Criticism of the Sky train (may contain spoilers)

Pross

I would help DDRaver look for it but when I search Rundfahrt's posts all I get is

This post was made by Rundfahrt who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

and that's the way I like it.

Rundfahrt

Pross wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

...I get attacked and insulted because I dare question Sky/Wiggins and because I point out how those people sound just like the USPS fans did on forums back in the early 2000's.

You also continually choose to ignore it when people ask for something statistical to back up why you think there are similarities between Sky and USPS other than a) They win and b) They use a sound tactic of riding a 'train' of very solid 2nd tier stage race riders. So provide some numbers to back you up and people may take you more seriously.

So there can't be suspicions based on the similarities? People can't be suspicious based on a team having most of their team leading up the major climbs, having two riders on the podium, having a rider suddenly become a top time trialist (stats were posted about this) and a track rider becoming one of the top climbers, having angry responses to questions about doping, having responses talking about working harder, doing things differently, etc. The same things that happened at USPS.

All of that is plenty for people to be suspicious, just like it was during the USPS days, except for people on this one forum.

danlikesbikes

ddraver wrote:

I cannot deny this.... :oops:

Twin Sisters this weekend actually, They re Welsh though it's going to be difficult

Hope their not part of the football team I posted about

Rundfahrt

Pross wrote:

I would help DDRaver look for it but when I search Rundfahrt's posts all I get is

This post was made by Rundfahrt who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

and that's the way I like it.

Yet you responded to me and asked a question.

Feel free to join ddraver on he confirmed liar list.

I'm done, you guys are pathetic.

above_the_cows

Everybody find a chair and repeat after me:

Schatje mag ik je foto?
Heb je een foto voor mij?
Schatje mag ik je foto?
En doe er ook je nummer bij?

There that's better.

ddraver

Outstanding Sir!

Bye Rundy, once again we won't miss you...

danlikesbikes

Rundfahrt wrote:

So there can't be suspicions based on the similarities? People can't be suspicious based on a team having most of their team leading up the major climbs, having two riders on the podium, having a rider suddenly become a top time trialist (stats were posted about this) and a track rider becoming one of the top climbers, having angry responses to questions about doping, having responses talking about working harder, doing things differently, etc. The same things that happened at USPS.

All of that is plenty for people to be suspicious, just like it was during the USPS days, except for people on this one forum.

I am sat on neither side of the fence TBH & you are right to raise your suspicions and there is nothing wrong with that it is healthy after all as long as you do it in a constructive manner.

But for me as an contributor to this forum & this particular thread you are not really adding anything constructive that I can see. I will happily back you up (& anyone else for that matter) if you make a point but I don't see anything near that coming from your posts.

Sorry but thats just my opinion take it or leave it.

If you want people to take you seriously then be nice, state your point and don't drag things into a bun fight. I'm quite happy having an internet discussion with you if our opinions are the same or different but you need to understand where the line is between constructive and pointless boarding on...... I don't know something that is going to get you know where.

tailwindhome

Rundfahrt wrote:

So there can't be suspicions based on the similarities? .

Yes.

But you need something sensible to add when people start pointing out the key differences.

tailwindhome

OCDuPalais wrote:

bockers - please keep us informed if anyone does find this "shed of evidence". No doubt it'll be where Sky keep their Sean Yates.

FTFY

tailwindhome

jane90 wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Just because you choose to use a train it does not mean you are doping. The two things are not necessarily connected.

Moreover, the way you deny something proves nothing. There are only so many ways you can say no. The denial does not have to bare any relation to the thing that is actually being denied. Just because Sky deny doping it does not mean that they are doping, that is the most illogical argument I think I've ever heard.

In logic, this is known as the fallacy of the excluded middle. To put the argument as a syllogism:

All highly paid superstars who use an effective mountain-train tactic win races.
All dopers win races

---

Therefore all highly paid superstars who use an effective mountain-train tactics are dopers

or, if we put it another way,

All cats have four legs
All dogs have four legs.

---

Therefore all cats are dogs.

So if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's not a duck.

Or it is a duck?

