Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[frenchfry]

Nibali is not sitting pretty as he cannot TT well enough to win!

Today and tomorrow are the days Nibali has left to win the TdF. Will it happen? Doubt it. Sky train will keep pace high.

As for Robert Millar. He has said "you will never know , you can only hope.". Sky have said different. Sky have said they dont and wont and will be transparent!

When we see it we can remove lots of the doubt.

One logical conclusion to much of the debate regarding SKY is that 3rd place is good enough to win.

 

[Krebs cycle]

You know declaring victory doesn't make it so, but if believing Wiggo is clean help you sleep at night, then who am I to take away your comfort pillow.

In a pro-cycling world of unknowns, the best I can do is believe in probabilities and not absolutes. The person I am most certain is not doping is Cadel Evans, because (amongst other things) if you check the link above about VO2 and power output and then refer to the data that was posted (ie: 87ml/kg) you'll find that sits almost perfectly with his actual performances. Now I don't know for a fact that Cadel has never doped, but the evidence that points to him being a doper is virtually non-existent. I think we need a bit more than a meeting with Ferrari 12yrs ago as something to go on.

Same goes for Wiggins. His performances are within the realms of known human physiology, and contrary to what some people have been saying he has not magically and suddenly increased his performance level in GTs, but rather it has been a steady improvement over a 7yr period. Lastly, neither he nor Cadel Evans have a list of witnesses a mile long ready to testify that they are dopers.

Had Rogers and Porte been sticking with the lead group until the end of the mtn stages I would be much more suspicious, but IMO it is believable that they can bury themselves early in the stage ie: they are working harder than the top GC riders, and so they paid for it on the final climbs and now sit miles back on GC.

Froome has not come from nowhere and rapidly improved. He has also steadily improved over a several year period and the graphs that were posted previously clearly indicate that pro cyclists come into their peak around 27-30yrs of age, so this business about having to show GT potential when you are 21-25 is not mandatory. Obviously if you do show potential, that's great, you are likely to go on and be a GC contender, but there is no reason why someone with the right physiology cannot develop into a GC contender from the age of 26 through 29 as opposed to 22 through 25. In those early years they may have had a different focus in their career.

I have no problem with people being suspicious of Sky, but geez, some folks overreact at the slightest hint of a changing of the guard. Patience and time will weed out the dopers IMO now that the science of detection has vastly matured in the past 10yrs. I want Cadel to win, but I'm willing to give Sky the benefit of the doubt until future events indicate otherwise.

edit: now if anyone (apart from the aussies and brits around here) knows about the history of sporting rivalry between our nations, you'll know that for an aussie to admit that a Brit is better at sports than an aussie, is simply unheard of.... point being.... I'm trying to remove emotion from clouding objective judgement regarding who I think is or isn't doping.

 

[Square-pedaller]

... As Brits we get it, it must really stick in the throat for us to come along and smash the sport's back doors in. Hence we get laughable threads like this from envious and annoyed anglophobes and self loathing Brits. Please continue, it's become essential daily viewing ....

Ah yes, it's all down to envy from Johnny-foreigner, and if it should be a Brit that has doubts then there's something wrong with them psychologically.

Anyway ... I'm a Brit. I was really looking forward to watching Sky and perhaps seeing them win. Then several things that happened early in the race gave me doubts about whether what I was seeing was 'real'. Since then things have calmed down a bit. But at the same time as things have looked better on the road, and I become more prepared to accept that Sky are clean (or at least no more dirty than anyone else), their off road behaviour has worked in the opposite direction. There is a lot of vague "Sky work harder/are more dedicated etc than anyone else" fluff (Wiggins' dietician was on Radio 4 this morning talking about his diet), but a singular refusal to do any of the things which could provide real evidence that Sky are clean, like making the Biopassport data public. Yes, it carries risks, but Sky is losing the doubters who would be open to evidence by the way that they are behaving.

Transparency. What transparency?

