Sky and David Walsh

Macaloon

Thanks for the "round-up". I wanted to use the word "conclusion" or even "agreement". But that would have been silly.

micron

Here's a link for you http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/ ... /dec1.html

This is the PDM team - 1991 - the 'Ajax of cycling'. Note the attention to detail - the cooks, the care of the riders. Antoine Vayer was using SRM with Festina in the 1990s. There are a host of examples of teams using all the 'scientific methods' that account for Sky's success. It's a total fallacy to assume that no team other than Sky has ever looked at those details, those marginal gains. It's also a fallacy to assume that doping turned a donkey into a thoroughbred. Armstrong didn't sit on his arse all day drinking beer - he was also out there training every bit as hard as Wiggins or any other pro.

But then all pro riders who've ever sat on a bike are just lazy, doped up, slackers compared to team Sky :roll:

ocdupalais

Macaloon wrote:

Thanks for the "round-up". I wanted to use the word "conclusion" or even "agreement". But that would have been silly.

How can you conclude anything - or get "closure" - on spurious reasoning and conjecture?

r0bh

micron wrote:

Here's a link for you http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/ ... /dec1.html

This is the PDM team - 1991 - the 'Ajax of cycling'. Note the attention to detail - the cooks, the care of the riders. Antoine Vayer was using SRM with Festina in the 1990s. There are a host of examples of teams using all the 'scientific methods' that account for Sky's success. It's a total fallacy to assume that no team other than Sky has ever looked at those details, those marginal gains. It's also a fallacy to assume that doping turned a donkey into a thoroughbred. Armstrong didn't sit on his ars* all day drinking beer - he was also out there training every bit as hard as Wiggins or any other pro.

But then all pro riders who've ever sat on a bike are just lazy, doped up, slackers compared to team Sky :roll:

Have you read "Project Wiggins" in the Cycling Anthology? If so what did you make of it?

There's a big difference between looking at details, marginal gains and properly implementing the ones that actually make a difference. For example anyone can train with a powermeter (even a total nobody like me!) but understanding the numbers and using them to construct an optimal training plan is not straightforward and requires sports science/physiology expertize.

ocdupalais

Above The Cows wrote:

...You could see getting rid of McCrossan as a sort of lesser evil. It would be bad to get rid of him, but he is so awful that it would be for the benefit of many more.

Mmm... can see the value of such a stance in so many scenarios in life - but I'm happy to start with Mccrossan. When shall we schedule the planning meetings - this afternoon good with you?

I'm liking the citation of a MSF humanitarian program in Africa as a basis for the legitimate removal of a duff cycling commentator... nice touch.

above_the_cows

OCDuPalais wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

...You could see getting rid of McCrossan as a sort of lesser evil. It would be bad to get rid of him, but he is so awful that it would be for the benefit of many more.

Mmm... can see the value of such a stance in so many scenarios in life - but I'm happy to start with Mccrossan. When shall we schedule the planning meetings - this afternoon good with you?

I'm liking the citation of a MSF humanitarian program in Africa as a basis for the legitimate removal of a duff cycling commentator... nice touch.

I'll bring the biscuits, if you bring some coffee for the meeting. It's also an argument used for the use of torture and rendition in the War on Terror, but best not to mention that, let's stick with MSF, it's fluffier.

tailwindhome

micron wrote:

Armstrong didn't sit on his ars* all day drinking beer - he was also out there training every bit as hard as Wiggins or any other pro.

There used to be an Nike ad with a similar strapline

micron

I don't think Vayer would thank you for saying he wasn't as expert as Kerrison

You can't fault Wiggins for his meticulous approach - here he is in 2006, talking about the TdF prologue http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2006/ju ... cling.news (he was 21st that day)

But neither is it right to assume that no one else has ever used the same kind of meticulous approach to training or racing as Sky

TWH indeed there did (which is kind of why I used it ) but the point holds - Armstrong, by all eyewitnesses accounts, was a beast in training - like Wiggins, training harder than racing - was really insulting in the Doprah 'concession' when LA was bragging about the way USPS more or less dialled in their performances.

slim_boy_fat

micron wrote:

Here's a link for you http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/ ... /dec1.html

This is the PDM team - 1991 - the 'Ajax of cycling'. Note the attention to detail - the cooks, the care of the riders. Antoine Vayer was using SRM with Festina in the 1990s. There are a host of examples of teams using all the 'scientific methods' that account for Sky's success. It's a total fallacy to assume that no team other than Sky has ever looked at those details, those marginal gains. It's also a fallacy to assume that doping turned a donkey into a thoroughbred. Armstrong didn't sit on his ars* all day drinking beer - he was also out there training every bit as hard as Wiggins or any other pro.

