Nothing has changed on that, and if you think it has you are very naive. Do I even have to go on Wiggins super evolution? Or Froome's evolution from bottleman in his team to a dominant force?
Oh come on, I assume you are aware of Wiggins track career? He has always been an incredible rider but always juggled a bit of road racing along with primarily training for track event and the two are not compatible. His “super evolution” came about when he concentrated exclusively on road racing, albeit on a very good team.
Also Froome was never a domestique on Team Sky, he finished second (now first) in the Vuelta in his second season with them, he was always signed to be a GC rider.
When you also consider the budget and therefore team they could put together, along with having the best kit and training methods, their success is not so amazing.
I do think Sky’s use of TUEs was morally questionable but don’t think there is anything illegal going on.
5. Riders in this area are borderline for us. As you get older, the potential for improvement disappears and so it’s much more a judgement call. A rider might bring something to the team in terms of his personality that makes him a good guy to have around.
Wiggins was a superstar in track cycling, you will never read me say otherwise, I would not even be mad if he won time trials or even a WC ITT title, but going from that to a TdF win?
At the age of 29-30, when his best result at a GT was a 112th position.
As for Froome, and I really like him much more than Wiggins or Lance.
Inside the mind of Dave Brailsford - Cycling Weekly
This was before Froome's explosion in La Vuelta. His team considered him literally as a bottleman.
And all his story with the balharzia is... well, interesting.
Sky has done some things good and their training methods are probably second to none, but there's more than just that, and it's not only them.
Joaquim Rodriguez becoming a perennial podium contender or Horner winning La Vuelta at age of 40+ are also difficult to believe.
Funny guy Horner, was posting photos of his mcdonalds burgers after stages.
You miss the fact that there are not Chiapuccis or Pantanis in the peloton, without them we get boring mountain stages because all guys are in a minute span and they only attack with a km or 2 left. Shorter stages also mean guys have more energy left (and less punishment in consecutive mountain stages). My philosophy is easy, if they don't attack, have them crack because of accumulated climbed meters.
Longer stages with more climbs.
The best stage I've seen was this:
Shorter stages can work if cyclists want it, we have seen good ones with Contador or Andy Schleck attacking from far on, but yesterday's was a joke. We have u23 with harder stages than the super pros.
Anyways, to each their own, I keep watching this GTs despite knowing it is a much worse show than the spring classics
And here we goHe only needs to stop falling in every other race and he could be the guy we've all been waiting for
And here we go