How Clean is Team Sky???

[Shoeman]

Makes you kinda wonder if the Sport is really cleaned up or are we still covering it up??????
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cycling/28354686

[jimoots]

Yeah I've been wondering the same thoughts quite a bit lately.

[Anarchist]

Really?

You are actually wondering?

[jimoots]

I want to believe :rolleyes:

[Stephen2014]

The worst thing, he wasn't banned for life. That's the only acceptable punishment nowadays.

[Ozrider]

One has to wonder.


Parlee Z5, Trek Madone, Colnago Dream,

[holliscx]

If anyone believes for half a second that Sky is clean George Strait and I've got some ocean front property we'd like to sell you in Arizona.

[sante pollastri]

All the professional teams are clean like team Sky.

[PQJ]

My guess is: ever so slightly more clean than a slum in Mumbai, but not by much.

[jr59]

In this sport, like most pro sports where the money is great, the cheats will ALWAYS be ahead of the tests.

I have been saying this for a while now; :bike: It's entertainment. Pro sports are not clean. Players/riders are going to try and cheat the system, however they can.

[CunegoFan]

I find Team Sky pretty hilarious. On one hand they are the smartest, most diligent, most advanced, and cleanest team on the planet. Nothing escapes their attention to detail. On the other hand they continually have to get rid of riders and staff connected with doping while claiming the team manager was too stupid to know what everyone else knew about those who were just chucked under the bus.

Sir Brailsfraud's latest Sgt. Schultz act about JTL is great. Apparently JTL had nothing to do with Sky while he was doping in 2012 despite all the pictures of him at Sky training camps.

[FlashUNC]

You mean you doubt a guy who could barely hang on with team Barloworld is suddenly one of the best grand tour racers on the planet? And that might have some pharmaceutical assistance? Or that the team is spouting the same "we pay attention to details" preparation nonsense that US Postal and other doped to the gills teams used?

No way. :banana:

[FastforaSlowGuy]

I understand the barriers (legal and otherwise), but I think a truth-and-reconciliation commission would help clear the air here. And I think Sky's policy of firing anyone who ever had a connection to doping is a stupid one. I'd rather air the dirty laundry, know who did what, and move on. Their policy is just another incentive to keep one's mouth shut and hide the past. Of course we'll never get ahead of the dopers, and we'll never get PEDs out of cycling or any other pro sport. But some transparency would help us understand the scope and impact, and I generally think there's no harm in having more information.

[jr59]

Or that the team is spouting the same "we pay attention to details" preparation nonsense that US Postal and other doped to the gills teams used?

No way. :banana:


What do you expect them to say? I mean really? You think all those teams don't pay attention to details? And when successful, won't claim it on the prep work they did? REALLY??
,

Maybe they should say "we just show up and ride your bikes?" :eek:

[jwad]

Makes you kinda wonder if the Sport is really cleaned up or are we still covering it up??????
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cycling/28354686

Not defending team sky, but his suspension is for events that happened before he signed with Sky.

[redir]

You don't get fired for doping. You get fired for being caught doping.

[FlashUNC]

What do you expect them to say? I mean really? You think all those teams don't pay attention to details? And when successful, won't claim it on the prep work they did? REALLY??
,

Maybe they should say "we just show up and ride your bikes?" :eek:

It's just become coded language for any dominant team that's on the juice to use. Mapei, Once, Festina, USPS. They all had one form of that statement or another. And they all attributed it to training camps in far off locales, or nutrition breakthroughs, or in Sky's case analysis of power data and other mumbo-jumbo.

Just like "vitamins" was the code word du jour for the dope back in the 70's and 80's.

[CunegoFan]

Not defending team sky, but his suspension is for events that happened before he signed with Sky.

The Endura's team manager has said that in 2012 JTL was being trained by Sky.

The bigger question is about Froome, the least believable grand tour winner ever.

[jr59]

It's just become coded language for any dominant team that's on the juice to use. Mapei, Once, Festina, USPS. They all had one form of that statement or another. And they all attributed it to training camps in far off locales, or nutrition breakthroughs, or in Sky's case analysis of power data and other mumbo-jumbo.

