Criticism of the Sky train (may contain spoilers)

jane90

I'm fascinated by this subject and it's something Simon Barnes has written about a bit in the Time (IMO he's the most interesting writer on the philosophy and psychology of sport). The examples he turned to were Michael Schumacher dominating car racing in a boring, processional manner and Pete Sampras doing likewise in tennis. Whereas a common reaction from fans was quickly to get bored of watching the same thing over and over again, Barnes wrote eloquently about finding the beauty in sustained excellence - just performing the core skill of the sport better, more often and longer than anyone else; going faster in a car or hitting the ball over the net.

When the Victorians invented most of the sports we enjoy today, being the great moralisers they were, they thought that sport helped build character. Today, it's more fashionable to believe that it reveals character instead. "This highly paid, outrageously gifted footballer will surely score this penalty and England will win the World Cup. Oh! No! Well, I knew he would miss, it's obvious he's just a spoilt bottler...". I sometimes feel it's true of us fans as well and our reaction to how our heroes win and lose at sport says as much about us as it does about them.

iainf72

Personally, I think this "it's what clean cycling looks like" is barking up the wrong tree. If blood manipulation is harder, surely it should revert to something like what we saw in the 70's and 80's with lots of heroics.

A lot has changed. More TV coverage, different expectations from sponsors, the science, the way teams are thought about, the type of courses.

I quite like Dr Ferrari's observations

http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=58

Wardster00

smithy21 wrote:

If cycling is cleaner now then it must make it easier to judge what is sustainable. In the EPO era presumably no-one knew exactly what you're opponent was on so there was a risk that they could sustain it to the finish and therefore you needed to respond to attacks.

If it is cleaner......

Didn't Shane Sutton say that if anyone attacked them in the mountains at last year's TDF that they must be cheating as Sky were riding at maximum power output possible?

ddraver

iainf72 wrote:

Personally, I think this "it's what clean cycling looks like" is barking up the wrong tree. If blood manipulation is harder, surely it should revert to something like what we saw in the 70's and 80's with lots of heroics.

Was it? Cos most books on the period record as many team struggles and diesel trains riding up mountains as there are today....

Dr Ferrai is annoyingly intelligent and knowledgeable for one that has used it for doing so much wrong!

EKIMIKE

iainf72 wrote:

Personally, I think this "it's what clean cycling looks like" is barking up the wrong tree.

Definitely. It should be more like "it's what an ultimately scientific approach to cycling looks like". With or without drugs.

milton50

Wardster00 wrote:

smithy21 wrote:

If cycling is cleaner now then it must make it easier to judge what is sustainable. In the EPO era presumably no-one knew exactly what you're opponent was on so there was a risk that they could sustain it to the finish and therefore you needed to respond to attacks.

If it is cleaner......

Didn't Shane Sutton say that if anyone attacked them in the mountains at last year's TDF that they must be cheating as Sky were riding at maximum power output possible?

Wiggins said something similar as well. IIRC he said something like "When we're riding at threshold up a moutain the only way someone can sustainably ride away from us is if they have an extra litre of blood"

Don't know if anyone has the exact quotation.

milton50

EKIMIKE wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Personally, I think this "it's what clean cycling looks like" is barking up the wrong tree.

Definitely. It should be more like "it's what an ultimately scientific approach to cycling looks like". With or without drugs.

I agree with you in the sense that the difference between now and the 70's, 80's is that cycling is now an infinitely more scientific sport. Riders now know their exact threshold power and can see what power they are putting out at any one time. In the 70's and 80's riders had to ride on feel and desire.

The reason why the 2011 Tour was good was because Schleck went on a massive solo attack hours from the finish (a la old school GT riding) and it forced the others to make their own decisions on pulling him back rather than relying on a powermeter or the team car.

jerry3571

An unbelievable ride yesterday. Kiryienka had the whole group behind drawn out in a long line for tens of miles yesterday and just drew back all the attacks all by himself. Freakin' unreal! :shock: Hats off! Crazy stuff!

ddraver

Milton50 wrote:

EKIMIKE wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Personally, I think this "it's what clean cycling looks like" is barking up the wrong tree.

Definitely. It should be more like "it's what an ultimately scientific approach to cycling looks like". With or without drugs.

I agree with you in the sense that the difference between now and the 70's, 80's is that cycling is now an infinitely more scientific sport. Riders now know their exact threshold power and can see what power they are putting out at any one time. In the 70's and 80's riders had to ride on feel and desire.

The reason why the 2011 Tour was good was because Schleck went on a massive solo attack hours from the finish (a la old school GT riding) and it forced the others to make their own decisions on pulling him back rather than relying on a powermeter or the team car.

You mean Mr Boring in the winner of the "2011 Worst Tour Ever?"

milton50

I thought most people see the 2011 Tour as the best one in the last five years or so?

