Author Topic: Sky - gaming the system?  (Read 188090 times)

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #625 on: 10 March, 2017, 02:03:15 pm »


It's can be hard to be optimistic if you've been a cycling fan over the last 15 years.

On the other hand, if you've been following cycling for 40 years or more,  you probably do no more than raise an eyebrow. 

When did cycling "fans" become a thing?

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #626 on: 10 March, 2017, 02:14:14 pm »
To be fair, that was when he was a 21yo amateur. He turned pro aged 22 in 2007.
I understand the questions that come about from a jump in performances, but there are numerous examples of athletes performing well at very young ages who turned out to be on the juice from the beginning (eg Armstrong, VdB.) So I don't know whether it's more reasonable to see a progression from average pro to top class or to see someone jump in the deep end as top class from the start.

Amazing to shit= possible
Amazing to Amazing= possible
Shit to Amazing= ????

Surely if his world-beating talent is 'natural' then he would have had some semblance of it pre-2011. He'd have won all the shit races he entered.


Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #627 on: 10 March, 2017, 02:15:23 pm »
Should be 2 to 3 years to see quality, at the most. Usually it's pretty obvious from the start (or at least physical maturity) and the two to three years is how little my it takes to build an athlete. There may be further gains, but if the training is basically ok they're really marginal;)

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #628 on: 10 March, 2017, 02:25:11 pm »


It's can be hard to be optimistic if you've been a cycling fan over the last 15 years.

On the other hand, if you've been following cycling for 40 years or more,  you probably do no more than raise an eyebrow. 

When did cycling "fans" become a thing?

Indeed, if you've been around cycles my or athletics for any length of time it's not really a shock. It's just the chutzpah of Sky and the wholesale swallowing of the bullshit by 'performance coaches' in business and other areas of life that makes it so sickening.

Having said that, I understand modafinil is popular in universities and business.

To be clear, the race is still the race, the riders work harder than ever and it's a beautiful and glorious sport. But when one team is so ruthlessly efficient at optimizing their whole group of riders and has Sky's attitude a fall is due.

And finally, if it emerges that Froome really is motorboy, they should be closed down. That's not beautiful suffering or even risk taking, it's just cheating.

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #629 on: 10 March, 2017, 02:30:59 pm »


It's can be hard to be optimistic if you've been a cycling fan over the last 15 years.

On the other hand, if you've been following cycling for 40 years or more,  you probably do no more than raise an eyebrow. 

When did cycling "fans" become a thing?

Indeed, if you've been around cycles my or athletics for any length of time it's not really a shock. It's just the chutzpah of Sky and the wholesale swallowing of the bullshit by 'performance coaches' in business and other areas of life that makes it so sickening.

Having said that, I understand modafinil is popular in universities and business.

To be clear, the race is still the race, the riders work harder than ever and it's a beautiful and glorious sport. But when one team is so ruthlessly efficient at optimizing their whole group of riders and has Sky's attitude a fall is due.

And finally, if it emerges that Froome really is motorboy, they should be closed down. That's not beautiful suffering or even risk taking, it's just cheating.

Yes.  Sky's approach is probably the result of more money coming into the sport, resulting in it becoming more... er... 'professional'.

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #630 on: 10 March, 2017, 02:34:07 pm »
To be fair, that was when he was a 21yo amateur. He turned pro aged 22 in 2007.
I understand the questions that come about from a jump in performances, but there are numerous examples of athletes performing well at very young ages who turned out to be on the juice from the beginning (eg Armstrong, VdB.) So I don't know whether it's more reasonable to see a progression from average pro to top class or to see someone jump in the deep end as top class from the start.

Amazing to shit= possible
Amazing to Amazing= possible
Shit to Amazing= ????

Surely if his world-beating talent is 'natural' then he would have had some semblance of it pre-2011. He'd have won all the shit races he entered.

