GB Track Team

[BroDeal]

Just because other great cycling nations have built that greatness through the needle of a syringe, it doesn't dictate we are doing the same. That isn't a truth, it isn't a fact, it is an assumption, an innuendo, and there are always other possibilities. I just hope some of you that are so convinced of our cheating might just acknowledge that fact.

This indicates a shocking ignorance about the effectiveness of O2 vector drugs and doping techniques. The whole sport did not turn to EPO because no one was willing to work hard or they could not think of enough marginal gains to make up for not doping. They turned to EPO because they were getting their asses kicked and there was no other way to win against riders using EPO.

That is how I easily concluded that Armstrong was doping. It was not watching him climb like he had never climbed before or time trial like Indurain. A cursory reading of research about the effectiveness of EPO made it clear that the advantages were so huge that no top rider could compete clean against top rider using EPO.

 

[twothirds]

I'll go with that. It reminds me of Formula 1. Before the engineers got involved, it was a real sport. Now it is a rolling science experiment. The soul of the sport was sucked out and replaced with Poindexters figuring out how to shave fractions of a fraction of a second from lap times. Cycling, with its concentration on aerodynamic bikes, helmets, clothing, freaking cryo chambers, basically marginal gains, is headed down the same path.

It is the reason I think the sport should go old school. It should be man against man, not engineer against engineer.

I partially agree with this sentiment as well. The only problem is that this is how all things evolve, through refinement.

But then again, if we make things as basic as possible, then all we'd be left with is bare knuckle boxing and barefoot running.

 

[simo1733]

There is no state-sponsored doping in Britain

While there have been, and will be British athletes that test positive for prohibited substances it is not endemic or systematic.

The track team, like it or not, race clean, I fully believe that. The list of the team's achievements are long and stretch back to 1996. There has been a clear improving arc of performance ever since, on the back of a lot of funding.

I think deep down many of you want this performance to be dirty, but even there I think there is an inkling that maybe, just maybe this 'marginal gains' mantra might be the cause: an attention to detail, from tech to diet to sleep to psychology to training, the goes beyond anything the other teams are doing.

That maybe David Brailsford is a genius and these are all exceptional athletes, and not some doping overlord and his evil minions.

If you watch the recent documentaries on Wiggins or Pendleton, or listen to Geraint Thomas and Mark Cavendish talk, and you still label them dopers I think you are very poor judges of character.

While I have been assured the clinic is worthwhile and actually stands for something, in my time reading it (and I have since the Criterium de Dauphine this year, after I was alerted to accusations against Sky on another forum) I just see it as mainly a platform for sneering at successes and more and more that sneering has been directed at my country and countrymen, resulting in borderline racist remarks at times.

Just because other great cycling nations have built that greatness through the needle of a syringe, it doesn't dictate we are doing the same. That isn't a truth, it isn't a fact, it is an assumption, an innuendo, and there are always other possibilities. I just hope some of you that are so convinced of our cheating might just acknowledge that fact.

Anyway here I draw my line in the sand. There is little point continuing to come here and saying things because people believe what they want to believe. I believe a different thing to many of you and while I am open to other possibilities I think the discussion here is barely rational and basically pointless. And when the levels of ignorance are displayed like they are in the 'I've never support a British team' thread it devolves into farce. Why the hell you think I should want any of you to support a British rider or team is beyond me. We're quite happy supporting our sportsmen ourselves.

One last thing: for all you questioning our performances on the track, ever consider home team advantage?

Anyway I am going to my damndest to stay away from here, I really do think it is an unpleasant and unhealthy place.

I saw an intersting article where they talked about the "Olympic Bounce" GB have had a pretty good bounce,175% so far but not as good as Spains's 430% in Barcelona?
USA didn't get any bounce in Atlanta.

 

[BroDeal]

I partially agree with this sentiment as well. The only problem is that this is how all things evolve, through refinement.

But then again, if we make things as basic as possible, then all we'd be left with is bare knuckle boxing and barefoot running.

Yeah, it is a difficult balance. It is hard, maybe impossible, to ensure the spirit of the sport with ever more complex regulations. It is like the legal definition of obscenity in the U.S.. It cannot be defined but you know it when you see it.

Maybe the easy way out is to require all equipment used to be available, really available, like been on the market for X number of months with X number of sales. God forbid if we have to go down the route many sports have with budget limitations.

 

[simo1733]

I'll go with that. It reminds me of Formula 1. Before the engineers got involved, it was a real sport. Now it is a rolling science experiment. The soul of the sport was sucked out and replaced with Poindexters figuring out how to shave fractions of a fraction of a second from lap times. Cycling, with its concentration on aerodynamic bikes, helmets, clothing, freaking cryo chambers, basically marginal gains, is headed down the same path.