Just like "vitamins" was the code word du jour for the dope back in the 70's and 80's.

I get it. BUT, the people who get paid, aren't going to say, "we cheated".

The people who cover the race are going to ask how they did it. So they have to say something. Nobody is going to give away their tricks of the trade, legal or not, so what are you going to say?

Seems to me that whatever they say is going to sound like Postal or the MANY, MANY before them. Nothing to say at this point, it all sounds the same.

[FlashUNC]

I get it. BUT, the people who get paid, aren't going to say, "we cheated".

The people who cover the race are going to ask how they did it. So they have to say something. Nobody is going to give away their tricks of the trade, legal or not, so what are you going to say?

Seems to me that whatever they say is going to sound like Postal or the MANY, MANY before them. Nothing to say at this point, it all sounds the same.

Well, yeah, but there are folks out there who believe the nonsense the teams are spouting.

More things change...

[cfox]

The Endura's team manager has said that in 2012 JTL was being trained by Sky.

The bigger question is about Froome, the least believable grand tour winner ever.

What's the Endura manager supposed to say? I'm with you regarding Froome and Sky, but I don't put JTL on them. If Sky were doping him whilst at Endura, he never would have been caught. He was another one of these riders who got a 4 year case of mono then suddenly gets better and out of the blue starts winning. Very fishy. Endura wasn't a passport team; it was far easier to dope away with them.

[CunegoFan]

What's the Endura manager supposed to say? I'm with you regarding Froome and Sky, but I don't put JTL on them. If Sky were doping him whilst at Endura, he never would have been caught. He was another one of these riders who got a 4 year case of mono then suddenly gets better and out of the blue starts winning. Very fishy. Endura wasn't a passport team; it was far easier to dope away with them.

Endura's manager was saying JTL was under Sky's wing before JTL's trouble. The pictures of JTL at Sky's training camps back him up.

This was one of those cases where it was blindingly clear that JTL was doping. It was as obvious as Mauro Santambrogio or Mustafa Sayer. The manager of the self declared world's cleanest team hiring JTL makes no sense if he actually cared about doping.

[Charles M]

Sky is so clean...

That the year Wiggins won, they had a larger presence on the front than postal did. They were better in the mountains than postal were...

AND

They had the juice to also lead out Mark Cavendish.

They had the three best riders in the tour...

The year Froome won, they practically had to take the rear wheel off Porte's bike to keep him from landing second... The only time he dropped off, he dropped off to a set time gap from Froome and then held that gap. On other stages he was actually stronger than Froome, running errands and still holing tempo.


And with almost all great champions in endurance sport, you heard about them their whole lives because they won multiple things at all levels coming up.

Nobody knew a damn thing about any of these guys until they were 5h!tting the best riders in the world out the back like poop through a goose...

[FlashUNC]

Froome literally won nothing of consequence until he joined Sky. The year he joins Sky, he's suddenly placing in major European races. His biggest win before that was the Tour of Mauritius.

Not exactly Greg LeMond's career path.

[CunegoFan]

Froome literally won nothing of consequence until he joined Sky. The year he joins Sky, he's suddenly placing in major European races. His biggest win before that was the Tour of Mauritius.

Not exactly Greg LeMond's career path.

Give him credit. He won something called the Anatomic Jock Race.

He did not suddenly start winning after joining Sky. The time line went like this:

2010: He was crap.
First half of 2011: He was crap. Uh-oh. His contract is up at the end of the year.
July 2011: Sky was not interested in renewing his contract.
August 2011: Sky still not interested and no other team was either.
September 2011: Best rider at the Vuelta, who would have won if he did not have to babysit Wiggins.

In Froome's book he addresses his critics who say he never did anything before transforming. He recalls how in a stage race he beat Contador on a mountain top finish. This proved to him and should prove to his critics that he always had it in him to climb at the highest levels. In his telling he neglected to mention that Contador punctured, lost a couple of minutes, and rode in to the finish slowly with a teammate while waving to the crowd.

[Charles M]

ding!

[flydhest]

I feel bad for those of you who can't dream big and don't believe ...

