almost appears Sky have a similar goal to a former team, win Tdf, all else is meh!

In 5 years, Sky have won 3 TdFs and no monuments.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

To be fair....Sky are able to get riders to peak for 6months, Paris Nice to TdF and sometimes beyond.

Now there are a lot big races not ASO owned and not in France. Sky appear to just show up to these even though they are extremely prestigious. It almost appears Sky have a similar goal to a former team, win Tdf, all else is meh!

In 5 years, Sky have won 3 TdFs and no monuments.

Seems like an unfair advantage to me. But I'm sure it's not because it doesn't require doping.

e: doesn't

 

[Tommy79]

Re:

Can't help to think of Festina seeing the Sky team crossing the finish line in Paris linked arm in arm.

Could just be because "Festina" is written on the clock above the finish line.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

"Super performance athlete" isn't the thought that pops into my head when I see Froome's physique.

You like a big beefy fella like Armstrong?

Go back in time a bit. Let's say 25 years or so. If you do a bit of research on GT winners prior to the EPO generation you'll find something interesting. With the exception of Merckx, all the GT guys were 5'8" to 5'10" tall and were lean and muscular. Not heavy or bulky and not at all Froome/Rasmussen skinny. They were built for both mountains and TT's and had enough oomph to occasionally contest a sprint. All-rounders that you would expect to do well after three weeks of attrition.

Fast-forward to today. How did Froome survive three weeks at the Tour? It's well understood that even stuffing your face and taking lots of naps, you will lose 1-2 kg over the course of three weeks. Your body will start to break down and by the end you will need some serious recovery. Coming in as a skeleton, killing it on the cobbles, and then flying for two weeks is actually quite impossible unless you're propping up the system with some recovery products.

Did you know that prior to the 90's most of the GT contenders would enter a race deliberately 1-2 kg heavy so that they had reserves for the last 10 days?

John Swanson

 

[Tommy79]

Re: Re:

"Super performance athlete" isn't the thought that pops into my head when I see Froome's physique.

You like a big beefy fella like Armstrong?

Go back in time a bit. Let's say 25 years or so. If you do a bit of research on GT winners prior to the EPO generation you'll find something interesting. With the exception of Merckx, all the GT guys were 5'8" to 5'10" tall and were lean and muscular. Not heavy or bulky and not at all Froome/Rasmussen skinny. They were built for both mountains and TT's and had enough oomph to occasionally contest a sprint. All-rounders that you would expect to do well after three weeks of attrition.

Fast-forward to today. How did Froome survive three weeks at the Tour? It's well understood that even stuffing your face and taking lots of naps, you will lose 1-2 kg over the course of three weeks. Your body will start to break down and by the end you will need some serious recovery. Coming in as a skeleton, killing it on the cobbles, and then flying for two weeks is actually quite impossible unless you're propping up the system with some recovery products.

Did you know that prior to the 90's most of the GT contenders would enter a race deliberately 1-2 kg heavy so that they had reserves for the last 10 days?

John Swanson

So these days they can get enough calories into a rider during the day.... or.... you have a doping based explanation?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

So these days they can get enough calories into a rider during the day.... or.... you have a doping based explanation?

It's never been about straight-up ingestion of calories. People have known how to eat for a very long time. There's the problem of stress without rest and recovery. Simply, without it your body starts to break down and you lose a bit of weight.

Example: your hematocrit normally drops after three weeks as well.

John Swanson

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

"Super performance athlete" isn't the thought that pops into my head when I see Froome's physique.

You like a big beefy fella like Armstrong?

Go back in time a bit. Let's say 25 years or so. If you do a bit of research on GT winners prior to the EPO generation you'll find something interesting. With the exception of Merckx, all the GT guys were 5'8" to 5'10" tall and were lean and muscular. Not heavy or bulky and not at all Froome/Rasmussen skinny. They were built for both mountains and TT's and had enough oomph to occasionally contest a sprint. All-rounders that you would expect to do well after three weeks of attrition.

Fast-forward to today. How did Froome survive three weeks at the Tour? It's well understood that even stuffing your face and taking lots of naps, you will lose 1-2 kg over the course of three weeks. Your body will start to break down and by the end you will need some serious recovery. Coming in as a skeleton, killing it on the cobbles, and then flying for two weeks is actually quite impossible unless you're propping up the system with some recovery products.

