Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Ferminal]

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

Uh, no? It's a response to someone who suggested it was impossible for a non-doper to beat a doper pre-blooddoping era.

 

[the big ring]

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

And I got my words wrong again - they are inversely proportional, since

v = d/t
if d is fixed
v ~= k/t

Which basically means a 5% decrease in time results in a 5% increase in speed and vice versa.

Anecdotally, increases in speed require ~cubic increases in power.

 

[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.

What I like about this equation (-0.06*power + 55) is that at 916.67 Watts the time is zero. Transporters invented in Australia. Someone call Scotty.

 

[Square-pedaller]

And I got my words wrong again - they are inversely proportional, since

v = d/t
if d is fixed
v ~= k/t

Which basically means a 5% decrease in time results in a 5% increase in speed and vice versa.

Anecdotally, increases in speed require ~cubic increases in power.

Uh, no.

Increase time by 5%, speed reduces by (1 - (1/1.05)) x 100% = 4.76%

Tricky things, percentages.

 

[Darryl Webster]

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??

Pmsl, yeh back in 84 and 85, living in one bed flat on social security I had access to all the best " gear" .

 

[Krebs cycle]

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.

Look at figure 2 in the paper. At 350w the line on the graph is at 34min (or very close). At 250w it is almost spot on 40min. Use those to points create a simple linear regression equation (y = ax + b).

That is all I'm going off. I would love to hear from andy coggan on this but I don't think he likes me much because I argued with him over the ed coyle paper a few years ago. He is the real expert on modelling cycling performance though.

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.

This is what they say in the conclusion though...

Further, the Wpeak attained during an exhausting test
can be considered a valid predictor of cycling times over
20 km on a flat course. Whether Wpeak differentiates
among the performances of a homogeneous group of
elite cyclists remains to be tested.

So yes, I accept that maybe the results could be different for a homogeneous group of elite cyclists

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

See above. those are simply the results of the study, they aren't "my claims"

snip

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.

How can you use GT placing an objective measure of determining whether or not someone has had a 5% increase in PPO from doping? It defies any sense of logic or reason. Of course it looks suspiciously like he suddenly improved from the giro where he came 71st or whatever, but you mention "caveats" above in the study by Hawley and Noakes, but here we must make enormous assumptions that this change in GC placing had nothing to do with team tactics, preparation, or Wiggins' w/kg during the course of his weight loss. It is the watts/kg that is important for hill climbing ability and you'll note that this is exactly what British cycling focused their efforts on improving.

If Wiggins was set on doing well at the tour in 2009, then it's a pretty strong likelihood he didn't bother "racing" the giro but instead used it as part of the preparation. Before 2009 he was never a team leader so who knows what his orders were. I'm interested to know what people think where the GC placing threshold sort of ends ie: at which point do we start to see randomness in the placings which are UNRELATED to actual form but have more to do with the team orders. Anyone?

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

Hey we agree on something! For sure, history makes us suspicious of tour winners, and there is no way of knowing if Sky are 100% "clean", but you know what, I actually don't care much if they aren't 100% clean because the fact they are going slow and Wiggins is not showing any form of domination and crazy Lance stupidness (eg: attacking off the front when everyone is decimated and only his closest rival remains, sprinting away to the top of the climb and gaining 2mins in 2kms), means that if they are doping, well then they aren't getting much out of it. In that case the GC contenders who are clean and better prepared should be beating them anyway. But the fact is they turned up to the tour this year with the best preparation and team organisation. They've got 3 super domestiques, 2 of whom will be GC contenders of their own in coming years (Porte and Froome).

Its the same old story, when you guys get it in your head that someone is doping, you end up hating them so much that you can't even accept the reality that (even if they really are doping) they still prepared better than everyone else.

 

[BroDeal]

Look at figure 2 in the paper. At 350w the line on the graph is at 34min (or very close). At 250w it is almost spot on 40min. Use those to points create a simple linear regression equation (y = ax + b).

Wow. Linear, huh?

"Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and
your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman!"

 

[Bonkstrong]

Pmsl, yeh back in 84 and 85, living in one bed flat on social security I had access to all the best " gear" .

But you broke the records of a juiced rider, ergo, you *must* have been on something - it's juiced up dirty hypocrites like YOU that are wrong with this sport!! One a doper, always a doper!