Tom Butcher

EKIMIKE wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Personally, I think this "it's what clean cycling looks like" is barking up the wrong tree.

Definitely. It should be more like "it's what an ultimately scientific approach to cycling looks like". With or without drugs.

I think Sky just have the riders to do it - they've got the budget - and they've spent it with that aim in mind before anyone tells me other teams also have big budgets. It's the same reason that Cav had a relatively disappointing time with Sky - they didn't spend the money to back him that he wanted.

Pross

EKIMIKE wrote:

It's a good nuanced point phreak is making.

I guess it's not so much for drafting purposes. My guess is that it's more about having someone else worry about setting a decent pace whilst the leader can make tactical decisions. If the leader was isolated, an attack by a rival can lead to panic whereas with a domestique (or two, or three) you can rely on them to up the pace in a measured way in order to try and bring back the attacker (particularly for non-climbers like Wiggins who need to stick to 'x' power output). It's also psychologically easier simply to follow a wheel. Plus there's the subjective element of a 'show of force' and 'strength in numbers' that shouldn't be underestimated.

Nail on head. We saw with Froome at the Vuelta that without the train he felt he had to chase down the three amigos when they attacked. OK he had a hard Tour in his legs but with riders around him he may have kept within himself and eased the attacks back or at least limited his losses.

I can understand people finding the tactic boring but ultimately a pro team are there to win and gain sponsor exposure. This tactic does both a lot of the time. Seeing 4 or 5 Sky jerseys lining the race out up the big, iconic climbs in the key part of a race is great sponsor exposure as well as often earning the overall win if not the stage win.

Pross

I meant to add, it doesn't kill the racing completely as Sky won't go out of their way to chase down breaks by riders who aren't a GC threat.

salsiccia1

ddraver wrote:

Milton50 wrote:

EKIMIKE wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Personally, I think this "it's what clean cycling looks like" is barking up the wrong tree.

Definitely. It should be more like "it's what an ultimately scientific approach to cycling looks like". With or without drugs.

I agree with you in the sense that the difference between now and the 70's, 80's is that cycling is now an infinitely more scientific sport. Riders now know their exact threshold power and can see what power they are putting out at any one time. In the 70's and 80's riders had to ride on feel and desire.

The reason why the 2011 Tour was good was because Schleck went on a massive solo attack hours from the finish (a la old school GT riding) and it forced the others to make their own decisions on pulling him back rather than relying on a powermeter or the team car.

You mean Mr Boring in the winner of the "2011 Worst Tour Ever?"

Huh? I thought 2011 was one of the best Tours for a few years...

Squirrelpie

I think for sky its just about training their men to sustain efforts of 450 watts for up to 7 minutes each.

24kph uphill 7% will be around 450 watts on the front, (without a headwind)its around 6.7watt per kilo on average.
People behind get around 30% less wind resistance and will output 5.85 watt per kilo.

Jumping out the bunch to gap the train will need over 500 watts and then to stay out, they will need to sustain 450 watts to the top.

Vino'sGhost

It was unbelievable 4 sky riders destroying the pack and launching the all powerful leader.

It reminds me of a previous American team with the same tactic. I have difficulty believing this is clean now.

I fact I don't

No_Ta_Doctor

Vino'sGhost wrote:

It was unbelievable 4 sky riders destroying the pack and launching the all powerful leader.

It reminds me of a previous American team with the same tactic. I have difficulty believing this is clean now.

I fact I don't

Yet they did it at a power output that would probably have put them mid-peloton ten years ago.

ddraver

Milton50 wrote:

I thought most people think the most recent was the worst ever and every other year was a classic?

FTFY

Pross

Vino'sGhost wrote:

It was unbelievable 4 sky riders destroying the pack and launching the all powerful leader.

It reminds me of a previous American team with the same tactic. I have difficulty believing this is clean now.

I fact I don't

Wow did you come up with that observation all by yourself or have you just caught up on last year's Twitter experts? Look at the comparative climb times, VAM and w/kg rates and come back with a more educated post.

No_Ta_Doctor

I'll admit I'm a little bemused by this thread. Do people want Sky to cycle more slowly so that their opponents have a chance of winning? Or should they refuse to work for their team leader, so that the only way he can win is with some sort of solo attack that could be labelled with "panache"?

As far as I can see, they've just opened the door for a TrueChampion (TM) to attack with panache earlier in the race, when they aren't controlling everything, thereby covering himself in glory.

Sorry, beg your pardon? What's that? You're saying that 99% of mountain stages with GC implications are only ever settled in the final 4-5 km? And that that's been the case for decades, at least? That attacks and selections on earlier climbs are the exception, not the rule? That it's never really been feasible to attack from further out, at least not with any regularity?

