Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Galic Ho]

You'd think someone with a PhD would do better with logical assertions yeah? And not cherry pick something as ridiculous as he did and claim it as our "proof" of doping.

Alas, it's a common ploy.

If Krebs does work at the AIS and NSWIS then he can surely explain why Dr Ashenden no longer works there.

Or he could tell us all about the swimming programs the AIS has. Or the cycling program in South Australia. You know, the most likely areas where one would find doping. He'll remain hollow and silent on that one. Fair enough he's alluded to the possibility of Sky doping, but saying you work at the AIS and remaining silent on doping is beyond ***. It's insane. The AIS has a very strong history of DOPING.

As for the Tim Kerrison stuff. By all means, tell us Krebs about Jodie Henry. One of the most amazing swimmers and people, to come out of the AIS. Kerrison was involved with her wasn't he? I'd love to hear why she just quit swimming. Oh, injuries right? Nope...same reason they all quit. Doping.

He played his card...the feign ignorance and I've never seen doping card. His position indicates one thing...he's compromised. He can't spill the beans on a forum. Not that he'd have the balls to do so. As I said, stating you work at the AIS indicates you above anyone else here would know and have seen doping.

I did like his analysis of Wiggins psychologically but that the analysis any Aussie would give. Ask him to talk about Aussie doping. Note he doesn't mention a peep about Porte or Rogers. He works where he does or at least did, he knows about Rogers...so by all means, Krebs, grow a sack and tell us he's clean. Surely you can...it's not like Rogers is from Canberra and the AIS is based in Canberra.

As for a link to SBS...give us a break dude. They've sucked the Lance pole almost as hard the Brits Sherwen and Liggett do. SBS is currently in full blown revision mode. They know they compromised their journalistic integrity, hence they are reporting next to nothing about LA and USADA. They're having to relearn how the game is played and where they were led astray. Kate Bates...her article infers one thing, that she isn't very intelligent. Seems like a nice person though.

 

[Darryl Webster]

If Krebs does work at the AIS and NSWIS then he can surely explain why Dr Ashenden no longer works there.

Or he could tell us all about the swimming programs the AIS has. Or the cycling program in South Australia. You know, the most likely areas where one would find doping. He'll remain hollow and silent on that one. Fair enough he's alluded to the possibility of Sky doping, but saying you work at the AIS and remaining silent on doping is beyond ***. It's insane. The AIS has a very strong history of DOPING.

As for the Tim Kerrison stuff. By all means, tell us Krebs about Jodie Henry. One of the most amazing swimmers and people, to come out of the AIS. Kerrison was involved with her wasn't he? I'd love to hear why she just quit swimming. Oh, injuries right? Nope...same reason they all quit. Doping.

He played his card...the feign ignorance and I've never seen doping card. His position indicates one thing...he's compromised. He can't spill the beans on a forum. Not that he'd have the balls to do so. As I said, stating you work at the AIS indicates you above anyone else here would know and have seen doping.

I did like his analysis of Wiggins psychologically but that the analysis any Aussie would give. Ask him to talk about Aussie doping. Note he doesn't mention a peep about Porte or Rogers. He works where he does or at least did, he knows about Rogers...so by all means, Krebs, grow a sack and tell us he's clean. Surely you can...it's not like Rogers is from Canberra and the AIS is based in Canberra.

As for a link to SBS...give us a break dude. They've sucked the Lance pole almost as hard the Brits Sherwen and Liggett do. SBS is currently in full blown revision mode. They know they compromised their journalistic integrity, hence they are reporting next to nothing about LA and USADA. They're having to relearn how the game is played and where they were led astray. Kate Bates...her article infers one thing, that she isn't very intelligent. Seems like a nice person though.

Very well put. ! Have you got any links to place Kerison in the midst of a doping program in swimming?. I don't mean "proof" he knew just that he was there during any scandal . I think there's a few peeps over here in blighty might find that rather illuminating ...few can understand how a swimming coach is coaching cycling. That news might give em an idea..

