Are sky clean or not?
Comments
-
Plenty of teams are using the marginal gains that they laughed at when Sky brought them to the peloton
Name one other team that has a Department of Winning Behaviours. They're pushing the envelopes of management science too, don't forget....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
Plenty of teams are using the marginal gains that they laughed at when Sky brought them to the peloton
Name one other team that has a Department of Winning Behaviours. They're pushing the envelopes of management science too, don't forget.
Management in sport maybe, but plenty of companies have departments/teams/employ consultants that do something similar.0 -
You can guarantee at least one team, riders are using bloods or PEDs. Why aren't they leading a clean team?
Relative from a pro cyclists perspective, part of the war/sport; relative perspective from many enthusiasts, cheating.0 -
Can we go back to the tactics stuff...? Some interesting discussion - I've often thought about starting a thread on this, because I find it fascinating. There are a number of things which strike me on a regular basis. As it happens Sky appear to be the only team who've routinely got their heads round them:
1. Why is a mountain train so important? If you want to ride the train, just sit on the one that's there already. All you have to do is ignore the colour of their jerseys. (Well, Sky don't need to do this as they have the firepower to man their own train - I enjoyed Rich's hypothesis as to how they manage the formation of the train).
Same goes for sprinting - in fact a good sprinter ought to be more successful freelancing the various trains available as it should be possible to target the best wheels every time.
2. Riding uphill is no different to riding on the flat. The quickest way to ride a climb is at an even measured pace. Forget racing and just TT, or better still TTT (see Sky 2012). Be prepared to lose the battle but win the war.
3. Why chase down certain attacks. Take Valverde yesterday, why are his persistent bursts of attacking perceived (by the commentators at least) as a threat (or more importantly an advantage to Nairo)? Let him do what he likes, ignore him. He cannot gain any significant time in this way and offers no cause for concern to Froome... (Sky did exactly this and ignored him)
4. Attacking downhill should rarely work (unless the stage finishes at the bottom). Increasing your speed is more costly the faster you are already going (basic aerodynamics) and it should always be 'possible' to follow.
5. There seem to be very few allegiances in modern cycling - multiple teams need to work together if they want to beat one dominant rider. Then worry about sorting it out between themselves on another day.
I think there are some interesting features of professional cycling which influence these things in a manner which is unique from other sports:
1. The impact of television / sponsorship and the associated need to appear in front of the camera at the right time. Add to this the nature of balancing the rewards of stage wins, jersey prizes versus the GC
2. The impact of the UCI points system which can promote the importance of finishing in a minor placing over competing for (but failing to achieve) victory
3. The inherent confusion and lack of communication. Even with race radios is it is significantly harder to share information with teammates or see the entire picture than in, say, football.
4. The tradition effect - it seems as though many teams are tied to racing in a certain way. The breakaway should go early. Riders should sit in if they have a teammate up the road. Certain riders should be chased down out of respect rather than immediate threat. The team of the yellow jersey should control the race.
Bottom line - there seems to be a great deal of scope for shaking up race tactics and trying different things. The Sky approach is actually very conservative and effective primarily from a position of statistical likelihood that certain variables can be controlled.
If tactics are neutralised the best rider will always win. If you don't have the best rider you'd better have the best tactics.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.
In my Twitter TL, when that Walsh quote was being spread around it was interspersed with other tweets suggesting Marc Madiot was some kind of traditional hero for still using a pencil for training plans.
Now Madiot seems like a good guy who has the best interests of the sport at heart but that is farcical! YOu can buy a laptop for 300 Eur and use a free strava account to analyse power data better than you can with a pencil.
There was a film following the Schleck brothers tour preparation a while back where they showed the "coach" discussing the team's (not the rider's the whole team, Cancellara did the same workout as the Schlecks) training plan for the day. I paraphrase but it something along the lines of "So, yeah warm up for about 30 mins then we ll go hard for 2 mins and easy for 5 mins, when you go hard like don't sprint, don't go that hard but, like, hard enough and in the easy, don't stop but also, don't like keep pushing". This was at least a decade after the invention of HRMs and 5 years after powermetres
Therefore it is not bizaare. It's actually true.
Now, if you said that it is bizarre that cycling was so backward that a Team like Sky who came and modernised it could make such large gains then I would agree with you. That is truly bizarreAnd 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.
