Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[mortand]

Here you go

Dario Cataldo ‏@DarioCataldo 6 hrs

Piatto del giorno.... pic.twitter.com/azbqPiBlnj

Obviously David Lopez' plate. Still a lot to learn.

I remember at this year's Tour, David Lopez turned up at the Tour. At the table, he was eating Nutella. Because he was relatively new to the team, he had no idea of how that would offend his teammates. But it did offend them. They just didn't like it, as in, "That stuff is no good for you. We're here to eat the right food, and you bringing that to the table is lowering the dietary and nutritional standard." I just thought that kind of attitude was impressive. That's what Sky have created, and I found it impressive. Maybe the other teams are doing it better, but from the bits and pieces I heard, it doesn't seem that all of them are.

 

[Benotti69]

Obviously David Lopez' plate. Still a lot to learn.

Considering Lizzie Armistead was twittering about looking forward to Nutella it appears to be a staple part of the Sky/GB diet.

Walsh suckered by the 'marginal gains' BS.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

So people can't change their minds or be wrong? It just indicates to me he is mentally weak, something that was clearly the case in the Giro.

Of course you can change your mind or be wrong. But we have previously been told - by JV - that JV gave Wiggins the lowdown on Armstrong back when Twiggy was riding for him.

Wiggins then spent a couple of years overtly sucking up to Armstrong and doing things like attacking Floyd Landis when he spoke out. Wiggins then said, when the Reasoned Decision came about, that he had suspected Armstrong back in 2009 and that he was upset and angered by the whole thing.

So, somebody's lying. Somebody has to be, because the stories aren't compatible. If Wiggins had indeed been told about Armstrong's doping by JV, then he didn't need to come to his own conclusions. Even if he did come to his own conclusions, why did he need to spend the next two years expressly praising Armstrong and being on the record saying things like "I love him"? Is that not a highly dubious standpoint to take for a professional athlete on a fellow professional athlete that they either know is doping or highly suspect is doping?

However, the only way to spin it where Wiggins isn't being disingenuous and coming across as being pro-a guy he knows is doping, is that Wiggins genuinely did not suspect Armstrong and the Reasoned Decision came as a genuine shock to him. This would then render both him AND JV liars, because Vaughters would have not told Wiggins about Armstrong in 2009, then claimed he did, and Wiggins would have revised his timetable of beliefs on Armstrong to make himself look less naïve and foolish, inadvertently heaping undeserved suspicion on his in-good-faith comments of 2010-11.

And the fact of the matter is, there are so many lies and half-truths in Brailsford and Wiggins' public statements that it makes it harder to believe in them when they are telling the truth. That's just human nature.

 

[King Boonen]

*...*

So people are discussing performances in 2012 and you decide to bring up something completely irrelevant. Well done, quite possibly the most ridiculous post in this whole thread. That's quite an achievement.

 

[King Boonen]

Of course you can change your mind or be wrong. But we have previously been told - by JV - that JV gave Wiggins the lowdown on Armstrong back when Twiggy was riding for him.

Wiggins then spent a couple of years overtly sucking up to Armstrong and doing things like attacking Floyd Landis when he spoke out. Wiggins then said, when the Reasoned Decision came about, that he had suspected Armstrong back in 2009 and that he was upset and angered by the whole thing.

So, somebody's lying. Somebody has to be, because the stories aren't compatible. If Wiggins had indeed been told about Armstrong's doping by JV, then he didn't need to come to his own conclusions. Even if he did come to his own conclusions, why did he need to spend the next two years expressly praising Armstrong and being on the record saying things like "I love him"? Is that not a highly dubious standpoint to take for a professional athlete on a fellow professional athlete that they either know is doping or highly suspect is doping?

However, the only way to spin it where Wiggins isn't being disingenuous and coming across as being pro-a guy he knows is doping, is that Wiggins genuinely did not suspect Armstrong and the Reasoned Decision came as a genuine shock to him. This would then render both him AND JV liars, because Vaughters would have not told Wiggins about Armstrong in 2009, then claimed he did, and Wiggins would have revised his timetable of beliefs on Armstrong to make himself look less naïve and foolish, inadvertently heaping undeserved suspicion on his in-good-faith comments of 2010-11.

And the fact of the matter is, there are so many lies and half-truths in Brailsford and Wiggins' public statements that it makes it harder to believe in them when they are telling the truth. That's just human nature.

