Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Wallace and Gromit]

In the real world, solid proof is required to put someone behind bars. Yet you are asking us to demonstrate solid proof which the perpetrators do their best to make sure we don't have access to, in order to justify our own opinions that people who walk talk and quack like dopers, in a sport where doping is rife, are dopers.

Do you see the difference?

I do see the difference, but in reference to the bolded bit, the alleged perpetrators are not disclosing all the information that they have, though they are not holding back anything that is actually proof of their innicence, as such "proof" does not and cannot exist as it is a basic element of logic that one cannot prove a negative. Thus, nothing that a suspected doper can say or do can actually prove they are not doping. Hence the comment about the ducking stool.

On a wider point, though the burden of prove has to lie with the accuser, I never said that this was an evenly balanced situation. The odds are stacked heavily in favour of dopers, as you realistically need a test failure or reliable eye-witness testimony to prove doping. The Lance case has shown that tests are easy to dodge/pass and reliable eye-witness testimony only follows a knock on the door by a posse of law enforecement agents and this knock on the door is not something that the doping authorities - even if they were really bothered - can implement.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

...Joux Plane, 1000m in 34:50

The Joux Plan is a 1000m ascent over 11.7k, all of which when plugged into BikeCalculator.com gives 6.2 watts/kg. Food for thought. Assuming the climb Rogers refers to starts at the very bottom of the climb and finishes at the Col marker post, which isn't always the case in races.

I did this climb in the summer and was at an entirely believable 3.4 watts/kg, so my conscience is clear.

 

[Richeypen]

The Joux Plan is a 1000m ascent over 11.7k, all of which when plugged into BikeCalculator.com gives 6.2 watts/kg. Food for thought. Assuming the climb Rogers refers to starts at the very bottom of the climb and finishes at the Col marker post, which isn't always the case in races.

I did this climb in the summer and was at an entirely believable 3.4 watts/kg, so my conscience is clear.

Clear proof that you were sandbagging as not to draw suspicion.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The Joux Plan is a 1000m ascent over 11.7k, all of which when plugged into BikeCalculator.com gives 6.2 watts/kg. Food for thought. Assuming the climb Rogers refers to starts at the very bottom of the climb and finishes at the Col marker post, which isn't always the case in races.

I did this climb in the summer and was at an entirely believable 3.4 watts/kg, so my conscience is clear.

I am around the same at the moment. My conscience is guilty at the exercise i haven't been doing and the race I managed to enter that is climbing HC climbs in December... But I digress...

There are no rest days in the Dauphine - so that's 6 days straight, (I said 9 earlier, my bad, it was June 9), including a 53km TT. Overall average was 1051km in 26.7 hours @ 39.4 km/hr. That's TdF speeds.


440W @ 6.2W/kg gives us 71kg for Rogers, which if as he states his weight is lowest since he was 16, fits.

Wait, what weight did you use for Rogers?

 

[JimmyFingers]

OK jimmy, here are some actual hard facts that I just posted on another forum:

Kimmage wrote an article straight after the Olympics inquiring what had happened to the Sky transparency policy, a “no dopers policy”. They specifically and categorically stated “we will not employ doctors from within cycling”. Since then they have hired dodgy soigneurs Yates who has many question marks over him, Bobby Jullich who is named in the Evidence (reducted Rider 4) and Shane Sutton (see Darryl Webster), dodgy doctors Geert Leinders who ran the Rabobank systematic team based doping programme and Fabio Bartalucci who is named in the Sanremo raid from the 2001 Giro and a doctor at Bonjour when Lelarge tested positive and at Phonak back in the Hamilton/Camenzind/Perez era. Dodgy riders Dodger who has Ferrari AND Freiburg hanging over his head, and one of the top scores with 7 on the suspicion index (from five upwards, the comments associated to the rider files started to become much more precise, “even affirmative”, from six to ten, the circumstantial evidence of possible doping was “overwhelming”), Christian Knees and Geraint Thomas are both 6 on the index, and Kanstantsin Siutsou with a mind blowing 8 on the index.

