Inside Team Sky - David Walsh *Spoilers*
Comments
-
RichN95 wrote:
Because that would be comparing peak performances, which is more relevant to the peak standard. Rather than comparing a peak performance with an average one just because they happened at the same venue.whiteboytrash wrote:
Have no idea why you would compare Lance on Hatucam to Froome on Ventoux.
Huh?
No idea what that means.
English, please.0 -
OK dimwit. Listen andlearn I'll spell it out for you. I will illustrate using 100m in athletics the different approaches. Who is the best out of Bolt, Powell, Gay and Blake?whiteboytrash wrote:
Huh?
No idea what that means.
English, please.
If I compare peak perfomances (their personal bests) I get this comparison:
9.58 Bolt (and the 2nd & 3rd best times)
9.69 Blake
9.69 Gay
9.72 Powell
By my method of comparing peak performances this makes Bolt the best
However, if I pick a venue where Bolt has never done a great performance (but others ran their best) - say the Golden League meeting at Lausanne - we get:
9.69 Blake
9.72 Powell
9.79 Gay
9.82 Bolt
By your method of comparing performances at a single venue Bolt is in fact the worst.
Which gives us the most believable comparison?Twitter: @RichN950 -
whiteboytrash wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:Sod it, tonight's date cancelled.
Nothing to do....hmmm.....I know, I'll watch some old races and re-read Walsh's book. Great read. Bears a second go-through.
No one wonder she cancelled.
Another big assumption made there with a 50 - 50 chance of being correct and guess what? You went for the wrong option again
0 -
No, I'm not at all fanatical when it comes to Sky.whiteboytrash wrote:
You are fanatical are you not?
I've never said it's proof of doping.
Just suspicion. Just questions.
The reason I take it from 7.1km out as that's where Froome attacked Contador.
And the last 2km were a headwind.
Projecting biased sums as evidence to distort an argument does tend to make me counter, however.
Although, with your reason, I see you have conceded this point. Thanks.whiteboytrash wrote:
I assume you ride a bike, yes? Ever ridden 232km? Think a tailwind all the way to Ventoux when riding 50km p/he will make you less tired or more tired?
Cadel and other said they were shot at the base.
Not Froome. He hasn't even begun his adventure.
You've got me there. I think I can safely say that I'm not the best bike rider in my family. 8)
This highlights my point about Quintana.
Team on the front all day, begun his solo adventure over 12 kms out and that's OK because he is a natural talent.
Froome, on the other hand, has no talent.
Why is this fact? because with it is assumed to be so, by sceptics."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Pross wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:Sod it, tonight's date cancelled.
Nothing to do....hmmm.....I know, I'll watch some old races and re-read Walsh's book. Great read. Bears a second go-through.
No one wonder she cancelled.
Another big assumption made there with a 50 - 50 chance of being correct and guess what? You went for the wrong option again
One should always have a back up plan. Marginal gains.0 -
Now now Blazing, you shouldn't be so modest about your riding abilities - its all so relative...0
-
whiteboytrash wrote:
Counsel you are referred to the term "unfairly". Along with the proposition that Leinders was not running a doping program.
Read. Just read instead of jumping to incorrect and fanatical conclusions.
I think what I find most amusing about this whole thread is your utter conviction not only that you're right and everyone else is wrong, but that everyone else is entirely incapable of reading actual posts wot you hav ritten and understanding what you wrote. I can't even begin to describe the yawning chasm between your image of yourself as debater and your actual ability.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
The Oxford Union are on the phone - they've have had a last minute cancellation and want to know if you're free on Friday, WBT?0
-
No tA Doctor wrote:rayjay wrote:But IMO doping/PED's have always played a massive part in cycling and when I see performances like Froome's or
Horner's it's hard to believe that they are clean.
That's fair enough.
I think what gets on people's tits is the in-your-face cynicism that tends to go along with this. The "yeah right, he did that clean " thing.
That and the relentless twisting and spinning of the Sky-are-dopers narrative, which needs a really good shave with Occam's razor.
Not having a go at you, btw.
PS - I also have trouble believing Horner's performance was clean. But as I've got nothing other than gut feeling about it I tend not to mention it.
I reckon if we started a thread about the kind of shoes the podium girls wear, I bet within a page or so someone will accuse Froome of doping . Most likely me cheers. 0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:The Oxford Union are on the phone - they've have had a last minute cancellation and want to know if you're free on Friday, WBT?
They need someone to hang the coats up in the cloakroom do they?0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:
Counsel you are referred to the term "unfairly". Along with the proposition that Leinders was not running a doping program.
