Kimmage on Wiggins, Sky

[Cerberus]

I think it's fine if you want to question Wiggins and demand transparency. I'm not even a Sky or Wiggins fan. I am interested in one question: can Sky (and others) performance be quantified via metrics that allow comparisons across cohorts, and, if so, what implications follow from that? If there is no way to statistically distinguish a doped performance from a non-doped one, then anti-doping policies have achieved a major victory. That's not grounds for inferring a rider is not doped, but it does indicate the playing field has been somewhat leveled and has reduced the efficacy of doping protocols whereby gifted riders plus innovative training programs can compete with doped riders. Sorry, but that's the real functional goal of anti-doping policies.

except we don't know exactly what a non-doped rider can do. We know some limits that no non-doped rider can cross, but those are outer limits of the clearly impossible. We simply don't know where the real limits are because we only have good data from the post-EPO era.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I think it's fine if you want to question Wiggins and demand transparency. I'm not even a Sky or Wiggins fan. I am interested in one question: can Sky (and others) performance be quantified via metrics that allow comparisons across cohorts, and, if so, what implications follow from that? If there is no way to statistically distinguish a doped performance from a non-doped one, then anti-doping policies have achieved a major victory. That's not grounds for inferring a rider is not doped, but it does indicate the playing field has been somewhat leveled and has reduced the efficacy of doping protocols whereby gifted riders plus innovative training programs can compete with doped riders. Sorry, but that's the real functional goal of anti-doping policies.

Translation: Not a fan, a fanboy.
Why was Wigans never "gifted" before and now all of a sudden in the twilight of his career he is?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I think it's fine if you want to question Wiggins and demand transparency. I'm not even a Sky or Wiggins fan. I am interested in one question: can Sky (and others) performance be quantified via metrics that allow comparisons across cohorts, and, if so, what implications follow from that? If there is no way to statistically distinguish a doped performance from a non-doped one, then anti-doping policies have achieved a major victory. That's not grounds for inferring a rider is not doped, but it does indicate the playing field has been somewhat leveled and has reduced the efficacy of doping protocols whereby gifted riders plus innovative training programs can compete with doped riders. Sorry, but that's the real functional goal of anti-doping policies.

Sorry, but WTF?

No, that means that anti-doping policies are entirely missing it.

 

[mastersracer]

except we don't know exactly what a non-doped rider can do. We know some limits that no non-doped rider can cross, but those are outer limits of the clearly impossible. We simply don't know where the real limits are because we only have good data from the post-EPO era.

I agree, but we can have a reasonable debate about this, e..g, the debate between Tucker and Coggan, the Coggan prize, etc.

 

[BroDeal]

Oh, Jeebus. The Wiggins/Sky fans are now denying that they are fans, just like the Armstrong fanboys do. There must be a big book of fanboy forumcraft. They all follow the same strategy.

"I am not a fan. I'm just here constantly, day after day, week after week, putting up a desperate and rather pathetic defense while attacking the nonbelievers because...um, uh, uh. I'm not a fan. Believe me."

Sack up and admit it. Don't play us for fools.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Oh, Jeebus. The Wiggins/Sky fans are now denying that they are fans, just like the Armstrong fanboys do. There must be a big book of fanboy forumcraft. They all follow the same strategy.

"I am not a fan. I'm just here constantly, day after day, week after week, putting up a desperate and rather pathetic defense while attacking the nonbelievers because...um, uh, uh. I'm not a fan. Believe me."

Sack up and admit it. Don't play us for fools.

I was chuckling all the way to "Sack up", and then I guffawed.

You owe me a keyboard...

 

[FabulousCandelabra]

That's not grounds for inferring a rider is not doped, but it does indicate the playing field has been somewhat leveled

Playing field.... has been.. somewhat... leveled??? Did you follow the tour...?

oh wait, I see what you did there.. the playing field was leveled as in, smashed into a level pancake type of shape by a giant british sledgehammer...

 

[Ferminal]

I bought into the "level playing field" for the Tour 2011 and Giro 2012.

Now it's going to become an arms race.

