What do Sky do that makes them so strong? non-doping thread
Comments
-
Given the Little Englander domination of this forum, it's no surprise to me that nobody has cited the paper from Pasadena Instutute of Sport Science on CH4 metabolic pathway bypass abuse. Not WADA banned. Yet. But there will be a hell of a stink when it hits the fan.
I'd provide a link, but I'm on my space hopper at the moment....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
Movistar are the no. 1 team in the UCI World rankings. The OP should be asking about them not Sky !
http://www.uciprotour.com/templates/BUI ... c&LangId=1
It was a clean sweep for Spain they won the Individual, Nation and Team prizes.0 -
Macaloon wrote:Given the Little Englander domination of this forum, it's no surprise to me that nobody has cited the paper from Pasadena Instutute of Sport Science on CH4 metabolic pathway bypass abuse. Not WADA banned. Yet. But there will be a hell of a stink when it hits the fan.
I'd provide a link, but I'm on my space hopper at the moment.
#BioBoom!We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
FFS some people have decided that they think sky are doping and refuse to believe any other argument, they have backroom staff who sole purpose is to find riders who fit the mould, this will include much more than looking at their best results. Also riding a climb steady doesn't mean easy it means at a constant pace which is what sky do, they don't jump around like Contador, Schlecks do, I am sure if they had a rider who could ride at a high tempo then kick hard they would ride that way but they don't they ride to their riders strengths. The other thing is, how many other teams are as focussed on GTs as Sky are?0
-
Great contribution Rich.Contador is the Greatest0
-
ozzzyosborn206 wrote:FFS some people have decided that they think sky are doping and refuse to believe any other argument, they have backroom staff who sole purpose is to find riders who fit the mould, this will include much more than looking at their best results. Also riding a climb steady doesn't mean easy it means at a constant pace which is what sky do, they don't jump around like Contador, Schlecks do, I am sure if they had a rider who could ride at a high tempo then kick hard they would ride that way but they don't they ride to their riders strengths. The other thing is, how many other teams are as focussed on GTs as Sky are?
FFS some people have decided that they think sky are not doping and refuse to believe any other argument.
When Wiggo won the tour Sky had 4 riders left near the top of a mountain finish. 4.
The only other riders left were the main GC contenders usually 1 from each team that had a top climber.
I have never seen that before. Computers or not that's 4 riders blasting away and dropping known climbers or putting them in serious trouble and Wiggo and Froome just cruising up behind like its a Sunday jaunt.
As this is not supposed to be about doping I reckon it was down to Leinder's fluffing up their special pillows.0 -
rayjay wrote:When Wiggo won the tour Sky had 4 riders left near the top of a mountain finish. 4.
Out of interest what stage was that? - I wouldn't mind trying to find it on you tube.
Missed a lot of the 2012 tour - had some cracking naps though.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
rayjay wrote:FFS some people have decided that they think sky are not doping and refuse to believe any other argument.
Thinking the evidence that Sky dope is poor is not the same as deciding they're clean.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I don't think sky are doping because that would be the whole GB Olympic cycling legacy down the toilet. Thats not to say i think they may be on something that is not yet on the banned list and/or morally incorrect but I don't think they would do anything that could risk the entire BC set up.
Thing is lets suppose everyone is now racing clean regardless of whether or not that is true, the team that prepares best and focuses solely on one principle would be expected to do the best, yeah other teams have big budgets but take BMC for example they spend big bucks on guys like Gilbert, Husovd, probably Phinney who lets be honest don't contribute a huge amount to Evans and Tee-Jays GT hopes. For all i know sky could well be on the gear and if that proves to be correct then so be it but I think it is a very easy thing to say 'yeah they are doping because nobody can touch them'0 -
TailWindHome wrote:rayjay wrote:When Wiggo won the tour Sky had 4 riders left near the top of a mountain finish. 4.
Out of interest what stage was that? - I wouldn't mind trying to find it on you tube.
Missed a lot of the 2012 tour - had some cracking naps though.
Think that was the Paris-Freiburg stage.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
As vaughters said.rayjay wrote:
When Wiggo won the tour Sky had 4 riders left near the top of a mountain finish. 4.
The only other riders left were the main GC contenders usually 1 from each team that had a top climber.
I have never seen that before. Computers or not that's 4 riders blasting away and dropping known climbers or putting them in serious trouble and Wiggo and Froome just cruising up behind like its a Sunday jaunt.
