Sky - Page 1127 - 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
  #11261  
Old 01-03-13, 10:26
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 5,457
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mherm79 View Post
+1 None of the riders really challenged them so they rode tempo. They kept a core group of riders around Wiggo for all of his races whilst other teams waited for the TDF to bring all their riders together.

At the TDF, we all knew that given the TT's only Evans was a challenger and both he and BMC were below par.
Can you define "tempo"?

Is this the same definition in training where tempo is zone 3 and threshold is zone 4?
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
Reply With Quote
  #11262  
Old 01-03-13, 11:01
Wallace and Gromit Wallace and Gromit is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
Can you define "tempo"?

Is this the same definition in training where tempo is zone 3 and threshold is zone 4?
If it's any help, in his book (which incidentally is dreadfully written) Wiggo describes how on the ascent of the Glandon, when Evans attacked, the wattage was upped from 400 to 450 until Evans was reeled in. I guess the pace half way up an intermediate climb on a long stage would be a sensible place to start a definition of tempo.

Also in his book, Wiggo describes his wattages in the final TT as 450-460, with drops to 430 on the downhills and increases to 490 on the uphills.
Reply With Quote
  #11263  
Old 01-03-13, 11:23
Wallace and Gromit Wallace and Gromit is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper View Post
But still, the whole brittish success in track and road cycling over the past years culminating in the 2012 dominance should simply raise eyebrowes, mine and yours.
The track side is relatively easy to explain: There are relatively few countries that take the track seriously. In the traditional cycling nations, talent bypasses the track and goes to the road. In the UK, for 10-15 years now, all the talent goes to the velodrome in Manchester. To complement all this, since the 2012 OGs were awarded to London (mid 2005) there has been a huge amount of money directed towards likely medal-winning sports (track cycling, rowing, sailing, equestrianism).

GB has also targeted the "timed" events, where tiny fractions make all the difference, as a timed event is essentially "cycling by numbers" rather than tactical. The cash that the GB set up has makes it that much easier to cover all the angles that might arise. For example, GB could trial more types of material for skinsuits than others, to find the most aerodynamic, and experiment with bike design, simply because they have more cash for salaries and experimentation.

It also helped that on the mens' side, in the sprint and the TP, the GB opposition was way down performance-wise on what they'd achieved earlier in the season.

On the road, the only unavoidable eyebrow-raiser amongst the Brits is Froome. His transformation from being out of contract to the Vuelta podium in less than a month just cannot really be explained with a straight face, even by committed Sky/Froome fans.

All other performances in GB/Sky's success are plausible (ish) in isolation, though in combination, they take a leap of faith to accept.
Reply With Quote
  #11264  
Old 01-03-13, 11:24
zigmeister zigmeister is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 722
Default

Guys, Wiggo is a knight now. You cannot question him any longer. This is obviously turning into a Kimmage/IRA/British thing.

This thread shoul be renamed to:

The Crying Game

Last edited by zigmeister; 01-03-13 at 11:26.
Reply With Quote
  #11265  
Old 01-03-13, 11:29
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 5,457
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallace and Gromit View Post
The track side is relatively easy to explain: There are relatively few countries that take the track seriously.
Does this support my contention that Wiggins is a fish in a very tiny pond?
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
Reply With Quote
  #11266  
Old 01-03-13, 11:33
Franklin Franklin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Flatland
Posts: 2,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellow Velo View Post
Clearly, Sky hiring Leper Leinders was just cover ploy for their real dark lord, Donkey man Dan.
Nice spin and deflect Mellow... as somewhere in there is the big question.

I am curious what your opinion is of the hiring of Leinders. I have answered your requests for information several times on Rasmussen vs. Rabo, yet you never came back on it.

You honestly believe Dave had no idea who they hired to take care of his biggest assets? Especially when he found it so important after a life and death situation?

Perhaps you know more about Leinders and his infamous experience with tropical diseases and heat strokes.
Reply With Quote
  #11267  
Old 01-03-13, 11:39
sniper sniper is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallace and Gromit View Post
The track side is relatively easy to explain: There are relatively few countries that take the track seriously. In the traditional cycling nations, talent bypasses the track and goes to the road. In the UK, for 10-15 years now, all the talent goes to the velodrome in Manchester. To complement all this, since the 2012 OGs were awarded to London (mid 2005) there has been a huge amount of money directed towards likely medal-winning sports (track cycling, rowing, sailing, equestrianism).

