Inside Team Sky - David Walsh *Spoilers*
Comments
-
madasahattersley wrote:I'm sorry, but suspicious about doping or not, Froome is as talented as they come, no less. Froomey smashes out 6.4w/kg, which at the moment is higher than everybody else. That's why he beats everyone else uphill. I know full time pros in the UK who can't do 5w/kg, and they are talented enough athletes to be getting paid.
Let's be honest here - the issue isn't Froome's talent as such. It's whether he's doping to enhance his talent or not. The fact he's won the Tour tells us that he's an extremely talented bike rider, if one measures talent by things such as winning and how fast you go.
When folk talk about a rider being talented, they appear to generally mean a rider who'd be prominent in the results when clean. A clean rider who can churn out 6.4 w/kg for 20/30 minutes in their late 20s will generally have shown the ability to churn out slightly lower w/kg for slightly shorter periods of time when in their early 20s. Froome was a pro for a few years prior to his breakthrough in 2011 and showed nothing like his current performance levels. Even for someone with his background, if his current performance levels are naturally achieved, then after a year on the circuit, racing and training with other pros, one would expect him to show something.
Pre EPO, all the dominant GT riders were on the podium in their early 20s. In the current era, if you accept that the talent pool is wider and conventional preparations more scientific and specific than in the old days, then hitting the podium as a 2nd year pro is unlikely, but even so, something better than Froome achieved isn't unrealistic.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:When folk talk about a rider being talented, they appear to generally mean a rider who'd be prominent in the results when clean. A clean rider who can churn out 6.4 w/kg for 20/30 minutes in their late 20s will generally have shown the ability to churn out slightly lower w/kg for slightly shorter periods of time when in their early 20s. Froome was a pro for a few years prior to his breakthrough in 2011 and showed nothing like his current performance levels. Even for someone with his background, if his current performance levels are naturally achieved, then after a year on the circuit, racing and training with other pros, one would expect him to show something.
And he did, RichN95 has documented some of Froome's displays of early potential further up this thread.0 -
r0bh wrote: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"
Ok. Let's look at this a moment. Sky launched in 2010, so had just 2 seasons under their belt by 2012. In 2011, they achieved 2nd and 3rd at a GT (Vuelta). They won the Dauphine with Wiggins, and 3rd at P-R with Wiggins - good results at both of those 2 latter races are seen as decent indicators for a good run at the Tour. Wiggins went into the Tour fancied for a podium spot by more than a few - until he crashed out with a broken collarbone at the end of wk 1. Sky had no back-up for GC in 2011, so they went for stage wins after Wiggins abandoned, and EBH won 2 stages.
In addition, they won a shoot load of other races, including other stage races such as Bayern-Rundfahrt, Eneco and Denmark.
Complete list of the team's victories in 2011
http://www.procyclingstats.com/team/Sky_Procycling_2011
If your criteria for 'no results in the previous years' equates to 'they didnt win the Tour in either of the previous 2 years of their existence...there's no real response to that.0 -
That's because the two teams were employing different strategies with different aims.rayjay wrote:
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.
US Postal's strategy was to put the other riders on the limit so they were dropped leaving Armstrong alone (or with maybe one other) so that he could take large chunks of time out of everyone.
Sky's strategy with Wiggins was to prevent attacks. They weren't really bothered with dropping anyone. The damage would be done in the TTs. Wiggins only gained a handful of seconds on Nibali the mountains.
If Armstrong finished a MTF in a front group of a dozen riders it would have been a failure. The same for Wiggins would be a success.
Sky's strategy with Froome is more similar to US Postal's approach and he is usually left with just Porte halfway up a climb.Twitter: @RichN950 -
madasahattersley wrote:With his first pro team at age 22 he was never going to prosper. The wibblesnaith wheelers probably had a bigger budget than his team, and I'm sure his training advice and performance management consisted of 'go ride, meet us at the races and try to be as good as you can.'
Then off the back of that he was 11th best young rider at the Tour in 2008, as a completely unexploited talent. That is where Ellingworth saw potential so (presumably after many in detail power tests) took him on board.
Two points here:
11th in the Young Riders ranking corresponds to 83rd overall, 2 hours 22 minutes down overall. Fair play to Ellingworth if he spotted a major talent from that!