[christian]

Marginally.

[MattTuck]

Marginally.

Nice. :rolleyes:

[leooooo]

As clean as Horner!

[gavingould]

Marginally.

now this actually did make me laugh out loud. sometimes this sport is a total joke and you gotta laugh. all the Rapha in the world couldn't help Porte today, so whatever vitamins he's on didn't do the trick. he'll probably go in the break and take the stage tomorrow though, that's usually what he does after a crap day.

[aaronka]

Strange to me - in cycling the fans (us?) cry loudly for a clean sport - and yet the progress towards that goal from the governing bodies seems slow as molasses. Its been what - 10 years since there was testing evidence that Lance was doping?

I get it in the pro sports like football and baseball - the fans don't seems to care much whether or not the athletes are doped, they just want the fastest, strongest no matter what - at least that's my perception...

Or maybe cycling really does have some huge fan base that likes the doping?

[ultraman6970]

Porte had a bad day today, and the rest of the team aswell... clean guys always have bad days. Doubt they are sacking at all.

[Tandem Rider]

jr gets it, it's entertainment. It can be football, baseball, track, cycling, shooting, music, movies, anything viewed for entertainment.

Not every individual out there is doping, but every genre has some cheaters.

IME, it seems more widespread now than before. But then again, maybe I'm just more observant now. Get off my lawn ;^)

After 12 years without watching television, I view sports the same way I view sex, you wanna watch, or play?

[gavingould]

I view sports the same way I view sex, you wanna watch, or play?
well, they're all enhanced or doped up either way.

[zachateseveryth]

jr gets it, it's entertainment. It can be football, baseball, track, cycling, shooting, music, movies, anything viewed for entertainment.

Not every individual out there is doping, but every genre has some cheaters.

IME, it seems more widespread now than before. But then again, maybe I'm just more observant now. Get off my lawn ;^)

After 12 years without watching television, I view sports the same way I view sex, you wanna watch, or play?

Your estimation is likely wrong. The bio passport does a good job on cutting down on the oxygen vector doping (blood bags, EPO, etc.) which is why we've seen a big drop in the climbing speeds since the late 90's early 00's. Every team/rider in the peloton has had good and bad days the last couple years.

[cfox]

so funny, 2 hours before Porte implodes, people on here were writing about his "pre-programmed" blow-up last year. If he flies, he's doping, he blows up...further evidence of doping! Doping arguments are like talking to someone from greenpeace: it's hot out...."global warming!!" ...oh wait it's cold "global warming!!!!"



*please note I, too think sky is dirty

[sfscott]

The sport is, has been and always will be dirty. I doubt that a few cheaters are keeping the good guys off the podium because they dope. Lance is right. It's always been part of the game.

Doped or not the guys are all freaks. I enjoy watching.

I'm always amazed at the personal affront so many take at suspected doping.

It's entertainment, not life or death.

[holliscx]

Doping is as much for recovery as it is performance enhancement. The Grand Tours set the bar so high that these athletes can't do what the public majority believes they do for three weeks without getting dirty in the process.

[jr59]

The sport is, has been and always will be dirty. I doubt that a few cheaters are keeping the good guys off the podium because they dope. Lance is right. It's always been part of the game.

Doped or not the guys are all freaks. I enjoy watching.

I'm always amazed at the personal affront so many take at suspected doping.

It's entertainment, not life or death.

100% correct

Doping is as much for recovery as it is performance enhancement. The Grand Tours set the bar so high that these athletes can't do what the public majority believes they do for three weeks without getting dirty in the process.

again correct

[holliscx]

<snip>Doped or not the guys are all freaks.<snip>

I think the majority are pretty average athletes frankly. Cycling is a niche sport and competition compared to other sports is virtually none. I can't picture Tyler Hamilton excelling beyond perhaps Tony Hawk Pro Skater. That's not to take away from these guys' dedication and training but freaks is hyperbole. I think you mean the peloton which is greater than the sum of its parts.

[soulspinner]

Doping is as much for recovery as it is performance enhancement. The Grand Tours set the bar so high that these athletes can't do what the public majority believes they do for three weeks without getting dirty in the process.

