Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not

ms_tree

Bakunin wrote:

Porte said it ""The day worked absolutely to plan. We expected [Nairo] Quintana to attack and maybe he attacked too far out and so we used our team perfectly...

Hey Richie those words came back to bite you today.

ms_tree

TheHound wrote:

Sky have plowed money into training and marginal gains.

(Ploughed!!)

That's the thing tho' they have all that (dirty) money. I read somewhere that what they pay 3 riders (Froome and Porte and I suppose Wiggins) the same as the budget for some teams.. Therefore they can afford to have riders in special groups (Tour group, Giro group etc) unlike other teams where riders have to muck in with everything.

gsk82

So what do the 3 or 4 teams with bigger budgets spend their money on? Evans, Hushovd and Gilbert?

DeadCalm

Pross wrote:

TheHound wrote:

My take, far from definitive.

Sky have plowed money into training and marginal gains. Every other team were throwing money into doping.

Since the LA shiz kicked off everyone has realised it's far too risky to dope and are now riding without. Hence Contador dropping off and people like A.Schleck.

Sky/Froome basically have a head start over everyone else by doing things right from the start.

I was absolutely staggered to realise that other than the pre-season get together (which is really just a PR event) most teams rarely train together for the whole season. I mean getting a team coach and having riders who will ride together train as a team is hardly rocket science and yet teams are still not doing it and then when such a basic and obvious thing is done well people start looking for other reasons for he success. Also not many teams seem to have a sports scientist on the squad, coaching seems to be based on what's always been done or old wives tales!

I keep hearing this. Have you any actual evidence to support the fact that the other teams don't train together? For example, I know from following many of their riders on Twitter that FDJ certainly do. I'm not saying you are wrong and it may well be a cast iron fact. It's just I like to see sweeping generalisations such as these backed up with some evidence.

FJS

I'm not really into these kind of threads, but two points:

1. Why all this now? It's not as if Froome hasn't been dominant all season until now.

2. Considering the set up and management of Sky I'd be extremely surprised if in the case that Froome were to be doping Wiggins last year would not also have been doping, or the British Olympic team for that matter. It doesn't strike me as a laissez-faire kind of team. Saying Froome is doping because you don't like him, but Wiggins is clean because you do like him is bobbins

iainf72

What FJS said.

And saying someone is doping because you don't like them is utterly stupid.

Squirrelpie

I think were looking at the wrong team as Sky blew a gasket on Sunday and others teams rode as if stage 8 never happened.

Ben6899

Squirrelpie wrote:

I think were looking at the wrong team as Sky blew a gasket on Sunday and others teams rode as if stage 8 never happened.

Your facts and reasoned posts are not welcome 'round these parts!

mmacavity

http://www.cyclismas.com/biscuits/a-dif ... formances/

BigFatBloke

DeadCalm wrote:

Pross wrote:

TheHound wrote:

My take, far from definitive.

Sky have plowed money into training and marginal gains. Every other team were throwing money into doping.

Since the LA shiz kicked off everyone has realised it's far too risky to dope and are now riding without. Hence Contador dropping off and people like A.Schleck.

Sky/Froome basically have a head start over everyone else by doing things right from the start.

I was absolutely staggered to realise that other than the pre-season get together (which is really just a PR event) most teams rarely train together for the whole season. I mean getting a team coach and having riders who will ride together train as a team is hardly rocket science and yet teams are still not doing it and then when such a basic and obvious thing is done well people start looking for other reasons for he success. Also not many teams seem to have a sports scientist on the squad, coaching seems to be based on what's always been done or old wives tales!

I keep hearing this. Have you any actual evidence to support the fact that the other teams don't train together? For example, I know from following many of their riders on Twitter that FDJ certainly do. I'm not saying you are wrong and it may well be a cast iron fact. It's just I like to see sweeping generalisations such as these backed up with some evidence.

It is a myth that Sky are the only team to train scientifically. Most teams have doctors and scientists working with them and almost every rider in the Tour uses a power meter.

It is a myth Sky are happy to perpetuate. Why I don't know.

RichN95.

