JV talks, sort of

[blackcat]

well, change that round, the second most talented v the 189th most talented lantern rouge rider. thats a double negative pleonasm for affect.

ie. the guy who holds on up cap 2 climbs at the Giro, and gets back on and pumps the sprinters for a win and Farrar aint too happy.

marginal gains, its rounding errors stupid.

 

[blackcat]

That aside from the fact that sky's hegemony over the most recent tour de France places them directly at the centre of any discussion about whether cycling has cleaned up or not, which does seem to be at the centre of this thread and jv's being here.

a devils advocate pov may be that the cycling program calendar and wins are zero sum, and the withdrawl of Tailwind, HighRoad nee TMob, Credit Agricole, ONCE, Banesto/IBalears has taken loaded squads that had major resources. Ofcourse, Ciolek ends up at a piddling Saffa team without even the angriest guy in the peloton.

More resources can buy better talent in this era where the free agency value is at a low ebb.

the inverse, is Brailsford's marginal gains aint worth the bowell movement of rounding errors.


theres ya hegemony in scatology terminology

caveat sans Midi Libre Setmana Catalana Niederschsen Rundfahrt San Sebastian, GP Zurich = less (prestigious calibre) wins to be divided

 

[Krebs cycle]

Here we go again?

How does the 2nd most talented rider in the pack who is clean beat the most talented rider who is using EPO and blood transfusions?

Who knows if this is actually the case, but it's not hard to see how people have trouble with the idea of believing Vincenzo Nibali, Christopher Froome, Bradley Wiggins, Joaquin Rodriguez, Alberto Contador, Alejandro Valverde, Ryder Hesjedal are all not only clean, but are beating dopers.

The point is that the best cyclists in the world on EPO can sustain 6.4w/kg (or even higher) for 35-40min or up to around 6.1 w/kg clean during a race. A cyclist who is not amongst the best 30 or 40 can maybe hold 5.8w/kg on EPO and around 5.4-5.5w/kg clean. So why is it so hard to believe that the best cyclist clean can beat an inferior cyclist who is doping?

 

[Ferminal]

So why is it so hard to believe that the best cyclist clean can beat an inferior cyclist who is doping?

That's not so hard to believe at all, especially today.

The idea that none of the ten best GC riders in the world dope is far more difficult though (or that those who do are talentless).

 

[python]

i hear the loud invocations of the good, old man sassi, let him rest in peace, amen.

why would he give his clean wings to cover a certain richardo ricco and never detect his blood doping BEFORE the fool almost killed himself with the spoiled blood from a kitchen freezer ?

as to jv vs the clinic, same old, keep rolling along folks. i only have one question to jv - what is your team's relation currently with catlin and if none why ?

 

[sittingbison]

...Sassi has stated that the best cyclists in the world are capable of sustaining about 6.1 w/kg on big climbs (35-40min) and above this is "implausible"....

krebs this is the very reason that so much observation and scutinisation is put into every possible factile and past performance of those you mentioned.

You claim that the "clinic 12" have no reason to believe those riders are only really capable of 5.4-5.8 w/kg, but the reverse is also true, namely there is a long and documented history of them doing just that then WHAMMO suddenly they are in the elite of the elite category Sassi was talking about.

Its exactly why guys that for years climb in the autobus and finish say 124th are viewed under Sassis microsope with incredulity. And why guys that have a very even palmares of excellence from a young age are given slightly more credibility. And why the best of the best non oxygen vector doping climbers Sassi was actually talking about namely Badger and Lemond are considered the yardstick.

 

[horsinabout]

again, i am really starting to like mr blackcat.

JV trying to get to blackcats soft underbelly. I don't know if you really are JV, I think you might be Jimmy Osmond.

Crazy horsin waaawaaaaa

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

i hear the loud invocations of the good, old man sassi, let him rest in peace, amen.

why would he give his clean wings to cover a certain richardo ricco and never detect his blood doping BEFORE the fool almost killed himself with the spoiled blood from a kitchen freezer ?

Lets stay fair;

“I know he is a risky client, but sometimes you have to roll the dice to win big. If someone doesn’t put faith in this sport, how can we make changes? Besides, Riccardo has a wife and child to support and needs help.''

@Krebs: Sassi said that after the Zoncolan stage where Basso managed to ride at 5.68w/k. So, I do think 6.2 is on the way too high.

Given the fact/my interpretation Basso is not the ultimate rider of his age, I believe 5.8w/k is the maximum to expect, for the more than blessed, true freaks of nature.

 

[Galic Ho]

The point is that the best cyclists in the world on EPO can sustain 6.4w/kg (or even higher) for 35-40min or up to around 6.1 w/kg clean during a race. A cyclist who is not amongst the best 30 or 40 can maybe hold 5.8w/kg on EPO and around 5.4-5.5w/kg clean. So why is it so hard to believe that the best cyclist clean can beat an inferior cyclist who is doping?

Then explain why Wiggins in his first Tour got dropped first mountain stage by the groupetto. You won't.

