Criticism of the Sky train (may contain spoilers)
Comments
-
inkyfingers wrote:afx237vi wrote:Making up puerile names for people you don't like on the internet? Has it really come to this?
Maybe i'm just less patient, but both this forum and twitter are starting to become quite hard work these days, with less interesting debate and more silliness. I appreciate that there have always been idiots on here, there just seems to be more now.
I'm not convinced there are more idiots here, but we certainly spend more time discussing the idiots who post elsewhere. Maybe a forum-wide pact to ignore festinagirl et al is required?0 -
bompington wrote:Stinkyfingers!
Chance would be a fine thing
I should qualify my moan, by saying that I don't have a problem with jokes and the fun type of silliness, but more the personal attacks and childish back-biting."I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)0 -
afx237vi wrote:Making up puerile names for people you don't like on the internet? Has it really come to this?
Word.
Like Rich says, just ignore them. If you want to pick apart their arguments that's fine.
Seems to be a lack of intelligent debate on both sides.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Slim Boy Fat wrote:
Isn't it just a bit of fun?afx237vi wrote:Making up puerile names for people you don't like on the internet? Has it really come to this?
Depends on your POV I suppose. Just seems a bit hypocritical that the people here complain about how facile the people on Twitter are, but continually stoop down to their level by engaging in name-calling and baiting of their own.
That's the way I see it, anyway.0 -
OK, I have to give up on that, possibly the only advantage of being an Aphex Twin fan is that it can give you a hard-to-mangle-handle0
-
Youse all joking right?
:?
No ?
0 -
bompington wrote:OK, I have to give up on that, possibly the only advantage of being an Aphex Twin fan is that it can give you a hard-to-mangle-handle
bombaclaatington?0 -
Aye, agree on both counts. They didn't handle questions at all well last year, and questions were but to be asked as long as they were valid. But they seem to be making an effort to be more open now. I don't like or dislike them, and apart from Porte, am not partial to any rider there either. But I do find some of criticisms lacking any foundation, though to a far lesser extent here.iainf72 wrote:I think lots of proper journalists have questions for Sky and indeed ask them. In the past, and by Brailsfords own admission they dealt with them poorly and weren't as transparent as they could be.
They're much better now. I don't like the team, think they've a bit hypocritical with their stance on doping in the past, but I see nothing that would lead me to believe they're doping.
Maybe they have to have a sit down with Vaughters on how to handle the media when not half blameless (CN's very superficial reporting, comparing him to Landis et al, and subsequent apology on the Trent Lowe affair mainly).0 -
This is from the BBC Sport website, quoting Alex Ferguson responding to the news that 34 year old Rio Ferdinand has been recalled to in the England World Cup
Sir Alex Ferguson says he was "as surprised as anyone" about Rio Ferdinand's recall into the England squad for the World Cup qualifiers. But he stressed the 34-year-old will only be released after consultation with the Manchester United club doctor. "I was as surprised as anyone when I heard," Ferguson said.
"I need to speak to the [United] doctor because we prepare Ferdinand in a certain way and there are treatments he has to go through."
Change the sport and the context slightly:
This is a quote from David Brailsford, responding to the news that 32 year old Bradley Wiggins has been selected to ride for Team GB in the World Championships. [following his injury 4 weeks ago]
"I need to speak to the [Team Sky] doctor because we prepare Bradley in a certain way and there are treatments he has to go through."
So what's the difference? The first seems to have aroused no suspicion of doping whatsover. Currently, there are 480 comments at the foot of the article.
The second if was true, would be seen as a blatant admission of doping within Team Sky, generating a scandal almost equal to that of Dopestrong and would have Paul Kimmage calling for a public execution at the Tower.
Why is one manager's comment acceptable and the other, not?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21803149Live to ski
Ski to live0 -
for me Wiggo's placing 2nd on GC at the 2009 Tour De France with Vaughters watching him in the team in advance and during the event does make me believe Wiggo could be clean. Could. Of course cause he was trained for 2 mile pursuits up to age 27 and didn't place 3rd in 2003 TDF or Giro, some say doping for 2009 onward. This type of fan will say training for 2 mile pursuit races should not stop Wiggo placing on the podium of a grand tour that requires the total opposite of a rider..a 100 miles a day over mountains for 3 weeks. (Surely everyone can work out that track racing/training for years excludes the possibility of progress in the completely opposite type of event-a grand tour?)
