Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[sittingbison]

... this surely explains why Michael Rasmussen suddenly was a pretty good TT specialist

And three times world ITT champion* Andy Schleck hehe

* in his dreams last year in Grenoble the night before stage 20

 

[Krebs cycle]

That all depends on exactly how you define improvement. To me, maintaining (and actually improving slightly) TT performance while climbing so much better than you were before is a big improvement. In that respect, I think 2009 is a sudden and dramatic improvement.

Thank you for a mature response to continue the discussion.

Studies of the effect of EPO on VO2max show that increases of 6-15% can occur and one study shows that PPO went up 13% in trained cyclists. It would be very difficult for a pro cyclist already has a PPO somewhere in the vicinity of 500-550watts to increase by a further 13%, so a conservative estimate might be 5-7%.

I used the data from the following study to check power requirement vs time in a 20km on road TT and the linear regression is...

time (mins) = -0.06 * peak power + 55

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1505544

Nb: Peak power refers to the max power achieved on a VO2max step test, not an anaerobic sprint test.

If you use that equation you will notice that the % increase in PPO on an incremental step test gives and a similar performance gain in the TT when using time as your measure. ie: a 5% increase in power gives about a 5% improvement in performance on the 20km TT.

Now go and check Wiggins results compared to Cancellara in every prologue or short TT from 2005 through 2009. There is virtually no change whatsoever. If Wiggins had got even a 2 or 3% improvement in PPO from doping over that time he should have gained about 2-3% on Cancellara, but he didn't.

Regarding the weight loss thing, you need to make the assumption that Wiggins did indeed LOSE power when he lost weight, but that is a big assumption. I know the brother of the British Track Cycling Head coach (Shane Sutton) and I have also met Peter Keene before who is the head sport scientist for British cycling. These guys know their stuff and I trust their ethics. I don't think they are fools that would just tell Wiggins to go on a crash diet and suddenly lose power.

Now I'm sure the trolls will laugh and scoff at this because they've got no idea about cycling, but here is a good question to think about... why would you lose leg power if all you did was decrease upper body muscle mass?

Wiggins rode the Olympic Games last summer weighing 82kg. In the past he has ridden the Tour and Giro d'Italia at about 77kg or 78kg. The aim was to start the Tour this year at 72kg. It stands to reason that if you can produce 450 watts for 10 minutes weighing 72kg instead of 78, the gain in performance is going to be considerable. Enough, Parker says, to put him in the front group on the climbs.

"You develop a lot of muscle mass, particularly on the upper body, while training for the track over the winter," says Parker. "We wanted him to lose that, but to do it slowly, so that it didn't affect his power.

"Everyone has focused on the weight loss, but it's not been radical. It's been managed very sensibly and safely. If you lose weight too quickly you don't maintain the power and you can affect the immune system. Radical weight loss in sport is never good."

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/436524/bradley-wiggins-the-transformation.html

 

[Krebs cycle]

Sorry Krebs, drop the posing as this truly takes it to another level.
You blandly state here that training for ITT's is the same as training for Mountains and that a key for both is weight loss.

Where did I say that training for long TTs is the same as training for the mountains? You are blandly misunderstanding a very simple statement.

Wiggins would have altered his training from track focus to GT focus. To achieve that you need to train for both road TTs and the mountains. Srsly, even a 5yr old could have understood that is what I meant.

 

[Franklin]

I used the data from the following study to check power requirement vs time in a 20km on road TT and the linear regression is...

time (mins) = -0.06 * peak power + 55

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1505544

Nb: Peak power refers to the max power achieved on a VO2max step test, not an anaerobic sprint test.

If you use that equation you will notice that the % increase in PPO on an incremental step test gives and a similar performance gain in the TT when using time as your measure. ie: a 5% increase in power gives about a 5% improvement in performance on the 20km TT.

Sorry, but this is clerly absolute and utter abuse of a test. Your extrapolating of a test methodology towards GT ITT level perfomance differences due to power is just hilarious.

The idea that 5% more power translates to 5% faster times is beyond idiotic. I wonder if you can figure out why physics make this impossible

 

[Krebs cycle]

Sorry, but this is clerly absolute and utter abuse of a test. Your extrapolating of a test methodology towards GT ITT level perfomance differences due to power is just hilarious.

The idea that 5% more power translates to 5% faster times is beyond idiotic. I wonder if you can figure out why physics make this impossible

I wonder if you can figure out that is exactly what the authors of the study recorded when they did the experiment.

 

[Franklin]

I wonder if you can figure out that is exactly what the authors of the study recorded when they did the experiment.

