Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Tom375]

I don't care.

Thanks for the attempts to answer my question but AFAICT there's no way to search for what particular page within a thread something is mentioned. So yeah, the search forum says that 'Walsh' in mentioned SOMEWHERE in this thread ... big deal.

Anyway thanks again.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17412&page=926
buena suerte amigo!

 

[BroDeal]

I don't care.

Troll babble...

Hi, Jaochim.

Shouldn't you be on Twitter with BPC?

 

[mastersracer]

Also to add, no-one tested positive that day.
We know that cycling has the most comprehensive anti-doping in the history of all sport. Leading scientists who work in the UCIs state of the art facility in Swhit sir Land near France where the first to develop a test for EPO back some time ago.

Also, while I cannot remember that JV tweet, he does have an abrasive personality and is known to tweet every day saying which stage is dirty and not normal - if he did indeed tweet that something or other (not really sure what) then I think we can all agree this is beyond conclusive proof that this performance was clean.

Here is a very cheap and lazy graph to assist people
__________ the line is perfectly straight, which is entirely consistent with consistency.

Sure, JV outs himself in the NYT and a bunch of his own riders, but his tweets about how the climbing #s at the 2012 Tour show its cleaner - referencing Wiggins, Froome, and Nibali - are just part of the Sky coverup.

"Climbing times are 10% slower. If guys are doping, it ain't working very well.'

But then a pretend anonymous doctor on an internet forum is a better judge of doped/clean performances. Nice graph - interesting that you've been unable to say a single substantive criticism about Coggan's (other than displaying the fact that you don't understand the notion of critical power).

 

[mattghg]

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17412&page=926
buena suerte amigo!

Thanks Tom - that's what I was after

I can reassure anyone else who's listening that I'm not 'Joachim', I don't know who 'Joachim' is and I've genuinley just joined this forum.

Hilarious.

 

[Tom375]

I'm Brian and so's my wife!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sure, JV outs himself in the NYT and a bunch of his own riders, but his tweets about how the climbing #s at the 2012 Tour show its cleaner - referencing Wiggins, Froome, and Nibali - are just part of the Sky coverup.

"Climbing times are 10% slower. If guys are doping, it ain't working very well.'

JV & his riders had cooperated with USADA he outed them just before it went public.
What other riders on other teams has he outed?

But then a pretend anonymous doctor on an internet forum is a better judge of doped/clean performances. Nice graph - interesting that you've been unable to say a single substantive criticism about Coggan's (other than displaying the fact that you don't understand the notion of critical power).

Coggans graph was put up against single events, i am not disputing it but that's where it ends.

What you have attempted to do is suggest this somehow explains how a rider performs over a 3 week stage race.

To get to a point - you seem convinced that all this data (Jv, Coggans etc) means that performances are 'human'. Which I agree with btw.
But, you appear to suggest that means people (or certain people) are clean.

Simple question - on that stage are you claiming that every single rider was clean?

 

[Zam_Olyas]

I'm Brian and so's my wife!

Not Spartacus?

 

[Tom375]

Not Spartacus?

No - he's just a very naughty boy!

 

[mastersracer]

JV & his riders had cooperated with USADA he outed them just before it went public.
What other riders on other teams has he outed?



Coggans graph was put up against single events, i am not disputing it but that's where it ends.

What you have attempted to do is suggest this somehow explains how a rider performs over a 3 week stage race.

To get to a point - you seem convinced that all this data (Jv, Coggans etc) means that performances are 'human'. Which I agree with btw.
But, you appear to suggest that means people (or certain people) are clean.

Simple question - on that stage are you claiming that every single rider was clean?

I believe this data is superior to outside subjective judgments regarding rider performances. In fact, all this data suggests that the talk of extraterrestrial performances at the 2012 Tour is biased - not surprising to anyone like myself who does research on judgment and decision-making. The anti-Sky theorists suffer tremendously from a bias blind spot - far too overconfident in their own judgments and resilience to biased judgments.

If anyone's judgment deserves to be weighted more positively, it is that of managers like Vaughters. If 2012 Sky Tour performance was fishy, he would either call them out or remain silent. He would not be praising them as evidence of clean cycling. Remember, he still feels jilted and betrayed by Wiggins.

The fact is, there is no physiologically suspicious 2012 Tour data, but, rather, data showing both historically-normed realistic performances and a reduction in outputs. While this is not enough to infer clean cycling, it is likewise not evidence of doping - this thread involves literally thousands of posts claiming the contrary, namely that these performances are obviously doped. Either willful distortions or biased post hoc rationalizations stemming from some emotional dislike of Sky, probably some misplaced schadenfreude...

 

[SundayRider]

Just because a performance is 'human' or 'believable' doesn't mean a rider hasn't doped to achieve said performance.

 

[will10]

if a doped Rogers can be a multiple ITT world champion and a top-10 finisher at the Tour, a clean Rogers can pull along the peloton at 5.8 watts. 'not normal' is meaningless in this context.

And yet clean Rogers told us he was putting out the highest numbers of his career.

