Climbing Speeds

[mastersracer]

Are you having a go? Or is your calculator broken and you have to do the sums on your fingers?

I said: nowhere (last) to 4th.
You said: improve 10 places.

So Wiggins was 14th at some stage, was he?

Let's see

2006:123rd
2007: 133rd before DNS

Huh.

Which alternate reality are you posting from?

Perhaps you should re-read your above proposal regarding a 'normal' progression for Wiggins. You allowed a 12 place progression, which I rounded down to 10.

 

[Magnus]

If Wiggins had done a progression, in the Tour de France, and come 8th, in say 2008, 4th in 2009, and been good enough to place top 20 before that, as your man Charles Austin clearly did or HE WOULDN'T BE AT THE OLYMPICS (duh), then we would have close to no issue with Wiggins whatsoever.

Instead, he was pack fill autobus woeful at TdF.

If Charles Austin never made it to the Olympics then in his first real appearance came 4th then won every single meet from Feb to August 3 years later, you better believe we'd think it was due to doping.

Too much lab time, is what I fear you are suffering from. Or a distinct inability to comprehend what people are writing here.

Or, an inability to come up with a meaningful analogy. Here's a hint: longjump is not an endurance sport.

So if we switched the 2009 and 2010 TdF results Wiggins would be credible (to you)?

 

[Magnus]

They are 2 previously very weak riders

Seriously?

beating everyone in the mountains

Let's not make Sky's wonderful performance something it's not. They controlled everything nicely but that's about it.

PS Wiggins didnt rise 10 places. He rose 120 places, but who's counting, right?

But as we all know gc placings outside top 10 are irrelevant, so he rose max 10 relevant gc places.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

In other words, you don't actually have an answer that doesn't rely on relative performance. I beat Floyd Landis in a training race when he was planning his come back - guess that makes me a doper.

Riis' performance was suspicious not simply because of an increase, but because he was producing 6.8 watts/kg. An increase to 5.8 not so much.

You were asking for relative results, go find the Chinese.

5.8w/k? Those are LeMonds numbers matey. One out of a million.

To be honest I am more interested in Boyer's views on Virenque, who he was an agent for

Well known del, but you know that.

I don't bother.

Must be bad for buisiness I guess.

Why do you even bother coming here when you will not answer sincere questions?

Perhaps, perhaps not...but what can be said is that he's training differently now (thanks, in part, to some of my ideas).

You championmaker, you.

 

[acoggan]

longjump is not an endurance sport.

Sport is sport...you don't rise to the top in any sport unless you have a lot of talent and you take maximum advantage of it, and it is hard to stay at the very top year-after-year-after-year-after-year. Seemingly-steady progression is therefore the exception, not the rule...much more common is for people to have more "checkered" careers, with flashes of brilliance interspersed with periods of lesser performance due to, e.g., injury, changes in motivation or goals, etc.

Case-in-point: many here want to point the finger at Wiggins for doping because of improvements in his performance relative to others, e.g., Tony Martin. Yet, Martin himself doesn't seem to consider his 2012 season as a valid benchmark that would allow such conclusions to be drawn:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/02/news/martin-poised-to-rule-the-clock-in-2013_274593

So where is the evidence that Wiggins markedly improved his power last year? The answer is, there doesn't seem to be any...his self-reported powers are consistent with his historical data, he didn't go up any climbs especially fast, and the fact that he was now able to beat others he hadn't before (e.g., Martin) could simply be due to the fact that they went backward.

 

[acoggan]

Must be bad for business I guess.

You seem to be misinformed as to how I make a living.

Why do you even bother coming here when you will not answer sincere questions?

That was a sincere answer: I'm not interested in how present-day athletes perform compared to those 20-30 y ago, and I don't really know why anyone (other than a sports fan who wants to engage in a pub debate about "the greatest of all time") would be. The fact of the matter is that, doping or not, if you want to win TODAY, you need to know what people are doing TODAY.

You championmaker, you.

Well now that you mention it...

(Ironically, the code I needed to enter to upload this pic to tinypics was "Dreams Come True" )

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Sport is sport...you don't rise to the top in any sport unless you have a lot of talent and you take maximum advantage of it, and it is hard to stay at the very top year-after-year-after-year-after-year. Seemingly-steady progression is therefore the exception, not the rule...much more common is for people to have more "checkered" careers, with flashes of brilliance interspersed with periods of lesser performance due to, e.g., injury, changes in motivation or goals, etc.

