Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[mastersracer]

It is curious that acoggan is prepared to introduce 4 unknown variables into a rider's TT vs 1 variable (increase in power) to explain a very strong performance.

These are complicated things, no question. But I think the lack of confidence afforded TT power guesstimation (vs the popularised VAM calcs) works in Wiggin's favour here. Big time.

If I recall that exchange, he was simply responding to the claim that Wiggins' TT performance was explainable only by an increase in power (claimed by the poster with the numeric name) by illustrating that reasonable numbers for the other variables (which were guesstimated in the original analysis too) were consistent with no increase in power (based on the critical power plot). Starting with power as a known value (there's every reason to believe Coggan has seen recent power files from Wiggins but is not at liberty to divulge that info) and estimating the other values is better than vice versa...

 

[acoggan]

Do you have recent powertaps from pro's?

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

Are they better than the pre - nineties?

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.

 

[the big ring]

If I recall that exchange, he was simply responding to the claim that Wiggins' TT performance was explainable only by an increase in power (claimed by the poster with the numeric name) by illustrating that reasonable numbers for the other variables (which were guesstimated in the original analysis too) were consistent with no increase in power (based on the critical power plot). Starting with power as a known value (there's every reason to believe Coggan has seen recent power files from Wiggins but is not at liberty to divulge that info) and estimating the other values is better than vice versa...

Can you give me one good reason why he would / should see Wiggin's power file? ie what possible value would Sky gain from giving the file to him?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

How's this for a thought experiment:

give me one good reason (with explanation, coz I know it already) why Brad's power file cannot be released from the final 2012 TdF TT.

I would be interesting in knowing this as well. I would have thought it would be in everyone's interest to see that things are as they should be.

How much advantage can competitors gain from seeing such information?

 

[acoggan]

It is curious that acoggan is prepared to introduce 4 unknown variables into a rider's TT

Huh? It was 131313 who believed he could estimate Wiggins' TT power with sufficient precision to draw valid conclusions, not me.

To reiterate: I do not consider power guesstimates based on VAM to be of sufficient precision to be of any real use. Power guesstimates based on TT performances are even worse.

 

[the big ring]

It is curious that acoggan is prepared to introduce 4 unknown variables into a rider's TT vs 1 variable (increase in power) to explain a very strong performance.

Huh? It was 131313 who believed he could estimate Wiggins' TT power with sufficient precision to draw valid conclusions, not me.

You explained Wiggins increase in speed (2011 WC to Olympics) by suggesting his CdA had improved from a wind tunnel value of 0.224 to a real life value of 0.21 (a 6% improvement) using the following 4 variables:

And more:

"Wiggin's CdA (not including traffic, ie. wind tunnel CdA) was around 0.224 at the British National 10 Mile championships in 2011"

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/wattage/IsBdRhgJHPY/_xdXyI5mep0J

So, even w/o traffic and ignoring differences in equipment (which Xav believes would favor the UKSI bike), Wiggins is more aero than the 0.23-0.25 that 131313 assumed. Now toss in
1. lead vehicles,
2. a bit of crosswind
3. (given Wiggins' build, his CdA likely decreases at yaw),
4. perhaps a few equipment/positional tweaks, and his effective CdA during the Olympic TT could very well have been 0.20-0.21 m^2. As I said, this value fits with the assumption that his power is comparable to what he was capable of generating in 2004-2011.

VS

Bottom line: he might be lighter, he might even be doping...but he doesn't seem to be
1. producing more absolute power or TTing markedly faster than before. If so, then a healthy and in form Cancellara or Martin will still be able to given him a run for his money at Worlds (assuming, of course, that Wiggins is still going well then).

Wiggins has now said he won't race worlds.

 

[Krebs cycle]

What is suspicious to me is comparing Wiggins to the greatest sporting fraud in cycling's history, and coming to the conclusion that because they don't compare, Wiggins is clean.
.

It's not possible to have a rationale discussion with you because you believe whatever you want to believe no matter what I tell you. Funny that you spent so much time trawling through my posts and yet you still can't accept the fact that I have NEVER concluded that Wiggins (or anyone in Team Sky or any other team) is clean, whereas on several occasions I stated that nothing I have posted proves he is clean.

This is you in a nutshell.....

delusion [dɪˈluːʒən]
n
1. (Psychiatry) a mistaken or misleading opinion, idea, belief, etc.
2. (Psychiatry) a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason

 

[Darryl Webster]

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.

For a fools errand it seems over the years to have proved mighty prescient....have you EVER called out a rider as suspect publicly?

Or would that be "unprofessional"? ..after all, this is "The Clinic"...this is what this sub section of the forum does. And seems to get right all to often.
I do wonder why you bother coming on here?

 

[acoggan]

You explained Wiggins increase in speed (2011 WC to Olympics) by suggesting his CdA had improved from a wind tunnel value of 0.224 to a real life value of 0.21 (a 6% improvement) using the following 4 variables:

No. I merely pointed out that there is enough inherent 'slop' in the guesstimates required that you can't draw any solid conclusions re. his power output from his TT speed.

