Kimmage on Wiggins, Sky

[del1962]

Do you think this kind of comment might undermine your 'Wiggins is doping' arguments? As it might suggest that a subjective personal dislike/hatred of Wiggins is driving your opposition to him and so weighting any conclusions to 'evidence' that you find.

I have to admit the hate in the response to the article which has nowt to do with doping suspicions kindof reveals where these ppl are coming from.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Do you think this kind of comment might undermine your 'Wiggins is doping' arguments? As it might suggest that a subjective personal dislike/hatred of Wiggins is driving your opposition to him and so weighting any conclusions to 'evidence' that you find.

Possibly, yes.

However there is ample evidence of the spoilt nature of this person pre-2009: ongoing pro team contracts with 0 results is one. Not only 0 results, but a reputation as someone who was regularly drunk. This is not something I am making up.

Receiving ~50,000 GBP from BC for doing 6-12 x 4km pursuits each year, and (for example) having a BC team dedicated to him for one 4.1km stage of one race in 2006 (where he came 21st) is another.

Note, however, that only 1 sentence was dedicated to denigrating Brad's attitude, and the rest of the post is sticking a finger into the Team's chest for their lack of after-success care for their rider. If I really hated Brad, uneqivocally, why would I care that his team does not appear to be looking after him at all? Or providing on-going support.

Ok it could be perceived as an opportunistic spray at anything British, granted. You'll have to take my word that it's not.

If you are suggesting I hate Brad, you'd be wrong. My feelings of dislike are stronger for apologists like armchairclimber than they are for Brad. What I dislike is dishonesty - and doping and succeeding via doping is dishonest.

Brad is causing other riders to miss out on their just rewards, through his doping to win. ie treating other riders poorly.

Sky are also treating their rider poorly (IMO). A little attention to detail would surely have lead you to think Brad is about to get elevated savagely into the public eye and some help wtih coping with that would not go astray. Alas, there appears to be no attention to any detail of this sort at all.

Brad is a rider hurting other riders through his actions.
Sky is allowing their rider to be hurt through their inaction.

I dislike both (doping actions and team inaction).

 

[Velo_vicar]

Possibly, yes.

However there is ample evidence of the spoilt nature of this person pre-2009: ongoing pro team contracts with 0 results is one. Not only 0 results, but a reputation as someone who was regularly drunk. This is not something I am making up.

Receiving ~50,000 GBP from BC for doing 6-12 x 4km pursuits each year, and (for example) having a BC team dedicated to him for one 4.1km stage of one race in 2006 (where he came 21st) is another.

Note, however, that only 1 sentence was dedicated to denigrating Brad's attitude, and the rest of the post is sticking a finger into the Team's chest for their lack of after-success care for their rider. If I really hated Brad, uneqivocally, why would I care that his team does not appear to be looking after him at all? Or providing on-going support.

Ok it could be perceived as an opportunistic spray at anything British, granted. You'll have to take my word that it's not.

If you are suggesting I hate Brad, you'd be wrong. My feelings of dislike are stronger for apologists like armchairclimber than they are for Brad. What I dislike is dishonesty - and doping and succeeding via doping is dishonest.

Brad is causing other riders to miss out on their just rewards, through his doping to win. ie treating other riders poorly.

Sky are also treating their rider poorly (IMO). A little attention to detail would surely have lead you to think Brad is about to get elevated savagely into the public eye and some help wtih coping with that would not go astray. Alas, there appears to be no attention to any detail of this sort at all.

Brad is a rider hurting other riders through his actions.
Sky is allowing their rider to be hurt through their inaction.

I dislike both (doping actions and team inaction).

Dear Dear Wiggo

Is there anything that could prove to you that he hasn't doped. Any evidence that might change your mind? because a closed mind does not a good investigator make. You state elsewhere that you got interested in looking into doping when BW made his 'bone idle w*nkers comment. It seems that you have taken it very personally and hold a real personal hatred towards BW which will make an objective look at evidence very difficult and i'm afraid does effect the credibility of any arguments you present.

