Climbing Speeds

[Krebs cycle]

Before Bob Beamon long-jumped 8.90 m at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, the furthest someone had flung themselves was only 8.35 m. IOW, with that single leap he improved the World Record by almost 7%, with only about half of the increase possibly being credited to the environmental conditions. Just sayin'...

oh you just love to play devil's advocate don't you

Your point however, makes perfect sense and the the exact same logic can be applied to Wiggins. Before Wiggins no other world record holder in the IP became a GT winner. Like Beamon who jumped further than any man ever before, does that make the task impossible?

In fact the exact same logic can be applied to every world record that ever was. But according to the logic around here which is that Wiggins must be a doper because he is the only one to do it, then similarly every world record in every sport that ever was must be the result of doping because it was the first time someone did it. <nonsense>

 

[Dear Wiggo]

In fact the exact same logic can be applied to every world record that ever was. But according to the logic around here which is that Wiggins must be a doper because he is the only one to do it, then similarly every world record in every sport that ever was must be the result of doping because it was the first time someone did it. <nonsense>

Reading comprehension is not everyone's forte, understandably. Noone has a problem with Wiggins being an ex-record holder in IP. They do have a problem with him being woeful, pack fodder autobus material for year after year in the peloton, only to turn his form around in the space of 8 months, dropping 11+ kg and improving his TT into the bargain, becoming one of the world's strongest climbers in the process.

 

[the sceptic]

oh you just love to play devil's advocate don't you

Your point however, makes perfect sense and the the exact same logic can be applied to Wiggins. Before Wiggins no other world record holder in the IP became a GT winner. Like Beamon who jumped further than any man ever before, does that make the task impossible?

In fact the exact same logic can be applied to every world record that ever was. But according to the logic around here which is that Wiggins must be a doper because he is the only one to do it, then similarly every world record in every sport that ever was must be the result of doping because it was the first time someone did it. <nonsense>

So Sir Wiggins is some sort of unique historical talent now?

 

[sittingbison]

...every world record in every sport that ever was must be the result of doping because it was the first time someone did it. <nonsense>

krebs you have seriously lost the plot, have you been over to FGLs house for a smoke?

Nobody has ever stated anything remotely like this redunculous statement. However people rightly have suspicions when world records or any other performances are #extraterrestrial or #outofthisworld

Interesting of acoggan to mention Beamon:

Beamon entered the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City as the favorite, having won 22 of the 23 meets he had competed in that year, including a career best of 8.33 m and a world's best of 8.39 m (wind assisted)

Beamon also benefited from a tail wind of 2 meters per second on his jump, the maximum allowable for record purposes. It has been estimated that the tail wind and altitude may have improved Beamon's long jump distance by 31 cm. During the same hour Lee Evans set the world record for 400 metres that lasted for almost 20 years.

After winning the gold medal in Mexico City, he never again jumped over 8.22 m

In addition to Beamon's record, world records were broken in most of the sprinting and jumping events at the 1968 Olympic Games.

Beamons stellar long jump effort is the exact opposite to Sir Wiggos 2012 road career. The single jump was stellar, the overall performance though was not unexpected nor in ay way unusual

 

[acoggan]

Beamons stellar long jump effort is the exact opposite to Sir Wiggos 2012 road career.

Or you could argue that 2012 was to Wiggins as 1968 was to Beamon, i.e., both had very consistent years with numerous successes (although unlike Beamon, Wiggins didn't set any records last year).

 

[acoggan]

people rightly have suspicions when world records or any other performances are #extraterrestrial or #outofthisworld

Doesn't that describe all world records, though? After all, by definition you're talking of athletic performances never previously achieved by any human being who has ever competed in that particular event/sport.

 

[Krebs cycle]

krebs you have seriously lost the plot, have you been over to FGLs house for a smoke?

Nobody has ever stated anything remotely like this redunculous statement. However people rightly have suspicions when world records or any other performances are #extraterrestrial or #outofthisworld

What a load of rubbish. Dozens upon dozens of times the strawman argument has been repeated in this forum....

Why isn't Jack Bobridge winning GTs?
Why didn't Brad McGee win a GT?
Why didn't Chris Boardman win a GT?

