Anyone following Paul Kimages' TdF video diary? Mod Warning OP

laraghrider · 09-07-2013 03:43PM

To be fair to them there is truth in the evolution thread. At some point, maybe we've hit it, with sport science advances, training advances, coaching programs and pre race prep and recovery (for which sky have hugely upped the game) we will see clean riders breaking doped riders times and records.

Not saying this year we will see a Pantani busting Alpe D'huez climb but today on with is a prototype machine a well coached rider doing a proper pre race routine and post stage recovery can out cycle a doped rider from the past. As someone said recently (can't remember who) epo and blood doping made average riders exceptional but only made exceptional riders a little slightly more so. Today are we seeing Chris Froom who would have been nothing more than average in any other era turn into an exceptional rider through great coaching and an off road support structure that surpasses anyone elses in the peleton?

Hermy · 09-07-2013 05:11PM

Lumen wrote: »

Yes.

So publishing this data doesn't necessarily absolve a rider of suspicion?

Fr D Maugire · 09-07-2013 05:18PM

laraghrider wrote: »

To be fair to them there is truth in the evolution thread. At some point, maybe we've hit it, with sport science advances, training advances, coaching programs and pre race prep and recovery (for which sky have hugely upped the game) we will see clean riders breaking doped riders times and records.

Not saying this year we will see a Pantani busting Alpe D'huez climb but today on with is a prototype machine a well coached rider doing a proper pre race routine and post stage recovery can out cycle a doped rider from the past. As someone said recently (can't remember who) epo and blood doping made average riders exceptional but only made exceptional riders a little slightly more so. Today are we seeing Chris Froom who would have been nothing more than average in any other era turn into an exceptional rider through great coaching and an off road support structure that surpasses anyone elses in the peleton?

Is this a SKY press release or did you forget the roll-eyes??

Fr D Maugire · 09-07-2013 05:26PM

Jawgap wrote: »

I think it's designed to mind f^ck the opposition - like during the Beijing Olympics when he alluded to special wheels and tyres to help the riders go faster - the French went a bit nuts and he fanned their paranoia by covering up the wheels the next time they raced.

They also seem to spend more, proportionately, on backroom staff than other teams and their riders race less.

If it is anyhting more than "marginal gains" it's one of the greatest cover-ups ever. Not only did they manage to get a load of experts with no previous connection to doping to put a programme together, they did in a way to keep fooling the anti-doping authorities, their sponsors and everyone else. If there is any evidence it's very weak and very circumstantial.

Wait, they started with a load of experts who had no connections with doping and they did very little of note in their first year, then they brought in Gert Leinders who if anyone has been following the Rasmussen/Rabobank investigations will know was responsible for the "improvement program" at Rabo.

Fr D Maugire · 09-07-2013 05:29PM

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Don't forget that the whole wheel issue led to some embarrassment when Boardman let on that they were the same ones used since 2004

I think it's widely accepted that the track side of Team GB is clean, and they've had some awesome performances and domination in the past, why can't ye do something similar on the road?

o

Track is small time with very few countries who spend much energy or focus on it, GB and Australia before them realised this and focused a lot of time and energy on this area and thus had success. The variables are also much more consistent than road racing.

Jawgap · 09-07-2013 05:35PM

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Wait, they started with a load of experts who had no connections with doping and they did very little of note in their first year, then they brought in Gert Leinders who if anyone has been following the Rasmussen/Rabobank investigations will know was responsible for the "improvement program" at Rabo.

Wow! "New Team Fails to Perform in First Season" now there's something you don't see in sport too often

Tim Kerrison by his own admission said he spent the first 18 months observing and learning about cycling before redesigning the training programme.

Everything takes time to bed in.

Lumen · 09-07-2013 05:51PM

Hermy wrote: »

So publishing this data doesn't necessarily absolve a rider of suspicion?

Even if you could be sure that published power data was accurate, what values would absolve a rider of suspicion? Low ones?

What's to stop teams lying about rider weights? Do we also need to know body fat and lean mass values? Are we going to weigh and x-ray them before each stage?

What about the impact of fatigue and recovery? What about relative improvements?

A lot of Froome doubters have a problem with the way that he's progressed as a rider. So that means there isn't necessarily an issue with his current power, weight or body composition numbers. What if he drops 2kg of fat in the off-season - is that indicative of out-of-competition doping?

