Are sky clean or not?
Comments
-
By the way Talius. While you are a new face (despite being a member since 2013) on this forum, please don't get discouraged keep posting.
This forum tends towards Sky (and many other teams) being clean - but very few of us would say it with complete certainty. But the problem is that the debate throughout the online world is so polarised that we only get trolls here saying otherwise.
You seem like a reasonable sceptic. I have longed for someone like you. On the doping issue I want to engage with an opposing view. I will respect and happily debate the issues. Most will, with differing ranges of ability (I recommend listening to IainF72). But if you ever characterise us as fanboys, or nationalists, then F*ck off.
PS. I've drunk a bit, so don;t expect me to properly address your last post. Also, try to keep it short. If you give five points, your adversaries will discard four and attack the one.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Don't confuse the likes of us, who post on internet forums and know who the likes of Vayer are, with the general sports fan.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654658#p19654658]underlayunderlay[/url] wrote:Are they going against the grain though? There's a lot of them, and they're awfully noisy. Mr Limit's confusion about the moderate (consensus?) here may well have been genuine - perhaps screaming that Sky are doping is the new orthodoxy?
I like many sports (draw in the cricket, I fancy Day for the Open), but cycling is the only one I really feel I understand - despite never doing it. Hockey I've played for 30 years and what I know about the modern game you could write on a single piece of paper (it's changed so much)
Granted, but when a straight forward report in the Guardian has 890 posts below it, all screaming 'not natural', it'd be hard for a general sports fan to avoid picking up a general idea of the background music...
(entirely different conversation, btw - but do you feel like you could still teach someone else how to think about hockey, even if you don't feel like you're up to speed with the answers? I used to cox rowing crews at a decent level (I've not raced internationally, but certainly shouted at a lot of people who have) and reckon I could teach someone how to kick all sorts of backside up and down a river simply by encouraging them to ask the right questions and find their own answers, even though I've forgotten 90% of what I knew).0 -
Rich, you are falling into DW's "all other teams are amateurish" camp - it's not true, and it's bizarre to even think it.
Yes Sky are rich. That doesn't help the "sky are clean" argument - put a lot of money into something, and you expect a lot out - whatever the cost... and the Murdoch's aren't closely associated with scrupples. And nor are their employees, if you are thinking of saying Sir DB is the boss...
What I don't really understand - which was my original point - is why you all so desperately want the Sky dream to be true? Why treat them any differently from any other pro cycling team? And I've read your posts - I respect them all in the proper cycling-focused banter in the spring classics etc.
Yes Sky have the legacy of Wiggins winning the tour, and that was amazing - I was in Paris to watch him in yellow lead out Cav, in the WC jersey, to the stage win - and it was easily the best sporting day I've ever had, by a mile, and it still makes the hairs on my neck stand on end to think about it. Truly amazing - biased, yes, from watching cycling from the late 80s onwards and it always being a non UK sport. But at the end of the day Sky are just another team, all other teams have been proven to dope, and there is nothing actually special about the Brits even if we'd like to think there is.
So, to me, Froome blasting all and sundry out of the way with the most powerful performances, and GT suddenly becoming a climber (and it is suddenly - there's a big difference between doing ok in the hills, and dominating a mountain stage) is ugly to watch, and doesn't do cycling any favours. And the PR, the spin, the UK media love, and the overall smell of the situation and the way people are not able to discuss it openly, is not good. Not good at all.
1`. Who desperately wants sky to be clean? WE all just call it as we see it
2. Froome was riding well in the Alps on the tour in 2008 when he was about 10kg heavier. He was being touted as a GT contender by SKy in 2010. You are seeing what you want to see.
3. WHo is preventing you discussing it openly?
Now, try and engage with some peoples counter points with actual evidence."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 -
Got to say this thread has, from an inauspicious start, turned into a cracking read.Napoleon, don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter.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.
Herbie Sykes is the one that makes me want to liquidise my eyes when reading. Abysmal.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654689#p19654689]underlayunderlay[/url] wrote:
Don't confuse the likes of us, who post on internet forums and know who the likes of Vayer are, with the general sports fan.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654658#p19654658]underlayunderlay[/url] wrote:Are they going against the grain though? There's a lot of them, and they're awfully noisy. Mr Limit's confusion about the moderate (consensus?) here may well have been genuine - perhaps screaming that Sky are doping is the new orthodoxy?