I have no access to the article, but there simply is no way around physics. On a sde note, they talk about "predicting', not extrapolating performance as exactly as you do. Another side note, the abstract indicates they were comparing cyclists power, not having a cyclist improve his power 5%.

Unless the abstract is incorrect it does not seem to prove what you imagine it does.

And to drive this one home 5% extra power does not translate to 5% faster ITT, especially not at the GT level. Physics simply make this completely and utterly impossible. If you continue this claim I suggest you do a bit more research in physics and cycling. It will improve your "science"

 

[BroDeal]

Sorry, but this is clerly absolute and utter abuse of a test. Your extrapolating of a test methodology towards GT ITT level perfomance differences due to power is just hilarious.

The idea that 5% more power translates to 5% faster times is beyond idiotic. I wonder if you can figure out why physics make this impossible

Starting with 350 Watts, I get a 1.814% increase in speed for a 5% increase in power.

To get a 5% increase in speed requires a 14.3% increase in power.

 

[Franklin]

Starting with 350 Watts, I get a 1.814% increase in speed for a 5% increase in power.

To get a 5% increase in speed requires a 14.3% increase in power.

No, no, no, Krebs says it's a straight up 5%=5% translation and he knows the science

 

[Krebs cycle]

I have no access to the article, but there simply is no way around physics. On a sde note, they talk about "predicting', not extrapolating performance as exactly as you do. Another side note, the abstract indicates they were comparing cyclists power, not having a cyclist improve his power 5%.

Unless the abstract is incorrect it does not seem to prove what you imagine it does.

And to drive this one home 5% extra power does not translate to 5% faster ITT, especially not at the GT level. Physics simply make this completely and utterly impossible. If you continue this claim I suggest you do a bit more research in physics and cycling. It will improve your "science"

I uploaded the article for you here....

http://www.sendspace.com/file/um1xkd

btw, maybe you are misunderstanding something, the linear relationship is NOT between the average power during the TT and the time. As stated, it is the relationship between PPO and time in minutes to cover 20km out on the road. The PPO accounts for 82% of the variation in TT performance in minutes.

How about instead of continually questioning me, you start posting some facts and figures yourself to back up your arguments? You are hanging your hat on 2 key points. Where is your empirical evidence which backs up either of these?

1. Wiggins suddenly improved performance in 2009 = FALSE (as determined by TT results)

and

2. Wiggins and Froome are leading this years TdF whilst going slower than Lance, Pantani, Indurain, Riis or Contador did in previous years.

That is SO convincing. Yeah man you got me, they are totally doped to the eyeballs.

 

[Sigmund]

No, no, no, Krebs says it's a straight up 5%=5% translation and he knows the science

Just to spli som hairs, the exact percentage depends on the initial speed, so someone going real slow will percentage wise increase their speed slightly more.

 

[Franklin]

Just to spli som hairs, the exact percentage depends on the initial speed, so someone going real slow will percentage wise increase their speed slightly more.

Hence "trained cyclists" is a questionmark. Is a trained cyclists Me (Cat 2 rider)? Someone who daily cycles to work? Brad Wiggins?

The article is clear here: It's about cyclists like me.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Starting with 350 Watts, I get a 1.814% increase in speed for a 5% increase in power.

To get a 5% increase in speed requires a 14.3% increase in power.

lol I guess you are also really bad at basic maths.

If you start with 350w and increase that by 5% you get 367.5W

Using the equation time = -0.06*power + 55

then
350w = 34min
367.5w = 32.95min

which is a 3.0882% decrease in time.

edit: oh sorry my bad, I didn't realize you can't even READ properly. It says TIME versus power, not speed vs power.

 

[The Cobra]

That's an interesting observation Hawk. I started my cycling in the mid 70,s and your right, the view of Simpson was rather different back then. Obviously most thought of it as tragic he,d lost his life and I recall many were incredulous that he,d been put back on his bike but I don't recall any thinking of him as hero.
Yates "teaching him the ropes" I might suggest was as much about Yates being trusted to keep his mouth shut about what Lance might be up to. Interesting also that Yates has some serious health issues that might well be the result of years of PED use.
As a little aside when I won the British individual pursuit champs in 84 and the national 25 mile champs in 85, on both occasions in what were then championship records , it was Yates ,s records I broke

I presume you were on the juice too then as here in the clinic we know its not physiologically possible for a clean rider to ever beat a doper.

Or is it just Wiggins??

 

[Ferminal]

I presume you were on the juice too then as here in the clinic we know its not physiologically possible for a clean rider to ever beat a doper.

In the 80s?