More data may give more signal but also more noise, and people will tend to cherry pick data to support whatever they want to believe.

Kimmage, for instance, seems to believe that he can tell whether someone is doping through interrogation. Maybe he should work for the CIA.

Hermy · 09-07-2013 06:01PM

So it's not really a case of publish and/ or be damned.

Lumen · 09-07-2013 06:20PM

Hermy wrote: »

So it's not really a case of publish and/ or be damned.

In order to "prove" that a rider is clean, he would have to publish every single training and race file, properly date/timestamped with GPS data.

Other riders could then follow exactly the same training regime, and see if their results matched.

And then what?

If the performances are reproducible, Sky essentially give away their competitive advantage.

If they are not reproducible, the cynics will claim doping and Sky will claim other factors, e.g. genetics, nutrition, rider management.

It's the 21st century version of a witch drowning.

I'd still like to see the data though.

Jawgap · 09-07-2013 07:51PM

Lumen wrote: »

.......

It's the 21st century version of a witch drowning.

I'd still like to see the data though.

The equivalent from more recent times.....

"Anyone who wins is doping. Anyone who improves quickly is a well organised doper"

..........I think Kimmage is the gunner, not Joker!

ROK ON · 09-07-2013 08:31PM

As Lumen points out for the data to be actually analysable the analyst would need a large sample size. It is the trend that it important not actual data points.
Riders like Wiggins, GT, EBH and say Dan Maryin gave progressed over a long period of time. Richie Porte to a lesser extent has had some pedigree.
Wiggins in particular has been a world class cyclists across many specialities for a very very long time.

I believe that he is definitely above suspicion.

Froome has enjoyed an unorthodox progression. That doesn't mean that he is a doper at all, it simply means his unusual progression is open to questions.

There are only a few things he can do to please the sceptics (I am a sceptic). One of these is to provide data, not only power but bio passport data.

As the guys in Science in Sport put it, that data could be provided to a panel of experts to adjudicate.

However if Sky has put a very significant investment into training, diet, preparation and psychology then why should they waste that capital investment by giving everyone access to what they do.

There is no winner in this debate. They are a hostage to the overly zealous statements that they have made at inception that has only been supported by an insanely stupid level of hypocrisy in terms of it's hiring policy.

If I was Sky I would release no data. They should simply brazen this out, close ranks and refuse to engage. They have lost the PR battle and there is no point in trying to win an unsinkable was.

Now while people can question Froome re his progression then I think that several big name cyclists that won regularly and now cannot buy a podium place also need to be questioned as to the abrupt halt in progression.

CramCycle · 09-07-2013 08:53PM

ROK ON wrote: »

There are only a few things he can do to please the sceptics (I am a sceptic). One of these is to provide data, not only power but bio passport data.

I don't think anyone needs to provide the power data to the public, the bio passport to a panel of lab analysts (cheap labour, I know), they flag any unusual results to a panel of excepted experts in the field.

Job done.

Fr D Maugire · 09-07-2013 09:10PM

ROK ON wrote: »

As Lumen points out for the data to be actually analysable the analyst would need a large sample size. It is the trend that it important not actual data points.
Riders like Wiggins, GT, EBH and say Dan Maryin gave progressed over a long period of time. Richie Porte to a lesser extent has had some pedigree.
Wiggins in particular has been a world class cyclists across many specialities for a very very long time.

I believe that he is definitely above suspicion.

Froome has enjoyed an unorthodox progression. That doesn't mean that he is a doper at all, it simply means his unusual progression is open to questions.

There are only a few things he can do to please the sceptics (I am a sceptic). One of these is to provide data, not only power but bio passport data.

As the guys in Science in Sport put it, that data could be provided to a panel of experts to adjudicate.

However if Sky has put a very significant investment into training, diet, preparation and psychology then why should they waste that capital investment by giving everyone access to what they do.

There is no winner in this debate. They are a hostage to the overly zealous statements that they have made at inception that has only been supported by an insanely stupid level of hypocrisy in terms of it's hiring policy.

If I was Sky I would release no data. They should simply brazen this out, close ranks and refuse to engage. They have lost the PR battle and there is no point in trying to win an unsinkable was.

Now while people can question Froome re his progression then I think that several big name cyclists that won regularly and now cannot buy a podium place also need to be questioned as to the abrupt halt in progression.

