Team Sky - Truth or Lie?

by daddyELVIS   July 13, 2013  

http://youtu.be/CVROhTHxWP8

Watch the whole video of an interview with Sky's performance guru, or forward to just before the 5.00 minutes where his body language and speech patterns suddenly change (in response to a certain question!).

For all the Sky fanboys out there, forget he's Sky, and forget they are the 'best of British' - what is your over-riding feeling from 5.00 onwards?

Truth or Lie?

35 user comments

Latest 30 commentsNewest firstBest ratedAll

notfastenough wrote:
@Stumpy - Right, and that's just the stuff they're willing to discuss!

@daddyelvis, no-one's suggesting that the peloton is completely clean, but like Paul Kimmage, you seem to have a thing about Team Sky, in the face of a complete lack, not just of evidence, but even of 'I roomed with x and saw him doping' rumours. I think there are several more obvious candidates for your cynicism.

I'm well aware there are other obvious cadidates, but the thing that grates with Sky is all the anti-doping PR that doesn't add up. Kimmage probably has a 'thing' about Sky because he's seen Brailsford's ethical team dossier that was put together when Sky was formed, and he knows it's total BS. Where's the transparency? Every release about Sky is controlled - look at Walsh's current live-in with Sky, it's more like a love-in, he tweets like a Sky PR manager,not an independent journalist! And the part about not employing anyone previously linked to doping, and only employing doctors from outside the sport is laughable - Brailsford suddenly remembered that part of his promise AFTER they had won the TdF! Kerrison - Australian swimming - must be clean as a whistle then

posted by daddyELVIS [453 posts]
13th July 2013 - 21:31

2 Likes

Sometimes people just see what they want to see.

Simon E's picture

posted by Simon E [2053 posts]
13th July 2013 - 21:39

2 Likes

stumps wrote:
Did some digging myself and found this article. Very thought provoking but wont sit well with the sceptical members of the forum. Its a bit long winded but very interesting.

Anyways after the 2010 season, Kerrison sat down with Brailsford to show him what Kerrison had observed and his overall conclusions. Brailsford said afterwards he was "blown away" by what Kerrison presented to him...

Here are his main conclusions...

What is startling from there primarily is how they make so much sense but due to the fact that they come from a mind which has not been whatsoever influenced by the sport and therefore does not concur with the stigmas and stereotypes which many of the tradiotional European teams have been influenced and therefore restricted by. Particularly as he says the reliance on doping, has stunted the coaching aspect of the sport whilst the best coaches and doctors in the past, have not been the ones who are the best trainers, but rather the ones who have the best doping techniques.

1) Kerrison could not understand why it was common practice for riders to use races for training.

This technique was instituted years ago due to prize money... now the top riders dont need the prize money all that much, then why do they still use the races as training and build up when they can do it in more controlled environments at their own leisure, when they were not subjected to the racing peloton who has a mind and rhythm of its own.

Yet people still believe that quality efforts would be done at the races, whilst the inter periods would be done at home for resting and lesser intensity training.

Edit: I found this quote which backs up this explanation

"Wiggins said last month, while on camp in Tenerife, that he doubted if any single day on the Dauphine would be as hard as his training in, on and around Mount Teide and he was manifestly right. To these eyes the one full day's hit out I witnessed in Tenerife was immeasurably tougher than either of the two high mountain stages at the Dauphine".

2) Another concept of his was "reverse periodisation". This is what people have witnessed with Porte, Wiggins and Rogers over the past year, where they have seemed to be at peak form, a step ahead of the other riders throughout the season.

Effectively it gets rid of the athlete originally focusing on his endurance and building an aerobic base, and then only afterwards to move only on to high intensity exercises only towards the end of the training period or cycle.

And instead it makes the rider focus on introducing all the power and speed work early on and then they would gradually increase the duration of the training of those attributes as the rider's fitness improved, AKA. in this case closer to the Tour.

In the Wiggins case this was very evident wherease many so called "experts" questioned as to whether Wiggins was not peaking a tad too early. If these "experts" had understood that the "reverse periodisation" allows Wiggins to produce maximal perfomances even prior to his peak they would have realised Wiggins was in perfect shape for the Tour.

They assumed that if riders are outputting maximal efforts then that would fastrack a rider into and out of the other side of their best form.

Once again this is another one of the misgiving which has stunted cycling and without it, it seems cyclists can perform much better.