Funny because the general consensus of Sky's PR is that it's terrible - I'm not sure why so many people need Sky to tell them what to think but...whatever
This is one forum of many, cycling twitter is discussing little else, every podcast I listen to has been discussing it, every cycling website I ve seen has a couple of articles on it and it's in national news papers in every European country.
How can you possibly say that we re not discussing it openly
Oh and how things smell has no relation to doping, sorry.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
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.
In my Twitter TL, when that Walsh quote was being spread around it was interspersed with other tweets suggesting Marc Madiot was some kind of traditional hero for still using a pencil for training plans.
Now Madiot seems like a good guy who has the best interests of the sport at heart but that is farcical! YOu can buy a laptop for 300 Eur and use a free strava account to analyse power data better than you can with a pencil.
There was a film following the Schleck brothers tour preparation a while back where they showed the "coach" discussing the team's (not the rider's the whole team, Cancellara did the same workout as the Schlecks) training plan for the day. I paraphrase but it something along the lines of "So, yeah warm up for about 30 mins then we ll go hard for 2 mins and easy for 5 mins, when you go hard like don't sprint, don't go that hard but, like, hard enough and in the easy, don't stop but also, don't like keep pushing". This was at least a decade after the invention of HRMs and 5 years after powermetres
Oh this. So much this,
Why Pinot chose for FDJ as a guy who really does train properly puzzles me. You'd expect teams on a budget would use scientific training and performance evaluation even more than the rich teams as its a far better way to ensure that talent bought cheaply can develop or that you are buying actual talent. I mean lets say you buy 25 SRM systems with no discount, one for each rider, that's €60,000 or one less replacement level pro each year and for that you can manage the balance of training and recovery, ensure that they are doing the right work and understand race performances far better...
Every team has a power meter sponsor now, but you get the feeling that some of them aren't even teaching the riders how to use the data it gives them."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 -
On all but the steepest climbs there is a still a significant aero benefit to sitting in, so riding up a mountain in a mixed team group of riders is nothing like a TT. The quickest way to ride up a mountain is to ride in someone other riders wheels at an even pace whilst saving yourself for an acceleration when required.2. Riding uphill is no different to riding on the flat. The quickest way to ride a climb is at an even measured pace. Forget racing and just TT, or better still TTT (see Sky 2012). Be prepared to lose the battle but win the war.
And riding up a climb in the fastest time is not the objective. The objective is to cross the line as many seconds as possible ahead of your rivals. The total time of the climb (or any stage) is irrelevant.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
Yes you are right of course. That point was a bit crap - there is a major difference between riding the fastest up the hill and riding the 'best' up it. I guess the 'best' way is to ride it as slowly and as uniformly as your competition will allow.
On all but the steepest climbs there is a still a significant aero benefit to sitting in, so riding up a mountain in a mixed team group of riders is nothing like a TT. The quickest way to ride up a mountain is to ride in someone other riders wheels at an even pace whilst saving yourself for an acceleration when required.2. Riding uphill is no different to riding on the flat. The quickest way to ride a climb is at an even measured pace. Forget racing and just TT, or better still TTT (see Sky 2012). Be prepared to lose the battle but win the war.
And riding up a climb in the fastest time is not the objective. The objective is to cross the line as many seconds as possible ahead of your rivals. The total time of the climb (or any stage) is irrelevant.
Nonetheless a train riding at maximum sustainable tempo (allowing for delivery of just the last rider to the finish with the maximum drafting benefit) should be the most repeatable and consistent method of getting to the top in the shortest time - which is one-sure fire way to manage the variables which are otherwise outside your control... that said, I still maintain that the most effective counter would be to 'simply' ride on the back of the train? Why is this not adopted more often? Of if it is, why do trains still flourish?0 -
Interesting post. My few comments in red.
Worth noting that your suggestions for most efficient method lead to an incredibly dull race, less interest from fans and thus less sustainability of the sport.1. Why is a mountain train so important? If you want to ride the train, just sit on the one that's there already. All you have to do is ignore the colour of their jerseys. (Well, Sky don't need to do this as they have the firepower to man their own train - I enjoyed Rich's hypothesis as to how they manage the formation of the train).
For Sky especially, it enables them to ride the majority of the climb at a pre-planned and pre-trained tempo, something their bodies will respond well to. It is also an issue of dominance to try and scare attackers off and keep things controllable. Also easier to know how hard to ride to keep your teammates alongside for as long as possible. Also can get them to ease up if you are struggling or speed up if you see someone else struggling.
Which is why I love the hills which have a >10% gradient at the bottom like in Contador's massive T-A solo win as it kills off the teammates and leaves it up to the leaders.