I think you've misunderstood what I was talking about. I was referring to Wiggins thinking he wasn't GT material, not his opinions on known dopers which are very suspect I'm willing to admit.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So people are discussing performances in 2012 and you decide to bring up something completely irrelevant. Well done, quite possibly the most ridiculous post in this whole thread. That's quite an achievement.

Uhhhh.

Nope, I think what Wiggins achieved is possible, in fact is the most likely of recent winners. He has the pedigree to be a GT (3000km race) rider, that is clear from his track (4km) performances

Sure thing pal.

 

[King Boonen]

Uhhhh.



Sure thing pal.

Track. Track. Track. Track.

Have you read that right?

And you're trying to discuss a performance from 6 years earlier with no knowlegde of how he was racing it, whether he was going full gas etc. It is clear from his performances on the track he is capable of putting oout a high power over a long period of time, that's pretty much indisputable.

By your logic Hushovd is a better TT racer than Zabriske and Rogers.

Oh and that TT was 7.1 km long.

Like I said, ridiculous.

 

[roundabout]

No, it was not 7km long, unless you think it's possible to ride 7km in 4.36

You are probably thinking of the Tour prologue in 2006

 

[King Boonen]

No, it was not 7km long, unless you think it's possible to ride 7km in 4.36

The 2006 prologue was 7.1km long and won in 8 minutes 17 seconds by Thor Hushovd.

Don't let facts get in the way though.

 

[roundabout]

The 2006 prologue was 7.1km long and won in 8 minutes 17 seconds by Thor Hushovd.

Don't let facts get in the way though.

He linked the Dauphine prologue which was 4k long and had 1 turn in the middle.

Not sure why you think he meant the Tour.

But whatever, for all his track pedigree, Wiggins was not really an outstanding prologue rider in his French teams days.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Track. Track. Track. Track.

Have you read that right?

And you're trying to discuss a performance from 6 years earlier with no knowlegde of how he was racing it, whether he was going full gas etc.

I am not trying to discuss something with no knowledge. I am discussing, successfully, something based on what Wiggins himself told everyone at the time, including power figures and intent.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2006/jun/04/cycling.news

These are Wiggins' own words:

It couldn't be any more up my street and all my preparation in the past eight weeks has been built around this afternoon's five-minute effort that will be a dress rehearsal for the prologue time trial of the Tour de France in Strasbourg.

...

I spent two weeks in Majorca at a training camp, getting away from the British spring weather. I've had a little team around me, a masseur, a mechanic and some video analysis guys from the English Institute of Sport and it has gone well. The road scene is unpredictable, but like the Paris-Nice race I should be among the favourites.

As the jargon has it, I'm 'hitting the numbers'.

...

To win the Olympic gold medal in Athens, for example, I needed to be riding at 570 or 580 watts for four minutes. I'm about 10 or 15 watts better than I was in Athens, which means that if I rode the Olympic pursuit against myself today I would be two seconds faster. That's simply because of the way you progress physically as you get older.

Please try again.

 

[GuyIncognito]

The 2006 prologue was 7.1km long and won in 8 minutes 17 seconds by Thor Hushovd.

Don't let facts get in the way though.

Since you're going to arbitrarily change what we're talking about to avoid admitting being wrong, I'll do the same.

We're talking about the 4 Jours de Dunkerque and it was 9kms. And the winner was Eric Caritoux. And he rode a tricycle.

 

[King Boonen]

He linked the Dauphine prologue which was 4k long and had 1 turn in the middle.

Not sure why you think he meant the Tour.

But whatever, for all his track pedigree, Wiggins was not really an outstanding prologue rider in his French teams days.

I didn't see the link, sorry, I assumed it would be the TdF prologue because you could possibly argue Wiggins might actually be trying in that, but claiming 6 year old performances in a discipline he was not focused on at the time can be extrapolated to his 2012 performance is even more ridiculous than I first thought.

All we can do is look at things where we know he was trying, such as on the track in World Championships and the Olympics and I even think that is a slight stretch as the track is so different, but it's the best we have to look at and at least indicates he is capable.

 

[roundabout]

Please try again.

Hell, it seems that he even specifically prepared for that prologue

In Majorca, we did a lot of work based on that one effort today: out for two kilometres, getting the speed straight up to 56 or 58kph to work on my pace judgment, turning round and going back again.

 

[King Boonen]

Since you're going to arbitrarily change what we're talking about to avoid admitting being wrong, I'll do the same.

We're talking about the 4 Jours de Dunkerque and it was 9kms. And the winner was Eric Caritoux. And he rode a tricycle.