Furthermore another example is that of Wiggins's time trialling which as markedly improved over the past two years. This is due to the fact that Kerrison has made Wiggins race his TTs at a lowed cadence.

Indeed Sky have rightfully applauded their genius coach and Wiggins has specifically attributed his Tour win down to Kerrison's coaching.

I did some digging myself, and found the same forum you cut-and-pasted all that from. I see you didn't cut and paste the Greg Lemond quotes from that forum thread. Why not provide some balance?

posted by daddyELVIS [453 posts]
13th July 2013 - 21:40

2 Likes

daddyelvis, i didn't cut and paste from any forum. It was a lift from another rider's interview, there was nothing in it about Lemond so please dont try and twist to suit.

As for balance, you seem to be level headed, is that due to a chip on both shoulders about Sky Wink

There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.

stumps's picture

posted by stumps [2843 posts]
13th July 2013 - 22:28

0 Likes

stumps wrote:
As for balance, you seem to be level headed, is that due to a chip on both shoulders about Sky Wink

daddyelvis bought a Rapha Sky large jersey but couldn't do up the zip.
Yes I called you fat, I am that mature.
Please call me a fanboy and we can get to the end of this thread a bit quicker.



I am stronger than Mensa, Miller and Mailer, I spat out Plath and Pinter.

bikeboy76's picture

posted by bikeboy76 [1432 posts]
14th July 2013 - 3:01

0 Likes

Wiggins I could believe - massively strong endurance rider on the track who won the TdF because it translated to TT efforts and he had protection in the hills from a brilliant team.

Froome(/Porte) I want to believe but have my doubts - had he just transformed himself into one of the world's best climbers, that would be one thing, but to blitz the TT too?

CraigS's picture

posted by CraigS [135 posts]
14th July 2013 - 7:03

1 Like

stumps wrote:
daddyelvis, i didn't cut and paste from any forum. It was a lift from another rider's interview, there was nothing in it about Lemond so please dont try and twist to suit.

As for balance, you seem to be level headed, is that due to a chip on both shoulders about Sky Wink

he-he, nice one. No chips here, just use my experience and common sense to tell me when somebody isn't telling the truth. Keep believing, I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

posted by daddyELVIS [453 posts]
14th July 2013 - 7:34

1 Like

bikeboy76 wrote:
stumps wrote:
As for balance, you seem to be level headed, is that due to a chip on both shoulders about Sky Wink

daddyelvis bought a Rapha Sky large jersey but couldn't do up the zip.
Yes I called you fat, I am that mature.
Please call me a fanboy and we can get to the end of this thread a bit quicker.

Hopefully you're not a fat fanboy, that would be terrible

posted by daddyELVIS [453 posts]
14th July 2013 - 7:36

0 Likes

CraigS wrote:

Froome(/Porte) I want to believe but have my doubts - had he just transformed himself into one of the world's best climbers, that would be one thing, but to blitz the TT too?

imagine if he had a Movistar jersey on, and then suddenly improved the way he has. I dare say ASO wouldn't stand for that!

posted by daddyELVIS [453 posts]
14th July 2013 - 7:40

1 Like

Simon E wrote:
I'm no expert but I'd say he was choosing his words carefully
.

His choice of the word 'perceived' was unfortunate, but probably the most truthful part of his answer!

posted by daddyELVIS [453 posts]
14th July 2013 - 8:05

0 Likes

In the end mate its your choice what you want to believe or not and i respect your views - sorry about the chip bit Big Grin

Unless one of the Sky boys is caught with epo or whatever i will continue to believe they are clean.

There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.

stumps's picture

posted by stumps [2843 posts]
14th July 2013 - 8:55

2 Likes

1) shouldn't this be in the bike section?

2) Team Sky's great one day, fall apart the next looks pretty clean to me. Either that or they need a refund!

3) Climb well and TT well? Possible. Big Mig anyone?

I'm not a fanboy. Was fairly bored by Skys tactic, been more a supporter recently for various reasons ncluding some more exciting racing and their (often) positive (for want of better phrase!) effect on cycling in the UK.*

* not including overly large MAMILs Wink

posted by Super Domestique [1653 posts]
14th July 2013 - 11:50

2 Likes

stumps wrote:
sorry about the chip bit Big Grin

No problem, I'm not easily offended.