I like many sports (draw in the cricket, I fancy Day for the Open), but cycling is the only one I really feel I understand - despite never doing it. Hockey I've played for 30 years and what I know about the modern game you could write on a single piece of paper (it's changed so much)
Granted, but when a straight forward report in the Guardian has 890 posts below it, all screaming 'not natural', it'd be hard for a general sports fan to avoid picking up a general idea of the background music...
(entirely different conversation, btw - but do you feel like you could still teach someone else how to think about hockey, even if you don't feel like you're up to speed with the answers? I used to cox rowing crews at a decent level (I've not raced internationally, but certainly shouted at a lot of people who have) and reckon I could teach someone how to kick all sorts of backside up and down a river simply by encouraging them to ask the right questions and find their own answers, even though I've forgotten 90% of what I knew).
This is intersting. My dad was a county cricketer and this is exactly how he sees the game. He asks "What do they want me not to do?" at the end of every over."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=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.
Herbie Sykes is the one that makes me want to liquidise my eyes when reading. Abysmal.
Why use one word when 45 will do?
Incidentally, I've always wanted to write a book, if only for my own amusement. My 3 ideas are a history of the Omloop, an oral history of the 2009 Tour or a biography of Carlos Sastre."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 you're just going to keep parroting this single point over and over again then?And when players who were pretty average in your local team, suddenly become better than Man Utd players, then perhaps one has to ask whether there's something in it?
I will have a think about that, because whilst I agree that the logic of the argument is not conclusive, I do think that the general thought (that average turning into brilliant is to be treated with scepticism given the history of the sport we are discussing) is pretty sound.Merckx EMX 5
Ribble 7005 Audax / Campag Centaur
RIP - Scott Speedster S100 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654697#p19654697]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654689#p19654689]underlayunderlay[/url] wrote:(entirely different conversation, btw - but do you feel like you could still teach someone else how to think about hockey, even if you don't feel like you're up to speed with the answers? I used to cox rowing crews at a decent level (I've not raced internationally, but certainly shouted at a lot of people who have) and reckon I could teach someone how to kick all sorts of backside up and down a river simply by encouraging them to ask the right questions and find their own answers, even though I've forgotten 90% of what I knew).
This is intersting. My dad was a county cricketer and this is exactly how he sees the game. He asks "What do they want me not to do?" at the end of every over.
Coxing's slightly different. It's mostly thinking 'how do I get these idiots in front of me to go faster than the idiots in the boat next door?'
At a club level though, yeah, you can be a right bastard. Proudest moment of my club career was pushing off from the bank and hearing "Oh f***, it's him..."0 -
Who says we are desperate for it to be true? We just watch cycling and, despite history, give people the benefit of the doubt. Those of us who have observed cycling for a long time we saw a change for the good over the last few years. We saw people (not Sky) who we trusted, succeed. We may have belief in Sky, but if we are proved wrong we'll shrug our shoulders and go about our day. Just like all those other times.What I don't really understand - which was my original point - is why you all so desperately want the Sky dream to be true? Why treat them any differently from any other pro cycling team? And I've read your posts - I respect them all in the proper cycling-focused banter in the spring classics etc.
As to why we treat Sky differently to any other team. First of all this a British website so it's natural. But there's no attack on other teams and generally anything regarding them is treated in a fair and balanced manner (Astana may be an exception and a butt of jokes, but even they are treated more fairly than elsewhere)Twitter: @RichN950 -
So you're just going to keep parroting this single point over and over again then?And when players who were pretty average in your local team, suddenly become better than Man Utd players, then perhaps one has to ask whether there's something in it?
I will have a think about that, because whilst I agree that the logic of the argument is not conclusive, I do think that the general thought (that average turning into brilliant is to be treated with scepticism given the history of the sport we are discussing) is pretty sound.
For the sake of the discussion - because it is currently a discussion - what do you define as 'average'?