It is the reason I think the sport should go old school. It should be man against man, not engineer against engineer.

Good point.The UCI are regularly slagged off when they take this approach.

 

[twothirds]

One would assume that riders used to slogging around a slower trck would benefit the most from riding on an allegedly faster track (sort of like training with ankle weights).

Regardless, our track here in So Cal is considered to be a pretty fast one as well. It made from the same Siberian Pine, is well-seasoned, and I doubt London is THAT much faster.

ADT is fast for a North American track, but not that fast by world class standards.

Also, moving from a slow track to a fast track doesn't impart the sort of advantages that you think it might. The body's responses to training are very specific to the stresses placed on it. This is why overspeed training is so important. The rider who trains on a fast track is at much more of an advantage than the guy who trains on a slow track.

 

[barn yard]

Statements like this don't lend much credence to what you have to say. You've clearly never ridden more that one track before.

a pursuit is raced on the black line, not up and down the track

nobody's changes pre olympics were that loose that they were going to make large gains there

nobody in this olympics is riding an unusual line at all

if there was some secret line that GB were taking to use some sort of magical banking advantage we would have seen it by now

 

[Darryl Webster]

Statements like this don't lend much credence to what you have to say. You've clearly never ridden more that one track before.

I'm no expert on the matter but track design , particular the radius of banking creates variation in pressures. Short steep bankings push a rider hard into the the track and can cause a slight slowing. This presure is the reason on the short and tight 6 day tracks riders will raise there bars as over time the effect takes it's toll on the shoulders. They also use lower gears on those very tight tracks for the same reason.
There's a lot of design thought going into creating a fast track but as standardisation of worlds tracks is now 250 m indoor , wood,I doubt very much that design differances would account for 3 seconds. Temperature differences would, I believe, account for a bigger variation than track design. It's very clear absolutely everything that's currently known has been thrown into creating super fast conditions in the London velodrome. Not trying to explain away the Brit ride here though. I'm far from convinced BC/ Sky track or road are clean.

 

[barn yard]

Temperature differences would, I believe, account for a bigger variation than track design.

this is absolutely true

if they has the track at 28 deg for GB then turned on the AC and had the track at 13 deg for everyone else maybe that would be a credible explanation of these performances

but everyone is racing in the same conditions, on the same track, and only one squad is waaaaay above everyone else in every single aspect

it is not because they are training harder or more often or because they have a swimming coach or mood lights or hot pants

 

[Darryl Webster]

ADT The rider who trains on a fast track is at much more of an advantage than the guy who trains on a slow track.

This is spot on, but it's nothing new. When training for the junior world champs in Mexico 1980 , one form of training we did was riding from the top of a standing quarter mile drag race slowing down ramp. On our track bikes..was scary stuff, extremely high exceleration and very high leg speed.

 

[Ferminal]

Is there an ABP for track cyclists?

Many are road cyclists so would be subjected to it regardless (although they can still give a blood/urine control without being an ABP control?). But if there is no passport otherwise, isn't it possible that trackies could dope to 04/05 levels?

 

[twothirds]

a pursuit is raced on the black line, not up and down the track

nobody's changes pre olympics were that loose that they were going to make large gains there

nobody in this olympics is riding an unusual line at all

if there was some secret line that GB were taking to use some sort of magical banking advantage we would have seen it by now

In a TP you are riding up and down the track. Your exchanges can make a difference in your energy expenditure, rhythm, and pacing throughout the event. Your line for the exchanges will be dictated by track geometry. Track geometry even has an effect down at the black line as the radius through the bank is not constant. Being familiar with the track and it's characteristics is very beneficial. It's not just the line you ride, it's also how you ride your line. I'm not saying this is where the whole of GB's lead came from.

Just out of curiousity, do you ride the track at all?

 

[barn yard]

i have raced on the track at a reasonably high level for many years

your claims may have some weight for a club level racer - large gains can be found with technique if you don't know what you are doing

at the absolute peak of the sport you are dealing with incredibly refined riders and the chances of finding gains here with some new undiscovered technique are about as likely as mood lighting taking 3 sec off a world record

regardless there are no technique changes here at all because we (and the coaches of every other team) would have seen them in hi def and slow motion over the last few days

the changes are in the engines

 

[twothirds]

So then the question becomes what's an acceptable winning/record margin?

