Are sky clean or not?
Comments
-
Its the first time I've ever seen the untouchables and the worst Irish accent of all time quoted here...
What is it with the "everyone is at it" crowd and refusing to engage with actual arguments?"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.
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.
but isn't that kinda of true of the postals too
they didn't win many one dayers and basically smashed it on the final climb with a team of ultra domestiques...?
the sky tactics are more tightly controlled I guess but apart from the blood bags what are the differences
for the record I don't think sky are dirty"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654514#p19654514]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:Its the first time I've ever seen the untouchables and the worst Irish accent of all time quoted here...
What is it with the "everyone is at it" crowd and refusing to engage with actual arguments?
This is the bit I find irritating - there's a fascinating argument to be had, but it's very hard to goad anyone into it. Perhaps away from the madness of the Tour?0 -
the only purpose of this thread is to grow out of proportion without adding anything0
-
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654523#p19654523]underlayunderlay[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654514#p19654514]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:Its the first time I've ever seen the untouchables and the worst Irish accent of all time quoted here...
What is it with the "everyone is at it" crowd and refusing to engage with actual arguments?
This is the bit I find irritating - there's a fascinating argument to be had, but it's very hard to goad anyone into it. Perhaps away from the madness of the Tour?
I always get annoyed at myself for rising to it. I know a little about training, performance and tactics. I've raced at an OK level on the continent, years ago, I read a lot on training etc... I spend time typing this out and all you get in return is "yeah but you're a fanboi""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 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654523#p19654523]underlayunderlay[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654514#p19654514]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:Its the first time I've ever seen the untouchables and the worst Irish accent of all time quoted here...
What is it with the "everyone is at it" crowd and refusing to engage with actual arguments?
This is the bit I find irritating - there's a fascinating argument to be had, but it's very hard to goad anyone into it. Perhaps away from the madness of the Tour?
Duplicate"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 -
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.
Was thinking fair enough until I read your last team. So the rest are dopers but not Sky. Niiiiice.Contador is the Greatest0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654528#p19654528]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654523#p19654523]underlayunderlay[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654514#p19654514]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:Its the first time I've ever seen the untouchables and the worst Irish accent of all time quoted here...
What is it with the "everyone is at it" crowd and refusing to engage with actual arguments?
This is the bit I find irritating - there's a fascinating argument to be had, but it's very hard to goad anyone into it. Perhaps away from the madness of the Tour?
I always get annoyed at myself for rising to it. I know a little about training, performance and tactics. I've raced at an OK level on the continent, years ago, I read a lot on training etc... I spend time typing this out and all you get in return is "yeah but you're a fanboi"
I have few of those advantages - I'm dimly aware that I'm no slouch on a bike, but I've never been tempted to try racing and what I know about training and tactics I've mostly picked up from around here. But that's precisely why the level of debate depresses me so much - on one side you have people carefully picking apart the 'evidence' and finding out that it's - at best - data. On the other you have people yelling that it just can't be true. It's less a debate than a picket line.
Still, for those throwing out useful counter-examples and bothering to explain things, thanks - my appreciation of cycling has been much better for your efforts.0 -
The Postals weren't tactical idiots. Sky have learnt some stuff from them - such as the first mountain stage is the most important as you shuffle the pack early.
but isn't that kinda of true of the postals too
they didn't win many one dayers and basically smashed it on the final climb with a team of ultra domestiques...?
But have a look at some of those Postal stages. How many riders are there at the base of the final climb? Usually very few - and that was when doping was more prevelant.
For example, I believe Mr Vayer (to give him his proper academic title) is planning to put forward a video comparing Froome and Armstrong/Pantani on Ventoux. But someone has already done it. When the action starts Froome is in a peloton of about 50 lead by Kennaugh, Armstrong is with one teammate in a group of eight - soon seven when teammate gets dropped - and eventual winner Pantani has been dropped)Twitter: @RichN950 -
Who cares about accents. He's great in that film. Oscar well deserved.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654514#p19654514]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:Its the first time I've ever seen the untouchables and the worst Irish accent of all time quoted here...
Now Far and Away....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.
but isn't that kinda of true of the postals too
they didn't win many one dayers and basically smashed it on the final climb with a team of ultra domestiques...?
the sky tactics are more tightly controlled I guess but apart from the blood bags what are the differences
for the record I don't think sky are dirty
The LA and his army weren't just dopers they were very tactically astute and dominated races; LA understood how to command and control both his team and intimidate the other teams. You have to be strong to follow those tactics but you do not have to be doping. These are low risk, high reward strategies if you have the team to pull it off; it puts sky in a great defensive position if the other teams do attack like today but at the same time allows Froome to jump off the front and see if the other heads of state have it in their legs to follow.