Case-in-point: many here want to point the finger at Wiggins for doping because of improvements in his performance relative to others, e.g., Tony Martin. Yet, Martin himself doesn't seem to consider his 2012 season as a valid benchmark that would allow such conclusions to be drawn:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/02/news/martin-poised-to-rule-the-clock-in-2013_274593

So where is the evidence that Wiggins markedly improved his power last year? The answer is, there doesn't seem to be any...his self-reported powers are consistent with his historical data, he didn't go up any climbs especially fast, and the fact that he was now able to beat others he hadn't before (e.g., Martin) could simply be due to the fact that they went backward.

So glad you don't know if he's doping or not and don't care, nor follow what pro riders do and have no desire to defend him. I can only imagine what your posts would be like if the reverse were true. Oh wait. No actually I don't think I can.

129 riders in the TdF suddenly stopped training, doing recovery and wanting to win. The natural result being Mr 123rd / 133rd / 134th in Giro / TdF GC is now numero uno. How patently normal.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Well now that you mention it...

(Ironically, the code I needed to enter to upload this pic to tinypics was "Dreams Come True" )

In case you missed it, Andy Coggan - the poster who defends Wiggins and creates scenarios to explain Wiggins' results - is now (finally) claiming (in his typical, ambiguous manner) to be directly responsible (in part) for Wiggins' success.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

(Ironically, the code I needed to enter to upload this pic to tinypics was "Dreams Come True" )

That IS funny, I will not bother you anymore with questions you are not willing to answer in public.

Thanks for the lesson in Scientific Omerta.

 

[acoggan]

So glad you don't know if he's doping or not and don't care, nor follow what pro riders do

What can I say? Facts have always stuck to me like lint, and I'm good at putting puzzles together. I can therefore marshal a cogent argument even if I'm not especially interested in the topic at hand and without even breaking a sweat. The mere act of doing so, though, is intellectually rewarding, regardless of the importance of the outcome.

 

[acoggan]

In case you missed it, Andy Coggan - the poster who defends Wiggins and creates scenarios to explain Wiggins' results - is now (finally) claiming (in his typical, ambiguous manner) to be directly responsible (in part) for Wiggins' success.

I'm not claiming it, Wiggins claimed it*...or haven't you seen those passages from his book?

*Note that I don't know if Wiggins even knows who I am...but he does seem to be a big fan of TSS (as are the rest of the athletes pictured, or more correctly, their coaches).

 

[Dear Wiggo]

What can I say? Facts have always stuck to me like lint, and I'm good at putting puzzles together. I can therefore marshal a cogent argument even if I'm not especially interested in the topic at hand and without even breaking a sweat. The mere act of doing so, though, is intellectually rewarding, regardless of the importance of the outcome.

I was thinking fanciful vs cogent, but meh, whatever you think.

The way you have defended Coyle's study of Lance doped to the eyeballs Armstrong says it all for me.

 

[acoggan]

That IS funny, I will not bother you anymore with questions you are not willing to answer in public.

??

I have answered all of your questions with complete and utter honesty. If you don't like my answers, that's your problem, not mine.

 

[acoggan]

The way you have defended Coyle's study of Lance doped to the eyeballs Armstrong says it all for me.

What I have defended is the scientific process (which includes how papers are handled).

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'm not claiming it, Wiggins claimed it*...or haven't you seen those passages from his book?

*Note that I don't know if Wiggins even knows who I am...but he does seem to be a big fan of TSS (as are the rest of the athletes pictured, or more correctly, their coaches).

Like I said. Typical, ambiguous style.

Someone calls you a champion maker, and you post a picture of "champions". Thereby implying you are responsible for making them such.

For someone who has facts stuck to you like lint, the "fact" (someone's coach is a fan of something I invented) seems fairly far removed from evidence of being a "champion maker" you have implied by posting said picture.

I'm really curious which part of that picture and the idea you were trying to communicate by it fits into the whole,

"The precise communication of precise ideas requires the precise use of precise terminology."

 

[acoggan]

Like I said. Typical, ambiguous style.