Did you know that prior to the 90's most of the GT contenders would enter a race deliberately 1-2 kg heavy so that they had reserves for the last 10 days?

John Swanson

And some non-specific, undefined, vague and hopeful notions about "improved training" which have cropped up in the last 5 years don't fully address those points for you?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

"Super performance athlete" isn't the thought that pops into my head when I see Froome's physique.

You like a big beefy fella like Armstrong?

Go back in time a bit. Let's say 25 years or so. If you do a bit of research on GT winners prior to the EPO generation you'll find something interesting. With the exception of Merckx, all the GT guys were 5'8" to 5'10" tall and were lean and muscular. Not heavy or bulky and not at all Froome/Rasmussen skinny. They were built for both mountains and TT's and had enough oomph to occasionally contest a sprint. All-rounders that you would expect to do well after three weeks of attrition.

Fast-forward to today. How did Froome survive three weeks at the Tour? It's well understood that even stuffing your face and taking lots of naps, you will lose 1-2 kg over the course of three weeks. Your body will start to break down and by the end you will need some serious recovery. Coming in as a skeleton, killing it on the cobbles, and then flying for two weeks is actually quite impossible unless you're propping up the system with some recovery products.

Did you know that prior to the 90's most of the GT contenders would enter a race deliberately 1-2 kg heavy so that they had reserves for the last 10 days?

John Swanson

And some non-specific, undefined, vague and hopeful notions about "improved training" which have cropped up in the last 5 years don't fully address those points for you?

I remember an article that Davis Phinney wrote for one of those magazines (Bicycling, Winning or some such thing) around 1993. He detailed his winter workouts in great detail. Did wonders for me on the trainer that year. Absolutely no daylight between that and what is done today. None.

John Swanson

 

[Tommy79]

Re: Re:

So these days they can get enough calories into a rider during the day.... or.... you have a doping based explanation?

It's never been about straight-up ingestion of calories. People have known how to eat for a very long time. There's the problem of stress without rest and recovery. Simply, without it your body starts to break down and you lose a bit of weight.

Example: your hematocrit normally drops after three weeks as well.

John Swanson

Stephen Roche tells a story about losing the tour because he starved himself on a rest day, just ate apples, and lost the tour the next day.

But he probably made it up to give Sky fans an example of how things have progressed since then.

 

[samhocking]

Re:

In much the same way that far too many people confuse the definitions of "evidence" and "proof", the last few posts seem to confuse the definition of "knowing" and "proving". Many people know Chris Froome and other top GT contenders are doping. Doesn't mean we can prove it.

Some people just don't want to know, and will concoct any reason they can't to avoid knowing. That's OK, it's just a discussion board, not a court of law.

That's fine to think that here, but when the same logic spills out into broadcast journalism sparked by social media and the web to the point that you're asking Froome to disprove what you believe to be known without any evidence and do it with the very same evidence you admit not to have it seems crazy and pointless. It's almost like the game of nothing being possible to prove is actually what is driving the arguments which clearly isn't helping the sport it it?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

So these days they can get enough calories into a rider during the day.... or.... you have a doping based explanation?

It's never been about straight-up ingestion of calories. People have known how to eat for a very long time. There's the problem of stress without rest and recovery. Simply, without it your body starts to break down and you lose a bit of weight.

Example: your hematocrit normally drops after three weeks as well.

John Swanson

Stephen Roche tells a story about losing the tour because he starved himself on a rest day, just ate apples, and lost the tour the next day.

But he probably made it up to give Sky fans an example of how things have progressed since then.

Stephen Roche who to this day denies taking EPO with Conconi even though an Italian Judge said the investigation proved he did, no way!!!!

Take anything Roche says with a large pinch of salt.

 

[doperhopper]

Let's refresh yet another piece from the history, almost as good as Brailsford's "no attack/counter in the clean era":

“In the big mountain stages, you never see the (team) leader surrounded by three or four domestiques. He usually finishes the climb on his own. That wasn’t the case during the big period of EPO,” said McQuaid.

Oh boy, if he could imagine that now in 2015, doms are chasing top GC climbers after they finished their job few kms from MTF? Not even seen in Lance/Mig era!

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/06/news/mcquaid-the-bio-passport-is-changing-the-sports-culture_222978

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

In much the same way that far too many people confuse the definitions of "evidence" and "proof", the last few posts seem to confuse the definition of "knowing" and "proving". Many people know Chris Froome and other top GT contenders are doping. Doesn't mean we can prove it.