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Another reason why there are more posts here than in the threads on Contador, or Valverde, or Cobo, or whoever, is that more people are willing to believe in Sky. I don't know Juanjo Cobo personally, and I wouldn't vouch for his being clean or being dirty, but given what we know about him, when we saw performances that looked too good to be true, there was almost unanimous opinion on it. Why would the thread continue when there's little to debate? It came down to arguing the toss between "probably" and "definitely". With Sky, however, the poles of debate are a bit more extreme. That comes because of many factors:
- public talk of being clean, but not being open
- success being more consistent, more dramatic, more dominant
- rider outbursts when allusions (that they themselves have made from another point of view) are made
- riders speaking the first language of this forum, meaning sources easier to obtain for most posters
- happening at Tour not Vuelta, when there are more posters active
- more people are willing to believe Sky when they say they're clean. More people want to believe Sky when they say they're clean.
- miracle transformations of riders and spectacular performances of riders with shady past.

 

[thehog]

Another reason why there are more posts here than in the threads on Contador, or Valverde, or Cobo, or whoever, is that more people are willing to believe in Sky. I don't know Juanjo Cobo personally, and I wouldn't vouch for his being clean or being dirty, but given what we know about him, when we saw performances that looked too good to be true, there was almost unanimous opinion on it. Why would the thread continue when there's little to debate? It came down to arguing the toss between "probably" and "definitely". With Sky, however, the poles of debate are a bit more extreme. That comes because of many factors:
- public talk of being clean, but not being open
- success being more consistent, more dramatic, more dominant
- rider outbursts when allusions (that they themselves have made from another point of view) are made
- riders speaking the first language of this forum, meaning sources easier to obtain for most posters
- happening at Tour not Vuelta, when there are more posters active
- more people are willing to believe Sky when they say they're clean. More people want to believe Sky when they say they're clean.
- miracle transformations of riders and spectacular performances of riders with shady past.

I wrote this on the Tyler thread but much more appropriate here:

What becomes apparent to me when reading Tyler’s book and applying the USPS template of doping to present day is Wiggins is doping. I’m sorry that some don’t like to hear it but that’s what you walk away with. Yes I’m hypothesising but there’s now no doubt in my mind that Wiggins is working with Ferrari. The similarities of what Tyler explains are scarcely close to what Wiggins aimed for in terms of body form and output. I also note that the defense to doping question was similar to Armstrong once it clicked in Armstrong that attack was the best form of defense.

I knew a lot of the detail prior but this account provides excellent context as each story is cross referenced with the players involved. The real beauty everyone is named rather than innocuous terms of doctors or other cyclists.

 

[Fergoose]

I think Sky have taken a very cautious approach to this years Vuelta, either fearing Spanish authorities targeting them or believing Froome had enough in the tank, as they did not percieve the strength of Contador, Purito and Piti to be that juiced.

But I think they have been cautious because their doms are not blue training anything near what they did in the TdF.

Or it could be they didn't want to be dominant after all the talk of the UKPostal, so have not done the same 'preparation' or brought nothing to the race.

A few making similar arguments here and I totally accept the argument about teams picking and choosing what events they'll magically excel at, ala Saxobank in the 2012 Vuelta.

Froome being 4th and extremely competitive in the first week is still a massive over-achievement compared to his pre-2011 Vuelta career. It's suspicious. This just doesn't fit in with arguments about Sky being cautious or taking it down a notch. Froome is still massively overperforming and skelping folk like Anton and Gesink and all evidence pre-2011 Vuelta points to that being something he'd be extremely unlikely to achieve.

My point being, why as a team, would Sky give Froome another round of PEDs but apparently do nothing to help the team around him? That means the team are taking all of the risk, but have none of the upside.

 

[Benotti69]

A few making similar arguments here and I totally accept the argument about teams picking and choosing what events they'll magically excel at, ala Saxobank in the 2012 Vuelta.

Froome being 4th and extremely competitive in the first week is still a massive over-achievement compared to his pre-2011 Vuelta career. It's suspicious. This just doesn't fit in with arguments about Sky being cautious or taking it down a notch. Froome is still massively overperforming and skelping folk like Anton and Gesink and all evidence pre-2011 Vuelta points to that being something he'd be extremely unlikely to achieve.

