Tim Kerrison

[sittingbison]

I thought they said something about the second toe being longer than the gig toe

The funniest was the septic suggesting genetic manipulation, until their own 15yo did a 20s PB lol

Unfortunately, he wasn't far wrong as gene doping could be the next phase. Swimmers with gills etc

 

[sittingbison]

From memory, a slower swim stroke was indicative of a more efficient stroke, yes

There have been no studies or empirical evidence of this, other than Kerrison. But he is a world renowned cycling coach, not a swimming coach. Besides, his star swimmer didn't understand his theory and kept swimming at the same cadence as usual

 

[the big ring]

There have been no studies or empirical evidence of this, other than Kerrison. But he is a world renowned cycling coach, not a swimming coach. Besides, his star swimmer didn't understand his theory and kept swimming at the same cadence as usual

Kerrison the former sport scientist?

 

[the big ring]

This is one of the few references I could find of Tim Kerrison and Aussie swimmers, in a book titled, "Olympic Gold".

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...rison&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=tim kerrison&f=false

It's an account of Jodie Henry "Queen of the second lap" preparing at the 2004 Olympics, as written by Shannon Rollason, and it sounded interesting:

The preparation goes well. Like the trials, it is not perfect, but you're never going to get that with this girl. All I know is that since 1998 I haven't seen her as fit and strong as she is, and some of the sets are quite amazing. There is definitely a shift.

So she's stronger than she's ever been since 1998. Her sets in the pool are "amazing".

Then they are going to head to the comp itself...

We catch a bus. On board are the four girls, sports scientist Tim Kerrison, team official David Fox and myself.

I missed this bit, focusing on Kerrison so intently. It's a paragraph immediately below the description of the passengers on the bus:

Jodie's split of 52.95 - the fastest ever, and by some margin - has a lot of people talking...
...
just a reaction from people who are amazed that a woman can split 52.95...
...
interviews with some of her main rivals, who speak of their shock at a split like that

Why the hell would you be shocked, and what exactly was Tim Kerrison's role in Jodie Henry's swimming training? She has a coach - so what's the personal attention of a sport scientist afford her? There's no race plan necessary if you're shocking people with the speed at which you swim. Just like there's no race tactics required if your Tenerife Team can ride every GC rider off the wheel up a climb and then put minutes into them 2 days later in a 53.5km TT.

Since when do you make shocking performance jumps 6+ years into an elite sporting career?

 

[Froome19]

Kerrison is noted as an "expert at altitude training". I have looked for any studies with his name attached but cannot find any.

Does anyone know if he has done a PhD?

No PHD as far as I know, just degrees in International Management and Human Body.

 

[Froome19]

A write up I did on Velorooms, based on an article in Procyling and other info..

If you want to talk Sky and doping then this man is the one who you need to talk about..

He is either an amazing coach and an absolute genius... or a very dirty cheat..
He was the coach who Wiggins and the rest of the winning Tour team attributed for their incredible perfomances at the Tour.

So I will fill people in with some info on him..:

Kerrison was, as is infamously known, an Australian swimming coach until 2008 when he left and was contacted by the English cricket team, Brailsford managed to whisk him away at the last second.

A fellow coach at Aussie swimming.. said of Kerrison that it was "

A tremendous loss to Australian swimming and that Kerrison is taking with him substantial knowledge of very innovative practices"

In fact Kerrison, being the genius coach who he is, has developed a software which has also revolutionised British swimming called the HCSI

What was so surprising about the recruitment though was that Kerrison did not have a clue about cycling, it was not all that uncommon considering that many physiologists swap sports, but in retrospect it is particularly surprising.

Yet Brailsford seems to explain it by saying:

Tim's view is that the body is the body, whether it's swimming, rowing, cycling or any other sport. It is not tarnished by conventional wisdom

Makes pretty good sense to me..

Anyways, Kerrison's job seeing as he was clueless about the sport, was to follow the team around everywhere do nothing but observe, collating ideas and information.