When will people realise that comparing climb times and estimated watts are of little value when applied to an individual. (They may have some merit in large numbers to show trends within the peloton)

Climbs are rarely run as time trials. The speed that they are run at is too reliant on tactics and race situation - particularly on shorter climbs.

Take for example, Froome, on Ax3 - sort climb. They were in pursuit of a danger man at the base and Froome attacked with 5km to go (4km from the summit). It was an all out on the limit effort.
By contrast, the slower times in 2003 and 2005 where done when there was no-one dangerous up the road and the leading riders didn't make a move until 2km to, and not a very decisive move either as the stage win wasn't up for grabs. Completely different race scenarios.

RichN95.

BigFatBloke wrote:

It is a myth that Sky are the only team to train scientifically. Most teams have doctors and scientists working with them and almost every rider in the Tour uses a power meter.

It is a myth Sky are happy to perpetuate. Why I don't know.

Any old fool can collect data. Knowing what to do with it is the difficult part.

Richmond Racer

BigFatBloke wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Pross wrote:

TheHound wrote:

My take, far from definitive.

Sky have plowed money into training and marginal gains. Every other team were throwing money into doping.

Since the LA shiz kicked off everyone has realised it's far too risky to dope and are now riding without. Hence Contador dropping off and people like A.Schleck.

Sky/Froome basically have a head start over everyone else by doing things right from the start.

I was absolutely staggered to realise that other than the pre-season get together (which is really just a PR event) most teams rarely train together for the whole season. I mean getting a team coach and having riders who will ride together train as a team is hardly rocket science and yet teams are still not doing it and then when such a basic and obvious thing is done well people start looking for other reasons for he success. Also not many teams seem to have a sports scientist on the squad, coaching seems to be based on what's always been done or old wives tales!

I keep hearing this. Have you any actual evidence to support the fact that the other teams don't train together? For example, I know from following many of their riders on Twitter that FDJ certainly do. I'm not saying you are wrong and it may well be a cast iron fact. It's just I like to see sweeping generalisations such as these backed up with some evidence.

It is a myth that Sky are the only team to train scientifically. Most teams have doctors and scientists working with them and almost every rider in the Tour uses a power meter.

It is a myth Sky are happy to perpetuate. Why I don't know.

To to cite just one example: Movistar. Didnt use sports scientists until they decided they wanted to try to copy what Sky were doing, and so started using sports scientists for the first time this season (source of info: countless Alex Dowsett interviews). Doing quite well this season, arent they?

And how about Bert's musings during T-A that maybe he'd better start using a power meter in training?

epc06

iainf72 wrote:

Thanks to the 90's and 00's nobody has a bloody clue what "clean" cycling looks like.

True but we know what a doped cyclist looks like. A climber who can TT like Indurain...questions are bound to be asked.

Richmond Racer

EPC06 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Thanks to the 90's and 00's nobody has a bloody clue what "clean" cycling looks like.

True but we know what a doped cyclist looks like. A climber who can TT like Indurain...questions are bound to be asked.

An all-rounder who is around 17kgs lighter than Indurain, you mean?

above_the_cows

RichN95 wrote:

When will people realise that comparing climb times and estimated watts are of little value when applied to an individual. And then some very sensible stuff.

I don't think they want to realise. There is no reasoning with some of these people. They have convinced themselves of Sky's nefariousness, be it in doping, boring racing, having too much money, being associated with the Murdochs, that no amount of logical argument is going to convince them otherwise. People all over the world believe a whole host of nonsense with no basis in reality to back it up, this is no different.

RichN95.

EPC06 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Thanks to the 90's and 00's nobody has a bloody clue what "clean" cycling looks like.

True but we know what a doped cyclist looks like. A climber who can TT like Indurain...questions are bound to be asked.

A doped cyclist looks exactly the same as a clean cyclist - just a little bit faster.

frenchfighter

Runtothehills

I'm finding it curious that the British track cycling team, despite having the same guy in charge as Sky, has attracted far fewer accusations of doping. Last olympics they got accused of having special wheels and cheating with their equipment (which was available for the other teams to buy but no one did) but not doping despite a performance for the last 2 olympics has been more dominant than anything Sky have managed. Is this due to people being overly suspicious of road racing due to it's murky past or not suspicious enough of track cycling?