Some people just don't want to know, and will concoct any reason they can't to avoid knowing. That's OK, it's just a discussion board, not a court of law.

That's fine to think that here, but when the same logic spills out into broadcast journalism sparked by social media and the web to the point that you're asking Froome to disprove what you believe to be known without any evidence and do it with the very same evidence you admit not to have it seems crazy and pointless. It's almost like the game of nothing being possible to prove is actually what is driving the arguments which clearly isn't helping the sport it it?

Sam, Sam, Sam, you have been posting here long enough to not keep repeating this sad old mantra.

Sky & Froome can easily solve Froome's 'proof'.

UCI have numbers from way back, Froome can release his Barloworld data and Sky can release all the information that have. It will then show Froome's oh so natural progression from hanging off motorbikes to 2 time tour de france winner was a nice gradual, natural rise from super talent young rider to mature talented, best in the world.

Then we can get on with lambasting the Spanish, Italians, Belgians, Russains etc as dirty cheating dopers.

Capish?

 

[doperhopper]

Re: Re:

In much the same way that far too many people confuse the definitions of "evidence" and "proof", the last few posts seem to confuse the definition of "knowing" and "proving". Many people know Chris Froome and other top GT contenders are doping. Doesn't mean we can prove it.

Some people just don't want to know, and will concoct any reason they can't to avoid knowing. That's OK, it's just a discussion board, not a court of law.

That's fine to think that here, but when the same logic spills out into broadcast journalism sparked by social media and the web to the point that you're asking Froome to disprove what you believe to be known without any evidence and do it with the very same evidence you admit not to have it seems crazy and pointless. It's almost like the game of nothing being possible to prove is actually what is driving the arguments which clearly isn't helping the sport it it?

Sam, Sam, Sam, you have been posting here long enough to not keep repeating this sad old mantra.

Sky & Froome can easily solve Froome's 'proof'.

UCI have numbers from way back, Froome can release his Barloworld data and Sky can release all the information that have. It will then show Froome's oh so natural progression from hanging off motorbikes to 2 time tour de france winner was a nice gradual, natural rise from super talent young rider to mature talented, best in the world.

Then we can get on with lambasting the Spanish, Italians, Belgians, Russains etc as dirty cheating dopers.

Capish?

You know, badzilla, finally launched to his potential, marginal pillows and handwashing... and if journos & public keep insisting, they can show some fake data suggesting the potential was there, but not the endurance, peaking, blabla, due to the cance...eeh, parasite

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

In much the same way that far too many people confuse the definitions of "evidence" and "proof", the last few posts seem to confuse the definition of "knowing" and "proving". Many people know Chris Froome and other top GT contenders are doping. Doesn't mean we can prove it.

Some people just don't want to know, and will concoct any reason they can't to avoid knowing. That's OK, it's just a discussion board, not a court of law.

That's fine to think that here, but when the same logic spills out into broadcast journalism sparked by social media and the web to the point that you're asking Froome to disprove what you believe to be known without any evidence and do it with the very same evidence you admit not to have it seems crazy and pointless. It's almost like the game of nothing being possible to prove is actually what is driving the arguments which clearly isn't helping the sport it it?

Please stop saying "without any evidence". There is a mountain of "evidence". What you seem to mean is without any "proof". Not the same thing.

The tiny escapes of truth in the broadcast journalist world could hardly be called a problem. In fact the problem, historically and now, is that journalists who very well knew and now know exactly what is going on say nothing, as not to spit in the soup. And so it all goes on, and they feed the lies to those who want the cleans party line.

We're having a discussion here and in social media. That's how it goes. This narrative that everything would be OK if only people stopped discussing the facts is truly mind-boggling, but I'm well used to it at this point.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re:

Let's refresh yet another piece from the history, almost as good as Brailsford's "no attack/counter in the clean era":

“In the big mountain stages, you never see the (team) leader surrounded by three or four domestiques. He usually finishes the climb on his own. That wasn’t the case during the big period of EPO,” said McQuaid.

Oh boy, if he could imagine that now in 2015, doms are chasing top GC climbers after they finished their job few kms from MTF? Not even seen in Lance/Mig era!

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/06/news/mcquaid-the-bio-passport-is-changing-the-sports-culture_222978

15. Thomas +0:31:39
35. Roche +1:54:08

Second and third Sky finishers. For context.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

"Super performance athlete" isn't the thought that pops into my head when I see Froome's physique.