You've lost me now.

prawny

Pross wrote:

I would help DDRaver look for it but when I search Rundfahrt's posts all I get is

This post was made by Rundfahrt who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

and that's the way I like it.

Mine too, the quotes were confusing the hell out of me.

prawny

TailWindHome wrote:

jane90 wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Just because you choose to use a train it does not mean you are doping. The two things are not necessarily connected.

Moreover, the way you deny something proves nothing. There are only so many ways you can say no. The denial does not have to bare any relation to the thing that is actually being denied. Just because Sky deny doping it does not mean that they are doping, that is the most illogical argument I think I've ever heard.

In logic, this is known as the fallacy of the excluded middle. To put the argument as a syllogism:

All highly paid superstars who use an effective mountain-train tactic win races.
All dopers win races

---

Therefore all highly paid superstars who use an effective mountain-train tactics are dopers

or, if we put it another way,

All cats have four legs
All dogs have four legs.

---

Therefore all cats are dogs.

So if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's not a duck.

Or it is a duck?

You've lost me now.

A witch.

above_the_cows

TailWindHome wrote:

jane90 wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Just because you choose to use a train it does not mean you are doping. The two things are not necessarily connected.

Moreover, the way you deny something proves nothing. There are only so many ways you can say no. The denial does not have to bare any relation to the thing that is actually being denied. Just because Sky deny doping it does not mean that they are doping, that is the most illogical argument I think I've ever heard.

In logic, this is known as the fallacy of the excluded middle. To put the argument as a syllogism:

All highly paid superstars who use an effective mountain-train tactic win races.
All dopers win races

---

Therefore all highly paid superstars who use an effective mountain-train tactics are dopers

or, if we put it another way,

All cats have four legs
All dogs have four legs.

---

Therefore all cats are dogs.

So if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's not a duck.

Or it is a duck?

You've lost me now.

More like if it has wings, a beak, webbed feet and walks it must be a duck (the quacking kind of gives it away as a duck, leave out the quaking for a second). There is no reason for it to be a duck just because it has wings, webbed feet and walks. You might assume it is a duck based on prior knowledge of ducks but it does not mean it is a duck. If it just has wings, a beak, webbed feet and walks it could also be a swan, a goose, a coot or any number of water birds.

Does this make sense?

How we interpret things is determined by experience, prior knowledge, meaning and context. Because people have seen trains going up mountains before and these trains have later found out to be doping they assume that mountain trains today must also be linked to doping when in fact it could just be a mountain train. In order to prove that Sky is doping you need something more than just a mountain train and winning races. Like with the duck you need a quack to categorically prove it is a duck. What proved that USPS were doping was tests results and witness/rider testimony. Right now you don't have this with Sky all you have is a basic correlation built around similar tactics and race wins.

Rundfahrt

Danlikesbikes and tailwind home- I tried that approach last summer, but was attacked and insulted at every turn and then banned for the rest of the tour. At this point I'll admit its fun watching people like ddraver make asses of themselves defending Sky at all costs. It has got to the point that anyone saying anything about Sky riders or the team and suspicion is shouted down and attacked, a la USPS fans on forums in the early 2000's so it does not matter if you make a valid point or not. Note how I take no umbrage to either of you because you choose to have a discussion...unlike other people.

ddraver

Above The Cows wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

jane90 wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Just because you choose to use a train it does not mean you are doping. The two things are not necessarily connected.

Moreover, the way you deny something proves nothing. There are only so many ways you can say no. The denial does not have to bare any relation to the thing that is actually being denied. Just because Sky deny doping it does not mean that they are doping, that is the most illogical argument I think I've ever heard.

In logic, this is known as the fallacy of the excluded middle. To put the argument as a syllogism:

All highly paid superstars who use an effective mountain-train tactic win races.
All dopers win races

---

Therefore all highly paid superstars who use an effective mountain-train tactics are dopers

or, if we put it another way,

All cats have four legs
All dogs have four legs.

---

Therefore all cats are dogs.

So if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's not a duck.

Or it is a duck?

You've lost me now.

