Are sky clean or not?
Comments
-
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.
Yes, they need to get organised and gang up. But that seems to be a mythical beast in modern cycling, we've not really seen it since the nationalistic Vuelta's and Giro's of the late eighties (Millar and Roche). It may also be part of the reason Sky always like to smash the first MTF, at that point everyone is worried about each other, scope for collaboration is severely reduced. By the time you get to the third mountain stage most of the riders you list aren't a danger, and can only be used as advanced help. Sky would just give them a few minutes and then reel them in slowly and steadily. But other teams may see some of those riders as a threat to their own GC placings/chance at a podium...Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
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 Sagan
BMC have about the same budget, but don't invest it very well. Porte will be a significant addition for them and a step in the right direction.
Saxo - yes, blew the lot on Sagan instead of some serious rollers.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
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 Sagan
BMC have about the same budget, but don't invest it very well. Porte will be a significant addition for them and a step in the right direction.
Saxo - yes, blew the lot on Sagan instead of some serious rollers.
THe difference between Sky and BMC is that BMC would have told riders like GvA and Gilbert that they were expected to ride the tour as support for TJvG and slog on the front up the last time until they couldnt do any more then ride back in gently. Now I suspect that both Greg and Phillipe would have told TJ where to stick that idea.
Sky, however have their main man at the giro/winner of Paris Nice/Volta Catalunya/Trentino, the winner of the Omloop, the winner of the Volta Algarve/E3/podium at the Tour de Suisse and G-W riding in support of Chris Froome
That - more than anything - is why they re so dominant
edit - and I should add that those results for Porte, Stannard and Thomas respectively are THIS YEARWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
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.
Yes, they need to get organised and gang up. But that seems to be a mythical beast in modern cycling, we've not really seen it since the nationalistic Vuelta's and Giro's of the late eighties (Millar and Roche). It may also be part of the reason Sky always like to smash the first MTF, at that point everyone is worried about each other, scope for collaboration is severely reduced. By the time you get to the third mountain stage most of the riders you list aren't a danger, and can only be used as advanced help. Sky would just give them a few minutes and then reel them in slowly and steadily. But other teams may see some of those riders as a threat to their own GC placings/chance at a podium...
That's interesting - it used to be accepted wisdom that you didn't want to take the lead too early in the tour... but look at the last three editions: all won in the first week, or at least on the first mountain stage by creating a significant gap. From this position it has been possible to defend (or even launch further counter-attacks in response to the opposition trying to gain back time). You could even argue that Cadel's win was built on snatching seconds in the first week.
So what's the answer, go nuts in the first week and fire off random attacks to try and disrupt the race?0 -
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.
Yes, they need to get organised and gang up. But that seems to be a mythical beast in modern cycling, we've not really seen it since the nationalistic Vuelta's and Giro's of the late eighties (Millar and Roche). It may also be part of the reason Sky always like to smash the first MTF, at that point everyone is worried about each other, scope for collaboration is severely reduced. By the time you get to the third mountain stage most of the riders you list aren't a danger, and can only be used as advanced help. Sky would just give them a few minutes and then reel them in slowly and steadily. But other teams may see some of those riders as a threat to their own GC placings/chance at a podium...
That's interesting - it used to be accepted wisdom that you didn't want to take the lead too early in the tour... but look at the last three editions: all won in the first week, or at least on the first mountain stage by creating a significant gap. From this position it has been possible to defend (or even launch further counter-attacks in response to the opposition trying to gain back time). You could even argue that Cadel's win was built on snatching seconds in the first week.
So what's the answer, go nuts in the first week and fire off random attacks to try and disrupt the race?
No, in the first week you make sure you don't lose time in splits. Where you see an advantage you take it. Froome did that exceptionally well, a couple of little digs on finishing Murs, driving an echelon, staying at the front on the cobbles. Above all, stay out of trouble. That week should have been Nibali's hunting ground, and he came out of it behind Froome. No surprise his head was gone when he was dropped on stage 10.
The real tactic is to know exactly what you're doing on that first mountain stage, to ride to dominate it. Others have pointed out that a rolling stage to a single HC summit is tailor-made for Sky.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
A key problem at this juncture is the perception that Sky is unbeatable, which is of course a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Sky has carefully curated an aura of exceptionalism that goes far beyond performances on the road. Consider the massive fleet of black and silver vehicles, the unique black kit, the alien Kask helmets, Brailsford’s Olympics heritage, the English language, etc.