Anyways after the 2010 season, Kerrison sat down with Brailsford to show him what Kerrison had observed and his overall conclusions. Brailsford said afterwards he was "blown away" by what Kerrison presented to him...


Here are his main conclusions...


What is startling from there primarily is how they make so much sense but due to the fact that they come from a mind which has not been whatsoever influenced by the sport and therefore does not concur with the stigmas and stereotypes which many of the tradiotional European teams have been influenced and therefore restricted by. Particularly as he says the reliance on doping, has stunted the coaching aspect of the sport whilst the best coaches and doctors in the past, have not been the ones who are the best trainers, but rather the ones who have the best doping techniques.

1) Kerrison could not understand why it was common practice for riders to use races for training.

This technique was instituted years ago due to prize money... now the top riders dont need the prize money all that much, then why do they still use the races as training and build up when they can do it in more controlled environments at their own leisure, when they were not subjected to the racing peloton who has a mind and rhythm of its own.

Yet people still believe that quality efforts would be done at the races, whilst the inter periods would be done at home for resting and lesser intensity training.


2) Another concept of his was "reverse periodisation". This is what people have witnessed with Porte, Wiggins and Rogers over the past year, where they have seemed to be at peak form, a step ahead of the other riders throughout the season.

Effectively it gets rid of the athlete originally focusing on his endurance and building an aerobic base, and then only afterwards to move only on to high intensity exercises only towards the end of the training period or cycle.

And instead it makes the rider focus on introducing all the power and speed work early on and then they would gradually increase the duration of the training of those attributes as the rider's fitness improved, AKA. in this case closer to the Tour.

In the Wiggins case this was very evident wherease many so called "experts" questioned as to whether Wiggins was not peaking a tad too early. If these "experts" had understood that the "reverse periodisation" allows Wiggins to produce maximal perfomances even prior to his peak they would have realised Wiggins was in perfect shape for the Tour.

They assumed that if riders are outputting maximal efforts then that would fastrack a rider into and out of the other side of their best form.

Once again this is another one of the misgiving which has stunted cycling and without it, it seems cyclists can perform much better.


Furthermore another example is that of Wiggins's time trialling which as markedly improved over the past two years. This is due to the fact that Kerrison has made Wiggins race his TTs at a lowed cadence.


Indeed Sky have rightfully applauded their genius coach and Wiggins has specifically attributed his Tour win down to Kerrison's coachin. Not only that but Rogers as well claimed that has increased his power threshold by 5-7% since working with Kerrison.

Even Brailsford has labelled Kerrison

"The best man in cycling"

Pretty big considering the quality of the coaches Brailsford has worked with, as Sky, GB and on the track.. DB doesnt give compliments all that easily, so one of this magnitude means something. And tbh I am not sure he is exaggerating all that much.

He even went as far as to note that he doesnt like singing Kerrison's praises too much as ..

We dont want to lose him. I dont want to say too much about how good he is.

Julich who worked for Riis at CSC said that he was used to Riis's method of training and said:

"At first when I saw the way Tim was working I was pretty skeptical. Then as soon as I'd figured it out, I was like, WOW! Why doesnt everyone else do it like this"

Doesnt seem to me like the supposed Omerta that Benotti is always going on about.

To me it seems like the quality of coaching in the sport, has been harmed by the prominence of doping and only with coaches like Kerrison can the sport start to focus on improving riders' perfomances in other ways than doping.

Draw your own conclusions, but to me it seems relatively possible that this man could have accomplished what he has done due to just pure tactics and the reasons he has given for them seem to very, very logical and it all seems to explain the improvements and perfomances of the Sky team and specifically the Tour team and the Fantastic 4; of Froome, Porte, Rogers and Wiggins.

It seems to me that cycling has been stunted by certain misgiving and that Sky with Kerrison who has not been subjected to the misgivings therefore have an advantage.

To me he merely seems to be a genius of a coach..

 

[Digger]

A write up I did on Velorooms, based on an article in Procyling and other info..

I am speechless.........

 

[thehog]

Aldo Sassi would be rolling in his grave.