Confession: I was going to point out that Thomas won junior Paris-Roubaix at this point, then looked at the other winners and, er, yeah, average doesn't cover it...0 -
Not really. At the lower levels in our club we play a 442 formation because people understand it from football.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654689#p19654689]underlayunderlay[/url] wrote:(entirely different conversation, btw - but do you feel like you could still teach someone else how to think about hockey, even if you don't feel like you're up to speed with the answers?
I now play for a low level veterans team (with some ex-internationals). A current Welsh International (age 20) once umpired one of our games last a season and just couldn't understand so many things that we were doing (we won comfortably)Twitter: @RichN950 -
Who says we are desperate for it to be true? We just watch cycling and, despite history, give people the benefit of the doubt. Those of us who have observed cycling for a long time we saw a change for the good over the last few years. We saw people (not Sky) who we trusted, succeed. We may have belief in Sky, but if we are proved wrong we'll shrug our shoulders and go about our day. Just like all those other times.What I don't really understand - which was my original point - is why you all so desperately want the Sky dream to be true? Why treat them any differently from any other pro cycling team? And I've read your posts - I respect them all in the proper cycling-focused banter in the spring classics etc.
As to why we treat Sky differently to any other team. First of all this a British website so it's natural. But there's no attack on other teams and generally anything regarding them is treated in a fair and balanced manner (Astana may be an exception and a butt of jokes, but even they are treated more fairly than elsewhere)
The other thing is thatit's telling that someone started a thread entitled 'Are Sky clean or not?' rather than 'Is cycling clean?'. Sky get an unholy amount of focus, and untangling some of that criticism should probably be taken as a proxy for queries about cycling in general.0 -
Who says we are desperate for it to be true? We just watch cycling and, despite history, give people the benefit of the doubt. Those of us who have observed cycling for a long time we saw a change for the good over the last few years. We saw people (not Sky) who we trusted, succeed. We may have belief in Sky, but if we are proved wrong we'll shrug our shoulders and go about our day. Just like all those other times.What I don't really understand - which was my original point - is why you all so desperately want the Sky dream to be true? Why treat them any differently from any other pro cycling team? And I've read your posts - I respect them all in the proper cycling-focused banter in the spring classics etc.
As to why we treat Sky differently to any other team. First of all this a British website so it's natural. But there's no attack on other teams and generally anything regarding them is treated in a fair and balanced manner (Astana may be an exception and a butt of jokes, but even they are treated more fairly than elsewhere)
Again (and as per my earlier post, which was similar) - I'm reading the tone, rather than the words. I think to be honest I'm doing that in light of the media articles which are all ragingly positive and nationalistic, so apologies for that. It's just it comes across that way when that is what you're expecting (the reverse is true, on this forum when some people think someone is anti-Sky / trolling, so I'm going to claim forgiveness on that....)Merckx EMX 5
Ribble 7005 Audax / Campag Centaur
RIP - Scott Speedster S100 -
Another thing different about Sky's tour team to previous years is the absence of a sprinter. I think I'm right in saying they've always had an EBH or Cav previously. This year they're fully all-in for GC. Tinkoff aren't.
I remember seeing G just off the GC group, near top of a MTF during the 2012 Giro. Given he'd have been full track weight so close to Olympics, that suggests a huge amount of climbing talent.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654711#p19654711]underlayunderlay[/url] wrote:
So you're just going to keep parroting this single point over and over again then?And when players who were pretty average in your local team, suddenly become better than Man Utd players, then perhaps one has to ask whether there's something in it?
I will have a think about that, because whilst I agree that the logic of the argument is not conclusive, I do think that the general thought (that average turning into brilliant is to be treated with scepticism given the history of the sport we are discussing) is pretty sound.
For the sake of the discussion - because it is currently a discussion - what do you define as 'average'?
Confession: I was going to point out that Thomas won junior Paris-Roubaix at this point, then looked at the other winners and, er, yeah, average doesn't cover it...