So that Wiggo didn't place on podium of first GT means doper is total drivel and can't believe anyone would say that on a club run...they'd be laughed at as a total joke
However, 17 years of liars winning TDFs means Wiggo might be one as well.
I hope he is clean and believe he might be..will give him the benefit of the doubt for now...but if we see 39 minutes on Alpe 'huez, then I will stop believing it0 -
I have no problem with Wiggins or Sky. He has nothing to prove to anyone. Sky have nothing to prove.
If the witch hunt can come up with ANY evidence of team doping, or Wiggins doping, then lets have it.
Wiggins has been a world class cyclist for years, on track and road. His rise to Tour winner was steady, not a rider from nowhere. He needs a train in the mountains cos he is not a pure climber, but he is a great TT rider.
Sky/British Cycling is using the same formula that was/is successful on the track. Attention to detail, marginal gains, team work, bloody hard work.
The problem being that cycling is one of the oldest sports and is very much based in the past and what worked before. Sky come along and do things differently and noses are put out of joint.
The other teams need to man, up and catch up.0 -
mike6 wrote:I have no problem with Wiggins or Sky. He has nothing to prove to anyone. Sky have nothing to prove.
If the witch hunt can come up with ANY evidence of team doping, or Wiggins doping, then lets have it.
Wiggins has been a world class cyclist for years, on track and road. His rise to Tour winner was steady, not a rider from nowhere. He needs a train in the mountains cos he is not a pure climber, but he is a great TT rider.
Sky/British Cycling is using the same formula that was/is successful on the track. Attention to detail, marginal gains, team work, bloody hard work.
The problem being that cycling is one of the oldest sports and is very much based in the past and what worked before. Sky come along and do things differently and noses are put out of joint.
The other teams need to man, up and catch up.
I assume from your post that you have only been watching pro cycling for a couple of seasons?
Sky have set their stall out to be a clean team with transparency to prove this. Aside from employing the doctor that ran rabobanks doping program plus riders they knew to be questionable and subsequently lying about it you're right, there is nothing to be suspicious of.
Talk of marginal gains and attention to detail is an insult to the rest of the pro peloton that has been doing this for many years. Stephen Roche was one of the first to wear a skinsuit in a road race back in 1985. Merckx was obsessive around his kit. All teams work hard and all pro cyclists train hard.
Sky aren't doing anything different.
Which I think might be the problem.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Your argument is almost verbatim to that used by the Armstrong defenders and see what happened to him.0 -
Rodrego Hernandez wrote:mike6 wrote:I have no problem with Wiggins or Sky. He has nothing to prove to anyone. Sky have nothing to prove.
If the witch hunt can come up with ANY evidence of team doping, or Wiggins doping, then lets have it.
Wiggins has been a world class cyclist for years, on track and road. His rise to Tour winner was steady, not a rider from nowhere. He needs a train in the mountains cos he is not a pure climber, but he is a great TT rider.
Sky/British Cycling is using the same formula that was/is successful on the track. Attention to detail, marginal gains, team work, bloody hard work.
The problem being that cycling is one of the oldest sports and is very much based in the past and what worked before. Sky come along and do things differently and noses are put out of joint.
The other teams need to man, up and catch up.
I assume from your post that you have only been watching pro cycling for a couple of seasons?
Sky have set their stall out to be a clean team with transparency to prove this. Aside from employing the doctor that ran rabobanks doping program plus riders they knew to be questionable and subsequently lying about it you're right, there is nothing to be suspicious of.
Talk of marginal gains and attention to detail is an insult to the rest of the pro peloton that has been doing this for many years. Stephen Roche was one of the first to wear a skinsuit in a road race back in 1985. Merckx was obsessive around his kit. All teams work hard and all pro cyclists train hard.
Sky aren't doing anything different.
Which I think might be the problem.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Your argument is almost verbatim to that used by the Armstrong defenders and see what happened to him.
Errr....wrong on all counts. Have followed cycling for decades, and I dont remember Postal/Disco ever claiming to be clean, or having an anti doping stance. There mantra was "Never tested positive". Not the same thing is it.
Also, Sky dont have anything to prove. If you doubt every rider or team that wins races why do you bother watching pro cycling?
