The normal thing, training and Sky´s knowledge and approach to cycling.
Seriously? I mean, training? Come on. You guys always sound like "Sky is the only team to train hard and good". Every WT-team knows modern training, you really believe in Sky knowing so much more?
Also, Porte's pace on both Ax3 and Ventoux was so US Postally, that i could have put George Hincapie's face on Porte's and no one would have recognized a difference. Just don't trust this story, that today's generation is way cleaner than ten years back.
Well, eveyrone that's seen Sky train admits they train so much harder than other teams. I've heard stories from riders bumping into Sky riders on their training and they were impressed that Sky was riding so hard on training.
Well, doping is quite effective in training, right? Would explain the incredible hard training then
Ian Butler wrote:
Well, eveyrone that's seen Sky train admits they train so much harder than other teams.
Who is 'Everyone'? Names.
Ian Butler wrote:
I've heard stories from riders bumping into Sky riders on their training and they were impressed that Sky was riding so hard on training.
You just said riders used to train harder and now they know better than to overtrain. Which is it?
tsmoha wrote:
Ian Butler wrote:
tsmoha wrote:
Jacdk wrote:
ppanther wrote:
How do you explain Porte then?
The normal thing, training and Sky´s knowledge and approach to cycling.
Seriously? I mean, training? Come on. You guys always sound like "Sky is the only team to train hard and good". Every WT-team knows modern training, you really believe in Sky knowing so much more?
Also, Porte's pace on both Ax3 and Ventoux was so US Postally, that i could have put George Hincapie's face on Porte's and no one would have recognized a difference. Just don't trust this story, that today's generation is way cleaner than ten years back.
Well, eveyrone that's seen Sky train admits they train so much harder than other teams. I've heard stories from riders bumping into Sky riders on their training and they were impressed that Sky was riding so hard on training.
Well, doping is quite effective in training, right? Would explain the incredible hard training then
Indeed, since the EPO test in-race became available, the main effect of EPO is that you can train ludicrously hard and be 100% recovered the next day
Edited by issoisso on 17-07-2013 19:43
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
If people were noticing that Sky are superior because of their training, wouldn't that make their rivals train even harder and we'd be seeing a more level field instead of Sky distancing themselves from everyone else's ability. I mean they've been around for 4 years and only became really dominant last season.
Also, I remember somewhere, Brailsford spoke about how he has his riders work on their core, as one of his marginal gains methods. But I'm pretty sure Valverde did something like that as well, and Im pretty sure the Garmin riders do that as well.
You can train hard without over training. You can train low intensity and still over train. Its all about recovery.
I've heard stuff about systems being tried out by some football teams which mean they can practically tell exactly when someone is about to get injured (obviously not from a contact). I'm sure I remember Arsene Wenger referring to it as a reason he subbed a player at some point last season.
Presuming it is a system of this ilk that Sky are using, it would mean they are in effect able to train harder and smarter. I'm not gonna pretend I am an expert in the subject, but from what I do know its the sort of thing that would enable you to train better as you could push harder and know when exactly to stop, and when exactly to start training again and at what levels to ensure no further damage etc. That would give an advantage over people without such a system.
Actually I remember some sort of system where after stages, Sky riders would use a system, and it would help their muscles recover or something. I'm sure it was legal, because Im pretty sure it was in one of Geraint Thomas' video diaries.
I dont know, but Im guess thats something that not too many other teams have, if any at all.
(My memory may be failing me though, but I think it made someones appendage look like some sort of robot arm/leg)
Edited by valverde321 on 17-07-2013 19:56
valverde321 wrote:
Actually I remember some sort of system where after stages, Sky riders would use a system, and it would help their muscles recover or something. I'm sure it was legal, because Im pretty sure it was in one of Geraint Thomas' video diaries.
I dont know, but Im guess thats something that not too many other teams have, if any at all.
(My memory may be failing me though, but I think it made someones appendage look like some sort of robot arm/leg)
I saw that, it's this thing that massages the muscles with electric currents to aid recovery.
It was all the rage in athletics in the 80s
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
Ok, let's pretend that Sky does have some miracle training/recovering system/preventing system/technology/whatever. Why, since they've managed to develop this, only 3~4 riders, coincidentally the core of their GT team/mountain train, has been able to take advantage of it, while the rest of the team has gone through normal progression when there's been progression at all?
valverde321 wrote:
Actually I remember some sort of system where after stages, Sky riders would use a system, and it would help their muscles recover or something. I'm sure it was legal, because Im pretty sure it was in one of Geraint Thomas' video diaries.