Read. Just read instead of jumping to incorrect and fanatical conclusions.
I think what I find most amusing about this whole thread is your utter conviction not only that you're right and everyone else is wrong, but that everyone else is entirely incapable of reading actual posts wot you hav ritten and understanding what you wrote. I can't even begin to describe the yawning chasm between your image of yourself as debater and your actual ability.
No, he really is a master debater.0 -
Some weak chat going on here.
Whiteboytrash. I genuinely think you'd feel more at home at the clinic on cyclingnews.
Unless you like arguing for the sake of it.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:
Counsel you are referred to the term "unfairly". Along with the proposition that Leinders was not running a doping program.
Read. Just read instead of jumping to incorrect and fanatical conclusions.
I think what I find most amusing about this whole thread is your utter conviction not only that you're right and everyone else is wrong, but that everyone else is entirely incapable of reading actual posts wot you hav ritten and understanding what you wrote. I can't even begin to describe the yawning chasm between your image of yourself as debater and your actual ability.
But that's not the case. I've often said I may not be right or others may disagree.
It is many here who have continually tried to pigeon hole me as some form of Sky hater.
Not at all.
What is odd is I've been called a troll. A bellend, a hater and a clinic dweller and I still haven't heard a compelling reason from anyone why is Sky so strong.
Not from Walsh or anyone. The question is avoided.
I've put up my arguments with links and supporting evidence. I hear nothing back.
I find that telling.
My feeling is less abuse. It's not my fault Sky are probably doping and feeding us very little information.
Why strike out at me? What's there to hide?
But I'd still like to hear from anyone with an explanation beyond "it was a tailwind" to why Sky is so strong at GTs and 1 week stage races.
I won't hold my breath.0 -
They are one of the wealthiest pro cycling teams... That must count for something.0
-
whiteboytrash wrote:andytee87 wrote:
Look, I'm just going to chime in on this use of climbing times as evidence- its been annoying me all the way through this thread and I have stopped myself from posting on a number of occasions.
Climbing times are a guide and nothing more than anectodal evidence due to the number of variables associated with them. Some have already been mentioned, like in a TT, mid stage, mtf, week long vs 3 week stage race. There is also the matter of equipment improvements, increased use of power meters for measured efforts, weather conditions, and you can't forget motivation.
Unfortunately the only reliable way of comparing two efforts is for them to be completely lab controlled. Take a two riders out of competition for a year, give them the same training programme (which can be guaranteed to have been followed accurately), the same motivation or reward- i.e a cash prize, and same recovery period after the event to ensure they do not need to make the same effort again, allowing them to know they can go to the same depth of effort with no consequences.
You cannot compare two times from different days, using different equipment, in different races, with different circumstances surrounding the effort, and with a performance having different meaning in terms of race/career/profile.
Riders have different attitudes towards a performance, and whilst one may want to win a stage, one may be looking to regain a lot of time back, do enough to maintain a lead, extend the lead by a small margin. There is also the fact that take a TT stage in a 1 week stage race as has been stated, vs a stage in the TdF. One could be raced knowing that a win by 'X' seconds is enough to take the overall so why do more, or there is the chance of putting in a big performance that will potentially deter rivals from attacking you, and instead concentrate on not losing time to their closer rivals by ultimately unsuccessful attacks.
Right, that's my opinion, obviously people will have their own and I'm glad, the world would be boring otherwise. I'm going back to writing my report testing potential structural controls on a gold deposit- which has taken me 4 days of processing a 14,000+ point data set plus the 3 weeks of training I did back in March to ensure I could trust the data taken. I wish I could just get information from unverified sources on the internet and use them as fact, my life would be a lot easier
All good points but it’s still evidence.
If this were court proceedings (which it’s not) then it would be for the defendant to apply arguments to dismiss portions or aspects of the evidence. You can’t ignore the data because there are “variables”. That’s true of anything. There are generally always variables in real life situations.. It’s just a matter of understanding whether the variables had a significant impact upon the outcome.
The fact that Froome, from the point of his attack on Contador at 7.1km to the summit of Ventoux, was faster than multiple Armstrong times and close to Pantani demonstrates that maybe the variables in this instance weren’t a major factor in showing that he went very quickly.
As quick as known dopers.
True, but neither can you ignore the variables to get to the data.
