El-Reacho Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I actually don't agree. A lack of English speaking teams never hindered Millar, Roche, Kelly, LeMond, Anderson, Hampston etc Armstrong was the first english speaker to go to the Tour and dictate his own terms, shunning the french media culture etc. Whilst the increase in American teams is down to his legacy, I don't know that that is something long term because the USADA verdict will have a huge impact on cycling in America. I think British Cycling's success on the track over the past decade has had more to do with Sky's investment than Armstrong IMHO. As a man who rides a Hampsten (and did the logo!) you could get it right Personally I think the generation in the 80s were the ones who changed it; Anderson refusing to drink perrier and drinking Coke instead, the 7/11 team, but more than anyone the legend that is LeMond. First million dollar rider. Did what the hell he wanted, much to the annoyance of the Badger, etc. I think its hard to imagine Armstrong ever existing without LeMond. LeMond got the US interested (wasn’t he the first cycling Sports Illustrated winner?) and the TV networks. He was also the first to get all of the big sponsorship deals. Agree that British cycling from those humble beginnings in Barçelona in 1992 has allowed Sky to develop. They had a plan, and its beginning to bear rich fruit. Fair play Paulo, excuse my ignorance. They look like lovely bikes. That image of Hampsten in the snow when he won the Giro is absolutely iconic. The psychological battles between LeMond and Hinault when they crossed the line arm and arm, and then subsequently the '89 tour with Fignon are just brilliant. The officials asking Fignon to cover up his yellow jersey after losing a TT finish on the Champs Elysee when he was utterly distraught - you really couldn't make up stuff like that if you tried. It's no wonder the Americans absolutely loved it. I think the money, the sports science, the PR machines and everything else have sterilised cycling these days - you can probably say that about alot of sports mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 That’s a Colemanballs or possibly a Liggettballs... The best guy is David Duffield; It was always Steven Kelly and Sean Roche! :notworthy: I used to love watching Live Eurosport TDF stages with Duffers commentating. So off the wall. He'd tell you about places he'd visited, what he'd had for dinner, people he'd met etc etc. There's a site dedicated to him on the t'internet somewhere, with a rundown of all of his duffield-isms! My favourite was 'The man with the hammer has got him' when someone has shot his bolt and almost can't turn the pedals anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 Duffield was actually originally on Channel Four; He’s unbelievable the way he ramble on about the local cheeses, the local chateaus, etc. Hugh Porter who does the track cycling is a lovely bloke; continually refers to putting the “opposition to the sword”. Seemed strange when I went to the British swimming championships and he was commentating. And he said “she’s putting the opposition to the sword”... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 This time trial stage is looking ominous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-Reacho Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 This time trial stage is looking ominous What exactly are you referring to 'LondonLax' - if indeed that is your real name?? :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willy_Evergo Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Unbelievable performance by Froome and Wiggins. Literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 This time trial stage is looking ominous What exactly are you referring to 'LondonLax' - if indeed that is your real name?? :winkold: Am hoping Cadel will win but he was being smashed by the Sky guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-Reacho Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Am feeling like I felt when Armstrong won in '99. Only with all the hindsight.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Incredible ride by Wiggins. It's for him to lose now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 Am feeling like I felt when Armstrong won in '99. Only with all the hindsight.... Not sure what that means? Negative, Positive? Or both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-Reacho Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Until now I've considered Sky, along with Garmin and the French teams to be clean. But if Liquigas, randomly picked for example, showed the dominance that Sky have shown over the last three days, with two riders that have dramatically transformed themselves into GC contenders in a way that only Armstrong has done before, I would simply turn the TV off. I knew Wiggins would do well today, and we've talked about Froome being competitive but to simply blow Evans, Cancellara, and Menchov to pieces like that makes me feel pretty uncomfortable particularly with regard to Froome. Froome was obviously not instructed to hold