 

[Telmisartan new]

I understand, fans who only watch during July, i get upset if i cant get live coverage of Four Days of Dunkirk! Its an addictive sport in my view and has been for me since i started watching seriously in the 90's.

A big shout to Gustienordic, The Hog and mewmewmew13 and all other honourable folks on here.Glad to join and glad to be welcomed.Cheers.

 

[Cerberus]

In a pro-cycling world of unknowns, the best I can do is believe in probabilities and not absolutes. The person I am most certain is not doping is Cadel Evans, because (amongst other things) if you check the link above about VO2 and power output and then refer to the data that was posted (ie: 87ml/kg) you'll find that sits almost perfectly with his actual performances. Now I don't know for a fact that Cadel has never doped, but the evidence that points to him being a doper is virtually non-existent. I think we need a bit more than a meeting with Ferrari 12yrs ago as something to go on.

The dramatic performance loss after the introduction of the biopassport i certainly helpful, but the way I read Science of Sports they're not saying that the performances are within the provably possibly clean limit, simply that they aren't into the provably, or close to it, not-possible clean. I hope I'm wrong of cause, but I wouldn't take even odds that cadel, or wiggins or that just 1 tour winner in the last 20 years is clean.

Same goes for Wiggins. His performances are within the realms of known human physiology, and contrary to what some people have been saying he has not magically and suddenly increased his performance level in GTs, but rather it has been a steady improvement over a 7yr period.

This is just not true. This is the list of all of Wiggins GTs.

Grand Tour General Classification results timeline
Grand Tour 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Giro 123 - - 134 71 40 -
Tour - 124 WD - 4 24 WD
Vuelta - - - - - - 3
WD = withdrew.

As you can see his performance is consistent, but not improving, between 2005 and 2008. Between 2009 and now it's varies wildly, but it can with a bit of good will, be seen as consistent and improving. The inconsistency between his fourth place in the Tour of 2009 however, and his result previous years is incredibly jarring. Blood doping has the proven ability to affect that kind of performance jump, but can you think of any comparable performance jump in pre-EPO times?

Lastly, neither he nor Cadel Evans have a list of witnesses a mile long ready to testify that they are dopers.

True, but the same can be said for several people who tested positive.

Had Rogers and Porte been sticking with the lead group until the end of the mtn stages I would be much more suspicious, but IMO it is believable that they can bury themselves early in the stage ie: they are working harder than the top GC riders, and so they paid for it on the final climbs and now sit miles back on GC.

Why would you find that suspicious. both Porte and Rogerns have far better pedigree GT wise than wiggins had pre 2009. Porte even has a top 10 in the Giro, which mathematically he'd have held even without his breakaway time (we can't know how the race would really have gone of cause). How can you say that him following the best would be suspicious and not see that Wiggins much, much greater performance jump at a higher age, is far more suspicious?

Froome has not come from nowhere and rapidly improved. He has also steadily improved over a several year period and the graphs that were posted previously clearly indicate that pro cyclists come into their peak around 27-30yrs of age, so this business about having to show GT potential when you are 21-25 is not mandatory. Obviously if you do show potential, that's great, you are likely to go on and be a GC contender, but there is no reason why someone with the right physiology cannot develop into a GC contender from the age of 26 through 29 as opposed to 22 through 25. In those early years they may have had a different focus in their career.

You're still ignoring the fact that before the development of synthetic EPO no Tour winner after WW2 has ever experiences a similar performance jump. That's a cold hard fact. Take away blood doping and talent shows early. Granted Frooms performance jump isn't nearly as jarring as Wiggins, having a 34th place in the Giro at age 24ish, but it's still somewhat suspicious.

 

[Cerberus]

In a pro-cycling world of unknowns, the best I can do is believe in probabilities and not absolutes. The person I am most certain is not doping is Cadel Evans, because (amongst other things) if you check the link above about VO2 and power output and then refer to the data that was posted (ie: 87ml/kg) you'll find that sits almost perfectly with his actual performances. Now I don't know for a fact that Cadel has never doped, but the evidence that points to him being a doper is virtually non-existent. I think we need a bit more than a meeting with Ferrari 12yrs ago as something to go on.

