What’s next for Team Sky?

mfin

Brailsford will be somewhat disappointed, as it did take them 8 years to deliver a clean british tour winner not 5. In the end they got there though, which is a great achievement that many thought they'd never see.

salsiccia1

Define 'clean'

kingstongraham

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Define 'clean'

British born.

bompington

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Define 'clean'

clean /kliːn/ adjective
"acceptable to the prejudices of the speaker"

ocdupalais

AAF for alcohol in Geraint Thomas’s blood. It’s not a prohibited substance, or performance enhancing*; “the levels measured in his blood are amongst the highest seen since Wales won the 6 Nations in 2013” says Cardiff doctor, “and does not correspond to the ‘couple of pints’ the athlete claims to have drunk”.












* except under certain obscure conditions that an obscure scientist has documented in an obscure paper, thereby allowing it to be called ‘performance enhancing’, if that’s your angle.

hypster

mfin wrote:

Brailsford will be somewhat disappointed, as it did take them 8 years to deliver a clean british tour winner not 5. In the end they got there though, which is a great achievement that many thought they'd never see.

I doubt that he will be disappointed at all because his definition of clean is probably a bit different to yours, as is most normal people's. Not only that he did get a knighthood out of the first one.

Vino'sGhost

DeadCalm wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

I guess the most likely scenario for Froome here is that he takes a rest (4 GTs in a row, 3 wins and a podium, is a f@cking heavy race schedule) and goes all in for just the Tour next year. He's been on top of GT racing up to now to the extent that he could rock up a little tired and still win, but that ship has sailed now. I've no doubt that nobody outside Sky can challenge him head to head on a Tour that's his only target. Dumoulin is closest and Roglic and one of the Yates's could step up, but he'd still have the Sky machine at his disposal, and that isn't showing any signs of weakening.

I've no idea where that leaves Thomas, but I don't think they'll want to go to the Tour with two leaders again - that was just because Thomas had been prepped in case Froome couldn't ride or was completely bonked from the Giro. Brailsford is looking to Bernal long term, Thomas is pretty much the same age as Froome, I don't think there's a real shift in top-dog yet.

With regard to the bit I've highlighted, I think it depends on the parcours. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a long, flat Dumoulin-friendly TT and no particularly steep climbs in next year's Tour.

It's also worth bearing in mind that Dumoullin is likely to have a stronger team at next year's Tour than this, when Sunweb split the support among the Giro and TDF. I'd assume it'll be all in for the Tour next year and they won't bring a sprinter.

A course like that would suit thomas too

Vino'sGhost

mfin wrote:

Brailsford will be somewhat disappointed, as it did take them 8 years to deliver a clean british tour winner not 5. In the end they got there though, which is a great achievement that many thought they'd never see.

LOLOLOL Excellent

Vino'sGhost

pat1cp wrote:

A salary cap and a ban of power meters according to the French press.

I would like to see a ban on power meters for racing. I think they're brilliant things but riding to power not feel takes some of the purity away in the actual races. it introduces more opportunity for riders to make mistakes, opening up the competiton.

The argument that it might make people more conservative is interesting but certainly wasnt evident before the rise of the power meter. I suspect it might also help to break the dominance of very strong trains in the mountains. I'm all for that one.

r0bh

Vino'sGhost wrote:

pat1cp wrote:

A salary cap and a ban of power meters according to the French press.

I would like to see a ban on power meters for racing. I think they're brilliant things but riding to power not feel takes some of the purity away in the actual races. it introduces more opportunity for riders to make mistakes, opening up the competiton.

The argument that it might make people more conservative is interesting but certainly wasnt evident before the rise of the power meter. I suspect it might also help to break the dominance of very strong trains in the mountains. I'm all for that one.

The (much loved!) US Postal train was pre powermeters. So why do you think banning powermeters would change the use of that tactic which is simply the most effective way to ride up a mountain?

Banning powermeters is pointless and would achieve nothing.

Maybe the other teams should look at how they might raise themselves up to Sky's level, like Lotto NL and Sunweb have done, rather than bring in retrograde rules to bring Sky down to their level.

DeVlaeminck

Did Sky actually have joint leadership this Tour or did they just go in with a credible alternative/deputy leader who in the end proved himself stronger? I could see them using Thomas or Bernal as a back up leader again, keep them up there for 2 weeks and then see how the land lies.

I can't see a down side to that - neither Thomas nor Bernal is likely to fail to follow team orders due to character and age respectively. Sky then have an insurance policy in case Froome fails or falls and the opportunity to play tactics should they need to draw out a Dumoulin or Roglic if they prove stronger than previously.

