Are sky clean or not?
Comments
-
Daniel Friebe
@TeddyCutler @mattslaterbbc for months before Sky launched we heard they believed they had a Brit who could win TdF clean: Froome.
I didn't know the rider in question....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654331#p19654331]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:I don't see how any one can in good conscience genuinely be so sure they aren't. There is so much evidence that more suggests doping than pillows or nutella or whatever crap the pr machine spews out.
Bias aside, there can be no rational response other than "we don't know either way, but experience suggests that everyone else in the past doing what Sky are showing us was later found to be doping".
My view is that either way, it's ugly to watch and it's really damaging for cycling.
What evidence?
And the boom in cycling viewing and participation would seem to suggest it's not all that damaging
This is done to death elsewhere so I'll keep it to the key evidence: the massive improvement in Froome from nearly being key go in 2011 to being the greatest cyclist of all time. And the massive change of Thomas from trackie and classics rider to mountain goat. All experience suggests that in the past that would later be explained by doping. Doesn't mean it is etc. But blind certainty that it's not doping is not rational.
Re fans, the UK is something of an exception.
The real truth of the matter is that armchair critics are totally clueless about what it entails to be an elite (UK) track rider. The way they talk, you would think that a track rider had never ridden over a speed bump, let alone a serious mountain. They couldn't be more wrong, even in terms of track sprinters.
As for classics riders not winning Tours, there was a time when it was the norm for classics winners to be Tour winners.
Now, as for Thomas's massive improvement.
I found this "enlightened" comment, probably in the place you call elsewhere, regarding Thomas's massive improvement:2007 TdF 140th
2008 Gir 118th
2010 TdF 67th
2011 TdF 31st
2012 Gir 80th
2013 TdF 140th
2014 TdF 22nd.
Dont see it. His GTs are hardly a progression..........
Well, lets just deal with the Tour, since this appears to be the real bone of contention.
2007 TdF 140th (youngest rider in the race)
2010 TdF 67th
2011 TdF 31st
2013 TdF 140th Pop Quiz: Corsica. Remember what happened on stage 1?
2014 TdF 22nd.
So his massive progression, allowing for 2 Olympics looks like:
2007 TdF 140th (youngest rider in the race)
2010 TdF 67th
2011 TdF 31st
2014 TdF 22nd.
2015 TdF ?
So this is supposed to emphasise massive improvement. What it actual does is give a perfect curve for natural progression."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Macaloon wrote:Daniel Friebe
@TeddyCutler @mattslaterbbc for months before Sky launched we heard they believed they had a Brit who could win TdF clean: Froome.
I didn't know the rider in question.
That was certainly the talk at the time. How strongly they believed that is open to debate, but the whispers were there.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654349#p19654349]underlayunderlay[/url] wrote:The problem is that you're not trying to define what you'd expect from non-'ugly' cycling, so it's impossible to work out if you're a lunatic, a visionary, or just someone who doesn't understand how bike racing works. All you're doing is throwing mud at Sky, rather than letting anyone know what criteria you're working from - it's essentially an uncriticisable position because the position isn't actually stated.
So here's the challenge. Tell us all what clean cycling would look like in your own mind's eye, and then we can all debate whether that's plausible and works from realistic assumptions. Then, and only then, can we start looking at the evidence for whether Sky fulfils that criteria or not - and even then we might not agree. We might have learnt something though.
Repeatedly shouting that Sky are a pile of dopers and bad for the sport is an opinion. Let's start hearing an argument instead.
There isn't one really. Or the strongest it can get is that they hired Leinders which wouldn't have even been news at any other team. From what we have seen they have also got rid of anyone who couldn't look them in the eye and say they'd never doped. That of course doesn't mean to say there are not riders at Sky who are doping. Froome also spoke to CIRC unlike many others, he hasn't had anything (apart from a TUE and him admitting that he missed a single test) linking him with anyone to do with doping (unlike large numbers of others), he called for more testing on Teide, he has welcomed nighttime testing, he has offered to undergo independent testing. Are there any others who can say that? Now I know that isn't proof that he isn't doping, but the furore created by one stage, where he beat a knackered Contador and a clearly out-of-sorts Nibali whilst putting a couple of minutes into Gallopin and Van Garderen, is just mindblowing.