BTW the 50000 lottery money was given exactly for the aim of restricting BW to 6-12 4k persuits. It is the whole point of lottery funding which is given to athletes who have the best chance of getting a gold. The money means an athlete doesn't have to be distracted by things which might affect his medal chances. (like a Road race career?) It is not selfish getting that money it simply means he is considered an elite athlete. If he didn't get the gold he wouldn't have got any more money. If that was selfishness what about Chris Hoy who would have got it for even less metres covered. Having said that i think spoiltness/driveness is probably a marker of all elite athletes.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Dear Dear Wiggo

Is there anything that could prove to you that he hasn't doped. Any evidence that might change your mind? because a closed mind does not a good investigator make. You state elsewhere that you got interested in looking into doping when BW made his 'bone idle w*nkers comment. It seems that you have taken it very personally and hold a real personal hatred towards BW which will make an objective look at evidence very difficult and i'm afraid does effect the credibility of any arguments you present.

BTW the 50000 lottery money was given exactly for the aim of restricting BW to 6-12 4k persuits. It is the whole point of lottery funding which is given to athletes who have the best chance of getting a gold. The money means an athlete doesn't have to be distracted by things which might affect his medal chances. (like a Road race career?) It is not selfish getting that money it simply means he is considered an elite athlete. If he didn't get the gold he wouldn't have got any more money. If that was selfishness what about Chris Hoy who would have got it for even less metres covered. Having said that i think spoiltness/driveness is probably a marker of all elite athletes.

Dear Velo_vicar

Is there anything that could prove to you that Brad doped? Any evidence that might change your mind? Because your fanboy status is sticking out like the proverbial.

I wrote "spoilt, self-entitled". Neither of these words is "selfish", although that would also be an apt description of Brad, it is not what I wrote, and not what the lottery funding describes. Spoilt does. Self-entitled does.

You and the rest of the Sky / Wiggins apologists would love to make this about me and my alleged hate, because then you can discredit my arguments without any effort - Oh he's just a hater - and that's your prerogative, but it's lazy. Very Lance 2.0 as well.

If at any stage I tell a lie, or get something wrong, you or anyone else are more than capable of pointing out my error. People have done in the past, and will continue to do so in the future, alas, for I am only human.

I have edited posts once corrected, and acknowledge my mistakes. Krebs Cycle's occassional apopleptic outbursts notwithstanding.

Ryder Hesjedal never called me a bone idle lazy w*nker. How are you going to explain my apparent hatred for him? Because as far as I am concerned, his performance and blood profile from the 2012 Giro are equally as dodgy.

The only thing I hate in here is dishonesty. Unlike some people who leap straight to hate and apply it to the rider on behalf of a poster, lazily; step back a bit, buddy, and realise some of us can hate an action and not the actor.

I offer arguments and theories and constantly get emotional responses in return, but rarely does someone actually try to contest the point or the argument or the theory. And those that do offer counter arguments are typically easily debunked - the l'Avenir stage is a classic example.

So yes, Brad turned me onto the whole doping notion, and yes, as the most prominent set of dogs bits around, his results from 2009 onwards lend themselves to substantial scrutiny. But my efforts are not limited to one rider. And to label those efforts as "hate" is myopic and patently missing the point.

 

[armchairclimber]

Brad doped because he thought Dear Wiggo was a ****er...which probably means I dope too. Or sommat.

 

[Velo_vicar]

Dear Velo_vicar

Is there anything that could prove to you that Brad doped? Any evidence that might change your mind? Because your fanboy status is sticking out like the proverbial.

I wrote "spoilt, self-entitled". Neither of these words is "selfish", although that would also be an apt description of Brad, it is not what I wrote, and not what the lottery funding describes. Spoilt does. Self-entitled does.