 

[acoggan]

How's this for a thought experiment:

give me one good reason (with explanation, coz I know it already) why Brad's power file cannot be released from the final 2012 TdF TT.

I think we already have a really good idea of his power output over that duration:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=972830&postcount=185

 

[acoggan]

have you EVER called out a rider as suspect publicly?

No. For one thing, I'm a firm believer in innocent until proven guilty. For another, I don't follow professional cycling closely enough to really have any basis for drawing such conclusions.

I do wonder why you bother coming on here?

Because I enjoy making people like you look like fools?

 

[the big ring]

It's not possible to have a rationale discussion with you because you believe whatever you want to believe no matter what I tell you. Funny that you spent so much time trawling through my posts and yet you still can't accept the fact that I have NEVER concluded that Wiggins (or anyone in Team Sky or any other team) is clean, whereas on several occasions I stated that nothing I have posted proves he is clean.

This is you in a nutshell.....

delusion [dɪˈluːʒən]
n
1. (Psychiatry) a mistaken or misleading opinion, idea, belief, etc.
2. (Psychiatry) a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason

Are you playing the man or the ball here?

You mentioned Lance and all the clouds hovering around him as a comparison to Bradley Wiggins and the lack of clouds around him. If that is not an attempt to show Brad is not doping, then what is it? They were your words.

To wit:

Has anyone who like to compare Wiggins to Armstrong taken a look at the index of doping allegations against Armstrong?

In 1999 there was already evidence of a positive test for cortisone and 3yrs later in 2002 there was so much eyewitness testimony in addition to published doping allegations coming from cycling journalists that David Walsh had enough material to write a book.

Compare that to Wiggins who started his doping in 2009 to most people here, yet 3yrs later, there hasn't been a single doping allegation leveled against either Team Sky or Wiggins. The only thing anyone can come up with is Kimmage asking for more transparency. Kimmage has categorically stated that he isn't accusing Wiggins of doping though.

If evidence of either the performance data OR published doping allegations were stronger then I would most definitely be a lot more suspicious but the fact is that neither are there.

What exactly was the point of this post, if not to argue that you believe Wiggins is clean?

What it sounds like, is "I think there is no evidence of doping". Surely, logically, you would conclude someone saying that is implying, at least, "I think he is clean".

Or do you disagree?

 

[Darryl Webster]

No. For one thing, I'm a firm believer in innocent until proven guilty. For another, I don't follow professional cycling closely enough to really have any basis for drawing such conclusions.



Because I enjoy making people like you look like fools?

Well ya fail dude. I didn't need any power figures in 93 to tell me Armstrong was doped to win the 93 World Pro RR.
Common sense was enough.

 

[the big ring]

I think we already have a really good idea of his power output over that duration:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=972830&postcount=185

That's not a reason. If you have one, I'm sure there's a few here that would love to hear it.

 

[acoggan]

That's not a reason. If you have one, I'm sure there's a few here that would love to hear it.

1. Have I ever said that I know Wiggins' power from this year's TdF (aside from the prologue data, which are in the public domain)?

2. Even if I have seen Wiggins' powermeter data, why do you assume that I have permission to share it?

 

[the big ring]

It's not possible to have a rationale discussion with you because you believe whatever you want to believe no matter what I tell you.

I know you meant rational - but I am curious here. It is your opinion that Brad's performance is not doped. It's my opinion that he is. Neither of us know for sure.

Are you saying here that unless I agree with you, we cannot have a rational discussion?

Because that is very, very telling.

Particularly considering the many mistakes you make.

 

[the big ring]

How's this for a thought experiment:

give me one good reason (with explanation, coz I know it already) why Brad's power file cannot be released from the final 2012 TdF TT.

I think we already have a really good idea of his power output over that duration:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=972830&postcount=185

That's not a reason. If you have one, I'm sure there's a few here that would love to hear it.

If you have one (ie a reason why the file could not be released).

1. Have I ever said that I know Wiggins' power from this year's TdF (aside from the prologue data, which are in the public domain)?

2. Even if I have seen Wiggins' powermeter data, why do you assume that I have permission to share it?

I didn't ask you to share it. I asked for a reason why it cannot be shared. You know. Tactically, politically, rationally. Any reason at all. I'm curious.

 

[Darryl Webster]

1. Have I ever said that I know Wiggins' power from this year's TdF (aside from the prologue data, which are in the public domain)?

2. Even if I have seen Wiggins' powermeter data, why do you assume that I have permission to share it?

Why am I so reminded of this famous Beatles song?

"she,s a pxxxk teaser...."...well thats not quite the lyric but we all know John had a very dry sense of humour

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhdPDI9OeY8

 

[acoggan]

I didn't ask you to share it. I asked for a reason why it cannot be shared. You know. Tactically, politically, rationally. Any reason at all. I'm curious.

Your guess is as good as mine.

Here's an idea: given how freely Wiggins and/or those working closely with him (e.g., Brailsford) have shared his data in the past, maybe you could just drop 'em an email and ask nicely for the file?

 

[the big ring]

Your guess is as good as mine.

Here's an idea: given how freely Wiggins and/or those working closely with him (e.g., Brailsford) have shared his data in the past, maybe you could just drop 'em an email and ask nicely for the file?

