Criticism of the Sky train (may contain spoilers)

No_Ta_Doctor

This whole dominance thing is massively overblown.

For instance, Wiggins dominated last season, but the combined winning margins to the three week long stage races he won was 1'37"

Less than two minutes over three weeks.

jerry3571

Oh dear god, if you've got the legs in the last few k's on a lumpy stage then you are by selection, the strongest riders. In the last k of Tirreno there was a small bunch of riders where Saxo had 2 riders and Sky topped out at again having 3 riders. On the previous Mountain stage, Froomey had 2 guys in support once again. He could have had another if Locke hadn't had stomach issues.

This is really worrying hearing your responses. It's like being an American Cycling Forum before LAs problems. Unreal. I also remember people on Forums saying that advances in the speed of grand tours in the nineties was down to technology, later to be found to be the greater exploitation of EPO which was signalled by the amount of young riders dying of heart attacks.
I'll save this post for ten years or so when this poop sees the light of day, hopefully. As I said before, unreal.

Laters!!

Cheers Ddraver, sure you'll get your Xmas card from fat Pat someday. We are agreed in you thinking I talk cr@p and me knowing you talk it.

Turfle

jerry3571 wrote:

Oh dear god, if you've got the legs in the last few k's on a lumpy stage then you are by selection, the strongest riders. In the last k of Tirreno there was a small bunch of riders where Saxo had 2 riders and Sky topped out at again having 3 riders. On the previous Mountain stage, Froomey had 2 guys in support once again. He could have had another if Locke hadn't had stomach issues.

Sky had Henao and Uran, two of the best climbers in the world. Would you have been shocked at them being there if they were riding for a different team?

This is really worrying hearing your responses. It's like being an American Cycling Forum before LAs problems. Unreal. I also remember people on Forums saying that advances in the speed of grand tours in the nineties was down to technology, later to be found to be the greater exploitation of EPO which was signalled by the amount of young riders dying of heart attacks.
I'll save this post for ten years or so when this shoot sees the light of day, hopefully. As I said before, unreal.

Laters!!

Cheers Ddraver, sure you'll get your Xmas card from fat Pat someday.

So you're saying the regressions in speeds since the 90s is what we should be concerned about?

jerry3571

Turfle wrote:

jerry3571 wrote:

Oh dear god, if you've got the legs in the last few k's on a lumpy stage then you are by selection, the strongest riders. In the last k of Tirreno there was a small bunch of riders where Saxo had 2 riders and Sky topped out at again having 3 riders. On the previous Mountain stage, Froomey had 2 guys in support once again. He could have had another if Locke hadn't had stomach issues.

Sky had Henao and Uran, two of the best climbers in the world. Would you have been shocked at them being there if they were riding for a different team?

This is really worrying hearing your responses. It's like being an American Cycling Forum before LAs problems. Unreal. I also remember people on Forums saying that advances in the speed of grand tours in the nineties was down to technology, later to be found to be the greater exploitation of EPO which was signalled by the amount of young riders dying of heart attacks.
I'll save this post for ten years or so when this shoot sees the light of day, hopefully. As I said before, unreal.

Laters!!

Cheers Ddraver, sure you'll get your Xmas card from fat Pat someday.

So you're saying the regressions in speeds since the 90s is what we should be concerned about?

No, the denial was the same, heads in the sand.
Domestiques are that, helpers. Not in the same league as the top riders. Sky has these riders in spades. What Kiryienka did yesterday was unreal too. They did this in Oman too.
Getting beyond it for me, stinks.

I'll let you chaps carry on, you're enjoying youselves.

Turfle

jerry3571 wrote:

No, the denial was the same, heads in the sand.
Domestiques are that, helpers. Not in the same league as the top riders. Sky has these riders in spades. What Kiryienka did yesterday was unreal too. They did this in Oman too.
Getting beyond it for me, stinks.

I'll let you chaps carry on, you're enjoying youselves.

Henao and Uran were both top 10 overall in the Giro last year. Cataldo was 12th. They ARE top riders, and would be leaders on most other teams.

Kiryienka leading a docile peloton over 40k of downhill was pretty mundane. He would ride far harder than that doing a 40k time trial.

RichN95.

jerry3571 wrote:

No, the denial was the same, heads in the sand.
Domestiques are that, helpers. Not in the same league as the top riders. Sky has these riders in spades. What Kiryienka did yesterday was unreal too. They did this in Oman too.
Getting beyond it for me, stinks.

I'll let you chaps carry on, you're enjoying youselves.

Let's have a look at some of the riders that Sky have on their squad:

Wiggins - 4th in the Tour at Garmin
Porte - 7th at the Giro at Saxo
Sivitsov - 9th in the Giro at HTC
Kiryienka - 16th in Vuelta at Movistar
Henao - winner of the Tour of Colombia as a semi-pro
Cataldo - 12th in the Giro at OPQS
Knees - 20th in the Tour at Milram
Uran - top 10s in Catalunya, Suisse and Romandie at Movistar
Lopez - 14th in the Vuelta at Movistar
Zandio - 22nd in the Tour at Movistar

Sky stockpile this sort of top 20 rider

Only Froome hadn't shown his abilities before at a different team.

