What do Sky do that makes them so strong? non-doping thread

rayjay

Cortisone is a steroid and works better injected, they should let them inject.

This whole no needles is more of a image concern. Its plain stupid really.

You don't have to inject to be a bad boy/girl.

ddraver

Rick Chasey wrote:

What's the premise?

That genetics really control much of who wins (or in pro sport, who gets to the top) and who doesnt. The contraverisal bit (a nice bit of Sh1t Stirring by Gladwell) was to suggest that doping to improve your performance was justified as it equalised Human Biology meaning that it made sport a true measure of tactics and training.

might get to the KW run tomorrow btw...

rick_chasey

ddraver wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What's the premise?

That genetics really control much of who wins (or in pro sport, who gets to the top) and who doesnt.
might get to the KW run tomorrow btw...

I could have told you that. Just from my experience of a couple of guys turning up to their first ever club runs with not much training under their belt and ripping the legs off everyone. Some people are just naturally fast.

Let me know if you are going to the run tomorrow.

I'll probably be doing effy box tomorrow which is often billed as the n00b run.

TheBigBean

ddraver wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What's the premise?

That genetics really control much of who wins (or in pro sport, who gets to the top) and who doesnt. The contraverisal bit (a nice bit of Sh1t Stirring by Gladwell) was to suggest that doping to improve your performance was justified as it equalised Human Biology meaning that it made sport a true measure of tactics and training.

might get to the KW run tomorrow btw...

Does it contradict the book that went on about 10,000 hours? Or is looking at the simple sports rather than the skilful sports? I know I could read them both, but I'm lazy

ddraver

Rick Chasey wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What's the premise?

That genetics really control much of who wins (or in pro sport, who gets to the top) and who doesnt.
might get to the KW run tomorrow btw...

I could have told you that. Just from my experience of a couple of guys turning up to their first ever club runs with not much training under their belt and ripping the legs off everyone. Some people are just naturally fast.

Let me know if you are going to the run tomorrow.

I'll probably be doing effy box tomorrow which is often billed as the n00b run.

I ll definitely do the noob run just as an introduction to everyone. It ll be a question of me dragging my sorry self out of bed in time to be honest...

ddraver

TheBigBean wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What's the premise?

That genetics really control much of who wins (or in pro sport, who gets to the top) and who doesnt. The contraverisal bit (a nice bit of Sh1t Stirring by Gladwell) was to suggest that doping to improve your performance was justified as it equalised Human Biology meaning that it made sport a true measure of tactics and training.

might get to the KW run tomorrow btw...

Does it contradict the book that went on about 10,000 hours? Or is looking at the simple sports rather than the skilful sports? I know I could read them both, but I'm lazy

Dunno mate, I think it's a typical Gladwell book, i.e as much about starting a debate than trying to answer one...

RoadPainter

ozzzyosborn206 wrote:

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?

Exactly

But such a post will just be ignored by all those who worship at the altar of "sky win, so must be doping", because it's easier to troll when there's no logic involved.

whiteboytrash

RoadPainter wrote:

ozzzyosborn206 wrote:

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?

Exactly

But such a post will just be ignored by all those who worship at the altar of "sky win, so must be doping", because it's easier to troll when there's no logic involved.

Contador has dropped about 5% since 2007-09.

Froome has gained about 35% since 2008-2010.

This is non-doping thread. So let's not talk doping.

Macaloon

whiteboytrash wrote:

Contador has dropped about 5% since 2007-09.

Froome has gained about 35% since 2008-2010.

More Clinic fables? Feel free to come back to this one after you've resolved your statements about Mick Rogers and the Frieburg clinic. Where's the confirmation you promised? Lying in public: bad for credibility.

To refresh:

whiteboytrash wrote:

The guy has a dodgy past. Ferrari and Freiburg. Both confirmed. Saxo never should have hired and Sky probably got rid of him due to his past (although we don't know this).

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12952398#p18663346

dougzz

whiteboytrash wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

How would one administer cortisone under a TUE then?
Does one need a TUE for training to inject cortisone?

With a needle. Or a cream. Depending on the need.
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.

Why ask the question if you know the answer?

whiteboytrash wrote:

Contador has dropped about 5% since 2007-09.
Froome has gained about 35% since 2008-2010.
This is non-doping thread. So let's not talk doping.

Is it, isn't this heading exactly where you always wanted it to. This would be me asking a question I already know the answer to.

mike6

RichN95 wrote:

Basically: Recruitment and Training

Here are the steps

1. Make sure the team leader is a top notch time triallist. No-one can help him in the TT. Wiggins, Froome & Porte are arguably the best three time triallists of GC riders.