You and the rest of the Sky / Wiggins apologists would love to make this about me and my alleged hate, because then you can discredit my arguments without any effort - Oh he's just a hater - and that's your prerogative, but it's lazy. Very Lance 2.0 as well.

If at any stage I tell a lie, or get something wrong, you or anyone else are more than capable of pointing out my error. People have done in the past, and will continue to do so in the future, alas, for I am only human.

I have edited posts once corrected, and acknowledge my mistakes. Krebs Cycle's occassional apopleptic outbursts notwithstanding.

Ryder Hesjedal never called me a bone idle lazy w*nker. How are you going to explain my apparent hatred for him? Because as far as I am concerned, his performance and blood profile from the 2012 Giro are equally as dodgy.

The only thing I hate in here is dishonesty. Unlike some people who leap straight to hate and apply it to the rider on behalf of a poster, lazily; step back a bit, buddy, and realise some of us can hate an action and not the actor.

I offer arguments and theories and constantly get emotional responses in return, but rarely does someone actually try to contest the point or the argument or the theory. And those that do offer counter arguments are typically easily debunked - the l'Avenir stage is a classic example.

So yes, Brad turned me onto the whole doping notion, and yes, as the most prominent set of dogs bits around, his results from 2009 onwards lend themselves to substantial scrutiny. But my efforts are not limited to one rider. And to label those efforts as "hate" is myopic and patently missing the point.

'I am a optimistic realist. I want to think the best of people but have seen enough to know I might be disappointed down the line. 'Evidence' would change my mind, like a team mate being an eye witness (Andreu) or a team helper (o'neil). Or receipts of money being transferred for doping products/advice. Or bullying tactics against clean riders. All the evidence put forward can be read the other way and so it is just 'fanboy' v 'hater' and who can shout the loudest (your winning here).
Some of the 'proof' like 4 sky riders reaching the top of a climb together does look like postal but it is also just good tactics. Every team in the peloton would want to have as many riders as possible at the top of every climb. How they manage this is the debate, that they have managed it is not proof. BTW my favourite accusation ( not one of yours) is that sky looked at their power meters so as not to go to fast and be suspicious.
I am a fan(man) of sky but not obsessively so. I reckon my level of liking is more objective than your hating on this subject. I am realistic enough and watched enough cycling to know I could be disappointed down the line but I would hate to miss genuine 'clean' performances because I had damned the lot of them. Sport is there to enjoy and I enjoy it, with a healthy dose of realism.

 

[Tinman]

'I am a optimistic realist. I want to think the best of people but have seen enough to know I might be disappointed down the line.

I am a fan(man) of sky but not obsessively so.

I reckon my level of liking is more objective than your hating on this subject. I am realistic enough and watched enough cycling to know I could be disappointed down the line but I would hate to miss genuine 'clean' performances because I had damned the lot of them.

Brings to mind an all time Australian classic movie quote: "Tell him he's dreamin"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK9h4gRXX9o

 

[Dear Wiggo]

'I am a optimistic realist. I want to think the best of people but have seen enough to know I might be disappointed down the line. 'Evidence' would change my mind, like a team mate being an eye witness (Andreu) or a team helper (o'neil). Or receipts of money being transferred for doping products/advice. Or bullying tactics against clean riders. All the evidence put forward can be read the other way and so it is just 'fanboy' v 'hater' and who can shout the loudest (your winning here).

The same was said of the UK track team managing to all peak simultaneously also - and I think that was by a Brit, said somewhat in awe.

Given the brash showboating by Lance and the subsequent delay between brag and finally pinning something to him - and only because a Gov't had backed a cycling team and it warranted Federal attention - I am very doubtful something similar can happen again. Team mates, I mean.

In the hypothetical where a bike mechanic on the team overhears something or is asked to do something, to whom does he talk about his suspicions / evidence? Is there an avenue for that? BC are Sky are BC. And if said mechanic has no other quals beyond wrenching, what's his job prospects look like if he is
a. unsuccessful in proving but outed in the process
b. successful in proving but outed in the process?