Besides, my view on doping is not as simple as clean is good, dope is bad. However hypocrisy does the debate no favours.

stumps wrote:
Unless one of the Sky boys is caught with epo or whatever i will continue to believe they are clean.

If Sky are doping, it could take more than a positive test to catch them Wink

posted by daddyELVIS [453 posts]
14th July 2013 - 14:59

1 Like

Super Domestique wrote:
1) shouldn't this be in the bike section?

Not sure, the original post was about Tim Kerrison's change in body-language and speech in response to a question on doping.

Super Domestique wrote:
2) Team Sky's great one day, fall apart the next looks pretty clean to me. Either that or they need a refund!

Was that the disastrous day that Froome lost absolutely no time against his GC rivals?

Super Domestique wrote:
3) Climb well and TT well? Possible. Big Mig anyone?

Hilarious!

posted by daddyELVIS [453 posts]
14th July 2013 - 15:12

1 Like

1) so biking content then.

2) so either all are doping at the top of GC or none are. That is what you are saying, right?

3) yawn.

I will agree he didn't look comfortable BTW, although most in cycling don't do except David Millar when talking on it tbh.

posted by Super Domestique [1653 posts]
14th July 2013 - 16:48

0 Likes

Super Domestique wrote:
1) so biking content then.

2) so either all are doping at the top of GC or none are. That is what you are saying, right?

3) yawn.

I will agree he didn't look comfortable BTW, although most in cycling don't do except David Millar when talking on it tbh.

1) mainly doping related. Not sure where that goes. No 'Clinic' here.

2)Maybe, there's a good chance. But that is not my point. You don't know my stance on the doping / anti-doping debate - it may surprise you.

3)looks like you saw the error of your argument there Wink

posted by daddyELVIS [453 posts]
14th July 2013 - 17:07

1 Like

1) Tea stop says 'non-bike' related stuff. This is clearly bike related.

2) that comment makes no sense.

3) I was bored by the point being missed.

My final comment was just showing that I knew 'why' you'd posted. However, the classic 'tongue poke' (I counted 2) is a sign of dislike. According to body language experts this stems from childhood and being fed food we didn't like the taste of.

posted by Super Domestique [1653 posts]
14th July 2013 - 17:36

1 Like

Super Domestique wrote:
1) Tea stop says 'non-bike' related stuff. This is clearly bike related.

2) that comment makes no sense.

3) I was bored by the point being missed.

My final comment was just showing that I knew 'why' you'd posted. However, the classic 'tongue poke' (I counted 2) is a sign of dislike. According to body language experts this stems from childhood and being fed food we didn't like the taste of.


Just FYI... According to Social Anthropologists, poking out the tongue is the closest thing to the genital diplay of our Ape cousins that we clothed Humans have.

posted by The Rumpo Kid [590 posts]
14th July 2013 - 17:52

1 Like

I don't think I should have bothered posting above but I'll leave it out of politeness. Clearly we differ in view.

However I posted this in the comments on today's stage in the news section and it seems relevant.

One thing I don't get with all those so quick to shout 'drugs' at every win, etc
Why bother watching if it's all doom and gloom?
posted by Super Domestique [1228 posts] 14th July 2013 - 18:43

posted by Super Domestique [1653 posts]
14th July 2013 - 18:37

1 Like

Super Domestique wrote:

However I posted this in the comments on today's stage in the news section and it seems relevant.

One thing I don't get with all those so quick to shout 'drugs' at every win, etc
Why bother watching if it's all doom and gloom?
posted by Super Domestique [1228 posts] 14th July 2013 - 18:43

I watch the sport because I love it. Not all doom n gloom for me, and my view on doping is quite broad-minded. I just can't stand DB's BS on the subject, and his BS has little contribution to the anti-doping debate. And my opinion is that Froome's performances cannot be fully explained by marginal gains.

posted by daddyELVIS [453 posts]
14th July 2013 - 19:14

1 Like

daddyELVIS wrote:
And my opinion is that Froome's performances cannot be fully explained by marginal gains.

Yes - you are correct - Froome's performances cannot be fully explained by marginal gains.
But they can be explained by natural raw talent, hard graft, excellent training methods, a formidable and proven team behind him, the shortcomings of his rivals now they have been forced to race clean, the shortcomings of teams who are perhaps a year or more behind Sky in regards their methods and tactics *and* marginal gains.