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 guy0 -
rayjay wrote:I have never seen that before. Computers or not that's 4 riders blasting away and dropping known climbers or putting them in serious trouble and Wiggo and Froome just cruising up behind like its a Sunday jaunt.
I'd like to give my theory about this dropping known climbers, I think the only truth is the other riders are climbers. Sky essentially ride climbs like a mix between a sprint stage/team time trial, and a team sprint from the track. They have a chain of riders riding their max until the peel off and the next takes up the chase (but doesn't come on to the back like TTT) and then the leader (strongest rider) attacks from the back and wins or maintains lead in GC. That is my summary of Sky's style during the tour this year.
So you say they drop known climbers (Nibali, contador, Schleck, Quintana et al) who are famed for searing attacks, blowing their opponents out of the water. I'm going to use imaginary figures here to try and put my point across, I don't know too much about power.
Lets use Contador (A): his climbing style is to ride at 300w for 70% of the climb and then put in a string of attacks (reaching 500w max) until he has dropped most, and then settles in at <300w again until the end. Each attack is 15 seconds long. This style amounts to intense interval training. It gives him a gain of 200w to attack.
Froome (B) then has his train riding up the mountain at 400w meaning it is already 100w higher than A's training has indicated he is comfortable doing. This continues with A attacking but B's team of riders able to bring him back. At 80-85% of the climb A has already been pushing 100w more than he is comfortable with for 15% longer meaning he is tired and drops out the back or fights to stay on. B can attack here with all his opponents tired or B can then ride to the top to win or maintain lead in GC.
It is no coincidence to me that Sky have the better TTer's and these known climbers generally aren't the best. In this case B is used to riding at a higher output for a longer period, with out many fluctuations, whereas A is used to lower output but having a few huge output short blasts.
This is how I view it in my head, might not make sense. As I said all figures are completely made up to try and articulate my point.0 -
Going a bit all Dave_1 here, but 1986 Tour top 10 - Notice how the 40% of the top 10 in the GC are from a single team.
1) Greg LeMond (La Vie Claire) 110hr 35min 19sec
2) Bernard Hinault (La Vie Claire) @ 3min 10sec
3)Urs Zimmermann (Carrera) @ 10min 54sec
4) Andrew Hampsten (La Vie Claire) @ 18min 44sec
5) Claude Criquielion (Hitachi) @ 24min 36sec
6) Ronan Pensec (Peugeot) @ 25min 59sec
7) Niki Rutimann (La Vie Claire) @ 30min 52sec
8) Alvaro Pino (ZOR) @ 33min
9) Steven Rooks (PDM) @ 33min 22sec
10) Yvon Madiot (Système U) @ 33min 27sec
If you expanded it to top 25, there are another 2 La Vie Claire riders in there.
That's domination.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
One team having all the talent is not a new thing. It's just not that entertaining unless one of them attacks the other e.g. Roche 870
-
Blimey La Vie Claire were a force. I doubt that they all rode together at the front for the whole of the climb which is something Sky did quite a lot In Wiggo's year of wins.
The thing his that the riders doing the pull at the front, if they had just as easy ride as Wiggo or Froome then you would have to say they were capable stage winners. Incredible.
I mean there was times in last years tour were Porte was so much stronger than Contador. He made it look easy. He was never that good, Contador was not that bad. Frome made Contador look worse than he was.
Postal used to dominate but not to that extent, usually it was just Lance left and when he did try and get a team mate a victory for the work they had done it never usually worked out. Sky on more than a few occasions have had at least 2 riders who could have won the stage and the year Wiggo won they rode with dominance I have never seen form a team climbing ....when I managed to stay awake0 -
rayjay wrote:The thing his that the riders doing the pull at the front, if they had just as easy ride as Wiggo or Froome then you would have to say they were capable stage winners. Incredible.
I know.
It's almost as if buying riders of that quality was part of some sort of plan.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Rayjay - Do you mean the Richie Porte who finished 19th on GC, behind Contador, Kreuziger and Rogers? How can this tally with your account?...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0
-
If they could handle the acclerations in the last 5km then, yes, they could be stage winners. But they can't, so they aren't.rayjay wrote:The thing his that the riders doing the pull at the front, if they had just as easy ride as Wiggo or Froome then you would have to say they were capable stage winners. Incredible.