Reverse periodisation indeed.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Aldo Sassi would be rolling in his grave.

Reverse periodisation indeed.

Surprised Tim wasn't credited with some new wonder food alla Rice Cakes.
No mention of Jodie Henry,s rather abrupt retirement In the midst of a Australian Swimming doping scandal in Froome,s write up...

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Alright, so Sky gets a guy who specialized in sports run over hundreds of metres, and immediately acheive 'revolutionary' results in a sport that runs over thousands of kilometres (GTs)?

This leads me to two possible conclusions:

a/: Kerrison is a beard for something a little more nefarious than merely modified training programs...

or

b/: Every physiologist and coach in cycling for the last forty years is f*cking ***...

Pulling a bit of a "Hog", and bumping this in response to Froome's piece...

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

It doesn't seem inherently incredible to me that cycling would be backwards in terms of modern, scientific, training. Leaving aside views of Kerrison, of Sky and of Wiggins for a moment, cycling has a lot of cultural peculiarities, attitudes and assumptions which seem natural to people inside the sport but which might seem alien to coaches from other sports.

That there might be a link between the tradition of racing to gain form and the previous need of top cyclists to make money in races they might not otherwise target is an interesting argument. It's certainly unusual that cycling is a team sport where athletes mostly train independently of their team, for instance.

 

[zlev11]

it all makes sense now, "reverse periodisation". reverse periodisation, solely responsible for turning Mick "i'll never be able to ride a Grand Tour ever again" Rogers into the best domestique since Heras.

 

[thehog]

it all makes sense now, "reverse periodisation". reverse periodisation, solely responsible for turning Mick "i'll never be able to ride a Grand Tour ever again" Rogers into the best domestique since Heras.

Yes "reverse periodisation" reminds me a little of this guy;


2. Cadance

When prescribing workouts for Armstrong, who is known to turn his cranks faster than any other man in the European peloton, Carmichael includes numbers not only for duration and heart rate but often for pedal cadence, as well. Why?

"You start to develop efficiencies at certain pedal cadences the more time you spend at them," explains Carmichael. "Generally, at lower pedal cadences, say 60 to 80 rpm, people have the greatest efficiency (on flat terrain). Once you get above this level, you start to lose efficiency and you start to consume more oxygen and your heart rate increases.

"Well, that's a great training opportunity for improving aerobic development. You need to keep moving cadence upward in order to keep gaining efficiency at higher cadences. You're going to be uncomfortable at 90 to 95 rpm if most of your training is at 70 to 75 rpm, but over time you're going to start improving your aerobic capacity and your efficiency at that higher rpm level."

This leads directly to faster cycling, as there are only two ways to cycle faster: by pushing higher gears and by pedaling faster.

3. Consistency

Never shy about revealing the ingredients of his recipe for his success, Armstrong has said, "I never miss a workout. Ever." This machine-like consistency is the key to achieving the high training volume through which Armstrong continually builds his aerobic capacity.

Says Carmichael, "People are often amazed to see how little high-intensity training I prescribe for Lance, but he's a 24/7/365 athlete. If you look at any particular workout, you might say, 'Hey, that's not so bad,' but if you look at the consistency with which we train, it's pretty numbing. Every year, Lance wins the Tour between November and January. He makes his biggest gains in the offseason."

Try being more consistent during your next offseason and see what a difference it makes.

 

[Rip:30]

 

[The Hitch]

A write up I did on Velorooms, based on an article in Procyling and other info..

Sorry Froome that is a very flawed essay.

I mean 80% of your highlighted comments are from SKy - 3 bailsford 1 jullich and the other 20% is from a unidentified Australian saying how good Kerrison is.

Alll of those sources are worthless.

And the central points are very flawed too.

He is either an amazing coach and an absolute genius... or a very dirty cheat..

That is your opening sentence and it demonstrates a very basic misunderstanding of doping and life itself.

No kerrison does not have to be either or. He can be both.

Life is not black and white. The fact that a rider works hard or that his team is good or that his coach is clever or that his bike is more aerodynamic, none of that in any way eliminates the possibility of doping.



