UK Postal

Jez mon

Bozman wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Meh, on the face of it, a team doing well together, with Froome's rather sudden transformation from fairly average to amazing, is suspicious, as it's cycling, and cycling has a history. That's all I'm saying.

I wouldn't say it's sudden, they just seem to have sorted his illness out, add that to a new training regime and diet and that answers your question.
It amazed me that there wasn't more talk of him being up there at the top, when Ladbrooks gave odds of 33/1 i put £20 on him because if anything happens to Wiggins.......who knows. Looking at him now i'd say that he's a better prospect, it's just a pity he dropped his chain.

Fair enough. Last year at the Vuelta was a bit of surprise. He's probably unlucky to have been born in Kenya (for want of a better phrase) had he grown up in the British Cycling scheme he may well have been winning/in contention for white jerseys, we'll never know!

Gazzaputt

Jez mon wrote:

Meh, on the face of it, a team doing well together, with Froome's rather sudden transformation from fairly average to amazing, is suspicious, as it's cycling, and cycling has a history. That's all I'm saying.

All your saying is total bollox.

P_Tucker

If anyone looks at the performance of Sky through the lens of the last 20 years and doesn't conclude doping, then there's something wrong with them. Why would it be any different this time?

RichN95.

P_Tucker wrote:

If anyone looks at the performance of Sky through the lens of the last 20 years and doesn't conclude doping, then there's something wrong with them. Why would it be any different this time?

Because an examination of the numbers - power outputs, climb times etc - shows that it is different. Wiggins and Froome's numbers are those of also rans in the Armstrong years.

oldwelshman

morstar wrote:

But, there's one huge frickin difference between US Postal and Sky.

US Postal took a lot of not particularly well established riders and turned them into a superteam.

The Sky train consists of Mick Rogers (always a decent GC rider, never a winner but always talked abot pre race), EBH, stage race winner and strong all rounder, Richie Porte established as strong young potential GC talent, etc. etc.

Froome is the one who is a bit of a revelation in the last 12 months but many others were brought into Sky to do a job after it was discovered in year one that you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

Hardly rocket science is it! is it?

Man City won the Premiership this year, now why was that again?

You having a laugh? Took a ot of not particularly established riders and turned thenm into a group of druggies I think you meant

deejay

I have watched and noted this years resemblance of UK Postal to the former US Postal.

I cannot see the leader of UK P being given such a great "Armchair" ride as that leader of US P that will allow him to scoot up the mountains in such a manner .
For that he would need the Juice like the other guy. :roll:

P_Tucker

RichN95 wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

If anyone looks at the performance of Sky through the lens of the last 20 years and doesn't conclude doping, then there's something wrong with them. Why would it be any different this time?

Because an examination of the numbers - power outputs, climb times etc - shows that it is different. Wiggins and Froome's numbers are those of also rans in the Armstrong years.

They might be doping less - no-one will have a 60% haematocrit - but there's no reason to suspect they're not doping. Froome's season thus far - namely doing the square root of f**k all then getting a bit better in the Dauphine before crushing Cancellara in a flattish TT is straight out of the Michael Rasmussen playbook.

T_Pucker

I think Paul Tucker has a point. It does appear very ssuspicious and even though I don't have any experience in bicycling many of my friends think that something very dodgy is going on. What can I tell them?

RichN95.

P_Tucker wrote:

They might be doping less - no-one will have a 60% haematocrit - but there's no reason to suspect they're not doping. Froome's season thus far - namely doing the square root of f**k all then getting a bit better in the Dauphine before crushing Cancellara in a flattish TT is straight out of the Michael Rasmussen playbook.

He was both ill and injured so missed much of the early season racing. By Romandie he was doing huge turns on the front of the peloton.

cookiemonster

Froome was 2nd in the british national TT in 2010, behind one Bradley Wiggins and ahead of Thomas. Not entirely fair to say that he's come from nowhere.

TheBigBean

The Dauphine was more worrying - without Evans it would have looked like Gewiss-Ballan UK.

