Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Ferminal]

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?

Graeme Brown?

Although I guess Rabo fail the clean test with our friend Geert, oops.

 

[Caruut]

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??

Yes, this is possible. What evidence is there to suggest that the level of doping is so much lower? Why hasn't anyone else made a similar jump in that time? How is it that Wiggins was quite competitive in the TTs during that time, and has improved only slightly compared to others TTing, yet on the climbs he is leagues ahead of where he was? Is it complete chance that Sky seem to have about 4 guys who've made very similar improvements, and no-one else's time-triallers have become GC contenders too?

What makes you believe that the level of doping is that much lower? Why isn't anyone providing us with evidence of that? Maybe Brad could speak openly and honestly about what it was like back then. He won't, though; despite his loud anti-doping noises, he is still very much abiding to the omerta, much like JV and his merry men.

Wiggins is still on another level this year compared to his previous years. Has the level of doping dropped drastically in 2012?

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

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.

The Guardian genuinely believes that they can be sued for libel due to comments "below the line". How cyclingnews escapes legal action for the clinic is beyond me.

It's all about keeping the fan boys reading, advertising revenue, and maintaining interview access to celebrities.

 

[red_death]

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.

A whole host of plausible reasons. Starting with until 2008 he was primarily a track rider. In 2009 he clearly started to take the road more seriously and gained a lot more confidence in his abilities to mix it in the mountains.

Even now he isn't as explosive a climber as some of the true climbers and can't react so easily to accelerations, what he is good at is grinding away with a very strong team.

 

[Choocher]

The Guardian genuinely believes that they can be sued for libel due to comments "below the line". How cyclingnews escapes legal action for the clinic is beyond me.

It's all about keeping the fan boys reading, advertising revenue, and maintaining interview access to celebrities.

True, I probably shouldn't have been surprised. Truly gutless treatment of dissenting opinion, though, in my opinion. And, after all, it is only my opinion and was based on things he actually said and did. I can see if they would get spooked by obviously fabricated quotes, but the stuff I mentioned was easily verifiable.

 

[red_death]

Wiggins is still on another level this year compared to his previous years. Has the level of doping dropped drastically in 2012?

Compared to his 4th in 2009 or 3rd at last year's Vuelta? I'll grant you some improvement, but without the AC and AS is it really that much of a step up. By BW's own admission he has taken it much more seriously this year plus he has an incredibly strong team working for him on a Tour course that couldn't really have been designed to suit him better.

While I understand the doping concerns given the sport's history sometimes the simpler explanations are more likely without the need for conspiracy.

 

[montagna lunga]

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.

Good grief, you called yourself a fan, and then tell him that improvement (after 6 years) is unbelievable? If you didn't have your little keyboard could you possibly have the stones to say something like that to him face-to-face?
Then again, your screen name does seem to indicate you're a real jack-off, did you use the same screen name in your comments on the Guardian piece?

Probably one of those lops who'd call someone over to your parked car, then surprise them with the gleefully sick sight of you pounding the pomegranate

 

[The Cobra]

Yes, this is possible. What evidence is there to suggest that the level of doping is so much lower? Why hasn't anyone else made a similar jump in that time? How is it that Wiggins was quite competitive in the TTs during that time, and has improved only slightly compared to others TTing, yet on the climbs he is leagues ahead of where he was? Is it complete chance that Sky seem to have about 4 guys who've made very similar improvements, and no-one else's time-triallers have become GC contenders too?

What makes you believe that the level of doping is that much lower? Why isn't anyone providing us with evidence of that? Maybe Brad could speak openly and honestly about what it was like back then. He won't, though; despite his loud anti-doping noises, he is still very much abiding to the omerta, much like JV and his merry men.

Wiggins is still on another level this year compared to his previous years. Has the level of doping dropped drastically in 2012?

Well if you consider that the final climbs were being done at 6.7W/kg or something back then and are now done at around 5.8W/kg based on actual power data provided by the riders thats quite a big difference. For all we know Wiggins may have climbing at that sort of level back then too if he was really fighting to go up the climbs as fast as possible. Most likely when its obvious theres no way to compete he sits up and goes in the gruppeto.