GB has also targeted the "timed" events, where tiny fractions make all the difference, as a timed event is essentially "cycling by numbers" rather than tactical. The cash that the GB set up has makes it that much easier to cover all the angles that might arise. For example, GB could trial more types of material for skinsuits than others, to find the most aerodynamic, and experiment with bike design, simply because they have more cash for salaries and experimentation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/oly...-supplier.html
Note that Conte's 60% is an average estimate. Of that 40%, I assume 90% consists of athletes who didn't compete for the medals. Perhaps 10% of clean athletes on the podium.


It also helped that on the mens' side, in the sprint and the TP, the GB opposition was way down performance-wise on what they'd achieved earlier in the season.

On the road, the only unavoidable eyebrow-raiser amongst the Brits is Froome. His transformation from being out of contract to the Vuelta podium in less than a month just cannot really be explained with a straight face, even by committed Sky/Froome fans.

All other performances in GB/Sky's success are plausible (ish) in isolation, though in combination, they take a leap of faith to accept.
decent analysis.
However, if we may believe Victor Conte, ca. 60% of the athletes at the olympics were doped. Were the brittish trackracers among that select 40% of clean athletes? Unlikely, considering this discipline is traditionally rife of dopers. I think that 40% consisted of chessplayers, darters, bowlers, showdivers, and athletes of that kind.

Last edited by sniper; 01-03-13 at 11:42.
Reply With Quote
  #11268  
Old 01-03-13, 11:43
sniper sniper is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallace and Gromit View Post
The track side is relatively easy to explain: There are relatively few countries that take the track seriously. In the traditional cycling nations, talent bypasses the track and goes to the road. In the UK, for 10-15 years now, all the talent goes to the velodrome in Manchester. To complement all this, since the 2012 OGs were awarded to London (mid 2005) there has been a huge amount of money directed towards likely medal-winning sports (track cycling, rowing, sailing, equestrianism).

GB has also targeted the "timed" events, where tiny fractions make all the difference, as a timed event is essentially "cycling by numbers" rather than tactical. The cash that the GB set up has makes it that much easier to cover all the angles that might arise. For example, GB could trial more types of material for skinsuits than others, to find the most aerodynamic, and experiment with bike design, simply because they have more cash for salaries and experimentation.

It also helped that on the mens' side, in the sprint and the TP, the GB opposition was way down performance-wise on what they'd achieved earlier in the season.

On the road, the only unavoidable eyebrow-raiser amongst the Brits is Froome. His transformation from being out of contract to the Vuelta podium in less than a month just cannot really be explained with a straight face, even by committed Sky/Froome fans.

All other performances in GB/Sky's success are plausible (ish) in isolation, though in combination, they take a leap of faith to accept.
decent analysis.
However, if we may believe Victor Conte, ca. 60% of the athletes at the olympics were doped. Were the brittish trackracers among that select 40% of clean athletes? Unlikely, considering this discipline is traditionally rife of dopers. I think the 40% clean athletes consisted of chessplayers, darters, bowlers, showdivers, and athletes of that kind.

Nota bene: Conte's estimate is an average. Of the alleged 40% clean athletes, I assume 90% didn't compete for the medals. On the podium, if we're lucky, we had 10% of clean athletes. Trackers among them? I doubt it.
Reply With Quote
  #11269  
Old 01-03-13, 11:59
Wallace and Gromit Wallace and Gromit is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
Does this support my contention that Wiggins is a fish in a very tiny pond?
He's a fish in a small pond on the track, to be sure.

However, he had a huge margin of superiority over anyone in the IP in terms of peak performance and ability to put a series of fast rides together. Thus, the questions are, how big a fish was he and was he the right type of fish to ride stage races and maintain performance through a three week race?

His IP performances vs McGee in 2004 suggest that he was a very big fish, though they don't tell us a huge amount about the type of fish he was.
Reply With Quote
  #11270  
Old 01-03-13, 12:12
Wallace and Gromit Wallace and Gromit is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper View Post
However, if we may believe Victor Conte, ca. 60% of the athletes at the olympics were doped. Were the brittish trackracers among that select 40% of clean athletes?
Obviously, I don't know for sure. Only the athletes concerned do.

However, on the ladies side of the track squad, there are some very young folk involved. Laura Trott is barely out of nappies, with Dani King, Jess Varnish and Becky James not much older. Jo Rowsell is almost a pensioner at the age of 23.

For all of them to be on the sauce given their age and proximity to the families seems unlikely. They just seem too young, with too little opportunity to have gone too far astray, for a team-wide doping strategy to be in place.

Finally, Wendy Houvenhagel was apparently spitting feathers at not getting a ride in the TP qualifiers. I know from bitter personal experience that Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned; would this extend to a scorned woman blowing the whistle on a doping programme? It would appear not so far, if indeed there is one.
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 10:48.


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.