Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[sittingbison]

Well damn, maybe Team Sky should sack Leinders and ask for their money back because Wiggins and Froome are going slower up mtns than every single one of those riders was from 2009 or earlier ...

Krebs, I think the real point is Wiggo and Froome are going up mountains faster than THEY are truly capable of. So Leinders has well and truly earned his filthy lucre. Given the general assumption that doping is still going on but to a lesser extent than the excesses of 1992-2007, this is the optimal result - improve performance to win but not ridiculously so.

If they DO go up mountains or ITT the same as Pantani, Virenque, Armstrong, Indurain, Ullrich et al, then it is indisputable they are doped to the gills.

What catches the attention of the denizens of the clinic who look for these things (as opposed to the general public who merely look at a bike race) is improvements against their OWN previous performance. So yes Wiggo climbing better than HE has ever done before (and ITT too, which we can debate till the cows come home), and Froome transforming into a GC extraordinaire within a single race should be seen as signposts and studied.

 

[mastersracer]

Krebs, I think the real point is Wiggo and Froome are going up mountains faster than THEY are truly capable of. So Leinders has well and truly earned his filthy lucre. Given the general assumption that doping is still going on but to a lesser extent than the excesses of 1992-2007, this is the optimal result - improve performance to win but not ridiculously so.

If they DO go up mountains or ITT the same as Pantani, Virenque, Armstrong, Indurain, Ullrich et al, then it is indisputable they are doped to the gills.

What catches the attention of the denizens of the clinic who look for these things (as opposed to the general public who merely look at a bike race) is improvements against their OWN previous performance. So yes Wiggo climbing better than HE has ever done before (and ITT too, which we can debate till the cows come home), and Froome transforming into a GC extraordinaire within a single race should be seen as signposts and studied.

Did you even look at the link Coggan posted here a few hours ago (again)?
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=972830&postcount=185

Plotting data from 2004-2012, the claim that Wiggins suddenly had a jump in performance is simply unsupported. Do you have any evidence to the contrary that differs from some of the 'oracles' here who simply can tell by watching a race? Froome's progression has also been dealt with here. Sorry, but the doping accusations need to be based on something other than just eyeballing some races or trying to use power analyses to infer it.

 

[hrotha]

(...)
So again, you trying to compare Wiggins to known dopers but you fail to recognize the fact there are vast differences in the performance profile from before and after circa 2008-09
(...)

I'm sorry? You were the one comparing Wiggins to Armstrong (a pretty well known doper), saying that if Wiggo was doping something should have surfaced by now.

 

[the big ring]

Did you even look at the link Coggan posted here a few hours ago (again)?
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=972830&postcount=185

Plotting data from 2004-2012, the claim that Wiggins suddenly had a jump in performance is simply unsupported. Do you have any evidence to the contrary that differs from some of the 'oracles' here who simply can tell by watching a race? Froome's progression has also been dealt with here. Sorry, but the doping accusations need to be based on something other than just eyeballing some races or trying to use power analyses to infer it.

The graph is not a magical panacea although for apologists it could be used as such.

The graph does not indicate the fact that Brad is older and 10+ kg lighter.

The graph does not show Brad's ability to ride at 95% from March to August, and beat every other rider in the peloton in the process.

It also implies Brad's power outputs are not affected by GT fatigue whatsoever, even though his GT palmares is poor until he finishes 4th in 2009. Nothing in 2010, then from August 2011 he comes 3rd, 3rd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st in the next 6 stage races he competes in, capping it off with a win at the Olympic TT.

Magically, every other rider that wants to win a multi stage race is either injured, or unprepared, or the course suits Wiggins to a T.

 

[the big ring]

EDIT: your claim that no evidence for doping licenses an inference to being clean is fallacious. That's scientific (analytic) reasoning 101.

Ah so there's some weird 3rd state - a bit like Schrodinger's cat - where the rider has no evidence of doping, but he's not clean?

You guys take weird positions.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I found this headline to be a bit ironic.

Froome has work to do entering the rest day at the Vuelta

What sort of rest day "work" might pay immediate dividends?