As for his TTing. Well he's always had a very good TT position compared to some of the other guys, Armstrong had an awfull position but managed to win TT's so that made up some of the gap. Also if Wiggo had been taking it easy on the other days he would be fresher and be able to put in a good effort fo that one day. Not that Wiggins ever won much back then either. He had more chance than on the climbs though.

 

[Bonkstrong]

Graeme Brown?

Although I guess Rabo fail the clean test with our friend Geert, oops.

I wasn't aware Rabbo were built solely around him winning the Tour?

I'm totally on Sky's side but this whole GeertGate affair has really put a dampner on my clean arguments though. All the evidence against them doping is very poor to say the least, but the hiring of GL and the reasons given for it by Dave Brailsford are a big disappointment

 

[Choocher]

Good grief, you called yourself a fan, and then tell him that improvement (after 6 years) is unbelievable? If you didn't have your little keyboard could you possibly have the stones to say something like that to him face-to-face?
Then again, your screen name does seem to indicate you're a real jack-off, did you use the same screen name in your comments on the Guardian piece?

Probably one of those lops who'd call someone over to your parked car, then surprise them with the gleefully sick sight of you pounding the pomegranate

Come on now, please. Your tone is totally unnecessary. If you disagree with me on Wiggins, that's fine, I'm not threatened by that, but you don't need to attack me personally.

I was a fan of Wiggins because I believed that he was making an honest effort in a dishonest game. When he says something like "There's no smoke without fire," and then there is a lot of smoke, I wonder where the fire is. The main implication is that he doesn't seem credible to me anymore. As I stated, this is my opinion, based upon the huge, and incredible, gains he has made in the past 6 years.

Calling him out on something he actually said is different that calling names, which is something that you seem rather adept at. Congratulations on that.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

True, I probably shouldn't have been surprised. Truly gutless treatment of dissenting opinion, though, in my opinion. And, after all, it is only my opinion and was based on things he actually said and did. I can see if they would get spooked by obviously fabricated quotes, but the stuff I mentioned was easily verifiable.

I cited links from Dutch media regarding what former Rabo riders said about Leinders - and they told me that just because something was published elsewhere without resulting in legal action that didn't mean it wasn't "libellous".

There is a guy on the Live coverage who is getting some digs at Sky into the feed.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

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 such as stupid argument. If Brice Feillu were to do the same as Sky, it would be within the realms of known human physiology as well, but it would be entirely inconsistent with his OWN performance.

The benchmark is not the realm of possible human physiology. You have to consider how reasonable it is for a particular rider to test that benchmark.

 

[Sigmund]

Well, here is another from way back, Kleber Piot, http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kléber_Piot. He took a sixth in his first TdF at 30 years of age, and from his palmares it doesn't look like he did much else before that (apart from a third at PR).

 

[Lanark]

Well if you consider that the final climbs were being done at 6.7W/kg or something back then and are now done at around 5.8W/kg based on actual power data provided by the riders thats quite a big difference. For all we know Wiggins may have climbing at that sort of level back then too if he was really fighting to go up the climbs as fast as possible. Most likely when its obvious theres no way to compete he sits up and goes in the gruppeto.

What do you mean with 'back then'? Maybe Bjarne Riis did 6.7 w/kg, but nobody has been doing that for a very, very long time. In 2006 the best time on La Toussuire was a whopping 10 seconds faster than this year.Wiggins lost 44 minutes then, he lost 2 seconds now.

Sure, the peloton has gotten a little slower, but virtually all the improvement is on Wiggins side, the peloton started slowing down before he had his miraculous jump. Froome's increase in performance came even later, and the explanation of the peloton cleaning up works even worse there.

 

[The Real GFY]

Good grief, you called yourself a fan, and then tell him that improvement (after 6 years) is unbelievable? If you didn't have your little keyboard could you possibly have the stones to say something like that to him face-to-face?
Then again, your screen name does seem to indicate you're a real jack-off, did you use the same screen name in your comments on the Guardian piece?

Probably one of those lops who'd call someone over to your parked car, then surprise them with the gleefully sick sight of you pounding the pomegranate

Wow, that's quite the personal character attack because someone does not share your opinion. Perhaps tone it down about 10 notches please?

Thanks
GFY

 

[mastersracer]

This is such as stupid argument. If Brice Feillu were to do the same as Sky, it would be within the realms of known human physiology as well, but it would be entirely inconsistent with his OWN performance.