Even the entirely plausible idea that Sky is dope-free must be a big psychological advantage.
I'll take any opportunity to re-reference Frank Abagnale Snr
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDHaAwKXj0s0 -
A key problem at this juncture is the perception that Sky is unbeatable, which is of course a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Sky has carefully curated an aura of exceptionalism that goes far beyond performances on the road. Consider the massive fleet of black and silver vehicles, the unique black kit, the alien Kask helmets, Brailsford’s Olympics heritage, the English language, etc.
Even the entirely plausible idea that Sky is dope-free must be a big psychological advantage.
Yep. Brailsford's reputation as a guru helps too; gurus being principally illusionists....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
A key problem at this juncture is the perception that Sky is unbeatable, which is of course a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Sky has carefully curated an aura of exceptionalism that goes far beyond performances on the road. Consider the massive fleet of black and silver vehicles, the unique black kit, the alien Kask helmets, Brailsford’s Olympics heritage, the English language, etc.
Even the entirely plausible idea that Sky is dope-free must be a big psychological advantage.
Yep. Brailsford's reputation as a guru helps too; gurus being principally illusionists.
I also think this is a little of what the marginal gains philosophy is about - I don't doubt some of the advances have helped massively however as a rider knowing that my team have covered every eventuality has to be a boost psychologically. Conversely when the pain sets in on a MTF you have to wonder if there are niggles in some riders minds that they are finished as Sky have done the marginal gains thing and your team are still behind that curve.0 -
Placepo effect....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0
-
you guys touched on ketones yet? Sky's budget allows for this. Something that is not doping but is the sort of thing we think Sky are doing which is not squeaky:
http://www.palmares.co.uk/project/ketones/
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/ketones-controversial-new-energy-drink-next-big-thing-cycling-151877
Apparently Valgren said Tinkoff tried to get some but you need to be mates with the Oxford dons.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Wrote this on Froome, Sky, doping accusations & portrayal of opinion as fact. http://spokeydokeyblog.com/2015/07/15/the-new-religion/0
-
Also, don't forget their likely use of hypoxicators etc.Contador is the Greatest0
-
^It would be great if one of the reporters put that to Sky/Froome, ketones.0
-
and of course their extensive use of witchcraft and pact with the Devil.Also, don't forget their likely use of hypoxicators etc.0 -
Also, don't forget their likely use of hypoxicators etc.
Isn't that just similar to sleeping in an altitude tent? They also don't look especially expensive.
Sky have said they don't use ketones which seems like a pretty easy thing to get found out on if they're lying, so I guess we'll see.0 -
and of course their extensive use of witchcraft and pact with the Devil.Also, don't forget their likely use of hypoxicators etc.
Are you suggesting Froome is put on a ducking stool?0 -
you guys touched on ketones yet? Sky's budget allows for this. Something that is not doping but is the sort of thing we think Sky are doing which is not squeaky:
http://www.palmares.co.uk/project/ketones/
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/ketones-controversial-new-energy-drink-next-big-thing-cycling-151877
Apparently Valgren said Tinkoff tried to get some but you need to be mates with the Oxford dons.
Think it was covered earlier and Froome has gone on record saying he has no idea what they are and had to google ketones.
However what does "not squeaky" mean - as far as I am aware ketones aren't a banned substance surely performance enhancing products are a black and white thing. If it's on the banned list it's a no otherwise it is fair game. Otherwise where do you draw the line on what is squeaky clean?0 -
Sky have won 2 out of the last 16 Grand Tours - 12.5%. Dominance has never looked so weak.0
-
Also, don't forget their likely use of hypoxicators etc.
Isn't that just similar to sleeping in an altitude tent? They also don't look especially expensive.
Sky have said they don't use ketones which seems like a pretty easy thing to get found out on if they're lying, so I guess we'll see.
Gotcha on ketones.
Yes, Wiggins was a massive user of them. Think he even had one for the hour record prep. No doubt they use them and other 'oxygen methods' to the max.Contador is the Greatest0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxcyYOODXmw
and of course their extensive use of witchcraft and pact with the Devil.Also, don't forget their likely use of hypoxicators etc.