My point being, why as a team, would Sky give Froome another round of PEDs but apparently do nothing to help the team around him? That means the team are taking all of the risk, but have none of the upside.

I wonder did Sky have to change their tatics because of all the doping talk at TdF. So while they still wanted to win they couldn't risk another whitewash with Froome. Look at Porte, nowhere near his TdF performance. While Froome is down on his TdF, but maybe Contador would've whooped Wiggins by 7 minutes too.

But Purito was performing above his Giro level. Valv is a doper and Contador, well whether he is the most talented rider of the last 15 years or not he is a doper too.

But i reckon for Sky this year was all about TdF perfection, and whether next year they will broaden thefull program we will see. But Froome has looked less than his TdF, so i guess less 'margianl gains' and Porte seems to prove that point or the Spanish have upped their levels. I reckon it is a bit of both. Spanish not afraid to 'perform' at home and Sky were not going to take any risks.

 

[Racelap]

I wrote this on the Tyler thread but much more appropriate here:

What becomes apparent to me when reading Tyler’s book and applying the USPS template of doping to present day is Wiggins is doping. I’m sorry that some don’t like to hear it but that’s what you walk away with. Yes I’m hypothesising but there’s now no doubt in my mind that Wiggins is working with Ferrari. The similarities of what Tyler explains are scarcely close to what Wiggins aimed for in terms of body form and output. I also note that the defense to doping question was similar to Armstrong once it clicked in Armstrong that attack was the best form of defense.

I knew a lot of the detail prior but this account provides excellent context as each story is cross referenced with the players involved. The real beauty everyone is named rather than innocuous terms of doctors or other cyclists.

All I'm going to say is this:

As I read the sections of the book covering the 1999 - 2000 seasons, so many things about Sky 2011 - 2012 I didn't understand came sharply into focus. And it's not just individual or team performance. It's comments. Attitudes. Behavior. It's uncanny.

I don't necessarily think Ferrari is involved, at least not the man himself. I think Ferrari has had many disciples take up his formulas and blueprints for success over the past 15 years.

The blood passport now makes so much more sense, too.

 

[the big ring]

Very well put. ! Have you got any links to place Kerison in the midst of a doping program in swimming?. I don't mean "proof" he knew just that he was there during any scandal . I think there's a few peeps over here in blighty might find that rather illuminating ...few can understand how a swimming coach is coaching cycling. That news might give em an idea..

Kerrison is not coaching cycling. He is TRANSFORMING coaching cycling, taking it to a new level. Given the level at which this transformation is happening, I'd call it an order of magnitude change.

 

[the big ring]

All I'm going to say is this:

As I read the sections of the book covering the 1999 - 2000 seasons, so many things about Sky 2011 - 2012 I didn't understand came sharply into focus. And it's not just individual or team performance. It's comments. Attitudes. Behavior. It's uncanny.

I don't necessarily think Ferrari is involved, at least not the man himself. I think Ferrari has had many disciples take up his formulas and blueprints for success over the past 15 years.

The blood passport now makes so much more sense, too.

We've been discussing these similarities long before the book came out. Interesting to hear they are backed up by the book.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Ah I see big ring you're back to trawling through my posting history looking for something to troll instead of reading anything that might educate. You really really want me to be Sky fanboy don't you? Believe whatever you want to believe and then fit some imagined alternate reality to that belief in order to prevent your poor little uneducated head from imploding.


Get over it. You're wrong. Very VERY wrong.

 

[sartoris]

I wonder did Sky have to change their tatics because of all the doping talk at TdF. So while they still wanted to win they couldn't risk another whitewash with Froome. Look at Porte, nowhere near his TdF performance. While Froome is down on his TdF, but maybe Contador would've whooped Wiggins by 7 minutes too.

But Purito was performing above his Giro level. Valv is a doper and Contador, well whether he is the most talented rider of the last 15 years or not he is a doper too.
But i reckon for Sky this year was all about TdF perfection, and whether next year they will broaden thefull program we will see. But Froome has looked less than his TdF, so i guess less 'margianl gains' and Porte seems to prove that point or the Spanish have upped their levels. I reckon it is a bit of both. Spanish not afraid to 'perform' at home and Sky were not going to take any risks.

