Planet Rugby Forum

If you'd asked me in 2005, I'd have said that Valverde would have been the next great Spanish cyclist. Contador was not then regarded as the next great prospect, but Valverde was.

He's always been a classy rider. Of course his suspension for doping weighs heavily on his legacy.

TheFrog wrote:

blindcider wrote:

Bullettyme wrote:

DOB wrote:There will always be a section of cycling fans that don't like Valverde for precisely that reason. It might be a bit unfair, given he's served his time and at this stage absolutely proven that he's one of the most talented bike racers of his era. But at the same time, it's a worthwhile lesson for young riders considering trying something; this guy won a Vuelta, a Worlds, multiple monuments, but for a lot of people, they still talk about the one thing.

The other doping lesson with Valverde is they don't need to actually test you positive to ban you.

Yeah it's a bit of a pity since he has done his time as you say. I don't think there has been any suggestion that he's used since then. I think he's a fantastic cyclist and I'd count myself as a bit of a fanboy, so I'm delighted for him. He's had a very exciting season so it's good to see him come away with a big win like that.

I am conflicted about Valcerdes win, for those reasons, he is a fantastic cyclist (as were/are many convicted dopers) but I think penalties for proven dopers should be far harsher. As you say he has served his time according to the rules so so be it.

On a personal level I'd have preferred Woods to win or Dumoulin for his fantastic chase. From not liking Dumoulin he has changed my opinion since winning the TdF TT and his reaction to winning that stage and coming second in that race

He has never been tested positive.

Unlike other pro cyclists who were free to continue competing...

Jan Ullrich wasn't. Puerto killed his career.

Giro di Lombardia up next.

I've always liked this race, a real classic.

Miguel Indurain wrote:Giro di Lombardia up next.

I've always liked this race, a real classic.

The best of the lot. It's a shame it's so late in the season.

clydecloggie wrote:

Miguel Indurain wrote:Giro di Lombardia up next.

I've always liked this race, a real classic.

The best of the lot. It's a shame it's so late in the season.

Its my favourite too, the race of the falling leaves!

Paris-Tours up next, actually.

An underrated classic. It's thrown up a few good races in recent years, not the automatic bunch sprint of reputation. I'm happy to see that it's separated from Lombardia by a week this year, instead of being the same weekend. It might get a bit of its own limelight.

This is kinda funny:

https://mobile.twitter.com/lancearmstro ... 6685815808

Bullettyme wrote:This is kinda funny:

https://mobile.twitter.com/lancearmstro ... 6685815808

I watched his Podcast a few times during the season, he is actually quite a witty prick.

No mention of Tibopino's win at Lombardia? Really was an impressive ride, and just the way he dropped Nibali on the Civiglio left you in no doubt whatsoever who was the strongest in the race.

Again, not for the first time, a downside of the race was the inability of the chasing group to put together any sort of coordination. Once a break goes, there seems to be a sense of inevitability about never pulling it back, and apart from the odd dig by Martin or Wellens or Majka (but never all 3 at the same time) there was no attempt to change that. 40 seconds at the foot of the final climb should have been recoverable, given they'd all been sitting on Dani Martiniez's wheel while the front 4 had been taking turns (apart from Roglic, who was cooked).

But that's a small quibble; great ride by Pinot, who's really had a great finish to the season.

Yeah, really good race by Pinot, but I agree, the inability to produce a cohesive chase was annoying.

Good for Pinaut

Nice seeing him reverse his Giro implosion at the end of the season.

I guess he also wanted to make a point for Cyril Guimard. But nice for Pinot to win a monument. I hope he gets some form on his next attempt at a GT.

TheFrog wrote:I guess he also wanted to make a point for Cyril Guimard. But nice for Pinot to win a monument. I hope he gets some form on his next attempt at a GT.

to be fair on form 3 of them could have pretended to the leading spot.

Pity Alaphilippe blew up as with Bardet as remaining team mate he would have been in a great position to win it

Laurent wrote:

TheFrog wrote:I guess he also wanted to make a point for Cyril Guimard. But nice for Pinot to win a monument. I hope he gets some form on his next attempt at a GT.

to be fair on form 3 of them could have pretended to the leading spot.

Pity Alaphilippe blew up as with Bardet as remaining team mate he would have been in a great position to win it

I had my money on Valverde though, this suited him perfectly. He has a higher resistance than Alaphilippe and does a good job on longer climbs (and repeated climbs) as proven in GTs, and he is a fast finisher. Pity Alaphilippe couldn't keep up with him.

Just heard that Conor Dunne has signed for the Israeli Cycling Academy. Glad he's got himself sorted for another contract, and it seems his profile is getting a lot of exposure after the #NoGoTour.

Sky bailing after next year

https://www.teamsky.com/article/sky-to- ... 019-season

Margin_Walker wrote:Sky bailing after next year

https://www.teamsky.com/article/sky-to- ... 019-season

That news will cheer up a lot of people but the outlook for pro cycling teams sustainability is looking really poor

Bullettyme wrote:Just heard that Conor Dunne has signed for the Israeli Cycling Academy. Glad he's got himself sorted for another contract, and it seems his profile is getting a lot of exposure after the #NoGoTour.