Of course Froome may feel threatened by such a plan, it makes sense from a team perspective but on balance probably reduces Froome's chance of winning as a bit of misfortune or a bad day early in the race can put the deputy in pole position.

bobmcstuff

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Did Sky actually have joint leadership this Tour or did they just go in with a credible alternative/deputy leader who in the end proved himself stronger? I could see them using Thomas or Bernal as a back up leader again, keep them up there for 2 weeks and then see how the land lies.

I can't see a down side to that - neither Thomas nor Bernal is likely to fail to follow team orders due to character and age respectively. Sky then have an insurance policy in case Froome fails or falls and the opportunity to play tactics should they need to draw out a Dumoulin or Roglic if they prove stronger than previously.

Of course Froome may feel threatened by such a plan, it makes sense from a team perspective but on balance probably reduces Froome's chance of winning as a bit of misfortune or a bad day early in the race can put the deputy in pole position.

My take on this was that it was more of an insurance policy this year. Froome being on his 4th GT in a row and second of the year, they thought there was a risk he would be fading (which turned out to be the case), so they set up Thomas as a credible deputy to give them an option for this eventuality. And it all worked out!

takethehighroad

r0bh wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

pat1cp wrote:

A salary cap and a ban of power meters according to the French press.

I would like to see a ban on power meters for racing. I think they're brilliant things but riding to power not feel takes some of the purity away in the actual races. it introduces more opportunity for riders to make mistakes, opening up the competiton.

The argument that it might make people more conservative is interesting but certainly wasnt evident before the rise of the power meter. I suspect it might also help to break the dominance of very strong trains in the mountains. I'm all for that one.

The (much loved!) US Postal train was pre powermeters. So why do you think banning powermeters would change the use of that tactic which is simply the most effective way to ride up a mountain?

Banning powermeters is pointless and would achieve nothing.

Maybe the other teams should look at how they might raise themselves up to Sky's level, like Lotto NL and Sunweb have done, rather than bring in retrograde rules to bring Sky down to their level.

Interestingly, in the Cycling Podcast over the weekend, it was mentioned that Lotto NL knew what power Poels and Kwiato rode at, so they got Gesink to ride just above that level in order to drop them.

It's simple tactics, brilliantly done by riders picked to fit the system and paid more to be a domestique than they would a leader elsewhere

Vino'sGhost

r0bh wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

pat1cp wrote:

A salary cap and a ban of power meters according to the French press.

I would like to see a ban on power meters for racing. I think they're brilliant things but riding to power not feel takes some of the purity away in the actual races. it introduces more opportunity for riders to make mistakes, opening up the competiton.

The argument that it might make people more conservative is interesting but certainly wasnt evident before the rise of the power meter. I suspect it might also help to break the dominance of very strong trains in the mountains. I'm all for that one.

The (much loved!) US Postal train was pre powermeters. So why do you think banning powermeters would change the use of that tactic which is simply the most effective way to ride up a mountain?

Banning powermeters is pointless and would achieve nothing.

Maybe the other teams should look at how they might raise themselves up to Sky's level, like Lotto NL and Sunweb have done, rather than bring in retrograde rules to bring Sky down to their level.

Postal used SRM power meters (and sh it loads of drugs)

Vino'sGhost

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

r0bh wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

pat1cp wrote:

A salary cap and a ban of power meters according to the French press.

I would like to see a ban on power meters for racing. I think they're brilliant things but riding to power not feel takes some of the purity away in the actual races. it introduces more opportunity for riders to make mistakes, opening up the competiton.

The argument that it might make people more conservative is interesting but certainly wasnt evident before the rise of the power meter. I suspect it might also help to break the dominance of very strong trains in the mountains. I'm all for that one.

The (much loved!) US Postal train was pre powermeters. So why do you think banning powermeters would change the use of that tactic which is simply the most effective way to ride up a mountain?

Banning powermeters is pointless and would achieve nothing.

Maybe the other teams should look at how they might raise themselves up to Sky's level, like Lotto NL and Sunweb have done, rather than bring in retrograde rules to bring Sky down to their level.

Interestingly, in the Cycling Podcast over the weekend, it was mentioned that Lotto NL knew what power Poels and Kwiato rode at, so they got Gesink to ride just above that level in order to drop them.

It's simple tactics, brilliantly done by riders picked to fit the system and paid more to be a domestique than they would a leader elsewhere

Ha Excellent!

lostboysaint

Vino'sGhost wrote:

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

r0bh wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

pat1cp wrote:

A salary cap and a ban of power meters according to the French press.

I would like to see a ban on power meters for racing. I think they're brilliant things but riding to power not feel takes some of the purity away in the actual races. it introduces more opportunity for riders to make mistakes, opening up the competiton.

The argument that it might make people more conservative is interesting but certainly wasnt evident before the rise of the power meter. I suspect it might also help to break the dominance of very strong trains in the mountains. I'm all for that one.

The (much loved!) US Postal train was pre powermeters. So why do you think banning powermeters would change the use of that tactic which is simply the most effective way to ride up a mountain?