And I haven't even mentioned the likes of EBH, Thomas, Dombrowski

What can he know of doping who only doping knows

Cumulonimbus

Others have probably already said this but i guess Sky look for guys who could make 10-20th in a GT and are good tters and good climbers. They then have them train to ride at a set wattage rather than try and be an all-round cyclist who trains for some sprints in case they are in a break/need to get in a break etc, with the specialisation meaning that they get better relative to other top 10-20 riders at this skill.

To beat this you either have to a) beat the team by breaking away and setting a pace that the guys cant match or b) beat the GC guy by waiting while the domestiques set the pace and then, when the GC guy attacks, be able to match him or sit on his wheel and then attack. So Contador or Nibali might have to work out what pace they need to maintain to sit on the wheels and then work out what effort they need to beat Froome or Wiggins.

Not saying there isnt anything more to the training program but thats the way i see it.

Edit: ah, looks like Rich said it.

Rundfahrt

You'd better watch out jerry3571, I made many of the same points and comparisons during the Tour last year and got banned, conveniently, for the exact number of days remaining in the Tour...while those attacking and insulting me received nothing. This is a Sky slobbering forum.

andrew_s

What Sky have done is to think about how to win a GT

RichN95 wrote:

It all really boils down to this. Four or five B grade riders working together will ride faster that an A grade rider on his own except in the last kilometre or so.
Therefore, if you have a huge pile of B grade riders then your leader (an A grade rider) will never lose much time. Then you just have to make sure you have the best TTing GC rider (and train that quality)

then go out and sign up the riders needed to fulfill that strategy

RichN95 wrote:

Let's have a look at some of the riders that Sky have on their squad:

Wiggins - 4th in the Tour at Garmin
Porte - 7th at the Giro at Saxo
Sivitsov - 9th in the Giro at HTC
Kiryienka - 16th in Vuelta at Movistar
Henao - winner of the Tour of Colombia as a semi-pro
Cataldo - 12th in the Giro at OPQS
Knees - 20th in the Tour at Milram
Uran - top 10s in Catalunya, Suisse and Romandie at Movistar
Lopez - 14th in the Vuelta at Movistar
Zandio - 22nd in the Tour at Movistar

Sky stockpile this sort of top 20 rider

Only Froome hadn't shown his abilities before at a different team.

And I haven't even mentioned the likes of EBH, Thomas, Dombrowski

Other teams (BMC, I'm looking at you) seem to sign up a more or less random set of riders based on headline results, availability and nationality, with no thought to any strategy at all. The only exception seems to be that someone like Contador will have the clout to bring a couple of his mates with him.

alihisgreat

Rundfahrt wrote:

You'd better watch out jerry3571, I made many of the same points and comparisons during the Tour last year and got banned, conveniently, for the exact number of days remaining in the Tour...while those attacking and insulting me received nothing. This is a Sky slobbering forum.

Maybe because your 'comparisons' boarder on trolling?

RichN95.

What I've been saying said by an expert:



It's strange that you'll hardly ever see one of the 'Sky are doping' advocates mention money.

Rundfahrt

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

You'd better watch out jerry3571, I made many of the same points and comparisons during the Tour last year and got banned, conveniently, for the exact number of days remaining in the Tour...while those attacking and insulting me received nothing. This is a Sky slobbering forum.

Maybe because your 'comparisons' boarder on trolling?

1) Same response given to people who were criticizing USPS/Armstrong on forums in the early 2000's.

2) It's funny how my comparisons "boarder (sic)on trolling" when similar things about non-Sky/Sky riders are ok.

3) If they only "boarder (sic) on trolling" then there would be no reason for a ban.

phreak

There are plenty of doping threads out there in the pro forum. As the original poster in this one I kindly request that you keep doping out of it (or that Rick/AN other mod does so on our behalf).

Pross

RichN95 wrote:

What I've been saying said by an expert:



It's strange that you'll hardly ever see one of the 'Sky are doping' advocates mention money.

They do, they say Sky has got more of it to spend on doping

As for Vaughters maybe he should have tried hiring the best he could afford rather than becoming the Betty Ford Clinic of cycling?

ddraver

Rundfahrt wrote:

You'd better watch out jerry3571, I made many of the same points and comparisons during the Tour last year and got banned, conveniently, for the exact number of days remaining in the Tour...while those attacking and insulting me received nothing. This is a Sky slobbering forum.

No, you got banned for being a d1ckhead...

Rich's list of riders, results and their teams is your answer Phreak...Remember in 10 years time there will be a new team doing the exact same thing and we ll all be saying they re boring and 10 years ago everything was panache filled and amazing.

Pross

jerry3571 wrote:

No, the denial was the same, heads in the sand.
Domestiques are that, helpers. Not in the same league as the top riders. Sky has these riders in spades. What Kiryienka did yesterday was unreal too. They did this in Oman too.
Getting beyond it for me, stinks.

I'll let you chaps carry on, you're enjoying youselves.