Every rider, director and team is now open to scrutiny, like it or not, fair or not. Even now omerta is operating on all cylinders, Brailesfords ill advised comments on signing a declaration withstanding, and various extremely experienced riders with ridiculous “I am shocked! Shocked I tell you!!” or impersonating Sgt Schults with “never saw anything” comments.

So how do you explain how clean transparent good ship Sky has such a scaly crew?

Some hard facts in there, but I'm not sure a leaked 'suspicion index' from the UCI can be considered part of those.

However the speculation presented as fact was really not about who Sky have hired, more the amateur sports 'science' applied here comparing riders and their results from different seasons, and estimating speeds and power outputs and then presenting this as evidence of doping.

The suspicion index is very, very old news and widely discredited. Little desperate dragging it up again

 

[Ferminal]

Wasn't Barredo a 10?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I am around the same at the moment. My conscience is guilty at the exercise i haven't been doing and the race I managed to enter that is climbing HC climbs in December... But I digress...

There are no rest days in the Dauphine - so that's 6 days straight, (I said 9 earlier, my bad, it was June 9), including a 53km TT. Overall average was 1051km in 26.7 hours @ 39.4 km/hr. That's TdF speeds.


440W @ 6.2W/kg gives us 71kg for Rogers, which if as he states his weight is lowest since he was 16, fits.

Wait, what weight did you use for Rogers?

I used 72 for Rogers and 8 for the bike and kit, which gave 449 watts. When estimating w/kg to the nearest 0.1, a kg or two either way on the rider's weight doesn't really make any significant difference though. 8kg for bike and kit seems to be a fairly standard assumption.

My "holy grail" is Alpe D'Huez in under an hour. I suspect I need something a bit stronger than beetroot juice to get there though...

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Clear proof that you were sandbagging as not to draw suspicion.

Indeed. Even so, I did ride one-handed for a while, just to give the conspiracists something to go on...

 

[Krebs cycle]

But the point is - once you hit your genetic potential, your power barely shifts. You may improve +1% a year to a point, but after 3-5 years full-time, you aren't changing dramatically.

Mick feels it's noteworthy to say he improved his threshold - you are claiming that is the improvement since the off-season?

I don't think you've read the interview.

He's discussing his previous year, so at the very least it's discussing his FTP from the year before - 2011.

But the fact remains - your genetic potential, achieved after 5 years or so - hardly changes. Threshold is measured recovered, as part of testing. So whether that was measured 6 years ago or last year, it's still your max.

In one year he has increased that threshold 5-7%. Coz a swimming coach is training him... oh wait the swimming coach was training them the year before as well... something isn't right here.

Thank you for just focusing on the discussion.

I'm not claiming anything here. You brought the 7% comment up and you believe it is conclusive evidence that Rogers must be doping. I say it tells us nothing because we don't know what dates Rogers is referring to.

I have read the interview and its perfectly obvious he is talking about getting back into form after a bad year in 2011. I think you and others are reading something into it that simply isn't there. You want Rogers to be referring to his best ever threshold power because then that would be a very clear and extremely obvious omission of doping. How is it possible though that for all these years Rogers has been so careful not to test positive but here he is SOOOO completely careless that he would basically admit that he IS doping in the media? He couldn't make it any more obvious if he tried, well maybe if he said "my threshold power is 7% higher this year than it ever has been in my entire career" that would be more obvious, but he did NOT say that.

Makes no sense.

Besides, he doesn't say "my best ever power" in the very next sentence (as you claimed above) following the bit about the 7% improvement. That comes quite a bit later, so maybe you need to go back and re-read the interview more carefully.

And I'm still not sure if you trying to imply that threshold power doesn't change across a season. Surely you cannot be going down that path?

Are you suggesting he did a bunch of PBs in the past and had no power meter, so his statement "I hit a PB" is false?

Given AIS have been using SRMs since forever, and Mick was at the AIS, we can safely assume he had or used one there. But there's no real data from that time.

He definitely had one in 2010 at HighRoad.

Once again. You brought this up as your evidence. You are the one making the claim. You are the one making an assumption about something which you know NOTHING about ie: exactly when Rogers began recording every training and racing kilometer with a power meter. I am saying, we don't know exactly when Rogers began recording training and racing with a power meter and if he recorded every training ride and race, so we don't know if that statement he made following the Dauphine is the 100% verifiable truth.