So how come you've changed your position on doping since you are no better than the rest of them, what made you reform?

 

[Franklin]

How can you use GT placing an objective measure of determining whether or not someone has had a 5% increase in PPO from doping? SNIP

I'm not claiming anything, you claim that his GT performance can be foreseen if we look at his TT performance.

I directly answered your post

Its the same old story, when you guys get it in your head that someone is doping, you end up hating them so much that you can't even accept the reality that (even if they really are doping) they still prepared better than everyone else.

For the record, for me personally it was Wiggins who tossed the glove in my face.

Secondly, the problems I keep on outlining by pointing to Sky's structure are for me much more important than Wiggins, Froome, Rogers or Porte. In the end they are athletes and I respect them even if they use unsavoury methods (barring personality issues which I do have problems with).

I find it absolutely disgusting that managers like Yates and Breukink, doctors like Menuet and Leinders are still being allowed to manage/facilitate teams. And yes, there are teams MUCH worse than Sky in this regard, but Sky is the leading example, both by their performance and their own rhetoric.

Giving them a pass on all these counts because they are good at peeing is not going to help cycling.

 

[Franklin]

But you broke the records of a juiced rider, ergo, you *must* have been on something - it's juiced up dirty hypocrites like YOU that are wrong with this sport!! One a doper, always a doper!

So how come you've changed your position on doping since you are no better than the rest of them, what made you reform?

I think your sarcasm meter is off

 

[the big ring]

Uh, no.

Increase time by 5%, speed reduces by (1 - (1/1.05)) x 100% = 4.76%

Tricky things, percentages.

4.76% is only .24 of 1% different to 5%. I'll stand by my original claim.

Basically: Used to indicate that a statement summarizes the most important aspects of a more complex situation.

Pedantically: overly concerned with minute details or formalisms

 

[Darryl Webster]

But you broke the records of a juiced rider, ergo, you *must* have been on something - it's juiced up dirty hypocrites like YOU that are wrong with this sport!! One a doper, always a doper!

So how come you've changed your position on doping since you are no better than the rest of them, what made you reform?

You seriously suggesting that Yates was doping as an amateur teenager?

To give some context when Yates won the Individual amateur pursuit he was messing about at the high jump pit shortly before his ride...I kid you not... and his time for 4000 m was 4m 50 +.. my time was , in the final, was just a fraction faster on a track that was resurfaced in wood from when Yates had won.
Re the 25 tittle..51.16 , my time on a different course on a different day , while championship record wasn't even the course record of that particular course. A pal of mine tried to calculate my Watts based on my weighing 10 st 4 lbs at the time and barely got 400 watts. Different era entirely and a very much different Sean to the one that we all know of as a professional .
Some pretty

 

[The Cobra]

But you broke the records of a juiced rider, ergo, you *must* have been on something - it's juiced up dirty hypocrites like YOU that are wrong with this sport!! One a doper, always a doper!

So how come you've changed your position on doping since you are no better than the rest of them, what made you reform?

Lol, well said .

The point is people have no problem believing people won clean in the 80's. In the 90's and 00's when EPO/blood doping was rampant it was highly unlikely that anyone was winning clean. But when are we going to get back to the days when victories are thought of being clean??

With the passport and more stringent testing regimes those days are gone and the peloton is a lot cleaner and slower as evidenced by the power profiles. Horner said he was doing 340W up te final climb yesterday for ****s sake! Maybe its time to accept that times have changed and clean athletes can win again.

No sport will ever be 100% doping free. There will always be someone who thinks he can cheat the system. However given current standards in the peloton I'm going to presume they are riding clean instead opposed to juiced contrary to popular belief here in the clinic.

 

[Ferminal]

You seriously suggesting that Yates was doping as an amateur teenager?

To give some context when Yates won the Individual amateur pursuit he was messing about at the high jump pit shortly before his ride...I kid you not... and his time for 4000 m was 4m 50 +.. my time was , in the final, was just a fraction faster on a track that was resurfaced in wood from when Yates had won.
Re the 25 tittle..51.16 , my time on a different course on a different day , while championship record wasn't even the course record of that particular course. A pal of mine tried to calculate my Watts based on my weighing 10 st 4 lbs at the time and barely got 400 watts. Different era entirely and a very much different Sean to the one that we all know of as a professional .
Some pretty

Darryl, it's funny those having a go at you for a 4km record (as some kind of Sky defence?) when how many on that team have gone faster?