 

[DirtyWorks]

There seem to me to be four options:

a) There is a squad-wide doping programme,
b) Individual riders are doping and disguising it from the GB directors,
c) Individual riders are doping and there is a 'don't ask, don't tell' culture within the squad,
d) They are clean.

I think there's one more option that messes up your list a little. Strong events for team GB SEEM to turn times that seem possible to likely. My estimation is they are not confronted with the choice.

It's the weaker events based on past results that I've seen where they've gone from zero to hero. So the Team is perhaps sets up the moment where the elite rider has to choose between juicing or leaving, then passes some info on about who and where to dope.

 

[the big ring]

ADT is fast for a North American track, but not that fast by world class standards.

Also, moving from a slow track to a fast track doesn't impart the sort of advantages that you think it might. The body's responses to training are very specific to the stresses placed on it. This is why overspeed training is so important. The rider who trains on a fast track is at much more of an advantage than the guy who trains on a slow track.

Agreed - the track demands high kinetic energy movement.

What I find confusing, however, is that someone with years of experience and medals in an event, racing on a track she trained on, forgot where the exchange zone is...

 

[blackcat]

So then the question becomes what's an acceptable winning/record margin?

bingo

its not doping, its how much you make the field look like rubes. Gotta share the spoils

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Sorry to confuse the issue with a few numbers, but the following might be of interest. They are the GB mens' TP squad best times during the OGs, World Cup series and World Champs:

Beijing 2008 - 3:53.6 WR (Clancy, Manning, Wiggins, Thomas)
Manchester World Cup 2009 -3:54.4 (Clancy, Tennant, Swift, Burke)
World Champs 2010 - 3:55.8 (Same squad)
Manchester WC 2011 - 3:55.4 (Clancy, Burke, Wiggins, Thomas)
World Champs 2012 - 3:53.3 WR (Clancy, Burke, Kennaugh, Thomas)
London 2012 - 3:51.7 WR (Same squad)

So, we have a massive 1.9s improvement since Beijing. The improvement in the World Record from Sydney to Athens was over 3 seconds, and the same again from Athens to Beijing. The World Record was set at Sydney, Athens and Beijing (qualifying rounds and final in most cases), so a rush of World Records at the OGs is the norm.

Improving by 1.7s between the World Champs and the OGs is hardly extreme either. Other squads have improved by more: Spain 4:01.7 to 3:59.2; Russia 3:59.2 to 3:57.2

What's been key in London is that the Aussies have gone backwards since the World Cup campaign. Glen O'Shea has really struggled. In fact, Australia have hardly improved since Bobridge, Hepburn and Dennis emerged a couple of years ago, which is odd, as they are very young and should be improving.

The UCI rankings tell us nothing of significance about the GB squad, as they haven't ridden the ranking events. They have generally only ridden the UK round of the World Cup and the World Champs, where they have been reliably very swift.

So, anyone who thinks the GB performance yesterday is suspicious given the previous 4 years hard data is barking up the wrong tree. Whether the Beijing performance is the dodgy benchmark is another matter. Wiggo was slower in the IP in 2008 than he was in 2004, though, so if doping is involved for the GB track team, when did it start?

The numbers above took around half an hour to Google, so it can't be too hard for anyone else to produce some meaningful analysis rather than just stamping their feet and crying "It's not fair".

 

[JibberJim]

Can you explain what was happening in 2011 Team Pursuit such that Men's Team GB ends up fourth overall and then turns around to set WR times? It's pretty unlikely. Not impossible though.

They were 3rd in 2011 world champs not 4th, and the team in the final only had Stephen Burke in common - Thomas, Kennaugh and Clancy all weren't riding. The qualifying round did have closer to their full team (just Thomas missing) but there was some discussion at the time that they simply misjudged the pace they thought would be required for the gold medal match as they were on the pace they decided to ride. The endurance brits simply don't care about the track outside olympic year, they're on the road.

On the times, it's the first time five teams have been below 4 minutes in competition suggesting the track is fast.

How does Team GB's 2011 team sprint go from an aggregate 12th to WR in 2012?

Erm? They were 3rd in 2011 world championships, how does that become 12th? 0.2 behind france, and again have changed personnel, so it's not a comparison between the same riders, indeed Hoy and Kenny's performance in the two events were similar, the difference was the first man.

So whilst I'm happy that Team GB could be doped, what you describe there isn't "evidence" at all.