You like a big beefy fella like Armstrong?

Go back in time a bit. Let's say 25 years or so. If you do a bit of research on GT winners prior to the EPO generation you'll find something interesting. With the exception of Merckx, all the GT guys were 5'8" to 5'10" tall and were lean and muscular. Not heavy or bulky and not at all Froome/Rasmussen skinny. They were built for both mountains and TT's and had enough oomph to occasionally contest a sprint. All-rounders that you would expect to do well after three weeks of attrition.

Fast-forward to today. How did Froome survive three weeks at the Tour? It's well understood that even stuffing your face and taking lots of naps, you will lose 1-2 kg over the course of three weeks. Your body will start to break down and by the end you will need some serious recovery. Coming in as a skeleton, killing it on the cobbles, and then flying for two weeks is actually quite impossible unless you're propping up the system with some recovery products.

Did you know that prior to the 90's most of the GT contenders would enter a race deliberately 1-2 kg heavy so that they had reserves for the last 10 days?

John Swanson

And some non-specific, undefined, vague and hopeful notions about "improved training" which have cropped up in the last 5 years don't fully address those points for you?

I remember an article that Davis Phinney wrote for one of those magazines (Bicycling, Winning or some such thing) around 1993. He detailed his winter workouts in great detail. Did wonders for me on the trainer that year. Absolutely no daylight between that and what is done today. None.

John Swanson

None that I can see either. I'm waiting to hear though, exactly what these breakthroughs are as they must exist in the "clean era". Should be no secret as these apparently world-beating training formulae have been in the peloton for a few years now. Should be revealed anytime...waiting...bated breath...

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

In much the same way that far too many people confuse the definitions of "evidence" and "proof", the last few posts seem to confuse the definition of "knowing" and "proving". Many people know Chris Froome and other top GT contenders are doping. Doesn't mean we can prove it.

Some people just don't want to know, and will concoct any reason they can't to avoid knowing. That's OK, it's just a discussion board, not a court of law.

That's fine to think that here, but when the same logic spills out into broadcast journalism sparked by social media and the web to the point that you're asking Froome to disprove what you believe to be known without any evidence and do it with the very same evidence you admit not to have it seems crazy and pointless. It's almost like the game of nothing being possible to prove is actually what is driving the arguments which clearly isn't helping the sport it it?

Sam, Sam, Sam, you have been posting here long enough to not keep repeating this sad old mantra.

Sky & Froome can easily solve Froome's 'proof'.

UCI have numbers from way back, Froome can release his Barloworld data and Sky can release all the information that have. It will then show Froome's oh so natural progression from hanging off motorbikes to 2 time tour de france winner was a nice gradual, natural rise from super talent young rider to mature talented, best in the world.

Then we can get on with lambasting the Spanish, Italians, Belgians, Russains etc as dirty cheating dopers.

Capish?

Where does this belief come from that a rider can only progress steadily year by year and not be suspicous? Contador, Valverde, Ullrich? It seems an impossible method to determine when a rider or team should release data, or shouldn't release all data on a rider? They certainly shouldn't release it to us or the UCI that's for sure. Even WADA is doubtful.

Who does it apply to anyway - Is it simply going to be for a GT winner without a stage race win first? If Bardet had hit the podium, should all his data be released because he's a young rider, is it based on how many minutes you're behind the winner - where do you stop or start this guilty until proven innocent way of providing your belief it would be an effective anti-doping method?

Incidentally, isn't this exactly what Braislford has asked the UCI & WADA to do across the board for all riders anyway just this month, just release all rider data and start collecting all power files with the passport?

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

15. Thomas +0:31:39
35. Roche +1:54:08

Second and third Sky finishers. For context.

I must have imagined Porte, Poels and Thomas taking turns closing gaps and shattering everyone on the mountains then. Good thing I have a finishing spot and a time gap to tell me what actually happened.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

In much the same way that far too many people confuse the definitions of "evidence" and "proof", the last few posts seem to confuse the definition of "knowing" and "proving". Many people know Chris Froome and other top GT contenders are doping. Doesn't mean we can prove it.

Some people just don't want to know, and will concoct any reason they can't to avoid knowing. That's OK, it's just a discussion board, not a court of law.