Barloworld might have been a cr*p team, but that year, their leading Young Rider was Jon-Lee Augustyn, also South African, age 21, 35 places and 45 minutes higher overall than the Froomdog.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
That's because the two teams were employing different strategies with different aims.rayjay wrote:
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.
US Postal's strategy was to put the other riders on the limit so they were dropped leaving Armstrong alone (or with maybe one other) so that he could take large chunks of time out of everyone.
Sky's strategy with Wiggins was to prevent attacks. They weren't really bothered with dropping anyone. The damage would be done in the TTs. Wiggins only gained a handful of seconds on Nibali the mountains.
If Armstrong finished a MTF in a front group of a dozen riders it would have been a failure. The same for Wiggins would be a success.
Sky's strategy with Froome is more similar to US Postal's approach and he is usually left with just Porte halfway up a climb.
Indeed. Nibali's final deficit to Wiggins was 6:19 - 5:45 of that was thanks to the 2 x TTs.0 -
To be honest, i found the book a bit dull. About a third of the way in (about page 90) my attention started waning and i found myself skipping paragraphs waiting to get to what i thought the book was about, which was 'Inside Team Sky'.
Unfortunately, the book should really be called "Inside Team Skys Doping Policies". I didn't buy this book wanting to read yet more 'doping' articles when i've had a belly-full of it all year. I bought it wanting to know how the team clicks, why they choose the equipment they do, the day-to-day coming and goings through grand tours, the staff making it tick.
What i didn't want was another book on doping and how it affected Team Sky. By all means cover it, but don't cover it from front cover to back cover. If i wanted the definitive book on how the whole doping era worked i would read The Secret Race (which kept me hooked), but i fear that David Walsh is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, he's spent most of his adult life being towed around by Lance Armstrong that he's virtually forgotten how to write anything other than drugs used in cycling.
It's not a bad book, it's just a bit misleading. I chose a page at random that i hadn't reached, opened it up and low and behold the word 'doping' was everywhere. My heart sank. I finished it, but it felt like a Bushtucker Trial rather than a treat to myself.
Five out of Ten from me. Worth reading but don't expect to find out anything you haven't read before from this author.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
Sky's strategy with Wiggins was to prevent attacks. They weren't really bothered with dropping anyone. The damage would be done in the TTs. Wiggins only gained a handful of seconds on Nibali the mountains.
Yep, and that's what Basso said they were doing very well. Riding at a pace that someone could attack in theory, but they wouldn't be able to sustain it.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
But...Wallace and Gromit wrote:Barloworld might have been a cr*p team, but that year, their leading Young Rider was Jon-Lee Augustyn, also South African, age 21, 35 places and 45 minutes higher overall than the Froomdog.
1. Augustyn was in his second year at Barloworld and had done two years at Konica Minolta before that. He was a lot more experienced. (And who knows how good he may have become)
2. Prior to that Tour, the biggest stage race Froome had done was the Tour of Britain
2. Froome was a late call up. He was only told he was in the team ten days before the start.
4. He hadn't done much training as his mother had died.
5. Outside the top 20 on GC a rider's position on GC is more a reflection of their role within a team rather than their own abilities. Neither was a protected rider.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:madasahattersley wrote:With his first pro team at age 22 he was never going to prosper. The wibblesnaith wheelers probably had a bigger budget than his team, and I'm sure his training advice and performance management consisted of 'go ride, meet us at the races and try to be as good as you can.'
Then off the back of that he was 11th best young rider at the Tour in 2008, as a completely unexploited talent. That is where Ellingworth saw potential so (presumably after many in detail power tests) took him on board.
Two points here:
11th in the Young Riders ranking corresponds to 83rd overall, 2 hours 22 minutes down overall. Fair play to Ellingworth if he spotted a major talent from that!
Barloworld might have been a cr*p team, but that year, their leading Young Rider was Jon-Lee Augustyn, also South African, age 21, 35 places and 45 minutes higher overall than the Froomdog.
As I said earlier, this has already been covered - here: http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12949734&p=18635841#p186358410 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:madasahattersley wrote:With his first pro team at age 22 he was never going to prosper. The wibblesnaith wheelers probably had a bigger budget than his team, and I'm sure his training advice and performance management consisted of 'go ride, meet us at the races and try to be as good as you can.'
