Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Benotti69]

Look!! There's a bag of drugs stuck up the left leg of his skinsuit!! (Or possibly 20 Consulate and a lighter)

Blow is in the left leg and weed on the back. Weed gives better aerodynamics

 

[l.Harm]

Okay I never watch the Clinic and I don't have the time to read all this 244 pages. So I basically have a few questions.

- What's the main opinion at this forum about Sky and dope? Or maybe there are two opposite visions, please explain

- What are the main arguments behind this/these opinion(s)?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Krebs cycle]

If I remember correctly, I was recently posting about the physiology of the IP vs FTP vs VO2max - and you were telling me:
.

you engaged for a few posts and then you promptly decided to stop responding to the topic and instead go trawling through old posts of mine from 3yrs ago in some attempt to PLAY THE MAN. For weeks you've been trying to discredit my experience and qualifications and call me a fraud etc etc

I could in fact have no qualifications whatsoever, but I certainly know the scientific literature on this topic far better than you and if you spent half as much time actually reading and digesting some of the science that I have linked to (instead of dismissing it without taking the time to understand it) as you do trying to find some inconsistency from what I said 3yrs ago then you might learn something. That is the only thing I'm trying to do here.

And another thing, if you actually accepted the fact that on many occasions I have stated that Wiggins COULD BE doping and none of what I have posted proves that he isn't then you might also realize that I don't care if he is or isn't. I am vociferously defending the position that the strongest circumstantial evidence of doping that exists is a sudden non-linear improvement in performance. Using GC placing as your criteria to judge that in Wiggins case is a flawed approach because he was a domestique prior to 2009 and his #1 priority was the IP. Examining prologues and TTs shows that he was up there with the best well before 2009 and it also shows no evidence of a non-linear improvement in 2009 or any time thereafter.

I'm not ignoring the other stuff (eg: Leinders, Froome, Porte, Rogers), I just think it is weak evidence compared to the performance results.

btw have you figured out yet that you pretty much annihilated your own "Krebs is a Wiggins fanboy" theory by posting those old posts where I was highly critical of Wiggins and probably even accused him of being a doper?

I was highly critical of him at that time because I was ignorant and I probably just believed he was doping without really examining the evidence properly. Rings a bell doesn't it?

 

[Benotti69]

Okay I never watch the Clinic and I don't have the time to read all this 244 pages. So I basically have a few questions.

- What's the main opinion at this forum about Sky and dope? Or maybe there are two opposite visions, please explain

There are those that call it as they see it, ie Sky were doing a USPostal, ie doping and then there are the fans, posters who refuse to use their eyes to see the reality.

- What are the main arguments behind this/these opinion(s)?

Thanks in advance.

That Wiggins and Brailsford talk about their love of USPS and Armstrong.
They use 2 Doctors who have doping pasts. Geert Leinders and Bartalucci
They were doing a USPS all TdF
Wiggins has been peaking all season
Sky domestiques riding better than other teams GC contenders

Then there are the arguments that Sky say they are clean!

 

[Cavalier]

All right, so from now on, in the name of transparency, which is the Sky middle name after all, all Sky riders must have their photo taken, from all angels, every month, with no clothing but dark socks and ditto briefs. The photos must be posted on the Sky web site under a CC BY-SA licence, so they can be freely used for forum posters who needs to prove stuff to Sky fans.

I'm seriously not sure how your post made it past whatever astonishingly stupid filter you've got on your keyboard, but I'm definitely not a Sky fan, and nor do I think they're clean, but I thought my point was simple - if you're going to post pictures as comparisons you need to actually do so with a degree of common sense.

 

[the big ring]

you engaged for a few posts and then you promptly decided to stop responding to the topic and instead go trawling through old posts of mine from 3yrs ago in some attempt to PLAY THE MAN. For weeks you've been trying to discredit my experience and qualifications and call me a fraud etc etc

I could in fact have no qualifications whatsoever, but I certainly know the scientific literature on this topic far better than you and if you spent half as much time actually reading and digesting some of the science that I have linked to (instead of dismissing it without taking the time to understand it) as you do trying to find some inconsistency from what I said 3yrs ago then you might learn something. That is the only thing I'm trying to do here.