2. Riding uphill is no different to riding on the flat. The quickest way to ride a climb is at an even measured pace. Forget racing and just TT, or better still TTT (see Sky 2012). Be prepared to lose the battle but win the war.
Sastre did this! Always off the back early then grinding his way back as the eager riders fade. Giro 2009 stage 19 for an example. I guess it is risky though as you may never catch those who have gone ahead and are not benefiting from their slipstream and your teammates towing you up may falter, then you have a lot of solo effort which is much more energy sapping even at a sustained pace.
3. Why chase down certain attacks. Take Valverde yesterday, why are his persistent bursts of attacking perceived (by the commentators at least) as a threat (or more importantly an advantage to Nairo)? Let him do what he likes, ignore him. He cannot gain any significant time in this way and offers no cause for concern to Froome... (Sky did exactly this and ignored him)
You never know how far ahead they may go and it is perfectly possible for a rider to gain time even if harder. You also may not have a kick to follow but others in your group do, so that lone attacker gets joined by a handful and now you have a problem.
4. Attacking downhill should rarely work (unless the stage finishes at the bottom). Increasing your speed is more costly the faster you are already going (basic aerodynamics) and it should always be 'possible' to follow.
I think it was DeVlaeminck who mentionned it yesterday but Merckx would attack downhill sometimes taking massive risks in the hope that those chasing bottled it first. Not a nice tactic though! I would also disagree that riders can't gain time...you can gain significant amounts of time and this has been evidenced many times, even if it is very difficult and risky.
5. There seem to be very few allegiances in modern cycling - multiple teams need to work together if they want to beat one dominant rider. Then worry about sorting it out between themselves on another day.
Agree. It would add a nice dimension to the viewing of races as well.Contador is the Greatest0 -
On the subject of professionalism, can anyone find me a link to Sagan saying he hadn't looked at the profile/route for the next day's stage yet? Was a couple of days ago he said it.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
-
Sorry I'm not getting you. When a train is riding tempo up a climb - sitting on the back of it is what ALL the other teams do.I still maintain that the most effective counter would be to 'simply' ride on the back of the train? Why is this not adopted more often? Of if it is, why do trains still flourish?
When it comes to winning a race though sitting on the back of a train does not get you a win or any time. Sitting in the train works for the man in yellow of course but everyone else has to attack at some point.
The main advantage of the high-tempo train (and any so many hate seeing it) is that it takes the sting out of the attacks from the pedal dancers - a tactic deployed perfectly for Wiggo for example due to him lacking any punch at all but having a massive diesel engine which can motor all day. Ride so hard as to virtually asphyxiate the opposition and it is very very hard for anyone to punch away.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
not had a chance to read all 20 pages of the thread yet but has there actually been any evidence they are doing something naughty yet ?
At some point you have to switch off and just watch the sport. Yesterday they all finished in the same group so didn't see anything too out of the ordinary.0 -
Yes you are right of course. That point was a bit crap - there is a major difference between riding the fastest up the hill and riding the 'best' up it. I guess the 'best' way is to ride it as slowly and as uniformly as your competition will allow.
On all but the steepest climbs there is a still a significant aero benefit to sitting in, so riding up a mountain in a mixed team group of riders is nothing like a TT. The quickest way to ride up a mountain is to ride in someone other riders wheels at an even pace whilst saving yourself for an acceleration when required.2. Riding uphill is no different to riding on the flat. The quickest way to ride a climb is at an even measured pace. Forget racing and just TT, or better still TTT (see Sky 2012). Be prepared to lose the battle but win the war.
And riding up a climb in the fastest time is not the objective. The objective is to cross the line as many seconds as possible ahead of your rivals. The total time of the climb (or any stage) is irrelevant.
Nonetheless a train riding at maximum sustainable tempo (allowing for delivery of just the last rider to the finish with the maximum drafting benefit) should be the most repeatable and consistent method of getting to the top in the shortest time - which is one-sure fire way to manage the variables which are otherwise outside your control... that said, I still maintain that the most effective counter would be to 'simply' ride on the back of the train? Why is this not adopted more often? Of if it is, why do trains still flourish?