That's fine to think that here, but when the same logic spills out into broadcast journalism sparked by social media and the web to the point that you're asking Froome to disprove what you believe to be known without any evidence and do it with the very same evidence you admit not to have it seems crazy and pointless. It's almost like the game of nothing being possible to prove is actually what is driving the arguments which clearly isn't helping the sport it it?

Please stop saying "without any evidence". There is a mountain of "evidence". What you seem to mean is without any "proof". Not the same thing.

The tiny escapes of truth in the broadcast journalist world could hardly be called a problem. In fact the problem, historically and now, is that journalists who very well knew and now know exactly what is going on say nothing, as not to spit in the soup. And so it all goes on, and they feed the lies to those who want the cleans party line.

We're having a discussion here and in social media. That's how it goes. This narrative that everything would be OK if only people stopped discussing the facts is truly mind-boggling, but I'm well used to it at this point.

So because you can't prove with your mountain of evidence someone is doping, they should have to prove that they are clean? You think a rider proving their innocence is an effective anti-doping system and what is missing in the sport do you?

 

[Shelf Side]

Re: Re:

15. Thomas +0:31:39
35. Roche +1:54:08

Second and third Sky finishers. For context.

I must have imagined Porte, Poels and Thomas taking turns closing gaps and shattering everyone on the mountains then. Good thing I have a finishing spot and a time gap to tell me what actually happened.

Hmmm. Perhaps Sky was a little stronger than Movistar, perhaps not. In any case, that's what happens in sport - you get stronger teams and you get weaker teams.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Re: Re:

15. Thomas +0:31:39
35. Roche +1:54:08

Second and third Sky finishers. For context.

I must have imagined Porte, Poels and Thomas taking turns closing gaps and shattering everyone on the mountains then. Good thing I have a finishing spot and a time gap to tell me what actually happened.

They say that with less access to recovery products you're more likely to pay for your efforts. Conversely, if you've minimized early stage efforts you may be available to assist your leader in week 3.

44. Poels 2:12:44
48. Porte 2:16:05

 

[Shelf Side]

Re: Re:

In much the same way that far too many people confuse the definitions of "evidence" and "proof", the last few posts seem to confuse the definition of "knowing" and "proving". Many people know Chris Froome and other top GT contenders are doping. Doesn't mean we can prove it.

Some people just don't want to know, and will concoct any reason they can't to avoid knowing. That's OK, it's just a discussion board, not a court of law.

That's fine to think that here, but when the same logic spills out into broadcast journalism sparked by social media and the web to the point that you're asking Froome to disprove what you believe to be known without any evidence and do it with the very same evidence you admit not to have it seems crazy and pointless. It's almost like the game of nothing being possible to prove is actually what is driving the arguments which clearly isn't helping the sport it it?

Please stop saying "without any evidence". There is a mountain of "evidence". What you seem to mean is without any "proof". Not the same thing.

The tiny escapes of truth in the broadcast journalist world could hardly be called a problem. In fact the problem, historically and now, is that journalists who very well knew and now know exactly what is going on say nothing, as not to spit in the soup. And so it all goes on, and they feed the lies to those who want the cleans party line.

We're having a discussion here and in social media. That's how it goes. This narrative that everything would be OK if only people stopped discussing the facts is truly mind-boggling, but I'm well used to it at this point.

So because you can't prove with your mountain of evidence someone is doping, they should have to prove that they are clean? You think a rider proving their innocence is an effective anti-doping system and what is missing in the sport do you?

Yep, it's completely farcical. And I wonder how redflanders knows certain journalists are currently withholding the truth about doping in the peloton in order to protect the status quo? What evidence does he/she have? Please tell. It's quite a punchy allegation.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re:

Tour of California ? Is that ASO ?

Won in 2014, 3rd 2015.


To be fair how many non-ASO events do they (not just Sky but WT teams) race ?

Tour of California is not an ASO event. At one point ASO was providing all the media production capabilities in-race but I don't know if that is true any more.

Tour of California was notable for being an event that had at least one year of no testing. Not that the UCI would ever sanction some rider they liked. My understanding is the UCI is the anti-doping authority at the race. Good thing they have such a consistent, spotless record of integrity. We can be sure those riders, at that race, are cleans.

More on this point, reading the last interviews with Verbruggen, it is clear the UCI is trying to consolidate media rights and anti-doping at the first and second tier so almost every media rights Euro flows through them and riders are all clean in the new cleans era.