The dramatic performance loss after the introduction of the biopassport i certainly helpful, but the way I read Science of Sports they're not saying that the performances are within the provably possibly clean limit, simply that they aren't into the provably, or close to it, not-possible clean. I hope I'm wrong of cause, but I wouldn't take even odds that cadel, or wiggins or that just 1 tour winner in the last 20 years is clean.

Same goes for Wiggins. His performances are within the realms of known human physiology, and contrary to what some people have been saying he has not magically and suddenly increased his performance level in GTs, but rather it has been a steady improvement over a 7yr period.

This is just not true. This is the list of all of Wiggins GTs.
This doesn't come out well, see link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Wiggins#Grand_Tour_General_Classification_results_timeline
Grand Tour General Classification results timeline
Grand Tour 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Giro 123 - - 134 71 40 -
Tour - 124 WD - 4 24 WD
Vuelta - - - - - - 3
WD = withdrew.

As you can see his performance is consistent, but not improving, between 2005 and 2008. Between 2009 and now it's varies wildly, but it can with a bit of good will, be seen as consistent and improving. The inconsistency between his fourth place in the Tour of 2009 however, and his result previous years is incredibly jarring. Blood doping has the proven ability to affect that kind of performance jump, but can you think of any comparable performance jump in pre-EPO times?

Lastly, neither he nor Cadel Evans have a list of witnesses a mile long ready to testify that they are dopers.

True, but the same can be said for several people who tested positive.

Had Rogers and Porte been sticking with the lead group until the end of the mtn stages I would be much more suspicious, but IMO it is believable that they can bury themselves early in the stage ie: they are working harder than the top GC riders, and so they paid for it on the final climbs and now sit miles back on GC.

Why would you find that suspicious. both Porte and Rogerns have far better pedigree GT wise than wiggins had pre 2009. Porte even has a top 10 in the Giro, which mathematically he'd have held even without his breakaway time (we can't know how the race would really have gone of cause). How can you say that him following the best would be suspicious and not see that Wiggins much, much greater performance jump at a higher age, is far more suspicious?

Froome has not come from nowhere and rapidly improved. He has also steadily improved over a several year period and the graphs that were posted previously clearly indicate that pro cyclists come into their peak around 27-30yrs of age, so this business about having to show GT potential when you are 21-25 is not mandatory. Obviously if you do show potential, that's great, you are likely to go on and be a GC contender, but there is no reason why someone with the right physiology cannot develop into a GC contender from the age of 26 through 29 as opposed to 22 through 25. In those early years they may have had a different focus in their career.

You're still ignoring the fact that before the development of synthetic EPO no Tour winner after WW2 has ever experiences a similar performance jump. That's a cold hard fact. Take away blood doping and talent shows early. Granted Frooms performance jump isn't nearly as jarring as Wiggins, having a 34th place in the Giro at age 24ish, but it's still somewhat suspicious.

 

[rata de sentina]

I have no problem with people being suspicious of Sky, but geez, some folks overreact at the slightest hint of a changing of the guard.

Of course it is OK to be suspicious but you should bear in mind that some of the hyperbole here is intended in the spirit of winding up the sky fanboys especially after Wiggins foul mouth rant of the other day Personally I'm still reserving my judgement for week 3 and the Pyrenees but what concerned me most was a couple of stick insects like Wiggins and Froome thrashing Cancellarra and all the other time trial specialists. Sure Wiggins especially has a pedigree and could be reasonably expected to beat Cancellarra, but I have an issue with the margin. Evans 6th in the time trial was a bit sub par for him but creditable all the same.

I dunno if the Sky performance in the mountains is indicative of doping or not it's a bit different there because lets face it the 2nd eleven is playing this year. Some people who you might think would play a role seem to suck this year or have fallen off (even Evans seems down on last year). Anyway he is never an attacker in the mountains, he may be a better climber than Wiggins but his main chance to gain time is to follow someone else and there isn't anyone. It doesn't help that the mountains aren't very selective this year.