Then off the back of that he was 11th best young rider at the Tour in 2008, as a completely unexploited talent. That is where Ellingworth saw potential so (presumably after many in detail power tests) took him on board.
Two points here:
11th in the Young Riders ranking corresponds to 83rd overall, 2 hours 22 minutes down overall. Fair play to Ellingworth if he spotted a major talent from that!
Barloworld might have been a cr*p team, but that year, their leading Young Rider was Jon-Lee Augustyn, also South African, age 21, 35 places and 45 minutes higher overall than the Froomdog.
The point is that Ellingworth, Brailsford and GB had been keeping an eye on him since the 06 Commonwealth Games, when Doug Dewey established Froome had a British passport. He was riding for GB from latter part of 08 onwards. They were keen to have him in the selection pool for Beijing, I think, but Kenya dicked around with returning his passport after he switched his racing licence from Kenyan, and his passport wasnt returned in time.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:They were keen to have him in the selection pool for Beijing.
I don't doubt that, but there's a hell of a difference between being good enough to be in the selection pool for the GB road squad in 2008 and being good enough to challenge for a GT (albeit one with a weak field) 3 years later.
There's also the fact that Froome was out of contract at Sky at the end of 2011. Some say he was holding out for a big contract knowing how good he really was, whereas others say Sky weren't interested in renewing because they weren't very impressed. The stories about testing results and Bilharzia only emerged post Vuelta. Certainly when Sky was formed and Sir Dave touted his "we've got an academy guy with Tour winning potential" line, the name Kennaugh often cropped up, but I don't recall anyone mentioning Froome. The lack of Froome talk prior to his breakthrough may just be because he wasn't on anyone's radar for external discussion, though.
Can't say I'm particularly bothered either way, tbh. I'm a tolerant person at heart and pro sport is a rather silly concept anyway, so it matters not who wins or how, so long as no animals or children get hurt.0 -
If they weren't impressed it was strange that they used him in that Vuelta as the key 'last man' role in support of Wiggins, setting the pace on the final mountain, rather than as bottle carrier.Wallace and Gromit wrote:
There's also the fact that Froome was out of contract at Sky at the end of 2011. Some say he was holding out for a big contract knowing how good he really was, whereas others say Sky weren't interested in renewing because they weren't very impressed.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:They were keen to have him in the selection pool for Beijing.
I don't doubt that, but there's a hell of a difference between being good enough to be in the selection pool for the GB road squad in 2008 and being good enough to challenge for a GT (albeit one with a weak field) 3 years later.
There's also the fact that Froome was out of contract at Sky at the end of 2011. Some say he was holding out for a big contract knowing how good he really was, whereas others say Sky weren't interested in renewing because they weren't very impressed. The stories about testing results and Bilharzia only emerged post Vuelta. Certainly when Sky was formed and Sir Dave touted his "we've got an academy guy with Tour winning potential" line, the name Kennaugh often cropped up, but I don't recall anyone mentioning Froome. The lack of Froome talk prior to his breakthrough may just be because he wasn't on anyone's radar for external discussion, though.
Can't say I'm particularly bothered either way, tbh. I'm a tolerant person at heart and pro sport is a rather silly concept anyway, so it matters not who wins or how, so long as no animals or children get hurt.
The point I was making was that it wasnt the 2008 Tour with Barloworld that made Ellingworth and the others start paying attention to him - that started long before and was reinforced as Froome beat the Academy lads (as well as Mollema, Costa and others) on summit finishes at the '07 Giro della Regioni.
But anyway, if you're not bothered either way....its a bit academic, I suppose0 -
RichN95 wrote:If they weren't impressed it was strange that they used him in that Vuelta as the key 'last man' role in support of Wiggins, setting the pace on the final mountain, rather than as bottle carrier.
Strange indeed. But no stranger than a lot of things that Froome has done.0 -
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.
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 , cheers
This I agree with.
He was far too defensive in attempting to justify the performances.
I like you would have preferred if he concentrated on what separates Sky from the other teams in terms of technology and training.
Maybe Walsh had a gag order on him from Sky and Murdoch? I don't know. Because his book goes into nothing on the training programs, the diets, the camps etc.
He just repeats how far they are ahead of the other teams.
If Walsh is upset by the constant doping accusations then he only has himself to blame. He spent 300 pages trying telling us they are all clean because they have "attention to detail".