And another thing, if you actually accepted the fact that on many occasions I have stated that Wiggins COULD BE doping and none of what I have posted proves that he isn't then you might also realize that I don't care if he is or isn't. I am vociferously defending the position that the strongest circumstantial evidence of doping that exists is a sudden non-linear improvement in performance. Using GC placing as your criteria to judge that in Wiggins case is a flawed approach because he was a domestique prior to 2009 and his #1 priority was the IP. Examining prologues and TTs shows that he was up there with the best well before 2009 and it also shows no evidence of a non-linear improvement in 2009 or any time thereafter.

I'm not ignoring the other stuff (eg: Leinders, Froome, Porte, Rogers), I just think it is weak evidence compared to the performance results.

btw have you figured out yet that you pretty much annihilated your own "Krebs is a Wiggins fanboy" theory by posting those old posts where I was highly critical of Wiggins and probably even accused him of being a doper?

I was highly critical of him at that time because I was ignorant and I probably just believed he was doping without really examining the evidence properly. Rings a bell doesn't it?

We might be finally getting to some truth. Good good. As for you knowing the literature better, well, I hardly think you're going to say otherwise are you. I am pretty confident you could explain it if you could understand it, but so far all you have done is copy & paste abstracts. Given the search is free and abstracts are public, that hardly makes you more knowledgeable. The hyperbolic function you mentioned, but only when I called you on the "WRONG WRONG WRONG" post, has been in WKO+ for a LONG time now, and is common knowledge for anyone using a power meter - all the power meter software apps have it. Don't carry on like you're schooling me, coz you ain't.

I am basing my doping accusation via non-linear improvement on much more than GC position.
eg: You claim Brad's "world class tting ability" PROVES he can win a GT. Except, Wiggins in 5th in 2005 WC TT then went SLOWER in 2007 - ie with a larger margin to the winner. 2009 he would have placed 4th at best, behind T Martin who smashed him 2 years later in 2011. Yes, Brad is getting better from 2009 - the time in contention, but not better than T Martin. Oh. Until 2012 Olympics, where he reverses a 1:15 deficit to Tony Martin and adds 40 seconds for good measure. Ouch.

You claim there has been a steady progression on the road for the last 7 years - yet in 2006 he did nothing. NOTHING. So we would have to start the "progression" from 2007. Where again he did sweet FA, but 2 years later he's coming 4th at the TdF in very elite, probably doped company. Uh huh.

To say B Wiggins was good at prologues is kinda weird for a physiologist, given Brad's focus on IP distances all this time. You'd expect an IPer to be good at short TTs, and waddaya know, he is.

Your posts from 2009 are not critical of Brad at all - you write more as if he is not even on your radar. You certainly never leveled the "doper" accusation at him. Your dogged determination to argue his cleanliness now is a stark contrast, and I am genuinely curious as to what happened.

Someone else on this board has gone the complete other way.

Still waiting for the link where you discuss Wiggins' aerobic vs anaerobic power source for IP - apparently from a month ago.

Have you calculated Wiggins VO2 max yet? All the data required is in the Wiggins cadence thread. Should be a doddle for a PhD in exercise physiology. Hint: you can use the CP graph acoggan put together!

 

[D-Queued]

There are those that call it as they see it, ie Sky were doing a USPostal, ie doping and then there are the fans, posters who refuse to use their eyes to see the reality.



That Wiggins and Brailsford talk about their love of USPS and Armstrong.
They use 2 Doctors who have doping pasts. Geert Leinders and Bartalucci
They were doing a USPS all TdF
Wiggins has been peaking all season
Sky domestiques riding better than other teams GC contenders

Then there are the arguments that Sky say they are clean!

Don't forget the really naughty words Wiggo bespoke when he lost it to a simple, honest question.

The only other person in cycling that treats the press like that isn't a very nice person and thinks we don't believe in miracles or something.

Dave.

 

[The Hitch]

Okay I never watch the Clinic and I don't have the time to read all this 244 pages. So I basically have a few questions.

- What's the main opinion at this forum about Sky and dope? Or maybe there are two opposite visions, please explain

- What are the main arguments behind this/these opinion(s)?