Remember Movistar had three men up front today - but they chose to leave Gorka Izagirre in the lead group to get fourth rather than drop him back to help break Sky (he could have either been a third man in a three man tag team or sat off the front of the yellow jersey group to be there for Valverde and/or Quintana if they could jump together). BMC are riding in the hope that they can take advantage of someone else causing Froome to overexert. Astana are a bit of a mess.
Sky use those same tactics as the disgraced teams because the disgraced teams used good tactics.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.
Nice Rich.
I think I remember you posting a similar post before; good to give it another post as it is very good.
I wonder if that 'conditioning' part was actually planned or it just turned out that way. Either way, it is true that it has nullified enjoyment due to its predictability.
I think it is telling and true when you say it is about your sources rather than your writing. Probably why I don't read anything a journalist has to say and hold most of the newspapers in contempt.Contador is the Greatest0 -
but isn't that kinda of true of the postals too
they didn't win many one dayers and basically smashed it on the final climb with a team of ultra domestiques...?
the sky tactics are more tightly controlled I guess but apart from the blood bags what are the differences
for the record I don't think sky are dirty
So what?
The tactic is a good tactic IF you can afford to pay riders who would be team leaders in other smaller teams to ride for you (Hincapie/Thomas or Kloden/Nico Roche). Becasue USPS used the tactic it does not follow that the tacic = doping
Excluding Sky, there has not been a team that will pick 10/11 guys and have the focus their whole season, more or less, on the tour since USPS. Most of us will say that there is zero evidence that Sky are doping, but we will accept that there is an injustice in a team with a budget of 18million racing teams with budgets of 4 million. But welcome to Professional sport. Wiggo was not wrong when he said he needed to leave Wigan and go to Manchester United to win more races.
People use that as a stick to beat them with even more but Froome and Sky have been by far and aware the most attacking and most race aware GC team in the race this year. With the exception of EQS, probably the most of any team
Edit - or what the others saidWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
The thing about postal in their heyday was that as soon as a break was allowed to go they were on the front. All of them. So whilst you'd be left with Beltran, Landis, Heard types on, for examlle, alpe d'huez, you'd have seen them on the front over the telegraphe and galibier too."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 -
Who cares about accents. He's great in that film. Oscar well deserved.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654514#p19654514]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:Its the first time I've ever seen the untouchables and the worst Irish accent of all time quoted here...
Now Far and Away....
I've always said Connery isn't an actor. He just lends gravitas."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 -
Don't take that as a criticism as journalists. It's not. A journalist is only as good as his sources. I'm a very introverted person in real life. I would never make the contacts to be good at the job. Of the English language journalists I would listen to Daniel Friebe, who seems to know everyone, ahead of Paul Kimmage, who thinks alienation equals impartiality, even if Kimmage writes better (he's very style conscious)I think it is telling and true when you say it is about your sources rather than your writing. Probably why I don't read anything a journalist has to say and hold most of the newspapers in contempt.Twitter: @RichN950 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654443#p19654443]underlayunderlay[/url] wrote: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.
Underlay's Zen has been strong for a few days now....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
Teddy Cutler #1 journalist.
Great post, Rich.
Billie Piper owns the worst Irish accent in history.
One of those 3 things is not true.0 -
Don't take that as a criticism as journalists. It's not. A journalist is only as good as his sources. I'm a very introverted person in real life. I would never make the contacts to be good at the job. Of the English language journalists I would listen to Daniel Friebe, who seems to know everyone, ahead of Paul Kimmage, who thinks alienation equals impartiality, even if Kimmage writes better (he's very style conscious)I think it is telling and true when you say it is about your sources rather than your writing. Probably why I don't read anything a journalist has to say and hold most of the newspapers in contempt.
Fair point, but maybe because Friebe is possibly the only one I think is quality.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Don't take that as a criticism as journalists. It's not. A journalist is only as good as his sources. I'm a very introverted person in real life. I would never make the contacts to be good at the job. Of the English language journalists I would listen to Daniel Friebe, who seems to know everyone, ahead of Paul Kimmage, who thinks alienation equals impartiality, even if Kimmage writes better (he's very style conscious)I think it is telling and true when you say it is about your sources rather than your writing. Probably why I don't read anything a journalist has to say and hold most of the newspapers in contempt.