But then all pro riders who've ever sat on a bike are just lazy, doped up, slackers compared to team Sky :roll:

I'm not sure anybody here would refute that. Pros throughout history have worked just as hard as any other to get the results they got. Doping just made them go quicker or meant they recovered better. Others surely did and do employ some of the tactics that Sky are using. However, it is commonly accepted, among riders as well, that Sky have taken it to a different level. That doesn't mean they are the first to do it just that maybe they are doing it better than it's been done before. So if they are doing the same, legal, things that other teams have done and are doing the only real way to assess if they are doping is a positive or to look at the numbers. And from what I've seen, the limited amount of data we have suggests power output and speeds are down.

So yes, Wiggins had a great season last year but ask yourself this, where would he have placed in the Armstrong years based on the limited data we have from last season. My guess is he wouldn't have got anywhere near the top 10. And that really is all I can base my opinion on. All the links with past dopers or dodgy doctors, whilst raising suspicion prove nothing. It's not that I ignore all of that, as I said to you on twitter I assess all the info and form an opinion based on that, and going forward with more evidence the fact those link exist might be enough to change my opinion. However, right now there is just not enough evidence for me to conclude they are doping. It's the opposite in fact, there is enough evidence for me to conclude they aren't.

RichN95.

micron wrote:

Also still interested to hear theories as to why Ferrari had Wiggins SRM data after Paris-Nice prologue 2009

He doesn't have it. All Armstrong has is a figure for overall power (which might not even be acturate). Riders talk to each other, mechanics talk to each other, DSs talk to each other. It's just standard peloton chit-chat.

As for Sky's use of science etc. They're not the only ones, but they're still a rarity. Who are the coaches at the other teams? Nibali coaches himself. Schleck is coached by his dad. For the last two decades the vast majority training programs have been drawn up by drug dealers or people who haven't moved on from what Hinault did. Cycling may think it's cutting edge, but it's really pretty backward.

Richmond Racer

Unbelievably backward. Another reason why some people resent Sky is because they've introduced a whole level of professionalism into procycling that was previously absent. They feel it threatens cycling and its traditions (traditions of which of course heavily include doping)

tailwindhome

Cavendish takes his 5th win and 1st stage since leaving Sky after they introduced zero tolerance agreement.




This is easy.

Under 140 characters too.

Richmond Racer

TailWindHome wrote:

Cavendish takes his 5th win and 1st stage since leaving Sky after they introduced zero tolerance agreement.




This is easy.

Under 140 characters too.

You're a natural

LeicesterLad

Richmond Racer wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Cavendish takes his 5th win and 1st stage since leaving Sky after they introduced zero tolerance agreement.




This is easy.

Under 140 characters too.

You're a natural

I'm using it, I'm using it!...













Ok, I wont.

Macaloon

OCDuPalais wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

Thanks for the "round-up". I wanted to use the word "conclusion" or even "agreement". But that would have been silly.

How can you conclude anything - or get "closure" - on spurious reasoning and conjecture?

You could conclude, or agree, that the reasoning and conjecture (specifically related to on-road performance suspicions) is spurious. This would help to put all the associations and dodgy hires in context.

blazing_saddles

RichN95 wrote:

micron wrote:

Also still interested to hear theories as to why Ferrari had Wiggins SRM data after Paris-Nice prologue 2009

He doesn't have it. All Armstrong has is a figure for overall power (which might not even be acturate). Riders talk to each other, mechanics talk to each other, DSs talk to each other. It's just standard peloton chit-chat.

As for Sky's use of science etc. They're not the only ones, but they're still a rarity. Who are the coaches at the other teams? Nibali coaches himself. Schleck is coached by his dad. For the last two decades the vast majority training programs have been drawn up by drug dealers or people who haven't moved on from what Hinault did. Cycling may think it's cutting edge, but it's really pretty backward.

On the subject of Ferrari, I notice that according to Hamilton, 6.7w/kg was the magic figure Dr F said was required to win the Tour during the early noughties.
Is anybody claiming that Wiggins was turning out a similar number?

All I've read suggests his numbers to be at least half a watt less, if not more.
Surely a sign of overall, a much cleaner (if not actually spotless) peloton?