The benchmark is not the realm of possible human physiology. You have to consider how reasonable it is for a particular rider to test that benchmark.

so you are saying for Porte and Rogers 5.2 watts/kg for 45 minutes is unrealistic? For Froome and Wiggins 5.6 watts/kg for 45 minutes?

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

Well, here is another from way back, Kleber Piot, http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kléber_Piot. He took a sixth in his first TdF at 30 years of age, and from his palmares it doesn't look like he did much else before that (apart from a third at PR).

Look a little further down on the link you've provided. 1947 TdF - 25th. 1948 TdF - 13th.

 

[Sigmund]

And herre is another example of someone not doing much untill they got quite old. Antonio Gelabaert, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gelabert.

He won his first Vuelta andmwas 28 or 29 at the time.

I think the notion that no one came from nowhere to good results while being quite advanced in age will not stand up to close scrutiny.

 

[red_death]

As I stated, this is my opinion, based upon the huge, and incredible, gains he has made in the past 6 years.

A) pre-2009 isn't really relevant given he was still concentrating on the track until 2008.

b) Since 2009 he has 4th in the TdF, 2010 Sky cocked up on many levels, 2011 crash in TdF but 3rd in Vuelta. So in the relevant time period the improvements are not exactly stratospheric or "incredible". Unless of course Cadel going from 26 in 2010 TdF to 1st in 2011 is equally unbelievable...

 

[Caruut]

Well, here is another from way back, Kleber Piot, http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kléber_Piot. He took a sixth in his first TdF at 30 years of age, and from his palmares it doesn't look like he did much else before that (apart from a third at PR).

Not apart from being 13th 2 years before, and 25th a year before that. Plus looking at his palmares, he seems to primarily be a cyclo-crosser.

 

[Lanark]

And herre is another example of someone not doing much untill they got quite old. Antonio Gelabaert, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gelabert.

He won his first Vuelta andmwas 28 or 29 at the time.

I think the notion that no one came from nowhere to good results while being quite advanced in age will not stand up to close scrutiny.

Here is another one, age 32, didn't do anything in the GT's before that:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Garin

Clearly this is quite common place.

Not apart from being 13th 2 years before, and 25th a year before that. Plus looking at his palmares, he seems to primarily be a cyclo-crosser.

That's even ignoring the fact that the Tour wasn't organised from 1940 until 1946. People having a 'break through' at old age in that period is hardly unexpected.

 

[Sigmund]

You are right, I stand corrected!

 

[Caruut]

A) pre-2009 isn't really relevant given he was still concentrating on the track until 2008.

b) Since 2009 he has 4th in the TdF, 2010 Sky cocked up on many levels, 2011 crash in TdF but 3rd in Vuelta. So in the relevant time period the improvements are not exactly stratospheric or "incredible". Unless of course Cadel going from 26 in 2010 TdF to 1st in 2011 is equally unbelievable...

A) Pre-2009 is highly relevant, even if you would rather it weren't. He seems to have become much lighter without much drastic decrease in his power. In fact, he is better than he ever was TTing. Even then, he rode a road season - he had plenty of time to try and get some results.

B) Since 2009, he has gone from struggling to hold onto the favourites to dominating the entire calender. That is pretty impressive. Cadel's jump is irrelevant - he had been there or thereabouts for years, and had 2 below-par years.

 

[Sigmund]

Not apart from being 13th 2 years before, and 25th a year before that. Plus looking at his palmares, he seems to primarily be a cyclo-crosser.

Kinda like Wiggins being a trackie? But I agree it was a bad example from me. I assumed his palmares on wikipedia would stata his participations in a TDF. Obviously, I was wrong.

 

[Ferminal]

I wasn't aware Rabbo were built solely around him winning the Tour?

Don't worry I'm always silly

Point being, track achievements are no indication of what one may achieve in their road career. Simply saying that one has world records and gold medals in other disciplines doesn't guarantee that they will be successful, let alone dominant, road cyclists. There are no guidelines for turning a top 4km'er into a top stage racer. Boardman maybe, but there is too much noise there. McGee's stage racing peak was also his pursuiting peak. There are many developing riders in pro teams who have done top 4km times, is there now a "Wiggins Model" they can follow to become record-breaking stage racers?

The only explanation for Wiggins is that he was incredibly lazy and uncommitted as a road cyclist until 2009.