This flawed logic is somehow interpreted as de facto evidence that Wiggins MUST be doping because he is the first person to go from IP world record holder to GT winner. It has been repeated in here like a broken down record.

Secondly, you guys also keep arguing that Wiggins' performances are *cough insert lame cliche* #extraterrestrial #outofthisworld, but this is not just flawed logic, it is simply is plain wrong according to experts in the field. It is also repeated in here like a broken down record.

Thirdly, you will turn around and say that Wiggins suddenly improved his performance, which is really what makes it *cough insert lame cliche* #extraterrestrial #outofthisworld. This is not flawed logic either, it is also simply plain wrong according to experts in the field, and yet again it is repeated in here like a broken down record.

What confuses me is why you stubbornly refuse to accept that your opinion differs to experts who know much, much more about this topic than you do? Is your ego that massive that you can never ever be wrong about anything? I don't even claim to be an expert on this topic, therefore I assess what the general consensus is of the real experts, and I just go with that. I don't pretend that I know better than them like you guys do. Can you name even one sport science expert whom has come out and stated that Wiggins' 2012 performance was physiologically impossible and is therefore strongly indicative of doping? Greg Lemond used this argument to point the finger at both Lance and 2009 Contador, but he even recognized that 2012 has slowed down and may indicate that the scale of doping has decreased.

edit: the point about "expertise" is that you, dear wiggo and FGL have none, and therefore your ability to determine whether or not any given performance is *cough insert lame cliche* #extraterrestrial #outofthisworld is poor compared to people who DO have expertise in the field. dear wiggo says "oh you don't need to know w/kg to know if someone is doping, you can just SEE it". What a massive load of BS that is. If the w/kg are physiologically plausible then you cannot SEE anything that strongly indicates doping.

 

[Ferminal]

What world record?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

dear wiggo says "oh you don't need to know w/kg to know if someone is doping, you can just SEE it". What a massive load of BS that is. If the w/kg are physiologically plausible then you cannot SEE anything that strongly indicates doping.

More lies, Krebs Cycle?

What I said was: Tyler Hamilton didn't know Bjarne Riis' W/Kg, but he knew something was up with that meteoric rise in performance year on year from nowhere to the pinnacle of TdF winningness.

And I then point out how closely that performance jump matches your mate Wiggins. It is freakish.

 

[mastersracer]

And I then point out how closely that performance jump matches your mate Wiggins. It is freakish.

that's a load of rubbish. In terms of absolute performance, Wiggins isn't close. Wiggins also was only part time on the road until after the 2008 Olympics.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

that's a load of rubbish. In terms of absolute performance, Wiggins isn't close. Wiggins also was only part time on the road until after the 2008 Olympics.

No. He was dedicated to the road in 2006 at the very least. I am not going to go back over this as I've posted it too many times already.

The pattern, is freakish:

or most of his career, Riis was a decent racer: solid, but barely a contender in the big races. Then, in 1993, at twenty-seven, he went from average to incredible. He finished fifth at the Tour, with a stage win. In 1995, he finished third. By 1996, (Riis won the Tour).

page 31, The Secret Race

Here is that paragraph, if we were writing about Wiggins:

For most of his career, Wiggins was a single-minded track rider, but hopeless on the road: never a contender in the big races. Then, in 2009, at twenty-nine, he went from below average to incredible. He finished fourth at the Tour, with no stage win. In 2011, he finished third at the Vuelta. In 2012, he won the Tour.

Almost identical.

 

[Ferminal]

Can't the Wiggins rubbish be posted in one of the several threads dedicated to him?

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Toussuire was used in 2006. Peyresourde in 2007. Here's a golden opportunity to compare Wiggins, Froome and Nibali to pre-ABP performances of Landis, Klöden, Chicken, AC and Sastre.

 

[mastersracer]

No. He was dedicated to the road in 2006 at the very least. I am not going to go back over this as I've posted it too many times already.

The pattern, is freakish:



Here is that paragraph, if we were writing about Wiggins:



Almost identical.

actually not if you compare absolute performance (watts/kg, critical power over career). But don't let data get in the way of your oracle-like ability to detect doping with your built-in see-it-to-believe-it doping detector...