Coach H

Richmond Racer wrote:

Unbelievably backward. Another reason why some people resent Sky is because they've introduced a whole level of professionalism into procycling that was previously absent. They feel it threatens cycling and its traditions (traditions of which of course heavily include doping)

I believe this is very true. A friend of mine is a sports scientist based at a UK University. This summer he did a secondment at a French University and did some work with a local amateur team. He came back claiming that my training program (with the exception of wife influenced time on the bike :roll: ) was more advanced than theirs.
I do find this slightly unbelievable though as they are a good Cat 1 team and I struggle to ride at the pace of most of the 'What Speed' contributers in Road Beginners!!

Richmond Racer

delete

Richmond Racer

Blazing Saddles wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

micron wrote:

Also still interested to hear theories as to why Ferrari had Wiggins SRM data after Paris-Nice prologue 2009

He doesn't have it. All Armstrong has is a figure for overall power (which might not even be acturate). Riders talk to each other, mechanics talk to each other, DSs talk to each other. It's just standard peloton chit-chat.

As for Sky's use of science etc. They're not the only ones, but they're still a rarity. Who are the coaches at the other teams? Nibali coaches himself. Schleck is coached by his dad. For the last two decades the vast majority training programs have been drawn up by drug dealers or people who haven't moved on from what Hinault did. Cycling may think it's cutting edge, but it's really pretty backward.

On the subject of Ferrari, I notice that according to Hamilton, 6.7w/kg was the magic figure Dr F said was required to win the Tour during the early noughties.
Is anybody claiming that Wiggins was turning out a similar number?

All I've read suggests his numbers to be at least half a watt less, if not more.
Surely a sign of overall, a much cleaner (if not actually spotless) peloton?

These guys are a very informed and balanced read. They conduct excellent analysis and summarise things in a way even I can understand!

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/07 ... ssion.html


All I've read suggests his numbers to be at least half a watt less, if not more.
Surely a sign of overall, a much cleaner (if not actually spotless) peloton?[/quote]

micron

Rich surprised at you, so knowledgeable about cycling (not just doping) buying into that attitude. You genuinely believe no other team managers ever innovated, used the best methods at their disposal, professionalised the sport. I'm sure Post & Guimard (amongst others) would be surprised to learn that their methods were not, in their day, cutting edge.

Re: wiggins/Armstrong SRM Armstrong says: "it looks like my SRM was off. It said 409....wiggins by contrast was 459" that's data rather than calculation. As data from P-N prologue unlikely Armstrong simply sneaked a peek.

RR I'd like to message you - nothing to hide but just don't want to clutter up the forum - would that be ok? Couldn't agree more about the excellent work of sports scientists

ocdupalais

Richmond Racer wrote:

These guys are a very informed and balanced read. They conduct excellent analysis and summarise things in a way even I can understand!

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/07 ... ssion.html

Remember reading that when it came out and thought their science stuff can be quite good - but they can stick their flawed/sanctimonious sermons up their @rses.

micron

Coach H - interesting. I imagine a French Amateur team to have enormous resources at their disposal, after all

OCD you said that more beautifully than I ever could

Richmond Racer

OCDuPalais wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

These guys are a very informed and balanced read. They conduct excellent analysis and summarise things in a way even I can understand!

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/07 ... ssion.html

Remember reading that when it came out and thought their science stuff can be quite good - but they can stick their flawed/sanctimonious sermons up their @rses.

Yes, I skip all that business and just read the science stuff myself. They posted a couple of interesting pieces during the Olympics and Paralympics

Richmond Racer

micron wrote:

Rich surprised at you, so knowledgeable about cycling (not just doping) buying into that attitude. You genuinely believe no other team managers ever innovated, used the best methods at their disposal, professionalised the sport. I'm sure Post & Guimard (amongst others) would be surprised to learn that their methods were not, in their day, cutting edge.

Re: wiggins/Armstrong SRM Armstrong says: "it looks like my SRM was off. It said 409....wiggins by contrast was 459" that's data rather than calculation. As data from P-N prologue unlikely Armstrong simply sneaked a peek.

RR I'd like to message you - nothing to hide but just don't want to clutter up the forum - would that be ok? Couldn't agree more about the excellent work of sports scientists

No, I think not. I have no interest in having little sidebar conversations with you. You want to say something, you can post it here so that everyone can read it. You've elected to start posting here for 'debate' - though nothing that any of us saying is received by you in any way that indicates that you find anything that we post that provides alternative answers for the way in which you want to join the dots.

Quite frankly I despise the way you operate. A highlight was certainly your outrage a couple of days ago when I referred to you being called out by Brailsford, your outrage that an anonymous poster had referred to this and then 'refused' to provide the evidence. So WHAT do you think you and your merry little gang have been doing for many many months re Wiggins and Sky? You just got a tiny tiny taste of that and boy you didnt like it did you? Didnt taste good, did it?

feltkuota

Richmond Racer wrote:

micron wrote:

Rich surprised at you, so knowledgeable about cycling (not just doping) buying into that attitude. You genuinely believe no other team managers ever innovated, used the best methods at their disposal, professionalised the sport. I'm sure Post & Guimard (amongst others) would be surprised to learn that their methods were not, in their day, cutting edge.