Back on topic I personally think that talking about the times up Ax 3 Domaines is pointless as it's a non-historic climb the time will depend upon the race situation, if someone is attacking, trying to gain time or the main contenders are saving energy for the next day. Comparing the first mountain day where Froome is trying to win yellow to a day later on in the tour where Armstrong isn't is tough and it's not climbed often enough to get a good comparison.

On the other hand the Alpe-d'Huez is a historic climb: therefore it will be far more competative every year due to the prestige that goes with winning there. It is also included more often so there's more data to go on.

If Froome goes up the Alpe (or the like) in a similar time to Armstrong I'll get suspicious and wonder what's going on, but up Ax 3? Nope, doesn't bother me in the slightest.

above_the_cows

This year's Alpe times will not be comparable to past ones because they're doing it twice, so race conditions are not comparable. You just can't use climb times, there are too many variables to make it a solid indicator of anything.

God I can feel all my quantitative methods training - that I haven't ever used - coming back and I thought I didn't really pay attention during those lectures.

Pross

FJS wrote:

I'm not really into these kind of threads, but two points:

1. Why all this now? It's not as if Froome hasn't been dominant all season until now.

2. Considering the set up and management of Sky I'd be extremely surprised if in the case that Froome were to be doping Wiggins last year would not also have been doping, or the British Olympic team for that matter. It doesn't strike me as a laissez-faire kind of team. Saying Froome is doping because you don't like him, but Wiggins is clean because you do like him is bobbins

I think the people implying Froome is doping are exactly the same people who implied the same about Wiggins last year. It's the whole tie up between Sky and BC that is one of the big factors in me assuming they aren't doping (along with a complete absence of evidence or even innuendo from those within the sport and there are plenty of people with reason to speak out if they had suspicion). If a rider at Sky is doping it is most likely it is with team knowledge, this would suggest it would be organised and sanction by the team which in turn would suggest the British Cycling team is also infested in which case all those gold medals would be dubious and it could be one of the biggest sporting frauds in history. Even if Sky or their top riders were doping and it didn't go any further it would taint too much of the reputation of BC and the individuals who created their success. Too many people with too much to lose and winning the Tour a couple of times just wouldn't be sufficient reward for the risk.

Richmond Racer

Its been said on BR before, and its also behind one of the things in Pross's post above, but under Brailsford both BC and Team Sky have let a heck of a lot of people go over the years.

That's riders who havent cut it, havent made the numbers, on the track - and lost their lottery funding along with it.

That's coaches, soigneurs, mechanics, all sorts of back-room staff who havent been up to scratch.

That's riders from Sky who've not had their contracts renewed.

That adds up to a hell of a lot of people who might not be well-disposed towards Brailsford and team, and might want to take out a little revenge, if there was something to spill the beans about.

Does anyone really think that in today's ultra-heightened, ultra-sensitive days of scrutiny, at a time when everything that either BC or Team Sky do, is big news....that if there was anything going on, that it wouldnt come out?

Kimmage is desperate for something that will keep him in the papers - you think if anyone so much as came forward with something that was credible, he wouldnt be on it like a flash?? Its also common knowledge that Walsh has been embedded with Sky. He stated at the Q&A evening i went to 3 weeks ago, that not one person has come forward to him 'with a scintilla of evidence', not one. Nothing, nada.

Desperately disappointing though that is for some.

Tom Dean

agree with the above, except to point out (without wanting to question his integrity) that Walsh is a Murdoch employee.

Richmond Racer

Tom Dean wrote:

agree with the above, except to point out (without wanting to question his integrity) that Walsh is a Murdoch employee.

Do you think that if Walsh got so much as a whiff that something was going on, that he wouldnt expose it? My god, on top of the Lance business, he'd be made for life!!

Sod writing for the Sunday Times, he'd resign if he felt he had to, and go ballastic. The huge expose, the book deal, he'd never have to work again.

The Murdoch thing is an utter red herring.

Richmond Racer

DPost

slim_boy_fat

Richmond Racer wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

agree with the above, except to point out (without wanting to question his integrity) that Walsh is a Murdoch employee.