 

[the big ring]

When things are unknown then the best we can do is to use the available evidence to create some sort of probability or certainty (or uncertainty) regarding that thing which is unknown. In my world I use empirical evidence and I analyse it carefully before I make a judgement. Based on the evidence, I don't believe 100% that Wiggins is "clean" but I give it a probability of about 60-70%.

I'm using the exact same reasoning in both cases. I'm presenting the evidence but you are the one who seems to be 100% of the opinion that Wiggins is doping yet you're not even close to demonstrating strong evidence which supports that. Using your reasoning, then nothing has changed, everyone is still doping and its all just as bad as it ever was. But that is wrong because the evidence disputes that. Thus, you hold that belief in the face of evidence to the contrary which by definition means you are deluded. I'm not playing the man, I'm making an unbiased observation that is nothing personal.

This is the MO of the clinic..... accuse anyone you like of doping and then justify your belief by hiding behind the lengthy process of investigation and sanctioning. How convenient, we have to wait for 5yrs to find out whether your heresay contains any substance.

See this is what I don't understand. You post something like this claim of "empirical evidence" subjected to "careful analysis", after writing something like this.

In that post you called people who disagree with you "tin foil hat brigade" (hint - that's the same as calling them deluded) and provide as evidence of this claim the most easily dismissed argument I have ever had the pleasure of refuting - that Wiggins could climb.

Your point was based on editorial, NOT empirical evidence. You didn't have a flying clue about what you were talking about, so there was definitely no careful analysis either.

You then provide more "empirical evidence" by erroneously comparing Wiggins to Tony Martin in terms of TT ability here.

Again, no "empirical evidence" and definitely not "careful analysis" - I did the careful analysis for you, but curiously I didn't see a reply and you claim my dismissal of your "evidence" makes me delusional.


Part of your "empirical evidence" that was "carefully analysed" included claiming Brad Wiggins was suffering during the September Worlds TT from an injury sustained in July, even though he came 3rd at the Vuelta in August.


What I find curious is you think Wiggins probability of being clean is 60-70%. We finally have a number.

For the enjoyment of the clinic, I eagerly await the "empirical evidence" that you have "carefully analysed" that lead you to believe the probability of Wiggins doping is 30-40%. Because at face value, you'd expect a far more balanced discussion, but so far every post of yours has been "there is no evidence of doping".

PS. There's a bunch of posts in the USADA vs Armstrong thread where posters start with "I don't give a *&^% about Armstrong but" and then the bingo words "witch hunt", "fairness", "move on" get dropped without fail.

You sound exactly the same in every single one of your posts regarding Wiggins.

 

[sittingbison]

...his GT palmares is poor until he finishes 4th in 2009. Nothing in 2010, then from August 2011 he comes 3rd, 3rd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st in the next 6 stage races he competes in, capping it off with a win at the Olympic TT....

marginal gains. Nothing to see here. Move on

 

[the big ring]

marginal gains. Nothing to see here. Move on

They are so marginal I keep forgetting about them. D'Oh!

 

[sittingbison]

...the claim that Wiggins suddenly had a jump in performance is simply unsupported. Do you have any evidence to the contrary that differs from some of the 'oracles' here who simply can tell by watching a race? Froome's progression has also been dealt with here...

I really do have to laugh. FFS what are we at, 5000 posts and counting? And completely disregarding all this thread, several others on Sky and Wiggo, and some on Froome.

If you don't think that Wiggo has had a dramatic improvement on the road from 2009, in both ability to climb and overall position, you need your head read. There is nothing further I can say. Literally can't climb until 2009, placing in the 100s until 2009, then first in everything since 3rd last years Veulta.

nothing to see here. Move on.

And Froome? I have personally debunked foxxy's ludicrous claims to suggest he has the same career path as Sastre and Evans. The guy did sweet FA until second last year at the Veulta. Nada. Zilch. FFS even Bobby Julich had never heard of him. Now he is also 2nd in the Tour, bronze at the Olympics a now a GC contender with Valverde and Contador at the Veulta.

nothing to see here. Move on

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Do you mean, have I seen powermeter data from current professional cyclists? If so, then yes.