 

[Caruut]

For me, it is not so much that the guard is changing - but how it is. Froome's performance is consistent with his Vuelta '11, but for me that is cold comfort given how inconsistent that was with with his previous results. I would love for Sky to come out and prove me wrong, be as transparent as they said they, but I really can't see that happening.

 

[Krebs cycle]

The dramatic performance loss after the introduction of the biopassport i certainly helpful, but the way I read Science of Sports they're not saying that the performances are within the provably possibly clean limit, simply that they aren't into the provably, or close to it, not-possible clean. I hope I'm wrong of cause, but I wouldn't take even odds that cadel, or wiggins or that just 1 tour winner in the last 20 years is clean.

The science of sports guys are saying that the performances of the entire top 5 are within the realms of known human physiology. It's a pretty clear conclusion they are making.

This is just not true. This is the list of all of Wiggins GTs.

Grand Tour General Classification results timeline
Grand Tour 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Giro 123 - - 134 71 40 -
Tour - 124 WD - 4 24 WD
Vuelta - - - - - - 3
WD = withdrew.

As you can see his performance is consistent, but not improving, between 2005 and 2008. Between 2009 and now it's varies wildly, but it can with a bit of good will, be seen as consistent and improving. The inconsistency between his fourth place in the Tour of 2009 however, and his result previous years is incredibly jarring. Blood doping has the proven ability to affect that kind of performance jump, but can you think of any comparable performance jump in pre-EPO times?

From 2005-2008 Wiggins was not a team leader, therefore it was not his job to chase a high GC placing. The olympic games were in 2008 and that was his focus then, NOT the tour. In 2009, he used the giro as preparation for the tour.

More importantly though, placing in a GT is a fairly poor method of examining performance changes due to doping. Comparing TT performances from year to year is much better method because it removes many of the confounding factors such as team tactics and differences in tour preparation.

If you examine Wiggins' TT performance over the period in question ie: 2008-2010 it does NOT dramatically increase. In 2008 he comes 4th in the final ITT, 7 sec behind Tony Martin and in 2009 he is 2nd. In the TdF in 2009 he is 6th in the ITT 40sec back from Cancellara and Contator. Where is the big increase in performance you are talking about?

snip

You're still ignoring the fact that before the development of synthetic EPO no Tour winner after WW2 has ever experiences a similar performance jump. That's a cold hard fact. Take away blood doping and talent shows early. Granted Frooms performance jump isn't nearly as jarring as Wiggins, having a 34th place in the Giro at age 24ish, but it's still somewhat suspicious.

Again, you are basing your evidence on GT placing only. See above. This is a poor method of detecting true changes in performance due to PEDs. Look at the road ITT performances, or better still, look at his performances on the track. He won 5 gold medals at olympic and world championship level in 2008, yet there is absolutely no evidence from ITT results that he then suddenly improved in 2009. Where are the 20, 30, 40 sec wins over Tony Martin and Cancellara?

And on the pre EPO era thing, sure there are plenty of examples of regular top 10 finishers, but there are also lots of examples of guys who don't even compete one year, and then place top 10 the next. So its not a cold hard fact that big changes in GC never took place pre-EPO. I bet that with a little bit of research what I will find is that this is, in fact, a popular clinic myth.

 

[taiwan]

@krebs cycle I too noticed the "steady improvement over seven years" claim. It's made up - not borne out by his results. You say the steady improvement was not visible because he was not a team leader. In that case, where do you see it?

 

[Caruut]

The science of sports guys are saying that the performances of the entire top 5 are within the realms of known human physiology. It's a pretty clear conclusion they are making.

Being within the realms does not exclude you from doping, though.

From 2005-2008 Wiggins was not a team leader, therefore it was not his job to chase a high GC placing. The olympic games were in 2008 and that was his focus then, NOT the tour. In 2009, he used the giro as preparation for the tour.