And lets look at some of the arguments.

For example lets take the argument about how Wiggins peaking all season is proof he is clean.

Another concept of his was "reverse periodisation". This is what people have witnessed with Porte, Wiggins and Rogers over the past year, where they have seemed to be at peak form, a step ahead of the other riders throughout the season.

Effectively it gets rid of the athlete originally focusing on his endurance and building an aerobic base, and then only afterwards to move only on to high intensity exercises only towards the end of the training period or cycle.

And instead it makes the rider focus on introducing all the power and speed work early on and then they would gradually increase the duration of the training of those attributes as the rider's fitness improved, AKA. in this case closer to the Tour.

In the Wiggins case this was very evident wherease many so called "experts" questioned as to whether Wiggins was not peaking a tad too early. If these "experts" had understood that the "reverse periodisation" allows Wiggins to produce maximal perfomances even prior to his peak they would have realised Wiggins was in perfect shape for the Tour.

They assumed that if riders are outputting maximal efforts then that would fastrack a rider into and out of the other side of their best form.

Once again this is another one of the misgiving which has stunted cycling and without it, it seems cyclists can perform much better.

According to what you write, Kerrison decided that dopers have certain flaws in their preperations and that 1 clean alternative is to peak early.

First of all where exactly is there any suggestion that any of this could be done without doping. It just says how they trained and that they peaked earlier.

It does not at any point explain why someone like Levi or Brajkovic in recnet years, are unable to maintain an early peak while sky is. And that definately needs to be explained rather than just to say - sky peakerd early ergo are clean.

And the suggestion that this would be a clean alternative to doping is also confusing when one considers that Lance won the Dauphine twice and the Tour de Suisse once, so its hardly a new idea and certainly not something that dopers would be uncapable of.

Your proof is also laughable

You use fear based hopeful comments from Evans fanboys on this forum, to claim that "experts" were saying he peaked too early. In fact Wiggins odds were slashed during the Dauphine and a big deal was made about how Wiggins was now the favorite.


Much else of what you write (and we have to remember throughout its based on what sky themselves have said) is just repeats of the earlier comments.

Furthermore another example is that of Wiggins's time trialling which as markedly improved over the past two years. This is due to the fact that Kerrison has made Wiggins race his TTs at a lowed cadence.

Ok maybe, but Lance also said this.

While it could be a possible explanation i fail to see how you can interpret such comments, or any of the comments as proof that Kerrison is trustworthy which is what your whole essay does.

Its like if John Gottis underboss said - i believe he is innocent because he told me he is. Its possible that someone who claims to be innocent is innocent, its also possible that hes not, but comments from parties with a clear conflict of interest dont prove anything.


im also very intrigued by the comment that european teams are too reliant on doping to come up with proper training methods and it requires a hell of a lot of explanation.

For 1 it acts as if (and Bailsford is very guilty of this in everything he says) dopers ignore training because they already have their boost from doping.The reality is that people who eagerly risk their lives and reputations for victory leave no stone unturned.

For another 1 wonders why other clean teams have had absolutely 0 benefit and only sky has.

And as someone already mentioned, the idea that training methods in the worlds primary endurance sport are so backward that 1 outside coach can in with a few observations turn the sport on its head cannot be swallowed whole.

I mean i am willing to accept that Kerrison maybe some once in a lifetime genius like Gregor Mendel or Galileo, but the improvements that Sky are attributing to Kerrison's aptitude are so astronomical, that i wonder how a few of the usual comments of support from Bailsford have managed to convince you so totally.



Ps.
Oh and what on earth has skys very own Jullich saying that Kerrison is a top coach got to do with omerta? How in the blue hell does that prove omerta does not exist?

 

[thehog]

Landis won Paris-Nice in 2006 and carried his form to the Tour. Admittedly his DL was poor due to a take out but he rode consistently as Sky/Wiggins has this year and had a matching blood profile (proven).

Jaksche was fairly similar the year he won Paris-Nice with Riis.