The SRM was only introduced in the mid/late 1980s, and it took quite a while before use of powermeters became widespread. It is therefore rather difficult to make any comparisons. Interestingly, though, your namesake (i.e., Greg Lemond) is quoted in this thread as considering himself capable of generating power outputs comparable to that of present-day cyclists, at least when he was fresh. Based on lab tests, Merckx, too, was also reportedly capable of generating a similar sustained power. The bone-of-contention, then, would primarily seem not to be the maximum power that any human could sustain, but the conditions under which it was reportedly produced (i.e., fresh vs. fatigued), and/or precisely who did it.

So, in your expert opinion it is quite normal guys like Porte are riding up mountains faster than the most gifted cyclists in history? Or being able to equal that?

 

[acoggan]

So, in your expert opinion it is quite normal guys like Porte are riding up mountains faster than the most gifted cyclists in history? Or being able to equal that?

As I said, I don't pay close enough attention to professional cycling to be able to intelligently comment on such matters. That's why I typically only discuss things I do know something about, e.g., power, physiology, aerodynamics.

 

[BigBoat]

Blood doping for a one day track cycling event is going to work differently from a logistics standpoint than for a Grand Tour where the race is constantly on the move. National programs are very concerned about world's results & Olympic results especially, but they have really no reason to care of pro cycling where the riders are commercially sponsored & come from a variety of nations. Interesting that team SKY is primarily unified as British.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

As I said, I don't pay close enough attention to professional cycling to be able to intelligently comment on such matters. That's why I typically only discuss things I do know something about, e.g., power, physiology, aerodynamics.

Let me refraise the question. Rider A is in the wheel of rider B. Rider A states he is on 420 watts for the climb, in the draft of B. Rider B weighs 62 kg, rider A weighs 70 kilo. Could you give me an estimate on their power outputs and how long this would be sustainable for human beings?

 

[cineteq]

Let me refraise the question. Rider A is in the wheel of rider B. Rider A states he is on 420 watts for the climb, in the draft of B. Rider B weighs 62 kg, rider A weighs 70 kilo. Could you give me an estimate on their power outputs and how long this would be sustainable for human beings?

You need some speed to get a draft, just sayin'

 

[the big ring]

You need some speed to get a draft, just sayin'

Is there much draft at 20km/hr? There'd be some surely?

 

[Galic Ho]

Yeah, they compare to the 90's and LA-era (and try to derive the physiological characteristics necessary to produce the estimated wattages), which is why their work is an excellent rebuttal to the mechanic's absurd and bogus claims about Sky's wattages compared to the stars of the 90's and early 00's. When someone states that Wiggans climbs like Pantani and Armstrong, you just have to laugh.

Vayer didn't say that though. He was generic. Like not translating all his figures to relative outputs. His analysis was also somewhat generic in the qualitative measurements (words) that were given.

I thought it was pretty clear. He has his benchmark, aka clean guys on Festina, he knows what the dirty ones could do (Alex Zulle, Virenque, etc) and thus knew what Lance did. He also knew the base numbers for every rider at Festina off the juice. Why else did Voet say Bassons likely could have won the Tour clean? Because they knew what the 80s winners did and how EPO changed everything. The median power outputs for the peloton shifted. So if you were a few standard deviations to the right of the mean...aka, you're one of the best, all of a sudden you're crap. So Vayer has a solid benchmark as he worked in the field.

He never stated Wiggins or Froome touched Armstrong or Pantani figures. He however was quite clear that their outputs were obviously far too high still to claim they are clean. The point I though he was clearly making was if guys as far back as Voeckler and Valverde were doing wattage numbers greater than the winners of the 80s could even hope to do clean (assuming the random parameters weather, race pace, drafting, fatigue, previous days etc) then yeah there is only one obvious conclusion. Doping. Especially the front two Sky boys. Note that does not equate to doing LA numbers...but is still doping.

As I said, Vayer clearly has a benchmark. He has a basis to have a pretty damn good one. Do the ScienceofSport guys have such a basis? Nope...as I said, they conclude the opposite. If it's marginally lower then all is good as we have to take their word that those numbers are cool. I don't have a problem with the numbers...it's their INTERPRETATION that bothers me. They blandly assume it's lower = it's all good. Not the case and until they give us a damn valid benchmark...as I said, use Lemond or Hinault, then and only then will their assumptions over the current pelotons power outputs amount to anything meaningful. hence, it's a wiser and safer bet to take the word of the guy who worked at Festina. He's got the inside knowledge.