You can make an assumption, but that is all it will ever be. It could be the truth but you don't know and you never will unless you back it up with proof. Until then its just an assumption, idle speculation.

And this PB is happening on stage 9, 160km with 3000m climbing, up the final 1000m climb, coming second overall... mega fatigue factors at play.

There are only 7 stages in the Dauphine. I assume you mean June 9 yes??

Anyway, this was stage 6. This is almost exactly where you would expect to see the best 30min power numbers being generated by a pro cyclist..... 5 or 6 days into a 7 day stage race, on the most important climb of the entire race, fighting for a spot on the podium, one month before the tour de france. You would hope to see your best numbers at the TdF itself but obviously this interview was conducted before the tour.

This post seems to highlight a recurring theme in your posts.... you seem to believe that pro cyclists do not have ups and down in performance (that are independent of doping) once they turn pro and that they cannot improve performance from the age of 25 through to the age of 30-32. This would be at odds with the beliefs of just about every single Australian national team cycling coach I've ever met, and I've met a lot btw. How many do you know and have discussed the careers of pro level cyclists with?

 

[RownhamHill]

Are you suggesting he did a bunch of PBs in the past and had no power meter, so his statement "I hit a PB" is false?

To be fair, the statement you quoted from Rogers didn't say he hit a PB though. Didn't you quote him saying 'that's one of my highest outputs ever'?

I run as a hobby and I certainly know the difference between 'one of my quickest times ever' over a given distance and 'my quickest time ever'. And I would never use the former to describe the latter. We don't know if the same holds true for Rogers, obviously, but I think it's fair to conclude - from his description - that he might be describing either his very highest output, or he might not - it might be describing an output in his top five, or his top ten ever - we just don't know. Right?

But, you also assert that he claimed to have improved his very best threshold power by 7%. I'm not entirely clear about the link between threshold power and power outputs in races, but I am assuming it is pretty linear, no?

So. If he's 7% better than he has ever been before, but he's only hitting 'one of his highest' outputs, as opposed to, say, smashing his best output out of the park by a factor of around 7%, well why is that?

Sorry if this sounds pedantic, but I'm trying to follow your logic, and to be honest, getting a little lost.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

This post seems to highlight a recurring theme in your posts.... you seem to believe that pro cyclists do not have ups and down in performance once they turn pro and that they cannot improve performance from the age of 25 through to the age of 30-32. This would be at odds with the beliefs of just about every single Australian national team cycling coach I've ever met, and I've met a lot btw. How many do you know and have discussed the careers of pro level cyclists with?

My reading of Dear Wiggo's posts is that he was claiming that an athlete's potential doesn't change much from their mid 20s onwards, and that any improvements in potential from this age ar typically very hard won.

What's not clear though, in the context of Roger's comments, is whether either Rogers or Dear Wiggo are referring to improvements in peak performance over several years (for which a 5% improvement from late 20s to early 30s would be unusual) or over a training/racing cycle, where as you observe, quite wide variations would be expected.

In rowing, it is widely held that an athlete peaks between 28 and 34. Indeed, of the high profile GB rowers, Redgrave, Pinsent and Cracknell all did their 2000m PBs on the rowing machine aged 33 or 34. They did these in selection trails in the spring of Olympic year, beating their previous PBs from the same point 4 years previously, emphasising the cyclical nature of progress in Olympic sports. Interestingly, Greg Searle rowed his 5k PB aged 38, which is pretty darned impressive (or suspicious, depending on your view of British rowers!) for a man who was an Olympic gold medalist aged 20 and a world record holder over 2k aged 25.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

To be fair, the statement you quoted from Rogers didn't say he hit a PB though. Didn't you quote him saying 'that's one of my highest outputs ever'?

It's an absolute power though.

Then he goes on to say he is as light as when he was 16.

So one of his best absolute powers at the same weight he was when he was 16 = PB power::weight.

 

[Krebs cycle]

To be fair, the statement you quoted from Rogers didn't say he hit a PB though. Didn't you quote him saying 'that's one of my highest outputs ever'?

