Kimmage on Wiggins, Sky - Page 40 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #391  
Old 11-06-12, 18:13
Escarabajo's Avatar
Escarabajo Escarabajo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA - Central Time
Posts: 4,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by argyllflyer View Post
For some people, the next decade is a write-off. No matter who wins what between now and say 2022, there are people here who would never believe in performances. It's sad but for them, there is no joy left to be had in cycling.
So it is now our fault for not believeing in clean cycling. Never mind any of the scandals in the last 10 years.
Reply With Quote
  #392  
Old 11-06-12, 18:18
Tom375's Avatar
Tom375 Tom375 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burnette View Post
Sad that today many don't care to read more than a few sentences and then even sadder when in their mind a post comes out jumbled like "pooey snowflakes". If that's what you got out of my post, move on, I can't help you.
I had read the rest of it - everyone has always doped, and everyone always will -agreed it is impossible to know who's doping and who's not ...
However only pooey and snowflakes caught my attention as something worth comment. I was wrong shouldn't have bothered..
Reply With Quote
  #393  
Old 11-06-12, 18:32
D-Queued D-Queued is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,226
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burnette View Post
Sad that today many don't care to read more than a few sentences and then even sadder when in their mind a post comes out jumbled like "pooey snowflakes". If that's what you got out of my post, move on, I can't help you.
A new day, and a new Forum definition.

I got this part out of your post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burnette View Post
... If anyone is honestly shocked when a top rider tests positive from this day forward, I say all you had to do was believe what you have already seen with your own eyes.
No kidding.

In fact, here we have a positive EPO test from a former Armstrong teammate from August 29.

Nothing like sticking with the (doping) program.

Dave.
__________________

Lance says he will cooperate with Landis Investigation


"I've done too many good things for too many people"

Last edited by D-Queued; 11-06-12 at 19:04.
Reply With Quote
  #394  
Old 11-06-12, 21:53
Krebs cycle Krebs cycle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post

We started getting into it here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthr...t=18691&page=3 (referenced a bunch of studies you might enjoy).
.
Awesome! More comedy gold from you in that thread.

You cherry pick a handful of studies and in the space of about 10mins you totally debunk altitude training and all its variants!! Damn somebody better get their outrage-o-meter dialed up to max because since those studies were conducted the AIS has spent literally millions on altitude training camps, LHTL, LLTH and dozens of research studies ALL paid for by your tax dollars. But obviously the many world leading experts working there haven't got a clue. If only they had consulted with you first, you could have told them that their own research shows that it doesn't even work!

For the sake of the country and all of us taxpayers, I think you better write to the Minister for Sport and inform her that OUR tax dollars are being wasted on useless research and that the AIS is using altitude training to hide a massive doping conspiracy.

But wait, I thought you were Australia's leading anti-doping crusader? Why haven't you used your uber sleuth skillz to uncover this AIS doping conspiracy yet? There can only be one conclusion..... YOU are in league with the AIS dopers, but you use this alias on cyclingnews as a rouse to hide your real intentions..... just like Team Sky, you pretend to be anti-doping, but you remain silent on the biggest doping fraud in Australian sports history, so you MUST be a doper. Perhaps you are Ferrari's long lost Australian born nephew??
Reply With Quote
  #395  
Old 11-06-12, 22:10
Krebs cycle Krebs cycle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snafu352 View Post
Yep.
If you read anything i've posted i've said all along i don't know whether Sky have a doping program (problem) or not.
The firings don't really add anything to our knowledge, unless you count speculation pandering to the posters particular prejudices or obsession as knowledge. In fact in some ways the firing could be viewed as de-bunking all the speculation and un-substantiated assertations that Sky definately dope.
Smoking gun it is not.
So sorry nothing to see here.
+1. About the most sensible post on the topic anyone has made and something that I wholeheartedly agree with. They made a mistake by being relaxed on their stated policy which has left them open to criticism, but the current purge can be seen simply as getting strict on that policy.
Reply With Quote
  #396  
Old 11-06-12, 22:29
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 5,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bumeington View Post
I just mean if Wig closes the gap to Canc that can be a combination of one getting faster and one getting slower (which I believe to be the case since Canc didn't have the best build up to the Tour
As I said:

Wiggins employees or fanboys or whatever trot out examples of his performances - compared to the marque or not - as a means to defend his incredibly dominant 2012 and order of magnitude leap in 2009 as being "normal" because he always had it or "clean" because he didn't improve all that much compared to rider XYZ.

"HERE IS AN EXAMPLE THAT PROVES BRAD IS CLEAN!"

And EACH TIME. It is very simple to show that the explanation or what have you is flawed or plain wrong.

This is yet another example. This time, Krebs Cycle guesses someone's CdA based on someone else's CdA based on the weight he thinks a rider is being similar to someone else's weight, plugs them into a calculator on a website and says "LOOK! NORMAL! CLEAN!".

A book of assumptions and noone bats an eyelid.

Noone disagrees. If I pointed out that on that very same calculator website Krebs Cycle used, Brad is estimated to have done 480W for 64 minutes, in the final Tour 2012 TT, everyone would throw up their hands and say "THAT'S NOT RIGHT!"