You need the train to be setting the pace you want. If it's too low you haven't used up your competitors ability to attack, not their supply of domestiques. Sky did sit on Movistar's train for half the climb on stage 10. Then they went to the front and finished the job. Froome's train is different to Wiggins' though. Froome has the edge over pretty much everyone in being able to put in an attack in the mountains, so for him he's happy to shed everyone else's domestiques and then go toe-to-toe with whoever is left - at least on a hockey-stick stage and early MTF. He knows they'll struggle harder than him.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Sorry I'm not getting you. When a train is riding tempo up a climb - sitting on the back of it is what ALL the other teams do.I still maintain that the most effective counter would be to 'simply' ride on the back of the train? Why is this not adopted more often? Of if it is, why do trains still flourish?
When it comes to winning a race though sitting on the back of a train does not get you a win or any time. Sitting in the train works for the man in yellow of course but everyone else has to attack at some point.
The main advantage of the high-tempo train (and any so many hate seeing it) is that it takes the sting out of the attacks from the punchers and pedal dancers - a tactic deployed perfectly for Wiggo for example due to him lacking any punch at all but having a massive diesel engine which can motor all day. Ride so hard as to virtually asphyxiate the opposition and it is very very hard for anyone to punch away.
I think we agree in our understanding of how they work... but are we saying that the train is purely a defensive tactic. One that another rider can latch onto if they like - but not something they can gain from?
Is this why a stage race needs cross wind stages, cobbles, and any other uncertainty to introduce time gaps as the mountain top finishes are effectively the easiest to neutralise?0 -
Some chat relevant to this thread in the Cycling Podcast. One tactical point was the deliberate switching of Porte and Thomas so that Porte is on the front during the section of the climb when they most fear damaging attacks.
You have to derail the train on the previous mountain. By the time you reach the final climb it's too late. This has been clear for years and it's a minor scandal that not a single team put Sky under any pressure yesterday....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
Sorry I'm not getting you. When a train is riding tempo up a climb - sitting on the back of it is what ALL the other teams do.I still maintain that the most effective counter would be to 'simply' ride on the back of the train? Why is this not adopted more often? Of if it is, why do trains still flourish?
When it comes to winning a race though sitting on the back of a train does not get you a win or any time. Sitting in the train works for the man in yellow of course but everyone else has to attack at some point.
The main advantage of the high-tempo train (and any so many hate seeing it) is that it takes the sting out of the attacks from the punchers and pedal dancers - a tactic deployed perfectly for Wiggo for example due to him lacking any punch at all but having a massive diesel engine which can motor all day. Ride so hard as to virtually asphyxiate the opposition and it is very very hard for anyone to punch away.
I think we agree in our understanding of how they work... but are we saying that the train is purely a defensive tactic. One that another rider can latch onto if they like - but not something they can gain from?
Is this why a stage race needs cross wind stages, cobbles, and any other uncertainty to introduce time gaps as the mountain top finishes are effectively the easiest to neutralise?
No, it was purely defensive for Wiggins, but it's also used as a launchpad for Froome and Quintana.
By controlling the train you can set the pace to exactly where it benefits you most, and if you see the others struggle then you bide your time and attack - leaving them trainless.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
not had a chance to read all 20 pages of the thread yet but has there actually been any evidence they are doing something naughty yet ?
At some point you have to switch off and just watch the sport. Yesterday they all finished in the same group so didn't see anything too out of the ordinary.
No evidence. Twitter massive confirmation bias fest over three non-stories
1. Someone put Froome's HR, Power, Cadence against his ride of Ventoux from a few years back and then made some stupid claims. It related to HR not increasing immediately following Power burst, and low max heart rate in general. Frankly my Strava readings show exactly the same thing and I bet most cyclists do - the HR lags slightly; just like Froome's did on Ventoux.
2. Froome's calculated (not measured) Watts per Kilo is too high for some commentators. All that needs to be said is that the calculation has been shown to be inaccurate at good/almost-elite level athletes by about 6-10% and that it will get more inaccurate as power increases (ie for the sort of athlete who is a grand tour winner). A 10pct drop in his calculated watts per kilo would put it into the very underwhelming category so all the twitterati are ignoring the error margins.
3. Sky employed someone who 16 years ago worked for 6 months in the same team as Lance Armstrong. There is no implication that he was involved in the doping then (he is not a medic or trainer) and none that he is involved in medicine/training/nutrition at Sky. I believe he is a quartermaster in their Belgian Supply centre0 -
Sorry I'm not getting you. When a train is riding tempo up a climb - sitting on the back of it is what ALL the other teams do.I still maintain that the most effective counter would be to 'simply' ride on the back of the train? Why is this not adopted more often? Of if it is, why do trains still flourish?