Explain why in his example JV stated contract info about Porte? Granville's response was spot on. JV says a lot but leaves a ton out. Not because he doesn't know but because he simply does not want to. By his own admission he is too candid given his placement in cycling. He alleged people here think Porte was crap palmares wise. That's a load of hogswash. Nobody has said that about Porte. The opposite has been said that of the big Sky 4 last year, he was the least suspicious. So why didn't he mention Froome and how good his market value was when he was arguably looking for a team pre 2011 Vuelta?

Why? The same darn reason he deflected on Wiggins months back. Said he barely spoke to him whilst he was at Garmin. JV does not talk about the really dicey issues and i'ts obvious why. He'd have to cut to the hard truth and yes, people in the pro peloton and are associated with it would find out he was blabbing too much. When you or Coggan or any of your money leaching ilk who are in a career path historically used to help perpetuate lies (aka Sports Scientists like your boy Kerrison or Coggans mate Coyle) can give us these numbers from earlier on in these guys careers and explain why two Sky riders alone are beating guys like Evans where as in 2007 and 2009 they weren't, then and only then will the Clinic 12 believe you. You haven't proven crap. You've made excuses. Honestly you and Coggan should be asking for a cheque from some of these teams. You deserve some coin for your efforts.

Nobody here has said cycling isn't cleanER, that the watts aren't down (relative to what year though?), the point has been that negative outliers, guys who were once crap have gone through the roof. You've never ever given any proof that they haven't improved leaps and bounds. Groupetto fodder has never been GC material clean. Ever. A lot of them ride for one team. Historically when riders leap up the ranks at an older age, rather than young, the obvious is found to be the truth. They didn't do it naturally. You can't prove they are clean. JV said Sky would never get Ashenden to run their numbers (and yes people believe him not you, how does that make you feel), he also likely won't ever comment on why only Sky went to meet the ASO before last years Tour, hence you ain't gonna convince anyone with an IQ in the triple figures to believe your stance. But thanks for trying.

Got a problem with it? How about grabbing some students doing their doctorate and getting them to to a complete mathematical run down on climbing in GTs from 91 to now? To get the closest and most in depth model ever. Surely you can do that? Or an honours thesis? I'll be the first to admit the numbers tell everything, but the funny things with academics is they love to rattle their sabers and preach about their one sided approach and attack the other side of thinking for being 'blind' or 'naive' aka in the wrong. It's an ego thing and goes with the territory. "Listen to my talk about NOW, but I'll never give you the full low down on the past."

Comparing guys to Pantani ain't good enough. We need to see the details in full from Indurain to Pantani to LA to Floyd to Contador to Sastre to Menchov and DiLuca in 2009 then to Basso in 2010 to Evans and then to Wiggins and Froome. Plus we need to know what the average peloton groupetto rider was doing at the same time. Then your fantasy weaving will have some substance. Because it will back up the blood changes. The things JV has said are shown in the profiles and ABP. It will also give us an idea of how plausible guys like Froome really are. Because estimates, can still tell a ton about a particular subject given two levels of performance. Till then, you're just saber rattling. I don't blame you for doing it, you're an academic, it's what they do but it'd be best to leave to academic intelligentsia wannabe meetings. Numbers reveal it all, but you've gotta give them all. You haven't. Nor has Coggan and he's been getting spanked this week over this very issue.

As I said. JV has indicated that will never happen with team Sky. We're never gonna get the data freely. So transparency is irrelevant. It was a convenient lie to hoodwink the gullible. Hence it's a psychological tell. And anyone with a brain and knowledge of cycling has seen that ploy before. It's called bluffing. They know nobody will really push them on it. Just look at the cycling media. The only guy to ask a big question to Hayman about Leinders was Daniel Benson. Omerta runs really deep. Really deep. Too many fearful guys who won't do what's right. Cycling gets what it deserves.

And JV is right. If he left, the real slim would take a stranglehold AGAIN. Cycling has improved, it just hasn't done enough. Worse, the guys who want to be seen as clean attack the fans all too often. I could prattle on with tons of business theories destroying their views and explaining why cycling is the way it is. But that'd be pointless. Nobody cares. Just don't think people here don't want numbers. We do. But we want them all so your professional interpretation is valid and non biased.

 

[Benotti69]

Then explain why Wiggins in his first Tour got dropped first mountain stage by the groupetto. You won't.

Explain why in his example JV stated contract info about Porte? Granville's response was spot on. JV says a lot but leaves a ton out. Not because he doesn't know but because he simply does not want to. By his own admission he is too candid given his placement in cycling. He alleged people here think Porte was crap palmares wise. That's a load of hogswash. Nobody has said that about Porte. The opposite has been said that of the big Sky 4 last year, he was the least suspicious. So why didn't he mention Froome and how good his market value was when he was arguably looking for a team pre 2011 Vuelta?