By average, I meant "brilliant, even when compared to your v good amateurs, but just not showing anything particularly special when compared to all the other neo pros". That, I admit, is a pretty small pool and open to statistical anomalies... but CF and GT fall into it - CF as someone showing GT abilities and GT showing mountain goat abilities.Merckx EMX 5
Ribble 7005 Audax / Campag Centaur
RIP - Scott Speedster S100 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654711#p19654711]underlayunderlay[/url] wrote:
So you're just going to keep parroting this single point over and over again then?And when players who were pretty average in your local team, suddenly become better than Man Utd players, then perhaps one has to ask whether there's something in it?
I will have a think about that, because whilst I agree that the logic of the argument is not conclusive, I do think that the general thought (that average turning into brilliant is to be treated with scepticism given the history of the sport we are discussing) is pretty sound.
For the sake of the discussion - because it is currently a discussion - what do you define as 'average'?
Confession: I was going to point out that Thomas won junior Paris-Roubaix at this point, then looked at the other winners and, er, yeah, average doesn't cover it...
By average, I meant "brilliant, even when compared to your v good amateurs, but just not showing anything particularly special when compared to all the other neo pros". That, I admit, is a pretty small pool and open to statistical anomalies... but CF and GT fall into it - CF as someone showing GT abilities and GT showing mountain goat abilities.
Watch this Talius. Froome has always had bags of talent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzPC99ss4lY0 -
"The Prince of Wales is now the King of France" - Calton Kirby0 -
But are you treating every pro Sky article as nationalistic. Maybe they are just right. Please disassociate opinions from nationality.Again (and as per my earlier post, which was similar) - I'm reading the tone, rather than the words. I think to be honest I'm doing that in light of the media articles which are all ragingly positive and nationalistic, so apologies for that. It's just it comes across that way when that is what you're expecting (the reverse is true, on this forum when some people think someone is anti-Sky / trolling, so I'm going to claim forgiveness on that....)
I think that Led Zeppelin are the greatest rock band of all time. I will say they are better than Aerosmith. Is this nationalistic?Twitter: @RichN950 -
Yes, but the point I'm getting at is that they demonstrably haven't simply turned into brilliant riders overnight, they showed potential years ago and have put in a lot of work and benefited from the resources Sky/BC have made available to get where they are today. Other people have already been kind enough to post some of the facts and figures that show the progression and potential of both Froome and Thomas. Maybe nobody expected Froome in particular to go quite as far and fast, but athletic performance can be a very tricky thing to judge - for example, I seem to remember someone telling Cav his weight and performance numbers indicated he'd never amount to anything as a pro and look how that turned out. Similarly, a lot of people doubted Wiggins could ever win the Tour (I assume you think he must have been doping too?).
I will have a think about that, because whilst I agree that the logic of the argument is not conclusive, I do think that the general thought (that average turning into brilliant is to be treated with scepticism given the history of the sport we are discussing) is pretty sound.
So you're just going to keep parroting this single point over and over again then?And when players who were pretty average in your local team, suddenly become better than Man Utd players, then perhaps one has to ask whether there's something in it?
Another point to consider: if Sky are doping, and are so incredibly organised and careful about it that after several years nobody has any proof of it despite the IMMENSE public appetite for any dirt on them (and why would people who have since left the team stay quiet about it?), wouldn't it have made sense for them to avoid having their newly-doped superstar burst onto the scene as Froome did at the Vuelta in 2011? Why not ease into it with a few good results here and there and try to build exactly the sort of blatantly obvious year-by-year progression that you seem to want? Although I suspect that even if Froome had a history of finishing top 40-top 30-top 20-top 10 in the TdF GC before winning the thing it still wouldn't satisfy some people...0 -
It's just it comes across that way when that is what you're expecting (the reverse is true, on this forum when some people think someone is anti-Sky / trolling, so I'm going to claim forgiveness on that....)
Fair point. You're probably one of the few posters to start with an anti-Sky position and actually move to the point where it's a discussion, so it's probably a bit weird for all of us.
If a team were clean, and still winning grand tours, what would you expect to see?
Somewhere on the list would be a load of support riders who were good but not stellar (so that they happily put aside personal ambition for the team - see all those teams that imploded in the past), a defined tactical and strategic plan for the tour that everyone bought into, a leader with a decent time trial position and the ability to hang on in the mountains, and someone shouty to control stuff on the flat. Sky tick these boxes.