And what impact do the draconian UK libel laws have on this process?

Mike Andersen ended up going to NZ just so he could earn a crust and get some peace and quiet. I'm not saying Wiggins is as diabolical as Lance - not by a longshot - but the circumstances bear comparison.

As for the rider - it would have to be someone in the clique. A well-paid, remotely successful rider due to the "program" who is facing the same prospects as above, except he is complicit in the doping.

Some of the 'proof' like 4 sky riders reaching the top of a climb together does look like postal but it is also just good tactics. Every team in the peloton would want to have as many riders as possible at the top of every climb. How they manage this is the debate, that they have managed it is not proof.

Yes. A good tactic. The Dutch rider ejected from 2008 world track champs won 2 events this year: the Dutch Nationals and some other race. He picked them at the start of the year. That's pretty darn impressive if you ask me. Tactics.

I think their tactic was to ride so hard noone else could attack and most could not keep up. That's not what I call a tactic. It's what I call superior physiology x 4.

I could be missing the tactic to which you refer - so feel free to elucidate there.

BTW my favourite accusation ( not one of yours) is that sky looked at their power meters so as not to go to fast and be suspicious.

Yep, one of mine

I am a fan(man) of sky but not obsessively so. I reckon my level of liking is more objective than your hating on this subject. I am realistic enough and watched enough cycling to know I could be disappointed down the line but I would hate to miss genuine 'clean' performances because I had damned the lot of them. Sport is there to enjoy and I enjoy it, with a healthy dose of realism.

Sure. I am happy for you to be better than me at this. I'm a passionate person and pretty darn black and white. Grey is not something I understand or do very well, to my detriment, no doubt. People like (you), Merckx Index, Liberty Seguros, Ferminal and a few others post with far more credibility and are far more even handed, no question.

The "explanations" I have been presented with, here, by PhDs and Sky fans alike are not enough to convince me the Wiggins performance is real.

And the logic that the peloton is clean, therefore the autobusser can now kick everyone's *** from Feb to August, particularly with things like Padua popping up again lead me to doubt the reality of Wiggins' performance.

I want to see the blood profiles of the domestiques - coz that's the most likely "clean = real" performance for me. Finishing the Tour - or any of the GTs - that's epic, I don't care where you finish. Unfortunately, sponsors and even the clean teams, do care, very much and are only interested in winning.

 

[argyllflyer]

For some people, the next decade is a write-off. No matter who wins what between now and say 2022, there are people here who would never believe in performances. It's sad but for them, there is no joy left to be had in cycling.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

For some people, the next decade is a write-off. No matter who wins what between now and say 2022, there are people here who would never believe in performances. It's sad but for them, there is no joy left to be had in cycling.

I had 2.5 hours of cycling enjoyment today. It's summer, and I am in the Aussie alps, with little traffic and plenty of fresh air.

What cycling did you enjoy today?

 

[coinneach]

I had 2.5 hours of cycling enjoyment today. It's summer, and I am in the Aussie alps, with little traffic and plenty of fresh air.

What cycling did you enjoy today?

I am jealous! Its coming on winter here: I had 2.5 hours in mixture of rain and wind: 8 of us in the group, got tooted at and shouted at by car drivers; normal kind of a Saturday.

I am mystified how you are so negative about cycling when you have such lovely conditions; presumably you think all 3 GT tour winners last year were at it? What I have never read from you is any acknowledgement that SOMEONE has to win a race....team strength, tactics, heroism, training, ability, luck all play a big part, yet when anyone wins, all you seem to see is DOPER.

Anyway, enjoy the summer and the Aussie Alps!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I am jealous! Its coming on winter here: I had 2.5 hours in mixture of rain and wind: 8 of us in the group, got tooted at and shouted at by car drivers; normal kind of a Saturday.