Yes you're right. Thanks for clarifying this.....

Michael Rogers: “We did [the Joux Plane climb] in 34:50, I think, and I averaged 440 Watts. That was one of my highest every power reports.”

http://www.ridemedia.com.au/?p=6440

I run as a hobby and I certainly know the difference between 'one of my quickest times ever' over a given distance and 'my quickest time ever'. And I would never use the former to describe the latter. We don't know if the same holds true for Rogers, obviously, but I think it's fair to conclude - from his description - that he might be describing either his very highest output, or he might not - it might be describing an output in his top five, or his top ten ever - we just don't know. Right?

But, you also assert that he claimed to have improved his very best threshold power by 7%. I'm not entirely clear about the link between threshold power and power outputs in races, but I am assuming it is pretty linear, no?

So. If he's 7% better than he has ever been before, but he's only hitting 'one of his highest' outputs, as opposed to, say, smashing his best output out of the park by a factor of around 7%, well why is that?

Sorry if this sounds pedantic, but I'm trying to follow your logic, and to be honest, getting a little lost.

Seems like very sound logic to me and I didn't pick up on this paradox before either.

Average power during a max effort 34min climb should be slightly higher than true threshold power which for a pro cyclist is going to be more like peak 60min power. So you are entirely correct, if Rogers improved his threshold power by 7% beyond his best ever, then he should easily have smashed his best ever 30min average power, not just achieved "one of" the best.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I think you and others are reading something into it that simply isn't there. You want Rogers to be referring to his best ever threshold power because then that would be a very clear and extremely obvious omission of doping. How is it possible though that for all these years Rogers has been so careful not to test positive but here he is SOOOO completely careless that he would basically admit that he IS doping in the media? He couldn't make it any more obvious if he tried, well maybe if he said "my threshold power is 7% higher this year than it ever has been in my entire career" that would be more obvious, but he did NOT say that.

Firstly I think he (and / or Sky) felt it doesn't matter what he says because 99% of the people reading have no clue at all what he is talking about, so Sky gave him carte blanche with someone who wouldn't ask any dumb questions. Plus there was little doping talk at the time, so early in the season.

Compare that to the recent Interviews from Wiggins: Sky employee interviewing Sky employee, nice and safe. This Rogers interview was clearly far more free-flowing.

It's only now that we've seen Sky crush races from March to August and Rogers ride better than he has done in the past that I can go back and look more carefully at what he is saying.

And the questions are seemingly unrelated, until you stop and assemble the salient points:
1. "threshold" at some point in time is now 5-7% higher
2. PB for 34:50 - at an extreme point of fatigue in a race
3. lightest he's been since he was 16

Thank goodness he had scales and used them when he was at the AIS, or you'd be telling me he's the lightest he's been since he was porky the year he had Epstein-Barr and didn't race for 6 months.

16 years old.

Even if you ignore his 5-7% improvement, and just look at him doing a PB of 440W at the lightest weight he's been since he was 16, the 5-7% threshold value suddenly fits.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Average power during a max effort 34min climb should be slightly higher than true threshold power which for a pro cyclist is going to be more like peak 60min power. So you are entirely correct, if Rogers improved his threshold power by 7% beyond his best ever, then he should easily have smashed his best ever 30min average power, not just achieved "one of" the best.

And as I have said 3 times already:
1. 34:50 ~= 102% FTP
2. FTP is measured when rested
3. If he has improved his FTP by 5-7%, you don't expect him to smash his 30 minute average at the end of Stage 6 after 2000m climbing and 150km riding in the front group all week coming second overall, but you would expect him to do a PB - which he has done.

He doesn't say, "One of my best ever power recordings in a race". He says, "One of my best ever power recordings".

Ever.

That includes when rested.

FTP is measured when rested.

Let me repeat: FTP is measured when rested. It is NOT measured when fatigued.

What I am saying is this: if he did that same climb again, rested, instead of after 6 stages of TdF-speed racing, and 150km + 2000m climbing that day, riding in the front group, coming second overall, he would smash 34:50. ie do more than 440W average. At the lightest he's ever been since he was 16.

 

[Krebs cycle]

It's an absolute power though.

Then he goes on to say he is as light as when he was 16.

So one of his best absolute powers at the same weight he was when he was 16 = PB power::weight.

Nope he doesn't say that in the ridemedia interview, so where are you getting that info from?

Above I see you used 72kg as his bodyweight even though it is listed as 75kg on the Sky website.

 

[Krebs cycle]

And the questions are seemingly unrelated, until you stop and assemble the salient points:
1. "threshold" at some point in time is now 5-7% higher

Higher than what? when?

2. PB for 34:50 - at an extreme point of fatigue in a race

Does NOT say PB.

Extreme fatigue in a 160km stage for a seasoned pro cyclist? Just plain wrong. The AIS has been conducting 30min time trial performance testing following hard 100km training rides for years and when cyclists are in peak form, there is little or no difference between a fresh TT and the one following 100km. Sometimes the PB even comes after the 100km training ride. furthermore, the times up alp d'Huez when done as a TT were not much faster than the times done at the end of a stage in the TdF when you do expect fatigue to be a factor. Take a look at strava and check when and where the best times occur during the rides of the fastest riders whom are all mostly NRS open and div 1 level guys and you virtually NEVER see them coming early in a ride. They are always somewhere in the middle and often occur late in the rides which can be up to 160-180km in length. These are state and national level guys, not even seasoned pros like Rogers. You just do not know what you are talking about here.

3. lightest he's been since he was 16

Link? proof?

Thank goodness he had scales and used them when he was at the AIS, or you'd be telling me he's the lightest he's been since he was porky the year he had Epstein-Barr and didn't race for 6 months.

16 years old.

blah blah blah childish idiotic crap

Even if you ignore his 5-7% improvement, and just look at him doing a PB of 440W at the lightest weight he's been since he was 16, the 5-7% threshold value suddenly fits.

link? proof? What was his bodyweight in the Dauphine, what was his bodyweight at 16?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

What I am saying is this: if he did that same climb again, rested, instead of after 6 stages of TdF-speed racing, and 150km + 2000m climbing that day, riding in the front group, coming second overall, he would smash 34:50. ie do more than 440W average. At the lightest he's ever been since he was 16.

Do we have any reliable performance climbing data from Rogers fro other years?

The 34:50 ascent of Joux Plan seems reliable, and the stats of said climb are readily come by, but what we don't know is how reliable Rogers' claim to have improved his FTP by 5%-7% (or even the time frame) actually is.

If he's climbing more slowly than at his previous peak we would conclude he was talking b*llocks when quoting 5% to 7%. If he's climbing more quickly than before then we could conclude something else.

From what LeMond has written, 5.9 w/kg for a major climb towards the end of a GT and 6.3 w/kg on a one-off ascent were the limit of what he could achieve, so Roger's 6.2 w/kg towards the end of the Dauphine is neither Pantani-like nor soft-pedalling. Definitely not hanging around.

 

[Krebs cycle]

That includes when rested.

FTP is measured when rested.

Let me repeat: FTP is measured when rested. It is NOT measured when fatigued.

Let me repeat. You are wrong. It is not ALWAYS measured in a lab when rested. In fact lab testing is often done right in the middle of a training block. Maybe the athlete has one day off before the test, not a whole week.

And besides, where is your evidence that Rogers is comparing this result to a best ever lab test when he is completely fresh and rested? link? proof?

Nothing.but.assumption.and.idle.speculation.

What I am saying is this: if he did that same climb again, rested, instead of after 6 stages of TdF-speed racing, and 150km + 2000m climbing that day, riding in the front group, coming second overall, he would smash 34:50. ie do more than 440W average. At the lightest he's ever been since he was 16.

Well where is your evidence that he did a test in that state and is comparing this result in the Dauphine with that test result? Where is you evidence regarding the bodyweight?

You're a lot like Lance aren't you? You just make up a fantasy and keep repeating a lie over and over to yourself in your little make believe world.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Let me repeat. You are wrong. It is not ALWAYS measured in a lab when rested. In fact lab testing is often done right in the middle of a training block. Maybe the athlete has one day off before the test, not a whole week.