 

[sittingbison]

...Now it's going to become an arms race.

without wanting politics to enter this debate, there are several observations I would like to make on on arms races:
1) mutually assured destruction (MAD) kept the race going strong, if you fall behind you can get destroyed
2) eventually won by the biggest spender ie Ray-gun (the other guy just could not keep up ergo et demonstratum got destroyed - see (1))

So, it looks like there really ARE similarities between bike races and arms race

 

[Cerberus]

without wanting politics to enter this debate, there are several observations I would like to make on on arms races:
1) mutually assured destruction (MAD) kept the race going strong, if you fall behind you can get destroyed
2) eventually won by the biggest spender ie Ray-gun (the other guy just could not keep up ergo et demonstratum got destroyed - see (1))

So, it looks like there really ARE similarities between bike races and arms race

The political scientist in me have to protest. Mutually assured destruction means that both sides are destroyed if they engage in a nuclear (or doping) war. if doping was like that all the teams would stack massive amounts of doping, stare aggressively at the other while trying to convince the other side that one false move and they'd use it, but ultimately they'd never actually use any of their dope. Sadly I do not think that's whats going on.

 

[sittingbison]

excellent observation Cerberus, thanks for clarifying that with your scientific outlook.

So it would be more like WW1? The Black Hand triggering a conflagration that needed the arsenal of weapons the industrialists and financiers supplied?

OMG he HAS got The Black Hand....and its a Black Power Salute to boot!!

 

[Maxiton]

The political scientist in me have to protest. Mutually assured destruction means that both sides are destroyed if they engage in a nuclear (or doping) war. if doping was like that all the teams would stack massive amounts of doping, stare aggressively at the other while trying to convince the other side that one false move and they'd use it, but ultimately they'd never actually use any of their dope. Sadly I do not think that's whats going on.

Actually, I think the Mutually Assured Destruction metaphor is apt, only in this case (pro cycling) the missiles were launched decades ago, and then fired again. In cycling the destruction occurs in slow motion, over time.

 

[simo1733]

Nicely done mastersracer, you've proven you're not only irritating in English, but can miss the niceties of French vis-a-vis Basso's tweet...

Nothing like "sacrifice and dedication can transform a man in yellow".

Enough...

Can you translate "Honour,respect,admiration"

 

[noddy69]

I think it's fine if you want to question Wiggins and demand transparency. I'm not even a Sky or Wiggins fan. I am interested in one question: can Sky (and others) performance be quantified via metrics that allow comparisons across cohorts, and, if so, what implications follow from that? If there is no way to statistically distinguish a doped performance from a non-doped one, then anti-doping policies have achieved a major victory. That's not grounds for inferring a rider is not doped, but it does indicate the playing field has been somewhat leveled and has reduced the efficacy of doping protocols whereby gifted riders plus innovative training programs can compete with doped riders. Sorry, but that's the real functional goal of anti-doping policies.

Honestly. If there was no way to distinguish it then they are either all doping or none as even basic common sense would tell you that guys dope to improve performance.You dont need science to figure that one out. As to the second point what exactly stops a gifted rider with an innovative training programme doping to gain an advantage? Cause he can win clean with innovation....cmon that argument does not add up against dopers. They have the advantage , the history of doping in sport proves that without a doubt, and also backs up the argument that no amount of innovative training will change that.

 

[armchairclimber]

It is, as you'd expect from Kimmage, a good article. Brailsford has a couple of questions to answer for "reputational" credibility.
However, the article is a million miles away from suggesting that Wiggins is anything but clean.

 

[noddy69]

It is, as you'd expect from Kimmage, a good article. Brailsford has a couple of questions to answer for "reputational" credibility.
However, the article is a million miles away from suggesting that Wiggins is anything but clean.

It does ask pertinent questions that need to be addressed for credibility especially after the tour performances by the whole team. We need more people like Kimmage in cycling. The whole code of silence nonsense needs to go, for the good of cycling. Wiggins has gone from being vocal against dopers to obeying the law of the peloton, which if people are honest is not for the good of cycling but for the good of the doper. It serves no other purpose but to hide wrong doing. Why do you need to be silent on doping in a clean peloton , that would make no sense. Outrage at dopers should be expected by athletes who are being cheated out of their chance at glory, or even just a fair shot. When that does not happen you know something is sorely wrong and until more people back Kimmage et al cycling will stay a dopers paradise.
Ill still watch, but until the riders are screaming to get rid of dopers then ill stay a sceptic.