P_Tucker

TheBigBean wrote:

The Dauphine was more worrying - without Evans it would have looked like Gewiss-Ballan UK.

Indeed. You suspect that Porte and Rogers were told to have a rest today to stop it being (even more) ridiculous

Jez mon

Gazzaputt wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Meh, on the face of it, a team doing well together, with Froome's rather sudden transformation from fairly average to amazing, is suspicious, as it's cycling, and cycling has a history. That's all I'm saying.

All your saying is total bollox.

So all I am saying is rubbish?

So cycling doesn't have a history?

He had no massive performances until last years second place in the Vuelta.

FFS, I'm not saying he's doped, just that it can look suspicious in isolation, because that's the way cycling's been for the last few years. A look at performance numbers indicates that he wouldn't have been at the sharp end in the Armstrong years.

I could have been a real ars* and started complaining about Sky's attitude to not hiring riders who have been caught doping, but continuing to work with doctors who were at least somewhat involved in doping and have got a DS who worked alongside Lance and is thought to have doped himself

sherer

P_Tucker wrote:

If anyone looks at the performance of Sky through the lens of the last 20 years and doesn't conclude doping, then there's something wrong with them. Why would it be any different this time?

that's the main problem with this sport

heavymental

Oh right, thought this thread was serious for a minute.

P_Tucker

Jez mon wrote:

FFS, I'm not saying he's doped, just that it can look suspicious in isolation, because that's the way cycling's been for the last few years. A look at performance numbers indicates that he wouldn't have been at the sharp end in the Armstrong years.

As I said before, that just means they're not able to dope as much due to the arbitrary 50% limit and the passport. Doesn't mean for a second that cycling is clean (as you clearly know)

prb007

"Honestly, they're just f**king w**kers," Wiggins said. "I cannot be dealing with people like that. [Laughs, from the press tent - ed.] It justifies their own bone-idleness because they can't ever imagine applying themselves to anything in their lives. And it's easy for them to sit under a pseudo-name on Twitter and write that sort of s**t rather than get off their arses in their own life and apply themselves, and work hard at something and achieve something. And that's ultimately it."

The translator readied to deliver the message in French, but before she could, Wiggins picked up the microphone and sent the final message to the cynics: "C**ts!"

That'll be you lot, then, as well as the muppets on Twitter.
I've never cheered an Englishman in any sport in nearly 48 years,
but I'm cheering Bradley, ffs join in!!!
109 years without a Brit winner,
not Hoban, Simpson, not 80's Millar or 00's Millar,
not Boardman, not Yates but if he stays upright
Bradley IS going to win it.
Will you be slagging off Cav if he wins the Olympic RR?
Hoy, Pendleton et al if they medal in London?
Why can't you get behind what could become the defining
moment in the history of British cycling, are you so sceptical,
such doubting Thomas's that you can't rejoice at this man's achievements???

Spiny_Norman

RichN95 wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

If anyone looks at the performance of Sky through the lens of the last 20 years and doesn't conclude doping, then there's something wrong with them. Why would it be any different this time?

Because an examination of the numbers - power outputs, climb times etc - shows that it is different. Wiggins and Froome's numbers are those of also rans in the Armstrong years.

This. Very much this. Ascent times are up, sustained W/kg outputs have dropped to within widely-accepted physiological limits, but obviously anyone who does well must be doping, right? :roll:

Forget all the lies, corruption, deaths, blood bags, massive steaks and everything else - the thing that annoys me most about the EPO era is that anyone who does at all well is instantly suspected - no, accused - of doping, and are expected to either prove a negative for the satisfaction of a few Internet Forum People or else just accept that the sport's got history so they should put up with being called a cheat based on gossip and innuendo.

shinyhelmut

Forget all the lies, corruption, deaths, blood bags, massive steaks and everything else - the thing that annoys me most about the EPO era is that anyone who does at all well is instantly suspected - no, accused - of doping, and are expected to either prove a negative for the satisfaction of a few Internet Forum People or else just accept that the sport's got history so they should put up with being called a cheat based on gossip and innuendo.

Makes me wish I followed a sport without a doping problem.