Thanks in advance.

Keeping it short the main arguments behind

They dope:
1 their riders have made unrealistic transformations over a short period,
2 they support, and get support from the likes of Mcquaid and Armstrong who obviously represent the doping side of cycling,
3 they have a few dodgy doctors on their team, namely Geert Lienders, despite claiming to have a strong anti doping policy
4 Wiggins used to be very anti doping when he was a average rider, but after becoming a top rider, he has mysteriously changed sides and not only refuses to talk about doping, but has gone back on the promises he made back then

They dont dope are
1 None of these riders have ever tested positive.
2 The wattages up the climbs this year were slower compared to previous years
3 The field in the Tour was relatively weak
4 They have better training than other teams.
5 (not neccesarily by posters here but a very popular belief among many especially outside the forum ) - British people dont dope.

But of course with the latter, someone from the pro wiggins side might want to frame it differently.

 

[sittingbison]

apropos of not much, except to put a different perspective on all the power figures that get bandied about:

@Vaughters Andrew Talansky (63 kg), Vuelta, Stage 4, MAX Avg: 5 min 352W=5.59 W/kg, 20 min 329W=5.22 W/kg, 30 min 312W=4.95 W/kg. Well done!

There has been a general observation that it is not a great idea to use power figures, as the entire sport has been sullied since circa 1992 with EPO and oxygen vector doping, which coincides with the widespread scientific use of power data. I laugh when figures for Brad, Mick, Vroome and Richie like 6.5W/kg, 450W sustained up a Pyrenee, 7% better than Dr Freiburgenstein, Basso tweeting 420W etc etc then the data acoggan puts out are all blithely accepted. Why anyone would think that figures that approach Lance et al are anything but suspicious is beyond me.

 

[Krebs cycle]

And the issue that still has not been adequately resolved (despite krebs best efforts) is how has he not lost power from the 4 minute 82kg performance to the 69kg 1 hour ITT performance and 6 hour per day Pyrenees performances when he was already at peek fitness for the track ie not carrying a spare tyre.

Why is it so difficult to understand that through 2008 in preparation for the olympics Wiggins would have bumped up his weight to 82kg and that his 4min power would have been at its peak. At that time, it is likely his 40MP would have been lower than his best despite being heavier. Just a couple of days ago I linked to a recent review article which says that the (approx hyperbolic) shape of the power vs time continuum can CHANGE with changes in training.

Now when exactly was Wiggins 69kg? Oh wait, in 2012 the Team Sky website says he is 69kg so he must have been 69kg in 2009? Come on, use some common sense guys. The Team Sky website is basically useless because everyone knows that bw can change.

I've searched for media reports and according to Wiggins himself, he was 71-72kg at the tour in 2009 and then the only time he turned up to race at 69kg was at the tour in 2011. In 2009, a full 10-11months after the olympics it is HIGHLY likely that Wiggins' 4min MP was below what it was in Beijing. So what about his 40min MP? Well we don't have any idea what it was when he was 82kg, so the best thing we can do is go back to 2007 when he was reportedly 77kg (according to Wiggins himself and also Boyer) and compare TT results.

In the tour in 2009 his TT results were good but not remarkable and its pretty obvious he didn't improve at all in this dept compared with his 2007. However, what DID change was his training focus. A loss of 40min MP due to dropping race weight from 77kg down to 71kg could be offset (or partially offset) by altered training in combination with a slightly decreased CdA.

Road season 2007 = 77.5kg
Olympics 2008 = 82kg
TdF 2009 = 71.5kg
TdF 2011 = 69kg

So over a 2yr period from 2009 through to 2011, he lost a whopping 2.5kgs. He was still pretty much even with Martin in the TT at the Dauphine in 2011 and maybe his weight was slightly higher then since he had another month to go until the TdF anyway. Unfortunately for all of us wanting to examine this issue in the 2011 TdF, there was no ITT before he crashed out that year. Later in the year however in Sept he was 1:15 behind Martin at the TT world championships. So compared with Martin at the Dauphine he went slower (which you might expect since he was recovering from the crash).