Banning powermeters is pointless and would achieve nothing.

Maybe the other teams should look at how they might raise themselves up to Sky's level, like Lotto NL and Sunweb have done, rather than bring in retrograde rules to bring Sky down to their level.

Interestingly, in the Cycling Podcast over the weekend, it was mentioned that Lotto NL knew what power Poels and Kwiato rode at, so they got Gesink to ride just above that level in order to drop them.

It's simple tactics, brilliantly done by riders picked to fit the system and paid more to be a domestique than they would a leader elsewhere

Ha Excellent!

Would have been if it'd have worked

StillGoing

mfin wrote:

Brailsford will be somewhat disappointed, as it did take them 8 years to deliver a clean british tour winner not 5. In the end they got there though, which is a great achievement that many thought they'd never see.

What a stupid and ignorant comment. :roll:

effillo

Above The Cows wrote:

Kwiatkowski doesn't want to be a GT leader.

Neither did Thomas until the last couple of years.

craigus89

r0bh wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

pat1cp wrote:

A salary cap and a ban of power meters according to the French press.

I would like to see a ban on power meters for racing. I think they're brilliant things but riding to power not feel takes some of the purity away in the actual races. it introduces more opportunity for riders to make mistakes, opening up the competiton.

The argument that it might make people more conservative is interesting but certainly wasnt evident before the rise of the power meter. I suspect it might also help to break the dominance of very strong trains in the mountains. I'm all for that one.

The (much loved!) US Postal train was pre powermeters. So why do you think banning powermeters would change the use of that tactic which is simply the most effective way to ride up a mountain?

Banning powermeters is pointless and would achieve nothing.

Maybe the other teams should look at how they might raise themselves up to Sky's level, like Lotto NL and Sunweb have done, rather than bring in retrograde rules to bring Sky down to their level.

I agree banning powermeters would achieve nothing. But it's not as simple as saying others should up their game, they simply don't have the same level of financial backing that SKY have to be able to.

Introducing some financial restrictions would seem the most logical thing to do, but how this would be implemented and how long it would take I've no idea.

mfin

mfin wrote:

Brailsford will be somewhat disappointed, as it did take them 8 years to deliver a clean british tour winner not 5. In the end they got there though, which is a great achievement that many thought they'd never see.

...

hypster wrote:

I doubt that he will be disappointed at all because his definition of clean is probably a bit different to yours, as is most normal people's. Not only that he did get a knighthood out of the first one.

&

philthy3 wrote:

What a stupid and ignorant comment. :roll:

It was a joke.

Wiggins winning the tour that is.

Don't worry, that was a joke too.

gweeds

Let’s be honest. If we’d had a French winner we wouldn’t have a French press calling for either a ban on powermeters or a salary cap.

onyourright

I think a better idea is to fix the structural problems that make cycling an unattractive home for footloose capital. That would attract more big sponsors to compete with Sky.

With the likes of Lappartient at the helm this will not happen (not that the UCI can fix everything anyway). He’s a small-minded man with provincial instincts exactly as Brailsford suggested. The sport needs better leadership, people who can think big and see beyond scratching each other’s backs.

squired

OnYourRight wrote:

I think a better idea is to fix the structural problems that make cycling an unattractive home for footloose capital. That would attract more big sponsors to compete with Sky.

With the likes of Lappartient at the helm this will not happen (not that the UCI can fix everything anyway). He’s a small-minded man with provincial instincts exactly as Brailsford suggested. The sport needs better leadership, people who can think big and see beyond scratching each other’s backs.

It is funny really - I very much liken cycling to cricket. Backward, small time thinking. In a sport like cycling, where the sponsors are everything you need to be doing what you can do bring in the largest brands. Those brands are clearly very willing to invest seriously vast sums of money into other sports, so cycling should be doing what it can to get some of that.

Instead cycling seems to follow what English cricket does and try to protect the current semi-successful model for fear of losing what it already has. In comparison, look at how sports like the NFL and MMA (or more specifically UFC) have pushed to grow themselves internationally (and thus attract more money). Even Darts has managed to grow itself massively over the last few years on an international level.

Imagine a big sponsor seriously looking at cycling right now. They'd potentially want to spend Team Sky type money, but they then see all the hatred and negativity aimed at the team and think they don't want their brand to be damaged by that, so instead they spend the money on a sticker on a Grand Prix driver's helmet.

Vino'sGhost

squired wrote:

OnYourRight wrote:

I think a better idea is to fix the structural problems that make cycling an unattractive home for footloose capital. That would attract more big sponsors to compete with Sky.

With the likes of Lappartient at the helm this will not happen (not that the UCI can fix everything anyway). He’s a small-minded man with provincial instincts exactly as Brailsford suggested. The sport needs better leadership, people who can think big and see beyond scratching each other’s backs.