Frankly unless he is the only one taking a wonderdrug it's a completely level playing field.
Sky do have an advantage though, a couple in fact. They can afford the best riders. And they can afford to analyse every single aspect of everything.0 -
Always bugs me when people assume every single rider is trying to get the highest GC finish possible. 2014 was really the only year Thomas ever made an attempt to hang on in the climbs.0
-
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654349#p19654349]underlayunderlay[/url] wrote:The problem is that you're not trying to define what you'd expect from non-'ugly' cycling, so it's impossible to work out if you're a lunatic, a visionary, or just someone who doesn't understand how bike racing works. All you're doing is throwing mud at Sky, rather than letting anyone know what criteria you're working from - it's essentially an uncriticisable position because the position isn't actually stated.
So here's the challenge. Tell us all what clean cycling would look like in your own mind's eye, and then we can all debate whether that's plausible and works from realistic assumptions. Then, and only then, can we start looking at the evidence for whether Sky fulfils that criteria or not - and even then we might not agree. We might have learnt something though.
Repeatedly shouting that Sky are a pile of dopers and bad for the sport is an opinion. Let's start hearing an argument instead.
There isn't one really. Or the strongest it can get is that they hired Leinders which wouldn't have even been news at any other team. From what we have seen they have also got rid of anyone who couldn't look them in the eye and say they'd never doped. That of course doesn't mean to say there are not riders at Sky who are doping. Froome also spoke to CIRC unlike many others, he hasn't had anything (apart from a TUE and him admitting that he missed a single test) linking him with anyone to do with doping (unlike large numbers of others), he called for more testing on Teide, he has welcomed nighttime testing, he has offered to undergo independent testing. Are there any others who can say that? Now I know that isn't proof that he isn't doping, but the furore created by one stage, where he beat a knackered Contador and a clearly out-of-sorts Nibali whilst putting a couple of minutes into Gallopin and Van Garderen, is just mindblowing.
Frankly unless he is the only one taking a wonderdrug it's a completely level playing field.
Sky do have an advantage though, a couple in fact. They can afford the best riders. And they can afford to analyse every single aspect of everything.
All this. Hat.It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
So I think you are all missing the point.
If you go back over 30 or 40 years of cycling (and athletics, and etc etc) then you will find that everytime something was exceptional, and too good to be true etc, then it was later found out to be genuinely too good to be true. No matter how much "oh, this time it's different, because: money, special physiology, unusual illness later cured, special diet, special pillows, pineapple juice, blah blah blah", to date 9 out of 10 times it has been later shown to be rubbish, and doping.
Now this time it may be different, and maybe it is ketone drinks or blah blah blah, but if you are genuinely unbiased then you wouldn't be confident that it wasn't doping. You couldn't be confident. You might not like that, and might o-so-desperately be wishing it is all clean, but to be certain now is biased.Merckx EMX 5
Ribble 7005 Audax / Campag Centaur
RIP - Scott Speedster S100 -
So I think you are all missing the point.
If you go back over 30 or 40 years of cycling (and athletics, and etc etc) then you will find that everytime something was exceptional, and too good to be true etc, then it was later found out to be genuinely too good to be true. No matter how much "oh, this time it's different, because: money, special physiology, unusual illness later cured, special diet, special pillows, pineapple juice, blah blah blah", to date 9 out of 10 times it has been later shown to be rubbish, and doping.
Now this time it may be different, and maybe it is ketone drinks or blah blah blah, but if you are genuinely unbiased then you wouldn't be confident that it wasn't doping. You couldn't be confident. You might not like that, and might o-so-desperately be wishing it is all clean, but to be certain now is biased.
Froome has won one GT. He has finished 2nd in three other GTs. This isn't Usain Bolt, or Marion Jones, or Michael Johnson, or Lance Armstrong.0 -
Are you missing the point? Most people's position would be "don't know but there is no evidence to suggest otherwise"
This is what baffles me - There have been good performances, but nothing to-good-to-be-true.