 

[the big ring]

edit: oh sorry my bad, I didn't realize you can't even READ properly. It says TIME versus power, not speed vs power.

No offense but if distance is fixed, speed and time are directly proportional.

 

[The Cobra]

In the 80s?

I forgot no one doped in the 80's did they, oops. Just because EPO wasnt around doesnt means there wasnt other stuff which could make a massive difference to performance. If people go on about how much of a joke testing was in the 90's and 00's what would stop them from going all out on the juice in the 80's?

 

[Ferminal]

I forgot no one doped in the 80's did they, oops. Just because EPO wasnt around doesnt means there wasnt other stuff which could make a massive difference to performance. If people go on about how much of a joke testing was in the 90's and 00's what would stop them from going all out on the juice in the 80's?

So what substances used in that era provided gains similar to those of blood doping?

 

[Franklin]

I uploaded the article for you here....

http://www.sendspace.com/file/um1xkd

Thanks (no sarcasm!)

I skimmed it and read the conclusion. I'm not a scientist, but there is still no support for your claims that there is a linear 5% extra peak=5% faster times.

Also, what you omitted is that the scientists in the paper are full of caveats considering the relation between peak power and TT performance. They certainly claim there is a high correlation, but they don't use it to predict performance due to the high standard error and (this is amusing considering your claims) they question of a flat ITT as method for predicting performance.

The article still does not seem to support your claims (which considering the physics involved would be truly amazing)

Now on the other points, I'll handwaving the false attributions as I'm actually hammering on the structure and intransparencies (the forest you seem to gloss over) and will try to answer your post as if those are indeed my talking points.

1. Wiggins suddenly finishes 4th in the GT. If you maintain that this is predicted by his TT's I'm absolutely done talking to you.

2. History, statistics (science, you love it!) have proven beyond doubt that doping was used by every level of pro cycling. This shows that not every Epo user magically becomes Lance Armstrong. Slower times indicate less Blood-vector doping, but it's in no way evidence that Sky is clean.

The only solid thing going for Sky is that they never tested positive

 

[Franklin]

No offense but if distance is fixed, speed and time are directly proportional.

I'm rolling my eyes here... the big scientist surely has trouble with some basic things like time, speed and drag.

 

[cycladianpirate]

So what substances used in that era provided gains similar to those of blood doping?

This question appears to imply that cheaters are less culpable if the means by which they cheat are less effective.

This is one of the reasons I find the anti-Sky sentiments expressed here somewhat ironic. Posters seem to be aggrieved not because they truly believe that Sky are the ONLY team juicing, but because they are doing it so much better than everyone else.

Shame on them for having a better programme!!

 

[BroDeal]

lol I guess you are also really bad at basic maths.

If you start with 350w and increase that by 5% you get 367.5W

Using the equation time = -0.06*power + 55

then
350w = 34min
367.5w = 32.95min

which is a 3.0882% decrease in time.

edit: oh sorry my bad, I didn't realize you can't even READ properly. It says TIME versus power, not speed vs power.

350W = 12.68 m/s
367.5W = 12.91 m/s

20km at 350W = 1577.29 secs
20lm at 367.5W = 1549.19 secs

1.81% decrease

 

[The Cobra]

So what substances used in that era provided gains similar to those of blood doping?

I didnt say that. Although taking test. can turn you into a machine. It might not boost your areobic system like EPO but it can allow you to train and recover in a way that a clean athlete could only dream of. That definitely makes a difference.

 

[Franklin]

This question appears to imply that cheaters are less culpable if the means by which they cheat are less effective.

No, it implies how plausible it is that a clean cyclist beats a doped cyclist!

 

[Square-pedaller]

If you start with 350w and increase that by 5% you get 367.5W

Using the equation time = -0.06*power + 55

then
350w = 34min
367.5w = 32.95min

which is a 3.0882% decrease in time.

Just crashing in here without knowing much about power, so I'm just using your equation.
Speed will be inversely proportional to time, so s = k/t, where k is a constant.
at 350w the speed is therfore k/34
and at 367.5w, k/32.97
The ratio of these two speeds (with the higher power/lower power)= 34/32.97
= 1.0312, which is a 3.12% increase in speed.
So with a 5% change in power, you don't get a 5% change in either time or speed.
The fact that there is a constant added into your equation, which isn't multiplied by power, should suggest to you that the % changes in time and speed for a given change in power will vary with the starting value of power.
Moreover, with your equation, sufficient power would result in negative time, so the equation cannot be more than a good approximation over a limited power range.

 

[Franklin]

.
Moreover, with your equation, sufficient power would result in negative time,

Krebs do you work for CERN Gran Sasso?