This , in different words, is exactly what Anquetil said decades ago, and he won it 5 times.

[oldpotatoe]

Makes you kinda wonder if the Sport is really cleaned up or are we still covering it up??????
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cycling/28354686

After seeing Ritchie Porte yesterday, I'd say it's cleaner.

[r_mutt]

Doping arguments are like talking to someone from greenpeace: it's hot out...."global warming!!" ...oh wait it's cold "global warming!!!!"

Wild temperature swings are totally normal. Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by 95% of the scientific community with an agenda to achieve...I mean to bankrupt oil, coal industries and any energy sources that aren't clean. I believe the scientists paid by oil companies who claim that the earth getting warmer is a totally natural occurrence.

[fa63]

But global warming is not about "wild temperature swings"...

[malcolm]

I think the majority are pretty average athletes frankly. Cycling is a niche sport and competition compared to other sports is virtually none. I can't picture Tyler Hamilton excelling beyond perhaps Tony Hawk Pro Skater. That's not to take away from these guys' dedication and training but freaks is hyperbole. I think you mean the peloton which is greater than the sum of its parts.

Not sure what you mean by pretty average athletes. If you mean all round, like could compete in multiple sports I would agree. If you mean in sports based on aerobic capacity then I think you are wrong. I have no data to support it but I suspect doped or not by the time you are on the grand tour stage even as a domestique the sport has selected out the cream of human VO2 max. I would guess these guys are all in the top 10 or so percent of aerobic athletes. The differences from there are mental, ability to recover, find and maintain their training volume and in many cases the most effective least detectable doping program.
I'm sure I'll be flamed but cycling isn't really a skill sport. Sure you have to have a certain amount of handling ability but beyond that it's watts and weight. It's primarily genetic with a whole heap of training of course. It's a lot like power lifting you can train till the cows come home and you'll get better/stronger but if you don't have the genes you'll never be competitive on a world class stage, doped or not.

[cfox]

I think the majority are pretty average athletes frankly. Cycling is a niche sport and competition compared to other sports is virtually none. I can't picture Tyler Hamilton excelling beyond perhaps Tony Hawk Pro Skater. That's not to take away from these guys' dedication and training but freaks is hyperbole. I think you mean the peloton which is greater than the sum of its parts.

Funny you picked Tyler out of all available choices. He was an elite alpine skier and only turned to cycling when he blew out his knee. And elite alpine skiers are amazing athletes.

World tour cyclists are freaks, but that does not make them incredible overall athletes by any means. They have a physiology with an amazing capacity to exercise that is far from normal.

[holliscx]

Tough to debate here obviously but broad generalization if you threw everyone in the world in a pool and gave them the same opportunities I do not believe the pro peloton top to bottom would comprise who we see riding today. Whereas take a sport like basketball and I think the NBA would more or less be those same players. Does this make sense to anyone?

I find it ridiculous to discuss this because we're talking about athletes in a sport (cycling) who have a distinct advantage with drafting never mind doping. I think the GC contenders are decent athletes but take your average joe out of the peloton and I don't think he's a special athlete. I don't buy the gene argument either - every American who's doped said he had to in order to be able to ride in Europe. The peloton doesn't suddenly become clean overnight and Americans cruise over and find themselves able to compete with the best. And that's why it's a wash to talk about these guys in athletic terms for what they're doing is not an honest measure of their abilities.

[malcolm]

Tough to debate here obviously but broad generalization if you threw everyone in the world in a pool and gave them the same opportunities I do not believe the pro peloton top to bottom would comprise who we see riding today. Whereas take a sport like basketball and I think the NBA would more or less be those same players. Does this make sense to anyone?

I find it ridiculous to discuss this because we're talking about athletes in a sport (cycling) who have a distinct advantage with drafting never mind doping. I think the GC contenders are decent athletes but take your average joe out of the peloton and I don't think he's a special athlete. I don't buy the gene argument either - every American who's doped said he had to in order to be able to ride in Europe. The peloton doesn't suddenly become clean overnight and Americans cruise over and find themselves able to compete with the best. And that's why it's a wash to talk about these guys in athletic terms for what they're doing is not an honest measure of their abilities.