I am mystified how you are so negative about cycling when you have such lovely conditions; presumably you think all 3 GT tour winners last year were at it? What I have never read from you is any acknowledgement that SOMEONE has to win a race....team strength, tactics, heroism, training, ability, luck all play a big part, yet when anyone wins, all you seem to see is DOPER.

Anyway, enjoy the summer and the Aussie Alps!

Hypothetical: Evans won this year's tour, beating Wiggins in the final TT and his attack in the mountains stuck, putting 2 minutes into the group.

BMC release blood values from the Tour, and I am posting something doesn't look right, that the performance was not believable.

Would you still be having a go at me?

 

[Cycle Chic]

Ignoring the Evidence

I am jealous! Its coming on winter here: I had 2.5 hours in mixture of rain and wind: 8 of us in the group, got tooted at and shouted at by car drivers; normal kind of a Saturday.

I am mystified how you are so negative about cycling when you have such lovely conditions; presumably you think all 3 GT tour winners last year were at it? What I have never read from you is any acknowledgement that SOMEONE has to win a race....team strength, tactics, heroism, training, ability, luck all play a big part, yet when anyone wins, all you seem to see is DOPER.

Anyway, enjoy the summer and the Aussie Alps!

Again another personal attack on a forum user. Do you really think that cycling fans 'hate' professional cyclists ?? do you really think they have nothing else in their lives ?

It is fans like yourself who perpetuated the Lance Era...'ooooh why is everyone being so nasty? lets just enjoy our beautiful sport'

Wake up and read The Secret Race ! not so beautiful knowing teams are druggies with syringes and blood bags scrounging around europe trying to get THEIR FIX so they can win the next race and renew their million dollar contract.

 

[del1962]

Again another personal attack on a forum user. Do you really think that cycling fans 'hate' professional cyclists ?? do you really think they have nothing else in their lives ?

It is fans like yourself who perpetuated the Lance Era...'ooooh why is everyone being so nasty? lets just enjoy our beautiful sport'

Wake up and read The Secret Race ! not so beautiful knowing teams are druggies with syringes and blood bags scrounging around europe trying to get THEIR FIX so they can win the next race and renew their million dollar contract.

Oh the irony reading Coineach's post and yours it is easy to see who has made the biggest personnel attack, (I'll give you a clue it is not an anagram of Eoinchac

 

[coinneach]

Again another personal attack on a forum user. Do you really think that cycling fans 'hate' professional cyclists ?? do you really think they have nothing else in their lives ?

It is fans like yourself who perpetuated the Lance Era...'ooooh why is everyone being so nasty? lets just enjoy our beautiful sport'

Wake up and read The Secret Race ! not so beautiful knowing teams are druggies with syringes and blood bags scrounging around europe trying to get THEIR FIX so they can win the next race and renew their million dollar contract.

I read The Secret Race in 24 hours: couldn't put it down...my book of the year, no doubt.
But its not bang up to date, and performances have slowed since then.
I hope I retain a healthy skepticism about procycling, but I don't see ALL of it through dope tinted glasses.

As for Dear Wiggo "Hypothetical: Evans won this year's tour, beating Wiggins in the final TT and his attack in the mountains stuck, putting 2 minutes into the group.

BMC release blood values from the Tour, and I am posting something doesn't look right, that the performance was not believable.

Would you still be having a go at me? "

Edit: I've always been a fan of Cadel, and always thought he was probably clean. He had a lot of bad luck early in his career and some good luck later, not unlike Wiggins. However
the Evans I saw in 2012 NEVER looked like he could win the Tour, so I suppose I'd be a bit suspicious too.....the Wiggins I saw this year always looked like he could win it.


I don't know what your expertise is in reading blood samples, but I'm willing to leave that to the experts. As for top teams keeping secrets: how do you think they retain any advantage over eachother?

Not actually having a go at you mate: we just see things differently....maybe you got too much sunshine? Care to bottle some up and send it over here??