I use the exact same example, do a more reliable calc based on actual speed differences, and all of a sudden everyone else jumps in and says "THIS EXAMPLE IS NO GOOD!"

Please. Give me another example. I'm writing a book called "The Wiggins Performance Fallacy".
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog

Last edited by Dear Wiggo; 11-06-12 at 22:36.
Reply With Quote
  #397  
Old 11-06-12, 22:35
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 5,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krebs cycle View Post
Awesome! More comedy gold from you in that thread.

You cherry pick a handful of studies and in the space of about 10mins you totally debunk altitude training and all its variants!! Damn somebody better get their outrage-o-meter dialed up to max because since those studies were conducted the AIS has spent literally millions on altitude training camps, LHTL, LLTH and dozens of research studies ALL paid for by your tax dollars.
Actually I didn't debunk altitude training at all. I simply showed that if you didn't do it properly, it was worthless, and that there were risks involved with staying at altitude regardless of the training protocol.

When you link to studies it's an "explanation", but I link to studies and it's comedy gold.

So strange. You didn't recognise any of the studies I linked? I chose them very carefully....
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
Reply With Quote
  #398  
Old 11-06-12, 22:48
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 5,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krebs cycle View Post
For the sake of the country and all of us taxpayers, I think you better write to the Minister for Sport and inform her that OUR tax dollars are being wasted on useless research and that the AIS is using altitude training to hide a massive doping conspiracy.
Given what Lundy said about Kelly after the first time this happened, it would be incredibly ironic if Lundy turned around and did the same thing, don't you think?
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
Reply With Quote
  #399  
Old 11-06-12, 22:56
Krebs cycle Krebs cycle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
And EACH TIME. It is very simple to show that the explanation or what have you is flawed or plain wrong.

This is yet another example. This time, Krebs Cycle guesses someone's CdA based on someone else's CdA based on the weight he thinks a rider is being similar to someone else's weight, plugs them into a calculator on a website and says "LOOK! NORMAL! CLEAN!".
What a massive load of rubbish. The point that I have been making for months is that as far back as 2005 Wiggins has been placing top 10 at world level in long ITTs and on many occasions he has been top 5 in prologues. From 2009 onwards he hasn't improved at all in prologues and he has gradually improved by no more than 1% per year in long TTs. There is NO magical extraterrestrial performance jump. His climbing ability has gone up significantly because he lost weight. And as I have explained, losing weight makes a bigger improvement on climbing ability than it causes a detriment to TT performance.

You are the one who cherry picked a single result and then ignored the majority of his TT race results and you are the one who compares Wiggins power from when he was 77.5kg versus 71.5kg but you think that you should use the SAME CdA?? What a complete and utter joke that is to the concept of cycling performance analysis. You are the one who does not understand exercise physiology and you are the one who makes mistakes and errors and uses false assumptions in every post you make.

I used cyclingpowermodels.com which I have noticed that you and others have used (or analyticalcycling.com) on many occasions, so you can't cry ASSUMPTION! ZOMG debunked now because then you are simply being a massive hypocrite. I understand that the assumption when comparing Wiggins 2007 TT performance to 2012 is that the course profile is different and there could have been different ambient conditions which affect the velocity and hence estimated power. This is the reason why you must include other riders such as Cancellara to get a feel for relative changes in performance. This is also the reason why you CANNOT and I repeat you simply CANNOT determine whether anyone is doping based on performance especially when the maximal efforts are well within what can be achieved without doping. In Armstrong's case it was completely different because he was performing at a level outside what is considered humanly possible.
Reply With Quote
  #400  
Old 11-06-12, 23:05
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 5,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krebs cycle View Post
What a massive load of rubbish. The point that I have been making
No. It's a point you have TRIED to make, and failed. Have a look, it might refresh your memory:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krebs cycle View Post
Ok I will have one last stab at this....

Wiggins has not improved his performance in short ITTs such as prologues compared with Cancellara from 2007 through 2012.

Compare:
TdF prologue 2007 (7.9km)
Cancellara = 8:50
Wiggins @ 23sec
ie Wiggins needs to produce 13.5% more power to match Cancellara - and has the same (or more) weight as Cancellara
Type this into google: (60*7.9/(8+50/60))/(60*7.9/(8+73/60)))^3

Quote:
Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Cofidis - Le Crédit par Téléphone 17:55
Fabian Cancellara (Swi) Team CSC 18:06
TdF prologue 2012 (6.4km)
Cancellara = 7:13
Wiggins @ 7sec
ie Wiggins needs to produce 4.9% more power to match Cancellara - and now weighs ~10% less than Cancellara
More google math: (60*6.4/(7+13/60))/(60*6.4/(7+20/60)))^3

Quote:
188 Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Sky Procycling 17:07:00
197 Fabian Cancellara (Swi) RadioShack-Nissan 17:16:00

I cannot believe you post an example comparing Wiggins to Cancellara in a prologue and then when I disagree with it, and show you're wrong, write about losing weight and going uphill.

You are either very confused, or trying way too hard to handwave yet another failed example away from the thread.
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:42.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.