Re: wiggins/Armstrong SRM Armstrong says: "it looks like my SRM was off. It said 409....wiggins by contrast was 459" that's data rather than calculation. As data from P-N prologue unlikely Armstrong simply sneaked a peek.

RR I'd like to message you - nothing to hide but just don't want to clutter up the forum - would that be ok? Couldn't agree more about the excellent work of sports scientists

No, I think not. I have no interest in having little sidebar conversations with you. You want to say something, you can post it here so that everyone can read it. You've elected to start posting here for 'debate' - though nothing that any of us saying is received by you in any way that indicates that you find anything that we post that provides alternative answers for the way in which you want to join the dots.

Quite frankly I despise the way you operate. A highlight was certainly your outrage a couple of days ago when I referred to you being called out by Brailsford, your outrage that an anonymous poster had referred to this and then 'refused' to provide the evidence. So WHAT do you think you and your merry little gang have been doing for many many months re Wiggins and Sky? You just got a tiny tiny taste of that and boy you didnt like it did you? Didnt taste good, did it?

+1 to that and double bonus for the strong first sentence in the second paragraph.

RichN95.

micron wrote:

Rich surprised at you, so knowledgeable about cycling (not just doping) buying into that attitude. You genuinely believe no other team managers ever innovated, used the best methods at their disposal, professionalised the sport. I'm sure Post & Guimard (amongst others) would be surprised to learn that their methods were not, in their day, cutting edge.

The problem is that a lot of cycling is still using Post and Guimard's methods. And they were, I belive, both ex-pro cyclist and not qualified sports scientists. It's like trying to rival the iPod and Apple engineers with a Sony Walkman and Adam Ant.

Do you really think that Nibali, one of the world's best GC riders, earning E2m a year, organising his own training isn't utterly backward.

No_Ta_Doctor

Richmond Racer wrote:

micron wrote:

Rich surprised at you, so knowledgeable about cycling (not just doping) buying into that attitude. You genuinely believe no other team managers ever innovated, used the best methods at their disposal, professionalised the sport. I'm sure Post & Guimard (amongst others) would be surprised to learn that their methods were not, in their day, cutting edge.

Re: wiggins/Armstrong SRM Armstrong says: "it looks like my SRM was off. It said 409....wiggins by contrast was 459" that's data rather than calculation. As data from P-N prologue unlikely Armstrong simply sneaked a peek.

RR I'd like to message you - nothing to hide but just don't want to clutter up the forum - would that be ok? Couldn't agree more about the excellent work of sports scientists

No, I think not. I have no interest in having little sidebar conversations with you. You want to say something, you can post it here so that everyone can read it. You've elected to start posting here for 'debate' - though nothing that any of us saying is received by you in any way that indicates that you find anything that we post that provides alternative answers for the way in which you want to join the dots.

Hear hear.

If it's relevant to the debate post it here. If it isn't then even asking to DM is off topic in this thread.
We all want openeness and transparency, how on earth do we get that if information is only distributed to a select few? Not to mention that the very act of publically informing people that only certain specific posters will receive said info is divisive and potentialy cliquey.

This is part of the reason the twaliban get called just that. This is the reason your (micron) participation in CCN was criticised.

Openeness, transparency - if it's good enough to demand from Sky it's good enough to demand from everyone.

RichN95.

micron wrote:

Coach H - interesting. I imagine a French Amateur team to have enormous resources at their disposal, after all

My hockey club's first team - which is amateur and has all the players paying match fees, still has a manager, a coach, an assistant coach, a reserve team coach, a conditioning coach, a video analyst and a physio.

Schleck has his dad. Nibali has no-one.

tailwindhome

Micron

Have you separated the success of British Cycling on the track from Sky on the road?

Do you believe British track success to be also suspicious?

Richmond Racer

The peloton's littered with so many examples of coach-less riders, its astonishing. Most of them download training plans from the internet, or just self-coach. Just two examples that spring to mind: Adam Blythe's only just decided that he'd better have a coach (after self-coaching) and is giving Hushovd's coach a go. Sagan's moved back home to Slovakia 'from under the watchful eye of the team' and says he 'knows the job by now...understands how to train'

The teams leave them to it, and see then at the occasional camp, but primarily at the races.

Sound professional to everyone?