Or as I said...ask Ferrari. He definitely knows. Problem is he doesn't update his website all the time. He says it's all fine...the opposite is true.

 

[Galic Ho]

Lemond himself has estimated his wattage during the final stage of the 89 Tour was between 420-430 watts (down from his rested state power of 450-460 watts). Depending on his weight estimate, this would yield an average wattage for the final time trial of between ~6.17 and 6.5 watts/kg.

Yeah and do you know how long that went for? Dead pan flat stage. Ok it had a slight downhill gradient in places, but for the most part it was flat. On the Champs Elysees the fina straight was covered in a reverse direction to todays sprints...meaning it wasn't slightly uphill. Almost completely flat. I'd really like to see where Lemond said that about his numbers. I remember him saying he dropped down to about 390W after 21 days. I am not sure he mentioned the duration. Always assumed it was FTP over 45 minutes to maybe an hour.

Edit: so I read draexem's post. I remember the footage from the interview his transcript that was linked came from. I don't remember the 450-460W being in there. That's because it wasn't. He changed it...man, get it right, Lemond said 420-430 watts in your link for the Champs Elysees. That's the Tour winner, one of the physically most gifted guys to ride a bike after 3 weeks for 30 minutes. Now contrast to what Rogers and Porte did. For over 60 minutes. As domestiques. Or Valverde solo in his stage win. Sure it's not a specific comparison but it illustrates the shift in the peloton. Winner use to be able to do x amount...now they do x+y (y being the doping benefit) and thats not even the winner.

The ITT in 89 on the Champs Elysees from memory was 24km. I'll go find the video on YouTube. Be back with a link. Fignon was really fast that day BTW. He came 3rd if I remember correctly. That was a really good chrono to watch and I hope it comes back one day. Makes for great viewing. That chrono had the fastest average speed till Big Z broke it in 2003 (I think it was that year) and Lance also broke it. But that was on a course almost double the length and not as flat.

Then there is the weight issue. Greg wasn't some skinny AICAR user. Someone of his build if they hit Wiggins or Froome would knock them out cold in one or two punches. Lemond isn't a big man. 5'8" or 5'9" max. I heard he was 67kg at race weight, maybe 65kg. Compare that to Evans. Basically Vino's the closest I can think of in terms of physique...him or Gilbert.

Now contrast that with the Sky riders. Only Porte looks the same. Or how about Valverde...who is 5'10" and 60kg? Or Contador who is 5'9" and 61kg at race weight? Or how about Thomas Voeckler...no way that Europcar figure posted for him was spot on...66kg, hummmppphhh, not with those legs. There is a reason a lot of the exact numbers needed to gain perspective on CURRENT times are not known. Because incorrect variables can be used to make a case that these guys are clean. Drop Voecklers weight down to 58-61kg which is what he looks like and recalculate. Now tell me that is clean.

You see changing one tiny little variable, which can easily be lied about, changes ones entire perspective when you run the numbers. Hence why there is a lot of conjecture.

 

[acoggan]

Let me refraise the question. Rider A is in the wheel of rider B. Rider A states he is on 420 watts for the climb, in the draft of B. Rider B weighs 62 kg, rider A weighs 70 kilo. Could you give me an estimate on their power outputs and how long this would be sustainable for human beings?

At 20 km/h, drafting would only reduce the required power output by about 2%. Ergo, rider B would have to be producing essentially the same 6 W/kg as rider A.

As for how long 6 W/kg can be sustained, that obviously depends upon the individual, and the context.

 

[Galic Ho]

Well that, and everything else I ever express an opinion on.

(BTW, both Vayer and the S.o.S. guys put way too much faith in estimates of power based on VAM.)

My apologies. The hack part was uncalled for. I don't have a problem with your numbers. I have an issue with people giving no interpretation. Or forgetting to remind everyone who isn't as inclined and knowledgeable as they are that when one or two little variables change, then perspectives naturally alter.

Yeah I know they put too much faith in VAM. Lots of people do. Why? Apples and oranges. Quantifying anything that one can has one conclusion. Comparison. But you know very fews things can be accurately compared. Like you mentioned in the power data thread. It's natural for people to want to evaluate things that are similar, or in kind. VAM allows that, so you no longer in theory have the apples vs the oranges. Too many variances for my liking...take a massive pinch of salt with it.