2. Pay goods wages to stock pile a certain type of rider: those that have been top 20 in a Grand Tour, but never close to the top 5, and climb at a steady pace. Rogers, Kiryienka, Siutsou, Cataldo, Lopez, Zandio, Nieve, Deignan, Knees. And that's before we mention Henao & Uran or Thomas & Kennaugh.

3. Have a deep squad so riders aren't overworked.

4. Constantly monitor and adjust training on a day-to-day basis using data and coaches who know what to do with it.

5. Run training camps where specific race scenarios suited to the team leader are practised.

6. Use the stockpile of climbers to control the race and bring about the scenario they have trained for so they can execute their drills. Be used to controlling and do it so frequently that other teams become conditioned to not just let you do it but expect you to do it.


This only works for stage races with significant time trialling, but that's really all they are the best at. They're fairly average at most other things.

^ This. In a, very large, nutshell. There is no big secret to it. The right people, at all levels. The right training and attention to ALL details. Planning and preparation, for a GT its the only way.

RoadPainter

whiteboytrash wrote:

RoadPainter wrote:

ozzzyosborn206 wrote:

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?

Exactly

But such a post will just be ignored by all those who worship at the altar of "sky win, so must be doping", because it's easier to troll when there's no logic involved.

Contador has dropped about 5% since 2007-09.

Froome has gained about 35% since 2008-2010.

This is non-doping thread. So let's not talk doping.

The previous comment related to Porte v Contador, not sure what Froome (due to Bilharzia) had to do with it.


I am genuinely surprised that so many people are sceptical that carefully recruiting for specific roles (rider & non-rider), selecting riders and training riders for specific races & roles, training as a team etc leads to success. Do you think all that wouldn't help??

Much of the sport was caught up in an arms race for years, is it any wonder cycling training was behind other sports due to the lack of focus on legal optimisation of performance?

whiteboytrash

RichN95 wrote:

Crankbrother wrote:

I agree, teams work best with a couple of pure talents and some hard graft making up the difference ... But to take a bunch of nobodies and have them boss teams with proven domestiques raises an eyebrow ...

But they're not nobodies. They're just not stars.

Cataldo: 12th (twice) in Giro at Quick-Step
Deignan: 9th in Vuelta at Cervelo
Kiryienka: 16th in Vuelta at Caisse d'Epagne
Knees: 20th in Tour at Milram
Lopez: 14th in Vuelta at Caisse d'Epagne
Nieve: Consitently top 12 in Giro & Vuelta at Euskaltel
Porte: 7th in Giro at Saxo
Siutsou: 9th in Giro at HTC
Zandio: 22nd at Tour at Caisse d'Epagne

Then there's Rogers (7th at Giro at HTC), Uran (3rd at Lombardy), Henao (Tour of Colombia winner), Kennaugh (Baby Giro podium), Thomas (30th at Tour), Dombrowski (Baby Giro winner)

And even if we discount ALL of that lot, what are we left with?
EBH, Eisel (G-W winner), Pate (u23 World TT champ), Puccio (U23 RVV winner, Giro pink jersey), Sutton (KBK winner), Stannard (good classics rider)

So yeah. Bunch of nobodies.

Not sure I agree.

I plagiarised part of this from another forum (linked) but on the whole Sky haven't "bought" the best. Far from it.

Using CQ Scores;

Overall, the team whose domination is understandable because they buy the best have purchased 49 riders over their four years of existence (not including 2014 signings).

Of these, 8 have been ranked in the top 100 in the world before signing for Sky (16,33%).

Interestingly, of the top 10 riders named (i.e. those who had the ten best pre-Sky rankings) 6 of them come from the same team (HTC-High Road).

Also of note is that of that list, the two that have been implicated in current doping are both among those up at the top (Rogers and Tiernan-Locke).

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.p ... count=8176

...The "Sky have the money and buy the best riders" argument has more than a few holes. On the back of this, here are your Sky hires and where they were ranked in the world according to CQ the year before they joined Sky.

