Are sky clean or not?

CuthbertC

No tA Doctor wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

The reason lots of people think Sky are doping is because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. The best anyone can come up with is that Leinders worked there and he was subsequently banned for life. (Obviously there's no one else still in cycling who had anything to do with doping when everyone 'had to' dope). QED.

That's infuriating for many, so they keep having to spew out the same old narrative. When I question them on Twitter there is a herd of 'disciples' throwing insults at me, led by the Archangel Tucker (the stupid *ucker).

Tucker is a nasty piece of work. Routinely throws dissenters to his disciples. Deliberately misconstrues arguments (or is monstrously stupid, and I don't think he is). And knows sweet fa about cycling. Apparently it's an "insult" to all the other teams to suggest that Sky might have a competitive edge through modernising training.

How have Sky modernised training?

CuthbertC

cougie wrote:

I've only ever seen Cuthbert describe DB as being a win at all costs personality. Where does he get that? Oh it fits in with his "theory".

This is from someone who knows him-

http://www.planetx.co.uk/news/planet-x- ... r-the-chop

From the man himself:

I hate losing. The emotion of winning is not as great as the disappointment of losing. It’s much worse than winning is good. I’ve only realised in the last 18 months or so that what drives me is the avoidance of [losing]. Winning is great, but I don’t get that much from it. But I hate losing, it tears me apart.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/rac ... tise-41804

CuthbertC

Duplicate (sorry).

CuthbertC

Duplicate.

ocdupalais

CuthbertC wrote:

Duplicate (sorry).

CuthbertC wrote:

Duplicate.

At last - some believable content and sentiment from you.

bobmcstuff

CuthbertC wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

The reason lots of people think Sky are doping is because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. The best anyone can come up with is that Leinders worked there and he was subsequently banned for life. (Obviously there's no one else still in cycling who had anything to do with doping when everyone 'had to' dope). QED.

That's infuriating for many, so they keep having to spew out the same old narrative. When I question them on Twitter there is a herd of 'disciples' throwing insults at me, led by the Archangel Tucker (the stupid *ucker).

Tucker is a nasty piece of work. Routinely throws dissenters to his disciples. Deliberately misconstrues arguments (or is monstrously stupid, and I don't think he is). And knows sweet fa about cycling. Apparently it's an "insult" to all the other teams to suggest that Sky might have a competitive edge through modernising training.

How have Sky modernised training?

This is a really popular one for the anti-Sky lot... You only have to look at how other teams have changed (I'm thinking particularly of Pinot and FDJ here) to see that whether you like it or not Sky have brought about some changes to training and race prep.

Pinot was saying they'd never put him in the wind tunnel before - can't imagine that happening at Sky.

CuthbertC

bobmcstuff wrote:

CuthbertC wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

The reason lots of people think Sky are doping is because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. The best anyone can come up with is that Leinders worked there and he was subsequently banned for life. (Obviously there's no one else still in cycling who had anything to do with doping when everyone 'had to' dope). QED.

That's infuriating for many, so they keep having to spew out the same old narrative. When I question them on Twitter there is a herd of 'disciples' throwing insults at me, led by the Archangel Tucker (the stupid *ucker).

Tucker is a nasty piece of work. Routinely throws dissenters to his disciples. Deliberately misconstrues arguments (or is monstrously stupid, and I don't think he is). And knows sweet fa about cycling. Apparently it's an "insult" to all the other teams to suggest that Sky might have a competitive edge through modernising training.

How have Sky modernised training?

This is a really popular one for the anti-Sky lot... You only have to look at how other teams have changed (I'm thinking particularly of Pinot and FDJ here) to see that whether you like it or not Sky have brought about some changes to training and race prep.

Pinot was saying they'd never put him in the wind tunnel before - can't imagine that happening at Sky.

Yes, totally inconceivable:

Despite being the Olympic bronze medallist in the discipline and runner-up to Wiggins in both long time-trials in this year’s Tour, Froome has never tested his position and bike in a wind tunnel. In time-trial terms, he has been operating in the Stone Age, with elbows out as if riding a scooter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... tions.html

tangled_metal

So hating to lose equates to win at all costs? In his own words he.never said anything like win at all costs.