It would be nice if someone had the time to do a study into the relationship between VO2 max/threshold outputs and fatigue in a GT. Can't see it happening though. Just as I can't see the actual front GC guys/stage winners showing actual properly calibrated SRM data. Not going to happen. Jonathan Vaughters alluded to as much in the thread aptly named Jonathan Vaughters. It would be nice if Vayer gave everyone the benchmark he bases his conclusions on. For all I know he has...could be lost somewhere in the French part of the internet for all I know.

As for the Scienceofsport guys. I appreciate somebody doing analysis. It's needed. But I've noticed a prevailing pattern on their site. Nobody is doping...it was only the 90s. I just don't buy it. Least of all in cycling. Least of all from team Sky. When they dump some of the training numbers those South African Rugby boys do so people can contrast with what the Aussie and Kiwi boys do, then I'll believe their conclusions. Anyone from Australia or New Zealand knows what I'm talking about...

If the UCI had implemented Lemonds ideas when they put in the BioPassport, there wouldn't be an need for conjecture and disagreement. Interpretation would be pretty much clear cut. But then again, the BioPassport experts hadn't been privy to some of that data until a sanction arose. I won't hold my breath waiting for a clear picture to be drawn...but I can hope.

 

[mastersracer]

I really do have to laugh. FFS what are we at, 5000 posts and counting? And completely disregarding all this thread, several others on Sky and Wiggo, and some on Froome.

If you don't think that Wiggo has had a dramatic improvement on the road from 2009, in both ability to climb and overall position, you need your head read. There is nothing further I can say. Literally can't climb until 2009, placing in the 100s until 2009, then first in everything since 3rd last years Veulta.

nothing to see here. Move on.

And Froome? I have personally debunked foxxy's ludicrous claims to suggest he has the same career path as Sastre and Evans. The guy did sweet FA until second last year at the Veulta. Nada. Zilch. FFS even Bobby Julich had never heard of him. Now he is also 2nd in the Tour, bronze at the Olympics a now a GC contender with Valverde and Contador at the Veulta.

nothing to see here. Move on

Your analysis of Wiggins and Froome based on their placings in grand tours is such a superficial way of assessing potential and development that it barely deserves a response. How many times does it need to be said that Wiggins was a track specialist between 2000 and 2008, that he transitioned fully to the road only after Beijing, and that his transition occurred over multiple seasons? Wiggins has published his own account of this transition, which is entirely plausible. As for Froome, your remarks are equally superficial. For a rider to transition from being a university student to a full-time professional in 2008, to do the classics and the Tour as a first year pro (and even finish the Tour) was clearly a sign of potential (and it did attract interest in him).

 

[Galic Ho]

It's not about crappy climbs - it's about context. Re Lemond/Hinault Alpe D'huez time - the two dropped the entire peloton on the Galibier, rode almost the entire stage (the 86 Queen stage) on their own, had a 3 minute gap by the Croix de fer, and a 5 minute gap on Zimmerman (who was in 2nd place at the time) by the start of Alpe D'huez. It's not like their team delivered them to the base of Alpe d'huez without ever having to put their nose into the wind...

They did that climb in 48 minutes.

I found out a few months back Lemond went a lot quicker in 88 and 89. Roughly just off 42 minutes. So you get an idea how much lower their power output is by comparison. Plus they smacked the entire peloton senseless. That is the two most gifted guys in the race by a country mile. Context...last year Evans and Schleck climbed Alpe just over 41'30". Same time as Evans did in 2008 ironically (maybe with a 10 second variance). For me the context is clear...take Lemond in his prime and today he'd be 15 minutes back on GC. Maybe 12-13 if I squint hard enough, but that is hopeful. That puts him in 6-7th on GC. I've never seen any cyclist state they have figures close to Lemonds from the current era. Heck, the 15 minutes if being too optimistic. I'd say 20 minutes. Better question...how far back would Indurain have been? Would he even be ahead of Wiggins?