If you want to believe because your a fan then say so. Best stay out of the Clinic and hang out at Skyfans.com. Much easier.

 

[thehog]

The Euros just drink coffee and go training. Then dope. They know nothing.

Basso sleeping with Technogel pillows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTZRPUWK210&sns=em

Liquigas team scientific specified training:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywcyj1FsyCs&sns=em

Basso doing intervals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQweKmTTTww&sns=em

Liquigas yoga, meditation, breathing and stretching training:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxtpI2CF0Sg&sns=em

 

[Froome19]

Sorry Froome that is a very flawed essay.

I mean 80% of your highlighted comments are from SKy - 3 bailsford 1 jullich and the other 20% is from a unidentified Australian saying how good Kerrison is.

My point there was that Kerrison is very good. I dont think that you can disagree with that. Brailsford is not one to randomly give such praise and so I think it is safe to say that they highlight Kerrison as a very talented coach.

Alll of those sources are worthless.

And the central points are very flawed too.



That is your opening sentence and it demonstrates a very basic misunderstanding of doping and life itself.

No kerrison does not have to be either or. He can be both.

Life is not black and white. The fact that a rider works hard or that his team is good or that his coach is clever or that his bike is more aerodynamic, none of that in any way eliminates the possibility of doping.

Indeed I would agree, I was merely trying to make the point that it was possible for Sky to achieve the level they had without doping.

The main point many people use against Sky is the fact that they have a bunch of riders who have all been in super form and were all in form at the same time. I was attempting to give a rational explanation for why that was possible.

And lets look at some of the arguments.

For example lets take the argument about how Wiggins peaking all season is proof he is clean.



According to what you write, Kerrison decided that dopers have certain flaws in their preperations and that 1 clean alternative is to peak early.

First of all where exactly is there any suggestion that any of this could be done without doping. It just says how they trained and that they peaked earlier.

I refer you back to the second point I made in this post.

It does not at any point explain why someone like Levi or Brajkovic in recnet years, are unable to maintain an early peak while sky is. And that definately needs to be explained rather than just to say - sky peakerd early ergo are clean.

It certainly does not and I would not have a clue why that is as that is certainly not my forte.

What I would say is that you seem to be confusing Levi or Brajkovic with this and I dont see what they or any other cyclist in the past have got to do with this. These riders did exactly what I had stated in the first bit of the explanation, by moving on to high intensity exercises only after building up on endurance. Yet the Sky riders did the opposite by merely pushing their maximal effort all the time. The Sky riders were not at their peak at the Dauphine like Brajkovic was, they were still building up and they had not reached their maximal output.

I can not give you the intracacies of the technique as I am not an expert. So I can not tell you why the technique of the Sky riders worked dramatically better than the technique of the Radioshack riders, but what I can say is as has been hinted in previous posts, that this is a technique which as been used before in sport and has been proved to be successful.

And the suggestion that this would be a clean alternative to doping is also confusing when one considers that Lance won the Dauphine twice and the Tour de Suisse once, so its hardly a new idea and certainly not something that dopers would be uncapable of.

Once again just to clear things up, this is not about peaking early or all that, it is about reversing the way riders build up to their peak.

Your proof is also laughable

You use fear based hopeful comments from Evans fanboys on this forum, to claim that "experts" were saying he peaked too early. In fact Wiggins odds were slashed during the Dauphine and a big deal was made about how Wiggins was now the favorite.

I was never reffering to Evans fanboys or whatever else you think about. In fact I quoted that bit direct out of an article which has little connection to the CN forum and certainly has not been basing its views on the forum.

It was a widely considered topic prior to the Tour whatever you mean to say and it was rife in this forum indeed, but not only here in fact

Here are some examples

When asked by reporters if he was worried he had found top form too early with the Tour de France still four weeks away, the 32-year-old Wiggins said: "I can never win whatever I do.