Like tennis, or football, or rugby.

LangerDan

Spiny_Norman wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

If anyone looks at the performance of Sky through the lens of the last 20 years and doesn't conclude doping, then there's something wrong with them. Why would it be any different this time?

Because an examination of the numbers - power outputs, climb times etc - shows that it is different. Wiggins and Froome's numbers are those of also rans in the Armstrong years.

This. Very much this. Ascent times are up, sustained W/kg outputs have dropped to within widely-accepted physiological limits, but obviously anyone who does well must be doping, right? :roll:

Forget all the lies, corruption, deaths, blood bags, massive steaks and everything else - the thing that annoys me most about the EPO era is that anyone who does at all well is instantly suspected - no, accused - of doping, and are expected to either prove a negative for the satisfaction of a few Internet Forum People or else just accept that the sport's got history so they should put up with being called a cheat based on gossip and innuendo.

The problem is that rider (and team) performances are not seen in isolation. If we were to stand at the side of a climb and watch a single rider go past at say a VAM of 1500 or 1600 m/hour, we'd be unlikely to be able to tell the difference between the two climbing rates. However if the rider goes past @ 1600 m/hour when everyone else around him is doing is 1500 m/hr, the differential is obvious, even if the faster performance is still legit. And its the differential performance that raised eyebrows.

For at least the past 20 years , the tragically recurring theme has been "if it looks to good to be true, it probably is". Hopefully a corner has been turned but its hard to blame followers for being suspicious. IMHO, the correct response to that suspicion is fact-based explanation, rather than some ill-considered "C*nts" outburst. Earlier this year, there was much praise for how 1T4I dealt with the Kittel doping allegations with one of the most lucid, clearly explained press statements we've seen for years. Perhaps DB should consider hiring their press officer?

And as regards the unfairness of the insinuations and allegations on current riders and management?, Fact is that many of them were quite happy in the bad old days, if not actually to have gone snout-down in the trough, to at least turn a blind eye to all that went on around them. If the sport can and is to be turned around, riders are going to have to accept that they are part of a system which has failed badly in the past, hence the default position of suspicion and followers will have to accept that outlying physical performances can be the result of differing training or an altered background.

daveecp

So what would Sky/WIggins/Froome have to do to satisfy doubters that their performance was a product of hard/effective training and not other more dodgy activities?

Pross

daveecp wrote:

So what would Sky/WIggins/Froome have to do to satisfy doubters that their performance was a product of hard/effective training and not other more dodgy activities?

This is the problem, I don't think they can do anything other than sit back and lose time on a few stages. Some people will believe what they want no matter what evidence (or lack of) there is. It applies on both sides of the doping divide too, plenty of people refuse to accept some riders doped even when the evidence suggests otherwise.

TheBigBean

daveecp wrote:

So what would Sky/WIggins/Froome have to do to satisfy doubters that their performance was a product of hard/effective training and not other more dodgy activities?

Saying they understand cycling has a bad image, but that the dark era has past, and stating something about the actual power output in comparison with that 10 years ago would help a lot. Also comparing Wiggins's current power and weight with that of a number of years ago to show that nothing has changed much except his weight (if that is the case)

disgruntledgoat

TheBigBean wrote:

daveecp wrote:

So what would Sky/WIggins/Froome have to do to satisfy doubters that their performance was a product of hard/effective training and not other more dodgy activities?

Saying they understand cycling has a bad image, but that the dark era has past, and stating something about the actual power output in comparison with that 10 years ago would help a lot. Also comparing Wiggins's current power and weight with that of a number of years ago to show that nothing has changed much except his weight (if that is the case)

He did that the other day didn't he, with his "10kg weight loss/no longer a pisshead" quoe.

MrTapir

TheBigBean wrote:

daveecp wrote:

So what would Sky/WIggins/Froome have to do to satisfy doubters that their performance was a product of hard/effective training and not other more dodgy activities?