I'm not claiming that it wasn't an exceptional performance from Froome. As most things with cycling, I have a healthy skepticism of anything record setting. Unfortunately, the times are presented in a way that we see top results among known dopers, missing the percentage time difference between Froome and Mayo, compared to Froome and the person in 50th place. I think this is partly what Rich was referring to about peak versus standard, vs peak versus average. Take a group of sprint athletes, most can run sub 12 seconds for 100m, as you decrease the time, less can do it. Until you get to a point where 10ths of a second are winning margins. Mayo beat Froomes time by a massive margin, at a time of year when at that period people argued against consistent year round performances in favour of targeted peaks (arguably to reduce risk of glow).
Don't forget that when the average is ridiculous, the incredible is insane- hence Froome being surrounded on the time list by so many from the doping era0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:
But I'd still like to hear from anyone with an explanation beyond "it was a tailwind" to why Sky is so strong at GTs and 1 week stage races.
Simple. Because that's their key (only?) aim. They have ploughed all their considerable resources into winning the Tour. The week long stage races are a byproduct of that preparation. They have signed riders who are potential top 10 riders but given them the role of riding for the team leader. Again, in shorter races this gives the byproduct of often getting other riders placing well. It is a sensible strategy for a team that uses Sky's 'by the numbers' approach as stage racing is relatively controllable. They have little interest in one dayers and their Classics squad is mainly their domestiques for flat / rolling stages at the Tour.0 -
Pross wrote:They have little interest in one dayers and their Classics squad is mainly their domestiques for flat / rolling stages at the Tour.
That's not quite true. That have a massive interest in the classics, and we gutted at how the spring campaign worked out.
But where you are right is they just don't have the right riders for them, rather than any other mystery.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
I'm impressed by the way we're now supposed to show the absence of doping by explaining how they manage without. Proving a negative is never easy, is it? And all from the perspective that Sky haven't said anything to support the contention that they're riding clean. like they haven't spoken about ditching a lot of traditional cycling attitudes to training, for instance. It's merely an invitation for us to set up points that whiteboytrash can spend an unproductive couple of days trying to knock down. We've been through this a million times already, clearly whiteboytrash isn't convinced by any of it and knows it. Why bother rehashing such tired arguments again and again. We'll only get cut n paste from the asylum in return.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
-
When we talk about talent I sometimes think we base that on style and flair.
Pantani for instance, famous for his climbing. Armstrong kicked his arse day and night yet not many would call Armstrong a climber in the same affectionate way people think of Pantani.
When I watch Froome ride he is not that exciting to watch IMO compared to Quintana or Contador.
What we don't know is when riders are taking PED's what effects they have. Some riders no doubt gain more than others. But obviously to win a tour other factors come into play and some luck is needed at times.
Looking at Froome and I think more notably the year Wiggins won the tour just how many riders Sky had towards the end of mountain stages. I have never seen so many riders from one team stay together for that long in a mountain top finish. It was usually one or maybe 2 at the most from another team hanging on while Sky piled up the mountains from the front dropping everyone even some notable climbers with 4 riders at the front end. This happened in other races as well not just the tour. Sky were relentless.
It was an incredible performance but IMO sets off alarm bells. Not even postal could manage to be so dominate.
We never saw so much of that with Froomes victory but their were hints, some of RPs performances IMO. But I think unlike Wiggo, Froome could take care of himself and Sky did not need to be so dominate and it does look less suspicious if you think there was a reason not to be so dominate.
just a thought.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:...arguments again and again. We'll only get cut n paste from the asylum in return.
Searched the Oxford English Dictionary and found this:Dickpocket
Pronunciation: [ˈdɪkpɒkɪt’]
n. [person] (1). A Clinic dweller who deftly pinches content from therein to use on Bikeradar, mistakenly convinced that it displays some conclusive, intelligent value.
Everybody had a sinking feeling that a dickpocket was in their midst
(as noun dickpocketing)
Dickpocketing is going on a lot in this thread
v. (Dickpocket, Dickpocket-ed, Dickpocket-ing)
(1). To dickpocket
The act of cutting content from the Clinic and then pasting it onto Bikeradar to perpetuate an argument
It’s obvious he’s dickpocketed a load of this (the dickpocket).0 -
Well I've finally go to the end of this, and WBT has offered nothing other than snide insinuations about Sky. He hasn't offered a single piece of information to back up his claims, and I find it poor that in one breath he claims he isn't saying Sky are doping, that he's just asking questions, but then posts a load of stuff that basically says they must be doping. His 'facts' are so far from that it beggars belief! It's tedious.
Sky made a big mistake bringing in Leinders, but didn't they do so in a bit of a rush when the guy died during the Vuelta? They also seemed to correct their mistake pretty quickly. Beyond that, there seems to be nothing, other than they are very dominant in the stage races they target, but even fail in that regard at times.