And, they do things differently, thats a given, and thats what all the fuss is about. One instance being a number of teams copying the Sky penchant for warming down on turbo's during Grand Tours. Something they scoffed at originally. Also dont make the mistake of thinking I am a Sky "fan", I am not, I am merely sick of the sniping and backbiting that get for no other reason than they are a team fairly new to the pro peloton.0 -
Its the british disease!!!!
We love being "nearly winners" we all revel in almost doing it....and finishing a gallant 2nd or worse...but HEAVEN FORBID we actually win anything!!!
It's not just cycling..we do it with everything...spend years watching a guy/lady as an upcoming talent/underdog....but once they stary winning stuff...wow do the negative vibes start coming!
The British press are the worst...no doubt they will jump on the Sky hating thats going on at the moment, and try to destroy them in the arena of daily journalism that has no place in sport.
I am not convinced one way or the other re the cleanliness of cycling in general....however , everyone has to agree...it is cleaner than as little as 3 or 4 years ago.......
So come on , let's prey for a BRITISH festival of cycling supremacy this summer.....and if ANYONE fails tests..then please please please UCI...NO COVER UPS!!! Mc Quaid et al need to be firm from here on in, because it's obvious he isn't stepping down, so if he's staying he needs to grow a pair and not look after the top teams....if theres a problem Pat, it needs instant decisive action...no matter who it is.......Rant over!!!0 -
mike6 wrote:Rodrego Hernandez wrote:mike6 wrote:I have no problem with Wiggins or Sky. He has nothing to prove to anyone. Sky have nothing to prove.
If the witch hunt can come up with ANY evidence of team doping, or Wiggins doping, then lets have it.
Wiggins has been a world class cyclist for years, on track and road. His rise to Tour winner was steady, not a rider from nowhere. He needs a train in the mountains cos he is not a pure climber, but he is a great TT rider.
Sky/British Cycling is using the same formula that was/is successful on the track. Attention to detail, marginal gains, team work, bloody hard work.
The problem being that cycling is one of the oldest sports and is very much based in the past and what worked before. Sky come along and do things differently and noses are put out of joint.
The other teams need to man, up and catch up.
I assume from your post that you have only been watching pro cycling for a couple of seasons?
Sky have set their stall out to be a clean team with transparency to prove this. Aside from employing the doctor that ran rabobanks doping program plus riders they knew to be questionable and subsequently lying about it you're right, there is nothing to be suspicious of.
Talk of marginal gains and attention to detail is an insult to the rest of the pro peloton that has been doing this for many years. Stephen Roche was one of the first to wear a skinsuit in a road race back in 1985. Merckx was obsessive around his kit. All teams work hard and all pro cyclists train hard.
Sky aren't doing anything different.
Which I think might be the problem.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Your argument is almost verbatim to that used by the Armstrong defenders and see what happened to him.
Errr....wrong on all counts. Have followed cycling for decades, and I dont remember Postal/Disco ever claiming to be clean, or having an anti doping stance. There mantra was "Never tested positive". Not the same thing is it.
Also, Sky dont have anything to prove. If you doubt every rider or team that wins races why do you bother watching pro cycling?
And, they do things differently, thats a given, and thats what all the fuss is about. One instance being a number of teams copying the Sky penchant for warming down on turbo's during Grand Tours. Something they scoffed at originally. Also dont make the mistake of thinking I am a Sky "fan", I am not, I am merely sick of the sniping and backbiting that get for no other reason than they are a team fairly new to the pro peloton.
+1
Its absurd to say Sky aren't doing things differently...0 -
Sky do it a bit better but not that differently. If we know about it their rivals will.
They recruit well and maximise their assets better than most. Coaches for multi million euro cyclists make sense. That kind of thing. Other teams do it, just not quite as consistently. I remember Terpstra warming down on rollers before being dumped in a wheely bin full of ice back in his Milram days. Difference is he didn't keep it up, nor did the rest of his team.
I saw stuff about bespoke chefs travelling around with teams back in 2008. Only they did it just for the tour.
The main thing is the pool of talent that they get to pull in the same direction though. That is easily the most key.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:I saw stuff about bespoke chefs travelling around with teams back in 2008. Only they did it just for the tour.