Well A.Schleck, Contador, Valverde & Evans have all dropped a level for sure, Evans I feel is just past it, Valverde is still up there obviously whilst Contador and Schleck have really dropped down the ladder, however all these guys are capable of doing a Top 10 at the Tour. If what you are insinuating is true, then the drop-off is still far less significant than the level of improvement from Froome.

I would really like someone to give me a comparative improvement like Froome of any athlete from cycling or another endurance based sport. The one that comes most readily to mind is our own Michelle Smith which of course is not a good comparison.

Just want to throw this stat in here as well, the age and position of Tour winners in their Tour debuts. Pre-EPO back to Merckx.

Eddy Merckx, 1st Age 24
Luis Ocana, DNF Age 24
Lucien Van Impe, 12th Age 22
Bernard Thevenent, 35th Age 22
Bernard Hinault, 1st Age 23
Joop Zoetemelk, 2nd Age 23
Laurent Fignon, 1st Age 22
Greg LeMond, 3rd Age 23
Stephen Roche, 13th Age 23
Pedro Delgado, 15th Age 23

Chris Froome 84th Age 23

Fr D Maugire · 09-07-2013 09:58PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Wow! "New Team Fails to Perform in First Season" now there's something you don't see in sport too often

Tim Kerrison by his own admission said he spent the first 18 months observing and learning about cycling before redesigning the training programme.

Everything takes time to bed in.

Cervelo Test team is the easy counterpoint to that and they didn't have all the PR, fancy doctors and what have you that SKY did.

SKY are all PR fluff and when you actually dig into it, there is not a lot there.

Jawgap · 09-07-2013 09:58PM

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Well A.Schleck, Contador, Valverde & Evans have all dropped a level for sure, Evans I feel is just past it, Valverde is still up there obviously whilst Contador and Schleck have really dropped down the ladder, however all these guys are capable of doing a Top 10 at the Tour. If what you are insinuating is true, then the drop-off is still far less significant than the level of improvement from Froome.

I would really like someone to give me a comparative improvement like Froome of any athlete from cycling or another endurance based sport. The one that comes most readily to mind is our own Michelle Smith which of course is not a good comparison.

Just want to throw this stat in here as well, the age and position of Tour winners in their Tour debuts. Pre-EPO back to Merckx.

Eddy Merckx, 1st Age 24
Luis Ocana, DNF Age 24
Lucien Van Impe, 12th Age 22
Bernard Thevenent, 35th Age 22
Bernard Hinault, 1st Age 23
Joop Zoetemelk, 2nd Age 23
Laurent Fignon, 1st Age 22
Greg LeMond, 3rd Age 23
Stephen Roche, 13th Age 23
Pedro Delgado, 15th Age 23

Chris Froome 84th Age 23

I'm not sure what the point of this stat / fact is?

Big Mig road his first Tour at age 21 and dropped out - it took him a few years to progress.

Fr D Maugire · 09-07-2013 10:03PM

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm not sure what the point of this stat / fact is?

Big Mig road his first Tour at age 21 and dropped out - it took him a few years to progress.

And the EPO era began in what year and Indurain was working with????

Just to add this quote from Lucho Herrera who was considered the No 1 climber in the world in the 80s.

"I knew things had changed when guys with fat asses started dropping me in the mountains"

PeadarCo · 09-07-2013 10:13PM

After reading this thread I think people are pinning far too much on one stage. Its important to be sceptical but when you look at the history of the Tour de France some of the biggest performances time gap wise happened back when by all accounts any drugs people took were at best placebo's.

Just because there's no drugs doesn't mean that someone can't blow everyone else away one every now and then or dominate a sport. Look at hurling here over 100yrs 3 teams have most of the All Irelands and some teams such as Kilkenny now, can dominate for sustained periods of time. Man Utd in the premiership is another example. I don't see why cycling is any different as a sport.

If a person consistently produces inexplicable times/results then I think its fair to raise questions.Being honest Sky's breakdown on Sunday is what you expect after Saturdays efforts. I don't think anyone would risk something like that just for the sake of it. Overall I think its best to wait to the end of the Tour, look at the big picture and judge then.

CramCycle · 09-07-2013 10:23PM

I once done really well in a Club league hamper race at christmas (finished in the group, led the group right before the sprint). Over the previous season, I got dropped at nearly every race. Personally, I think it was drugs, there can be no other reason.