Contador wasn't even the best in his own team. Nothing made look Contador look worse than Kreuziger having to wait for him.rayjay wrote:I mean there was times in last years tour were Porte was so much stronger than Contador. He made it look easy. He was never that good, Contador was not that bad. Frome made Contador look worse than he was.
That's because they are different strategies. For Wiggins the goal was not to lose time so he could decide the race in the time trials. For Armstrong it was to destroy everyone and break their resolve, forcing them to race for second place. The reason that US Postal had nobody left (apart for Heras often or Azevedo sometimes) was because they rode harder.rayjay wrote:Postal used to dominate but not to that extent, usually it was just Lance left and when he did try and get a team mate a victory for the work they had done it never usually worked out. Sky on more than a few occasions have had at least 2 riders who could have won the stage and the year Wiggo won they rode with dominance I have never seen form a team climbing ....when I managed to stay awake
Even the way Sky ride for Wiggins and the way they ride for Froome is quite different. It's not as simple as just four guys riding on the front.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
If they could handle the acclerations in the last 5km then, yes, they could be stage winners. But they can't, so they aren't.rayjay wrote:The thing his that the riders doing the pull at the front, if they had just as easy ride as Wiggo or Froome then you would have to say they were capable stage winners. Incredible.
That's basically what Basso said as well, after riding with them. He said something along the lines of the ride at a strong pace, but it's not too brutal. But it's hard enough that if you attacked you'd have to go so deep you'd not be able to sustain it.
And that's great for Wiggins. He can ride strongly at that kind of pace. For Froome you can have a slightly different strategy as he's a (the?) strongest climber.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Yeah. If Wiggins gets to the top of the final climb in a group of 15 favourites, that's a success. For Froome, while not a failure, it's a missed opportunity.iainf72 wrote:And that's great for Wiggins. He can ride strongly at that kind of pace. For Froome you can have a slightly different strategy as he's a (the?) strongest climber.
Ideally, Sky want to strip other teams of as many domestiques as possible around 15 minutes from the summit, as that's the length of attack the know Froome is most effective at.
One thing they have learnt from Armstrong is the importance of the first MTF, regardless of how 'easy' the climb is. It's easier to hang on to a lead than play catch up. I think this year a lot of riders got too dazzled by Ventoux and Alpe d'Huez and came into Ax 3 (a mountain which has never been strategically decisive) a little undercooked and got their arsses handed to them on one of the sub 30 minute climbs that Sky are at their best on.
(PS I bought The Sports Gene today due to your incessant promotion)Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
If they could handle the acclerations in the last 5km then, yes, they could be stage winners. But they can't, so they aren't.rayjay wrote:The thing his that the riders doing the pull at the front, if they had just as easy ride as Wiggo or Froome then you would have to say they were capable stage winners. Incredible.
Contador wasn't even the best in his own team. Nothing made look Contador look worse than Kreuziger having to wait for him.rayjay wrote:I mean there was times in last years tour were Porte was so much stronger than Contador. He made it look easy. He was never that good, Contador was not that bad. Frome made Contador look worse than he was.
That's because they are different strategies. For Wiggins the goal was not to lose time so he could decide the race in the time trials. For Armstrong it was to destroy everyone and break their resolve, forcing them to race for second place. The reason that US Postal had nobody left (apart for Heras often or Azevedo sometimes) was because they rode harder.rayjay wrote:Postal used to dominate but not to that extent, usually it was just Lance left and when he did try and get a team mate a victory for the work they had done it never usually worked out. Sky on more than a few occasions have had at least 2 riders who could have won the stage and the year Wiggo won they rode with dominance I have never seen form a team climbing ....when I managed to stay awake
Even the way Sky ride for Wiggins and the way they ride for Froome is quite different. It's not as simple as just four guys riding on the front.
On your first point, If the 2 riders pulling at the front had been riding behind and not pulling they would have had plenty of energy left , even to win the stage over non sky team riders.
I disagree Contador did not look to bad in places. Agree he was not on top form but stage 16 for instance Porte looks like he his playing with him. Porte was never that good.
Kreuziger IMO rode quite well. That has nothing to do with how Contador performs.
I realise that Wiggo is alL about the TT. But known climbers were getting dropped by Skys 3rd or 4th man.
I don't think Postal did ride any harder. We are taking about teams top climbers not hanging on. If they are not riding so hard how come all those known climber were getting dropped. Sky were totally, utterly dominant that year.