The problem is no one knows what clean(ish) would look like.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
So I think you are all missing the point.
If you go back over 30 or 40 years of cycling (and athletics, and etc etc) then you will find that everytime something was exceptional, and too good to be true etc, then it was later found out to be genuinely too good to be true. No matter how much "oh, this time it's different, because: money, special physiology, unusual illness later cured, special diet, special pillows, pineapple juice, blah blah blah", to date 9 out of 10 times it has been later shown to be rubbish, and doping.
Now this time it may be different, and maybe it is ketone drinks or blah blah blah, but if you are genuinely unbiased then you wouldn't be confident that it wasn't doping. You couldn't be confident. You might not like that, and might o-so-desperately be wishing it is all clean, but to be certain now is biased.
No, it's you who is missing the point.
Nobody is saying Sky are definitely clean.
Everybody is aware of our sport's (and others) history.
But, as with this post, scepticism and a few bits of very debatable science do not constitute conclusive proof.
Judge and convict on this alone and the bias comes from the accuser."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
So I think you are all missing the point.
If you go back over 30 or 40 years of cycling (and athletics, and etc etc) then you will find that everytime something was exceptional, and too good to be true etc, then it was later found out to be genuinely too good to be true. No matter how much "oh, this time it's different, because: money, special physiology, unusual illness later cured, special diet, special pillows, pineapple juice, blah blah blah", to date 9 out of 10 times it has been later shown to be rubbish, and doping.
Now this time it may be different, and maybe it is ketone drinks or blah blah blah, but if you are genuinely unbiased then you wouldn't be confident that it wasn't doping. You couldn't be confident. You might not like that, and might o-so-desperately be wishing it is all clean, but to be certain now is biased.
So disagreeing with your analysis is evidence of bias? Come on, you can do better than that. You're assuming the plural of anecdote is evidence.
Evidence is the proven doping of Armstrong, Pantani, Ulrich, Riis, Basso and most of the other Gramnd Tour winners of the last 20 years. But unless there's a positive test or an admission or overwhelming evidence that isn't just hearsay or guilt by association then all you have is cynicism.
What you see as bias, we say is looking at the actual evidence of Froome doping and judging that he likely isn't. That others doped has no bearing at all on Froome's performance or probity. Its completely imcidental"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
So I think you are all missing the point.
If you go back over 30 or 40 years of cycling (and athletics, and etc etc) then you will find that everytime something was exceptional, and too good to be true etc, then it was later found out to be genuinely too good to be true. No matter how much "oh, this time it's different, because: money, special physiology, unusual illness later cured, special diet, special pillows, pineapple juice, blah blah blah", to date 9 out of 10 times it has been later shown to be rubbish, and doping.
Now this time it may be different, and maybe it is ketone drinks or blah blah blah, but if you are genuinely unbiased then you wouldn't be confident that it wasn't doping. You couldn't be confident. You might not like that, and might o-so-desperately be wishing it is all clean, but to be certain now is biased.
What exactly is too good to be true? Beating Gesink on stage 10 by 1'33? Or Valverde by 2'01? Or Gallopin by 2'22?
Has it also escaped your notice that Movistar are leading the team classification?
You are spending too much time listening to uneducated trolls and unfounded b*llocks, mainly from Contador fans.
He beat Quintana by 1'04 on that climb too. This is the same Quintana who beat Uran into 2nd in the 2014 Giro by 2'58. Now Uran is a nice fella but he isn't Bernard Hinault. And our little Columbian Nairito is just 25 so not near his peak yet.0 -
Crikey, this is so typical.
I said (you can look it up - it's a few pages ago) "I don't see how any one can in good conscience genuinely be so sure they aren't. There is so much evidence that more suggests doping than pillows or nutella or whatever crap the pr machine spews out.
Bias aside, there can be no rational response other than "we don't know either way, but experience suggests that everyone else in the past doing what Sky are showing us was later found to be doping". "
And have since said (again you can look it up) - that basically evidence from history is quite instructive.