back in any way today so his performances in the mountains this week will be interesting to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-Reacho Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Am feeling like I felt when Armstrong won in '99. Only with all the hindsight.... Not sure what that means? Negative, Positive? Or both? What do you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willy_Evergo Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Am feeling like I felt when Armstrong won in '99. Only with all the hindsight.... Not sure what that means? Negative, Positive? Or both? What do you guys think? I really thought teams like Sky and Garmin were the new hope for cycling but last seasons Vuelta gave me concerns about Sky and this season has exacerbated those concerns. To see domestiques like Porte dropping the best climbers in the peleton and Froomes amazing improvement is very suspicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 I can see the argument. But on the other hand look at what the team who put Sky together, did at track cycling. To be honest a great deal of these cycling teams are pretty amateurish, and Sky have applied the same rigorous approach to road cycling (with an enormous budget to boot). Sure people at the team like Sean Yates have come from the bad old days, but most of the management team haven’t. Sure someone like Rodgers has a somewhat dubious past, so its not impossible that he has doped and is still doping; most of the cyclists spend most of their time away from the team, and often the team really are ignorant of what they do When Sky dropped most of the peleton on Saturday it wasn’t simply because they were better. It was because they had actually looked at the course and worked out they could do something. Most teams looked at that and said category 1 finish, only 6k long, not very difficult. They walked into a trap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I think you are well, well wide of the mark Reacho and evergo. I find the negative coverage, or what little there has been, frankly pathetic. Team does well = MUST be cheating/on drugs. Pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Are people suggesting that say Wiggins has doped throughout his career, or just now? Are people suggesting the doping is encouraged by Brailsford? Are people suggesting Cavendish is on drugs? Was Boardman on drugs? Was Cancellara on drugs to beat Wiggy in the prologue? Are the entire British track cycling team on drugs? Are people also therefore saying that Wiggy has been on drugs all season (he has come into this tour as favourite after all - after 3 big wins). Was Froome on drugs during the Tour of Spain last season. It's nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-Reacho Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I can see the argument. But on the other hand look at what the team who put Sky together, did at track cycling. To be honest a great deal of these cycling teams are pretty amateurish, and Sky have applied the same rigorous approach to road cycling (with an enormous budget to boot). Sure people at the team like Sean Yates have come from the bad old days, but most of the management team haven’t. Sure someone like Rodgers has a somewhat dubious past, so its not impossible that he has doped and is still doping; most of the cyclists spend most of their time away from the team, and often the team really are ignorant of what they do When Sky dropped most of the peleton on Saturday it wasn’t simply because they were better. It was because they had actually looked at the course and worked out they could do something. Most teams looked at that and said category 1 finish, only 6k long, not very difficult. They walked into a trap. Paulo, those are exactly the same arguments that USPS gave for their total dominance. I completely disagree that they're simply able to put more effort into the smaller details. It's disrespectful to suggest that anyone who harbours any aspirations of either winning GC, or mountain stages isn't going to do training runs on a climb they've never used in the Tour before. BMC and AG2R certainly did in the run up to the Tour. It's also worth pointing out that Sky have employed Rabobank's former Doctor, who has major question marks over him after the Rasmussan affair. Fair enough they can only be considered question marks, but for everything thing they're able to do with regard to bringing new techniques from other sports and other disciplines of cycling, why do they need to revert to bringing guys like him and Yates on board. Particularly when they so steadfastly refuse to allow Millar, who you would consider to be the most outspoken anti-doper in the peloton to join. Also when Wiggo was at Garmin he made a big point about the need to publish his own blood values after the tour. Why has he not felt the need to do this in the time he's been at Sky? If he's going to be so aggressively defensive about the integrity of his performances, Sky should publish all of their rider's values on a regular basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 