 

[Krebs cycle]

More lies, Krebs Cycle?

What I said was: Tyler Hamilton didn't know Bjarne Riis' W/Kg, but he knew something was up with that meteoric rise in performance year on year from nowhere to the pinnacle of TdF winningness.

And I then point out how closely that performance jump matches your mate Wiggins. It is freakish.

And yet Hamilton has stated on record that he believes Wiggins is clean. What a pity your argument fails so spectacularly there.

 

[sittingbison]

Or you could argue that 2012 was to Wiggins as 1968 was to Beamon, i.e., both had very consistent years with numerous successes (although unlike Beamon, Wiggins didn't set any records last year).

No. Beamon had a long history of being excellent in his discipline culminating in a single stellar jump (that the stars also aligned for), but Sir Wiggo for all his pedigree on the track was completely useless on the road for the majority of his career, and his 2012 domination was completely unexpected. And thats a SEASON LONG domination of every event he entered.

...What confuses me is why you stubbornly refuse to accept that your opinion differs to experts who know much, much more about this topic than you do?...Can you name even one sport science expert whom has come out and stated that Wiggins' 2012 performance was physiologically impossible and is therefore strongly indicative of doping?

krebs, I cannot even name one expert who knows much more about the sport than I, or one sports science expert, who came out and said that Riis, Virenque, Ullrich, Pantani, Armstrong, Beloki, Mayo, Valverde, Tyler, Basso or Floyd were doing physiologically impossible performances strongly indicative of doping.

 

[Krebs cycle]

No. Beamon had a long history of being excellent in his discipline culminating in a single stellar jump (that the stars also aligned for), but Sir Wiggo for all his pedigree on the track was completely useless on the road for the majority of his career, and his 2012 domination was completely unexpected. And thats a SEASON LONG domination of every event he entered.

You can bang on about this supposed magical improvement in performance for as long as you like, but the historical fact remains that at no point in his entire career did Wiggins demonstrate a sudden and marked improvement in prologue or ITT performance. That is the polar opposite of what you would expect from someone who is on a doping program.

krebs, I cannot even name one expert who knows much more about the sport than I, or one sports science expert, who came out and said that Riis, Virenque, Ullrich, Pantani, Armstrong, Beloki, Mayo, Valverde, Tyler, Basso or Floyd were doing physiologically impossible performances strongly indicative of doping.

That's because you don't know any. Literally EVERYONE in the sport science community thought all those guys were doping. Why on earth do you think that Ashenden and Parisotto came up with the idea to develop an EPO test back in the late 1990s? It was common knowledge that EPO use was rife in the peloton because Hcts of 55% just don't occur naturally unless you've got polycythemia.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You can bang on about this supposed magical improvement in performance for as long as you like, but the historical fact remains that at no point in his entire career did Wiggins demonstrate a sudden and marked improvement in prologue or ITT performance. That is the polar opposite of what you would expect from someone who is on a doping program.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

He is an order of magnitude better. In fact, he is doing the very thing a doped up Vinokourov did, by beating 5th place by 2.5 minutes over a final 50km TT at the Tour de France.

Not. Normal.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Do climbing speeds give some indication about the level of doping in the pro peloton?

My view and that of many experts in sport science, including some who are considered world renowned experts in cycling, is that previously, the climbing speeds, and thus estimated power outputs, were a strong indicator that doping had to be occurring at the top end, because none of those sport scientists had ever seen anything like it in their many years of combined experience working with elite cyclists. What I am hearing though from these same experts (many whom I know personally) is that we don't really know any more because the climbing speeds have slowed down to the point where now the estimated power outputs are similar to what we've seen and tested in the lab and the field on elite cyclists whom are clean or were clean at the time of testing. Therefore, the general consensus is that in 2012 and 2011, there were NO performances in the TdF that were considered strongly indicative of doping. That doesn't mean that they weren't doping. It just means that when people like you come along and say "I don't need to know w/kg, I know better than experts in sport science, I just KNOW when someone is doping" it is nothing more than ignorance

In other words, you are the second scientist on this board who doesn't know what is humanly possible, yet you accuse others of ignorance?