I didn't, I was talking about the 2012 tour. It seems obvious Dear Wiggo was too, realised the error and decided to pull a random, 6 year old result out to try and claim differently.

I'd much prefer to go back to discussing 2012.

 

[Saint Unix]

Froome and Horner are as close to the 10 as it's possible to get today.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I didn't see the link, sorry, I assumed it would be the TdF prologue because you could possibly argue Wiggins might actually be trying in that, but claiming 6 year old performances in a discipline he was not focused on at the time can be extrapolated to his 2012 performance is even more ridiculous than I first thought.

All we can do is look at things where we know he was trying, such as on the track in World Championships and the Olympics and I even think that is a slight stretch as the track is so different, but it's the best we have to look at and at least indicates he is capable.

Even though he was putting out 10-15 W more than at Athens? Or have you not read my subsequent post yet?

 

[King Boonen]

I am not trying to discuss something with no knowledge. I am discussing, successfully, something based on what Wiggins himself told everyone at the time, including power figures and intent.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2006/jun/04/cycling.news

These are Wiggins' own words:



Please try again.

That's fine and thanks for posting it but it's still 6 year old data on a guy that was focused on track racing. How about we go back to discussing what is actually relevant? Like 2012.

 

[GuyIncognito]

That's fine and thanks for posting it but it's still 6 year old data on a guy that was focused on track racing. How about we go back to discussing what is actually relevant? Like 2012.

I refuse any data on Santambrogio that isn't from 2013.
Anything older is not relevant

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I didn't, I was talking about the 2012 tour. It seems obvious Dear Wiggo was too, realised the error and decided to pull a random, 6 year old result out to try and claim differently.

I'd much prefer to go back to discussing 2012.

That's fine and thanks for posting it but it's still 6 year old data on a guy that was focused on track racing. How about we go back to discussing what is actually relevant? Like 2012.

You said Wiggins' track pedigree explains his GT success. Please, tell me what track performance from 2012 you are basing this theory on?

I simply showed you that Wiggins track pedigree is a furphy, as when he does the same distance on the road, with the same attention to detail and focus on preparation, with the same power, he gets royally smacked around the head.

There was no way in hell I was talking about 2012 prologue or wtfever you seem to be claiming here.

Wiggins' "track pedigree" has been lauded over and over by people who find his 2009 performance at the Tour believable.

But his track pedigree is nothing more than being a little fish in a tiny pond.

 

[King Boonen]

Even though he was putting out 10-15 W more than at Athens? Or have you not read my subsequent post yet?

Nope, just replied, but that's still sustained power and doesn't take into account acceleration. If we reduce it to those numbers stated by Wiggins are you saying DZ was putting out 50-75 watts more than Wiggins to win by 11 seconds? so 630+ watts?

Seems unlikely...

 

[King Boonen]

I refuse any data on Santambrogio that isn't from 2013.
Anything older is not relevant

So you accuse me of changing the game and now you want to?

 

[GuyIncognito]

So you accuse me of changing the game and now you want to?

What I said in the past is not relevant. Only posting performances from the last 5 minutes are relevant, because that suits me.

 

[King Boonen]

You said Wiggins' track pedigree explains his GT success. Please, tell me what track performance from 2012 you are basing this theory on?

I simply showed you that Wiggins track pedigree is a furphy, as when he does the same distance on the road, with the same attention to detail and focus on preparation, with the same power, he gets royally smacked around the head.

There was no way in hell I was talking about 2012 prologue or wtfever you seem to be claiming here.

Wiggins' "track pedigree" has been lauded over and over by people who find his 2009 performance at the Tour believable.

But his track pedigree is nothing more than being a little fish in a tiny pond.

This is getting confusing because I'm replying to too many people.

I am saying that the only data you can properly judge Wiggins past performances on are the track, because that is what he focused on and where his training was ultimately aimed.

As I said in my last post, if you reduce it to the numbers Wiggins gave it's clear than there was something else that caused him to lose by 11 seconds which is my point, he was not a confident road rider, still isn't and is only confident when he's in front.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

As I said in my last post, if you reduce it to the numbers Wiggins gave it's clear than there was something else that caused him to lose by 11 seconds which is my point, he was not a confident road rider, still isn't and is only confident when he's in front.

He lost by 11 seconds and because that shakes your theory, there must be an explanation other than the simplest one: those riders in front of him were stronger.

Gotcha.

Hint: in a TT, you are in front.