This year at the olympics he was only 40sec in front of Martin. I did the sums and compared with the Dauphine in 2011 it represents a 1.2sec/km improvement which is about a 2% improvement. Previously I posted a link to a review article which says that the CV of TT performance (in the lab which is more controlled) is in the range of 2-3%. That is for an individual, but here we are comparing 2 individuals out on the road so it must be higher than that, and yet we only saw a 2% improvement. So the change is LESS than the normal CV. Is that sort of improvement possible without PEDs? Yes of course it is. As much as many of you scoff at "marginal gains" and think it is just a smokescreen for doping, well you could be right, maybe it is, but it still doesn't mean that marginal gains are BS.

All I can think is that this stuff goes way over the head of most of you, so you just ignore it and think I'm crazy or something because I'm missing the forest which is Leinders, Rogers, Porte and Froome. You are all putting your eggs in one basket which is Rogers off the cuff remark about his "best numbers ever". Yes it is cause for suspicion but I'd really like to see some hard and fast data before making assumptions and pretending to know how tight this remark actually is.

 

[Cavalier]

Ha, complete diversion once his MAOD test point got thoroughly debunked.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Your dogged determination to argue his cleanliness now is a stark contrast, and I am genuinely curious as to what happened.

....and this is why you fail and why I can't be bothered banging my head against a brick wall anymore.

I'm not arguing that Wiggins is clean. How many times do I have to repeat this? I am arguing that his performances over the past 7yrs are all explainable in terms of known human physiology and do not strongly indicate doping. You are the one who is arguing that Wiggins IS doping and then trying to dispute or dismiss the scientific evidence which I have presented in support of my opinion (which I repeat is shared by many other exercise physiologists).

Anyway, time will tell. If a positive test result or a doping investigation or eyewitness testimony comes out in the next 3-5yrs I will happily admit that Wiggins didn't get his marginal gains from training, but it still doesn't mean that what I've been discussing regarding human performance is wrong.

My guess though is that nothing like this will come out and you'll be in here arguing the same crap over and over in 5yrs time.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Ha, complete diversion once his MAOD test point got thoroughly debunked.

oh hey, here is the guy who is "going to start" his exercise science degree next year. Look out, I'm really scared now of your high school PE class level of knowledge.

what got debunked professor? did someone post the results of Wiggins MAOD test did they? Was JV telling a lie when he claimed (as I speculated over a month ago) that Wiggins was more aerobic than usual for an IP rider?

 

[Cavalier]

Hey, don't get all upset and start "PLAYING THE MAN". I get that you're upset that the test you've performed on "many occasions" was thoroughly debunked to the extent you didn't reply for two days, and then thoroughly ignored it.

But then I'm not the one posting with enunciation levels of an angry teenager.

 

[sittingbison]

...Was JV telling a lie when he claimed (as I speculated over a month ago) that Wiggins was more aerobic than usual for an IP rider?

krebs, JV has an extremely interesting (and no doubt peculiar to many as they cannot fathom his intent) character traits and method of communication. His comments should not be taken at face value.

He does not tell lies per se, but speaks in veiled tones, riddle, subterfuge, double entendre, euphemism and reverse.

His various comments on Wiggo are telling - the weight, power outputs, public comments etc, they all start to paint a picture when you understand JVSpeak

 

[sittingbison]

...according to Wiggins himself, he was 71-72kg at the tour in 2009 and then the only time he turned up to race at 69kg was at the tour in 2011.... 2007 when he was reportedly 77kg (according to Wiggins himself and also Boyer)...

Road season 2007 = 77.5kg
Olympics 2008 = 82kg
TdF 2009 = 71.5kg
TdF 2011 = 69kg

So over a 2yr period from 2009 through to 2011, he lost a whopping 2.5kgs....

krebs, the reason it is not satisfactorily explained is that over an eleven month period from 2008 Beijing to 2009 TdF he lost a whopping 10.5kg....and magically pulled out 4th place with dopers AC and Lance in front and Franck, Kloden and Nibali behind, in a performance that had never even been hinted at.

Giro 2005 123rd 2008 134th 2009 71st
TdF 2006 123rd 2007 WD 2009 4th

I know he went back to track in 2008 so his weight would have gone up, but these drastic weight changes for a supreme-elite athlete are truly remarkable.