Look at the average speeds, VAM, climb times etc. etc. and then come back and tell us the denial is the same. Average speeds (both for the whole race and on climbs) went through the roof in the Armstrong period - they are way slower now. It's not a case of heads in the sand. Just because USPS / Discovery had similar tactics doesn't mean anyone who uses those tactics are dirty - as Rich has pointed out it is just common sense, you hire the riders who match the role you want them to play and you then train them specifically for that role. Only in cycling would people be cynical of such an obvious tactic. Kiryienka has always ridden like that but previously he would waste the effort in forlorn hope style breaks. But hey, why bother looking at facts when they don't support your allegations?

ddraver

Cycling is truly the only sport where training to win is viewed as somehow dishonest and actually just a little bit sordid...unless you re talking about 10/20 years ago when its viewed as dashing and heroic

Pross

Heroic failure is the only way to go if you want to be considered as genuine. In any other sport that is what Brits are good at, just can't get it right can we?

above_the_cows

I was going to keep put of this but I'm procrastinating from a pile of admin. There are some people that fail to see the difference between doping and racing tactics. Doping may come and go, racing tactics tend to remain the same. There are only so many ways you can go quickly up a hill when you are actually in a race, one of those is the method that Sky choose to use, this method can be used with or without doping. 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. "They say they're not so that must mean they are because USPS said they weren't and they were." Sky is not USPS, this is not some simple equation where X+Y must always = Z. Correlation is not causation. Anyone arguing that it is is making a very basic and erroneous epistemological error.

In addition, if Sky lost when using these tactics then there wouldn't even be this discussion.

Finally if teams want to beat Sky then they are going to have to repeatedly attack them, this will mean that Contador, Nibbles, J-Rod et.al will have to race to beat Sky rather than race to win, with the possibility of giving up their own chances and giving a rival a win. It will require alliances between riders from other teams which is very unlikely to happen. This is what Sky have figured out and it is partly why it works, all the leaders on the final climb are racing everyone else, not just Sky. Throw in that in a stage race the GC guys are racing for time and not for stage wins and this issue of everyone not wanting to loose time rather than try and gain time and the stage win is the result. Sky have effectively mastered the art of defensive realism.

ddraver

*Googles epistemological*

Ooooohhhhhh.....

above_the_cows

ddraver wrote:

*Googles epistemological*

Ooooohhhhhh.....

Yeah sorry, sometimes its hard to leave the day job behind. :oops:

frenchfighter

I mentioned the money. It's all about the money.

Bear in mind too that if no fans watched the sport no sponsors would be involved and no riders would ride.

Pross

Someone please ban Above the Cows for being far too intelligent and showing the rest of us up!

danlikesbikes

I don't see the problem with the Sky train, OK it can be a bit boring at times but we have seen in the last 2 days so exciting racing with lots of attacks on the climbs including Sky riders.

Their tactics are nothing new in cycling and its getting them wins. Seems like a lot of fuss over noting, was it not too long ago we also had moaners complaining that the HTC train was boring & nobody wanted to work with them as "it was all over when they get to the front" yet the racing was good and still is today.

above_the_cows

Pross wrote:

Someone please ban Above the Cows for being far too intelligent and showing the rest of us up!

Sorry that wasn't my intention at all. There is lots of intelligent discussion on this forum, I'd say considerably more than you find in a lot of places (not all of them cycling related).

danlikesbikes

Above The Cows wrote:

Pross wrote:

Someone please ban Above the Cows for being far too intelligent and showing the rest of us up!

Sorry that wasn't my intention at all. There is lots of intelligent discussion on this forum, I'd say considerably more than you find in a lot of places (not all of them cycling related).

Pretty sure that Pross was joking & does not want you banned. You point was very good and can't find a fault with it.

Pross

Was just joking, it was an excellent and well written post with lots of big words I didn't understand - I think it said pretty much what I have been trying to say but without grammatical and spelling errors

skylla

Above The Cows wrote:

Pross wrote:

Someone please ban Above the Cows for being far too intelligent and showing the rest of us up!

Sorry that wasn't my intention at all. There is lots of intelligent discussion on this forum, I'd say considerably more than you find in a lot of places (not all of them cycling related).

Above The Cows wrote:

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.

Really!!? You might want to rephrase this a little.

Pross

skylla wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Pross wrote:

Someone please ban Above the Cows for being far too intelligent and showing the rest of us up!

Sorry that wasn't my intention at all. There is lots of intelligent discussion on this forum, I'd say considerably more than you find in a lot of places (not all of them cycling related).

Above The Cows wrote:

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.

Really!!? You might want to rephrase this a little.

Why?

above_the_cows

skylla wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Pross wrote:

Someone please ban Above the Cows for being far too intelligent and showing the rest of us up!

Sorry that wasn't my intention at all. There is lots of intelligent discussion on this forum, I'd say considerably more than you find in a lot of places (not all of them cycling related).

Above The Cows wrote:

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.

Really!!? You might want to rephrase this a little.

Rephrase how? I don't understand. There are people saying that Sky's denials are the same as USPS' and thereby inferring that they must be doping. My point was that just because there is correlation between two events (denials in this instance) it does not mean that they are the same.