Which is more likely - 21yo turns pro and wins the world champs that year; or 21yo turns pro, does his time as a domestique producing average results for a while and then gets to shine when duties are taken off him and he's had a few years of living and training like a pro?
The majority of pro cyclists turn pro after being good as a junior/amateur, struggle as a domestique for a while and never make it to the top of the sport, so we are talking outliers here. But if Froome was so crap before, and the drugs at Sky made him amazing, why have all the other Sky riders (eg Kwiatkovsky, who was WC when he joined, or Geraint Thomas, who has serious track pedigree) not blasted straight past him?
NB I'm not saying he's clean. But cycling is complex - it's not like 100m sprinting where you can basically measure the effectiveness of an individual and plot their times/progress on a chart.

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #631 on: 10 March, 2017, 02:42:54 pm »
Can you find me another 3 time TdF winner with similar lacklustre palmares?

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #632 on: 10 March, 2017, 03:07:52 pm »
Nope. It's definitely odd - most riders get to be team leader by winning smaller races, and then they perform in a grand tour. He skipped from being a mountain domestique to being the leader, and in the current environment that meant he targets GTs to the exclusion of everything else. Guys like Tyler Hamilton followed a similar path (with similar lack of results when not leading), though without the success when they became the leader.

I'm curious - do you think there has ever been a clean Tour de France winner? I'm not convinced.

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #633 on: 10 March, 2017, 03:25:23 pm »
Given the continued stream of revelations, it's probably worth re-watching Brailsford's January 2017 BBC interview, and then asking oneself: does his performance in that interview match what you'd expect from someone who may (indeed ought to) be feeling justifiably aggrieved that his 100% clean proclamation is being impugned?

Bearing in mind, of course, that:
  • he was more than happy to lie about Emma Pooley and invent all sorts of bollocks when asked about 'the package';
  • he is content with Sky lying about and covering up his riders' use of Tramadol;
  • he clearly thinks it's acceptable to dishonestly exploit a flawed TUE system and conspire with Zorzoli (or at least lie to the UCI) to find a way to get PEDs into Wiggins at the most optimal junctures, despite medical emergency or exceptional circumstances not even being the real justification for the TUEs (by Wiggins' own admission - they were to 'level the playing field' with people who were better than him and more likely to win the key races if he didn't take PEDs);
  • recent evidence coming to light on his management style at British Cycling, combined with his conduct at Sky and media lauding in 2012, suggests he got carried away with his 'untouchability';
  • his short-on-integrity Murdoch empire employers are likely top-down setting the parameters on matters concerning the most efficacious levels of honesty and transparency at Team Sky;
  • he has a now-extensive track record in running a team that has failed to comply with his own much-vaunted zero-tolerance, transparent, 100% clean, no needles (etc) policies.
Regardless of whether 'concrete' evidence exists or may come to light that Sky is systematically doping and getting away with it, and regardless of his riders' wins, Brailsford has spectacularly succeeded in portraying himself (and going out of his way, somewhat imbecilically it seems, to portray himself) as an untrustworthy bullshitter.  People rightly object to all the grandstanding on a clearly false and deliberately diversionary 'transparent, 100% clean' platform.....and to the lauding, rewards and accolades founded on this platform in the face of what it has taken a parliamentary select committee investigation, into misuse of public funds on the way to all the success, to (start to) unravel. 

For those whose rose-tinted spectacles filter out the lies and bullshit, it would be curious to wonder what kind of narrative they think does or should explain all the lies, bullshit and (mounting) circumstantial evidence.

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #634 on: 10 March, 2017, 04:38:56 pm »
Indeed. As I've mentioned before, it all sounds  like somebody with quite a lot to hide who is also in the dark as to how much of it might surface.

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #635 on: 10 March, 2017, 05:30:42 pm »
Indeed. As I've mentioned before, it all sounds  like somebody with quite a lot to hide who is also in the dark as to how much of it might surface.