Now what are peloton doing today in relation to the winner? I've long maintained if the race is clean, only one or two guys will be at the pointy end. Fair enough for Wiggins and Froome that happened. But, Lemond and Hinault did it at 23 years. Wiggins suddenly does it at 32...yeah not buying that. Worse, the guys who use to beat them are ALL down this year. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Short story, the 80s were solid and predictable. Now...well you can rock up like Sky did this year and the rule book on what to expect is totally rewritten. Nobody ever did this before EPO. They couldn't. 80s riders were consistent. Today...variances, unpredictability, massive shifts in ability, seemingly overnight (Froome). An entire peloton doesn't just suddenly lose their edge and one team suddenly finds it in a clean peloton.

 

[ianfra]

Yeah and do you know how long that went for? Dead pan flat stage. Ok it had a slight downhill gradient in places, but for the most part it was flat. On the Champs Elysees the fina straight was covered in a reverse direction to todays sprints...meaning it wasn't slightly uphill. Almost completely flat. I'd really like to see where Lemond said that about his numbers. I remember him saying he dropped down to about 390W after 21 days. I am not sure he mentioned the duration. Always assumed it was FTP over 45 minutes to maybe an hour.

Edit: so I read draexem's post. I remember the footage from the interview his transcript that was linked came from. I don't remember the 450-460W being in there. That's because it wasn't. He changed it...man, get it right, Lemond said 420-430 watts in your link for the Champs Elysees. That's the Tour winner, one of the physically most gifted guys to ride a bike after 3 weeks for 30 minutes. Now contrast to what Rogers and Porte did. For over 60 minutes. As domestiques. Or Valverde solo in his stage win. Sure it's not a specific comparison but it illustrates the shift in the peloton. Winner use to be able to do x amount...now they do x+y (y being the doping benefit) and thats not even the winner.

The ITT in 89 on the Champs Elysees from memory was 24km. I'll go find the video on YouTube. Be back with a link. Fignon was really fast that day BTW. He came 3rd if I remember correctly. That was a really good chrono to watch and I hope it comes back one day. Makes for great viewing. That chrono had the fastest average speed till Big Z broke it in 2003 (I think it was that year) and Lance also broke it. But that was on a course almost double the length and not as flat.

Then there is the weight issue. Greg wasn't some skinny AICAR user. Someone of his build if they hit Wiggins or Froome would knock them out cold in one or two punches. Lemond isn't a big man. 5'8" or 5'9" max. I heard he was 67kg at race weight, maybe 65kg. Compare that to Evans. Basically Vino's the closest I can think of in terms of physique...him or Gilbert.

Now contrast that with the Sky riders. Only Porte looks the same. Or how about Valverde...who is 5'10" and 60kg? Or Contador who is 5'9" and 61kg at race weight? Or how about Thomas Voeckler...no way that Europcar figure posted for him was spot on...66kg, hummmppphhh, not with those legs. There is a reason a lot of the exact numbers needed to gain perspective on CURRENT times are not known. Because incorrect variables can be used to make a case that these guys are clean. Drop Voecklers weight down to 58-61kg which is what he looks like and recalculate. Now tell me that is clean.

You see changing one tiny little variable, which can easily be lied about, changes ones entire perspective when you run the numbers. Hence why there is a lot of conjecture.

Haven't you guys got anything better to do?

 

[acoggan]

It would be nice if someone had the time to do a study into the relationship between VO2 max/threshold outputs and fatigue in a GT.

I don't see how such a study would be particularly helpful, at least in the present context. All it would tell you is the average or typical response, not what or what isn't possible for any one individual.

 

[dolophonic]

The graph is not a magical panacea although for apologists it could be used as such.

The graph does not indicate the fact that Brad is older and 10+ kg lighter.

The graph does not show Brad's ability to ride at 95% from March to August, and beat every other rider in the peloton in the process.

It also implies Brad's power outputs are not affected by GT fatigue whatsoever, even though his GT palmares is poor until he finishes 4th in 2009. Nothing in 2010, then from August 2011 he comes 3rd, 3rd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st in the next 6 stage races he competes in, capping it off with a win at the Olympic TT.

Magically, every other rider that wants to win a multi stage race is either injured, or unprepared, or the course suits Wiggins to a T.

Yes.. i see what you are saying here...