As said in a post above, Sky's training methods are light years away from the traditional cycling approach, and they monitor their riders in great detail. It's a bit like the contrast between rugby in the amateur era and pro rugby today.0 -
rayjay wrote:When we talk about talent I sometimes think we base that on style and flair.
Pantani for instance, famous for his climbing. Armstrong kicked his ars* day and night yet not many would call Armstrong a climber in the same affectionate way people think of Pantani.
When I watch Froome ride he is not that exciting to watch IMO compared to Quintana or Contador.
What we don't know is when riders are taking PED's what effects they have. Some riders no doubt gain more than others. But obviously to win a tour other factors come into play and some luck is needed at times.
Looking at Froome and I think more notably the year Wiggins won the tour just how many riders Sky had towards the end of mountain stages. I have never seen so many riders from one team stay together for that long in a mountain top finish. It was usually one or maybe 2 at the most from another team hanging on while Sky piled up the mountains from the front dropping everyone even some notable climbers with 4 riders at the front end. This happened in other races as well not just the tour. Sky were relentless.
It was an incredible performance but IMO sets off alarm bells. Not even postal could manage to be so dominate.
We never saw so much of that with Froomes victory but their were hints, some of RPs performances IMO. But I think unlike Wiggo, Froome could take care of himself and Sky did not need to be so dominate and it does look less suspicious if you think there was a reason not to be so dominate.
just a thought.
This is part of the problem with 'evidence' being reposted and retweeted.
On one hand Sky are doping because the dominate the season from start to finish, alternatively they are doping because they were so good up to July but were rubbish thereafter.
Clearly Sky are doping because their whole team is dominating races and climbs, yet it's proof that Sky's talk of dedicated training and marginal gains are a smoke screen for a doping programme, because 6 of 9 riders were for nothing in the Tour.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I would say it was not quite as remarkable as you might think.rayjay wrote:
Looking at Froome and I think more notably the year Wiggins won the tour just how many riders Sky had towards the end of mountain stages. I have never seen so many riders from one team stay together for that long in a mountain top finish. It was usually one or maybe 2 at the most from another team hanging on while Sky piled up the mountains from the front dropping everyone even some notable climbers with 4 riders at the front end. This happened in other races as well not just the tour. Sky were relentless.
It was an incredible performance but IMO sets off alarm bells. Not even postal could manage to be so dominate.
We never saw so much of that with Froomes victory but their were hints, some of RPs performances IMO. But I think unlike Wiggo, Froome could take care of himself and Sky did not need to be so dominate and it does look less suspicious if you think there was a reason not to be so dominate.
First of all, the four main riders were recruited and trained for that purpose. They had all been in the top 7 in a Grand Tour in the previous three years - three of them at different teams. And they were all strong time triallists - meaning they were adept at producing constant power for lengthy periods. They weren't doing anything that they hadn't done before.
Most of the more explosive attacking climbers were missing - Contador, Rodriguez, Schleck - which made it easier to control. Plus other big names were struggling - e.g. Valverde, Menchov. The eventual top ten is short on established star names - just Nibali and an under-form Evans.
And then there was the time-trailling. Over 100km of it. The most for about seven years. The other riders knew that they couldn't match Wiggins there - something confirmed as early as stage 9 - so were riding conservatively for a GC place not the win. They were happy to follow Sky and watch each other.Twitter: @RichN950 -
whiteboytrash wrote:You're right it wasn't exactly Armstrong.
It was faster from his attack 7.1km.
"2000 Armstrong 21'32
2002 Armstrong 20'22
2009 Contador 20'31
2013 Froome 20'04"
Visually it was absurd. There were many raised eyebrows.
Compared to Mayo's ITT Froome in the last 6km wasn't far off.
6.1km (remaining from 15.5km checkpoint)
Mayo: 55.51 - 39.04 = 16.47
Hamilton: 56.26 - 39.21 = 17.05
Armstrong: 57.09 - 40.02 = 17.07
Froome @ 2.50s per km = 17.20
...
That is enough to be asking questions, surely?
The most obvious question is what all the riders did immediately before the final 6k on which you make your comparison. A rider who'd gone balls out for the preceding 15k would not be expected to go as fast for the next 6k than if they'd ridden tempo. Cherry-picking segments of climbs is fraught with danger.