More like if it has wings, a beak, webbed feet and walks it must be a duck (the quacking kind of gives it away as a duck, leave out the quaking for a second). There is no reason for it to be a duck just because it has wings, webbed feet and walks. You might assume it is a duck based on prior knowledge of ducks but it does not mean it is a duck. If it just has wings, a beak, webbed feet and walks it could also be a swan, a goose, a coot or any number of water birds.

Does this make sense?

How we interpret things is determined by experience, prior knowledge, meaning and context. Because people have seen trains going up mountains before and these trains have later found out to be doping they assume that mountain trains today must also be linked to doping when in fact it could just be a mountain train. In order to prove that Sky is doping you need something more than just a mountain train and winning races. Like with the duck you need a quack to categorically prove it is a duck. What proved that USPS were doping was tests results and witness/rider testimony. Right now you don't have this with Sky all you have is a basic correlation built around similar tactics and race wins.

I think you're a quack...

Congratulations Rundy, once again you ve totally misunderstood...

smithy21

Abandon thread, abandon thread!

danlikesbikes

Rundfahrt wrote:

Danlikesbikes and tailwind home- I tried that approach last summer, but was attacked and insulted at every turn and then banned for the rest of the tour. At this point I'll admit its fun watching people like ddraver make asses of themselves defending Sky at all costs. It has got to the point that anyone saying anything about Sky riders or the team and suspicion is shouted down and attacked, a la USPS fans on forums in the early 2000's so it does not matter if you make a valid point or not. Note how I take no umbrage to either of you because you choose to have a discussion...unlike other people.

Well its good that you are sticking to your line & I commend you for that. As I have said I am not pro or anti sky in these respects but I do like and understand what they are doing which is playing to their strengths.

Your right to raise concerns a la USPS but have to temper what you say as there a lot of supporters and none supporters & if you don't raise your points in a constructive manner you will find yourself getting a lot a lash back and negative quotes thrown back at you.

But I'm sure if you don't reference what was said in the past then people will pretty quickly stop arguing with you about it and start discussing what is happening now.

I don't always agree with others opinions but try my hardest if I want to make a point or argue the other side of it to be as polite as I can be (something I wish I could do face to face as I F'ing hate smiles and being polite).

ddraver

DP, phone 'mare

Macaloon

Rundfahrt may also have fared better if he had taken his insight to one of the many threads devoted to discussion of Sky's blood parameters. Instead he ignored several requests up-thread (including by the OP) to keep to the topic of race tactics.

Any chance we can get back to speculating on the intangibles of The Classics and whether the Sky approach of training a squad specifically for the challenge can work in theory? And whether Sky are strong enough to make it work on the road.

Richmond Racer

Macaloon wrote:

Rundfahrt may also have fared better if he had taken his insight to one of the many threads devoted to discussion of Sky's blood parameters. Instead he ignored several requests up-thread (including by the OP) to keep to the topic of race tactics.

Any chance we can get back to speculating on the intangibles of The Classics and whether the Sky approach of training a squad specifically for the challenge can work in theory? And whether Sky are strong enough to make it work on the road.

Perhaps Kerrison and Ellingworth have thrown down some cobbles on Mt Teide...

I seriously have no idea whether this is going to work. At the start of the year the word coming out from the Mallorca camp (source Ned Boulting in latest Rouleur) was that the classics squad were absolutely flying, smashing PBs in training and the like. But as everyone points out, its what happens on the road that counts.

TBH if they grab a couple of podiums at the biggies, I'd be happy.

I actually feel more confident in a possible win from say Uran Uran, at Amstel or LBL. He's looking mighty lean and strong.

Turfle

I don't think they're going to ride the cobbled races any different. Try and have as many men left as possible after each selection. If anything they've done too much work in these races in the past, and burned up good riders unnecessarily.

Jez mon

Considering yesterday's stage at T-A it's pretty clear that Sky aren't as dominant as some were suggesting at the start of the thread.

I think they will still find some issues if they try and dictate the classics, particularly the cobbled classics.

Anonymous

It will be interesting to see if Sky learn from the mistakes that Team GB made at the Olympics.