Why? The same darn reason he deflected on Wiggins months back. Said he barely spoke to him whilst he was at Garmin. JV does not talk about the really dicey issues and i'ts obvious why. He'd have to cut to the hard truth and yes, people in the pro peloton and are associated with it would find out he was blabbing too much. When you or Coggan or any of your money leaching ilk who are in a career path historically used to help perpetuate lies (aka Sports Scientists like your boy Kerrison or Coggans mate Coyle) can give us these numbers from earlier on in these guys careers and explain why two Sky riders alone are beating guys like Evans where as in 2007 and 2009 they weren't, then and only then will the Clinic 12 believe you. You haven't proven crap. You've made excuses. Honestly you and Coggan should be asking for a cheque from some of these teams. You deserve some coin for your efforts.

Nobody here has said cycling isn't cleanER, that the watts aren't down (relative to what year though?), the point has been that negative outliers, guys who were once crap have gone through the roof. You've never ever given any proof that they haven't improved leaps and bounds. Groupetto fodder has never been GC material clean. Ever. A lot of them ride for one team. Historically when riders leap up the ranks at an older age, rather than young, the obvious is found to be the truth. They didn't do it naturally. You can't prove they are clean. JV said Sky would never get Ashenden to run their numbers (and yes people believe him not you, how does that make you feel), he also likely won't ever comment on why only Sky went to meet the ASO before last years Tour, hence you ain't gonna convince anyone with an IQ in the triple figures to believe your stance. But thanks for trying.

Got a problem with it? How about grabbing some students doing their doctorate and getting them to to a complete mathematical run down on climbing in GTs from 91 to now? To get the closest and most in depth model ever. Surely you can do that? Or an honours thesis? I'll be the first to admit the numbers tell everything, but the funny things with academics is they love to rattle their sabers and preach about their one sided approach and attack the other side of thinking for being 'blind' or 'naive' aka in the wrong. It's an ego thing and goes with the territory. "Listen to my talk about NOW, but I'll never give you the full low down on the past."

Comparing guys to Pantani ain't good enough. We need to see the details in full from Indurain to Pantani to LA to Floyd to Contador to Sastre to Menchov and DiLuca in 2009 then to Basso in 2010 to Evans and then to Wiggins and Froome. Plus we need to know what the average peloton groupetto rider was doing at the same time. Then your fantasy weaving will have some substance. Because it will back up the blood changes. The things JV has said are shown in the profiles and ABP. It will also give us an idea of how plausible guys like Froome really are. Because estimates, can still tell a ton about a particular subject given two levels of performance. Till then, you're just saber rattling. I don't blame you for doing it, you're an academic, it's what they do but it'd be best to leave to academic intelligentsia wannabe meetings. Numbers reveal it all, but you've gotta give them all. You haven't. Nor has Coggan and he's been getting spanked this week over this very issue.

As I said. JV has indicated that will never happen with team Sky. We're never gonna get the data freely. So transparency is irrelevant. It was a convenient lie to hoodwink the gullible. Hence it's a psychological tell. And anyone with a brain and knowledge of cycling has seen that ploy before. It's called bluffing. They know nobody will really push them on it. Just look at the cycling media. The only guy to ask a big question to Hayman about Leinders was Daniel Benson. Omerta runs really deep. Really deep. Too many fearful guys who won't do what's right. Cycling gets what it deserves.

And JV is right. If he left, the real slim would take a stranglehold AGAIN. Cycling has improved, it just hasn't done enough. Worse, the guys who want to be seen as clean attack the fans all too often. I could prattle on with tons of business theories destroying their views and explaining why cycling is the way it is. But that'd be pointless. Nobody cares. Just don't think people here don't want numbers. We do. But we want them all so your professional interpretation is valid and non biased.

Great post.

One thing i disagree with is that if JV left why would that meant the opening of the doping floodgates?

Is JV really the keystone? I doubt that.

I see it as UCI has the BP to 'use' over the teams and are trying to keep the doping down to a 'level' that is considered 'managable' for the 'perceptions' of sport being 'clean'. If that means they are collecting money for 'anti doping equipment' that wouldn't be stretching the imagination too far.

That 'managable level' still means the best dope responders under the best managed programs win. What is cleanER about that?

We are still in a sport where the best responders, added to those who have 'close' relationships with UCI/ASO are winning. We have seen it all before.

JV imo is obfuscating things by dropping a little bit of info here and little bit there.

Numbers are down, but that doesn't mean if LeMond were around now he would be able to win the TdF. And that is what we are being sold here. Who is the LeMond of 2013? Wiggins? hahaha? Froome? Hahaha? Porte? hahaha?

If the sport is satisfied with cleanER we might aswell forget it.

 

[Galic Ho]

Great post.

One thing i disagree with is that if JV left why would that meant the opening of the doping floodgates?

Is JV really the keystone? I doubt that.

I see it as UCI has the BP to 'use' over the teams and are trying to keep the doping down to a 'level' that is considered 'managable' for the 'perceptions' of sport being 'clean'. If that means they are collecting money for 'anti doping equipment' that wouldn't be stretching the imagination too far.

That 'managable level' still means the best dope responders under the best managed programs win. What is cleanER about that?

We are still in a sport where the best responders, added to those who have 'close' relationships with UCI/ASO are winning. We have seen it all before.