Seem to remember Motorola or it might have even been 7-Eleven had their own chef.0 -
It also makes sense their success is mainly in tours, where those differences are amplified and count for more: tactics are simpler and freakish one offs are ironed out. I doubt they dope more than their rivals. Which could mean they don't dope at all.0
-
greasedscotsman wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:I saw stuff about bespoke chefs travelling around with teams back in 2008. Only they did it just for the tour.
Seem to remember Motorola or it might have even been 7-Eleven had their own chef.
Exactly. It's not revolutionary. USP did the whole scientific, specific training malarky before too.
None of it is new. It's just they put it all together well and consistently.0 -
Surely the one big thing Sky are doing differently is coaching their whole squad whereas most teams still train individually with personal coaches? They are also training the squads for a certain aim hence two stage race squads and a Classics squad and whilst winning one day races will be tougher yesterday suggests it may be working, there were quite a few riders there at the sharp end, possibly more than any other team?0
-
Many riders simply have no coach at all. They buy training plans, or mess around doing what they think they should be doing in the way of training.0
-
Rodrego Hernandez wrote:mike6 wrote:I have no problem with Wiggins or Sky. He has nothing to prove to anyone. Sky have nothing to prove.
If the witch hunt can come up with ANY evidence of team doping, or Wiggins doping, then lets have it.
Wiggins has been a world class cyclist for years, on track and road. His rise to Tour winner was steady, not a rider from nowhere. He needs a train in the mountains cos he is not a pure climber, but he is a great TT rider.
Sky/British Cycling is using the same formula that was/is successful on the track. Attention to detail, marginal gains, team work, bloody hard work.
The problem being that cycling is one of the oldest sports and is very much based in the past and what worked before. Sky come along and do things differently and noses are put out of joint.
The other teams need to man, up and catch up.
I assume from your post that you have only been watching pro cycling for a couple of seasons?
Sky have set their stall out to be a clean team with transparency to prove this. Aside from employing the doctor that ran rabobanks doping program plus riders they knew to be questionable and subsequently lying about it you're right, there is nothing to be suspicious of.
Talk of marginal gains and attention to detail is an insult to the rest of the pro peloton that has been doing this for many years. Stephen Roche was one of the first to wear a skinsuit in a road race back in 1985. Merckx was obsessive around his kit. All teams work hard and all pro cyclists train hard.
Sky aren't doing anything different.
Which I think might be the problem.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Your argument is almost verbatim to that used by the Armstrong defenders and see what happened to him.
I think your the one who needs to smell something stronger than coffee.
If you really believe that Brailsford is really running something akin to USPS than I feel sorry you.
If your so cynical can I suggest you stop watching cycling and move to say cricket as I'm pretty sure there clean for PEDs maybe a little recreational going on there.0 -
There are similarities with the Postal/Discovery teams.
What people forget is that Postal/Discovery were not the only team doping. From what we now know they were all at it bar a few courageous individuals. Reading Hamilton’s book and a number of other testimonies, Discovery/Postal did not even have the best doping methods at times.
Therefore in order to dope when other are doping too and win means hard training, calculated team selection (e.g. build a train to protect Lance for the mountains) and good team organisation, which is where Postal, but even more so, Discovery, excelled. Their greatest strength, but also greatest weakness was Lance. He would get jealous of anyone that was a threat and became too powerful as a team leader.
So if you are prepared to give Sky the benefit of the doubt, which I certainly am at the moment (as yet to hear any murmurings from any ex sky pros or other cyclist that they are doping), then you come back to training, team, tactics and good organisation. This is where Sky is ahead. Add to that other initiatives that Sky and British Cycling have used, none of which are new but rarely all have been used at once to such good effect, and you have a better chance of winning. As we see though, it does not always work!.
It is no different in other sports; the richest teams can get the best players and coaches. However they can still be beaten on the day by lesser teams who are better organised or use tactics better. But over a season they normally come out tops.
For me if I am not going to accept Sky’s line on anti doping then what faith can I have of the rest of the teams, many of who are still run by the dopers of the 80’s and 90’s?0 -
What information does a powermeter provide that a heart rate monitor doesn't?
Obviously I understand that one is giving a power output in watts the other heart rate in BPM, but how would a rider use that information in training and racing?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:What information does a powermeter provide that a heart rate monitor doesn't?
Obviously I understand that one is giving a power output in watts the other heart rate in BPM, but how would a rider use that information in training and racing?