More importantly though, placing in a GT is a fairly poor method of examining performance changes due to doping. Comparing TT performances from year to year is much better method because it removes many of the confounding factors such as team tactics and differences in tour preparation.

If you examine Wiggins' TT performance over the period in question ie: 2008-2010 it does NOT dramatically increase. In 2008 he comes 4th in the final ITT, 7 sec behind Tony Martin and in 2009 he is 2nd. In the TdF in 2009 he is 6th in the ITT 40sec back from Cancellara and Contator. Where is the big increase in performance you are talking about?

He wasn't a team leader, no, but that raises a new question. Why was he not a team leader? Why did he never show signs of being anything but a TTer if he had it in him? Surely if he could have done, he would have followed the favourites up a climb some time before 2009, but I'm not aware of him ever being a presence at the sharp end of a mountain stage.

Again, you are basing your evidence on GT placing only. See above. This is a poor method of detecting true changes in performance due to PEDs. Look at the road ITT performances, or better still, look at his performances on the track. He won 5 gold medals at olympic and world championship level in 2008, yet there is absolutely no evidence from ITT results that he then suddenly improved in 2009. Where are the 20, 30, 40 sec wins over Tony Martin and Cancellara?

You make a good point, he was very good in 2008. In fact, in 2008, he had his best year on the track and road - perhaps whatever changed for 2009 started in 2008, and the difference between the two was a differing focus.

And on the pre EPO era thing, sure there are plenty of examples of regular top 10 finishers, but there are also lots of examples of guys who don't even compete one year, and then place top 10 the next. So its not a cold hard fact that big changes in GC never took place pre-EPO. I bet that with a little bit of research what I will find is that this is, in fact, a popular clinic myth.

There is a difference between competing and doing poorly and not competing at all.

 

[RichWalk]

I’d take a view on Skys performance from two stances based on the same reasoning as to why they are successful this year, one a very cynical approach that some of the team are micro doping in response to a course that gives Wiggins the best (and only chance IMO) to win, In other words they are ensuring a victory.

Or there is no doping by Wiggins and he is simply the best form rider this year, on a course that suits him and surrounded by weak competition. If you take Evans, he’s had an average year so far and he only has Tejay as help, Nibali should have Basso & Schmidt as help but hasn’t, Van Den Broeck has a team based around Greipels sprinting and none off them have anywhere near the palmares Wiggins does this year.

Finally Wiggins style of climbing would be most threatened by two rivals not here, namely Contador and Andy Schleck.
Whichever way you view it, this year’s race suits Wiggins, he has below par competition and he’s on good form.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Of course it is OK to be suspicious but you should bear in mind that some of the hyperbole here is intended in the spirit of winding up the sky fanboys especially after Wiggins foul mouth rant of the other day

Hmm your right. Look with Lance gone, Alberto "clen" Contador out, and that nancy boy Schleck injured, I think my outrage-o-meter is definitely not getting as much of a workout this year, and now after Wiggins' sporting gesture last night I think I need to find somebody else to rage on....

/heads over to Sagan thread....

 

[will10]

I love this thread.

 

[Cobblestones]

Or there is no doping by Wiggins and he is simply the best form rider this year, on a course that suits him and surrounded by weak competition.

He isn´t the best form rider in this year´s TdF. Not even in his own team.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Being within the realms does not exclude you from doping, though.

Never said it didn't. Moot point.

He wasn't a team leader, no, but that raises a new question. Why was he not a team leader? Why did he never show signs of being anything but a TTer if he had it in him? Surely if he could have done, he would have followed the favourites up a climb some time before 2009, but I'm not aware of him ever being a presence at the sharp end of a mountain stage.

2008 Olympics. End of that discussion.

You make a good point, he was very good in 2008. In fact, in 2008, he had his best year on the track and road - perhaps whatever changed for 2009 started in 2008, and the difference between the two was a differing focus.

Nope it must have started a long time before that, because he was winning and placing highly in road ITTs as far back as 2003.

And besides, a number of people seem to continually be ignoring the fact that team tactics play a big role on GC placing.