JV imo is obfuscating things by dropping a little bit of info here and little bit there.

Numbers are down, but that doesn't mean if LeMond were around now he would be able to win the TdF. And that is what we are being sold here. Who is the LeMond of 2013? Wiggins? hahaha? Froome? Hahaha? Porte? hahaha?

If the sport is satisfied with cleanER we might aswell forget it.

I think that is ultimately it. The Clinic 12 affiliates and the guys called cynics and naysayers in here have listed time and again what we want to see happen. A lot of us wanted a truth and reconciliation last year. So the peloton could actually come clean, admit what they'd done and be welcomed back greatfully. Instead what did we get? Guys like Levi telling half truths to USADA. Were we really supposed to buy that Lance was doping on his comeback, Levi and Horner were at his side and they didn't touch a drop of ANYTHING?

That's taking the metaphorical P1SS. But as I said cycling gets what it deserves. Krebs misunderstands a lot of the guys here. We actually do want what I said. ALL THE DATA AND NUMBERS. We want to know what a Lemond or a Hinault could do in the first week of a GT, in the second week and finally in the third week. We want to know how fatigue plays in. We don't want vague estimates and guesswork. We want to understand the whole microcosm of the physiology. Even Krebs doesn't know that. But the doping gurus do. The enablers. The hard hitters.

What we've got is a clear idea of the standard that needs to be met. It isn't being met. That's not our fault. We're not in charge of that. Nor do we have to buy the filler work Krebs mentions. Yes what I mentioned regarding the groupetto's relative level over the years would be an estimate but the nature behind why a rider is in the groupetto does not change even with doping. You're there because you CANNOT go harder. Anyone who has exercised at a high level understands the physiological parameters. We just need to know what the averages were once upon a time and what the limits are now.

We need to be able to look at a GT in the mid naughties and figure out what a pack fodder rider was roughly doing and then look at now and if he's a front runner get an estimate of what has changed. I'm saying take the guess work out. It can most certainly be done. We've got great mapping technology today, so terrain and distances will be there for specific routes and we know the race times or at worst, they can be researched on older footage. Heck we can even examine the meta race tactics and fathom whether the peloton was going easy or hard early on in a stage. Every extra piece of data gives a wider scope and tells us more. But it just seems like that level of scrutiny is being sidestepped. We should all be demanding more.

I'll put it this way. It's not a matter of the stuff the Clinic wants to see, to show transparency, not being available or unfeasible. On the contrary the absence of such things is down to a select few being unwilling to give them over. But they then demand everyone to accept their word. They are demanding respect. Doesn't work like that with a history like cyclings. The peloton and the guys running the sport need to earn respect.

Ultimately it's about marketing perception over reality. Realists are often called cynics. They rarely get conned and don't believe in fairy tales. That would be the essence of the Clinic 12. The fantasists believe in fairy tales, they buy into carefully spun perception pieces. They react on feel. Emotion. Note the default emotion they get when the fairy tale is questioned...ANGER and HATE. These people are the ones marketers love. They're the type who if they were eskimos, the myth spinners and perpetrators of lies and distorting basic perception, would be able to sell ice cubes to. The type of people whom I could steal and lie to easily. They are sadly the majority. The realists aren't the villains they are made out to be. What they are asking for is the truth because they know it sets people free.

 

[Krebs cycle]

krebs this is the very reason that so much observation and scutinisation is put into every possible factile and past performance of those you mentioned.

You claim that the "clinic 12" have no reason to believe those riders are only really capable of 5.4-5.8 w/kg, but the reverse is also true, namely there is a long and documented history of them doing just that then WHAMMO suddenly they are in the elite of the elite category Sassi was talking about.

Its exactly why guys that for years climb in the autobus and finish say 124th are viewed under Sassis microsope with incredulity. And why guys that have a very even palmares of excellence from a young age are given slightly more credibility. And why the best of the best non oxygen vector doping climbers Sassi was actually talking about namely Badger and Lemond are considered the yardstick.

You love this argument don't you? You love to quote 124th as if it somehow has something to do with the actual power Wiggins was capable of producing for a certain amount of time. But unfortunately there is no known universe in which the position you finish the tour is an accurate measure of your FTP in either watts or watts/kg.

When you stop cherry picking those results and look at the results which actually mean something ie: his track results and also his short and long road TT results, then it is a matter of historical fact that there is no "WHAMMO" sudden increase in performance.

Look at what is relevant. The GC place argument is NOT relevant, the ITT results are.

 

[will10]

You love this argument don't you? You love to quote 124th as if it somehow has something to do with the actual power Wiggins was capable of producing for a certain amount of time. But unfortunately there is no known universe in which the position you finish the tour is an accurate measure of your FTP in either watts or watts/kg.

When you stop cherry picking those results and look at the results which actually mean something ie: his track results and also his short and long road TT results, then it is a matter of historical fact that there is no "WHAMMO" sudden increase in performance.

Look at what is relevant. The GC place argument is NOT relevant, the ITT results are.