Its an instant measurement for one - tells you how much power you are putting out NOW so if you know what you are aiming for you can maintain certain levels. HR there is always a bit of a lag. Also a lot of factors can influence HR - temperature, altitude, whether you have a virus, tiredness etc whereas power is power (although presumably those same factors can influence how much power you can sustain, as opposed to what you think you can sustain). I don't train with a power meter so others presumably know a hell of a lot more than I do though.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:What information does a powermeter provide that a heart rate monitor doesn't?
Obviously I understand that one is giving a power output in watts the other heart rate in BPM, but how would a rider use that information in training and racing?
A powermeter is a direct measurement of your output. A heart rate monitor provides an indirect measurement of your output, which is also affected by other factors (e.g. fatigue, illness, altitude etc etc)
Heart rate also has significant lag whereas power is immediate. This makes doing intervals targeting a certain heart rate very difficult, as your heart rate climbs throughout the interval. For example, see this turbo session I did earlier this week: http://app.strava.com/activities/44952085 - power goes up immediately to the level I want whereas heart rate climbs gradually.
Using the data when racing, the standard way is to do testing (which is what I was doing in the link above) to determine your Functional Threshold Power (FTP) which is basically the highest average power you can hold for an hour. From FTP you can approximate the power you should be able to sustain for other durations. So this is where Sky get there numbers from when they say "we know we can ride up this hill at xxxW"0 -
I think Rich has commented well on this in another thread talking about defence and attack. It's like watching rugby, some teams chuck the ball around and score tries for fun whilst others grind it out playing 9 or 10 man rugby. Both can be fascinating to watch when done well but can become boring when the tactic dominates. It can also get dull watching teams running in tries because the opposition defence is poor.
With Sky they ride defensively in the mountains as they attack in the time trials. OK it can get boring when done day after day but then Canc riding off on his own to solo to a win gets boring when it happens in every race as does watching Valverde and J Rod battling it out over the last km of a short, super steep climb in the Vuelta day after day. The beauty of cycling is the variety, the Sky train isn't infallible and it is interesting to see how they react when it goes wrong (in a GT they can stay composed and hope to claw back time in the TTs but in shorter races that may not work). It is also good to see other teams trying to counter their style. Sky don't owe it to anyone to entertain so it's up to others to force the racing.
On the plus side the Sky classics squad is helping to make the racing as they know that you don't win one day races by riding tempo.0 -
Taking up the rugby analogy, Sky in stage races are similar to Woodward's England side. They identify where they have an advantage (TTs/goalkicking) and then seek to neutralise everything else. It's not flashy, and calling it boring isn't unfair, but it's bloody hard to pull off - and that deserves respect. (And doesn't necessarily exclude flair e.g. Jason Robinson).Pross wrote:I think Rich has commented well on this in another thread talking about defence and attack. It's like watching rugby, some teams chuck the ball around and score tries for fun whilst others grind it out playing 9 or 10 man rugby. Both can be fascinating to watch when done well but can become boring when the tactic dominates. It can also get dull watching teams running in tries because the opposition defence is poor.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Its a numbers game. Sky approach the stages in a similar way that they do in TT stages and as GB team do on the track. Each stage is highly researched and reconed. The team have calculated the expected power output average required to win each stage and the riders have trained to maintain the required average power over the the race distance. When a rider attacks they must be confident that those rider will be expending additional power that will be averaged out later when they can no longer maintain the pace. There are obviously occasions where the attacks will get away but as 2012 proved, the numbers win.0
-
Yep. I commended Rich for his insight on the other thread too. Another analogy... when Messi has a quiet game you often don't hear much about it, when in fact we should be raving about the undoubtedly superb defensive performance that has nullified his usual impact. Allowed to roam unchecked Messi provides a cheap thrill but no lasting intrique. As ever the answer lies in balance.Pross wrote:I think Rich has commented well on this in another thread talking about defence and attack. It's like watching rugby, some teams chuck the ball around and score tries for fun whilst others grind it out playing 9 or 10 man rugby. Both can be fascinating to watch when done well but can become boring when the tactic dominates. It can also get dull watching teams running in tries because the opposition defence is poor.
Sports fans who cannot see the beauty in defending are missing half of the spectacle. I pity them.0