No disrespect but if you are looking for dopers you are pissing up the wrong tree.

posted by Some Fella [820 posts]
14th July 2013 - 20:02

1 Like

posted by MattT53 [129 posts]
14th July 2013 - 21:05

1 Like

Not fair!

Very few people in the UK are crying foul after Andy Murray's great Wimbledon victory this year, so why should everyone be on Frome's back after his great stage wins so far in the TDF.

I completely understand some scepticism for historical reasons, but when the testing regime is so much more rigorous in cycling than in, for example tennis, and team sky so upfront about their training and performance, why it's frustrating that cycling gets singled out in this way.

I know this is always going to happen after the legacy of LA, and others, plus UCI's previously dubious policing of the sport, but it does get my goat!

I'd say ours much more likely for British sportsmen in, say, athletics, to be found guilty of doping today, than it is for British cyclists.. Wink

posted by 700c [587 posts]
15th July 2013 - 11:09

1 Like

Gotta say, Sky are standing up well to the doping questions this year, a couple of wobbles from Froome, but all the 'right noises' from DB. His suggestions of TUE transparency is a good one, but releasing data files on power, etc to WADA is next to useless. If they are truly clean, then they need to be truly transparent - release blood profiles and other test results for each rider (all year round). They should lead the way, and other teams who don't follow will then be accused of being dopers instead of Sky.

posted by daddyELVIS [453 posts]
16th July 2013 - 19:27

1 Like

Kerrison is the reason that I believe sky are drug free. If it comes out that they are doping I will be sorely disappointed purely because the next gen of cyclists will be crushed as there heroes aren't who they claim to be

posted by Cycle_Jim [282 posts]
16th July 2013 - 20:01

2 Likes

Ok, I give up. Agree with Kimmage - Froome is the best rider ever. That's the only explanation, right?

posted by daddyELVIS [453 posts]
20th July 2013 - 0:01

2 Likes

To me, in the video, the guy is "dancing" the whole time, licking his lips, pausing mid-sentence etc. The questions leading up to 5:00 are things he's familiar with.

At 5:05, when the doping question is asked, he does take a swallow and pauses, stutters a bit trying to find what to say. Looks more like someone whose mind went blank when asked "the big question".

Notice the interviewer asked a trick question.. He didn't ask about Sky and doping, rather cycling and doping...

To me it looks like he's just nervous as hell about being interviewed and then someone asks the "tough question" and the mind goes blank.. I've had this before personally.

posted by Hector Ch [52 posts]
23rd July 2013 - 5:28

3 Likes

No, no he isn't the best rider ever. He (and especially the team) had good days and bad days, but he was smart enough to peak for the start, so he had his good days while the others were still riding themselves into form. By the time they had that form, he'd sewn it up.

Don't know why I'm even bothering responding, I don't think you're willing to listen to anything that you disagree with.

Last night I would have considered trading a very loud baby for a really nice bike.

posted by notfastenough [3468 posts]
23rd July 2013 - 9:32

1 Like

Some Fella wrote:
daddyELVIS wrote:
And my opinion is that Froome's performances cannot be fully explained by marginal gains.

Yes - you are correct - Froome's performances cannot be fully explained by marginal gains.
But they can be explained by natural raw talent, hard graft, excellent training methods, a formidable and proven team behind him, the shortcomings of his rivals now they have been forced to race clean, the shortcomings of teams who are perhaps a year or more behind Sky in regards their methods and tactics *and* marginal gains.

No disrespect but if you are looking for dopers you are pissing up the wrong tree.

^^^ +1 - well said that.

I'm not a huge fan of Team Sky (bar the fact that we've a Manxie and some honorary Manxies in there) - but it's quite obvious they have a brilliant knack for selecting raw talent and mixing that with some of the best coaching methods in the world.

Raaaaggghhhh at the sceptics! >.<

Being better than people who dope only means you're better than people who suck, it doesn't necessarily mean you're cheating too.

Merlin Cycles women's race team ~ http://www.merlincycles.com
Manx nerd peddler ~ http://mooleur.blogspot.com

mooleur's picture

posted by mooleur [542 posts]
20th August 2013 - 9:05

0 Likes

Interesting article in this month's Cyclist on the subject of Team Sky.

Also comments on the Cycle Show on Monday night.

posted by Super Domestique [1653 posts]
21st August 2013 - 15:15

0 Likes