Pulling a Wiggins

[del1962]

And another rider who said he doped then stopped

he said he stopped doping before his peak

 

[The Hitch]

This pattern has been noticeable for a few years now.

What does such a graph tell us? In fact it tells nothing, it shows some rider having an absolute cracker of a season. Scoring 5 times your average baseline does look like that. But what happened to the rider in the following years? Was he a victim of bad luck? Every year? Or did he stop doping? Or, was he clean and the ones around him upped their game? Did he get scared after a bad crash? Did he get injured? Did he miss his old team doctors who worked or are working at Sky and Katusha? In fact the rider did get involved in a bad crash or two and perhaps due to that he switched his attention [more] to other races. Does that explain his 2009 explosion? Not really.

Or this rider:

What does this graph tell us? Well, I see a rider getting better and better untill he gets his explosion in 2011. Winning and predicting he will win where he wants. Just like Frank VandenBroucke in his golden year. A year later he is at the level of 2006. Was he sick? Injured? Bad luck? Well, the rider had a toothache and everyone was racing against him, according to him. Is he a bad rider now? Not exactly but the ridiculousness of 2011 is gone. But how did he scoop to his 2011 level? Was it due to WADA making cortisone [ab]use possible? I can somehow see a rider progress to his 2009-2010 level but the spike and downfall of 2011-2013 is certainly hard to explain. I do expect him to do well in Firenze though.

Or this fellow:

Whats with that sudden spike in 2009? And, even more so, how come a fellow that was never able to climb suddenly is attacking on every mountainstage in one of the dirtiest GT's known? So, what happened to him in 2010? Well, he had some decent/good results, mostly on the flat, and, to be fair, no GT since he rode for a pro continental team. 2011? Basicly the same but he did have an horrible crash which bothers him to this day. 2012 a good/very good early season but after april nothing left in the tank.This season is not representable since he had another bad accident earlier this year. So, a lot of bad luck for this rider yet the 2009 spike is a questionmark.

To sum up, sudden peaks are very questionable with a lot of possible explanations but often just one. The downhill part is the most interesting.

To be fair some cq peaks can be explained, especially the ones which are only a few hundred points.

M Moser for example has had a massive drop off from last season in cq terms but some of his performances have shown he still has it, and probably will be up there in cq terms soon.

Sometimes riders just do have that 1 season where everything falls into place. They can get some lucky breaks, in some lucky breaks, perhaps their team leader experiences some unlucky breaks (ow)

Wouldn't explain however of course the ones like Wiggins and Froome for whom the difference between their best season and their median average is like 2500 points.

 

[Von Mises]

This pattern has been noticeable for a few years now.

What does such a graph tell us? In fact it tells nothing, it shows some rider having an absolute cracker of a season. Scoring 5 times your average baseline does look like that. But what happened to the rider in the following years? Was he a victim of bad luck? Every year? Or did he stop doping? Or, was he clean and the ones around him upped their game? Did he get scared after a bad crash? Did he get injured? Did he miss his old team doctors who worked or are working at Sky and Katusha? In fact the rider did get involved in a bad crash or two and perhaps due to that he switched his attention [more] to other races. Does that explain his 2009 explosion? Not really.

O

Haussler had very good spring season and he was definetely in very good form, but some outside factors also favoured him. MSR, where he came second, was soft edition (Cavedish won). RVV (again Haussler second) was the year Devolder won, again shows that big guns were missing.

 

[roundabout]

You mean he very nearly beat Cavendish and was the second strongest of the favorites after Boonen in the Ronde.

 

[hrotha]

Apart from the Tour he was kinda crap in 2006. Injury? I really can't recall what happened there.

He was certainly less competitive in other races, but I am not sure that his Tour level suffered that much.

Possibly. Honestly I can't remember his specific performances too well and I'm going mostly by the vague overall memory that has survived in my brain all these years.

 

[Von Mises]

You mean he very nearly beat Cavendish and was the second strongest of the favorites after Boonen in the Ronde.

I mean in Ronde he arrived in a 30 man group and sprinted against Gilbert and Pozzato. In MSR, 35 men group arrived together and he sprinted for second. It just shows that these were not very strong (or not raced hard enough) editions.