When it comes to winning a race though sitting on the back of a train does not get you a win or any time. Sitting in the train works for the man in yellow of course but everyone else has to attack at some point.
The main advantage of the high-tempo train (and any so many hate seeing it) is that it takes the sting out of the attacks from the punchers and pedal dancers - a tactic deployed perfectly for Wiggo for example due to him lacking any punch at all but having a massive diesel engine which can motor all day. Ride so hard as to virtually asphyxiate the opposition and it is very very hard for anyone to punch away.
I think we agree in our understanding of how they work... but are we saying that the train is purely a defensive tactic. One that another rider can latch onto if they like - but not something they can gain from?
Is this why a stage race needs cross wind stages, cobbles, and any other uncertainty to introduce time gaps as the mountain top finishes are effectively the easiest to neutralise?
Its hard work to stay in train where you're not welcome, all you end up doing is disturbing it, which has its place too.0 -
Some chat relevant to this thread in the Cycling Podcast. One tactical point was the deliberate switching of Porte and Thomas so that Porte is on the front during the section of the climb when they most fear damaging attacks.
You have to derail the train on the previous mountain. By the time you reach the final climb it's too late. This has been clear for years and it's a minor scandal that not a single team put Sky under any pressure yesterday.
It's a minor scandal, but only minor. It goes back again to Vaughters comments about Sky being financially superior - putting an 800,000 Euro rider in front of a 900,000 Euroe rider in front of a 1,000,000 rider.
I genuinely don't think there's another team out there that has the resources to put Sky under pressure on the penultimate climb AND take advantage of it on the MTF. Now if they ganged up, they might get somewhere.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
(as we've determined before) I don't necessary agree with you here, but fully understand and accept your perspective. Remember I love defending... Arsenal's back four of the early 90's were a delight to watch!Interesting post. My few comments in red.
Worth noting that your suggestions for most efficient method lead to an incredibly dull race, less interest from fans and thus less sustainability of the sport.
Is sport about bums on seats (or feet on roadsides?) or personal glory?
I guess this is where my point about cycling's unique funding method is particularly relevant.0 -
Some chat relevant to this thread in the Cycling Podcast. One tactical point was the deliberate switching of Porte and Thomas so that Porte is on the front during the section of the climb when they most fear damaging attacks.
You have to derail the train on the previous mountain. By the time you reach the final climb it's too late. This has been clear for years and it's a minor scandal that not a single team put Sky under any pressure yesterday.
It's a minor scandal, but only minor. It goes back again to Vaughters comments about Sky being financially superior - putting an 800,000 Euro rider in front of a 900,000 Euroe rider in front of a 1,000,000 rider.
I genuinely don't think there's another team out there that has the resources to put Sky under pressure on the penultimate climb AND take advantage of it on the MTF. Now if they ganged up, they might get somewhere.
Ian Stannard rolled over two cols, undisturbed, not bothered, like Cancellara leading over a cobbled descent in the wet. These were cols ridden in a furnace that esteemed posters here described as their worst day on a bike.
That has nothing to do with budget. It's perfectly possible that with more imaginative and aggressive riding, Froome could have been isolated from most of his train before reaching the final climb. Different game....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
not had a chance to read all 20 pages of the thread yet but has there actually been any evidence they are doing something naughty yet ?
At some point you have to switch off and just watch the sport. Yesterday they all finished in the same group so didn't see anything too out of the ordinary.
No evidence. Twitter massive confirmation bias fest over three non-stories
1. Someone put Froome's HR, Power, Cadence against his ride of Ventoux from a few years back and then made some stupid claims. It related to HR not increasing immediately following Power burst, and low max heart rate in general. Frankly my Strava readings show exactly the same thing and I bet most cyclists do - the HR lags slightly; just like Froome's did on Ventoux.
2. Froome's calculated (not measured) Watts per Kilo is too high for some commentators. All that needs to be said is that the calculation has been shown to be inaccurate at good/almost-elite level athletes by about 6-10% and that it will get more inaccurate as power increases (ie for the sort of athlete who is a grand tour winner). A 10pct drop in his calculated watts per kilo would put it into the very underwhelming category so all the twitterati are ignoring the error margins.
3. Sky employed someone who 16 years ago worked for 6 months in the same team as Lance Armstrong. There is no implication that he was involved in the doping then (he is not a medic or trainer) and none that he is involved in medicine/training/nutrition at Sky. I believe he is a quartermaster in their Belgian Supply centre
Thanks for the update. All seems to be nothing from nothing at the moment so far.