What confuses me is why you stubbornly refuse to accept that your opinion differs to experts who know much, much more about this topic than you do? Is your ego that massive that you can never ever be wrong about anything? I don't even claim to be an expert on this topic, therefore I assess what the general consensus is of the real experts, and I just go with that. I don't pretend that I know better than them like you guys do. Can you name even one sport science expert whom has come out and stated that Wiggins' 2012 performance was physiologically impossible and is therefore strongly indicative of doping? Greg Lemond used this argument to point the finger at both Lance and 2009 Contador, but he even recognized that 2012 has slowed down and may indicate that the scale of doping has decreased.

edit: the point about "expertise" is that you, dear wiggo and FGL have none, and therefore your ability to determine whether or not any given performance is *cough insert lame cliche* #extraterrestrial #outofthisworld is poor compared to people who DO have expertise in the field. dear wiggo says "oh you don't need to know w/kg to know if someone is doping, you can just SEE it". What a massive load of BS that is. If the w/kg are physiologically plausible then you cannot SEE anything that strongly indicates doping.

You do know there are real cycling experts outside the AIS that do question performances but are bound - just like us - to wait for the smoking gun?

By the way, what is physiologically plausible for you, as a friend to the experts?

 

[Athame]

krebs, I cannot even name one expert who knows much more about the sport than I, or one sports science expert, who came out and said that Riis, Virenque, Ullrich, Pantani, Armstrong, Beloki, Mayo, Valverde, Tyler, Basso or Floyd were doing physiologically impossible performances strongly indicative of doping.

_______________ Not being a smart **** here but, . . . could you "un-pack" this statement for me, please.

 

[JimmyFingers]

So this is another thread about Wiggins? My oh my

 

[sittingbison]

_______________ Not being a smart **** here but, . . . could you "un-pack" this statement for me, please.

Sure.

krebs said none of his experts or sports scientists acquaintances of his ever saw any physiologically impossible performances in 2011 or 2012.

I replied none of those same experts or sports scientists ever saw any physiologically impossible performances by any of the major dopers the past 15 years (who were doing physiologically impossible performances) as there has never been a whisper or rumour that is the case. Not a single expert or sports scientist to my memory ever queried any of them.

krebs has now replied ALL of the experts and sports scientists acquaintances of his knew all along all those dopers were doping all that time, especially with EPO.

Which quite frankly I find absolutely hilarious, because both he and acoggan have taken a dozen posts (with many insults by krebs that have been redacted) to convince us that NOBODY, not the experts and sports scientist and certainly not ill educated and ignorant bone idle lazy w*nker internet keyboard warriors can spot a doper merely by looking at their physiologically impossible performance.

Comprende?

So this is another thread about Wiggins? My oh my

it is...and it isnt

 

[The Hitch]

You can bang on about this supposed magical improvement in performance for as long as you like, but the historical fact remains that at no point in his entire career did Wiggins demonstrate a sudden and marked improvement in prologue or ITT performance. That is the polar opposite of what you would expect from someone who is on a doping program.

.

Ok, i think its time for.you to pack it in with this faux "expert" card. im sure it was fun but you have no one to blame but yourself for taking it too far with foolish comments like the one above. If it makes you feel better no one actually ever believed you were an expert anyway.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Before Bob Beamon long-jumped 8.90 m at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, the furthest someone had flung themselves was only 8.35 m. IOW, with that single leap he improved the World Record by almost 7%, with only about half of the increase possibly being credited to the environmental conditions. Just sayin'...

Long jump is very technical though, unlike cycling up hills. A top long jumper will rarely produce the same performance for their 6 jumps, even in identical conditions, whereas in the same conditions, a cyclist would be expected to produce near identical performances for repeated efforts, allowing for full recovery.

So Beamon's effort was a combination of favourable environmental conditions - altitude, tail wind, temperature, humidity - and everything being right technically.

There's a couple of other top long jumpers (Mike Powell and Robert Emmyan) whose second best jump was 25cm shorter than their best, which is roughly the same as the amount of Beamon's improvement that isn't down to environmental factors.

 

[The Hitch]

Eagerly awaiting the nutty proffessor to tell us that " the historical fact remains that at no point in his entire career did Chris Froome demonstrate a sudden and marked improvement in Climbing or ITT performance"