When it goes down, quite a lot if not all will surface. There'll be books you know

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #636 on: 10 March, 2017, 05:57:47 pm »
I'm curious - do you think there has ever been a clean Tour de France winner? I'm not convinced.

In my lifetime? I doubt it, although Lemond has never been openly tainted with even a tangible rumour. Hinault is rumoured to have been fond of Wiggins's PED of choice, and once refused a dope test, along with 4 other riders at a criterium. Cadel Evans is linked to Ferrari. Sastre has no dirt against other than the level at which he rode in a notoriously doped era.

I'm sure some of them have raced clean, but won the TdF clean? Not so sure.

Pre 1970s? Well, I suppose it depends to an extent on what you mean by clean. Merckx wasn't.  Coppi wasn't, but the attitude was different in that era.

Was Wiggins clean? Definitely not. Legal? Maybe. Immoral? Certainly.  The only one doing it? Almost certainly not.

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #637 on: 10 March, 2017, 06:11:33 pm »
Indeed. As I've mentioned before, it all sounds  like somebody with quite a lot to hide who is also in the dark as to how much of it might surface.


When it goes down, quite a lot if not all will surface. There'll be books you know


Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #638 on: 10 March, 2017, 07:55:00 pm »


Not that that exonerates him, but I'm less uneasy about Froome's 2011 than about Wiggins' 2009.

Wiggins had a good prologue, a good Team TT, and was on the right side of the splits caused by the wind on Stage 5. Van Garderen wasn't a big enough name for Garmin to stick with as the team leader. Lots of fancied riders fell by the wayside during the 2009 Tour.

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #639 on: 11 March, 2017, 10:26:38 am »

Indeed, if you've been around cycles my or athletics for any length of time it's not really a shock. It's just the chutzpah of Sky and the wholesale swallowing of the bullshit by 'performance coaches' in business and other areas of life that makes it so sickening.

Having said that, I understand modafinil is popular in universities and business.

This and that.

1. I found the whole "add up lots of non-significant effects to get a significant effect" marginal gains thing preposterous. Either the non-sig effects are noise, or you underpowered your trial. I had a clinician tell me that if they could get patients to change 10 things, it would reduce their risk - duh - if they could change 10 things at once they wouldn't be at risk!

2. Look on Yik Yak when you are on campus - adverts for Modafinil in the loos of the library - pickup / drop off on demand. Same for Ket, whipped cream gas, weed. This is a Russell Group uni. I'm sure it's the same everywhere.

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #640 on: 12 March, 2017, 12:50:26 pm »
Each Tour de France has its own character. 2012 was relatively benign, as the Olympics weren't long after.

It didn't surprise me that Wiggins won, given the course. What did surprise me was that Sky won too many of the later stages, so that Cavendish was sure of a kicking in the Olympic Road Race.

It's in the nature of a sprinter to be combative though, as it falls to a classy rouleur to be more diplomatic. Alliances are their game.

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #641 on: 14 March, 2017, 09:41:17 pm »
Sky have now disclosed that Freeman actually bought Fluimucil himself (he had prescription rights abroad) in Switzerland just a few weeks before the "package" was flown over with Cope.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/mar/14/team-sky-fluimucil-switzerland-bradley-wiggins-commons

That begs the obvious question, doesn't it!  ;)

Still no real clarity on the 55 ampoules of triamcinolone ordered.  Could have been used on staff (!) or private patients, or possibly the team.  Who knows without the records they were supposed to keep.
The sound of one pannier flapping

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #642 on: 14 March, 2017, 09:48:00 pm »
I can't possibly imagine what possessed them not to keep records. Mind you, for the sake of patient confidentiality it's probably better not to keep records because records can be hacked.  :facepalm:

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #643 on: 14 March, 2017, 10:08:22 pm »
Interesting statement from the Guardian article:

The team emphasised “we would only ever allow triamcinolone to be provided as a legitimate and justified medical treatment in accordance with anti-doping rules”

So I assume when it was used it was used legally?  Questions of ethics and morality can remain, but cycling is strewn with such questions.