 

[EnacheV]

Wouldn't explain however of course the ones like Wiggins and Froome for whom the difference between their best season and their median average is like 2500 points.

clueles again

this apply for every GT winner if you take in to account the period until that 1st GT win

 

[Netserk]

clueles again

this apply for every GT winner if you take in to account the period until that 1st GT win

Can you give me some examples to this (other than the two Sky riders)?

 

[RownhamHill]

. In MSR, 35 men group arrived together and he sprinted for second.

Really?

I don't claim to be a huge expert on cycling, but describing Haussler's 09 MSR finish as 'sprinting for second' does him something of a disservice, no?

 

[EnacheV]

Can you give me some examples to this (other than the two Sky riders)?

get any GT winner CQ graph and cut it after 1st GT win

they all look very similar

 

[Netserk]

get any GT winner CQ graph and cut it after 1st GT win

they all look very similar

First GT win: 2009

 

[Von Mises]

Really?

I don't claim to be a huge expert on cycling, but describing Haussler's 09 MSR finish as 'sprinting for second' does him something of a disservice, no?

Agree. Bad wording from me. General point still stands - big group arrived together.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I mean in Ronde he arrived in a 30 man group and sprinted against Gilbert and Pozzato. In MSR, 35 men group arrived together and he sprinted for second. It just shows that these were not very strong (or not raced hard enough) editions.

2008:
130 Milano - Sanremo
25 E3 Prijs Vlaanderen - Harelbeke
91 Ronde van Vlaanderen
9 Gent - Wevelgem
58 Paris - Roubaix

2009:
8 Omloop Het Nieuwsblad
12 Kuurne - Brussel - Kuurne
2 Milano - Sanremo
4 Dwars door Vlaanderen - Waregem
16 E3 Prijs Vlaanderen - Harelbeke
2 Ronde van Vlaanderen
DNF Gent - Wevelgem
7 Paris - Roubaix

I know there are a lot of variables in cycling, especially in the rainy Flandres classics and Roubaix but this is a leap in performance. Compare that with his Garmin years and now his 'comeback' at IAM and you will see a difference. Maybe he had some issues at Garmin, I was merely looking at the leap he made in 2009.

 

[EnacheV]

First GT win: 2009

maybe *some* of the caught dopers dont fit in the usual ____/ pattern

 

[roundabout]

that guy has the ______________________ a bit higher than Froome

 

[Ferminal]

And another rider who said he doped then stopped

he said he stopped doping before his peak

lol, CVV..?

 

[del1962]

lol, CVV..?

yep

10 char

 

[Ferminal]

Amazing how he wasn't a top30 TT'er or climber when he was seeing Ferrari yet started smashing dopers for 12 months 2008-2009.

 

[Netserk]

maybe *some* of the caught dopers dont fit in the usual ____/ pattern

Then why did you write 'every', 'any' and 'all'?

clueles again

this apply for every GT winner if you take in to account the period until that 1st GT win

get any GT winner CQ graph and cut it after 1st GT win

they all look very similar

 

[EnacheV]

Then why did you write 'every', 'any' and 'all'?

because 1 or 2 exceptions, easily explained by proved doping, don't render it invalid.

but if you insist you can add the immense majority, or 99%, or the huge majority, in front of the statement.

the original point was about affirmations like "2500 points about cq median" which are mathematically wrong and also plain bull****.

and if semantic nazi its what you have left just quit it, its to much lolz.

 

[del1962]

Amazing how he wasn't a top30 TT'er or climber when he was seeing Ferrari yet started smashing dopers for 12 months 2008-2009.

Now when did Levi stop doping, I read his affidavit and it is not clear, however his third best CQ score was acheived when he was getting abuse from RS staff for testyfying against Lance

 

[Ferminal]

Now when did Levi stop doping, I read his affidavit and it is not clear, however his third best CQ score was acheived when he was getting abuse from RS staff for testyfying against Lance

2007 according to him. Very clean in the 2008 Vuelta.

I'm not sure why you have complete faith in those dates.

 

[del1962]

2007 according to him. Very clean in the 2008 Vuelta.

I'm not sure why you have complete faith in those dates.

The 2007 date is not in his affidavit though, (unless I missed it), the other two I gave CVV and DZ give dates when they say they stopped.

 

[the sceptic]

I like this one. A clean rider too.

 

[EnacheV]

this CQ graphs would be awesome if you could separate GC/stage races results points from 1 day race points. any way to do that?