He is described as X gold medals, Y world champs etc, he is the creme de la creme of athletes, he would never have an ounce of fat on him. All his losses and gains are power producing muscles.

Anyway, as I said before I have given up talking about Wiggos weight. Done to death now.

 

[acoggan]

Please provide a link to the protocol that explains the difference between aerobic AND anaerobic sources of power production in IP events, and how you would measure them accurately enough to be able to state that a person (ie Brad) is doing it more aerobically than the average world IP pursuiter?

Sorry, I know I'm late to the party, but to answer your question: see our book, http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com, and/or visit the fixedgearfever website for a .ppt on track applications for a powermeter for examples on how to do this.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Hey, don't get all upset and start "PLAYING THE MAN". I get that you're upset that the test you've performed on "many occasions" was thoroughly debunked to the extent you didn't reply for two days, and then thoroughly ignored it.

But then I'm not the one posting with enunciation levels of an angry teenager.

Sorry but I do have better things to do than come in here everyday. I didn't see that post by the big ring, but I'm glad you alerted me to it because yet again it shows how incredibly hopeless you guys are at basic comprehension.

For starters, I said that that the MAOD is a test which can be used ESTIMATE the percent contribution of aerobic vs anaerobic sources. I never stated that it was an accurate measure of anaerobic CAPACITY which is an entirely different physiological variable.

Secondly, I've got the fulltext of that review article and in the conclusion the authors give a bunch of recommendations about how to conduct an MAOD procedure to give the most reliable and accurate measure of anaerobic CAPACITY. At no point in the article do the authors specifically state that the test should be abandoned all together because it is so bad that it isn't even worth the effort.

Thirdly, I speculated that if an IP rider was "more aerobic" than typical then this would lend itself to successful transition to road cycling. No matter how "debunked" you think the MAOD test is, that makes no difference to Wiggins' physiology.

You schoolboys haven't debunked sh!t I'm afraid. I really hope you get better at this stuff before you start your uni degree dude because you are gonna fail badly if this is the best you can do.

 

[Cavalier]

So it's ok for you to make suppositions about Wiggins' physiology, but not for anyone else?

You really need to work on the parameters you're attempting to argue.

 

[Cavalier]

2009 TdF he lost a whopping 10.5kg....and magically pulled out 4th place with dopers AC and Lance in front and Franck, Kloden and Nibali behind.

This is relevant. krebs expects us to believe that Wiggins' gains are credible based on physiology.

So, knowing what gains blood doping gives, an undoped Wiggins finished just 37 seconds behind Lance Armstrong, and with other dopers behind him. I'd suggest that's probably the single greatest sporting performance of all time, and more so than his win this year.

 

[sittingbison]

...What are the main arguments behind this/these opinion(s)?.

...
That Wiggins and Brailsford talk about their love of USPS and Armstrong.
They use 2 Doctors who have doping pasts. Geert Leinders and Bartalucci
They were doing a USPS all TdF
Wiggins has been peaking all season
Sky domestiques riding better than other teams GC contenders..

Don't forget the really naughty words Wiggo bespoke when he lost it to a simple, honest question....

1 their riders have made unrealistic transformations over a short period,
2 they support, and get support from the likes of Mcquaid and Armstrong who obviously represent the doping side of cycling,
3 they have a few dodgy doctors on their team, namely Geert Lienders, despite claiming to have a strong anti doping policy
4 Wiggins used to be very anti doping when he was a average rider, but after becoming a top rider, he has mysteriously changed sides and not only refuses to talk about doping, but has gone back on the promises he made back then

And then there are the infamous 2010 leaked UCI suspicious bio passport ratings, with zero being no suspicion, and ten being the maximum. The large majority of riders received scores of four or less...