 

[sittingbison]

...the article is a million miles away from suggesting that Wiggins is anything but clean.

sorry armchairclimber, I have to respectfully disagree.

Its probably more like the small distance between lines?

 

[Darryl Webster]

Oh, I know. I know....

Almost walked down that path myself.

Saw a couple of team mates actually vanish after getting popped, one who topped himself and another who just wandered off into the sunset of non-cycling life.

The crazy aggressive self-talk is what does it, coupled with the secrecy. They could never really have a tight team mate or friend, could never tell anyone what they were doing, could never feel good about what they did; all the while trying to tell themselves that "it's okay, everyone must be doing it", I must HAVE to do this to make it...

Tragic, sad, and cheating. That's why I hate it so much. QUOTE]

I know of ,and out of respect I wont name him, one former british champion who drank himself to death for very much these reasons. A very sad and tragic loss.

 

[Snafu352]

Loads of innuendo and no substance.

Yawn.

How was the Guardian article being silent on dopiing??

Despite it being in that vile rag the Daily Mail the Paul Kimmage article was a good read, but it doesn't suggest anything other than Sky have 1) some explaining to do and 2) may have been silly in employing a doctor associated with a doped team.

Reading "between the lines" or adding "my mum's, brother's best friend heard down the pub from his mates, uncles dog that..." is entirely meaningless and merely illustrates the posters own (biased / worthless / carrying an agenda / based on zero to flimsy evidence) opinion.

 

[Franklin]

Loads of innuendo and no substance.

Yawn.

How was the Guardian article being silent on dopiing??

Despite it being in that vile rag the Daily Mail the Paul Kimmage article was a good read, but it doesn't suggest anything other than Sky have 1) some explaining to do and 2) may have been silly in employing a doctor associated with a doped team.

Reading "between the lines" or adding "my mum's, brother's best friend heard down the pub from his mates, uncles dog that..." is entirely meaningless and merely illustrates the posters own (biased / worthless / carrying an agenda / based on zero to flimsy evidence) opinion.

So why would you hire Leinders?

A simple question wouldn't you say?

How dare we be suspicious! How dare we!

Cycling has been through hell and back and riders have been cheating themselves and the public. Wiggins expected the public to be critical for years to come and he fully agreed with that sentiment.

But how dare we be critical! How dare we?

 

[Benotti69]

It is, as you'd expect from Kimmage, a good article. Brailsford has a couple of questions to answer for "reputational" credibility.
However, the article is a million miles away from suggesting that Wiggins is anything but clean.

I completely disagree.

For those with an open mind it was obvious what kimmage wrote.

Brailsford and TeamSky had a tome written about being clean and how they not were to going the doping doctor non Brit doctor route.

The tome also included not hiring anyone with a sniff of doping.

After hiring Yates, Rogers and Leinders to name 3, that tome was used as a doorstop, nothing more.

Now that screams doping to those in the sport who know how to read what Sky have done never mind the evidence of the TdF with Sky trains in the mountains and the Yellow Jersey risking valuable energy the day before the final TT in a bunch sprint leadout.
______________

Does anyone for a minute think that the other big teams are saying the game is up for doping as Sky have done the impossible? Win the TdF with a clean rider. No chance. They are all scrambling now to find out what doping is going on in swimming and how it can help cycling. It is obviously something to do with oxygen and power coupled with weight loss.

I bet Leinders is being offered big money for changing teams as we speak.

 

[Snafu352]

A simple quesiton that has been answered.

Apparently you and others don't like the answer. Diddums.

To express suspicion and a degree of un-comfortableness with the situation is one thing, to post page after page of innuedo without substance is sad and boring.

Heck i'm not comfortable with the situation in cycling at present but i'm not getting my tin foil hat on either.

To those "experts" and "senior members" who will almost definitely tell me i just don't know what they "know" but they couldn't possibly name names or events, your contribution is worthless without substance.
More worryingly if you are not prepared to name names and events yet claim to have this knowledge then you are part of and perpetrating the problem.

 

[Snafu352]

After hiring Yates, Rogers and Leinders to name 3, that tome was used as a doorstop, nothing more.

Now that screams doping to those in the sport who know how to read what Sky have done...

Please could you outline exactly how this screams doping?