What he did say is the negative is worse than the positive is good so he tries/works hard to avoid the negative. That's been acknowledged for decades in other fields. I remember being taught a very little about customer service and marketing. The guy teaching it said you can have 10 positive dealings with customers but the single negative dealing gets spread further and wider. Gist of it is you remember the negative better than the positive and if you're competitive (no bad thing no matter what liberal lot might say) that losing hurts.

I hate getting a 2nd best time for a regular segment on strava. It drives me on to get a pb later in the ride. I'm not doping because of it. Of course I'm also not in team Sky so not sticking my head above the parapet shouting that I'm clean. That means I'm not a target for the bitter or pathetic wannabes to try and knock down. Have fun with that, I'll just carry on enjoying the cycling. If the killer proof comes along no matter I've still enjoyed the racing. Same as with the old days with doping more prevalent. You can't say lance Armstrong wasn't entertaining or indeed any of the others from back then.

above_the_cows

How have Sky modernised training?

Either some people are being deliberately obtuse or they don't actually follow cycling. Maybe both?

dinyull

CuthbertC wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

The reason lots of people think Sky are doping is because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. The best anyone can come up with is that Leinders worked there and he was subsequently banned for life. (Obviously there's no one else still in cycling who had anything to do with doping when everyone 'had to' dope). QED.

That's infuriating for many, so they keep having to spew out the same old narrative. When I question them on Twitter there is a herd of 'disciples' throwing insults at me, led by the Archangel Tucker (the stupid *ucker).

Tucker is a nasty piece of work. Routinely throws dissenters to his disciples. Deliberately misconstrues arguments (or is monstrously stupid, and I don't think he is). And knows sweet fa about cycling. Apparently it's an "insult" to all the other teams to suggest that Sky might have a competitive edge through modernising training.

How have Sky modernised training?

The peloton used to rip the pi$$ out of sky when they sat on their turbo trainers for an hour or so after a race/stage. Now they all do it.

Romantics like Gilbert used to pan the Sky robots for training with power meters and not on feel. Now they all do it.

FdJ have made massive strides in TT's this season thanks to wind tunnel testing and training on TT bikes. Not long ago both would have been alien to a lot of teams, not any more.

bobmcstuff

CuthbertC wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Pinot was saying they'd never put him in the wind tunnel before - can't imagine that happening at Sky.

Yes, totally inconceivable:

Despite being the Olympic bronze medallist in the discipline and runner-up to Wiggins in both long time-trials in this year’s Tour, Froome has never tested his position and bike in a wind tunnel. In time-trial terms, he has been operating in the Stone Age, with elbows out as if riding a scooter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... tions.html

That's from 2012.

The reported changes at other teams like FDJ bears testament to the fact that Sky has changed training and other methods in pro cycling. As mentioned above if you don't see that then you're either being deliberately obtuse or you simply don't follow cycling - to anyone who does it's plain to see.

Whether that alone is enough to explain their performances is another matter and if you had any actual evidence to support your assertions that Sky are dirty then that is where you should be looking.

adr82

Cuthbert, you can try to change the subject by asking stupid questions like "How have they modernised training?" all you want, I'm still waiting for even a single piece of factual evidence that proves Sky are doping. Maybe you can find it in another old Telegraph article? :roll:

joelsim

adr82 wrote:

Cuthbert, you can try to change the subject by asking stupid questions like "How have they modernised training?" all you want, I'm still waiting for even a single piece of factual evidence that proves Sky are doping. Maybe you can find it in another old Telegraph article? :roll:

There isn't one. Hence the conversation boringly going round in circles.

Albeit SDB once had a coffee with David Millar, so he was probably asking him just how best to do it.

adr82

Joelsim wrote:

adr82 wrote:

Cuthbert, you can try to change the subject by asking stupid questions like "How have they modernised training?" all you want, I'm still waiting for even a single piece of factual evidence that proves Sky are doping. Maybe you can find it in another old Telegraph article? :roll:

There isn't one. Hence the conversation boringly going round in circles.

Oh I know, I just want to hear him admit it. Or bugger off back to the Clinic, his choice.

craigus89

I've heard the clinic mentioned quite a few times but never bothered to go and look, last night I did. What the **** is up with that place!?

It seems everything that is posted is done so on the premise that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that sky are clean, therefore it's likely they are doping. Bloody hell.