Paulo, those are exactly the same arguments that USPS gave for their total dominance. I completely disagree that they're simply able to put more effort into the smaller details. It's disrespectful to suggest that anyone who harbours any aspirations of either winning GC, or mountain stages isn't going to do training runs on a climb they've never used in the Tour before. BMC and AG2R certainly did in the run up to the Tour. It's also worth pointing out that Sky have employed Rabobank's former Doctor, who has major question marks over him after the Rasmussan affair. Fair enough they can only be considered question marks, but for everything thing they're able to do with regard to bringing new techniques from other sports and other disciplines of cycling, why do they need to revert to bringing guys like him and Yates on board. Particularly when they so steadfastly refuse to allow Millar, who you would consider to be the most outspoken anti-doper in the peloton to join. Also when Wiggo was at Garmin he made a big point about the need to publish his own blood values after the tour. Why has he not felt the need to do this in the time he's been at Sky? If he's going to be so aggressively defensive about the integrity of his performances, Sky should publish all of their rider's values on a regular basis. Much of what you are saying makes sense. Just a few things; Bruyneel came from the culture of doping, Brailsford hasn’t. Have you watched how Britain was frankly rubbish at track cycling in the 80s, yet today are the dominant force. Was it drugs or preparation? Have Sky made a large donation to the UCI? Brailsford as you will know was with Millar when he was busted, and talked about Millar joining Sky, but in the end it didn’t happen, because of “zero” tolerance. I believe that after the first year; the policy was relaxed, so riders like Flecha and Rodgers have appeared. I can’t know or guarantee that Sky hasn’t riders on juice, but I do believe that Sky are less likely to dope than other teams. But I can’t be sure. If I recall the Rasmussen incident, he was fired when Rabobank found out that he was not where he was when supposed to be; I am not sure the team doctor was involved in doping or not, but Rasmussen appeared to be a loose cannon; Rabobank did not appear to support the cyclist, or that it had a systematic drugging policy. Lets not forget that Evans was at Deutsche Telekom where a reign existed of systematic doping (Zabel et al) As for being disrespectful about the preparation of cyclists for various stages; I am afraid thats just not true. I ve seen and know so called professional teams being ill prepared. If BMC did ride this stage before, they certainly looked unprepared as they did at the DL. And I find it amazing that the fingers are pointed at Sky, yet BMC are not under the same scrutiny? Who is the big boss at BMC? Is it not the former owner of Phonak? Basically the whole of cycling is murky; its hard to believe anything. But lets be honest I am amazed that when Wiggins wins a time trial people are surprised; did he not beat Cancellera previously at the world championship? Is not Cancellera team in utter chaos? Has Cancellera’s and Martin’s season not been ruined by injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-Reacho Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Murky just about sums it up. The more I think of how the Tour is panning out the more I doubt Froome to be honest, as opposed to Wiggins and Sky as a whole. If Froome wasn't there and Wiggins had achieved what he has so far I think that's plausible enough because we all knew Wiggo and Cadel would be the two favourites and the ITT's would be decisive. Wiggo's transformation to GC contender is also plausible as it wasn't necessarily overnight and he talked about it before he actually did it. Froome on the other hand was set to be released by Sky before the Vuelta last year. His palmares barely registers before then and now he's contending the Tour. If as you suggest Sky are ignorant of what the riders do then Brailsford must be panicking about this guy. I take your point re. Wiggins' performance today, but Froome's never won a TT before and yet puts half a minute into Cancellara? Radioshack's issues regarding team leadership had no bearing on Fabian's performance today because he said when he finished he felt that no one would beat his time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 Radioshack's issues regarding team leadership had no bearing on Fabian's performance today because he said when he finished he felt that no one would beat his time. Radioshack are in utter chaos. The word was that the recent article in the Dutch newspaper was actually placed by the former manager of USPS, none other than the missing Bruyneel. Cancellera can say what he likes, but he’s not the unbeatable figure he was. Froome’s performance I agree are remarkable; he was a virtually unknown cyclist until the Vuelta. I certainly didn’t know he was going to be released by Sky. As for Sky like USPS. Maybe more like La vie Claire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts