Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Galic Ho]

If by that you mean that I think people should stop attempting to discern who is/isn't doping based on guesstimates of power output, then yes. As I have said before, it's a fool's errand.

So if you calibrated a powertap for every riders bike and had all the data it wouldn't be accurate? I'd imagine we'd get a fairly good idea of what was happening. I still think Lemonds idea stands, granted a few concession are made. Those being that only a select group does the work. The same uquipment and techniques are used across the peloton and it's mandatory to get your license on the Pro Tour. Sure some 'guesstimates' may arise, but flag waving performances would stick out a lot more to the authorities. They'd know who to run through the ringer in terms of stepping up doping controls. Won't happen though...would reveal far too much for the UCI to feel comfortable with. Let alone the top teams. Can't imagine they'd want the data getting out.

Now if one were writing a reseach paper, of course your point stands. But to gauge as a cognitive marker for what seems suspect then IMO it's fine that guesstimates within a certain scope occur, granted one knows how the workings came about and can explain the parameters which distort quantified elements. If one wants to they can find fault with most things. Why allow this? It's applicable to everyone within a set context, aka, a given day on the road. Maybe not with the same parcours in different years, but that day...yes it is fine. Even accounting for the fluctuations, if you've been around long enough on the other side of the fence like Vayer has, you know. Problem is, not everyone is mindfull of all these accumulated variables like he is.

Alas most people cannot do all the numbers work. Most people cannot do simple arithmetic in their heads. So asking them to be aware or knowledgeable of the machinations is out of the question. There rises the confusion.

I have noted you have not claimed Sky 'are not doping.' But then again, you don't exactly claim anyone is doping do you? Which is fine...it's just odd given this is the Clinic and the nature of your posts, which predominantly are in the power data thread(s). I put it down to your field of expertise having a thread that is conveniently ONLY in the Clinic.

 

[Gregga]

...I found out a few months back Lemond went a lot quicker in 88 and 89...

Actually, 1989 and 1990, GL wasn't racing the TdF in 1988

 

[Galic Ho]

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.

I should of elaborated. Random sample group from the actual ProTour rider pool. Say 10-20 guys. Varying ages. There are only just over 600 ProTour riders each season so this sample isn't huge, but is big enough not to be a hassle. Sample them 3 times. Beginning of the season. Middle, between the Giro and Tour pick one race and take readings the day before the start, middle rest day and the day after the Tour ends, and then in October after the World Championships.

Do the same thing over a number of years. Then publish the data. After 5 years you would have enough samples to draw some concise conclusions. But then again, who has the time.

@ianfra. Better time to spend...go check the USADA Lance thread dude. They put on 500 posts in a day. Then started a new one. This thread is tame by comparison. The guys posting there have 1000s of posts in total.

I should give Froome some credit. I thought he'd be smacking Contador pretty easily. Maybe the Purito thread needs a lift and the Valverde one. After all, the Spanish boys pummeled Froome the other night. Given the same tenacity to win and doping, the Spanish have put up quite a fight.

Sky IMO after watching the Andorra stage, need better tactics. Froome was isolated and tag teamed by 3 guys who clearly have pulled out all the stops for their home GT. Anyone here remember 1996 and Bjarne Riis stop/starting on steep gradients to toy with rivals. I saw Froome attempt the same thing with Contador on Andorra. Take what you will of that, but I thought it was darn arrogant to say the least. Had a good laugh when AC dropped him and then Valvderde and Purito did the same. Sky are going to need some extra juice for their Anglo boys...rough roads ahead. The Spanish will race to get to the third week and then they'll work for whoever will beat him regardless.

Or Sky could just juice up the South Americans like their Anglo boys and thus outnumber/equal the Spanish when the final selection occurs....oh wait, that would be hilarious. Actual climbers on the full Sky doping program. My bad, I'd actually pay to see Henao and Uran on Froome's special.

 

[Galic Ho]

Actually, 1989 and 1990, GL wasn't racing the TdF in 1988

Typo. My bad. Buckshot recovery.

 

[mastersracer]

I should of elaborated....

no, please don't. You're just rambling now without a discernible point.

 

[Galic Ho]

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.

There is a FIVE year gap between the first and second data points.

So what did Wiggins do in those years between? Lets think about this. He proved how good his road chrono really was, comparatively, to the entire peloton whilst being a chrono specialist. He wasn't outstanding. Competent. But that's is it. He placed well, but never won. But that data doesn't show his mid distance chronos. It shows a Gold medal track performance of a natural pursuit rider in 2004.

Then we jump to 2009, forget 5 years, drop 10kg and find a guy who isn't riding like any pursuit rider I've heard of on the road in chronos that are much, much longer. You'd have a point if his Cofidis rides were there. They aren't. Because Wiggins was crap those years. Far, far below the post 2009 numbers. But's lets not forget that.

Don't worry though, Britain will do it with Geraint Thomas and the Aussies with Rohan Dennis, aka, pursuiter to road warrior and saddle blazer. The trend won't be a one-off occurance after that.

Now take the trend for all chronos occuring after 2009. Went near the top 5. Then 2011-2012 he's unbeatable at every distance. Your point was what? Selective bias. It's inconclusive and is as much a guesstimate as anything seen on here.

By your rationale, everyone is had dropped performance wise. Except Wiggins. I won't even bother reiterating what happened in 2009, let alone who finished in front of Wiggins and the relationship between their blood values both idiotically posted online. Nice try dude. This is why teams and riders control their data. You filled in those 5 years with what most people here saw and know, your point would be mute. Fill in those 5 years and you'd win. But you can't and Wiggins certainly will not do it for you.

 

[Gregga]

Typo. My bad. Buckshot recovery.

No problem.

I agree with you about using GL as a kind of reference, he was naturally gifted and had IMO a perfect ratio between size and weight that allowed him to be powerful enough to be good at TT while being light enough to climb quite well with 5.9 W/kg. Very close to Evans... or Hinault... maybe Ullrich... without cheeks

In a "normal" world, Wiggins would certainly be a TT winner of 78 kg but wouldn't have followed the best Lemond in the steepest climbs with only 5,5 W/kg and Contador would have been a good climber but never able to win the final 09' TdF ITT with a "normal" 360 W at FTP.

Since the EPO era, we've seen tall climbers (Rooks, Theunisse, Indurain, Zülle, Schlecks, etc) and featherlight TTrialist (Pantani, Contador...), that's part of the problem.

 

[sittingbison]

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).

Analysis is over all results for 5 years, but never mind. If you want to believe Froome demonstrated potential all those years, that's your business. Same for Wiggo on the road. Clearly always a great climber, and worlds best ITTer.

Nothing to see here. Move on

 

[TShame]

Are you kidding me?

what Lemond, Hinault and Merckx could do...

Garlic Ho

Wow, major fail. I don't care who anyone is. They can't just read a wattage chart and scream doper. You are so smart you can out Wig and Froome???
Yet, you are going to claim Hinault and Merckx were clean??? Do your homework.

 

[Galic Ho]

No problem.

I agree with you about using GL as a kind of reference, he was naturally gifted and had IMO a perfect ratio between size and weight that allowed him to be powerful enough to be good at TT while being light enough to climb quite well with 5.9 W/kg. Very close to Evans... or Hinault... maybe Ullrich... without cheeks

In a "normal" world, Wiggins would certainly be a TT winner of 78 kg but wouldn't have followed the best Lemond in the steepest climbs with only 5,5 W/kg and Contador would have been a good climber but never able to win the final 09' TdF ITT with a "normal" 360 W at FTP.

Since the EPO era, we've seen tall climbers (Rooks, Theunisse, Indurain, Zülle, Schlecks, etc) and featherlight TTrialist (Pantani, Contador...), that's part of the problem.

Agreed. You see some damn weird physiques on riders these days. And it all comes down to watts per kilogram and the inverse relation power and weight play in the mountains.

Hundreds of pages back in this thread there is a video of Froome getting flogged by Simon Gerrans in a climb...I think it was at the Giro. His build then was normal. Now he looks like a Praying Mantis gone wrong. Doesn't look right or healthy at all. Nor does Wiggins. Froome's limb proportions don't help him one bit at his current weight. Looks horrible riding next to Contador, Valverde and Purito.

That's the thing though isn't it. Pre EPO, there are patterns and they are easily discernable regarding pedigree and specific cycling traits. EPO and now the microdosing blood transfusing days, lose the weight, keep the power and hope you don't fall off and you have a winning combination.

When I was a kid in 90s, and even during my late teens and early 20s, all I'd heard from people was that cyclists had HUGE legs. They did. In the 90s. Then the EPO test came out. Now everyone is a stick figure. Only track riders have thighs like tree trunks now. And Andre Greipel. Cancellara is a big man compared to his peers and yet he is still nothing huge to the general populace. Normal physique guys who you see in every sport winning...don't see them in cycling anymore. But we all know why that is.

 

[Galic Ho]

Garlic Ho

Wow, major fail. I don't care who anyone is. They can't just read a wattage chart and scream doper. You are so smart you can out Wig and Froome???
Yet, you are going to claim Hinault and Merckx were clean??? Do your homework.

Only fail was you. When did they retire? Now when did EPO come out? By all means explain how amphetamines could ever compare as the best drug of choice to synthetic EPO, autologuous blood doping, microdosing, synthetic designer testosterone and HGH? What's that you say, they are worse. Well I'll be

No, no, no. I stand corrected. You proved your point. Heck, it's not like Lemond is regarded as having raced clean and he matched and beat Hinault. And Fignon. Did you read Laurents book? He also used everything...bar EPO. Refused to take it. Look what happened to him. GT winner to super domestique for Bugno. But no, I stand corrected, you are right.....who am I kidding. You're playing daft, which I hope is true because the other option isn't too bright.

Amphetamines raise your maximal power output do they? Nope. But the drugs I mentioned do. Amphetamines mask pain. The drugs I mentioned boost recovery and allow you to train harder, longer and better than any clean rider, no matter how gifted, could. But you knew this right? FFS, everyone on the Clinic knows this. It's base knowledge. Everyone also knows Merckx doped (that's the biggest lol I've read today) and likewise knows Hinaults thoughts on the subject of doping. But the Clinic also knows that their drugs of choice are tame in comparison to the crap that came out after 1990. You know...well after both Hinault and Merckx had retired.

But for your sake I will of course go out of my way to state the pain stakingly obvious.

 

[acoggan]

There is a FIVE year gap between the first and second data points.

Given the linearity of the relationship, and the fact that the 1st point is for the shortest (i.e., most removed from present competition) duration, I think that is irrelevant.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

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.

So B would do about 379/380W? Or 429W?

 

[acoggan]

I have noted you have not claimed Sky 'are not doping.' But then again, you don't exactly claim anyone is doping do you? Which is fine...it's just odd given this is the Clinic

Meaning that you can't post here unless you are willing to speculate about whether specific individuals are/are not doping, just based on the way they look, etc.? I don't know where you're from or how you were raised, 'Ho', but that ain't the way I'm wired...

 

[the big ring]

So B would do about 379/380W? Or 429W?

62 x 6W/kg + 2% = 379W

 

[acoggan]

So B would do about 379/380W? Or 429W?

6 W/kg * 62 kg = 372 W.

 

[Turner29]

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.

Throw in a little more for headwind blocking if there is one.

 

[acoggan]

Throw in a little more for headwind blocking if there is one.

One more reason that guesstimates of power based on VAM are too imprecise to be of any real use, at least in the present context.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

62 x 6W/kg + 2% = 379W

Thanx for clearing that up.

Quite fascinating that the whole of team Sky's A - Train is capable of doing the same as Hinault/Herrera/Fignon/Delgado/LeMond.

Not even mentioning what Froome and Wiggo are capable of.

How can anyone claim this peloton is clean?

Question for mister Coggan. At what wattages do you call 'shenanigans'?

One more reason that guesstimates of power based on VAM are too imprecise to be of any real use, at least in the present context.

When you ride on for example the Finistre you could also be hampered by the lack of asphalt...

 

[acoggan]

Question for mister Coggan. At what wattages do you call 'shenanigans'?

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=256590&postcount=68

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=256595&postcount=69

 

[Benotti69]

Re Doctors on Cycling teams.

Here is what Christophe Bassons thinks when asked

LeMonde.fr - You are now working on the prevention of doping. You say especially against the presence of doctors in teams.

Bassons -The team doctor is for performance, not for healing. Doping encompasses everything that is forbidden in the conduct doping. Without going to extreme examples of doctors Mabuse, all means of recovery that are available are used by physicians to optimize performance. It's doping practice. If tomorrow EPO was allowed, I'm sure the whole platoon would take. What bothers me in this recovery management is the limited role given to the criterion of fatigue. It is worth shopping twenty-one days if we do not let play wear. In six years of career, I never called the team doctor, I had my doctor and physician race if necessary.

So Doctors on teams are there to improve performance. How do they do that? Obvious answer is with medicines. Mostly likely Perfromance Enhancing Drugs.

 

[the big ring]

Re Doctors on Cycling teams.

Here is what Christophe Bassons thinks when asked



So Doctors on teams are there to improve performance. How do they do that? Obvious answer is with medicines. Mostly likely Perfromance Enhancing Drugs.

No no no no performance recovery drugs. Please. And saddle sores. Don't forget about the saddle sores.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=256590&postcount=68

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=256595&postcount=69

Thanks for your reply.

I was reading that superhuman thread and came to the Basso - Zoncolan 2010 link with Aldo Sassi:

"I can't choose between them. Cadel is the strongest athlete I've ever coached. Ivan is the one with more determination," Sassi said.

"Cycling has improved a lot. Things have really cleaned up. If either Ivan or Cadel win the Giro, we'll have the proof that you can win without doping. I totally trust them and I'm certain they wouldn't do anything to hurt me&#8230]
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sassi-talks-about-basso-evans-and-the-zoncolan

So, by the numbers of Sassi, Basso was on the Zoncolan - a nice little ride - was on 5,64 w/kg. Give or take. Lets just say Basso is 'A' in my previous question to you. Let's say 'B' in that story was Richie Porte, also in race that day on the Zoncolan. He only lost about six minutes to the 5,64w/kg Basso that day...

So, two years later, that same rider 'B' is pushing the peloton that hard that Basso needs to push 420 watts to keep hanging on, at 6w/kg.

My question for you, you see I have a lot of questions , could you given the weight of both riders haven't changed much, calculate the wattage for Porte [aka rider 'B'] for that Zoncolan stage? He came in just 5 minutes and 46 seconds behind Basso, rider 'A'.

Note:
That VAM is not a great measurement but when its near 1800, like Basso, you also could have some doubts, he was at 1800 in that nice little Giro of 2006 where he made a fool of himself and the entire peloton.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Ok, it isn't for cancer but it is straight out of the Lance playbook. Website looks like its been done for a 12 year old,s school project

http://www.bradleywigginsfoundation...tion=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=33

 

[the big ring]

Ok, it isn't for cancer but it is straight out of the Lance playbook. Website looks like its been done for a 12 year old,s school project

http://www.bradleywigginsfoundation...tion=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=33

Joomla CMS, "designed" by these guys: http://www.ellmoreconsultancy.co.uk/index.php

When the sites you "design" look like your own site, you suck at design.