You can all get defensive or aggressive - btw, the typical response from irrational fans - but it doesn't change anything - an unbiased person would have to say that Froome changing from nearly being let go, to suddenly being the best (his form this year is not any better than previous years, remember - and he really did suddenly improve in 2011/2012). Or Thomas suddenly being able to outclimb GT climbing specialists. Is odd! V odd.Merckx EMX 5
Ribble 7005 Audax / Campag Centaur
RIP - Scott Speedster S100 -
Crikey, this is so typical.
I said (you can look it up - it's a few pages ago) "I don't see how any one can in good conscience genuinely be so sure they aren't. There is so much evidence that more suggests doping than pillows or nutella or whatever crap the pr machine spews out.
Bias aside, there can be no rational response other than "we don't know either way, but experience suggests that everyone else in the past doing what Sky are showing us was later found to be doping". "
And have since said (again you can look it up) - that basically evidence from history is quite instructive.
You can all get defensive or aggressive - btw, the typical response from irrational fans - but it doesn't change anything - an unbiased person would have to say that Froome changing from nearly being let go, to suddenly being the best (his form this year is not any better than previous years, remember - and he really did suddenly improve in 2011/2012). Or Thomas suddenly being able to outclimb GT climbing specialists. Is odd! V odd.
And I said 'Frankly unless he is the only one taking a wonderdrug it's a completely level playing field.'
And as for your synopsis on Thomas, have a look at his results over the past few years. He hasn't suddenly become a climber, he is a massive diesel engine and is at his peak, improving steadily every year since he stopped track (where he was Olympic Gold Medal winner).
With regard to Froome nearly being let go, he was touted as Sky's young British clean Tour Winner many years ago, and then his form was affected by Bilharzia. Since that was sorted he has been excellent.0 -
Again.
Not one person is saying definitely that they aren't.
But you already know that."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Crikey, this is so typical.
I said (you can look it up - it's a few pages ago) "I don't see how any one can in good conscience genuinely be so sure they aren't. There is so much evidence that more suggests doping than pillows or nutella or whatever crap the pr machine spews out.
Bias aside, there can be no rational response other than "we don't know either way, but experience suggests that everyone else in the past doing what Sky are showing us was later found to be doping". "
And have since said (again you can look it up) - that basically evidence from history is quite instructive.
You can all get defensive or aggressive - btw, the typical response from irrational fans - but it doesn't change anything - an unbiased person would have to say that Froome changing from nearly being let go, to suddenly being the best (his form this year is not any better than previous years, remember - and he really did suddenly improve in 2011/2012). Or Thomas suddenly being able to outclimb GT climbing specialists. Is odd! V odd.
Could it not be that it is just a more level playing field and a lot of riders who were / are clean are finding their natural level ???0 -
Crikey, this is so typical.
I said (you can look it up - it's a few pages ago) "I don't see how any one can in good conscience genuinely be so sure they aren't. There is so much evidence that more suggests doping than pillows or nutella or whatever crap the pr machine spews out.
Bias aside, there can be no rational response other than "we don't know either way, but experience suggests that everyone else in the past doing what Sky are showing us was later found to be doping". "
And have since said (again you can look it up) - that basically evidence from history is quite instructive.
You can all get defensive or aggressive - btw, the typical response from irrational fans - but it doesn't change anything - an unbiased person would have to say that Froome changing from nearly being let go, to suddenly being the best (his form this year is not any better than previous years, remember - and he really did suddenly improve in 2011/2012). Or Thomas suddenly being able to outclimb GT climbing specialists. Is odd! V odd.
Thomas finished in the top 25 last year and just outside the top 30 4 years ago, that's hardly indicative of someone who can't climb. He's clearly improved year after year and it's been a steady improvement - nothing's happened 'suddenly' or don't you watch cycling?
All he did today was ride the climb at one pace and close down a couple of half-hearted attacks. It's not as if he sprinted away and left anybody behind. Had it been a 100% Contador G would have been left trailing.0 -
Crikey, this is so typical.
Yes. Yes it is.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654409#p19654409]Blazing Saddles[/url] wrote:Again.
Not one person is saying definitely that they aren't.
But you already know that.
