Team Sky, Brailsford and doping

[oldroadman]

Travis says : Zero tolerance will not deter cheats

Tygart disagrees with everything that's not his personal opinion, so far as I can see. The Sky approach may not suit everyone, but it works for them, so why doesn't he just keep out of internal decisions made by teams, so long as they don't organise doping? I would have thought Sky were a model which any team (at any level) should think hard about following. What I can't take are the unrepentent ones, who do their two years and expect to just pick up where they left off, for me a minimum 4 years would be right for a first offence on anything like blood manipulation. They can always go off and ride big sportives, where the chance of a test seems minimal, and there is still money to be made. The Ricco plan.

 

[BJH]

Chris Newton rode for McCartney and is now on BC coaching staff. I think recently working with Team Pursuit squad.
http://www1.skysports.com/cycling/n...h-in-qualifying-at-Track-World-Cup-in-Glasgow

Read the Hamilton book. Just because a young Wiggins or Newton were on the team does not make them cheats.

Most of the squad were not in on the deal and even the TDF squad were not all using when the Texan won the first time.

 

[rich p]

Vayer casting the doubt that, no doubt, many around the world have about Sky
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vayer-calls-for-srm-and-blood-data-from-sky

 

[raindog]

Good idea. It might even be a first step to The Clinic shutting the f ck up, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[Noodley]

Has there been anything published in print by David Walsh yet re his "embedded" expereinces at SKY?

 

[rich p]

It's the price cycling pays for its past I suppose. To a lot of people, the way Sky ride is too reminiscent of USPS and proving a negative isn't easy. I don't think it's down to Sky to show all their stats unless all the teams are doing likewise. Even that is fraught with misinterpretation by the armchair scientists. If we believed in the UCI then passport under independent scrutiny is surely the best way to go.
I suspect Walsh will keep his story quiet for the next book and Times serialisation.

 

[thom]

Vayer casting the doubt that, no doubt, many around the world have about Sky
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vayer-calls-for-srm-and-blood-data-from-sky

I don't believe in
1) making the data public
2) giving the data to the UCI

Give race level data to an independent agent, monitor against bio-passport levels for a period of a couple of years (or however long) and let them see if it correlates against suspicious behavior indicated from other signals.
The virtue of the data is it's measured at pretty much every race (except perhaps Tommy V's Pyrenean escapades), so if you can ensure it's integrity and collect it efficiently, you could amass a deep picture within the peloton very quickly.
The problem with it is that all it is is an image of a race, an output, like a video or a picture. It casts suspicion but as evidence on it's own, I doubt you could use it in isolation to convict someone of doping. Make it public and people will readily point fingers yet probably not understand the numbers properly.

In the right hands, it could be analyzed scientifically with other data and if a connection is found, it could provide a cheap way to flag up riders who need specific testing. Made public, it will just lead to mindless accusations.

 

[raindog]

Made public, it will just lead to mindless accusations.

Which is what we have now.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Which is what we have now.

True, plus the ''What have they got to hide?'' insinuations.

 

[Crackle]

Vayer casting the doubt that, no doubt, many around the world have about Sky
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vayer-calls-for-srm-and-blood-data-from-sky

There's still nothing there but insinuation and some naive view about proving a negative plus the whole tone is just embittered, Vayer finding it hard to believe that there might be better training methods than his.

Given that even the experts don't always agree about the data why should any team release it into the public domain for every internet warrior to chew on, not to mention that I bet many team managers and riders would love to see rival power data.

2/10 Must do better.

 

[ufkacbln]

Question is just how much information this would give away about a team, their race preparation or tactics.... Would it do them harm?

If not then why not be open,and release the figures

Even if their was a loss of advantage to the team if competitors found this information out, why not release after say a year?

 

[Hont]

I'd like to see SRM data published. At the moment there are lots of people guessing at power outages based on climbs, speed and a lot of unknowns. It would be better to have proper data on this. Of course it couldn't just be Sky who had to publish this, you can't single one team out.

The point Vayer makes about training is odd. If he doesn't think better training methods give an advantage, why did he change the methods at Festina? I think he's trying to make the point that despite these methods they still doped. But it was the 90s. Better training is no match for EPO.

 

[400bhp]

I don't believe in
1) making the data public
2) giving the data to the UCI

Give race level data to an independent agent, monitor against bio-passport levels for a period of a couple of years (or however long) and let them see if it correlates against suspicious behavior indicated from other signals.
The virtue of the data is it's measured at pretty much every race (except perhaps Tommy V's Pyrenean escapades), so if you can ensure it's integrity and collect it efficiently, you could amass a deep picture within the peloton very quickly.
The problem with it is that all it is is an image of a race, an output, like a video or a picture. It casts suspicion but as evidence on it's own, I doubt you could use it in isolation to convict someone of doping. Make it public and people will readily point fingers yet probably not understand the numbers properly.

In the right hands, it could be analyzed scientifically with other data and if a connection is found, it could provide a cheap way to flag up riders who need specific testing. Made public, it will just lead to mindless accusations.

You don't use it like that. You set trigger points and use the data to see if the trigger points are, well "triggered".

Once they are then you investigate a little deeper.

It's not dissimilar to what they have done in my field, albeit it's not there to catch cheaters per se.

 

[beastie]

I'd like to see SRM data published. At the moment there are lots of people guessing at power outages based on climbs, speed and a lot of unknowns. It would be better to have proper data on this. Of course it couldn't just be Sky who had to publish this, you can't single one team out.

The point Vayer makes about training is odd. If he doesn't think better training methods give an advantage, why did he change the methods at Festina? I think he's trying to make the point that despite these methods they still doped. But it was the 90s. Better training is no match for EPO.

I would like to see certain telemetry published, preferably live. I think it was the Tour of California which had a NASCAR like tab on the screen indicating certain riders in the peloton, and showing their current speed. That can make a bunch sprint even more exciting, or a long chase where you can see the difference in speeds. Even power output in a TT. I would like to see that, even if for short windows of time. The tags and speeds especially. Also while I am at it, I would also have numerous on bike cameras mixed through the teams. All easy with existing tech. Cycling needs to move into the 21st century, while sticking with some great long established races and traditions.

 

[oldroadman]

This whole accusation thing is pathetic. People can't accept that a team can be so organised and trained that they all have to assume something. There is no proof. Nibali has a brilliant descent at T_A, and winsthe race. Should we ask to test his brain because he so good, and whilst at it, Spartacus too, because he goes well downhill? Add in Tony Martin - TT win too good to be true. What utter balls.
No-one with half a brain will release SRM data and blood values into the public domain to have it picked at by idiotic half-witted people with their own agenda and prejudices. It will cause endless rounds of PR and other teams will be very happy to see power outputs, then work out a way to try and match them.
I don't actually see Sky as totally dominant, they have a style and it's up to other teams to ride on the front if they believe they are good enough. When you select riders with a task in mind and run the team correctly this is the result. Mostly mud slinging and jealousy - no-one else had thought of bringing in coaches and support staff from other sports, it was always done "traditional" way, which included somepreparation that may have gone beyond what is correct. I see no evidence of this at Sky, and indeed many teams in all three divisions look as clean as I can remember.
people will disagree, and want to wreck the sport with wild, baseless, and ridiculous accusations saying riders and teams must "prove" they are clean. No, wrong, the idiots should "prove" they are not.
As someone who has been close to the sport for a lifetime (so far) these people who have usually achieved NOTHING except being a keyboard warrior (aka Troll), make me sick.
Rant over.
Back to trying to be helpful.