Why is Bradley Wiggins' climbing ability prior to 2009 not relevant, considering he won the Tour de France 3 years later?

 

[Krebs cycle]

Then explain why Wiggins in his first Tour got dropped first mountain stage by the groupetto. You won't.

Why is Bradley Wiggins' climbing ability prior to 2009 not relevant, considering he won the Tour de France 3 years later?

Why this? why that? The explain this, then explain that. You guys have't worked out what a strawman argument is yet have you?

There could be dozens of possible answers to those questions. The most likely one has been discussed many times before.... it was not part of Wiggins plan to go chasing a high GC place in those races because his priority goal was on the track.

Why is this so hard to believe? That a cyclist who wants to win an olympic gold medal in the IP would not base their entire training and preparation around peaking for a GT at a different time of the year? In fact it beggars belief that anyone would think that a cyclist who wanted to win a gold in the IP would try to compete to win or place highly in a GT. Even a rank amateur could understand that training to win these two events wouldn't be perfectly compatible with each other. So why can't you guys figure it out? You're better than that. However, a rank amateur might not realise that the underlying physiological characteristics required to win these two very different events are surprisingly similar. But you guys don't realise that despite the fact I've told you dozens of times and posted links to studies which prove it.

Sometimes you guys demonstrate excellent knowledge of cycling history, but then you turn around and make statements that make you look as if you don't know anything about the physiological demands or physiological characteristics of elite cycling performance.

 

[The Hitch]

Then explain why Wiggins in his first Tour got dropped first mountain stage by the groupetto. You won't.

Explain why in his example JV stated contract info about Porte? Granville's response was spot on. JV says a lot but leaves a ton out. Not because he doesn't know but because he simply does not want to. By his own admission he is too candid given his placement in cycling. He alleged people here think Porte was crap palmares wise. That's a load of hogswash. Nobody has said that about Porte. The opposite has been said that of the big Sky 4 last year, he was the least suspicious. So why didn't he mention Froome and how good his market value was when he was arguably looking for a team pre 2011 Vuelta?

Why? The same darn reason he deflected on Wiggins months back. Said he barely spoke to him whilst he was at Garmin. JV does not talk about the really dicey issues and i'ts obvious why. He'd have to cut to the hard truth and yes, people in the pro peloton and are associated with it would find out he was blabbing too much. When you or Coggan or any of your money leaching ilk who are in a career path historically used to help perpetuate lies (aka Sports Scientists like your boy Kerrison or Coggans mate Coyle) can give us these numbers from earlier on in these guys careers and explain why two Sky riders alone are beating guys like Evans where as in 2007 and 2009 they weren't, then and only then will the Clinic 12 believe you. You haven't proven crap. You've made excuses. Honestly you and Coggan should be asking for a cheque from some of these teams. You deserve some coin for your efforts.

Nobody here has said cycling isn't cleanER, that the watts aren't down (relative to what year though?), the point has been that negative outliers, guys who were once crap have gone through the roof. You've never ever given any proof that they haven't improved leaps and bounds. Groupetto fodder has never been GC material clean. Ever. A lot of them ride for one team. Historically when riders leap up the ranks at an older age, rather than young, the obvious is found to be the truth. They didn't do it naturally. You can't prove they are clean. JV said Sky would never get Ashenden to run their numbers (and yes people believe him not you, how does that make you feel), he also likely won't ever comment on why only Sky went to meet the ASO before last years Tour, hence you ain't gonna convince anyone with an IQ in the triple figures to believe your stance. But thanks for trying.

Got a problem with it? How about grabbing some students doing their doctorate and getting them to to a complete mathematical run down on climbing in GTs from 91 to now? To get the closest and most in depth model ever. Surely you can do that? Or an honours thesis? I'll be the first to admit the numbers tell everything, but the funny things with academics is they love to rattle their sabers and preach about their one sided approach and attack the other side of thinking for being 'blind' or 'naive' aka in the wrong. It's an ego thing and goes with the territory. "Listen to my talk about NOW, but I'll never give you the full low down on the past."

Comparing guys to Pantani ain't good enough. We need to see the details in full from Indurain to Pantani to LA to Floyd to Contador to Sastre to Menchov and DiLuca in 2009 then to Basso in 2010 to Evans and then to Wiggins and Froome. Plus we need to know what the average peloton groupetto rider was doing at the same time. Then your fantasy weaving will have some substance. Because it will back up the blood changes. The things JV has said are shown in the profiles and ABP. It will also give us an idea of how plausible guys like Froome really are. Because estimates, can still tell a ton about a particular subject given two levels of performance. Till then, you're just saber rattling. I don't blame you for doing it, you're an academic, it's what they do but it'd be best to leave to academic intelligentsia wannabe meetings. Numbers reveal it all, but you've gotta give them all. You haven't. Nor has Coggan and he's been getting spanked this week over this very issue.