Problem is, a decent doped team would bring that too.
So what else might I expect? I would be surprised if a single GC rider could dominate multiple back to back GTs these days (I'd have been really worried if Contador was ripping this up, for example). I'd expect to see riders who are needed to support one race underperform in others as they built towards form instead of simply planning to top up with another bag - but then Porte's Giro was compromised for all sorts of reasons, so 'meh'. Long range attacks over multiple ascents are a thing of the past, and I strongly suspect that's for pharmaceutical reasons - any of those would raise a personal flag. Rumours about training in different countries / kits / fake ginger wigs are another danger flag for me.
So far Froome hasn't hit any of my own personal danger signs (I have others, but won't bore you), but I wouldn't be hugely shocked if he later tested positive because, hey, cycling.
So that's where I'm coming from. What would you expect to see if a GC rider and his team - not necessarily Sky - were clean?0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654711#p19654711]underlayunderlay[/url] wrote:
So you're just going to keep parroting this single point over and over again then?And when players who were pretty average in your local team, suddenly become better than Man Utd players, then perhaps one has to ask whether there's something in it?
I will have a think about that, because whilst I agree that the logic of the argument is not conclusive, I do think that the general thought (that average turning into brilliant is to be treated with scepticism given the history of the sport we are discussing) is pretty sound.
For the sake of the discussion - because it is currently a discussion - what do you define as 'average'?
Confession: I was going to point out that Thomas won junior Paris-Roubaix at this point, then looked at the other winners and, er, yeah, average doesn't cover it...
By average, I meant "brilliant, even when compared to your v good amateurs, but just not showing anything particularly special when compared to all the other neo pros". That, I admit, is a pretty small pool and open to statistical anomalies... but CF and GT fall into it - CF as someone showing GT abilities and GT showing mountain goat abilities.
I don't understand your issues over GT - you openly admit watching Wiggo in yellow brought a tear to your eye. Wiggo was an amazing track rider who with the right support and at the right weight (he says his one piece of advice to a younger self would be about his weight) turned into a GT winner. Why is this not what we possibly seeing with GT, even more so now he seems to have his head set on becoming a GT leader rather than a classics power house?
CF being average, listen to last nights cycling podcast - they mention that someone in British Cycling (cant recall the name and too late to relisten now) identified a young Kenyan called Froome who due to his parents they could flip to being British, and they wanted to as they believed with the right support he could win a medal on the road as physiologically he had it. Fast forward a number of years, delayed with his illness and you now see what was identified years ago.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654711#p19654711]underlayunderlay[/url] wrote:
So you're just going to keep parroting this single point over and over again then?And when players who were pretty average in your local team, suddenly become better than Man Utd players, then perhaps one has to ask whether there's something in it?
I will have a think about that, because whilst I agree that the logic of the argument is not conclusive, I do think that the general thought (that average turning into brilliant is to be treated with scepticism given the history of the sport we are discussing) is pretty sound.
For the sake of the discussion - because it is currently a discussion - what do you define as 'average'?
Confession: I was going to point out that Thomas won junior Paris-Roubaix at this point, then looked at the other winners and, er, yeah, average doesn't cover it...
By average, I meant "brilliant, even when compared to your v good amateurs, but just not showing anything particularly special when compared to all the other neo pros". That, I admit, is a pretty small pool and open to statistical anomalies... but CF and GT fall into it - CF as someone showing GT abilities and GT showing mountain goat abilities.
Fair enough, but GT - as a neo pro - completed his first ever Tour de France. That's not 'average' - most neo pros aren't allowed anywhere near the start line, let alone finishing (sadly he lacked the tactical nous to win the lanterne rouge - I'm sure if he tried hard he could still be a contender). In 2008 he was winning a gold medal on the track at the Olympics. That's essentially an entire road season down the drain, and again not 'average'. He joined Sky after three years at a pretty poor team, whilst still young, and before concentrating on the road: it's hardly a surprise that he's subsequently improved.0 -
Just looking at some of Froome's pre-Sky rides.