Yes, you're right. The tone of posts seemed to be implying it.Merckx EMX 5
Ribble 7005 Audax / Campag Centaur
RIP - Scott Speedster S100 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654409#p19654409]Blazing Saddles[/url] wrote:Again.
Not one person is saying definitely that they aren't.
But you already know that.
Yes, you're right. The tone of posts seemed to be implying it.
No one knows. But there isn't a shred of evidence against ANY of the Sky riders. Unlike Contador, Valverde or anyone who rides for Astana. Likewise there isn't a shred of evidence against Quintana or TJ.0 -
I find it rather amusing that Joelism is the most ardent and irrational 'everyone is doping' person on the pro race forum yet throughout the whole Tour he has defended Sky and Froome strongly.
So from that we can surmise that he is a proper little Sky fanboy and doesn't judge every rider with the same logic.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Crikey, this is so typical.
I said (you can look it up - it's a few pages ago) "I don't see how any one can in good conscience genuinely be so sure they aren't. There is so much evidence that more suggests doping than pillows or nutella or whatever crap the pr machine spews out.
Bias aside, there can be no rational response other than "we don't know either way, but experience suggests that everyone else in the past doing what Sky are showing us was later found to be doping". "
And have since said (again you can look it up) - that basically evidence from history is quite instructive.
You can all get defensive or aggressive - btw, the typical response from irrational fans - but it doesn't change anything - an unbiased person would have to say that Froome changing from nearly being let go, to suddenly being the best (his form this year is not any better than previous years, remember - and he really did suddenly improve in 2011/2012). Or Thomas suddenly being able to outclimb GT climbing specialists. Is odd! V odd.
Is Chris Froome's sudden improvement more or less worrying than Thomas's gradual improvement?
Thomas has shown climbing ability his entire career, even when riding at track weight.
Majority of this is while working for someone else remember:
2011 Tour - (working for Wiggo/Uran). Ended 30th overall at the Tour. Dropped out of the front group to pace Uran up the Galibier (finishing 25th).
2012 Olympic year.
2013 started the year winning up Corkscrew Road - not a long climb, but it showed his climbing legs.
Dauphine: (working for Froome/Porte)18th on the stage which had Col du Noyer just before the finish. Following stage to Risoul came in 17th alongside Contador, Nieve, Mick Rogers.
Tour de France: Broke his pelvis.
2014: Paris-Nice - 2nd and 4th on punchy/hilly stages (won by Betancur + Slagter).
Tour de France (working for Froome/Porte) - 19th to La planche des Belles Filles (alongside JVDB, Horner, Spilak).
25th up Chamrousse (rolled in with Kruiswijk, and teammates Nieve and Porte).
29th to Risoul, when he blew himself up for Porte, then rolled in with Nieve.
2015: Riding for himself:
Won Volta ao Algarve, getting 1st and 4th on the two hilly finishes.
Paris-Nice: 5th overall. 2nd on the stage to Croix de Chaubouret.
Tour de Suisse: 2nd overall. 5th on the stage with Michaelskreuz just before the finish. 5th on the stage up the monstrous Rettenbachgletscher.
That is the progression people want, isn't it?0 -
I find it rather amusing that Joelism is the most ardent and irrational 'everyone is doping' person on the pro race forum yet throughout the whole Tour he has defended Sky and Froome strongly.
So from that we can surmise that he is a proper little Sky fanboy and doesn't judge every rider with the same logic.
Not at all (although I do have Froome in my Draft team for the year).
What is annoying me this week is the sheer voracity of idiots calling out Froome and Thomas as if they are the only ones doping. Not only that the sheer amount of people putting a downer on the race. It's pathetic and starting to detract from my enjoyment, snide remarks here, there and everywhere.
Frankly it is very unfair as I do actually believe Sky are one of the only teams who try to take anti-doping seriously.0 -
I find it rather amusing that Joelism is the most ardent and irrational 'everyone is doping' person on the pro race forum yet throughout the whole Tour he has defended Sky and Froome strongly.
So from that we can surmise that he is a proper little Sky fanboy and doesn't judge every rider with the same logic.