Saw about the former USPS guy on CN the other day, seems a bit of a non story so far.
I know there are suspicions on Froome but if he wasn't leading it would then be Teejay and then 3rd place and 4th place.
I'm trying to watch the sport now rather than get caught up in all the speculation. We've seen riders have off days now and get dropped so i'm taking that as a sign the sport is moving on0 -
Worth noting that your suggestions for most efficient method lead to an incredibly dull race, less interest from fans and thus less sustainability of the sport.
Agreed, non of us want to see a boring race but I'm not sure about the sustainability thing.
Most people don't watch as much cycling as the forumers and just love a winner.
We know you don't like SKY but they've been a big part of the explosion of cycling in the UK.
In France it feels like cycling is on its knees. No winners = no interest.
All the youngsters in my (French) club love Froome!0 -
Some chat relevant to this thread in the Cycling Podcast. One tactical point was the deliberate switching of Porte and Thomas so that Porte is on the front during the section of the climb when they most fear damaging attacks.
You have to derail the train on the previous mountain. By the time you reach the final climb it's too late. This has been clear for years and it's a minor scandal that not a single team put Sky under any pressure yesterday.
It's a minor scandal, but only minor. It goes back again to Vaughters comments about Sky being financially superior - putting an 800,000 Euro rider in front of a 900,000 Euroe rider in front of a 1,000,000 rider.
I genuinely don't think there's another team out there that has the resources to put Sky under pressure on the penultimate climb AND take advantage of it on the MTF. Now if they ganged up, they might get somewhere.
Ian Stannard rolled over two cols, undisturbed, not bothered, like Cancellara leading over a cobbled descent in the wet. These were cols ridden in a furnace that esteemed posters here described as their worst day on a bike.
That has nothing to do with budget. It's perfectly possible that with more imaginative and aggressive riding, Froome could have been isolated from most of his train before reaching the final climb. Different game.
Risky game though.
Vaughters thinks G would be "outright leader on any other team in the world" (that's over-egging it a touch, I think), while BMC will make Porte a leader (probably above TJVG for now).
Yes, they could possibly have done more to damage Sky, but at what cost to their own riders?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
And just a quick add-on to marginal gains and financial superiority:
I think the other teams may be beaten in their heads. Whether Sky are achieving their dominance through doping or legitimate means, it's still dominance. They must be doing something the other teams aren't, and the other teams know it. That's easily worth a few watts on an MTF, especially if you're killing yourself for a leader that doesn't look like he's got it today. A pre-requisite to winning is believing you can win, that it isn't stacked against you from the start.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Risky game though.
Vaughters thinks G would be "outright leader on any other team in the world" (that's over-egging it a touch, I think), while BMC will make Porte a leader (probably above TJVG for now).
Yes, they could possibly have done more to damage Sky, but at what cost to their own riders?
Of course it's risky. A series of Valverde/Fuglsang/Majka/Pinot/Gesink/Hesjdal... attacks may have doomed their personal chances. But they may have pulled enough of a group away to force Sky to at least chase.
Instead of the risk they took the near certainty of being steam-rolled on the final climb....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
Some chat relevant to this thread in the Cycling Podcast. One tactical point was the deliberate switching of Porte and Thomas so that Porte is on the front during the section of the climb when they most fear damaging attacks.
You have to derail the train on the previous mountain. By the time you reach the final climb it's too late. This has been clear for years and it's a minor scandal that not a single team put Sky under any pressure yesterday.
It's a minor scandal, but only minor. It goes back again to Vaughters comments about Sky being financially superior - putting an 800,000 Euro rider in front of a 900,000 Euroe rider in front of a 1,000,000 rider.
I genuinely don't think there's another team out there that has the resources to put Sky under pressure on the penultimate climb AND take advantage of it on the MTF. Now if they ganged up, they might get somewhere.
Don't BMC have a bigger (marginally) budget this year - and Tinkoff spend significantly more than the total cost of those three riders on Sagan0 -
can't get why the other teams don't let Sky do ALL the work on the stages so they burn off the riders. At one point we had Tinkov pushing the pace on at the start of the final climb which gave Porte and G a rest. Why not try and burn off the Sky riders before and isolate Froome0
-
If Sky have zero interest in stage wins, how do you incite them to race though?
The only way I can come up with is to arrange or force the co-operation of multiple teams.0
