Pulling a Wiggins

[Justinr]

And how exactly did he get over the mountains with the best climbers in the world...call a taxi?

Stranger things have happened in previous TdFs you know, like catching a train for instance!

 

[Digger]

23 20secs in this clip is funny as the commentator wonders what the hell Wiggins is doing in this group...anyway must have been flat on Verbier that day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2AiCVzx2L8

 

[King Boonen]

Well, yes basically. They were. You ought to know that if you checked, Digger.

...snipped for brevity...

Martin is much kinder than me, he bothered to give you the numbers.

 

[Digger]

I'm not engaging in a discussion on that, it's pointless and has been rehashed countless times. I'm replying to your dismissive suggestion that claiming the TT was a big factor in the Tour is silly because the other races were won elsewhere. It is clear that all of Wiggins 2012 GC victories relied on gaining time in the TT and on stages in some of those races he lost time on the climbs.

How about you just admit you were wrong, and make a different argument. It doesn't mean he wasn't doping.

So I am imagining Wiggins pulling away from Nibali in 2012 then...yeah that must have been a flat TT.

 

[Justinr]

And since my point was that Wiggins gap was bigger than all 4 previous put together what you actually need to do is offer those tt distances also put together

What?? That has no validity in any statistical analysis / argument whatsoever.


Tell you what - why don't we add in the TTs from all the other slightly long stage races that were held in the four years previously. It would make interesting numbers but would be absolute nonsense from an analytical point of view.

 

[Mellow Velo]

February to August...stage races and an Olympic TT....

And the only guy you could come up with, won less, and was doped...but yeah other than that yeah it's a great example.

You never mentioned dope, until you got an answer to your question.
You just asked for riders who won as much in 6 months.

No sensible person would deny that Wiggins had one of the most successful seasons of all time, but you had to go full *** with your POV (not unusual) by claiming it the best.

It wasn't the best, either in terms of number of wins, (Gilbert) or stature of wins (Roche)
He beat the great Lieuwe Westra to win PN.
He won a Giro warm up stage race and a Tour warm up stage race.
Unique: yes, but better than a GT double and a rainbow on the road: no way.

Gilbert won his first 2011 race two weeks later than Wiggins, but his final monument win was Lombardy, the season closer, in mid October.
He won more, he won for longer.

Which ever way you look at it, one of those seasons was better.

As for Merckx in 1970, 1972, 1974..............

 

[Digger]

Well, yes basically. They were. You ought to know that if you checked, Digger.

Indeed, we can go further - Tour aside, the TT has won him every stage race he has EVER won.

Dauphine 11
Wiggins won race-
- by 1'26 over Cadel Evans : of which 1'13 was TT advantage, before taking a vital bunch of seconds when Evans cracked on the last stage, a stage where Purito still took 54 seconds out of Wiggins.
- by 1' 56 over Vinkourov, less than the 2'04 Wiggins took out of him on TT

In other words, NO TT? Wiggins loses.

Paris - Nice 12
Many racers were hi by echelons on a flat but windy stage 1. Wiggins arrived with lead group. Thereafter -
- by 8 secs from Westre, less than the 18 seconds he took out of him on TT
- by 1'10 from Valverde, less than the 1'40 he took out of him on TT

In other words, NO TT? Wiggins loses.

Dauphine 12
Wiggins won race -
- by 1'17 from rogers, his own team mate - less than the minimum 1'18 he took from rodgers in TT
- by 1, 26 from Evans, less than the 1'48 he took from Evans in TT.

In other words, NO TT? Wiggins loses.

Romandie 12
Wiggins won the race -
- by 12 seconds from talansky, made up entirely of 2 seconds from TT and the bonus seconds
- by 36 seconds from rui costa, less than he took from Costa in TT

In other words, NO TT? Wiggins loses.

Tour of Britain 2013 (barely deserves bold, but anyway...)

Wiggins won the race -
- by 26 secs from Martin Elmiger, less than the 47 secs he took from Elmiger in the TT
- by 1'03 from Simon Yates, less than the 1'33 he took from Yates in the TT

In other words, NO TT? Wiggins loses.


He needs TT's in EVERY single race or he loses them all. Every single one of them.

He needs echelons at Paris Nice or he probably loses anyway, some bonus seconds at Romandie or he loses. Dauphine seems to suit him mind, solid wins based on TT two years in a row.