I'm really not sure you can, not least because there's plenty to be learnt in taking up a contradictory position to your own and attempting to defend it.0 -
I find it rather amusing that Joelism is the most ardent and irrational 'everyone is doping' person on the pro race forum yet throughout the whole Tour he has defended Sky and Froome strongly.
So from that we can surmise that he is a proper little Sky fanboy and doesn't judge every rider with the same logic.
Not at all (although I do have Froome in my Draft team for the year).
What is annoying me this week is the sheer voracity of idiots calling out Froome and Thomas as if they are the only ones doping. Not only that the sheer amount of people putting a downer on the race. It's pathetic and starting to detract from my enjoyment, snide remarks here, there and everywhere.
Frankly it is very unfair as I do actually believe Sky are one of the only teams who try to take anti-doping seriously.
No one did that to Contador in the Giro. Nor Nibali last year. Nor Contador in the Vuelta? Nor Quintana in 2014's Giro. So why Froome in 2013 and even more so now?0 -
So I think you are all missing the point.
If you go back over 30 or 40 years of cycling (and athletics, and etc etc) then you will find that everytime something was exceptional, and too good to be true etc, then it was later found out to be genuinely too good to be true. No matter how much "oh, this time it's different, because: money, special physiology, unusual illness later cured, special diet, special pillows, pineapple juice, blah blah blah", to date 9 out of 10 times it has been later shown to be rubbish, and doping.
Now this time it may be different, and maybe it is ketone drinks or blah blah blah, but if you are genuinely unbiased then you wouldn't be confident that it wasn't doping. You couldn't be confident. You might not like that, and might o-so-desperately be wishing it is all clean, but to be certain now is biased.
But is it too good to be true? The 'Sky way' is pretty simple and straightforward. And it's not that extraordinary.
Notice that they are more successful in stage races than one day races. This because they are far more formulaic and can be broken down in to key components. (Similarly on the track BC were much less successful in the madison and points races).
Specifically, Sky have focused just on the final climb - which is typically 25-40 minutes. They train - as a team - so that the leader rides that negative split time trial. That is easily quantifiable in training with constant day to day monitoring of power files (not a one size fits all training plan from an outsider as used to be the case). The goal is to hit a certain power to weight ratio.
Then they just have to make sure that the race to the bottom of that final climb is as easy as possible. This is done with two methods - money and pavlovian conditioning.
First of all spend money on the riders you need to do the job, not the ones that necessarily have the results (Moneyball purchasing).
Then, due to having a very deep squad, take charge of every single stage race and almost every single stage. Back in 2011 we all wondered at times why Sky were riding on the front, but by 2012 the others teams had been conditioned to expect Sky to control the peloton. That allowed Sky to control the peloton as they liked like a patron of old.
As a result you get situations like today - a big multi col stage where they are allowed to arrive at the base of the final climb with six or seven men having ridden eleven minutes slower than Sep Vanmarcke. The peloton just allowed Sky to play to their strength.
This is something the so called 'pseudoscientists' miss. Sky's entire strategy is set up to do a fast final climb. They may match some of the famous dopers on some of the climbs, but those dopers had done the same pace on the previous one or two climbs. In 2012 Sky were lead over one cat 1 climb by Cavendish.
Now, I don't know if Sky are doping. I don't think they are. But I don't know is my position. But I've watched the evolution of cycling tactics from 1986 onwards and Sky's rejection of old world concepts like panache and souplesse and reliance on last climb TT seems the obvious way you would try to win clean.
What teams need to learn if they want to beat Sky and Froome.
1. If you wait until the final climb to cause trouble you are doing exactly what they want. They have to take them on as a team - maybe an alliance. As Sean Connery says in The Untouchables, "they put one of yours in the hospital, you put one of theirs in the morgue. That's the Chicago way, that's how you beat Capone"
2. Froome has what poker players call 'a tell'. Half way up the climb count his team mates. If it is three or more - attack, he's on a bad day. If it's just one, he's about to attack.Twitter: @RichN950 -
So I think you are all missing the point.
If you go back over 30 or 40 years of cycling (and athletics, and etc etc) then you will find that everytime something was exceptional, and too good to be true etc, then it was later found out to be genuinely too good to be true. No matter how much "oh, this time it's different, because: money, special physiology, unusual illness later cured, special diet, special pillows, pineapple juice, blah blah blah", to date 9 out of 10 times it has been later shown to be rubbish, and doping.