It is funny really - I very much liken cycling to cricket. Backward, small time thinking. In a sport like cycling, where the sponsors are everything you need to be doing what you can do bring in the largest brands. Those brands are clearly very willing to invest seriously vast sums of money into other sports, so cycling should be doing what it can to get some of that.

Instead cycling seems to follow what English cricket does and try to protect the current semi-successful model for fear of losing what it already has. In comparison, look at how sports like the NFL and MMA (or more specifically UFC) have pushed to grow themselves internationally (and thus attract more money). Even Darts has managed to grow itself massively over the last few years on an international level.

Imagine a big sponsor seriously looking at cycling right now. They'd potentially want to spend Team Sky type money, but they then see all the hatred and negativity aimed at the team and think they don't want their brand to be damaged by that, so instead they spend the money on a sticker on a Grand Prix driver's helmet.

The challenge that cycling has is that return on investment is limited. Sky’s budget c30million euro I’d heard.

Vino'sGhost

squired wrote:

OnYourRight wrote:

I think a better idea is to fix the structural problems that make cycling an unattractive home for footloose capital. That would attract more big sponsors to compete with Sky.

With the likes of Lappartient at the helm this will not happen (not that the UCI can fix everything anyway). He’s a small-minded man with provincial instincts exactly as Brailsford suggested. The sport needs better leadership, people who can think big and see beyond scratching each other’s backs.

It is funny really - I very much liken cycling to cricket. Backward, small time thinking. In a sport like cycling, where the sponsors are everything you need to be doing what you can do bring in the largest brands. Those brands are clearly very willing to invest seriously vast sums of money into other sports, so cycling should be doing what it can to get some of that.

Instead cycling seems to follow what English cricket does and try to protect the current semi-successful model for fear of losing what it already has. In comparison, look at how sports like the NFL and MMA (or more specifically UFC) have pushed to grow themselves internationally (and thus attract more money). Even Darts has managed to grow itself massively over the last few years on an international level.

Imagine a big sponsor seriously looking at cycling right now. They'd potentially want to spend Team Sky type money, but they then see all the hatred and negativity aimed at the team and think they don't want their brand to be damaged by that, so instead they spend the money on a sticker on a Grand Prix driver's helmet.

The challenge that cycling has is that return on investment is limited. Sky’s budget c30million euro I’d heard. Better to sponsor a jersey.

ocdupalais

This year has got to be one of the best opportunities for Froome to show up at Tour of Britain, no?
He’s clearly as hard as nails, but surely a nice little stage race on a funny little island where people will cheer him on would be a welcomed tonic? The only place where he might get bodily fluids thrown at him might be South Devon by some old dears, but that would be involuntary.

pat1cp

This was reported by L'Equipe in 2016, not sure how accurate it is...

Tour de France team budgets (estimated)
Team Sky – €35m
Katusha – €32m
BMC – €28m
Tinkoff – €25m
Astana – €20m
Etixx-Quick Step – €18m
Movistar – €15m
Lotto-Soudal – €14m
LottoNL-Jumbo – €14m
Dimension Data – €13.5m
Orica-BikeExchange – €13m
Giant-Alpecin – €12.5m
Trek-Segafredo – €12m
Ag2r La Mondiale – €12m
Cofidis – €11m
IAM Cycling – €10.5m
FDJ – €10m
Cannondale – €10m
Lampre-Merida – €7m
Direct Energie – €6m
Bora-Argon 18 – €4.5m
Fortuneo-Vital Concept – €3.5m

fenix

Surely Bora has a better budget now for Sagan ?

Katusha havent been VFM lately.

craigus89

Those figures above are useless as they have no context. What is included? What isn't? What are the salaries of the riders? Does that include money spent on preparation for the tour? (that's a no by the way)

And for those saying the same wouldn't happen if they were a french team, it absolutely would from what I've heard. It's the domination that is not liked.

craigus89

squired wrote:

It is funny really - I very much liken cycling to cricket. Backward, small time thinking. In a sport like cycling, where the sponsors are everything you need to be doing what you can do bring in the largest brands. Those brands are clearly very willing to invest seriously vast sums of money into other sports, so cycling should be doing what it can to get some of that.

Instead cycling seems to follow what English cricket does and try to protect the current semi-successful model for fear of losing what it already has. In comparison, look at how sports like the NFL and MMA (or more specifically UFC) have pushed to grow themselves internationally (and thus attract more money). Even Darts has managed to grow itself massively over the last few years on an international level.

Imagine a big sponsor seriously looking at cycling right now. They'd potentially want to spend Team Sky type money, but they then see all the hatred and negativity aimed at the team and think they don't want their brand to be damaged by that, so instead they spend the money on a sticker on a Grand Prix driver's helmet.

This is a good point. Introducing spending caps only creates a ceiling for the sports growth which does no one any favours.