 

[roundabout]

Is this some sort of a "clean riders can win again, Wiggins is winning hence he is clean" argument?

 

[Bonkstrong]

I think your sarcasm meter is off

Hahaha, yes I seem to have missed the " " of the end...

Sorry Darryl...

 

[Darryl Webster]

Darryl, it's funny those having a go at you for a 4km record (as some kind of Sky defence?) when how many on that team have gone faster?

Ita amusing isn't , here in the uk in the early 80, s cycling was very impoverished , we were 10 seconds of the pace of world class amateur in the pursuit.

 

[The Cobra]

Is this some sort of a "clean riders can win again, Wiggins is winning hence he is clean" argument?

Yes, sort of .

More a case of leader of the Tour does not necessarily = doping.

Therefore I think its reasonable to presume innoncence until something substantial comes along to suggest otherwise.

 

[Franklin]

Ita amusing isn't , here in the uk in the early 80, s cycling was very impoverished , we were 10 seconds of the pace of world class amateur in the pursuit.

Maybe this is a myth, but wasn't UK cycling primarily ultra long ITT's and track? That would explain why in that area you wern't so far off.

Also, the Irish did quite okay

 

[Bonkstrong]

You seriously suggesting that Yates was doping as an amateur teenager?

To give some context when Yates won the Individual amateur pursuit he was messing about at the high jump pit shortly before his ride...I kid you not... and his time for 4000 m was 4m 50 +.. my time was , in the final, was just a fraction faster on a track that was resurfaced in wood from when Yates had won.
Re the 25 tittle..51.16 , my time on a different course on a different day , while championship record wasn't even the course record of that particular course. A pal of mine tried to calculate my Watts based on my weighing 10 st 4 lbs at the time and barely got 400 watts. Different era entirely and a very much different Sean to the one that we all know of as a professional .
Some pretty

Yes, but this is the clinic where the logic is that Rider A is a doper, Rider B beats Rider A so is Rider B automatically becomes a doper. So, Mr. Darryl the Doper, it doesn't matter what "facts" you use in your defence, you are nothing more than a doper!

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Yes, but this is the clinic where the logic is that Rider A is a doper, Rider B beats Rider A so is Rider B automatically becomes a doper. So, Mr. Darryl the Doper, it doesn't matter what "facts" you use in your defence, you are nothing more than a doper!

Yes, that is it, bravo! well done

 

[Darryl Webster]

Maybe this is a myth, but wasn't UK cycling primarily ultra long ITT's and track? That would explain why in that area you wern't so far off.

Also, the Irish did quite okay

There was a full calendar of time trailing , still is, from 10miles right unto 24 hours. When it didn't rain ( it rains a lot! ) there was track but there wasn't a single indoor track suitable for racing on. There was plenty of road racing ,more than now , but field size was limited in almost all instances.
The biggest issue facing British cycling was the lack of funds..even when representing the country at worlds and Olympics we hand back our skin suits and track tops and we rode our own bikes. In my entire time on the Nat squad from 79 to 85 we didn't once even get a blood analysis. We had talented riders and a very few went to France and even less were able to break through and build a career out of it.

 

[Ferminal]

Yes, but this is the clinic where the logic is that Rider A is a doper, Rider B beats Rider A so is Rider B automatically becomes a doper. So, Mr. Darryl the Doper, it doesn't matter what "facts" you use in your defence, you are nothing more than a doper!

Can we have a minute's silence for Boardman then?

 

[Square-pedaller]

4.76% is only .24 of 1% different to 5%. I'll stand by my original claim.

Basically: Used to indicate that a statement summarizes the most important aspects of a more complex situation.

Pedantically: overly concerned with minute details or formalisms

We're talking mathematics.

You are mathematically correct when you say that speed and time are inversely directly proportional.

You are not mathematically correct in saying that an x% increase in speed is an x% decrease in time. A 50% increase in speed is only a 33% decrease in time.

 

[Bonkstrong]

Yes, that is it, bravo! well done

It's not everyone Zam but there are a lot of posters that have that mentality, or at least that's how it comes through in their posts.