I dont know, but Im guess thats something that not too many other teams have, if any at all.
(My memory may be failing me though, but I think it made someones appendage look like some sort of robot arm/leg)
That sounds like the sort of thing I'm talking about. Crazy sport science systems. They require a huge amount of data though and you need the right stuff. Going back to what I was saying earlier, afaik the basic Sky + GB cycling thing is that some guy back in the early 90 starting collecting all this data, which is what Sky (And GB Track team) are using for get this advantage. It was also tech for a while but most teams have caught up on that as shown by all the rollers etc.
Presumably, it would be this data that they do not want getting out more then anything as its a huge advantage (and highly valuable).
lluuiiggii wrote:
Ok, let's pretend that Sky does have some miracle training/recovering system/preventing system/technology/whatever. Why, since they've managed to develop this, only 3~4 riders, coincidentally the core of their GT team/mountain train, has been able to take advantage of it, while the rest of the team has gone through normal progression when there's been progression at all?
Its about recovery and so more relevant to Climbing/Stage Races, Sprinters need muscle density and leg speed and stuff that isn't so much about recovery and pure endurance.
Obviously you pick the guys that are showing the best results as your leaders.
And no system works for all people or is perfect. Also, the higher your potential, the higher the likelyhood to do damage my over-extending. So I guess it makes sense that it would be far better on those with higher max potentials then others.
lluuiiggii wrote:
Ok, let's pretend that Sky does have some miracle training/recovering system/preventing system/technology/whatever. Why, since they've managed to develop this, only 3~4 riders, coincidentally the core of their GT team/mountain train, has been able to take advantage of it, while the rest of the team has gone through normal progression when there's been progression at all?
Its about recovery and so more relevant to Climbing/Stage Races, Sprinters need muscle density and leg speed and stuff that isn't so much about recovery and pure endurance.
Obviously you pick the guys that are showing the best results as your leaders.
And no system works for all people or is perfect. Also, the higher your potential, the higher the likelyhood to do damage my over-extending. So I guess it makes sense that it would be far better on those with higher max potentials then others.
So, how did Froome exactly showed result pre-2011 vuelta that made him go into the supposed ''training'' program?
BritPCMFan wrote:
Its about recovery and so more relevant to Climbing/Stage Races, Sprinters need muscle density and leg speed and stuff that isn't so much about recovery and pure endurance.
'Pure endurance' is far more important for the classics than for climbing and stage races.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
So in other words, you question Sky because they are strong and have lots of money.
Not really in other words i am suspicious of a performance that is on the outer limits and above what should be possible for a clean athlete.
I still have a vivid picture of the Mt.Ventoux stage and it was insane to see him sitting down and not even breaking a sweat, first go away from Contador, then go up to quintana, use him for abit and then ride away like the hill was flat and it was a track. A Quintana which people seem to agree on is one of the worlds best mountain goats right now.
And why the Sky thread is so long is because we have a ton of people on either side, most dont have the same connection with Nibali or Contador or Kreuziger, Valverde or Quintana. Who i have to admit also seems supecious.
Again, I don't see any other arguments than that they're strong (and too strong to be believable)
Really CT? You are cycling journalist, did you see the climbing times and wattage comparsions? Also Leinders, coming from nowhere, only GT core is above the rest and many more things. I wouldnt expectž you from all to be so surprised.
Edit: After reading the rest of discussion i see your point. But why so surprised to hear every day only about doping when we had last year Mr. Armstrong being exposed and stripped from 7 titles. I think it has to be expected, even more when Froome is challenging his times. You expect people to watch Tour after what happened and not talk about doping again and again. We are in dirty sport, talk gets dirty because of it...
That quote is directed at Jacdk - I'm not saying that other people didn't come up with other arguments.
However, I stand by that the main reason for people reacting so aggressively is that Sky is winning and being dominant. There's plenty of dopers that no one cares about, because they are not winning the Tour by five minutes. So apparently, it's OK to be doped as long as you make sure the race is still interesting (see the Giro for an example).
Again - this may very well be the least tainted (in terms of doping investigations/links) Tour de France winner in recent history, yet he's among the most questioned. I'm not sure I feel that's fair.
BritPCMFan wrote:
I have no doubt the reason why they won't release the data is because we would see it as mutant. That would then lead to questions as to why, which would lead to the demands of the training data anyway, hence there is no point in them doing it, as the data would only be more "proof" of doping.