As I said. JV has indicated that will never happen with team Sky. We're never gonna get the data freely. So transparency is irrelevant. It was a convenient lie to hoodwink the gullible. Hence it's a psychological tell. And anyone with a brain and knowledge of cycling has seen that ploy before. It's called bluffing. They know nobody will really push them on it. Just look at the cycling media. The only guy to ask a big question to Hayman about Leinders was Daniel Benson. Omerta runs really deep. Really deep. Too many fearful guys who won't do what's right. Cycling gets what it deserves.

And JV is right. If he left, the real slim would take a stranglehold AGAIN. Cycling has improved, it just hasn't done enough. Worse, the guys who want to be seen as clean attack the fans all too often. I could prattle on with tons of business theories destroying their views and explaining why cycling is the way it is. But that'd be pointless. Nobody cares. Just don't think people here don't want numbers. We do. But we want them all so your professional interpretation is valid and non biased.

I think your posts often hit a lot of wrong notes (and a lot of right ones) but this one hit ALL the right notes and so perfectly I couldn't help but reread it 3 times before I even pressed the "post reply" button. As far as I can remember, it's the best non libertine seguros post I've ever read in the clinic.

 

[Galic Ho]

Why this? why that? The explain this, then explain that. You guys have't worked out what a strawman argument is yet have you?

There could be dozens of possible answers to those questions. The most likely one has been discussed many times before.... it was not part of Wiggins plan to go chasing a high GC place in those races because his priority goal was on the track.

Why is this so hard to believe? That a cyclist who wants to win an olympic gold medal in the IP would not base their entire training and preparation around peaking for a GT at a different time of the year? In fact it beggars belief that anyone would think that a cyclist who wanted to win a gold in the IP would try to compete to win or place highly in a GT. Even a rank amateur could understand that training to win these two events wouldn't be perfectly compatible with each other. So why can't you wannabe tryhard experts figure it out? However, a rank amateur might not realise that the underlying physiological characteristics required to win these two very different events are surprisingly similar. But you guys don't realise that despite the fact I've told you dozens of times and posted links to studies which prove it.

Did you miss the part where I said most people here understand what it takes to ride hard? Or that we couldn't do simple arithmetic. If we had an analysis of almost every GT and the stages, what the winner did and what the mean was, then we'd sure as hell remove any doubt about Wiggins.

Your explanation is fine but as I said it is bland. It lacks real substance. It doesn't prove he is doping and it doesn't prove he is clean. He has a nice row of question marks after his name. Let's not kid ourselves. He was on Brailsfords track program. Where all this excellence and marginal gains started. They have all of his numbers. Maximal HR, wattages for distances, lactate levels, oxygen uptake, the whole kitten caboodle. All the data needed. He targetted a number of chronos in bigger road and didn't win them (pre 2009) in non Olympic years. Didn't crack the top 5.

Your posts didn't prove anything. We're supposed to believe Wiggins is an anomaly, a metaphorical once in a lifetime rider, who could have won a GT clean, one of the first guys in 20 years to do so, and yet when he had only one stage to target years back, when he walked and talked like a clean rider, got flogged! Yeah, I'm not confused here.

But nice reply. I didn't get an answer as to why the studies haven't been done. But I didn't need to get one. It's like I said, people don't want to do them because the probable will become believable. There are more than likely guys who are winning who are still doping. They're just doing less and being smarter about it.

Just don't confuse the Clinic with people who don't want to see numbers. As I said, we do. You just haven't given them all and as I said, that ain't your fault. They simply don't exist at this time. BTW is Wiggins has been proven to have the talent whilst on the track, why is it that nobody ever tried what he did before? Kerrison really that good with his work? He really that much of a revolutionary sports scientist?

 

[The Hitch]

Why is this so hard to believe? That a cyclist who wants to win an olympic gold medal in the IP would not base their entire training and preparation around peaking for a GT at a different time of the year? In fact it beggars belief that anyone would think that a cyclist who wanted to win a gold in the IP would try to compete to win or place highly in a GT. Even a rank amateur could understand that training to win these two events wouldn't be perfectly compatible with each other. So why can't you guys figure it out? You're better than that.

.

If they are so incompatible why did Wiggins do the hardest 3 week grand tour -the giro 9 weeks before the Beijing Olympics?

also Wiggins went from track gold medal winner to gt supercontender in 10 months. By contrast the 2007 tour was 13 months before the Olympics and the 2006 tour 25 months.

so he can ride the giro 2 months before the Olympics but he can't lose weight 2.years before It

Btw, you do realise that Wiggins intended to do tp at the london Olympics even while losing weight to go for gts? At least that's what he told the press, even in 2011. It was only confirmed that he wouldn't do the tp 8 months before the games and even then it was said he would be ready to be drafted in if others got injured.

So your sensationalism about how ridiculous doing a gt 2 years before a track event would be, falls hilariously flat when one looks at what Wiggins actually did. Nice try though.

in fact it beggars belief that anyone would think that a cyclist who wanted to win a gold in the IP would try to compete to win or place highly in a GT

 

[webvan]

Why this? why that? The explain this, then explain that. You guys have't worked out what a strawman argument is yet have you?