Last year with Froome they did not need to dominate so much as Froome is a class above Wiggo and can look after himself most of the time.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
Yeah. If Wiggins gets to the top of the final climb in a group of 15 favourites, that's a success. For Froome, while not a failure, it's a missed opportunity.iainf72 wrote:And that's great for Wiggins. He can ride strongly at that kind of pace. For Froome you can have a slightly different strategy as he's a (the?) strongest climber.
Ideally, Sky want to strip other teams of as many domestiques as possible around 15 minutes from the summit, as that's the length of attack the know Froome is most effective at.
One thing they have learnt from Armstrong is the importance of the first MTF, regardless of how 'easy' the climb is. It's easier to hang on to a lead than play catch up. I think this year a lot of riders got too dazzled by Ventoux and Alpe d'Huez and came into Ax 3 (a mountain which has never been strategically decisive) a little undercooked and got their arsses handed to them on one of the sub 30 minute climbs that Sky are at their best on.
(PS I bought The Sports Gene today due to your incessant promotion)
Yup.0 -
-
With a needle. Or a cream. Depending on the need.whiteboytrash wrote:
How would one administer cortisone under a TUE then?
Does one need a TUE for training to inject cortisone?
Yes, if you want to do it legitimately.Twitter: @RichN950 -
rayjay wrote:RichN95 wrote:
If they could handle the acclerations in the last 5km then, yes, they could be stage winners. But they can't, so they aren't.rayjay wrote:The thing his that the riders doing the pull at the front, if they had just as easy ride as Wiggo or Froome then you would have to say they were capable stage winners. Incredible.
Contador wasn't even the best in his own team. Nothing made look Contador look worse than Kreuziger having to wait for him.rayjay wrote:I mean there was times in last years tour were Porte was so much stronger than Contador. He made it look easy. He was never that good, Contador was not that bad. Frome made Contador look worse than he was.
That's because they are different strategies. For Wiggins the goal was not to lose time so he could decide the race in the time trials. For Armstrong it was to destroy everyone and break their resolve, forcing them to race for second place. The reason that US Postal had nobody left (apart for Heras often or Azevedo sometimes) was because they rode harder.rayjay wrote:Postal used to dominate but not to that extent, usually it was just Lance left and when he did try and get a team mate a victory for the work they had done it never usually worked out. Sky on more than a few occasions have had at least 2 riders who could have won the stage and the year Wiggo won they rode with dominance I have never seen form a team climbing ....when I managed to stay awake
Even the way Sky ride for Wiggins and the way they ride for Froome is quite different. It's not as simple as just four guys riding on the front.
On your first point, If the 2 riders pulling at the front had been riding behind and not pulling they would have had plenty of energy left , even to win the stage over non sky team riders.
I disagree Contador did not look to bad in places. Agree he was not on top form but stage 16 for instance Porte looks like he his playing with him. Porte was never that good.
Kreuziger IMO rode quite well. That has nothing to do with how Contador performs.
I realise that Wiggo is alL about the TT. But known climbers were getting dropped by Skys 3rd or 4th man.
I don't think Postal did ride any harder. We are taking about teams top climbers not hanging on. If they are not riding so hard how come all those known climber were getting dropped. Sky were totally, utterly dominant that year.
Last year with Froome they did not need to dominate so much as Froome is a class above Wiggo and can look after himself most of the time.
I don't think Contador has been anywhere near the rider he was before his doping ban, coincidence? maybe rather than an improved Porte we are seeing a clean and therefore slower contador?0 -
RichN95 wrote:
(PS I bought The Sports Gene today due to your incessant promotion)
Hope you enjoy it. Probably one of the best things I've read in a very long time.
I'd encourage everyone with even a slight interest in sport and performance to read it. There's bugger all cycling in it, although Lemond does get a mention (for being a genetic freak)Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:What's the premise?
Mr Moore's review gives a good overview
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/a ... ein-reviewFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
With a needle. Or a cream. Depending on the need.whiteboytrash wrote:
How would one administer cortisone under a TUE then?
Does one need a TUE for training to inject cortisone?
Yes, if you want to do it legitimately.
Needle is best. Creams are only for topical infection. It's a very good drug.
In the UK you can use a retroactive TUE.
Cortisone in training (non-competion) is legitimate and fair use.
The no needle ban is not a total ban. Could never be. But the UCI ban is a step in the right direction. There needs to be a legitimate reason to use a needle.
McQuaid wasn't all stupid. He did a reasonable job.0
This discussion has been closed.