Does David Icke moderate that place? FFS.

above_the_cows

^Somebody get Craigus a cup of tea or maybe something stronger.

bobmcstuff

Joelsim wrote:

adr82 wrote:

Cuthbert, you can try to change the subject by asking stupid questions like "How have they modernised training?" all you want, I'm still waiting for even a single piece of factual evidence that proves Sky are doping. Maybe you can find it in another old Telegraph article? :roll:

There isn't one. Hence the conversation boringly going round in circles.

Albeit SDB once had a coffee with David Millar, so he was probably asking him just how best to do it.

If he's been taking doping advice from someone who got caught he might not be the evil genius everyone seems to think he is!

bobmcstuff

Craigus89 wrote:

I've heard the clinic mentioned quite a few times but never bothered to go and look, last night I did. What the **** is up with that place!?

It seems everything that is posted is done so on the premise that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that sky are clean, therefore it's likely they are doping. Bloody hell.

Does David Icke moderate that place? FFS.

I assume they are also Pastafarians.

salsiccia1

Craigus89 wrote:

I've heard the clinic mentioned quite a few times but never bothered to go and look, last night I did. What the **** is up with that place!?

It seems everything that is posted is done so on the premise that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that sky are clean, therefore it's likely they are doping. Bloody hell.

Does David Icke moderate that place? FFS.

I've been there once. Never again.

above_the_cows

Oh those are supposed to be meatballs and spaghetti. :shock:

I was wondering why the man had a pair of very hairy testicles on a stick for a minute.

bobmcstuff

Above The Cows wrote:

Oh those are supposed to be meatballs and spaghetti. :shock:

I was wondering why the man had a pair of very hairy testicles on a stick for a minute.

That would be a very different belief system...

RoadPainter

Isn't a sky rider engaged to Armitstead? I expect the clinic is wetting itself at the proof this offers

Paul 8v

Haha. I just went for a look. The thread titles are just gold
Lanky Poels? What do we know about him?
Nibali's Rear Wheel
Random French guys ripping up the Tour
The twilight zone called Portugal.

That lot live in the twilight zone by the sounds of it!

Paul 8v

But apparently Russia is OK. No dopers there, nope!

"More lame Russia bashing"

JackTar

RoadPainter wrote:

Isn't a sky rider engaged to Armitstead? I expect the clinic is wetting itself at the proof this offers

Phil Deignan, iirc

Richmond Racer 2

I have decided that the easiest answe to this thread, is

'I don't have a scooby'

feltkuota

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

I have decided that the easiest answe to this thread, is

'I don't have a scooby'

yes, but can you prove that?

CuthbertC

Dinyull wrote:

CuthbertC wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

The reason lots of people think Sky are doping is because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. The best anyone can come up with is that Leinders worked there and he was subsequently banned for life. (Obviously there's no one else still in cycling who had anything to do with doping when everyone 'had to' dope). QED.

That's infuriating for many, so they keep having to spew out the same old narrative. When I question them on Twitter there is a herd of 'disciples' throwing insults at me, led by the Archangel Tucker (the stupid *ucker).

Tucker is a nasty piece of work. Routinely throws dissenters to his disciples. Deliberately misconstrues arguments (or is monstrously stupid, and I don't think he is). And knows sweet fa about cycling. Apparently it's an "insult" to all the other teams to suggest that Sky might have a competitive edge through modernising training.

How have Sky modernised training?

The peloton used to rip the pi$$ out of sky when they sat on their turbo trainers for an hour or so after a race/stage. Now they all do it.

Romantics like Gilbert used to pan the Sky robots for training with power meters and not on feel. Now they all do it.

FdJ have made massive strides in TT's this season thanks to wind tunnel testing and training on TT bikes. Not long ago both would have been alien to a lot of teams, not any more.

Power meters:
Have been used for decades. LeMond, Landis and Armstrong all used one. Examples:

Dave Martin is the head physiologist at the Australian Institute of sport and has been using power meters to test athletes and analyse their training and racing data for the last 10 years. He has built up an extensive library of data and uses it along with the Australian coaches to plan training programs of athletes.

(http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=2004/power1)

Almost out of sight, at the back of the bike is the Power Tap hub. At the front of the bike is the yellow Power Tap computer. As I understand it, Floyd does all his training and racing with the Power Tap to collect this most vital data metric.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/riders/2 ... id=ric0608

All but unknown to the casual race fan, the power meter has become an indispensable tool for professional cyclists. Not even the riders knew of them a decade ago. Meters started showing up at the Tour de France maybe six years ago. Now, said Glen Mitchell, team manager for Bissell Pro Cycling and a Santa Rosa resident, 75 percent of pro riders are using some kind of power meter.