Do you think that if Walsh got so much as a whiff that something was going on, that he wouldnt expose it? My god, on top of the Lance business, he'd be made for life!!

Sod writing for the Sunday Times, he'd resign if he felt he had to, and go ballastic. The huge expose, the book deal, he'd never have to work again.

The Murdoch thing is an utter red herring.

Agreed, its the story of a lifetime. I can't see any journalist keeping that under his hat.

BigFatBloke

Richmond Racer wrote:

Its been said on BR before, and its also behind one of the things in Pross's post above, but under Brailsford both BC and Team Sky have let a heck of a lot of people go over the years.

That's riders who havent cut it, havent made the numbers, on the track - and lost their lottery funding along with it.

That's coaches, soigneurs, mechanics, all sorts of back-room staff who havent been up to scratch.

That's riders from Sky who've not had their contracts renewed.

That adds up to a hell of a lot of people who might not be well-disposed towards Brailsford and team, and might want to take out a little revenge, if there was something to spill the beans about.

Does anyone really think that in today's ultra-heightened, ultra-sensitive days of scrutiny, at a time when everything that either BC or Team Sky do, is big news....that if there was anything going on, that it wouldnt come out?

Kimmage is desperate for something that will keep him in the papers - you think if anyone so much as came forward with something that was credible, he wouldnt be on it like a flash?? Its also common knowledge that Walsh has been embedded with Sky. He stated at the Q&A evening i went to 3 weeks ago, that not one person has come forward to him 'with a scintilla of evidence', not one. Nothing, nada.

Desperately disappointing though that is for some.

This is a very good argument.

But something has already come out, the secret employment of Leinders.

But that aside I agree with you nothing has come out but in the UK the libel laws are stacked against anyone saying anything even if what they are saying is true, look how Armstrong gagged Walsh and many others. Sky is very big and very powerful, if anyone did speak out they would need considerable funds to lodge in the high court in advance of the proceedings and be able to pay their own legal fees even if they win because they may not get costs.

There may well be people out there who do not have the financial clout to risk speaking out.

ddraver

Oh my actual giddy god really?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKQz5CO-1sI

Turfle

BigFatBloke wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

Its been said on BR before, and its also behind one of the things in Pross's post above, but under Brailsford both BC and Team Sky have let a heck of a lot of people go over the years.

That's riders who havent cut it, havent made the numbers, on the track - and lost their lottery funding along with it.

That's coaches, soigneurs, mechanics, all sorts of back-room staff who havent been up to scratch.

That's riders from Sky who've not had their contracts renewed.

That adds up to a hell of a lot of people who might not be well-disposed towards Brailsford and team, and might want to take out a little revenge, if there was something to spill the beans about.

Does anyone really think that in today's ultra-heightened, ultra-sensitive days of scrutiny, at a time when everything that either BC or Team Sky do, is big news....that if there was anything going on, that it wouldnt come out?

Kimmage is desperate for something that will keep him in the papers - you think if anyone so much as came forward with something that was credible, he wouldnt be on it like a flash?? Its also common knowledge that Walsh has been embedded with Sky. He stated at the Q&A evening i went to 3 weeks ago, that not one person has come forward to him 'with a scintilla of evidence', not one. Nothing, nada.

Desperately disappointing though that is for some.

This is a very good argument.

But something has already come out, the secret employment of Leinders.

But that aside I agree with you nothing has come out but in the UK the libel laws are stacked against anyone saying anything even if what they are saying is true, look how Armstrong gagged Walsh and many others. Sky is very big and very powerful, if anyone did speak out they would need considerable funds to lodge in the high court in advance of the proceedings and be able to pay their own legal fees even if they win because they may not get costs.

There may well be people out there who do not have the financial clout to risk speaking out.

Leinders was listed on their website, and was listed on race reports as doctor.

It was an awful, awful hiring, but it wasn't secret. That's giving it levels of conspiracy that it doesn't deserve.

r0bh

BigFatBloke wrote:

But something has already come out, the secret employment of Leinders.

An employment so secret that it was on Team Sky's website for over a year before any of the crack investigative anti-doping journalists noticed...