He could have done a lot better.
Not sure I'd skip a date to read this book a second time.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:The point I was making was that it wasnt the 2008 Tour with Barloworld that made Ellingworth and the others start paying attention to him - that started long before and was reinforced as Froome beat the Academy lads (as well as Mollema, Costa and others) on summit finishes at the '07 Giro della Regioni.
But anyway, if you're not bothered either way....its a bit academic, I suppose
Surely you can't expect people to consider facts that don't fit in with their own narrative? :roll:0 -
Perhaps Sky and particularly Kerrison want to give their hard accumulated knowledge away for free. You don't see the Dallas Cowboys putting their playbook on the internet, do you?whiteboytrash wrote:I like you would have preferred if he concentrated on what separates Sky from the other teams in terms of technology and training.
Maybe Walsh had a gag order on him from Sky and Murdoch? I don't know. Because his book goes into nothing on the training programs, the diets, the camps etc.
But, of course, that's the blindingly obvious explanation. So it can't be that. It must be some sort of conspiracy instead.Twitter: @RichN950 -
But isnt that the issue here: for both sides the argument is about narrative. It is possible to tell a story that explains why Froome's full potential is only being realised now (or since 2011) which doesnt involve doping but it remains that, a story, which you may or may not accept/believe.0
-
whiteboytrash wrote:Not sure I'd skip a date to read this book a second time.
Could you list the books you would skip a date for?!0 -
An interview with Walsh about the book: http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/int ... e-team-skyTwitter: @RichN950
-
r0bh wrote:Surely you can't expect people to consider facts that don't fit in with their own narrative? :roll:
I think you have this back to front...
I considered the facts and came to the conclusion that on balance, Froome is more likely doping than not. I can see the other side of the argument, but as Father In Law says about investments, if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is.
To me, Froome's progression, even allowing for his unusual background and illness, is just too good to be true. The performance jump in his mid 20s is just too large to swallow without giving me indigestion.
I could be wrong. Only Froome and his nearest and dearest know for sure.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:r0bh wrote:Surely you can't expect people to consider facts that don't fit in with their own narrative? :roll:
I think you have this back to front...
I considered the facts and came to the conclusion that on balance, Froome is more likely doping than not. I can see the other side of the argument, but as Father In Law says about investments, if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is.
To me, Froome's progression, even allowing for his unusual background and illness, is just too good to be true. The performance jump in his mid 20s is just too large to swallow without giving me indigestion.
I could be wrong. Only Froome and his nearest and dearest know for sure.
At the age of 22, he beat Rui Costa and Bauke Mollema on MTF stages. We aint talking about a low grade talent here, W&G. He beat some of the most talented U23s of that year.
This refrain that equates to 'he was rubbish all of his career until the Vuelta', is just plain inaccurate.
And I have to challenge that last statement. If he's doping he's doing it with the full complicity of Sky. So if you think Froome's doping, then you have to believe that Sky are running a team doping programme.0 -
Paulie W wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:Not sure I'd skip a date to read this book a second time.
Could you list the books you would skip a date for?!
50 shades of grey?0 -
RichN95 wrote:
Perhaps Sky and particularly Kerrison want to give their hard accumulated knowledge away for free. You don't see the Dallas Cowboys putting their playbook on the internet, do you?whiteboytrash wrote:I like you would have preferred if he concentrated on what separates Sky from the other teams in terms of technology and training.
Maybe Walsh had a gag order on him from Sky and Murdoch? I don't know. Because his book goes into nothing on the training programs, the diets, the camps etc.
But, of course, that's the blindingly obvious explanation. So it can't be that. It must be some sort of conspiracy instead.
Take the chip off your shoulder there son.
I understand why they don't want to give it away, for free.
But Walsh was there was he not? He saw these training sessions with his own eyes, yes?
If so then he has been gagged. Told not to speak or talk about the training sessions.
That being the case then the book it a sham. Meaning he wasn't open.
If he wasn't gagged and didn't think it was important then how did he come to the conclusions that Sky train better than anyone else.
The Rebellin example in the CN article is indicative of this.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:r0bh wrote:Surely you can't expect people to consider facts that don't fit in with their own narrative? :roll:
I think you have this back to front...
I considered the facts and came to the conclusion that on balance, Froome is more likely doping than not. I can see the other side of the argument, but as Father In Law says about investments, if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is.