Saying they understand cycling has a bad image, but that the dark era has past, and stating something about the actual power output in comparison with that 10 years ago would help a lot. Also comparing Wiggins's current power and weight with that of a number of years ago to show that nothing has changed much except his weight (if that is the case)

Isnt that just what Brailsford said the other day? He invited the doubters to a seminar to explain all that. I'm sure sandwiches would be provided.

LangerDan

Pross wrote:

daveecp wrote:

So what would Sky/WIggins/Froome have to do to satisfy doubters that their performance was a product of hard/effective training and not other more dodgy activities?

This is the problem, I don't think they can do anything other than sit back and lose time on a few stages. Some people will believe what they want no matter what evidence (or lack of) there is. It applies on both sides of the doping divide too, plenty of people refuse to accept some riders doped even when the evidence suggests otherwise.

They won't be able to convince everyone but I think they should be able to get some information out there without giving away the shop. If as Rich wrote above, the on-the road measured performances are considered within credible bounds, it should possible to show why this is.

VAM data as referred to above are not particularly accurate but they are at least indicative. For example, they can show that the VAM at a particular climb is well within the bounds of what is considered "normal". Or some weeks back, Wiggin's power data was posted up - it wouldn't take a whole amount to generally show how that would relate to a TT performance.

Such an approach won't satisfy everyone, but not every who has suspicions is some class of namless troll, much the same way as not every professional cyclist is a doper.

slim_boy_fat

LangerDan wrote:

Pross wrote:

daveecp wrote:

So what would Sky/WIggins/Froome have to do to satisfy doubters that their performance was a product of hard/effective training and not other more dodgy activities?

This is the problem, I don't think they can do anything other than sit back and lose time on a few stages. Some people will believe what they want no matter what evidence (or lack of) there is. It applies on both sides of the doping divide too, plenty of people refuse to accept some riders doped even when the evidence suggests otherwise.

They won't be able to convince everyone but I think they should be able to get some information out there without giving away the shop. If as Rich wrote above, the on-the road measured performances are considered within credible bounds, it should possible to show why this is.

VAM data as referred to above are not particularly accurate but they are at least indicative. For example, they can show that the VAM at a particular climb is well within the bounds of what is considered "normal". Or some weeks back, Wiggin's power data was posted up - it wouldn't take a whole amount to generally show how that would relate to a TT performance.

Such an approach won't satisfy everyone, but not every who has suspicions is some class of namless troll, much the same way as not every professional cyclist is a doper.

This article should help with that. http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/07 ... ssion.html

Not from Sky obviously but would you like to see them release this kind of data?

daveecp

TheBigBean wrote:

daveecp wrote:

So what would Sky/WIggins/Froome have to do to satisfy doubters that their performance was a product of hard/effective training and not other more dodgy activities?

Saying they understand cycling has a bad image, but that the dark era has past, and stating something about the actual power output in comparison with that 10 years ago would help a lot. Also comparing Wiggins's current power and weight with that of a number of years ago to show that nothing has changed much except his weight (if that is the case)

Playing devil's advocate how much improvement would be seen as acceptable? :?

Pross wrote:

daveecp wrote:

So what would Sky/WIggins/Froome have to do to satisfy doubters that their performance was a product of hard/effective training and not other more dodgy activities?

This is the problem, I don't think they can do anything other than sit back and lose time on a few stages. Some people will believe what they want no matter what evidence (or lack of) there is. It applies on both sides of the doping divide too, plenty of people refuse to accept some riders doped even when the evidence suggests otherwise.

Have to say I agree with this. I would be more wary than I am if the climbs were being ridden close to some of the supercharged times of the past. Although I may stand to be corrected, most analysis I have seen does not put the sustained outputs up with figures seen before.

Turfle

There are doubters and there are doubters. Some don't want a clean peloton, want everyone at Sky to be caught cheating, and want a new scandal every year. Those people I wouldn't bother with.

He could publish his blood tests, power data etc, but even if they were spotless people would pick something from them, and would then demand the next thing to be released.

Pross

The only problem with giving out the power figures and details of how they improved the riders' figures is they risk giving away the information that gives them the advantage. I'm tempted by the Brailsford seminar thing, not as a doubter but I think it would be an interesting presentation.