I think it's an interesting debate and I also meaning no disrespect think you are wrong. I think you underestimate what it takes to do what they do. Lets take an good everyday endurance athlete or even a decent iron distance triathlete. Just to finish a 140 is a huge feat, but now lets look at 100 miles per day at speed for three weeks. Just like the NBA selects out the genetic aspect of the sport, height and to some degree athletic ability, cycling selects out aerobic performance. I think in sport that requires a limited skill set genetics are even more important. Cycling selects people predisposed to higher level endurance, power lifting selects out people predisposed to be strong, muscle make up, long insertions across the joint, you are born that way or not. Are there people walking around that could compete, sure, but don't kid yourself those guys cruising around France are elite endurance athletes.

[cfox]

Tough to debate here obviously but broad generalization if you threw everyone in the world in a pool and gave them the same opportunities I do not believe the pro peloton top to bottom would comprise who we see riding today. Whereas take a sport like basketball and I think the NBA would more or less be those same players. Does this make sense to anyone?

I find it ridiculous to discuss this because we're talking about athletes in a sport (cycling) who have a distinct advantage with drafting never mind doping. I think the GC contenders are decent athletes but take your average joe out of the peloton and I don't think he's a special athlete. I don't buy the gene argument either - every American who's doped said he had to in order to be able to ride in Europe. The peloton doesn't suddenly become clean overnight and Americans cruise over and find themselves able to compete with the best. And that's why it's a wash to talk about these guys in athletic terms for what they're doing is not an honest measure of their abilities.

Regarding your first statement, in the US that is certainly true. In Europe, I think there is a sufficient number of participants at the youth level to weed out a pretty elite group when the few finally make it to the Pro Tour level. Youth cycling programs in Italy and Belgium, etc. are a crucible. And it's not like there are thousands of cyclists at that level.

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. Is it only cycling, or are all endurance athletes mediocre? How would you even know?

[holliscx]

I think it's an interesting debate and I also meaning no disrespect think you are wrong. I think you underestimate what it takes to do what they do. Lets take an good everyday endurance athlete or even a decent iron distance triathlete. Just to finish a 140 is a huge feat, but now lets look at 100 miles per day at speed for three weeks. Just like the NBA selects out the genetic aspect of the sport, height and to some degree athletic ability, cycling selects out aerobic performance. I think in sport that requires a limited skill set genetics are even more important. Cycling selects people predisposed to higher level endurance, power lifting selects out people predisposed to be strong, muscle make up, long insertions across the joint, you are born that way or not. Are there people walking around that could compete, sure, but don't kid yourself those guys cruising around France are elite endurance athletes.

I hear what you're saying and I might be wrong but still cycling's exposure is tiny and the pool of athletes isn't that much. Most high level athletes don't want to ride a bike. And the pros riding around France aren't clean therefore it's a mute point to compare their abilities to others.

[holliscx]

Regarding your first statement, in the US that is certainly true. In Europe, I think there is a sufficient number of participants at the youth level to weed out a pretty elite group when the few finally make it to the Pro Tour level. Youth cycling programs in Italy and Belgium, etc. are a crucible. And it's not like there are thousands of cyclists at that level.

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. Is it only cycling, or are all endurance athletes mediocre? How would you even know?

Excellent point re: Europe.

I'm probably not articulating this well, but I ran cross country and track in hs and college and see similarities with cycling. I was a decent runner and bench fodder in basketball. There is no doubt in my mind if the same athletes I played basketball with devoted themselves to running that they would also beat me in that sport. Cross country like cycling is a niche - the guys I played hoops with had no interest in running distance - but I know they could be great runners.

Same for cycling very few are exposed to the sport most especially in the US.

Of course I'm not saying all endurance athletes are mediocre but there is something to be said for niche sports having less competition (and inferior athletes) vs popular sports like soccer and basketball.

[malcolm]

I hear what you're saying and I might be wrong but still cycling's exposure is tiny and the pool of athletes isn't that much. Most high level athletes don't want to ride a bike. And the pros riding around France aren't clean therefore it's a mute point to compare their abilities to others.