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/22644 ... ispensable

To say that Sky have modernised training by using power meters is completely wrong.

Wind tunnels:
Like power meters, riders and teams have been using wind tunnel testing for a long time. There must be literally hundreds of examples. Just because some riders haven't used them in the past doesn't mean it is an alien concept. See https://goo.gl/lXrBw8 for various examples. Sky didn't modernise training by using wind tunnel testing.

Cool down:
Once again, hundreds of riders have regularly used cool downs before Sky existed, whether on a trainer or simply riding another lap of a circuit. I would agree however, that Sky seem be one of the first teams to implement them consistently on a team-wide level (Garmin (now Cannondale) also, although I'm not completely sure). So, the concept and use of cool downs isn't anything new, but the consistent team-wide use of them probably is.

Any other specific examples of how Sky have modernised training? Reverse periodisation and altitude training weren't pioneered by Sky. That leaves ... ?

above_the_cows

feltkuota

CuthbertC wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

CuthbertC wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

The reason lots of people think Sky are doping is because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. The best anyone can come up with is that Leinders worked there and he was subsequently banned for life. (Obviously there's no one else still in cycling who had anything to do with doping when everyone 'had to' dope). QED.

That's infuriating for many, so they keep having to spew out the same old narrative. When I question them on Twitter there is a herd of 'disciples' throwing insults at me, led by the Archangel Tucker (the stupid *ucker).

Tucker is a nasty piece of work. Routinely throws dissenters to his disciples. Deliberately misconstrues arguments (or is monstrously stupid, and I don't think he is). And knows sweet fa about cycling. Apparently it's an "insult" to all the other teams to suggest that Sky might have a competitive edge through modernising training.

How have Sky modernised training?

The peloton used to rip the pi$$ out of sky when they sat on their turbo trainers for an hour or so after a race/stage. Now they all do it.

Romantics like Gilbert used to pan the Sky robots for training with power meters and not on feel. Now they all do it.

FdJ have made massive strides in TT's this season thanks to wind tunnel testing and training on TT bikes. Not long ago both would have been alien to a lot of teams, not any more.

Power meters:
Have been used for decades. LeMond, Landis and Armstrong all used one. Examples:

Dave Martin is the head physiologist at the Australian Institute of sport and has been using power meters to test athletes and analyse their training and racing data for the last 10 years. He has built up an extensive library of data and uses it along with the Australian coaches to plan training programs of athletes.

(http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=2004/power1)

Almost out of sight, at the back of the bike is the Power Tap hub. At the front of the bike is the yellow Power Tap computer. As I understand it, Floyd does all his training and racing with the Power Tap to collect this most vital data metric.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/riders/2 ... id=ric0608

All but unknown to the casual race fan, the power meter has become an indispensable tool for professional cyclists. Not even the riders knew of them a decade ago. Meters started showing up at the Tour de France maybe six years ago. Now, said Glen Mitchell, team manager for Bissell Pro Cycling and a Santa Rosa resident, 75 percent of pro riders are using some kind of power meter.

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/22644 ... ispensable

To say that Sky have modernised training by using power meters is completely wrong.

Wind tunnels:
Like power meters, riders and teams have been using wind tunnel testing for a long time. There must be literally hundreds of examples. Just because some riders haven't used them in the past doesn't mean it is an alien concept. See https://goo.gl/lXrBw8 for various examples. Sky didn't modernise training by using wind tunnel testing.

Cool down:
Once again, hundreds of riders have regularly used cool downs before Sky existed, whether on a trainer or simply riding another lap of a circuit. I would agree however, that Sky seem be one of the first teams to implement them consistently on a team-wide level (Garmin (now Cannondale) also, although I'm not completely sure). So, the concept and use of cool downs isn't anything new, but the consistent team-wide use of them probably is.

Any other specific examples of how Sky have modernised training? Reverse periodisation and altitude training weren't pioneered by Sky. That leaves ... ?

Who is it you're trying to convince? Do you think you're going to change many folks opinions? Do you really think your written word is so good that you feel the world is incomplete without? I genuinely cannot convey enough just how much I don't care in what you think.