Indeed, le tour '12 is technically the only stage race he would have won without TT. although, in reality that's nonsense, since Nibali would have attacked completely differently on the last mountain if he was looking to pick up 20 odds seconds rather than the 3 minutes it was and the 6 minutes as it turned out to be.

Martin this is fair drivel

 

[BYOP88]

23 20secs in this clip is funny as the commentator wonders what the hell Wiggins is doing in this group...anyway must have been flat on Verbier that day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2AiCVzx2L8

HAHAHAHA 5 man group contains 4 hardcore dopers and Wiggans. If only the other 4 did the IP they wouldn't have had to dope.

 

[Mellow Velo]

So, basically, Roche achieved more with less support, right?

This...........

 

[Digger]

You never mentioned dope, until you got an answer to your question.
You just asked for riders who won as much in 6 months.

No sensible person would deny that Wiggins had one of the most successful seasons of all time[/B], but you had to go full *** with your POV (not unusual) by claiming it the best.It wasn't the best, either in terms of number of wins, (Gilbert) or stature of wins (Roche)
He beat the great Lieuwe Westra to win PN.
He won a Giro warm up stage race and a Tour warm up stage race.
Unique: yes, but better than a GT double and a rainbow on the road: no way.

Gilbert won his first 2011 race two weeks later than Wiggins, but his final monument win was Lombardy, the season closer, in mid October.
He won more, he won for longer.

Which ever way you look at it, one of those seasons was better.

As for Merckx in 1970, 1972, 1974..............

No matter how many times you keep saying Roche had a better year, does not make it true....

But anyway I am glad you have come to accept that the only people who compare with his year were those who doped...

And funnily enough Wiggins in that post there says it all. He had a year to compare, in your eyes, with some of the greatest cyclists of all time.

Not bad for a grupetto rider.

 

[King Boonen]

So I am imagining Wiggins pulling away from Nibali in 2012 then...yeah that must have been a flat TT.

More deflection and attempts to change the discussion. This is why there is little point engaging with you. Admit you were wrong, it doesn't weaken the general position, only that method of arguing.

I don't even really agree with the way I argued it, I just used what seems to be an accepted method in the Clinic. You can't just take stages and gaps out of the equation and assume everything else would be raced the same. Yet the Anti-Wiggins side do love to do that and ignore the way some TdF stages were actually raced.


Hitch, Dear Wiggo, BroDeal and even Benotti have swung me round to the idea of Froome doping through reasonable arguments and discussion. It works and is worthwhile. What you do is not.

 

[Digger]

HAHAHAHA 5 man group contains 4 hardcore dopers and Wiggans. If only the other 4 did the IP they wouldn't have had to dope.

I mean it's nonsense...here he is climbing with the best climbers in the world and the biggest dopers....and they are clinging to him needing TT's.

 

[The Hitch]

Wiggins 2012 season places 9th on this list:
http://www.procyclingstats.com/statistics/104-top-seasons

Interesting, thanks for the link. I'd say that's very very high

 

[Digger]

More deflection and attempts to change the discussion. This is why there is little point engaging with you. Admit you were wrong, it doesn't weaken the general position, only that method of arguing.

I don't even really agree with the way I argued it, I just used what seems to be an accepted method in the Clinic. You can't just take stages and gaps out of the equation and assume everything else would be raced the same. Yet the Anti-Wiggins side do love to do that and ignore the way some TdF stages were actually raced.


Hitch, Dear Wiggo, BroDeal and even Benotti have swung me round to the idea of Froome doping through reasonable arguments and discussion. It works and is worthwhile. What you do is not.

As much as I like those posters, if you needed them to convince you that froome might be doping, then there isn't much point in using logic anyway.

 

[King Boonen]

I'll engage with people worthwhile in the future, someone who can't even admit they were wrong when it's pointed out to then isn't worth having a discussion with.

 

[Digger]

I'll engage with people worthwhile in the future, someone who can't even admit they were wrong when it's pointed out to then isn't worth having a discussion with.

when...........

 

[martinvickers]

And btw what you are doing really is taking "clutching at straws" to its extreme. You are pointing out the slightest flaws in Bradleys 2012 performances, acting as if they could only have been suspicious if he had climbed like Pantani, ttd like Indurain, sprinted like Cipolini, beaten Boonen on the cobbles, won all 3 Ardennes, the worlds etc etc.