The perceived wisdom of the Continental press at the moment is that Bradley Wiggins might have peaked too early before the Tour de France. Nobody has ever reeled off wins at Paris-Nice, the Tour of Romandie and the Criterium Du Dauphine in the same season before and all this in a year when the Tour de France is his one stated objective. It can't be done. That’s taking winning to a level that only Eddy Merckx could hope to attain. Just not possible.

People have been saying since March that I am peaking too early yet here I am on the eve of the Tour starting as favourite,” said Wiggins in Liege on Friday. “I’ve trained for the Tour de France and I’ve happened to win three big races on the way. What can I say? I’m in fantastic condition and I can’t wait to start.”

Wiggins himself says he's "a favorite, but not the favorite" going into the Tour. He also dismisses concerns that he's peaked too early, saying "It's been a bloody long peak, I'll tell you."

So no it was not only some fearfull Evans fans.

Much else of what you write (and we have to remember throughout its based on what sky themselves have said) is just repeats of the earlier comments.



Ok maybe, but Lance also said this.

While it could be a possible explanation i fail to see how you can interpret such comments, or any of the comments as proof that Kerrison is trustworthy which is what your whole essay does.

I had moved on from the point that Kerrison could achieve such and merely was trying prove that Kerrison was a very talented coach.

This could in turn be used as proof that he was capable of producing such results, but is it hardcore evidence on the topic? No it certainly is not and it was not meant to be so..

Its like if John Gottis underboss said - i believe he is innocent because he told me he is. Its possible that someone who claims to be innocent is innocent, its also possible that hes not, but comments from parties with a clear conflict of interest dont prove anything.

What is proved is that it is very likely that it could have been achieved without doping.

Another point is that I would find it difficult that Sky were pinpointing Kerrison as the man who singlehandedly made them win the Tour and he is in the hotseat and the man who was conducting their doping project, considering all the suspicion surrounding them. Considering the restraints they keep on their riders and staff, I do not understand why they would permit riders to speak out like that, if all it would do would be to act as a beacon to people accusing them of doping.

im also very intrigued by the comment that european teams are too reliant on doping to come up with proper training methods and it requires a hell of a lot of explanation.

For 1 it acts as if (and Bailsford is very guilty of this in everything he says) dopers ignore training because they already have their boost from doping.The reality is that people who eagerly risk their lives and reputations for victory leave no stone unturned.

For another 1 wonders why other clean teams have had absolutely 0 benefit and only sky has.

Once again you have taken this the wrong way, what I was saying is that the development of science has been stunted by the doping activity.

Instead of the coaches focusing on training all the time they would focus primarily on the doping aspects and of course they would also focus on other aspects but not the same degree and pooling the same amount of energy as Sky have. That would be literally impossible and when it came down to a choice of hiring a coach who was an expert in aerodynamics or a coach who an expert in doping they would opt for the latter. It was just where the priorities were at the time.

Therefore only now, clean teams are progressing and focussing more on the other aspects. The technology and resources available have greatly increased, yet cycling unlike with other sports have not kept up with the demand and therefore they have room to improve currently and exploit those ideas and resources. Sky and Kerrison seem to be pioneers in this movement, and specifically as Kerrison seems to be a very unique coach. If Garmin had a Kerrison then I am sure the results would have been similar.

Of course the mindset at Sky has helped as they were even prior to Kerrison's intervention in 2011, very into focusing on minute details and specifically for riders such as Wiggins who was labelled by Kerrison as "extremely trainable".

But to me I do see other teams slowly catching up with Sky, but currently Sky have the budget and have invested the resources whilst others have not. It is akin to asking why USA landed a man on the moon first and Britain did not?

 

[Froome19]

Landis won Paris-Nice in 2006 and carried his form to the Tour. Admittedly his DL was poor due to a take out but he rode consistently as Sky/Wiggins has this year and had a matching blood profile (proven).

Jaksche was fairly similar the year he won Paris-Nice with Riis.

If you want to believe because your a fan then say so. Best stay out of the Clinic and hang out at Skyfans.com. Much easier.

Or I could just put you on ignore..