At the university last Friday we had a debate about ethical leadership and some sports students were present which made matters more interesting.  We discussed how the 'professional foul' is used along with pushing the boundaries up to the very limit without actually breaking them (underarm bowling etc).  Group of staff interested in cycling also discussed the paperwork factor at Sky and how could they possibly had such seemingly shabby systems in place.  I reminded everyone of how the university staff often failed to submit various forms associated with evaluation and moderation and how it was common practice to 'back date' a number of forms in preparation for the external visit.  No malice or wrongdoing in terms of evaluation or moderation, just shabby practice that should be picked-up but often is not.  Rather like someone not complying with all the necessary ISO 2001 requirements but still producing a quality product.

If Sky have broken the law so far as doping is concerned then punish them once the evidence is available.  If they have been incompetent with their minds focussed elsewhere then perhaps they were not as competent as everyone expected them to be and took their eye off the ball for an area they should have been somewhat more savvy.

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #644 on: 14 March, 2017, 10:22:10 pm »
Sky have made sure the evidence isn't available. No records kept, except on Freeman's laptop which, very conveniently, was never backed up, and was very conveniently stolen. Very conveniently, Freeman never submitted the details online.

But they never accounted for hacking.

Remember, the only reason you know about Wiggins use of Kenacort is because of the Russian hackers. Before the hack, Wiggins had lied about never having had an injection.

How inconvenient.

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #645 on: 14 March, 2017, 10:30:09 pm »
Interesting statement from the Guardian article:

The team emphasised “we would only ever allow triamcinolone to be provided as a legitimate and justified medical treatment in accordance with anti-doping rules”

So I assume when it was used it was used legally?

Why would you assume that? How many dopers, at the first suggestion that they might have doped, respond with 'you got me dead to rights'? If only it wasn't for those pesky kids...
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #646 on: 14 March, 2017, 10:39:20 pm »
tails online.

But they never accounted for hacking.

Remember, the only reason you know about Wiggins use of Kenacort is because of the Russian hackers. Before the hack, Wiggins had lied about never having had an injection.

How inconvenient.

That's my favourite bit. The self righteous get to attack a Murdoch organisation on the basis of hacked information.

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #647 on: 14 March, 2017, 10:44:17 pm »
And the pompous get to pontificate on the irony.

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #648 on: 14 March, 2017, 10:48:33 pm »
Remember, the only reason you know about Wiggins use of Kenacort is because of the Russian hackers. Before the hack, Wiggins had lied about never having had an injection.

How inconvenient.

But was it illegal or did he break any regulations regarding the use of a banned or prohibited substance?  Might not be ethical, but that does not make it illegal.

Why would you assume that? How many dopers, at the first suggestion that they might have doped, respond with 'you got me dead to rights'? If only it wasn't for those pesky kids...

But was it illegal or did he break any regulations regarding the use of a banned or prohibited substance?  Might not be ethical, but that does not make it illegal.

Re: Sky - gaming the system?
« Reply #649 on: 14 March, 2017, 10:56:43 pm »
Remember, the only reason you know about Wiggins use of Kenacort is because of the Russian hackers. Before the hack, Wiggins had lied about never having had an injection.

How inconvenient.

But was it illegal or did he break any regulations regarding the use of a banned or prohibited substance?  Might not be ethical, but that does not make it illegal.

Why would you assume that? How many dopers, at the first suggestion that they might have doped, respond with 'you got me dead to rights'? If only it wasn't for those pesky kids...

But was it illegal or did he break any regulations regarding the use of a banned or prohibited substance?  Might not be ethical, but that does not make it illegal.

What substance? Wiggins has never had an injection.

But...it's good that you are (finally) recognising that Sky are an unethical team.