Six thousand posts and you still haven't read his sentence....

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Ah I see big ring you're back to trawling through my posting history looking for something to troll instead of reading anything that might educate. You really really want me to be Sky fanboy don't you? Believe whatever you want to believe and then fit some imagined alternate reality to that belief in order to prevent your poor little uneducated head from imploding.


Get over it. You're wrong. Very VERY wrong.

There are still some questions open for you, you as an AIS physician with all respect of course.

 

[the big ring]

Ah I see big ring you're back to trawling through my posting history looking for something to troll instead of reading anything that might educate. You really really want me to be Sky fanboy don't you? Believe whatever you want to believe and then fit some imagined alternate reality to that belief in order to prevent your poor little uneducated head from imploding.


Get over it. You're wrong. Very VERY wrong.

If you really do have a PhD in exercise physiology, explain the physiological foundation of someone generating more of their 4 minute IP power from aerobic vs anaerobic power. acoggan couldn't.

Go.

Otherwise, link to a single post of yours that educates us on ANYTHING about Bradley Wiggins performance in GTs being "normal". "World champion at riding for 4 minutes quick" doesn't cut it.

Do you know Tim Kerrison?

 

[Krebs cycle]

If Krebs does work at the AIS and NSWIS then he can surely explain why Dr Ashenden no longer works there.

Or he could tell us all about the swimming programs the AIS has. Or the cycling program in South Australia. You know, the most likely areas where one would find doping. He'll remain hollow and silent on that one. Fair enough he's alluded to the possibility of Sky doping, but saying you work at the AIS and remaining silent on doping is beyond ***. It's insane. The AIS has a very strong history of DOPING.

As for the Tim Kerrison stuff. By all means, tell us Krebs about Jodie Henry. One of the most amazing swimmers and people, to come out of the AIS. Kerrison was involved with her wasn't he? I'd love to hear why she just quit swimming. Oh, injuries right? Nope...same reason they all quit. Doping.

He played his card...the feign ignorance and I've never seen doping card. His position indicates one thing...he's compromised. He can't spill the beans on a forum. Not that he'd have the balls to do so. As I said, stating you work at the AIS indicates you above anyone else here would know and have seen doping.

I did like his analysis of Wiggins psychologically but that the analysis any Aussie would give. Ask him to talk about Aussie doping. Note he doesn't mention a peep about Porte or Rogers. He works where he does or at least did, he knows about Rogers...so by all means, Krebs, grow a sack and tell us he's clean. Surely you can...it's not like Rogers is from Canberra and the AIS is based in Canberra.

As for a link to SBS...give us a break dude. They've sucked the Lance pole almost as hard the Brits Sherwen and Liggett do. SBS is currently in full blown revision mode. They know they compromised their journalistic integrity, hence they are reporting next to nothing about LA and USADA. They're having to relearn how the game is played and where they were led astray. Kate Bates...her article infers one thing, that she isn't very intelligent. Seems like a nice person though.

Aren't you Australian dude? This has to be one of the most ignorant and offensive anti-Australian rants I've ever seen on this forum. For starters Michael Ashenden left the AIS to start SIAB.

http://siab.org.au/

Secondly, I've never claimed that Australian sport is totally clean and I've certainly heard heresay from athletes over the years and of course, numerous Australian athletes have tested positive. However in my experience working in the sport institute system (which I left btw to take up a uni lecturing position), I never once witnessed anything from within any sport science dept anywhere in the entire country, anything to do with doping. In fact the govt even interfered with the AIS anti-doping research efforts (which Asho and Rob Parisotto were leading at the time) for political reasons. Are you getting this? If any institute was found out to be engaged in doping you can bet your life that funding would be cut real fast. Hence ALL the institutes have strict anti-doping policies.

This doesn't mean that individual rogue athletes didn't try to find their own sources, but it doesn't happen within a country mile of the institutes. Thus, claiming that the "AIS" (ie: the institution as opposed to a rogue athlete or coach) has a strong history of doping is complete and utter BS and smacks of the same kind of ignorance and baseless accusations that are endemic in this forum.