There is a difference between competing and doing poorly and not competing at all.

Give me a few days and I'll do some research. My hunch is that its a popular myth that there were no large changes in relative performances over 1-3yr time spans pre EPO.

Anyway here is one just to get your appetite wet....

1973: Alain Santy finishes 1hr 29min behind the winner
1974: Alain Santy finishes 19min behind the winner

What a miraculous improvement in relative performance in one year... and no EPO!

 

[RichWalk]

He isn´t the best form rider in this year´s TdF. Not even in his own team.

He's only ridden 4 major events, Paris-Nice (win), Romandie (win), Dauphine (win) Algave (3rd) be interested to know who in Sky has taken part in similar profile events and bettered him?

 

[Zam_Olyas]

PN, the competition was weak,tour de romandie - weak, dauphine - the competition is weak let's wait for the tdf and now tdf is weak again when will there ever be a strong competition for him?

 

[Caruut]

Never said it didn't. Moot point.

Okay.

2008 Olympics. End of that discussion.

Doesn't explain why he wasn't even close to that level between 2002 and 2007. Yeah, focusing on the track, maybe, but his prologuing has never been better - that is something that should really have worsened, if anything, after switching focus.

Nope it must have started a long time before that, because he was winning and placing highly in road ITTs as far back as 2003.

Prior to 2009, he won the L'Avenir TT, two 2.1 TTs, a 2.HC TT, the Duo Normand and a prologue in the Dauphiné. Far better than I can do, but certainly not even close to where he's at this year.

And besides, a number of people seem to continually be ignoring the fact that team tactics play a big role on GC placing.

Yes, it plays a big part. A big part in deciding whether you drop time and finish outside the top 100 or try and get a top 25 or so. It is in no way the difference between 1 and 100.

Give me a few days and I'll do some research. My hunch is that its a popular myth that there were no large changes in relative performances over 1-3yr time spans pre EPO.

Anyway here is one just to get your appetite wet....

1973: Alain Santy finishes 1hr 29min behind the winner
1974: Alain Santy finishes 19min behind the winner

What a miraculous improvement in relative performance in one year... and no EPO!

Great. It's pretty intellectually dishonest of you to even attempt to argue that Santy's situation is anything like Wiggins's. He went from 31st to 9th, which is a quite a big jump, but nothing even close to outside the top 100 to challenging for the podium, and then winning.

Let's examine further - in those days, top 10s in Le Tour weren't nearly as prized as they are now, which means that the competition to jump into 9th wouldn't have been as tough as it now is. Then look at his team in the two years - 31st in a year when he was supporting eventual winner Luis Ocana and then 9th in a year when he was supporting Pou-Pou, who got absolutely trounced by the great Eddy Merckx. Yes, the team plays a part.

 

[The Cobra]

Okay.
Doesn't explain why he wasn't even close to that level between 2002 and 2007. Yeah, focusing on the track, maybe, but his prologuing has never been better - that is something that should really have worsened, if anything, after switching focus.

Maybe Wiggins has always been clean and always about the same level. It's just now that the level of doping that exists is much less than in 02-07 he is actually getting the results his talent deserves??

 

[Von Mises]

Great. It's pretty intellectually dishonest of you to even attempt to argue that Santy's situation is anything like Wiggins's. He went from 31st to 9th, which is a quite a big jump, but nothing even close to outside the top 100 to challenging for the podium, and then winning.

These comparisons are bad anyway, but lets not forget that back then there were also much less participants and even less finishers.

 

[Cerberus]

From 2005-2008 Wiggins was not a team leader, therefore it was not his job to chase a high GC placing.

The olympic games were in 2008 and that was his focus then, NOT the tour. In 2009, he used the giro as preparation for the tour.[/QUOTE]
yet it never happened pre-Epo. Do you imagine that no one pre-epo was given domestique duties? No one was chained by team tactics? Of cause they were, yet their talent showed because a potential Tour winner, even when yound, even when soft pedaling rides way faster than a middle of the pack rider.