The other thing is that a lot of journalists - away from the stuff that editors want to publish - do have a lot of interesting things to say. When space is limited though, remember that you file a story. Random anecdotes, discussions about whether a team could have tried something else, great quotes that mean nothing to the main narrative - all that goes by the wayside because space and time are limited.
As one example, Boulting and Rendell - both journalists - are far more interesting on the podcast when they can cut loose than on the ITV show. I wouldnt ignore journalists because they're journalists - but I certainly spend more time listening to them in certain formats.0 -
Cutler's funny. He won a student award (big f*ing deal) and he thinks he's the man. Watching him criticise the very journalists that he wants to work with is spectacular. His hubris is amazing. He blusters on about the Armstrong years when he's only 23. He so wants to be the crusading journalist without regard to journalistic balance.Teddy Cutler #1 journalist.
When he's 35 he'll be writing the Aston Villa programme.Twitter: @RichN950 -
I think theres a massive gap in the market for excellent English speaking cycling journos, I can't say any of them have ever impressed me to the level of Mike selvey in cricket, bill Simmons or on baseball or Andy Wilson on rugby league. They all seem to be lacking something to my eye."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 -
For example, I believe Mr Vayer (to give him his proper academic title)
Some very entertaining reads on this thread. Hat. The conversation would be much more one-sided without Vayer's data release. I think I'm enjoying that as much as the Overlord delusion. ...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654573#p19654573]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:I think theres a massive gap in the market for excellent English speaking cycling journos, I can't say any of them have ever impressed me to the level of Mike selvey in cricket, bill Simmons or on baseball or Andy Wilson on rugby league. They all seem to be lacking something to my eye.
Of the three, I've only read Mike Selvey. I've always thought though that proper long format cycling journalism (as opposed to that filed for the news) is the equal of that for cricket - albeit harder to track down. I've always assumed that it's because both sports give you hours in which to analyse and understand the final victory, the participants are generally eloquent, and the individual moments can be described fairly easily (for example in comparison to football).0 -
The Postals weren't tactical idiots. Sky have learnt some stuff from them - such as the first mountain stage is the most important as you shuffle the pack early.
but isn't that kinda of true of the postals too
they didn't win many one dayers and basically smashed it on the final climb with a team of ultra domestiques...?
But have a look at some of those Postal stages. How many riders are there at the base of the final climb? Usually very few - and that was when doping was more prevelant.
For example, I believe Mr Vayer (to give him his proper academic title) is planning to put forward a video comparing Froome and Armstrong/Pantani on Ventoux. But someone has already done it. When the action starts Froome is in a peloton of about 50 lead by Kennaugh, Armstrong is with one teammate in a group of eight - soon seven when teammate gets dropped - and eventual winner Pantani has been dropped)
hmmm yeah and no
there are stages leading into climbs where the postals are front loaded...sestrier 99 for one. not only that the ventoux stage with the froome train movistar had done exactly what they did two days ago and dragged everybody including a fresh sky train into the climb.
not saying there isn't something to what you say but my point really is I find it hard to give credence that doping or lack of can be inferred by the style of racing in such a definative manner
its similar to the low vs high cadence arguments that were bandied about why armstrong was clean! in the early noughties and then became arguments why he was dirty later...which in hindsight proved nothing given mr 60% monumental gear selection on the hautacam
the porte g double act is very specific in who does what effort when but I think this comes from highly detailed analysis of power meter training as opposed to clean sport....
the biggest changes in racing style in the clean age is diet (weight loss) and power meters and perhaps to come telemetry...(i'm not a fan of that future scenario). they can or may not be doping still..i reckon in the main not..i do think its cleaner for a whole bunch of reasons already put forward by others (too much to lose basically)
is the racing tactics a proxy indicator for cleaner racing.....hmmm maybe a bit... underwhelmed with that argument for now"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
Yes, but remember that they are working for TV. Presenting a show for a commercial TV. There's a balance. If they went on about doping all the time (like some internet journos) then people would tune out. They say stuff when it needs to be said. For example, in 2007 when there were stories about Rasmussen the Tour organisers arranged that Boulting would be the first to interview him and ask the hard questions on camera. But Ned isn't going to start every stage winner's interview with a doping question just to look like a proper journalist.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654571#p19654571]underlayunderlay[/url] wrote:As one example, Boulting and Rendell - both journalists - are far more interesting on the podcast when they can cut loose than on the ITV show. I wouldnt ignore journalists because they're journalists - but I certainly spend more time listening to them in certain formats.