I think I see what you are saying now and I agree. The people exposed to cycling in the US is small so our best cyclists may be sitting around watching TV, is that what you mean?? I could agree with that, but the ones that make it are still elite athletes.

I can give a bit of an example. A kid that worked for me had never been involved in any sport and was some 90lbs overweight. I got him to bike riding and running and he just took off from there. Lost 90lbs and about a year late did a full iron man in under 12 hours. He went from couch potato to aerobic machine

[holliscx]

The people exposed to cycling in the US is small, but the ones that make it are still elite athletes.

^ this

[r_mutt]

But global warming is not about "wild temperature swings"...

The proper term is "Climate Change". This encompasses higher overall average temperatures and wild unpredictable temperature changes. Global warming is but one of the many facets of Climate Change.

[cfox]

Wild temperature swings are totally normal. Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by 95% of the scientific community with an agenda to achieve...I mean to bankrupt oil, coal industries and any energy sources that aren't clean. I believe the scientists paid by oil companies who claim that the earth getting warmer is a totally natural occurrence.

I'm not a climate change denier by any means, and I believe we need energy alternatives for a bunch of different reasons, Co2 emissions included, of course. But the whole 95% consensus thing is overblown. There are a number of reasonable, respected scientists that are skeptical. I think reasoned skepticism is healthy, and it helps to keep things from becoming religions. Which, quite frankly, is what the global warming thing has become. It has some of the classic hallmarks: a devoted following, an intolerance to the unfaithful, and most importantly, leaders who don't practice what they preach (the head of greenpeace commutes by plane everyday from Luxembourg to London, don't get me started on Al Gore).

Anyway, the doping thing just reminds me of this. One answer for every possible outcome.

[r_mutt]

I would be so happy if the 95% were wrong about Climate Change and doping.

[binxnyrwarrsoul]

...

[r_mutt]

You're kidding, right?


Yes.

[Zoodles]

I think most cycling fans fail to comprehend the massive training regimen required to get to the level of a GT and as a result chalk all performances up to PEDs.

These guys are a big step beyond your local cat. 1 or even domestic pro. Their ability to compete at the tour is based on genetics (most euro-pros could excel at any endurance sport), dedication to the rigours of sport and training, and the ridiculous amount of skill it takes to navigate the peloton at 50 or 60 km/h while seeing red for hours on end.

Take a read through michael hutchinsons "faster" for a better perspective. It takes a lot more than popping a pill to turn an 'average' athlete into a pro tour regular.

[jimoots]

I think I see what you are saying now and I agree. The people exposed to cycling in the US is small so our best cyclists may be sitting around watching TV, is that what you mean?? I could agree with that, but the ones that make it are still elite athletes.

I can give a bit of an example. A kid that worked for me had never been involved in any sport and was some 90lbs overweight. I got him to bike riding and running and he just took off from there. Lost 90lbs and about a year late did a full iron man in under 12 hours. He went from couch potato to aerobic machine

Firstly, the samples of cyclists when compared with the general population are statistically big enough to contain athletically gifted individuals. So while it may seem intuitive at first, I think the argument that the pool of cyclists is too small to contain athletic freaks is tenuous at best.

Moving on from that, if we accept that for an undoped/natural human male has an upper wattage limit for any given duration - you simply have to accept that the guys hitting these limits are 'as good as it can possibly get'.

I.e. if you increase the cycling population by making it more popular/culturally-acceptable/whatever then you may get more people who are at world tour level, but the overall level of performance won't change much.

So essentially whether or not a country over/under-performs in any sport has a lot to do with the sporting culture of that country. So I agree, the best out of the 'States may not be the actual best cyclists that country has to offer. But that said, on a world stage, these dudes are the real deal and likely could reach the highest echelons of any other endurance spot if they had the desire to do so.

[bikinchris]

Cycling is not a true "skill" sport in the sense of hand to eye coordination. What it is, is a sport requiring high aerobic capacity and a high anaerobic threshold. That means genes. You also have to be someone who doesn't slack if you are going to make a trade team, much less the Tour de France.