Seems legit.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I believe this data is superior to outside subjective judgments regarding rider performances. In fact, all this data suggests that the talk of extraterrestrial performances at the 2012 Tour is biased - not surprising to anyone like myself who does research on judgment and decision-making. The anti-Sky theorists suffer tremendously from a bias blind spot - far too overconfident in their own judgments and resilience to biased judgments.

If anyone's judgment deserves to be weighted more positively, it is that of managers like Vaughters. If 2012 Sky Tour performance was fishy, he would either call them out or remain silent. He would not be praising them as evidence of clean cycling. Remember, he still feels jilted and betrayed by Wiggins.

The fact is, there is no physiologically suspicious 2012 Tour data, but, rather, data showing both historically-normed realistic performances and a reduction in outputs. While this is not enough to infer clean cycling, it is likewise not evidence of doping - this thread involves literally thousands of posts claiming the contrary, namely that these performances are obviously doped. Either willful distortions or biased post hoc rationalizations stemming from some emotional dislike of Sky, probably some misplaced schadenfreude...

I asked a relatively simple question.

You again confirm your great reliance on the data and opinions of others - so, does this mean in your opinion that every single rider who rode that Tour or stage was clean?

 

[SundayRider]

And yet clean Rogers told us he was putting out the highest numbers of his career.

Seems legit.

Yeah the very unbiased mastersracer left that information out.

 

[romnom]

But then a pretend anonymous doctor on an internet forum is a better judge of doped/clean performances. Nice graph - interesting that you've been unable to say a single substantive criticism about Coggan's (other than displaying the fact that you don't understand the notion of critical power).

I read some of the thread you linked earlier with the critical power plot, and from what I could see Coggan was just showing someone how it might make more sense to use actually reported power numbers to analyze Wiggins' performance rather than make endless assumptions and try to calculate his power in TTs and whatnot with little actual data.

So rather than ask people to criticize something that in it's original context makes perfect sense, maybe you should be a bit more critical with how you abuse the plot. The plot is base on a very limited amount of data that in itself isn't exactly guaranteed to be accurate. You know, the ~ and the 'claimed' and 'reported' and so on...

Anyway, I obviously know very little and fail to understand the concept of critical power, but you could at least trust what Coggan said based on his own plot. He didn't say it proves Wiggins' performances are entirely consistent from 2004 to 2012, he said 'taking the numbers at face value you can't really make the case that he has suddenly increased his sustainable power (which, of course, doesn't necessarily mean he isn't doping now and/or that he wasn't doping years ago).'

 

[thehog]

Just because a performance is 'human' or 'believable' doesn't mean a rider hasn't doped to achieve said performance.

The defense would like to present evidence exhibit A: "The Froome-Dawg".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSCzR2HE2kc&sns=em

Members of the jury once you see the footage you'll understand that cycling is "not-human" and certainly not "clean".

 

[will10]

Thanks Tom - that's what I was after

I can reassure anyone else who's listening that I'm not 'Joachim', I don't know who 'Joachim' is and I've genuinley just joined this forum.

Hilarious.

I like that you corrected BroDeal's typo though. he writes Jaochim, you wrote Joachim. Jus' sayin'.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

"Climbing times are 10% slower."

A BS conclusion that requires absurd cherry picking of data.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

2) Cancellara is considered a poor climber.

Self-same Cancellara was a better climber than Wiggins until two years ago.

I never used the Ardennes to prove anything, don't really get what you mean.

Rogers ride was phenomenal all the way throughout the Tour, I can't deny that and I won't try to. I am just trying to ensure facts aren't exaggerated all that much. The way I saw it Rogers could have come Top 10 in the Tour and rivaled the climbing of guys like Brajkovic and Zubeldia.

But could he do it clean? It really depends on how you rate Rogers. Because he's spent most of the time since the end of T-Mobile either injured or ill, then has got to the level he's at at Sky, actually putting a finger on the legit level of a clean Mick Rogers is inexact at best and wholly random at worst. It depends on if you think he was a top-10-in-the-world talent who happened to be doping, or if you think he was a chemically-created golem and rubbing a letter off his forehead would kill him as a competitor forevermore. Personally, I think of Mick Rogers a lot like I think of Vladimir Karpets.

Walsh explained sky's cleanliness by saying that he thinks their success comes from buying all the best riders. This is a comment so dumb that one only needs 3 brain cells to recognize just how factually incorrect it is.

If Walsh is putting idiotic errors like that into his central argument, I dont think it is out of turn to dismiss the whole piece as amateur, regardless what kind of rep the author carries.

Be fair, maybe in the research for the article somebody handed him a list with BMC's 2010 roster instead of 2012's.

if a doped Rogers can be a multiple ITT world champion and a top-10 finisher at the Tour, a clean Rogers can pull along the peloton at 5.8 watts. 'not normal' is meaningless in this context.