Who said anything about "lab"? Are you kidding me.

By definition FTP is maximum sustainable power. Are you seriously saying he can do better power at the end of 150km and 2000m climbing? ffs.

 

[Krebs cycle]

From what LeMond has written, 5.9 w/kg for a major climb towards the end of a GT and 6.3 w/kg on a one-off ascent were the limit of what he could achieve, so Roger's 6.2 w/kg towards the end of the Dauphine is neither Pantani-like nor soft-pedalling. Definitely not hanging around.

If you use 75kg as quoted on the sky website you get 5.87 w/kg.

How did Lemond know this anyway? When did he use a power meter whist racing in his career?

 

[ToreBear]

No performance was impossible from the perspective of the bounds of human achievement. The days of Pantani-speed are gone. However, take Rogers out of there and plug in somebody else. Let's say, for the sake of an argument, you plugged in Vladimir Karpets. He has good stage racing credentials, finished in the top 10 of the Vuelta a few years ago, has won the Tour de Suisse.

Vlad Karpets gets on the front in the Tour de France and puts half the GC contenders out the back, as part of a Movistar train of similar riders who've improved large-scale and are crushing the race. How do we feel? I doubt we'd have had such vociferous defences of a Movistar train of pain.

I see Mick Rogers rather like Vlad Karpets. Solid bike riders, functional climbers who accumulate results without ever really being noticeable except by their absence, who were probably dodgy earlier in their career. I don't rate Mick Rogers any higher than I rate Vladimir Karpets, and thus while his super-domestiquing performance is not outside the bounds of possibility, I don't buy it coming from him.

The argument, half the gc contenders out the back is what I have a problem with. I can't remember seeing that.

On rogers doping or not, I don't know. I just havent seen him shelling gc contenders out the back.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Who said anything about "lab"? Are you kidding me.

Nobody. My bad I thought when you were referring to "fresh and rested" you could have been including the results of lab testing in that.

By definition FTP is maximum sustainable power. Are you seriously saying he can do better power at the end of 150km and 2000m climbing? ffs.

I never said that. I have no reason to believe that he could not produce "one of" his "best ever" 30min average power recordings during a fight for a podium place in a race, and especially if he was in the best form of his career.

I guess you've never raced before have you? You really think it is unusual for a cyclist to produce some of their best performances in a race as opposed to training?

 

[Parrulo]

The argument, half the gc contenders out the back is what I have a problem with. I can't remember seeing that.

On rogers doping or not, I don't know. I just havent seen him shelling gc contenders out the back.

la toussuire stage? when evans attacked on the glandon rogers set such a pace that turned the favorites grope into 4 sky riders, nibali, VdB2 and 2 other top 10 favorites which i am not remembering atm from memory.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

If you use 75kg as quoted on the sky website you get 5.87 w/kg.

How did Lemond know this anyway? When did he use a power meter whist racing in his career?

When estimating power to weight up climbs, you actually don't need to bother with the rider's weight (within reason), as if the rider weighs 10% more, he needs to provide 10% more energy to get up the climb, as e = mass * gravity * height change.

I ignored the quoted absolute power and worked off the length and gradient of the Joux Plan and the quoted ascent time.

Using BikeCalculator.com and the following inputs:

11.7k distance / 8.5% gradient / 72kg rider / 8kg bike_kit / speed 20.15kmh, you get:

449 watts / 34:50 ascent, giving power to weight of 6.236 w/kg.

If you change the rider's weight to 79kg, you get 485 watts absolute / 6.139 w/kg.

If you change hte weight to 65kg, you get 413 watts absolute / 6.353 w/kg.

So, an estimate of Rogers' performance at ~6.2w/kg is not going to be too far out, as I'm sure he weighs somewhere between 65 and 79 kg. The difference arises from the different proportion of the rider's weight that the bike (pretty much fixed, given UCI limits) represents.

Re LeMond, I think he just plugged his historic times on known climbs into something like BikeCalculator to derive his historic w/kg benchmarks. He was writing about them relatively recently, not whilst he was still riding.