Good journalists ask the hard questions when they need to be asked, not as a routine.Twitter: @RichN950 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654577#p19654577]underlayunderlay[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654573#p19654573]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:I think theres a massive gap in the market for excellent English speaking cycling journos, I can't say any of them have ever impressed me to the level of Mike selvey in cricket, bill Simmons or on baseball or Andy Wilson on rugby league. They all seem to be lacking something to my eye.
Of the three, I've only read Mike Selvey. I've always thought though that proper long format cycling journalism (as opposed to that filed for the news) is the equal of that for cricket - albeit harder to track down. I've always assumed that it's because both sports give you hours in which to analyse and understand the final victory, the participants are generally eloquent, and the individual moments can be described fairly easily (for example in comparison to football).
I thought that... Then I started reading cycling anthology. And in 8 out of 10 articles I've been really disappointed. Some of them are great, the Dan Lloyd look into the Tour he rode was great, the long piece on Iban Mayos career was nice too. But Kenny Pryde is dross, a lot of the pieces are about the journalists themselves and if I read another " we're all sick of talking about doping, so I wrote 2000 words about it " I'll scream"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 -
The Postals weren't tactical idiots. Sky have learnt some stuff from them - such as the first mountain stage is the most important as you shuffle the pack early.
but isn't that kinda of true of the postals too
they didn't win many one dayers and basically smashed it on the final climb with a team of ultra domestiques...?
But have a look at some of those Postal stages. How many riders are there at the base of the final climb? Usually very few - and that was when doping was more prevelant.
For example, I believe Mr Vayer (to give him his proper academic title) is planning to put forward a video comparing Froome and Armstrong/Pantani on Ventoux. But someone has already done it. When the action starts Froome is in a peloton of about 50 lead by Kennaugh, Armstrong is with one teammate in a group of eight - soon seven when teammate gets dropped - and eventual winner Pantani has been dropped)
hmmm yeah and no
there are stages leading into climbs where the postals are front loaded...sestrier 99 for one. not only that the ventoux stage with the froome train movistar had done exactly what they did two days ago and dragged everybody including a fresh sky train into the climb.
not saying there isn't something to what you say but my point really is I find it hard to give credence that doping or lack of can be inferred by the style of racing in such a definative manner
You're right, but I think the point being made is that for every parallel to US Postal, there's a difference. In the context of a debate that's often framed in terms of A looks exactly like B, that's quite interesting to be reminded of.
In the case of Postal of course, we know for sure they were doping, so perhaps they provide a useful control for looking at Sky?0 -
Remember Movistar had three men up front today - but they chose to leave Gorka Izagirre in the lead group to get fourth rather than drop him back to help break Sky (he could have either been a third man in a three man tag team or sat off the front of the yellow jersey group to be there for Valverde and/or Quintana if they could jump together). BMC are riding in the hope that they can take advantage of someone else causing Froome to overexert. Astana are a bit of a mess.
Sky use those same tactics as the disgraced teams because the disgraced teams used good tactics.
going for the team competition movistar I think hence why Izagirre made the effort for the time sprinting in?"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
Yes, but remember that they are working for TV. Presenting a show for a commercial TV. There's a balance. If they went on about doping all the time (like some internet journos) then people would tune out. They say stuff when it needs to be said. For example, in 2007 when there were stories about Rasmussen the Tour organisers arranged that Boulting would be the first to interview him and ask the hard questions on camera. But Ned isn't going to start every stage winner's interview with a doping question just to look like a proper journalist.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654571#p19654571]underlayunderlay[/url] wrote:As one example, Boulting and Rendell - both journalists - are far more interesting on the podcast when they can cut loose than on the ITV show. I wouldnt ignore journalists because they're journalists - but I certainly spend more time listening to them in certain formats.
Good journalists ask the hard questions when they need to be asked, not as a routine.
I agree absolutely - probably didn't make myself clear (my own student journalism manifested as short, semi-satirical, barely humorous comment pieces, rather than coherent arguments!) By cutting loose, I meant that it frees them up to talk about the other stuff, and the deeper picture, rather than simply allowing them to express their opinions more - and that's why it's worth listening to them in that format.0