Edvald Boasson Hagen: 6th
Mark Cavendish: 9th
Mick Rogers: 23rd
Simon Gerrans: 41st
Bradley Wiggins: 43rd
Thomas Löfkvist: 45th
Jonathan Tiernan-Locke: 75th
Greg Henderson: 96th
Chris Sutton: 101st
Kanstantsin Siutsou: 114th
Rigoberto Urán: 121st
Dario Cataldo: 121st
Christian Knees: 122nd
Juan Antonio Flecha: 123rd
Vasil Kiryienka: 144th
Davide Appollonio: 176th
Richie Porte: 206th
Matthew Hayman: 211th
Bernhard Eisel: 217th
Sylvain Calzati: 230th
Russell Downing: 254th
Ben Swift: 264th
Kurt-Asle Arvesen: 267th
Joe Dombrowski: 334th
Sergio Luís Henao: 347th
Steve Cummings: 356th
Davide Vigano: 361st
Chris Froome: 367th
Dario Cioni: 379th
David López: 386th
Lars Petter Nordhaug: 418th
Morris Possoni: 447th
Serge Pauwels: 465th
Jeremy Hunt: 528th
Michael Barry: 550th
Ian Boswell: 574th
Salvatore Puccio: 588th
Geraint Thomas: 675th
Danny Pate: 682nd
Peter Kennaugh: 711th
Luke Rowe: 735th
Kjell Carlström: 770th
John-Lee Augustyn: 779th
Xabier Zandio: 945th
Gabriel Rasch: 979th
Ian Stannard: 1027th
Josh Edmondson: 1654th
Alex Dowsett: 1973rd
Nicolas Portal: 2310th

Now, obviously this is a bit of a misnomer; Kurt-Asle Arvesen and Matthew Hayman for example were renowned as top quality road captain and classic domestique respectively, much as Sylwester Szmyd's CQ score won't tell you what a top quality rider he was in '08-'09 or so. Also, a rider like Russell Downing was competing for the win in every race he got to enter in 2009, but on the domestic scene that didn't allow for so many points; Sergio Henao was seen as a megatalent, but many of the races he was bossing in Colombia had no UCI status so would not reflect in CQ; while somebody who is only highly visible in one part of the season like Juan Antonio Flecha can be one of the best at his chosen specialism without it reflecting in his scores. However, it says quite a lot that so few of the Sky riders were top 100 CQ scores before they signed - and in fact a lot of the highest ranked riders in their pre-Sky days are ones that have not improved at Sky (EBH has stagnated, Gerrans struggled at Sky before coming back to prominence late in his contract and as he moved to GreenEdge, Löfkvist has fallen well away from his pre-Sky level).

RichN95.

whiteboytrash wrote:

Using CQ Scores;

And there is the problem. It judges a rider on their ability to accumulate points, not their ability to do a job for a team. It's great if you want to put together a fantasy league team, but not much use in reality. CQ don't gove ranking points for domestique work.

I clearly pointed that only one person wins, so hiring stars is not the way to go about it - hiring lots of those that fall a little short is. Hire the best team, not necessarily the best riders. I'm guessing whoever made that post has no experience of involvement in real life team sport.

And even if you did think it had value, whoever drew that list used the year immediately before joining, not their best year.

I suspect you've had that posting up your sleeve since you started this thread so you can show us up when we say 'hire the best riders' and know you're trying to crowbar it in when we haven't obliged.

No_Ta_Doctor

Nice to see The Asylum properly accredited for once.

Crankbrother

But it does illustrate my point that the majority of the SKY squad wouldn't be a first pick for any of the other teams ... They're only success is to carry out the job they have been asked to do, but the other teams don't ride in the same way so why have a rider who based on pre-SKY results didn't have too much to offer ...

But of course, I was trolling according to the BRBBB ...

nic_77

Most successful individual <> Most effective teamplayer

No_Ta_Doctor

Crankbrother wrote:

But it does illustrate my point that the majority of the SKY squad wouldn't be a first pick for any of the other teams ... They're only success is to carry out the job they have been asked to do, but the other teams don't ride in the same way so why have a rider who based on pre-SKY results didn't have too much to offer ...

But of course, I was trolling according to the BRBBB ...

What you actually wrote was this:

Crankbrother wrote:

The majority of SKY's 'team' wouldn't get a gig elsewhere

That's clearly not the case, especially if you take the GT squad, rather than the classics squad. You think Porte, Henao, Uran (oh look, he got another gig), Sivtsov, Kiriyenka - just to name a few of the non GB riders - would be short of job offers, at equivalent wages to the riders they would replace?

If you add to that the fact that you don't think anyone else would want Chris Froome....

tailwindhome

That's an interesting bit of analysis.

For me it supports the idea that Sky have spent well rather than necessarily spending big.

I'm not sure you deployed it correctly

Macaloon

What's said in Hogwarts, normally stays there. Bold citation, indeed.