More importantly though, placing in a GT is a fairly poor method of examining performance changes due to doping.

So how do you explain the incredible strong and consistent finding that talent always showed early pre-epo? Every single winner from WW2 to EPo showed their talent early by finishing in the top 15 in their first couble og GT's and the excact second Epo gets released theese kind of incredible performance leaps become commonplace to the point where most post-epo Tour winners actually failed to show the kind of early talent that every single Tour winner from WW2 to epo did (excepting the single Oscar Perioro clone). How do you explain that? One giant coincidence? That's unlikely to the point of impossibility.

Comparing TT performances from year to year is much better method because it removes many of the confounding factors such as team tactics and differences in tour preparation.

If you examine Wiggins' TT performance over the period in question ie: 2008-2010 it does NOT dramatically increase. In 2008 he comes 4th in the final ITT, 7 sec behind Tony Martin and in 2009 he is 2nd. In the TdF in 2009 he is 6th in the ITT 40sec back from Cancellara and Contator. Where is the big increase in performance you are talking about?

Again, you are basing your evidence on GT placing only. See above. This is a poor method of detecting true changes in performance due to PEDs.

Look at the road ITT performances, or better still, look at his performances on the track. He won 5 gold medals at olympic and world championship level in 2008, yet there is absolutely no evidence from ITT results that he then suddenly improved in 2009. Where are the 20, 30, 40 sec wins over Tony Martin and Cancellara?

No it's a much worse method. TT performance is not indicative of Tour winning potential. Otherwise Cancellara would dominate the Tour. Also Wiggins weight loss should have slowed him on TT's but instead the opposite happened.

And on the pre EPO era thing, sure there are plenty of examples of regular top 10 finishers, but there are also lots of examples of guys who don't even compete one year, and then place top 10 the next. So its not a cold hard fact that big changes in GC never took place pre-EPO. I bet that with a little bit of research what I will find is that this is, in fact, a popular clinic myth.

Nope it's not a clinic myth, I did do some reasearch and I found the incredibly strong link between the emergence of EPO and drastic performance jumps that I have repeatedly mentioned. Betting on something that's already been proven false is a bad idea. Still why don't you give us your best example of dramatic pre-epo performance jumps. Try to at least find someone who was consistently bad and then went on to podiumed at least. Your example of a guy who goes from 31 to 9 is as a proof that going from 130 to 1 is possible is incredibly weak.

 

[Bonkstrong]

Try to at least find someone who was consistently bad and then went on to podiumed at least. Your example of a guy who goes from 31 to 9 is as a proof that going from 130 to 1 is possible is incredibly weak.

Surely you mean, try to find me an Olympic Glod medalist that was given 5 years, an unlimited budget and one of the strongest clean team of domestiques to chaufer him up the slopes in a Tour route that's taylor made for his strengths?

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

Apologies if this has already been covered, but does anyone know if Dr Leinders was with the Sky group that trained in Tenerife?

Or was it not warm enough for anyone to die or have saddle sores?

 

[Choocher]

The Guardian Comments Section

After Wiggins' Guardian piece, I left a comment reminding him that when Puerto happened he said, "There's no smoke without fire," in reference to all of the riders who had been pulled from the 2006 Tour. He said it was "Quite brilliant, really" in a confident and self-satisfied tone. I liked that at the time, and even mentioned in my comment on the Guardian website that I had been a fan for years.

I mentioned that I liked his attitude about doping then, but that, given how he finished in 123rd place, well over 3 hours down in that Tour, it was hard to imagine how I couldn't put 1 and 1 together now and draw some conclusions when comparing his performance then to now. I mentioned that the transformation looked unbelievable to me. I quoted him accurately and stayed on topic. The comment was deleted because, supposedly, it didn't abide by the Guardian's comments sections rules, even though I couldn't find a rule I had broken, nor did I ever aim to do so or flame him with that comment.

What a joke. The result being that I believe him even less now than before and also hold The Guardian complicit in his deception.