Are you suggesting Froome is put on a ducking stool?0 -
Also, don't forget their likely use of hypoxicators etc.
Isn't that just similar to sleeping in an altitude tent? They also don't look especially expensive.
Sky have said they don't use ketones which seems like a pretty easy thing to get found out on if they're lying, so I guess we'll see.
Gotcha on ketones.
Yes, Wiggins was a massive user of them. Think he even had one for the hour record prep. No doubt they use them and other 'oxygen methods' to the max.
But based on the price of hypoxicators any of the teams could afford them - they look to produce similar effects to altitude tents and at a similar price (or less), so I don't see how Sky has any advantage there. Even some amateurs use them.0 -
So the Sky strategy basically depends on getting the A team together. It clearly doesn't work in the Giro or to an extend the Vuelta.
If any nefarious means of turning average riders into world beaters was being used why would they not offer the B team the same advantages to win the Giro or Vuelta.
I don't buy the domination thing. The difference between winning and losing a 90 hour race is a few minutes. I would suggest that if a rider is marginally better than the others or has a marginally better team then over 21 stages this doesn't seem a ridiculous margin.
No science here, just an observation.0 -
Sky have won 2 out of the last 16 Grand Tours - 12.5%. Dominance has never looked so weak.
This dominance delusion is symmetrical. The same stat doesn't detract from the notion that Brailsford has mystical powers....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
Why have all the other doping programmes in the peloton failed to exceed Froome's numbers, which only appear to be boderline if you believe the zoomers. This Tour has been a catastrophe for the everybody is doping crowd....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0
-
Out of the last four Tours they have won two, had their superman crash out of one and are currently heavy favourite to win this one.
Like most English speakers they don't care about anything else.
So use that as your base stat.
So you might want to revisit non-dominance of the Tour delusion.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Out of the last four Tours they have won two, had their superman crash out of one and are currently heavy favourite to win this one.
Like most English speakers they don't care about anything else.
So use that as your base stat.
So you might want to revisit non-dominance of the Tour delusion.
To add to that I always thought Wiggins had a very decent chance in 2011 before crashing.0 -
Well I just Googled Ketones and I can by some nice raspberry flavoured ones for £19.99. Is this the secret of Sky's "dominance"? They've got the internet and everyone else is still using the aforementioned traditional pencils?Apparently Valgren said Tinkoff tried to get some but you need to be mates with the Oxford dons.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19655248#p19655248]SpokeyDokeyBlog[/url] wrote:Wrote this on Froome, Sky, doping accusations & portrayal of opinion as fact. http://spokeydokeyblog.com/2015/07/15/the-new-religion/
Nice...however...
With regard to the PR - what do you expect them to do? This line about PR is repeated over and over again but there is never any suggestion as to what people mean. There is no other team that come under anywhere near as much scrutiny from people that are simply not going to believe them whatever they release. What is the point on spending budget on PR to satisfy these people. How does better PR make, for example, the Vayer Video any less "controversial" for them?
Bertie is also fanatical about is bike setup, inflating tyres 40psi over where they should be and then riding on super thin tyres that only last 30km necessitating changing of bikes etc. He also is very private about his data and, apparently, won't even let the TKS coaches see it but will only send them screenshots - In terms of GT dominance Bertie is still the king, and has served a doping ban but he is rarely...if ever... asked to defend his positionWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Sky have won 2 out of the last 16 Grand Tours - 12.5%. Dominance has never looked so weak.
This dominance delusion is symmetrical. The same stat doesn't detract from the notion that Brailsford has mystical powers.
But if we hypothesise that Froome dominates this Tour (which we all accept is quite likely) then Sky will have dominated '12, '13 and '15. That's 75% of TdFs in four years. Which given that Froome crashed out in the 1st week and Porte was ill in '14 does look a lot like dominance.
They aren't dominating cycling in general, despite the good showing in the classics and the week long stage races they've won. But in the biggest of them all they bring their game.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
and of course their extensive use of witchcraft and pact with the Devil.Also, don't forget their likely use of hypoxicators etc.
I read that as "pact with David". I think I've found the smoking gun...Team My Man 2018: David gaudu, Pierre Latour, Romain Bardet, Thibaut pinot, Alexandre Geniez, Florian Senechal, Warren Barguil, Benoit Cosnefroy0