There could be dozens of possible answers to those questions. The most likely one has been discussed many times before.... it was not part of Wiggins plan to go chasing a high GC place in those races because his priority goal was on the track.

Why is this so hard to believe? That a cyclist who wants to win an olympic gold medal in the IP would not base their entire training and preparation around peaking for a GT at a different time of the year? In fact it beggars belief that anyone would think that a cyclist who wanted to win a gold in the IP would try to compete to win or place highly in a GT. Even a rank amateur could understand that training to win these two events wouldn't be perfectly compatible with each other. So why can't you guys figure it out? You're better than that. However, a rank amateur might not realise that the underlying physiological characteristics required to win these two very different events are surprisingly similar. But you guys don't realise that despite the fact I've told you dozens of times and posted links to studies which prove it.

Sometimes you guys demonstrate excellent knowledge of cycling history, but then you turn around and make statements that make you look as if you don't know anything about the physiological demands or physiological characteristics of elite cycling performance.

Thanks for spelling it out, again....

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Why this? why that? The explain this, then explain that. You guys have't worked out what a strawman argument is yet have you?

There could be dozens of possible answers to those questions. The most likely one has been discussed many times before.... it was not part of Wiggins plan to go chasing a high GC place in those races because his priority goal was on the track.

Why is this so hard to believe? That a cyclist who wants to win an olympic gold medal in the IP would not base their entire training and preparation around peaking for a GT at a different time of the year? In fact it beggars belief that anyone would think that a cyclist who wanted to win a gold in the IP would try to compete to win or place highly in a GT. Even a rank amateur could understand that training to win these two events wouldn't be perfectly compatible with each other. So why can't you guys figure it out? You're better than that. However, a rank amateur might not realise that the underlying physiological characteristics required to win these two very different events are surprisingly similar. But you guys don't realise that despite the fact I've told you dozens of times and posted links to studies which prove it.

Sometimes you guys demonstrate excellent knowledge of cycling history, but then you turn around and make statements that make you look as if you don't know anything about the physiological demands or physiological characteristics of elite cycling performance.

Upthread you addressed the 6.2w/k of Aldo Sassi. What is your take on that? Basso went full gas on the Zoncolan and was just able to make 5.68w/k in 2010, what is your take on that? He went full gas at 395watts, last years Tour he was in the slipstream behind Porte having to kick out 420 watts. Is that a sign cycling is cleaning up?

Thanks for spelling it out, again....

You do excel in quoting.

 

[Ferminal]

Why is Bradley Wiggins' climbing ability prior to 2009 not relevant, considering he won the Tour de France 3 years later?

Because he lost x% of bodyweight which improved his climbing x%. Any prior performance can be explained by heavier weight, if that doesn't work just say he didn't care.

 

[Galic Ho]

I think your posts often hit a lot of wrong notes (and a lot of right ones) but this one hit ALL the right notes and so perfectly I couldn't help but reread it 3 times before I even pressed the "post reply" button. As far as I can remember, it's the best non libertine seguros post I've ever read in the clinic.

Well thanks. But I am not even fit enough to tie his shoe laces. That's how good Libertine is.

BTW I am not having a go at Coggan or Krebs. I like seeing numbers because it gives me something to follow. Quantifiable data points. But we all need to see more. Lots more and it would clear up a lot of the haze. It's remove a lot of the guessing and division. Better, we'd all learn a lot more. Education is a wonderful thing. It just doesn't seem to be endorsed ever in our society like it should be.

There is one thing I'd like to see, that I do think would clear up a great and I do wonder if JV has ever thought about it just for his team. Years back, Linus Gerdemann, who we all know rode on T-Mobile, came out of the German system and was talked up a bit after his yellow jersey in 2007, mentioned that he was going to have a camera crew follow him around for an entire GT. He was riding for Milram at the time. Either 2009 or 2010. But it was for one Tour. I've always thought that if you could have a large force of chaperones, equal in number to say having ONE for EVERY rider and TWO for every GC guy, who followed them like a bad smell for the entirety of a GT, then we'd know we've seen a good GT. I've heard people talk about it, one of the few things guys could do. Sure he went to The Shack, but I've always thought he was believable. A lot more than other guys. Reminds me of a lot of the Garmin riders, like Farrar, Big Z and CVV. I don't look at them and see question marks popping up.

I'd suggest have the chaperones switch around, between riders, keep them neutral. Our problem is that the testing doesn't catch enough. We know doping works during the third week of a GT and we sure can't stop people doping whilst training before the race. But if 24/7 a rider has guys with him, who don't let you shower or take a no.1 or no.2 without checking the room is clean and needle/pill/blood bag free, who don't let you run off mid race on the rest days, then you'd wipe out recovery doping. People would believe that. Heck I could make a case for you not needing drug testing outside of the first week.

If you don't cooperate, or run off, they test you non stop. These guys would be there during the night, so a day before the rest day a GC rider cannot get up, transfuse however many hundreds of mils of blood back into their body and do some epo microdosing. Why? There would be a chaperone there. A neutral guy.