Fr D Maugire · 09-07-2013 10:29PM

PeadarCo wrote: »

After reading this thread I think people are pinning far too much on one stage. Its important to be sceptical but when you look at the history of the Tour de France some of the biggest performances time gap wise happened back when by all accounts any drugs people took were at best placebo's.

Just because there's no drugs doesn't mean that someone can't blow everyone else away one every now and then or dominate a sport. Look at hurling here over 100yrs 3 teams have most of the All Irelands and some teams such as Kilkenny now, can dominate for sustained periods of time. Man Utd in the premiership is another example. I don't see why cycling is any different as a sport.

If a person consistently produces inexplicable times/results then I think its fair to raise questions.Being honest Sky's breakdown on Sunday is what you expect after Saturdays efforts. I don't think anyone would risk something like that just for the sake of it. Overall I think its best to wait to the end of the Tour, look at the big picture and judge then.

Therein lies the problem, Froome's transformation from nobody to top dog is inexplicable. Yes, theories have been put forward but to me they just do not hold up. To keep this level of talent hidden for so long is mind boggling, thus why I am asking for examples of other athletes who have transformed into top dog having been nobodies beforehand. It's called precedent and right now we don't seem to have any.

The reason I posted the list of Tour winners was to show that up until the 90s, talented riders always showed up early in their careers, my list of winners covered a 25 year period, that is a precedent. This changed during the 90s, suddenly we had guys like Indurain, Riis and Armstrong showing up at a much later age. Why? What happened in the 90s?

Without precedent, its hard to put blind faith in something never witnessed before. Of course if people can come forward with other examples, I might have more belief.

happytramp · 09-07-2013 10:43PM

There is also the possibility that Froome is racing the wrong people. Valverde, Contador, and Evans are the old guard. If he'd been marked by the likes of Quintana, Martin, Bentancur (and an in form Andy Schleck) It's unlikely he'd have taken as much time out of them. The problem may not be sky, but the DS's of other teams not willing to take the chance on the new blood.

RobFowl · 09-07-2013 11:42PM

happytramp wrote: »

But the DS's of other teams not willing to take the chance on the new blood.

God love you with the reactions to the new blood......

Jawgap · 10-07-2013 07:58AM

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Therein lies the problem, Froome's transformation from nobody to top dog is inexplicable. Yes, theories have been put forward but to me they just do not hold up. To keep this level of talent hidden for so long is mind boggling, thus why I am asking for examples of other athletes who have transformed into top dog having been nobodies beforehand. It's called precedent and right now we don't seem to have any.

The reason I posted the list of Tour winners was to show that up until the 90s, talented riders always showed up early in their careers, my list of winners covered a 25 year period, that is a precedent. This changed during the 90s, suddenly we had guys like Indurain, Riis and Armstrong showing up at a much later age. Why? What happened in the 90s?

Without precedent, its hard to put blind faith in something never witnessed before. Of course if people can come forward with other examples, I might have more belief.

You place a lot of store in precedent but then proceed to establish guilt by association - it's a bit McCarthy-ite.

I'm no Sky fanboy but I do plenty of coaching in another sport and it seems to me that only recently has cycling caught up with idea of active interventionist coaching, and the use of data to drive the coaching process. Team sports tumbled on to that about 12 to 15 years ago, then the endurance sports and only more recently has cycling began use to in depth analytics to assess performance and plan improvements.

I think Sky (Brailsford) realised there was an untapped method here and they've exploited it and they've been proven right. I would love to see them publish their data, all of it - I'd be willing to bet they are looking at metrics that some teams wouldn't dream of considering.

I'd also love to see a breakdown of Sky's budget - my understanding is that a typical team spends 90% of its budget on rider salaries and 10% on resources but Sky spend 80% on salaries and 20% on resources.

Finally, the default position of Kimmage and a few others seems to be that there are only several legitimate ways to construct a winning team - if someone is winning and they can't understand why then it must be illegal.

Personally, I think Brailsford has taken advice from the team's psychaitrist on how to wind up the other riders to distract them! Incidentally, how many of the other teams have a team psychiatrist?

laraghrider · 10-07-2013 08:41AM

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Is this a SKY press release or did you forget the roll-eyes??

No it's not a Sky press release and not I did not forget roll eyes. I'm going on what I've read regarding Sky, interviews with Brailsford, pieces written by various riders both part of sky and those not part of sky. But alas obviously you have much better access to team sky than any of their riders or other pro riders so your word is definite. Now I'm not here to defend Chris Froome as I am a little skeptic and I believe there are some questions to be answered but I do believe overall that sky are clean.