Remove all the known dopers and he finished top 20 on Alpe d'Huez as a 23 year old neo pro in the Tour de France. He also finished 9th in a 53km TT on stage 20. The following year he was 9th in a Giro stage up Monte Petrano.0 -
I think my general point is that my experience is (sadly) that cynicism is usually vindicated in sports.
I don't believe spin and PR from any organisation. In general they are bollocks and to be avoided.
I don't think marginal gains make more than marginal differences. Otherwise everyone would use them, and they don't. Or alternatively they do use them and yet they don't succeed the same way - it doesn't make sense.
All cyclists train and work hard. They all have sports scientists and doctors helping them, and DSs advising on tactics. But they don't all turn their careers around from average to world beating.
Whenever this has happened before, it's later been found out to be false.
If CF has unique physiology - as DB is currently suggesting - then do the tests and publicise the stats, because nothing is going to change the facts and so who cares who knows it,they can't do anything with it.
So I have doubts. I don't enjoy watching Porte and Thomas boss the road on mountain stages, where Quintana and Contador can't cope. It doesn't feel right. It doesn't add up to previous abilities. I don't enjoy watching Froome dominate a TTT - (no tactics in that - just power), or fly up the classic's Murs. It doesn't feel right.
In normal sporting, human cycling, climbers are good at climbing, TT specialists are good at TTs, rouleurs are good at the mainly flat / rolling terrain etc, and a very rare mix are good at short punchy climbs. But I think it does take different abilities and strengths to do the different specialisms to their highest levels, and so people who excel at more than one, or people who quickly change from one to the other, do stand out as warning signs.
Mr P, yes watching Wiggo win the tour was amazing, but I think I was a bit biased... Stupid emotion at the first GB win I guess, but wouldn't change it for the world. My view now is just a bit different, because it's becoming much less believable and I do have a lot of doubts.
(edited for some serious typos!)Merckx EMX 5
Ribble 7005 Audax / Campag Centaur
RIP - Scott Speedster S100 -
On 'marginal gains', even small differences can add up. Today's stage was won in around 340 minutes. The second placed rider was one minute twelve behind - or around 0.3%. How many small details would Rodriguez have needed to neglect in order to give away that advantage? My instinct is not many.0
-
So, I have to ask why you watch then. Are you just masochistic or is there something else? If I thought the riders were all juiced i wouldnt watch. After what I consider to be a farcical application of the rules at the Giro I stopped watching. I didnt miss it. There was rugby, football, tennis etc to watch instead. Hell, I didnt even need to watch another sport as I could watch the XCO and DH world cups at the weekend.
I think it was earlier in this thread that Vino's Ghost said that he would never accept that Sky are riding the tour clean even past the day he dies. That's ridiculous. It's not a position at all. We will never ever be able to prove that Sky rode these races clean.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Plenty of teams are using the marginal gains that they laughed at when Sky brought them to the peloton (or were early adopters). Warming down on rollers? Everyone does it now. Own mattresses and pillows? Yep. Mahoosive luxury bus? As big as can be afforded. Kitchen bus? Yep.
How many teams still leave training in the hands of riders own trainers instead if the team? How many don't have a performance analyst crunching training and race data?
Sky have done loads to modernize and professionalize running a cycling team, and they're still ahead of the game. But they chuck a shed load if money at it that not all teams can afford.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
The biggest evidence against Froome is his transformation.
I see the likes of Digger Forum on twitter say 'can you name another transformation like him'
The answer is no I can't.
But why can't I?
If this transformation was due to doping then..,,
...it was available to a low level rider, out of contract, on about 100k a year
...it made 'autobus fodder' into GC podium riders
...no-on else has taken up this transforming drug
If it was down to doping why is he the only one? In the early 90s there were transformations. They were followed by many more.Twitter: @RichN950 -
The biggest evidence against Froome is his transformation.
I see the likes of Digger Forum on twitter say 'can you name another transformation like him'
The answer is no I can't.
But why can't I?
If this transformation was due to doping then..,,
...it was available to a low level rider, out of contract, on about 100k a year
...it made 'autobus fodder' into GC podium riders
...it has been undetectable for four years
...no-on else has taken up this transforming drug
If it was down to doping why is he the only one? In the early 90s there were transformations. They were followed by many more.Twitter: @RichN950