Someone calls you a champion maker, and you post a picture of "champions". Thereby implying you are responsible for making them such.

For someone who has facts stuck to you like lint, the "fact" (someone's coach is a fan of something I invented) seems fairly far removed from evidence of being a "champion maker".

I'm really curious which part of that picture and the idea you were trying to communicate by it fits into the whole,

I don't think there's anything ambiguous here at all. FGL euphemistically referred to me as a "championmaker", and I responded by posting that pic along with . I then further explained that those pictured are coached by individuals who (by their own accord) find significant merit in my ideas. Thus, the only way someone might become confused is because they are of well-below-average intelligence, and/or because others wish to try to twist things to win an argument on the internet.

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

So glad you don't know if he's doping or not and don't care, nor follow what pro riders do and have no desire to defend him. I can only imagine what your posts would be like if the reverse were true. Oh wait. No actually I don't think I can.

129 riders in the TdF suddenly stopped training, doing recovery and wanting to win. The natural result being Mr 123rd / 133rd / 134th in Giro / TdF GC is now numero uno. How patently normal.

If all other things were equal that progression is highly suspicious. However, all other things are not equal. Firstly, it is clear that Wiggins has concentrated on the road and got a lot better. Secondly, it appears that the rest of the peleton has got slower, probably to a lesser extent. Finally, when it comes to a 3 week GT it doesn't matter to most riders out of the top 20-30 where they finish, as most of the peleton have other things to concentrate on.

When you take this into account his progression is more eye raising than highly suspicious and is eminently possible clean. Whether he has had "assistance" I don't know, but it is too simplistic to look at the bare stats like that.

 

[acoggan]

you post a picture of "champions".

BTW, speaking on behalf of all of us pictured, I take offense at your use of quotation marks.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I then further explained that those pictured are coached by individuals who (by their own accord) find significant merit in my ideas.

Please do enlighten us as to why further explanation was required?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

??

I have answered all of your questions with complete and utter honesty. If you don't like my answers, that's your problem, not mine.

Last question because I am such a nice guy: do u reckon statistics are part of science? If yes, why do you not care to bother relevant questions with regards to climbing speeds of nowadays in comparison to the clean O2 vector free eighties? Or do you reckon history is also no science?

Let's go over the 'facts'. And not just Wiggins and Sky. You and that fake from Aussie country with all his expert friends are turning this again in a Sky thread.

I did like the picture, to be sure. Humour.

 

[acoggan]

Please do enlighten us as to why further explanation was required?

Because you attempted to paint the situation differently from reality.

 

[acoggan]

why do you not care to bother relevant questions with regards to climbing speeds of nowadays in comparison to the clean O2 vector free eighties?

Because they aren't relevant questions to me. As I said, if you want to win NOW, you need to know what people are doing NOW (doped or not). Quantifying the climbing speed of today's athletes vs. those of several decades ago does not help in this endeavor, nor is it really useful as an anti-doping measure (which isn't really my bailiwick either).

 

[Dear Wiggo]

In case you missed it, Andy Coggan - the poster who defends Wiggins and creates scenarios to explain Wiggins' results - is now (finally) claiming (in his typical, ambiguous manner) to be directly responsible (in part) for Wiggins' success.

I'm not claiming it, Wiggins claimed it*...or haven't you seen those passages from his book?

*Note that I don't know if Wiggins even knows who I am...but he does seem to be a big fan of TSS (as are the rest of the athletes pictured, or more correctly, their coaches).

Because you attempted to paint the situation differently from reality.

Ah so the picure you posted means, "all these athletes wrote a book and mentioned TSS or their coaches are fans of TSS and claim it as part of the reason for becoming champions'.

I can see how easily the picture leads to the words. How utterly dense of me. tsk tsk.

Not.

 

[acoggan]

Ah so the picure you posted means, "all these athletes wrote a book and mentioned TSS or their coaches are fans of TSS and claim it as part of the reason for becoming champions'.

I can see how easily the picture leads to the words. How utterly dense of me.

Apparently, if doesn't tell you that there's some joking involved.

EDIT: BTW, since you apparently haven't read Wiggins' book (I haven't either, just had these and a few other passages shared with me), here's some of what he had to say:

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Apparently, if doesn't tell you that there's some joking involved.

TSS is a joke? Gotcha.