Athletics is a useful area to look at in this respect. The world record for the mile typically comes off a relatively even pace (56s per lap). To go that fast requires an optimum pacing strategy, which dictates roughly even pacing. So the final lap in the world record will be 55 seconds or so. This is 3 or 4 seconds slower than is often observed on the final lap of a slow, tactical mile race race.
FWIW, I am deeply suspicious of Froome, but all the same, one can't just ignore two thirds of the climb!0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:This highlights my point about Quintana.
Team on the front all day, begun his solo adventure over 12 kms out and that's OK because he is a natural talent.
Froome, on the other hand, has no talent.
Why is this fact? because with it is assumed to be so, by sceptics.
The key difference with Quintana is that he's still in his early 20s and has essentially always performed at this sort of level other than very early in his career.
Froome transformed from pack-fodder to GT contender literally overnight in his mid to late 20s, which is always a major "red flag".
From this one can make an argument that Quintana is more naturally talented than Froome, as otherwise Froome would have shown something hinting at GT-winning potential in his early years on the circuit.
Or alternatively, one can just conclude that Quintana started doping a lot earlier.
Or you can believe that Froome's unusual background and medical history explains his late development.0 -
Pross wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:
But I'd still like to hear from anyone with an explanation beyond "it was a tailwind" to why Sky is so strong at GTs and 1 week stage races.
Simple. Because that's their key (only?) aim. They have ploughed all their considerable resources into winning the Tour. The week long stage races are a byproduct of that preparation. They have signed riders who are potential top 10 riders but given them the role of riding for the team leader. Again, in shorter races this gives the byproduct of often getting other riders placing well. It is a sensible strategy for a team that uses Sky's 'by the numbers' approach as stage racing is relatively controllable. They have little interest in one dayers and their Classics squad is mainly their domestiques for flat / rolling stages at the Tour.
That, Unless Nibbles does the Giro, the likely No 1 favourite for the Giro 2014 was doing domestique work for Chris Froome. Wiggins won the tour with the 2013 TdF Champion, the 2013 Giro Runner up and the (again potential) 2014 Giro winner/runner up riding as domestiques for him
Meanwhile whilst Fabian Cancellara was waltzing around France for a week for a bit of Early Worlds Training, Iam Stannard was burying himslef in the valleys for Froome (?and Wiggins)
That's why they re so strong, becasue they have the skills to identify genuinely strong riders (a la HTC highroad) and then pay them enough to ride for other people. It's the first part that's tricky - witness how much BMC and Astana consistently fail at it...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
madasahattersley wrote:That's why I love the classics so much. I don't have anything against Sky, but I like that they can't, and never will be able to dominate the classics, and they'll remain exciting and unpredictable
Not sure that they could never dominate the classics if that was what they decided to put their resources towards. Although of course then they would be likened to Gewiss rather than US Postal...0 -
Or you could point out that Froome spent two years at University and Quintana didn'tWallace and Gromit wrote:
From this one can make an argument that Quintana is more naturally talented than Froome, as otherwise Froome would have shown something hinting at GT-winning potential in his early years on the circuit.
Or alternatively, one can just conclude that Quintana started doping a lot earlier.
Or you can believe that Froome's unusual background and medical history explains his late development.
Or that Quintana comes from a big cycling country and Froome doesn't
Or that Colombian cycling circuit favours climbers while the South African circuit doesn't.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Tailwind, I was only thinking back to that year and how powerful Sky were ,not just in the tour but Wiggo's other victories . Sky were mighty dominant. That sort of strength is what can raise alarm bells and did. IMO any team who performed as they did I think alarm bells would go off. Not just because it is Sky. Also when you consider the no results the previous years as well.
Good points being made about the weakness of tour contenders the year Wiggo won. I accept that. But he dominated that whole season not just the tour.
But thinking about Postal. Armstrong hired a lot of great climbers as well and they never finished with 4 riders near the top of a climb. Armstrong had some pretty high end team mates and we know they doped but they never looked as powerful as a team the way Sky have looked. I don't think I have ever seen such a dominate performance from a team in the tour.
I take on the other points being made , cheers0 -
rayjay wrote:Tailwind, I was only thinking back to that year and how powerful Sky were ,not just in the tour but Wiggo's other victories . Sky were mighty dominant. That sort of strength is what can raise alarm bells and did. IMO any team who performed as they did I think alarm bells would go off. Not just because it is Sky. Also when you consider the no results the previous years as well.
Was it surprising though? Jonathan Vaughters didn't think so, he tweeted: "not sure why ppl are surprised by sky:a few €800k guys pulling a €900k guy, who then pulls for a €1.3m guy,who helps a €2m guy"0
This discussion has been closed.