 

[ultimobici]

Hypothetical: Evans won this year's tour, beating Wiggins in the final TT and his attack in the mountains stuck, putting 2 minutes into the group.

BMC release blood values from the Tour, and I am posting something doesn't look right, that the performance was not believable.

Would you still be having a go at me?

The likelihood of any of that happening is remote.

Evans is not in the same league as Wiggins against the watch
Evans is more of a limit losses rider in the mountains
You having a pop at Evans? Do me a favour!

 

[coinneach]

On a slightly tangential point, there was an interesting article recently here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/oct/14/vaughan-bell-on-science-forensics?INTCMP=SRCH

saying that "Forensic evidence is widely considered to be the result of purely objective lab tests, but there's growing proof that psychological bias plays a part"

I'm afraid I wouldn't trust Dear Wiggo to analyse Wiggins blood samples, but then again, I suppose his point is that we can't totally trust the experts either.

 

[biker jk]

On a slightly tangential point, there was an interesting article recently here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/oct/14/vaughan-bell-on-science-forensics?INTCMP=SRCH

saying that "Forensic evidence is widely considered to be the result of purely objective lab tests, but there's growing proof that psychological bias plays a part"

I'm afraid I wouldn't trust Dear Wiggo to analyse Wiggins blood samples, but then again, I suppose his point is that we can't totally trust the experts either.

Why doesn't Sky release Wiggins' blood values and have Dr Ashenden examine them? Surely that would help provide transparency?

 

[simo1733]

Why doesn't Sky release Wiggins' blood values and have Dr Ashenden examine them? Surely that would help provide transparency?

Better to have them tested by a leading expert who is less concerned about celebrity.

 

[Krebs cycle]

3. Performance levels. These are in no way conclusive of doping, since they are within the acceptable range of athletic performance. This could be seen as evidence of "cleanliness". On the other hand, you might say that of the five Sky riders who have shown a marked improvement in their performance over the last year, four of those belong to the "inner sanctum" (the other being Nordhaug). One of these four, Froome had only previously shown brief flashes of form, but has podiumed 2GTs in the last year. He also suffered from a disease affecting the blood. So where is this improvement from and is the disease a cover up for a crazy passport, one might ask. In the mountains at the TdF he seemed a level above everybody else. It is natural that a cyclist of his age and history should improve, but to that degree after a serious illness?

Ok I will have one last stab at this....

Wiggins has not improved his performance in short ITTs such as prologues compared with Cancellara from 2007 through 2012.

Compare:
TdF prologue 2007 (7.9km)
Cancellara = 8:50
Wiggins @ 23sec

TdF prologue 2012 (6.4km)
Cancellara = 7:13
Wiggins @ 7sec

When you plug these numbers into cyclingpowermodels, assign 7kg as bike weight and equalize wind and gradient to zero for each rider and each prologue (which are assumptions but the best we can do without proper environmental data) and you use the riders own estimated cda (but you use Hincapie's CdA from 2007 instead of Wiggins since in 2007 Wiggins weighed about 78kg which is close to Hincapie's 79) then you get the following estimated power outputs:

2007
Cancellara = 597W
Wiggins = 529W

2012
Cancellara = 583W
Wiggins = 526W

ZOMG! No change!!

A 5% increase in VO2max from doping means that Wiggins should at least have been matching Cancellara's time in 2012 and a 10% increase in VO2max means that Wiggins should have beaten him by about 10sec.

So basically everything hangs on the weight issue. If Wiggins lost power and he went backwards by 10-20sec over 7kms or so, then it looks as though he could have regained that from doping. If Wiggins did not lose power as a result of dropping from 77-78kg (2007) to 71-72kg (2012) then his prologue performances indicate he did not commence a doping program, or at the very least he didn't get much out of it if he did. Furthermore, Wiggins could have lost power, but improved cda or bike handling skills so that his avg velocity for a given power improved slightly. I wonder if Team Sky worked on that sort of stuff over the past 3yrs?

edit: and just in case the following point has escaped you, what the above shows is that 5-10% changes in absolute VO2max and thus peak aerobic power only make about 10-20sec changes in time over these short distances. These obviously extend out to minutes over longer distances eg: 50km but the question is how much do differences in cda and bike handling skills make?