Oh. Guess we'd just better tell Sky to let the attacks go, ease off the pace and let some other people win for a change then.

jerry3571

Pross wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

It was unbelievable 4 sky riders destroying the pack and launching the all powerful leader.

It reminds me of a previous American team with the same tactic. I have difficulty believing this is clean now.

I fact I don't

Wow did you come up with that observation all by yourself or have you just caught up on last year's Twitter experts? Look at the comparative climb times, VAM and w/kg rates and come back with a more educated post.

I think it has exact comparisons also. The only difference between then and now, is the limit of Red Blood Cells a rider is allowed, which is the only reason Sky are slower. I read an article on Tim Kerrison but not sure whether new fangled training regimes mean anything much.
After LA's type of analytical training methods where I think he had most things covered. I'm sure putting up that Sky have re invented the Wheel (literally) and have new methods is a nice smokescreen for what is behind Sky's Postal/Disco style of racing. It's getting a bit beyond a joke.

Turfle

It's the drugs, jerry. It's the drugs.

phreak

jerry3571 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

It was unbelievable 4 sky riders destroying the pack and launching the all powerful leader.

It reminds me of a previous American team with the same tactic. I have difficulty believing this is clean now.

I fact I don't

Wow did you come up with that observation all by yourself or have you just caught up on last year's Twitter experts? Look at the comparative climb times, VAM and w/kg rates and come back with a more educated post.

I think it has exact comparisons also. The only difference between then and now, is the limit of Red Blood Cells a rider is allowed, which is the only reason Sky are slower. I read an article on Tim Kerrison but not sure whether new fangled training regimes mean anything much.
After LA's type of analytical training methods where I think he had most things covered. I'm sure putting up that Sky have re invented the Wheel (literally) and have new methods is a nice smokescreen for what is behind Sky's Postal/Disco style of racing. It's getting a bit beyond a joke.

Discovery would pull on the front all day, then come the final climb, Armstrong would skip off and take minutes out of his nearest rivals.

I may have missed it, but I don't recall ever seeing anyone from Sky doing this.

Tom Butcher

edit - response to top of the page post ! I knew I should have used the quote function....

Come on now. All people are arguing is that efficiency isn't always great viewing. Nobody doubts Sky have built an efficient winning machine - some just regret that it threatens to stifle the unpredictability of the racing.

Part of the attraction of cycling is that to win you have to risk losing - well with the Sky / USPostal tactic you don't. You eliminate the risk of going on the attack - and in so doing limit the chances of other riders making the race more predictable.

I don't think that it's true that the Sky / USPostal tactic has always been the way things have been either. There may be examples from the past - Merckx had a strong team working for him - but there are more examples of the favourites going man to man from further out - attacking and counter attacking each other. Maybe the fact they were all speeding out of their heads on amphetemines influenced the racing more than we care to admit - made people less risk averse. There are things that could be done to favour the individual risk taker more though - banning power meters on race day, radio communications - but they've been well discussed before.

LutherB

I read 'The Secret Race' last night & Hamilton thought cycling was cleaner as he didn't see one team dominate in the manner of USPS, etc. Unfortunately Sky sprung straight to mind. I woke up feeling very very cynical and depressed about the lack of trust - mine & generally - in cycling now

Squirrelpie

Sky are not doping, they are just maximizing efforts when they count most, like uphill finishes.

Power meters arent bad as they record their outputs and SRM post many profiles from the races.
People get to spot any dodgy unworldly long outputs.

Without power meters and heart rate monitors people will ride on feel alone and are more likely to dope to recover from overdoing it.

Turfle

I do wonder if it will lead to frustration, and increase the temptation to dope in order to beat it.

Squirrelpie

Squirrelpie wrote:

I think for sky its just about training their men to sustain efforts of 450 watts for up to 7 minutes each.

24kph uphill 7% will be around 450 watts on the front, (without a headwind)its around 6.7watt per kilo on average.
People behind get around 30% less wind resistance and will output 5.85 watt per kilo.

Jumping out the bunch to gap the train will need over 500 watts and then to stay out, they will need to sustain 450 watts to the top.

Like I said, to solo you need to output 450 watts all the way to the top. No one outputs 6.7 watt per kg for 20 to 40 minutes anymore. They have to follow and know how long they can ride at 450 + to get away closer to the finish.

Easier just to follow Froome's wheel and jump him in the final kilo meter. Then Skys effort is negated.

ddraver

‏@michellecound
Grates me that any sort of success in cycling automatically comes together with a bunch of knob heads shouting "doping"! #pathetic

iainf72

ddraver wrote:

‏@michellecound
Grates me that any sort of success in cycling automatically comes together with a bunch of knob heads shouting "doping"! #pathetic

To be fair, Michelle seemed surprised when Armstrong got done.