It appears that his contract at ICA is being funded by Delaney from Aqua Blue so keeping his promises where he can

Yep, seems a real struggle to get sponsors in these days.

Seems McLaren (Yes F1 McLaren)are going to partner with the Bahrain cycling team to form a UCI pro team.

Margin_Walker wrote:Yep, seems a real struggle to get sponsors in these days.

Yet many will celebrate it's largest sponsors withdrawl. Better chance of winning in a race to the bottom.

BlackMac wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:Yep, seems a real struggle to get sponsors in these days.

Yet many will celebrate it's largest sponsors withdrawl. Better chance of winning in a race to the bottom.

To be fair in a sport struggling to be believed to be clean I don't think Team Sky did anything except make matters worse in the end. If they disband it might give cycling another "fresh start with a clean slate" that it needs for sponsors to eventually roll back in in the medium to long term.

Also I'm under the impression their financial muscle was far greater than the competition? It might make the things more competitive for a while?

great, the spoofer is back

blindcider wrote:

Bullettyme wrote:Just heard that Conor Dunne has signed for the Israeli Cycling Academy. Glad he's got himself sorted for another contract, and it seems his profile is getting a lot of exposure after the #NoGoTour.

It appears that his contract at ICA is being funded by Delaney from Aqua Blue so keeping his promises where he can

Didn't realise that, fair play. Had heard some grumbling recently about some pros on the team not being paid, which prompted their ex-chief to bail.

Edit: big news on Team Sky. Can't say I'll be too sad to see the team break up considering the good run they've had of things. Doubt any future sponsor will throw money at them the same way. Bernal to Movistar

Just shows the precarious nature of cycling teams. With BMC in trouble this year, and Sky the following year, who'd want to get into it.

Bullettyme wrote:

blindcider wrote:

Bullettyme wrote:Just heard that Conor Dunne has signed for the Israeli Cycling Academy. Glad he's got himself sorted for another contract, and it seems his profile is getting a lot of exposure after the #NoGoTour.

It appears that his contract at ICA is being funded by Delaney from Aqua Blue so keeping his promises where he can

Didn't realise that, fair play. Had heard some grumbling recently about some pros on the team not being paid, which prompted their ex-chief to bail.

Edit: big news on Team Sky. Can't say I'll be too sad to see the team break up considering the good run they've had of things. Doubt any future sponsor will throw money at them the same way. Bernal to Movistar

Just shows the precarious nature of cycling teams. With BMC in trouble this year, and Sky the following year, who'd want to get into it.

I would have thought a company building to medium size globally, looking for more exposure would be a good fit given the reasonable coverage in Western Europe of Cycling. Does anybody know the size of the sponsor ship Team Sky had and what the smaller ones are?

Estimates vary, but Sky are thought to have a budget of about $40mil in U.S. money, ore about twice their nearest other competitors.

https://www.velonews.com/2018/07/tour-d ... age_473476

iarmhiman wrote:Seems McLaren (Yes F1 McLaren)are going to partner with the Bahrain cycling team to form a UCI pro team.

The Bahrain royal family's Mumtalakat investment company owns 56% of McLaren Group

DOB wrote:Estimates vary, but Sky are thought to have a budget of about $40mil in U.S. money, ore about twice their nearest other competitors.

https://www.velonews.com/2018/07/tour-d ... age_473476

These are 2016 estimates, but illustrate the differentials:-

Team Sky – €35m
Katusha – €32m
BMC – €28m
Tinkoff – €25m
Astana – €20m
Etixx-Quick Step – €18m
Movistar – €15m
Lotto-Soudal – €14m
LottoNL-Jumbo – €14m
Dimension Data – €13.5m
Orica-BikeExchange – €13m
Giant-Alpecin – €12.5m
Trek-Segafredo – €12m
Ag2r La Mondiale – €12m

There must surely be someone in the Katusha organization who’s asking questions about why they’re bankrolling a team that just doesn’t win anything.

It remains to be seen if a) Brailsford can bring in a sponsor with equally deep pockets and b) if he can’t, what level of success he can achieve with diminished resources.

DOB wrote:Estimates vary, but Sky are thought to have a budget of about $40mil in U.S. money, ore about twice their nearest other competitors.

https://www.velonews.com/2018/07/tour-d ... age_473476

Cheers.

DOB wrote:There must surely be someone in the Katusha organization who’s asking questions about why they’re bankrolling a team that just doesn’t win anything.

I was thinking the same thing

I mean that's a lot of cash. It's not like Basketball or football where good players still bring brand exposure. That's a lot of cash to be sinking down in a not hugely exposed sport. Though of I wonder if Cycling is like Tennis or Golf, the size of the audience isn't essential, it's the type of audience the sport has which attracts sponsors.

guy smiley wrote:

DOB wrote:There must surely be someone in the Katusha organization who’s asking questions about why they’re bankrolling a team that just doesn’t win anything.