Wiggins did 50.0kph average in stage 19 ITT of the 2012 TdF which says 462W if you apply the default assumptions (eg: zero wind, gradient etc). If you drop the cda down to 0.235 the power drops to 454 and 446 @ 0.23. Those differences are equivalent to changes in VO2max of 1.5% (if we assume that Wiggins rode at 90% VO2max for the ITT). So a drop in cda from 0.2398 down to 0.23 would mean that Wiggins could have a VO2max 3% lower and still go the same speed.

If acoggan is reading this I would be interested to know if that sort of change in cda is possible or reasonable? Is the default value of 0.2398 even correct??

Now the point here going back to the weight loss issue is that Wiggins could lose 3% of his absolute VO2max and still go the same speed in a long (50km) ITT as a result of weight loss (ie: 462 down to 446W), but lets assume 462W is his FTP @ 77.5kg and 446W is his FTP @ 71.5kg. That would change the FTP w/kg from 5.96 up to 6.24.

Comprende? A weight loss of 7kg could be achieved with a corresponding decrease in VO2max power at 3% and this would INCREASE w/kg by a whopping 9.5% but the same person would only need to improve their cda by 0.01 units to maintain ITT performance.

acoggan is the go to guy for this.... how hard is it to alter cda by 0.01 units????????

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Ok I will have one last stab at this....

Wiggins has not improved his performance in short ITTs such as prologues compared with Cancellara from 2007 through 2012.

Compare:
TdF prologue 2007 (7.9km)
Cancellara = 8:50
Wiggins @ 23sec
ie Wiggins needs to produce 13.5% more power to match Cancellara - and has the same (or more) weight as Cancellara
Type this into google: (60*7.9/(8+50/60))/(60*7.9/(8+73/60)))^3

Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Cofidis - Le Crédit par Téléphone 17:55
Fabian Cancellara (Swi) Team CSC 18:06

TdF prologue 2012 (6.4km)
Cancellara = 7:13
Wiggins @ 7sec
ie Wiggins needs to produce 4.9% more power to match Cancellara - and now weighs ~10% less than Cancellara
More google math: (60*6.4/(7+13/60))/(60*6.4/(7+20/60)))^3

188 Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Sky Procycling 17:07:00
197 Fabian Cancellara (Swi) RadioShack-Nissan 17:16:00

I've included start times to show they were 11 and 9 minutes apart - so the conditions should have been remarkably similar.

You can ignore the variables of weight, CdA etc and just calculate the power increase required based on (V1/V2)^3, given they are traveling around 53km/hr and the majority of their power is going into overcoming wind resistance (vs going uphill). Even allowing for a 10% error - you're going from 12.2% to 5.3% for Wiggins which is a relative drop of 7% power required to match Cancellara.

Exactly the same gain Rogers mentioned in the Ride article - my general threshold power is up 5-7%.

How ironically coincidental.

To me it looks like Wiggins gained a lot - particularly considering Cancellara's weight was mostly static and Wiggins dropped 10%.

 

[Neworld]

Yawn.

So rant rant rant and no verifible facts.
Yes Brailsford did apparently say that they would not hire anybody associated with doping and that clearly changed; it seems you are upset because you didn't get a personal memo detailing why!
(As a matter of interest have you seen what was in the tome as you describe it, i'd be a little careful getting so worked up over a document i hadn't seen...)

I get the whole impassioned outrage thing you are going for, very honourable, then you go and spoil it with the silly bit about Wiggins, over playing your cards there old son.

Since all of the sky firings....are you still yawning?