No he was not as dominant as Armstrong in some aspects of his TDF. So? he was as good as Armstrong in other aspects - recovery, and surpassed Armstrong in other aspects - tting. Failing to be as good as the most notorious doper in world history, at 1 or 2 aspects is supposed to be an argument for his cleanliness?

And managing to 'be as good' as the most notorious doper in world history, at just 1 or 2 aspects, for one half season, as opposed to 7 full years of tour dominance, is supposed to be an argument for his dirtiness?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

The standards of perfection you are measuring Wiggins against are so incredibly high, they are ridiculous.

The standards of domination you are comparing Wiggins to are so incredibly high, they are ridiculous.

this si too easy, this reductio nonsense.



You see, this is where the whole CQ point comparison fallacy comes a complete cropper.

It's an entirely reactive, relative measure. The points a rider gets are nothing to do with how he performs OBJECTIVELY, only in where he finishes COMPARED to others of his era.

They don't measure ability, or performance or power; they measure results agaist your peers - a clean rider beating a clean peleton by seconds is treated exactly the same as a doped rider beating a doped peleton by minutes - a clean rider beaten by a handful of clean riders is treated exectly the same as a doped rider beating a handful of doped riders; they form no useful comparison, on a year to year basis, across eras.

They don't prove wiggins is clean, they don't prove he's dirty; they, in fact, don't prove anything except who's the best/form rider in the year they are taken. To try and take more from that, and compare across eras from a known doping nadir to an era still, frankly, very much unknown is basically to misunderstand completely the dataset, and to pervert it to fit your existing bias.

Climb times, power outputs have SOME basis that allow sensible comparison across eras, though they aren't the holy grail some would make out. CQ points are absolutely useless for such cross era comparisons. Useless. It's not what they are designed for, and it's not what they are capable of doing.

 

[burning]

Wiggins 2012 season places 9th on this list:
http://www.procyclingstats.com/statistics/104-top-seasons

It's off topic but I wonder what could have Maertens done if he didn't crash and injure himself badly during 1977 Giro.

 

[gillan1969]

This...........

in terms of results then arguably yes as it was the magic triple...in terms of domination then no as he was lucky in all of them and had to scrape victories by actually racing. Pre oxygen doping there was actually racing in GTs.....

wiggins doesn't 'race' and froome doesn't 'race'

whether roche doped in '87 or not....and its probably a safe bet he did, he didn't achieve those results by being a 'dominant' rider

don't try and simplify it too much............

 

[King Boonen]

when...........

Redundant.

 

[Digger]

So in conclusion...the only people Wiggins can compare with in terms of success in one season is guys who doped...and some of the greatest cyclists of all time.

Meanwhile in May 2009 Wiggins was finishing the grupetto in the Giro.

And instead of conceding that he was climbing with the best in the world, and at times beating them, we are being sold that it was his TT's who brought him this success.

Which is actually also an issue, because for a number of years he wasn't able to do much in long stage race TT's...but it all came together for him at 29.

And lance NEVER had a year even remotely like Wiggins.

All whilst clean.

 

[martinvickers]

Martin this is fair drivel

Digger, it's the facts. Numerical, checked. Plain as day.

If you can't challenge them, don't belittle yourself by trying to mock. I thought we were getting somewhere with that.

 

[Digger]

Digger, it's the facts. Numerical, checked. Plain as day.

If you can't challenge them, don't belittle yourself by trying to mock. I thought we were getting somewhere with that.

The second part of your post was in my opinion drivel...that's my opinion.

 

[Digger]

2009 Ventoux after three weeks...not bad for a guy relying on TT's.

 

[martinvickers]

So I am imagining Wiggins pulling away from Nibali in 2012 then...yeah that must have been a flat TT.

No, you're not imagining. You're removing it from all context, and twisting to suit an existing bias. He managed it once, glued To Froome, when Nibali had all but punches himself out. Every other major stage, they rode in side by side. sorry, Wiggins bagged a couple of seconds of nibs at the last corner, on Belle Filles, behind Evans.

I don't mind people doubting Wiggins, honest to christ I don't. I will not fall down in a faint if he turns out, years to come, to have been jacked to the nines. I have never, at any stage, argued that I know he's clean, or even that I think the evidence shows it to be likely.

But do the cynics really have to twist the known facts quite so violently to fit their bias?