Now this time it may be different, and maybe it is ketone drinks or blah blah blah, but if you are genuinely unbiased then you wouldn't be confident that it wasn't doping. You couldn't be confident. You might not like that, and might o-so-desperately be wishing it is all clean, but to be certain now is biased.
But is it too good to be true? The 'Sky way' is pretty simple and straightforward. And it's not that extraordinary.
Notice that they are more successful in stage races than one day races. This because they are far more formulaic and can be broken down in to key components. (Similarly on the track BC were much less successful in the madison and points races).
Specifically, Sky have focused just on the final climb - which is typically 25-40 minutes. They train - as a team - so that the leader rides that negative split time trial. That is easily quantifiable in training with constant day to day monitoring of power files (not a one size fits all training plan from an outsider as used to be the case). The goal is to hit a certain power to weight ratio.
Then they just have to make sure that the race to the bottom of that final climb is as easy as possible. This is done with two methods - money and pavlovian conditioning.
First of all spend money on the riders you need to do the job, not the ones that necessarily have the results (Moneyball purchasing).
Then, due to having a very deep squad, take charge of every single stage race and almost every single stage. Back in 2011 we all wondered at times why Sky were riding on the front, but by 2012 the others teams had been conditioned to expect Sky to control the peloton. That allowed Sky to control the peloton as they liked like a patron of old.
As a result you get situations like today - a big multi col stage where they are allowed to arrive at the base of the final climb with six or seven men having ridden eleven minutes slower than Sep Vanmarcke. The peloton just allowed Sky to play to their strength.
This is something the so called 'pseudoscientists' miss. Sky's entire strategy is set up to do a fast final climb. They may match some of the famous dopers on some of the climbs, but those dopers had done the same pace on the previous one or two climbs. In 2012 Sky were lead over one cat 1 climb by Cavendish.
Now, I don't know if Sky are doping. I don't think they are. But I don't know is my position. But I've watched the evolution of cycling tactics from 1986 onwards and Sky's rejection of old world concepts like panache and souplesse and reliance on last climb TT seems the obvious way you would try to win clean.
What teams need to learn if they want to beat Sky and Froome.
1. If you wait until the final climb to cause trouble you are doing exactly what they want. They have to take them on as a team - maybe an alliance. As Sean Connery says in The Untouchables, "they put one of yours in the hospital, you put one of theirs in the morgue. That's the Chicago way, that's how you beat Capone"
2. Froome has what poker players call 'a tell'. Half way up the climb count his team mates. If it is three or more - attack, he's on a bad day. If it's just one, he's about to attack.
Nice reading of their strategy Rich.0 -
Someone who doesn't agree with you = irrational? Nice. As for Froome and Thomas, others have already pointed out that you're wrong about both of them. The information showing their previous potential and progression is all out there if you actually care to read it. Unless you're too biased to do so... which couldn't possibly be true, could it? :roll:You can all get defensive or aggressive - btw, the typical response from irrational fans - but it doesn't change anything - an unbiased person would have to say that Froome changing from nearly being let go, to suddenly being the best (his form this year is not any better than previous years, remember - and he really did suddenly improve in 2011/2012). Or Thomas suddenly being able to outclimb GT climbing specialists. Is odd! V odd.0 -
Crikey, this is so typical.
Bias aside, there can be no rational response other than "we don't know either way, but experience suggests that everyone else in the past doing what Sky are showing us was later found to be doping". "
And have since said (again you can look it up) - that basically evidence from history is quite instructive.
No, that's a logical fallacy, an appeal to probability or possibility to take something for granted.0 -
Thanks Joe.
No, I don't do it for a living - I'm a patent examiner. But back in the day I was a award nominated student sports journalist. But good journalism is more about the quality of your sources than the quality of your writing and I knew my limitations.
I should have also added that when focusing on power to weight ratio there are two parts to that ratio, so having a dietician working in tandem with a trainer is important.Twitter: @RichN950