Yeah, it’s an outstandingly poor return.

Hopefully Sky pulling out can return a little parity to the rider market and spread the talent a little more.

Are some of their contracts long term? If Sky/former team called Sky can't get a sponsor, is there penalties for Brailsfords organisation for not being able to pay their riders contracts?

DOB wrote:It remains to be seen if a) Brailsford can bring in a sponsor with equally deep pockets and b) if he can’t, what level of success he can achieve with diminished resources.

It's interesting, that for all his forward thinking and genuine development of his wards successes that he has never been in a position where he hasn't had all the resources he could possibly need. The "Marginal gains" philosophy (as derided as it is these days) is not one that always allows less well resourced teams in any sport to over come the better resourced ones as that usually occurs with the smaller team needing to invent a game changer no-one else has done yet.

eldanielfire wrote:

DOB wrote:It remains to be seen if a) Brailsford can bring in a sponsor with equally deep pockets and b) if he can’t, what level of success he can achieve with diminished resources.

It's interesting, that for all his forward thinking and genuine development of his wards successes that he has never been in a position where he hasn't had all the resources he could possibly need. The "Marginal gains" philosophy (as derided as it is these days) is not one that always allows less well resourced teams in any sport to over come the better resourced ones as that usually occurs with the smaller team needing to invent a game changer no-one else has done yet.

Sorry, really struggling to understand your point there.

BlackMac wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

DOB wrote:It remains to be seen if a) Brailsford can bring in a sponsor with equally deep pockets and b) if he can’t, what level of success he can achieve with diminished resources.

It's interesting, that for all his forward thinking and genuine development of his wards successes that he has never been in a position where he hasn't had all the resources he could possibly need. The "Marginal gains" philosophy (as derided as it is these days) is not one that always allows less well resourced teams in any sport to over come the better resourced ones as that usually occurs with the smaller team needing to invent a game changer no-one else has done yet.

Sorry, really struggling to understand your point there.

Being able to apply marginal gains approach to beat the competition is easy when you have greater resources, which has been the status quo more or less for Brailsford career. They can try out everything and hire people to look at and improve every area. However when you don't have the resources to try out every possibly improvement or hire a brain for every possible angle it's hard to gain those advantages to beat your richer better resourced rivals.

Yeah, Brailsford and Sky are the anti-Moneyball. Instead of looking for value advantages, which can save them a buck, they look for advantages, and then write a check for whatever that costs.

Whether you like or loathe team sky it is unarguable that they have massively changed the game in pro cycling for both good and bad. Hoovering up such a powerful squad is undoubtedly bad for the sport as a whole but few complain about Quickstep doing similar for one day and stage wins.

Very good video on GCN yesterday about the history of team sky and the effect they have had on the peleton. I certainly think some of the hatred against sky was down to ignoring/discarding long standing traditions in methods and etiquette when they first emerged.

They have undeniably been brilliant for the sport as a whole in the UK almost making it cool to be a cyclist.

Also any time you see someone in team sky lycra you know to give them a wide berth as they'll be a clueless wobbler

I think the difference with Quickstep is they aren’t hoovering up the talent by throwing cash at them. They’re happy to let Terpstra or Martin (Dan or Tony) or Cav or Kittel go to other teams, safe in the knowledge that it just means Alaphilippe or Gaviria will win races for them instead, and then when Gaviria moves, they’re confident that Viviani will just pick up where he left off.

DOB wrote:Yeah, Brailsford and Sky are the anti-Moneyball. Instead of looking for value advantages, which can save them a buck, they look for advantages, and then write a check for whatever that costs.

I don't mean to say they are entirely anti-moneyball. After all both approaches essentially take something others have missed and use to your advantage.

I always assumed form all I read the 'marginal gains' means even trying all sort of out there stuff that you aren't even sure works in sport with the possibility it gives an advantage (sure it's due to a credible idea from someone who knows their shit of course). Hence UK cycling/Team Sky stocking all the best sports scientists and coaches they can and even speaking to other top industries (F1).

The moneyball approach is identifying a major, major innovator no one else has thought up that makes better use of current resources. It's probably being able to get a once in a generation innovation before the rest do. No doubt Brailsford has been great in his approach, but is he able to do it at value for money way when not loaded with the best resources?

DOB wrote:I think the difference with Quickstep is they aren’t hoovering up the talent by throwing cash at them. They’re happy to let Terpstra or Martin (Dan or Tony) or Cav or Kittel go to other teams, safe in the knowledge that it just means Alaphilippe or Gaviria will win races for them instead, and then when Gaviria moves, they’re confident that Viviani will just pick up where he left off.

You could argue that Sky have been similar letting the likes of Porte, Uran, Landa and others also move on. Sky just did it more obviously than everyone else.

Although they distorted the sport massively due to their budget I can't see any big long term sponsor leaving as good for the sport, especially so soon on the heels of BMC also pulling out.