I know they have the strength in depth in climbers, and now they won't be towing Cav, there is a chance riders like EBH (and others whose names I can't recall) who can go uphill a bit better can be brought to the finish - thus a strength in depth for all rounders. This means they can Sky-Train the flats a la TTT, but also that when/if the peloton splits like in the Olympics they won't have all their eggs in one basket so can send some riders up the front, without the worry that if their #1 gets dropped, then they have a #2 up front as backup.

(Thus if they are sending riders forward it will encourage other teams to 'ride' to close the gaps)

Or am I chatting cobblers?

danlikesbikes

Macaloon wrote:

Any chance we can get back to speculating on the intangibles of The Classics and whether the Sky approach of training a squad specifically for the challenge can work in theory? And whether Sky are strong enough to make it work on the road.

Tough one really have just been reading about the Sky training camp albeit on their own webpage & whilst they seem to be doing to the work on the road is going to be a lot different over the cobbles especially of the weather takes a turn for the worse.

alanp23

Here's another question that I have been thinking about. I wonder if Sky's Classics tactics are going to include sending a man forward or if they think that holding them all together in the train will give them greater chances of success.

I have a feeling that they have calculated the odds and reckon that keeping the team together with the leader may be more fruitful.....

Anonymous

Surely they have to or they will be faced with the situation Team GB had at the olympics? Although it could be said that as soon as Sky send someone up the road it will lead to a total chase down of any break....

No_Ta_Doctor

coriordan wrote:

Although it could be said that as soon as Sky send someone up the road it will lead to a total chase down of any break....

Don't think that's true at all. If other teams are scared of Sky it's less their individual riders and more their ability to deliver them fresh to the final stages of the race, without having let anyone important get up the road.

They haven't shown any ability to do this effectively in the classics though, and in the stage races it doesn't guarantee the stage, it guarantees the time.

I'm sure most teams would prefer to have a solo Sky rider in a break they had a man in, than have Sky chasing them down.

Pross

The thing is you can try the tactic in a Classic (or any one day race) but even if you keep your man in contention he still has to be the strongest finisher of those left. If you are going to keep your man there is he going to beat Sagan in a sprint from a small group, outdo Canc in a 20km solo effort or take J Rod in a steep uphill finish? Chances are you are going to do all the work and someone else will take advantage. The Sky couldn't prevent others taking stage wins in the Tour despite their vice like control, what they can do is prevent their rider losing any / much time to enable them to win through a TT. As we've seen at T-A it can even fail then if there aren't enough TT miles. I really can't see how Sky can win Classics with this tactic alone - they should get high placings and may get lucky but I don't see them having that rider to finish things off. They need to be cleverer than that.

No_Ta_Doctor

Pross wrote:

The thing is you can try the tactic in a Classic (or any one day race) but even if you keep your man in contention he still has to be the strongest finisher of those left. If you are going to keep your man there is he going to beat Sagan in a sprint from a small group, outdo Canc in a 20km solo effort or take J Rod in a steep uphill finish? Chances are you are going to do all the work and someone else will take advantage. The Sky couldn't prevent others taking stage wins in the Tour despite their vice like control, what they can do is prevent their rider losing any / much time to enable them to win through a TT. As we've seen at T-A it can even fail then if there aren't enough TT miles. I really can't see how Sky can win Classics with this tactic alone - they should get high placings and may get lucky but I don't see them having that rider to finish things off. They need to be cleverer than that.

Exactly. But let's see if they can nail the classics tactics this season, and whether Geraint and EBH can put together a proper tag-team.

ddraver

Think corodian's post is where it's at...But Pross makes a very good point as well!

Can EBH out sprint Sagan/Boonen, no. He could probably take Canc though to be fair...

Thomas has the same problem as Canc probably

Stannard could maybe do a solo break, but again, i don't see him winning a sprint against any people that are likely to be at the sharp end of a classics race.

Think they have the best shot in the hilly classics really with their Columbian Contingent and JTL, I don't see them engineering a win in the cobbled classics, although that's not to say that they could nt end up in a break.

That said, part of the trouble last year was that even if they got in the right break, they still managed to totally screw the position up. See the group behind Boonen in last years P-R as a good example or Flecha in Het Neuwsblad. I don't know how you "train"that into a cyclist in Teneriefe though