I'll ask for his blood values while I'm at it

ETA: Never seen a powerfile from Brad. Which data has been shared? training peakscom have some power files - do TP choose which ones to discuss / upload, having received all of them, or do the team give them a subset, or is it down to each individual rider?

 

[Krebs cycle]

That's a fair point.

Contador was tainted in 2006. After that, however, there wasn't anything more tangible than what we have on Wiggins until 2010, 3 years after his first Tour victory. edit: well, there's the Astana syringes in 2009, I suppose.

Andy, to this day, has nothing definite on him, 5 years after his breakthrough.

Fränk's breakthrough came in 2005. He became tainted in mid 2008, for things that happened 3 years prior. He tested positive 4 years later.

Menchov had a stellar 2004 season and won the Vuelta in 2005. As far as I know there was nothing on him until 2009, with the HumanPlasma allegations.

Ullrich broke through in 1996. Recreational drugs aside, he only became tainted in 2006, with Puerto. That's 10 years.

Cunego won the 2004 Giro. The Mantova investigation broke out in 2010. That's 6 years.

Basso broke through in 2003. Tainted in 2006. 3 years.

I'm picking names from top contenders mostly at random, by the way, but regardless I don't think we can say there's a clear timetable for allegations to appear.

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 ie: the across the years that you mention.

All of those riders you mention that are still competing today are going slower themselves than they were pre 2009.

All those riders you mention have shown strong evidence of doping in their performances because they were all riding up mtns faster than Wiggins has ever gone in the past 3yrs. Many of them have had huge ups and downs in performance within and across seasons that make Wiggins inconsistency look like a ripple on a tidal wave. Look at Menchovs results in ITTs for example. Wiggins' level of consistency in that discipline is like the rock of Gilbraltar by comparison. Look at the huge gains in performance within a season we've seen in the Shleck bros over the years. Cunego and Basso also fit that profile. None of them ever showed strong performance across a whole season before 2008.

You are comparing to a time when the fight against doping was not as strong as it is today. Something has changed in the peloton. The times up the major climbs have been getting slower for at least 2yrs now. Before 2008 I don't believe it was possible to compete and win at the TdF against a rider that could match the fastest times on major climbs. Pantani was the last person to win 2 consecutive GTs in a season..... only 2yrs before the introduction of the EPO test which shifted the emphasis to transfusions thus making it much more difficult to sustain beyond human physiology performance for much more than 1 GT per year. Doping has NOT gone, but the ease with which it was possible to achieve that one strong peak in the year (ie: the TdF) has dissipated and therefore my guess is that in the following 10yrs we will begin to witness a return to the days in which a single cyclist is able to achieve consecutive top 5 placings in GTs within a season just as was very common pre transfusion era. Contador's 2011 season might even be clean or "cleaner" since he knew he was under close scrutiny. Fact is he was going slower than he was in 2009 and yet it was the first time he achieved 2 consecutive top 5 placings. Cadel showed good form all year in 2011. Sastre was able to achieve consecutive top 5 placings in a season.

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

At present so many people in here say that Wiggins is doping because of (amongst other things) such a long peak, but in 5yrs time I bet that all of you will be saying that anyone who doesn't show good form throughout the entire season but suddenly wins the tour, is the doper.

 

[Moller]

I don't know the actual times but Vayer said in Le Monde recently that wiggins & froome climbed the pyresourde only 43 seconds slower than Contador and Rasmussen did in 2007.
Also Wiggins climbed mt Ventoux in 09 in almost the same time as Ulrich in '00, highly improbable that this could be done by a clean rider on the 2nd last day of a three week tour, plus in 09 there was a block headwind.

 

[acoggan]

I'll ask for his blood values while I'm at it

ETA: Never seen a powerfile from Brad. Which data has been shared? training peakscom have some power files - do TP choose which ones to discuss / upload, having received all of them, or do the team give them a subset, or is it down to each individual rider?

I've never seen a powermeter file for Wiggins in the public domain. I also don't know how TrainingPeaks/Sky interoperate. The power numbers I have seen shared publicly have been average values in interviews, lectures, etc.

 

[Krebs cycle]

What exactly was the point of this post, if not to argue that you believe Wiggins is clean?

What it sounds like, is "I think there is no evidence of doping". Surely, logically, you would conclude someone saying that is implying, at least, "I think he is clean".

Or do you disagree?

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%. In Armstrong's case, I gave that a probability of about 1-5% as far back as the early 2000s and a probability of 0% after having a conversation with Michael Ashenden about the state of doping sometime around 2007.

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.

 

[mastersracer]

I'll ask for his blood values while I'm at it

ETA: Never seen a powerfile from Brad. Which data has been shared? training peakscom have some power files - do TP choose which ones to discuss / upload, having received all of them, or do the team give them a subset, or is it down to each individual rider?

do you have a point in any of this? There are plenty of power files from the Tour etc for riders in the same finishing group as Wiggins/Froome etc. on the main climbs and its not that hard to extrapolate. Then there's the plot Coggan provided. Is it that hard to infer the general trend from all this?

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