Maybe I am being way too hopeful, but if a rider suggested it years back like Gerdemann did, why can't it happen? I know JV has said a lot less money is being spent on doping, but for one GT, just one, surely we can find enough volunteers to do this? Or even people who wouldn't mind being put through the protocols and working at minimum wage for 3 weeks? The UCI did this, their kudos would shoot into the stratosphere. Heck ask the papers to sponsor it. They make enough money off the sport, they've kept quiet during the LA years, how about putting some faith back into the sport? If they can tell us the sport is clean, surely they can put up some coin and show us with this very basic and simple method that nobody is doping during the race.

 

[gillan1969]

If they are so incompatible why did Wiggins do the hardest 3 week grand tour -the giro 9 weeks before the Beijing Olympics?

also Wiggins went from track gold medal winner to gt supercontender in 10 months. By contrast the 2007 tour was 13 months before the Olympics and the 2006 tour 25 months.

so he can ride the giro 2 months before the Olympics but he can't lose weight 2.years before It

Btw, you do realise that Wiggins intended to do tp at the london Olympics even while losing weight to go for gts? At least that's what he told the press, even in 2011. It was only confirmed that he wouldn't do the tp 8 months before the games and even then it was said he would be ready to be drafted in if others got injured.

So your sensationalism about how ridiculous doing a gt 2 years before a track event would be, falls hilariously flat when one looks at what Wiggins actually did. Nice try though.

indeed, Boardman's best IP form (and world record) came off getting a kicking through the '96 Tour where he was at least attempting to ride for overall...only 4 weeks after it finished...mind you, looking at that leaderboard knowing what we know now....

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

If they are so incompatible why did Wiggins do the hardest 3 week grand tour -the giro 9 weeks before the Beijing Olympics?

He did say compete to win or place highly. If Wiggins did place highly you would have a point but he didn't.

 

[Tinman]

There is one thing I'd like to see, that I do think would clear up a great and I do wonder if JV has ever thought about it just for his team. Years back, Linus Gerdemann, who we all know rode on T-Mobile, came out of the German system and was talked up a bit after his yellow jersey in 2007, mentioned that he was going to have a camera crew follow him around for an entire GT. He was riding for Milram at the time. Either 2009 or 2010. But it was for one Tour. I've always thought that if you could have a large force of chaperones, equal in number to say having ONE for EVERY rider and TWO for every GC guy, who followed them like a bad smell for the entirety of a GT, then we'd know we've seen a good GT. I've heard people talk about it, one of the few things guys could do. Sure he went to The Shack, but I've always thought he was believable. A lot more than other guys. Reminds me of a lot of the Garmin riders, like Farrar, Big Z and CVV. I don't look at them and see question marks popping up.

I'd suggest have the chaperones switch around, between riders, keep them neutral. Our problem is that the testing doesn't catch enough. We know doping works during the third week of a GT and we sure can't stop people doping whilst training before the race. But if 24/7 a rider has guys with him, who don't let you shower or take a no.1 or no.2 without checking the room is clean and needle/pill/blood bag free, who don't let you run off mid race on the rest days, then you'd wipe out recovery doping. People would believe that. Heck I could make a case for you not needing drug testing outside of the first week.

If you don't cooperate, or run off, they test you non stop. These guys would be there during the night, so a day before the rest day a GC rider cannot get up, transfuse however many hundreds of mils of blood back into their body and do some epo microdosing. Why? There would be a chaperone there. A neutral guy.

Maybe I am being way too hopeful, but if a rider suggested it years back like Gerdemann did, why can't it happen? I know JV has said a lot less money is being spent on doping, but for one GT, just one, surely we can find enough volunteers to do this? Or even people who wouldn't mind being put through the protocols and working at minimum wage for 3 weeks? The UCI did this, their kudos would shoot into the stratosphere. Heck ask the papers to sponsor it. They make enough money off the sport, they've kept quiet during the LA years, how about putting some faith back into the sport? If they can tell us the sport is clean, surely they can put up some coin and show us with this very basic and simple method that nobody is doping during the race.

Absolutely spot on. A no brainer, for a rider, a team, and/or the UCI. So yet again we can only conclude pro-cycling is one big have, with (most) everyone in on the scam and not interested changing the status quo.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Btw, you do realise that Wiggins intended to do tp at the london Olympics even while losing weight to go for gts? At least that's what he told the press, even in 2011. It was only confirmed that he wouldn't do the tp 8 months before the games and even then it was said he would be ready to be drafted in if others got injured.

There's no guarantee he'd have been selected for the TP in August on merit, though. Thomas nearly didn't get selected for the World Champs in April last year as he was struggling to recapture the leg-speed necessary for the TP after a spell racing on the road.

Obviously, in the mens squad, he'd still have been a better bet than most other alternatives had there been a raft of injuries. (Tennant and Swift would have been higher up the pecking order one might think, given that they were part of the squad focusing on the TP.)

TP is harder to re-adapt to than IP, given that it is a lot faster, with a series of (almost) maximal sprints rather than 4 minutes of broadly constant effort.