I get the "well they hired 3 people who have an association or have been caught in the past" bit but beyond that rather obvious and simple "revelation" and the fact that to do that they must have thrown away their original declaration what exactly "screams doping?"

Do you have the performance data and training data that will show exactly how the dope has improved the riders performances magically in too short a space of time?

Or are you basing your assessment on "gosh they are climbing faster than i thought they would and perhaps i don't really like Wiggins / insert as appropriate here"?

I'm trying to get to the bottom of your scientific approach to the situation to understand the substantial evidence that you possess that enables you and others to make your statements of "fact" with such certainty.

 

[D Avoid]

Glad someone's paying him to write. It's a good article, and it raises a lot of the questions people have been raising here.

Brailsford's explanation that the hiring of Leinders was because of the death of Txema González was possibly one of the most pathetic excuses I have ever read.

When cornered or not having the correct answer to mind people tell little lies that turn into very big cover ups!!

 

[pugdog]

Here is my rather amateurish translation of an article by Vayer. I've bolded the parts concerning Sky. Just as a reminder Veyer was a major player in the Festina affair.

Frank Schleck, the doper who was thrown out, is right: the Tour is “poisoned” . It has been for a long time now, but the poison is still active. To convince oneself one need only compare the power of the riders in watts. We have picked out four that are particularly striking this year. The first one kills more than it hurts. It’s the sweetheart, Thomas Voeckler who, like his clone Virenque in the grand era of Festina, steals the spotted jersey and the heart of the French. Saint Thomas, with full awareness, but without the knowledge of his calves so thinned that they are almost the same size as his tibias, is able, as Richard was before, to go forth in the mountains whilst maintaining in the four cols an average of “375-390” watts, without weakening, accelerating when he wished. He crosses first the Aubisque, Tourmalet, Aspin, Peyersourde in 5 h 32 min 2s finishing the 197 km victorious, fresh as a daisy at an average speed of 35.59 kph.

This stage Pau-Bagnères-de-Louchon is a a classic in the Tour (1980, 1983, 1998). In 1998 - the Festina affair - Marco Pantani allowed Massi to win in 5 h 49 m for 196.5 k at 33.72 kph: almost 2 kph slower! Another record beaten by Thomas, the next day: the col of Menté, 9.3 k at 9.1%. in 28min 20secs with a mutant’s power of 442 watts, he engraves his name, in the big chain ring in the last 300 metres at a gradient of 8%. There he resembles more particularly the duo Rasmussen-Contador of the great years (of doping). This second comparison is remarkable: it knocks you out rather than frightens you.

With an average of 430 watts, the favourites swallowed, like in the best of times, the col of the Peyresourde in 26 mins 45 secs. From Saint-Aventin they lost 34 sec to the unreal time done by Contador who was trying with massive accelerations, like a series of injections to drop Rasmussen in 2007 (23 mins 26 secs)). Moreover Froome and Wiggins then accelerated in the last climb to Peyragudes. They produced 470 watts for 7 mins 3secs (2.95 k at 7.93%). Froome waited for Wiggins, he had the strength to do close to 500 watts.If he hadn’t put the handbrake on to wait for his leader, he would have joined that group of world record holders of the best “performers” in history, Pantani, Armstrong, Contador.

The third comparison that brings up a smile rather than any surprise, is someone who was suspended who is “stronger than before” .... the title of Virenque’s book. Alejandro Valverde won at Peyragudes doing the identical feat that Vinokourov did in 2007. The two riders, with a gap of five years, produced the same power climbing the Port of Balès and the Peyresourde with 385 watts then 405 watts in the two cols. Vinkourov, like Valverde, had gone in the morning break and won solo at Loudenvielle. The Kazakhe was then kicked out for blood doping.

The last comparison which excites us rather than stunning us: in 2011, after 16 years of suffering through heavy doping, we finally celebrated, in these columns, the absence of any rider going at over 410 watts in the last cols of the high mountain stages, it being the level at which doping is suspected. Alas, there are four riders this year who have broken that barrier, with 415 for the Wiggins, Froome,and Nibali and 410 watts for the fourth Van den Broecke. Looking forward to 2013 and the come-back of Contador and his contaminated meat. Till then it is doubtful the antidote will have been found.

link to the le Monde article: http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article...aison-le-poison-agit-encore_1736926_3242.html