 

[The Hitch]

My point there was that Kerrison is very good. I dont think that you can disagree with that. Brailsford is not one to randomly give such praise and so I think it is safe to say that they highlight Kerrison as a very talented coach.Quote:

You really seem.incapable.of.grasping the concept of a source. Kerrison might be a good coach but the fact that his boss bailsford says it does not make.it o
"safe to say".

was merely trying to make the point that it was possible for Sky to achieve the level they had without doping

What is proved is that it is very likely that it could have been achieved without doping.

Lol what.
Where on earth do you make let alone argue let alone "prove" that point? You really think a bunch of comments from bailsford packed into a 500 word post from.a.clinic novice, with no major explanations and no demonstrated tests, numbers, working out , constitute scientific proof that it is"very likely" to do what sky did clean.

Whether it is or isn't possible, your essay did not make any attempt to answer that question so i am very surprised to see that you think you have answered it.

Where? You have reposted the terse, vague and much to be desired argument sky have presented.

That icounts as " proof" that what sky did is very likely possible clean? No friend, not now.not in a million years.

The history of courtrooms is filled with 10 times.more advanced and flaw proof theories that failed to dupe a jury.
]T

hese riders did exactly what I had stated in the first bit of the explanation, by moving on to high intensity exercises only after building up on endurance. Yet the Sky riders did the opposite.

How do you know.that's all.these riders did?

Instead of the coaches focusing on training all the time they would focus primarily on the doping aspects*

What about the clear riders?

And how do you know that's what these riders did? Cos kerrison said so? He admits himself he was not part of the sport he sure as hell is not qualified to make such direct comments about what every professional rider of the last decade and longer has done.

 

[Froome19]

You really seem.incapable.of.grasping the concept of a source. Kerrison might be a good coach but the fact that his boss bailsford says it does not make.it o
"safe to say".

Lol, explain to me why they would make it all up then?
What benefit is it to make up that Kerrison is doing all this stuff and then they get found out about it?

It covers the doping and presents an excuse, but it is easily flawed. I think it is safe to summarise from the compliments from wherever Kerrison has worked that he is a very talented coach. You dont just have compliments following you otherwise.

Lol what.
Where on earth do you make let alone argue let alone "prove" that point? You really think a bunch of comments from bailsford packed into a 500 word post from.a.clinic novice, with no major explanations and no demonstrated tests, numbers, working out , constitute scientific proof that it is"very likely" to do what sky did clean.

Whether it is or isn't possible, your essay did not make any attempt to answer that question so i am very surprised to see that you think you have answered it.

Where? You have reposted the terse, vague and much to be desired argument sky have presented.

That icounts as " proof" that what sky did is very likely possible clean? No friend, not now.not in a million years.

The history of courtrooms is filled with 10 times.more advanced and flaw proof theories that failed to dupe a jury.
]T

I have not seen anything on here of substantial evidence to suggest the contrary.

I am only required to match what I am contesting to prove my point

What about the clear riders?

All the top riders seemed to have been involved in doping at the time.

And how do you know that's what these riders did? Cos kerrison said so? He admits himself he was not part of the sport he sure as hell is not qualified to make such direct comments about what every professional rider of the last decade and longer has done.

I would assume it is reasonably logical to be honest. It is not a certainty, but neither is it a giant leap of faith. It is a theory but a pretty sound one..

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

He admits himself he was not part of the sport he sure as hell is not qualified to make such direct comments about what every professional rider of the last decade and longer has done.

If that was really the case the Clinic would have but a handful of people posting in it.

 

[afpm90]

A write up I did on Velorooms, based on an article in Procyling and other info..

This is very funny. Now, try this: switch Tim Kerrison name for Michele Ferrari and take out the swimming references and read the text again.

 

[thehog]

Or I could just put you on ignore..

I think you should put me on ignore. The truth I tell you don't like and it bursts your fantasy.

 

[Froome19]

I think you should put me on ignore. The truth I tell you don't like and it bursts your fantasy.

Once again, this is what I do not get and.. that is how do you know for sure that it is truth...?

You are just making suppositions like the next man in the street and they may be true and they may not be...