To think that most of them are not gifted athletes because they don't play with a ball is silly.

[malcolm]

Firstly, the samples of cyclists when compared with the general population are statistically big enough to contain athletically gifted individuals. So while it may seem intuitive at first, I think the argument that the pool of cyclists is too small to contain athletic freaks is tenuous at best.

Moving on from that, if we accept that for an undoped/natural human male has an upper wattage limit for any given duration - you simply have to accept that the guys hitting these limits are 'as good as it can possibly get'.

I.e. if you increase the cycling population by making it more popular/culturally-acceptable/whatever then you may get more people who are at world tour level, but the overall level of performance won't change much.

So essentially whether or not a country over/under-performs in any sport has a lot to do with the sporting culture of that country. So I agree, the best out of the 'States may not be the actual best cyclists that country has to offer. But that said, on a world stage, these dudes are the real deal and likely could reach the highest echelons of any other endurance spot if they had the desire to do so.

So basically after all that we agree. I stated in my very first post the guys that make it to that level are selected out by the competition and are the cream of the aerobic crop. I'm sure some that may have equal or better goods are never discovered because they just didn't pick cycling

[StephenCL]

Cycling is not a true "skill" sport in the sense of hand to eye coordination. What it is, is a sport requiring high aerobic capacity and a high anaerobic threshold. That means genes. You also have to be someone who doesn't slack if you are going to make a trade team, much less the Tour de France.

To think that most of them are not gifted athletes because they don't play with a ball is silly.

Hmmmm, not sure I agree at all with the first comment. Flying down a col at 60mph requires tremendous eye hand coordination. Furthermore, others forms of cycling including cross, downhill, and trials all require significant eye hand or in this case, eye body coordination. We are not talking about the weekly 40 club ride here....and you sense pretty quickly those that lack the requisite skills ala Froome....

But i understand your over arching point...

[jimoots]

So basically after all that we agree. I stated in my very first post the guys that make it to that level are selected out by the competition and are the cream of the aerobic crop. I'm sure some that may have equal or better goods are never discovered because they just didn't pick cycling

I agree with equal, don't agree with better. The sample size is big enough to pick out the guys who are at the absolute peak of human performance in terms of w/kg.

I guess it depends on whether or not you accept there is a w/kg limit for human performance. Happy to be proven wrong but I tend to think there is a limit - and for the pro's at least - we're currently at it.

[Charles M]

A bigger question relative to Sky riders (when their not sick, like Porte) is, how does one change their watts per KG fairly drastically in a fairly short period of time after the age of 20-22-25...?

Like I said earlier... The very best endurance athletes tend to destroy competition from a young age.

They don't just suddenly show up out of nowhere beating the best in the world normally.

And even more silly to think they would all show up on 1 team at the same time in the same year(s).

[Derailer]

A bigger question relative to Sky riders (when their not sick, like Porte) is, how does one change their watts per KG fairly drastically in a fairly short period of time after the age of 20-22-25...?

It's all about nutrition and a rigorous, highly-scientific training regimen. :rolleyes:

[Uncle Jam's Army]

A bigger question relative to Sky riders (when their not sick, like Porte) is, how does one change their watts per KG fairly drastically in a fairly short period of time after the age of 20-22-25...?

Like I said earlier... The very best endurance athletes tend to destroy competition from a young age.

They don't just suddenly show up out of nowhere beating the best in the world normally.

And even more silly to think they would all show up on 1 team at the same time in the same year(s).

Marginal gains, my man! Marginal gains. ;)

[holliscx]

I agree with equal, don't agree with better. The sample size is big enough to pick out the guys who are at the absolute peak of human performance in terms of w/kg.

I guess it depends on whether or not you accept there is a w/kg limit for human performance. Happy to be proven wrong but I tend to think there is a limit - and for the pro's at least - we're currently at it.

I disagree. Look at African dominance in distance running or black vs white players' athleticism in the NBA. Cycling is a white sport but I think African and black athletes who have a narrower skeletal frame and leaner muscular structure could be game changing climbers one day.

[bluesea]

We been braille-ed. :banana:

[beeatnik]

I thought it was all about the bike.