Firstly, imo saying "I have no doubt" seems pretty certain for someone who's only an spectator (like us all here), specially considering we're talking about a reason/thought, rather than a concrete fact (the 'why' they won't release data), and given we don't even know for sure what exactly sort of training it is about.
That said, as far as I know the thing with power, blood etc data is not about the absolute values themselves but rather their progression (if they are constant, sudden anomalies, etc). I'm obviously not an expert on this, so if someone like Aquarius or isso could correct me it'd be good. But I believe it's not as simple as "here's Froome's power info" "Ha! Now we now all your training methods!".
Btw, I'm not sure if I'm mistaking it with something else, but wasn't releasing this kind of stuff to be as transparent as possible one of the several things Sky promised back in 2010, which one by one they started to just ignore a couple of years later?
Edited by lluuiiggii on 17-07-2013 20:43
CrueTrue wrote:
Again - this may very well be the least tainted (in terms of doping investigations/links) Tour de France winner in recent history
Not at all. You can't name a single thing about Sastre
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
lluuiiggii wrote:
Btw, I'm not sure if I'm mistaking it with something else, but wasn't releasing this kind of stuff to be as transparent as possible one of the several things Sky promised back in 2010, which one by one they started to just ignore a couple of years later?
You're mistaken. Not that they didn't promise it, simply it didn't take them 2 years to ignore it. They ignored it immediately after promising
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
CrueTrue wrote:
However, I stand by that the main reason for people reacting so aggressively is that Sky is winning and being dominant. There's plenty of dopers that no one cares about, because they are not winning the Tour by five minutes.
Sure. Just like a dude robbing someone's phone wouldn't make the news, but a gang robbing at the Federal Reserve would be all over it for months. You being a journalist should understand this very well.
CrueTrue wrote:
So apparently, it's OK to be doped as long as you make sure the race is still interesting (see the Giro for an example).
Last time I checked Nibbles dominated the Giro GC by minutes as well.
CrueTrue wrote:
Again - this may very well be the least tainted (in terms of doping investigations/links) Tour de France winner in recent history, yet he's among the most questioned. I'm not sure I feel that's fair.
As isso said - Sastre. And who was less questioned that Froome? Armstrong? Landis? Contador? Maybe Evans, and it might have to do with not having gone from average domestique to GT superstar in your 4th years as a pro when a doping doctor joined your team.
Edited by kumazan on 17-07-2013 21:01
CrueTrue wrote:
Again - this may very well be the least tainted (in terms of doping investigations/links) Tour de France winner in recent history, yet he's among the most questioned. I'm not sure I feel that's fair.
Evans less tainted aswell. Only link to Ferrari being his first road race test where he impressed (best numbers of all riders Ferrari ever tested before he started to give them advice?)
CrueTrue wrote:
Again - this may very well be the least tainted (in terms of doping investigations/links) Tour de France winner in recent history
Not at all. You can't name a single thing about Sastre
I've always wanted to know if you knew anything about him (or what anyone thinks really), since I didn't find anything on him, other than riding for CSC, but I hope he was clean. One of my favourite riders
Sastre always struck me as a bit different. Plus him and Riis didn't get along, so maybe....
This might be a little off-topic though...
Edited by valverde321 on 17-07-2013 21:25
CrueTrue wrote:
That quote is directed at Jacdk - I'm not saying that other people didn't come up with other arguments.
However, I stand by that the main reason for people reacting so aggressively is that Sky is winning and being dominant. There's plenty of dopers that no one cares about, because they are not winning the Tour by five minutes. So apparently, it's OK to be doped as long as you make sure the race is still interesting (see the Giro for an example).
Again - this may very well be the least tainted (in terms of doping investigations/links) Tour de France winner in recent history, yet he's among the most questioned. I'm not sure I feel that's fair.
Since your a cycling journalist CT, then you must know that the only argument you can come with is that Froome and Sky are riding beyond what is possible or should be possible for a rider that is not using anything.
However the way you put is so simplistic that it almost sounds like your making fun of the argument, but funny enough unless you catch Froome and Sky with their hand down the doping-jar, thats the only argument anyone can come with.
And no people are not questioning Sky because they win and they win a lot, people are questioning Sky because how they win, and because a rider like Froome can have a season that stretches from Feb to end of july and probably beyond that.
And when someone removes the human factor, because everyone has a bad day and its normal to get fatigued, its no wonder that people start to question that performance.
But let me ask you, what argument do you want that would prove to you that people have a legitimate reason to question Sky and Froome? because the times and watts and o2 intake, is exactly the same argument you seem to be laughing at i came with.