 

[blackcat]

Sorry to confuse the issue with a few numbers, but the following might be of interest. They are the GB mens' TP squad best times during the OGs, World Cup series and World Champs:

Beijing 2008 - 3:53.6 WR (Clancy, Manning, Wiggins, Thomas)
Manchester World Cup 2009 -3:54.4 (Clancy, Tennant, Swift, Burke)
World Champs 2010 - 3:55.8 (Same squad)
Manchester WC 2011 - 3:55.4 (Clancy, Burke, Wiggins, Thomas)
World Champs 2012 - 3:53.3 WR (Clancy, Burke, Kennaugh, Thomas)
London 2012 - 3:51.7 WR (Same squad)

So, we have a massive 1.9s improvement since Beijing. The improvement in the World Record from Sydney to Athens was over 3 seconds, and the same again from Athens to Beijing. The World Record was set at Sydney, Athens and Beijing (qualifying rounds and final in most cases), so a rush of World Records at the OGs is the norm.

Improving by 1.7s between the World Champs and the OGs is hardly extreme either. Other squads have improved by more: Spain 4:01.7 to 3:59.2; Russia 3:59.2 to 3:57.2

What's been key in London is that the Aussies have gone backwards since the World Cup campaign. Glen O'Shea has really struggled. In fact, Australia have hardly improved since Bobridge, Hepburn and Dennis emerged a couple of years ago, which is odd, as they are very young and should be improving.

The UCI rankings tell us nothing of significance about the GB squad, as they haven't ridden the ranking events. They have generally only ridden the UK round of the World Cup and the World Champs, where they have been reliably very swift.

So, anyone who thinks the GB performance yesterday is suspicious given the previous 4 years hard data is barking up the wrong tree. Whether the Beijing performance is the dodgy benchmark is another matter. Wiggo was slower in the IP in 2008 than he was in 2004, though, so if doping is involved for the GB track team, when did it start?

The numbers above took around half an hour to Google, so it can't be too hard for anyone else to produce some meaningful analysis rather than just stamping their feet and crying "It's not fair".

Australians who were focusing on the road, weakened the TP. Meyers, Howard, and Parker retiring (tho doubt he would have been a starter).

the Australians took to the road to maximise their potential income, Howard looks at Cavendish with great interest, and Cameron Meyer looks to GC in a few years, after riding madison and points for a while.

The Australians with a full complememnt would have taken it to the Brits.

But gees, chapeau to Brailsofd and team GB. The times should not be graphed, like a linear progression, their are only limited economies to pursue now, in the times, it will plateau out and maybe future times will not be so fast. It might go backwards in Rio. See for example, Germany in Sydney, and their progression, once Bartko take up in 6 Days, and needs to work for deutschmarks.

Great rides by GB. Wonder if Clancy can win the omnium with the teams pursuit training efforts, see the Australian guy fell off pretty quick, and he goes into the omnium as a top ranked competitor. OShea.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Agreed - the track demands high kinetic energy movement.

What I find confusing, however, is that someone with years of experience and medals in an event, racing on a track she trained on, forgot where the exchange zone is...

No disputing the experience, but GB haven't had any "extra" training on the London track, as far as I know.
Regardless, as you say, more about experience. An error that shouldn't have happened.

Regarding O'Shea: Chris Boardman made the same observation, yesterday.


Much debate about the fast velodrome track.
What about the Athletics track?
That is certainly proving to be extremely swift, indeed.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

The Australians with a full complememnt would have taken it to the Brits.

Maybe, but you've got to be in it to win it! If you put Wiggo (in full track mode) in the GB quartet - replacing the weaker of Thomas and Kennaugh - then GB would go faster as well.

Re Meyer, from what I've read, he's just not fast enough for a TP these days despite his prodigious talents elsewhere. (This actually bodes well for his GC ambitions.) The opening kilo from the GB squad is typically in the 62 second range, which is beyond the capabilities of many, even as 4th man.

The Aussie quartet was well down at the 1k mark and had to work very hard in the 2nd k to get back in contention, which probably did for them in the latter stages, as it's much harder to accelerate to 57s/km pace after the start, as opposed to maintaining such pace immediately after the start.

 

[barn yard]

jason kenny - the 1st GB rider to not set a WR in a timed event, though his 9.7 for the flying 200 (significantly faster than his WC qualifier) was an olympic record

 

[Zam_Olyas]

jason kenny - the 1st GB rider to not set a WR in a timed event, though his 9.7 for the flying 200 (significantly faster than his WC qualifier) was an olympic record

Maybe the track is not that fast anymore

 

[barn yard]

Maybe the track is not that fast anymore

well it is only the morning session, maybe the heaters are not switched on yet

WR is 9.572 - at the rate kenny has improved in the last 4 months we should see that WR fall by the end of the year