Crankbrother

No tA Doctor wrote:

Crankbrother wrote:

But it does illustrate my point that the majority of the SKY squad wouldn't be a first pick for any of the other teams ... They're only success is to carry out the job they have been asked to do, but the other teams don't ride in the same way so why have a rider who based on pre-SKY results didn't have too much to offer ...

But of course, I was trolling according to the BRBBB ...

What you actually wrote was this:

Crankbrother wrote:

The majority of SKY's 'team' wouldn't get a gig elsewhere

That's clearly not the case, especially if you take the GT squad, rather than the classics squad. You think Porte, Henao, Uran (oh look, he got another gig), Sivtsov, Kiriyenka - just to name a few of the non GB riders - would be short of job offers, at equivalent wages to the riders they would replace?

If you add to that the fact that you don't think anyone else would want Chris Froome....

I used the word 'majority' for a reason ... It stands to reason that some of the emerging riders on the team would have value ...

With regards to Froome, he thrives in the current set up and SKY's main aim is getting a Brit(ish) rider onto the top step of the TdF ... the majority of other races are used primarily as a training exercise or ridden out of obligation to the WT ... The other teams have different goals and dynamics based around Sponsors and Nationality and I don't see how Froome would fit into that ... For example, when he went to the Vuelta in 2012 he didn't have the tools (ie. team) at the times he needed them and failed ... So what makes you think that the other teams who have also shown they often can't provide support for the team leaders would benefit from Froome's presence ...

above_the_cows

RichN95 wrote:

Hire the best team, not necessarily the best riders. I'm guessing whoever made that post has no experience of involvement in real life team sport.

It's not even about actual involvement in team sport, you just have to know something (and not very much at that) about cycling. Aside from hiring people to do a specific job, too many stars and you get left with this problem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Wl_uQOABxg

Richmond Racer

Above The Cows wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Hire the best team, not necessarily the best riders. I'm guessing whoever made that post has no experience of involvement in real life team sport.

It's not even about actual involvement in team sport, you just have to know something (and not very much at that) about cycling. Aside from hiring people to do a specific job, too many stars and you get left with this problem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Wl_uQOABxg

*applause*

RichN95.

It's worth noting that Dave Brailsford knows Alex Ferguson quite well. He dominated the Premiership for two decades but rarely bought established superstars.

mike6

Richmond Racer wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Hire the best team, not necessarily the best riders. I'm guessing whoever made that post has no experience of involvement in real life team sport.

It's not even about actual involvement in team sport, you just have to know something (and not very much at that) about cycling. Aside from hiring people to do a specific job, too many stars and you get left with this problem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Wl_uQOABxg

*applause*

Quite. ^

If a football club has a weakness at right back, Its pointless trying to address this problem by signing a world class striker. :roll: A GT squad is a team in every sense of the word, every rider has a specific job to do. Look at Cav with Sky in the Tour. World champ, but used on some stages as a bottle carrier. That's how a team wins the Tour.

Macaloon

Froome attacked from 7km-out on Ventoux (in pursuit of Quintana who fled 5!km previously - ponder that). On Ax 3 Domaine, he attacked 5km from home. He could have done this riding for any of the top 5 teams, even Europcar.

I didn't see exceptional strength in the 2013 tour team. Compared to 2012, it was poor.

Crankbrother

I would urge you to ponder the Vuelta 2012 ...

Please also note that I'm not saying Froome is a bad rider, just that he hasn't proven that he can win in different ways ... Quite the opposite, in fact ...

RichN95.

Macaloon wrote:

Froome attacked from 7km-out on Ventoux (in pursuit of Quintana who fled 5!km previously - ponder that). On Ax 3 Domaine, he attacked 5km from home. He could have done this riding for any of the top 5 teams, even Europcar.

He could have done it for Europcar, but would Europcar have been able to sufficient pace in the kilometres preceding the attack to leave rivals short of teammates?

Attacking for with 5km to go from a group of 15 is not the same as doing it from a group of 50.

Yellow Peril

RichN95 wrote:

It's worth noting that Dave Brailsford knows Alex Ferguson quite well. He dominated the Premiership for two decades but rarely bought established superstars.

I was going to draw a comparison with Cloughie's Forest earlier on...but thought that might show my age.

Macaloon

RichN95 wrote:

He could have done it for Europcar, but would Europcar have been able to sufficient pace in the kilometres preceding the attack to leave rivals short of teammates?

Attacking for with 5km to go from a group of 15 is not the same as doing it from a group of 50.

True. Would be reliant on other squads with Europcar. But Saxo, Movi, Belkin, even Garmin could launch Froome.