2010 Sky 5 Wiggins, 0 Barry, 2 Cummings, 0 Boasson Hagen, 0 Gerrans, 3 Flecha, 4 Pauwels, 6 Thomas, 2 Löfkvist
2011 Sky 5 Wiggins, 6 Thomas, 0 Boasson Hagen, 3 Flecha, 6 Knees, 0 Gerrans
2012 Sky 5 Wiggins, 7 Rogers, 6 Knees, 0 Boasson Hagen, 2 Cavendish, 4 Eisel, 8 Siutsou

It is interesting that the 2010 team only Wiggo and Thomas were above average suspicious. But for the 2012 team, they have hired Knees, Rogers and Siutsou who were all very extremely suspicious.

another example of marginal gains

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

And then there are the infamous 2010 leaked UCI suspicious bio passport ratings, with zero being no suspicion, and ten being the maximum. The large majority of riders received scores of four or less...

2010 Sky 5 Wiggins, 0 Barry, 2 Cummings, 0 Boasson Hagen, 0 Gerrans, 3 Flecha, 4 Pauwels, 6 Thomas
2011 Sky 5 Wiggins, 6 Thomas, 0 Boasson Hagen, 3 Flecha, 6 Knees, 0 Gerrans
2012 Sky 5 Wiggins, 7 Rogers, 6 Knees, 0 Boasson Hagen, 2 Cavendish, 4 Eisel, 8 Siutsou

It is interesting that the 2010 team only Wiggo and Thomas were above average suspicious. But for the 2012 team, they have hired Knees, Rogers and Siutsou who were all very extremely suspicious.

another example of marginal gains

Do the UCI release these numbers now? I know the 2010 numbers were leaked or were the others leaked as well. Not sure interpreting these numbers is so straightforward either. For instance Armstrong was a 4 but USADA seem to think they can use his values to prove blood doping. I could be wrong but I remember reading that the number can be artificially high depending on how much you were racing and previous history (or not as the case may be). So if you were coming of a long injury, came back and started to do well that might impact your score.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Sorry but I do have better things to do than come in here everyday. I didn't see that post by the big ring, but I'm glad you alerted me to it because yet again it shows how incredibly hopeless you guys are at basic comprehension.

For starters, I said that that the MAOD is a test which can be used ESTIMATE the percent contribution of aerobic vs anaerobic sources. I never stated that it was an accurate measure of anaerobic CAPACITY which is an entirely different physiological variable.

Secondly, I've got the fulltext of that review article and in the conclusion the authors give a bunch of recommendations about how to conduct an MAOD procedure to give the most reliable and accurate measure of anaerobic CAPACITY. At no point in the article do the authors specifically state that the test should be abandoned all together because it is so bad that it isn't even worth the effort.

Thirdly, I speculated that if an IP rider was "more aerobic" than typical then this would lend itself to successful transition to road cycling. No matter how "debunked" you think the MAOD test is, that makes no difference to Wiggins' physiology.

You schoolboys haven't debunked sh!t I'm afraid. I really hope you get better at this stuff before you start your uni degree dude because you are gonna fail badly if this is the best you can do.

I have a question for you. I read somewhere, gotta look again where, forgive me for not having a direct link, LeMond and 'his peloton' drove up the mountains at wattages of not even 400. Don't you as a physician find it a bit strange domestiques like Porte are pushing up the mountains at much more wattages?

And really, are those schoolboys remarks necessary?

 

[sittingbison]

... Armstrong was a 4 but USADA seem to think they can use his values to prove blood doping...

USADA also seems to think Lance was in a decade long conspiracy with UCI. So it is no surprise he is in the average group

...I could be wrong but I remember reading that the number can be artificially high depending on how much you were racing and previous history (or not as the case may be). So if you were coming of a long injury, came back and started to do well that might impact your score.

The riders were ranked with numbers from zero to ten, with zero being no suspicion, and ten being the maximum. The large majority of riders received scores of four or less. The ratings were based on the riders' individual biological passport values up to the event, and included the readings of the first blood test performed on July 1, 2010, just prior to the Grand Départ.

I don't think these numbers have anything to do with actual values in the passport (which are affected by events), but are a suspicious quotient, being the liklihood a prosecution could succeed.

 

[sittingbison]

...LeMond and 'his peloton' drove up the mountains at wattages of not even 400. Don't you as a physician find it a bit strange domestiques like Porte are pushing up the mountains at much more wattages?

see my post #4874 above