Fr D Maugire wrote:

Without precedent, its hard to put blind faith in something never witnessed before. Of course if people can come forward with other examples, I might have more belief.

You make the argument, show me one other athlete that was average/nowhere and then all of a sudden a jump? I give you Didier Drogba. Lounging around the French 2nd division, had one good season at Marseilles then boom £24m move to Chelsea followed by stardom and dominating the premier league. He was 25 when he moved to Chelsea so had been a League 2 player up until the age of 24.

Also let me offer up Darren Clarke. Turned pro at 22 didn't win anything until 26 and took him until 41 to win his first Major.

My guess is though you're going to tell me Football and Golf don't count. In fact no other sport counts bar cycling.

Hermy · 10-07-2013 08:41AM

Lumen wrote: »

In order to "prove" that a rider is clean, he would have to publish every single training and race file, properly date/timestamped with GPS data.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating all of this data being published - but as others were keen for data to be released I just wondered if it was easily manipulated.

There are a number of things which need to happen for the sport to regain some much-needed credibility and publishing performance data is only one of them.

Junior · 10-07-2013 09:03AM

laraghrider wrote: »

You make the argument, show me one other athlete that was average/nowhere and then all of a sudden a jump? I give you Didier Drogba. Lounging around the French 2nd division, had one good season at Marseilles then boom £24m move to Chelsea followed by stardom and dominating the premier league. He was 25 when he moved to Chelsea so had been a League 2 player up until the age of 24.

Using a player who suddenly gets a load better at a club when the Club Doctor is known as Doctor Needles might not strengthen your point too well..

laraghrider · 10-07-2013 09:07AM

Junior wrote: »

Using a player who suddenly gets a load better at a club when the Club Doctor is known as Doctor Needles might not strengthen your point too well..

Oh ok. Are you saying that Didier Drogba was doped while playing for Chelsea? He asked for a precedent, I gave him one. I'm well aware of the "issues" football has in this area but far as I'm aware Drogba nor Chelsea have ever been sanctioned with drugs.

Jawgap · 10-07-2013 09:10AM

I think they realise that they'll never be able to publish enough data to satisfy everybody, so why run the risk of compromising an effective programme?

I think they are clean mostly because:
.....they are British based and the anti-doping regime there seems quite effective

.....BSkyB may be evil incarnate but they are incredibly media savvy and I doubt they would engage with and stay with a team if there was even a sniff of scandal about them

.....they are measurably different in their approach compared to other teams

.....the broad formula they are applying seems to have served them well on the track

On that second point, it would be interesting to see the riders' contracts and the sponsorship contract with Sky - I bet the penalty clauses for a doping infringement would make your eyes water.

Jawgap · 10-07-2013 09:22AM

Junior wrote: »

Using a player who suddenly gets a load better at a club when the Club Doctor is known as Doctor Needles might not strengthen your point too well..

Arsenal might be a better example - at a time when most players idea of pre-match nutrition was a steak and 20 fags, Wenger took over and brought in training methods and a regime which at the time were the subject of some ridicule but are now fairly standard.

I remember Lee Dixon being interviewed shortly after he took over and being asked "Is it true he [Wenger] has you eating chicken and pasta?" asked a laughing John Inverdale.

Dixon "We're not allowed talk about training methods."

Uncomfortably long pause

Dixon "Seriously, I'm not allowed talk about training methods"

The interview moved on.

Then the other clubs caught up by - among other things - adopting and even improving on some of the initiative brought in by Wenger.

The problem for other cycling teams now is finding sponsors with pockets as deep as BSkyB and building the same or better support structures for riders.

TinyExplosions · 10-07-2013 09:28AM

Jawgap wrote: »

On that second point, it would be interesting to see the riders' contracts and the sponsorship contract with Sky - I bet the penalty clauses for a doping infringement would make your eyes water.

That and they flat out refuse to hire anyone who's served a suspension to ride for them (let's not talk about the management team that's a different story) -it's why David Millar wasn't even approached when they started (before he bought a stake in Garmin).

Hermy · 10-07-2013 09:31AM

Did someone say steak?

Anyone following Paul Kimages' TdF video diary? **Mod Warning OP**

Comments

Anyone following Paul Kimages' TdF video diary? Mod Warning OP