 

[Krebs cycle]

I've included start times to show they were 11 and 9 minutes apart - so the conditions should have been remarkably similar.

You can ignore the variables of weight, CdA etc and just calculate the power increase required based on (V1/V2)^3, given they are traveling around 53km/hr and the majority of their power is going into overcoming wind resistance (vs going uphill). Even allowing for a 10% error - you're going from 12.2% to 5.3% for Wiggins which is a relative drop of 7% power required to match Cancellara.

Exactly the same gain Rogers mentioned in the Ride article - my general threshold power is up 5-7%.

How ironically coincidental.

To me it looks like Wiggins gained a lot - particularly considering Cancellara's weight was mostly static and Wiggins dropped 10%.

The bit in bold is wrong. You cannot just "ignore" cda when comparing Wiggins to Cancellara. Cancellara is a bigger guy than Wiggins and his cda would be different. It is a vital part of the estimation. Use cyclingpowermodels.com to get the numbers.

Furthermore, if you want an assumption then I would assume that Cancellara has spent more time in a wind tunnel getting his long TT position correct than Wiggins up until 2008 because position on the track compared to a long ITT would be close but may not be identical. Following 2008, it is Wiggins who stood to gain more in long TT performance by improving his position for that even specifically.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I've included start times to show they were 11 and 9 minutes apart - so the conditions should have been remarkably similar.

You can ignore the variables of weight, CdA etc and just calculate the power increase required based on (V1/V2)^3, given they are traveling around 53km/hr and the majority of their power is going into overcoming wind resistance (vs going uphill). Even allowing for a 10% error - you're going from 12.2% to 5.3% for Wiggins which is a relative drop of 7% power required to match Cancellara.

Exactly the same gain Rogers mentioned in the Ride article - my general threshold power is up 5-7%.

How ironically coincidental.

To me it looks like Wiggins gained a lot - particularly considering Cancellara's weight was mostly static and Wiggins dropped 10%.

I included Cancellara merely a reference point. But comparing Wiggins to Cancellara in 2012 and saying that "Wiggins needed to produce 4.9% more power to match Cancellara in 2012" is completely meaningless because Wiggins DIDN'T match Cancellara's time in 2012. You need to examine Wiggins' power in 2007 vs Wiggins' power in 2012.

As stated, I used cyclingpowermodels.com and I changed nothing for Cancellara but I altered Wiggins cda value from 2007 through to 2012 because he lost weight. For the 2007 prologue I used Hincapie's cda value because he is the rider that most closely resembled Wiggins at that time (Wiggins: 1.9m, 78kg vs Hincapie: 1.91m, 79kg) whereas I used Wiggins default cda (1.9m, 69kg) for the 2012 estimation. You cannot ignore the cda value because it is a vital piece of the calculation and the weight loss makes a difference to that value, and since you and others have made such a massive deal about the weight loss, then you must factor that into the calculation (otherwise you're just cherry picking numbers to suit yourself instead of trying to be objective).

When you do that, Wiggins' estimated power in the prologues is the same (almost) in 2007 as it is in 2012, however cyclingpowermodels assumes no change in positioning on the bike which is a missing piece of the puzzle, so any improvement in bike position could affect ITT performance.

Now check my edit above..... a 7kg drop in weight with a corresponding drop in VO2max of 3% would INCREASE w/kg by 9.5%, ie: good for the mountains when you're going slow, however the same decrease in VO2max could be accounted for by a 0.01 units improvement in cda as a result of better bike position.

The important point here is that the weight loss makes a much bigger increase to performance in the mtns than it does a decrease in performance in long ITTs.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Also, I'm using the following formula for power vs VO2

VO2 = 0.01141 x (watts) + 0.435

Hawley and Noakes
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1505544

I assumed that event duration in the range 7-8min is 10% anaerobic and 90% aerobic
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2759974
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11547894

and I assumed that long ITT performance occurs at 90% VO2max