To me, Froome's progression, even allowing for his unusual background and illness, is just too good to be true. The performance jump in his mid 20s is just too large to swallow without giving me indigestion.
I could be wrong. Only Froome and his nearest and dearest know for sure.
At the age of 22, he beat Rui Costa and Bauke Mollema on MTF stages. We aint talking about a low grade talent here, W&G. He beat some of the most talented U23s of that year.
This refrain that equates to 'he was rubbish all of his career until the Vuelta', is just plain inaccurate.
And I have to challenge that last statement. If he's doping he's doing it with the full complicity of Sky. So if you think Froome's doping, then you have to believe that Sky are running a team doping programme.
And that for me is the crux. Like W&G I have to work hard to buy fully into the Froome narrative - it is internally coherent but still requires some leaps of faith which I struggle to make. But I find it much more difficult to accept a narrative that Team Sky is doping because of what that implies about BC, BOC, etc. and because it would seem to require a wholesale omerta from a huge number of of employees both inside and outside cycling.0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Perhaps Sky and particularly Kerrison want to give their hard accumulated knowledge away for free. You don't see the Dallas Cowboys putting their playbook on the internet, do you?whiteboytrash wrote:I like you would have preferred if he concentrated on what separates Sky from the other teams in terms of technology and training.
Maybe Walsh had a gag order on him from Sky and Murdoch? I don't know. Because his book goes into nothing on the training programs, the diets, the camps etc.
But, of course, that's the blindingly obvious explanation. So it can't be that. It must be some sort of conspiracy instead.
Take the chip off your shoulder there son.
I understand why they don't want to give it away, for free.
But Walsh was there was he not? He saw these training sessions with his own eyes, yes?
If so then he has been gagged. Told not to speak or talk about the training sessions.
That being the case then the book it a sham. Meaning he wasn't open.
If he wasn't gagged and didn't think it was important then how did he come to the conclusions that Sky train better than anyone else.
The Rebellin example in the CN article is indicative of this.
You use the word gagged because it is emotive. Maybe he signed a non-disclosure agreement relating to some aspects of the team's training. Perhaps he believed that the access he was getting was worth this trade off. He is a jorunalist who presumably has had to make similar decisions throughout his career.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:This refrain that equates to 'he was rubbish all of his career until the Vuelta', is just plain inaccurate.
By the standards of the vast majority of GT winners, it was, though, with all due respect to how good even "rubbish" World Tour pros really are.
No-one was predicting great things for Froome based on his early pro results, though. These results are being used now as evidence of GT potential. Top riders obviously develop as they get older, but they are usually prominent in major events) very early in their careers (even if it's just because they started doping as amateurs).
As to the rest of Sky, well that is a very interesting question. Let's just say that I'm not sure Father In Law would be investing in all of Sky's GT performances since 2011, though he'd be less concerned about other riders than he is about Froome.0 -
Back in 2008 the boss of Barloworld, Claudio Corti, predicted that he would come in the top 5 of the Tour (in the future, not 2008).Wallace and Gromit wrote:No-one was predicting great things for Froome based on his early pro results, though.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:An interview with Walsh about the book: http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/int ... e-team-sky
The chap clearly doesn`t think much of his own ability:
I’ve written books that I haven’t much liked but I think this is a reasonable book
:roll:
-
I remember at this year’s Tour, David Lopez turned up at the Tour. At the table, he was eating Nutella. Because he was relatively new to the team, he had no idea of how that would offend his teammates. But it did offend them. They just didn’t like it, as in, “That stuff is no good for you. We’re here to eat the right food, and you bringing that to the table is lowering the dietary and nutritional standard.” I just thought that kind of attitude was impressive.
Wow...another anecdote confirming there are a lot of dickheads on that team. :roll:
-
I’ve seen data from Chris Froome’s Barloworld years, from 2008 and 2009. And that stuff is very interesting and it would certainly indicate that what Froome has been doing at Sky is not actually that much different relative to his loss of weight from Barloworld to now. I’ve seen what the exercise physiologist at Barloworld has done and his view is that there is certainly nothing that Froome is doing now that is that different. I’ve seen that.
So does this mean Froome is zero to hero because he lost a ridiculous amount of weight? :roll:Contador is the Greatest0
This discussion has been closed.