'not normal' applies relative to what it's applied to. Climbing Anglirú in 45 minutes might be 'normal' for a good climber in the professional péloton, but for a hobby cyclist off the back of a 100km ride, it's most definitely 'not normal'. Cycling is cleaner than it was 15 years ago, even sniper, Dear Wiggo and Mrs John Murphy have to acknowledge that. The amount of doping a rider can get away with has decreased, and the possibility for clean riders to be competitive are vastly improved over the days of riders being woken up in the night so their blood doesn't clot. The days of Pantani-speed are gone. Brakepads survive the switchbacks when climbing Alpe d'Huez nowadays. But just because the times are no longer superhuman does not mean that the times are not out of the ordinary for those particular riders.

 

[It's Joachim]

I don't care.

Hi, Jaochim.

Shouldn't you be on Twitter with BPC?

Hi Brodeal

Just registered and posted to show everyone what an utter tinfoil tw@t you are.

Kthxbai!

Joachim

p.s. sorry will10, looks like you are one too

 

[biker jk]

Interesting that Wiggins said he was climbing like Indurain at the Vuelta in 2011 and he had never done that before. So clearly he believed there was a sudden improvement. Pushing 450 watts on the steep climbs...

“When I took the lead of the front group three kilometres away from the top, I rode fast despite the headwind. I’m pretty good at guessing when my adversaries aren’t well. For three kilometres, I’ve ridden like Miguel Indurain! I had never done that before. I’ve done it after the great work done by Chris [Froome]. It’s fantastic for him to be in the lead. He deserves it and it takes some pressure from me.”

“Everyone was at his max,” he said, thinking back with satisfaction. “When I push 450 watts like I did on Sunday in such a difficult climb, who in the world can do more? Only Alberto Contador and Andy Schleck but they aren’t here. I’ve seen some guys attacking but they couldn’t maintain their speed and stay away. They even paid for their efforts.


http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/9...lometres-Ive-ridden-like-Miguel-Indurain.aspx

 

[mastersracer]

I read some of the thread you linked earlier with the critical power plot, and from what I could see Coggan was just showing someone how it might make more sense to use actually reported power numbers to analyze Wiggins' performance rather than make endless assumptions and try to calculate his power in TTs and whatnot with little actual data.

So rather than ask people to criticize something that in it's original context makes perfect sense, maybe you should be a bit more critical with how you abuse the plot. The plot is base on a very limited amount of data that in itself isn't exactly guaranteed to be accurate. You know, the ~ and the 'claimed' and 'reported' and so on...

Anyway, I obviously know very little and fail to understand the concept of critical power, but you could at least trust what Coggan said based on his own plot. He didn't say it proves Wiggins' performances are entirely consistent from 2004 to 2012, he said 'taking the numbers at face value you can't really make the case that he has suddenly increased his sustainable power (which, of course, doesn't necessarily mean he isn't doping now and/or that he wasn't doping years ago).'

I used the plot to reiterate exactly what Coggan concluded from it - that there was no increase in sustainable power from 2004 -2009 - 2012. This is exactly what was claimed by the anti-Sky people (that his 2009 performances had to be the result of doping). Also, the R2 is a measure of self-consistency - it shows his later performances are not outliers, as claimed by many here.

 

[biker jk]

I used the plot to reiterate exactly what Coggan concluded from it - that there was no increase in sustainable power from 2004 -2009 - 2012. This is exactly what was claimed by the anti-Sky people (that his 2009 performances had to be the result of doping). Also, the R2 is a measure of self-consistency - it shows his later performances are not outliers, as claimed by many here.

Do you mean the graph with just six observations and a huge gap in the data between 2004 and 2009? R2 is meaningless with so few data points and along with the huge data gap you can't reach the conclusion you do. Spurious regression. Perhaps you should read "Taking the Con out of Econometrics" in the American Economic Review?

 

[romnom]

I used the plot to reiterate exactly what Coggan concluded from it - that there was no increase in sustainable power from 2004 -2009 - 2012. This is exactly what was claimed by the anti-Sky people (that his 2009 performances had to be the result of doping). Also, the R2 is a measure of self-consistency - it shows his later performances are not outliers, as claimed by many here.

I really doubt you are. Might be wise to check with Coggan if he agrees with what you're saying or how much value he'd put on the plot in question. If nothing else, how about rereading the actual data used to make the plot. It won't take long since there isn't much of it. Consistency isn't really an issue when working with that little information.

Anyway, I'm not really interested in arguing about it with you. Keep on abusing it if you wish, I really don't mind.

 

[mastersracer]

Do you mean the graph with just six observations and a huge gap in the data between 2004 and 2009? R2 is meaningless with so few data points and along with the huge data gap you can't reach the conclusion you do. Spurious regression. Perhaps you should read "Taking the Con out of Econometrics" in the American Economic Review?

funny - you might want to look a bit into what a critical power plot is...

 

[mastersracer]

I really doubt you are. Might be wise to check with Coggan if he agrees with what you're saying or how much value he'd put on the plot in question. If nothing else, how about rereading the actual data used to make the plot. It won't take long since there isn't much of it. Consistency isn't really an issue when working with that little information.

Anyway, I'm not really interested in arguing about it with you. Keep on abusing it if you wish, I really don't mind.

you also may want to do some reading into what a critical power plot is...