You want me to talk about Porte and Rogers. Ok well as far as Porte goes, he is a new kid on the block. He could easily be a highly talented late starter and indeed his progression so far looks exactly to be just that. There is no reason to suspect him of doping. Regarding Rogers I was really disappointed when the whole Freiburg thing broke. If the doping was team wide then its quite possible he was mixed up in it, but then again was he? He only joined T-mobile in 2006 which is when the story broke (which means the program was occurring BEFORE he was even part of the team). Prior to that he was in quick-step and so before he was even part of T-mobile he showed evidence of his pedigree by winning the world TT 3yrs in a row. I also know that Rogers has been tested at the AIS over the years and I know that his numbers in the lab suggest that he is capable of performing at the level we have seen this year and I don't believe that every test he ever did in the lab, he was doping. So either Rogers is getting a big boost from doping this year and pretending to go slow, or he is getting a small boost from doping (which means he is good anyway), or maybe he just isn't doping and always has been the 2nd best cyclist that Australia ever produced after Cadel (which is also reflected in the lab results over many years).

If you really are Australian you should be ashamed of yourself for believing such crap as you have written above. I'm ashamed of the Australian's who "booed" Rogers and Porte at the tour. Yeah it sucks they were riding for Rupert Murdoch's evil empire and not for GreenEdge, but still they are Aussies and we should support them, no boo them. If STRONG evidence of doping surfaces, then yeah they should be booed.

 

[Arnout]

Six thousand posts and you still haven't read his sentence....

Whether or not the clenbuterol was intentional doesn't necessarily determine if the guy is doping or not. After all, there are some other dodgy points (Astana 2009 story etc), although I have to admit I'm far from sure he actually dopes now.

 

[Krebs cycle]

If you really do have a PhD in exercise physiology, explain the physiological foundation of someone generating more of their 4 minute IP power from aerobic vs anaerobic power. acoggan couldn't.

Go.

Otherwise, link to a single post of yours that educates us on ANYTHING about Bradley Wiggins performance in GTs being "normal". "World champion at riding for 4 minutes quick" doesn't cut it.

Do you know Tim Kerrison?

You've got no clue whatsoever about this stuff. For starters not a single human on the face of the earth could produce more energy from anaerobic sources over 4min than aerobic. Not even a pure sprinter would stay above 50/50 over that duration. This is why I get so entertained by the inane bullsh!t that you post. It's like watching a child trying to learn their 2x tables and then throwing a tantrum because the teacher corrects their mistakes.

whatever it is you think acoggan was trying to explain, it certainly was not anything to do with the non-existence of variation in aerobic/anaerobic contribution between, or even within, individuals. Even you, with your complete lack of understanding of human physiology, know that different people can be more or less aerobic or anaerobic. People who are more "aerobic" demonstrate faster O2 uptake kinetics than people who are anaerobic. This is published far and wide in the scientific literature. So before you make more of a fool of yourself with your school boy understanding, instead of trawling my posts and asking me to explain it for you, why don't YOU go and learn what O2 uptake kinetics means and what the term O2 deficit means. Maybe then you'll figure out why it is possible for some athletes to generate 80% of their ATP from oxidative phosphorylation during a 4min maximal effort whereas others may only generate 70%.

And no, I've never met Tim Kerrison, but I do know people who know him and I remember hearing many years ago (ie: long before he started working with cycling) that the guy is pretty clever.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Whether or not the clenbuterol was intentional doesn't necessarily determine if the guy is doping or not. After all, there are some other dodgy points (Astana 2009 story etc), although I have to admit I'm far from sure he actually dopes now.

The answer to your question is - yes he does.

 

[Kender]

Aren't you Australian dude? This has to be one of the most ignorant and offensive anti-Australian rants I've ever seen on this forum. For starters Michael Ashenden left the AIS to start SIAB.

http://siab.org.au/

Secondly, I've never claimed that Australian sport is totally clean and I've certainly heard heresay from athletes over the years and of course, numerous Australian athletes have tested positive. However in my experience working in the sport institute system (which I left btw to take up a uni lecturing position), I never once witnessed anything from within any sport science dept anywhere in the entire country, anything to do with doping. In fact the govt even interfered with the AIS anti-doping research efforts (which Asho and Rob Parisotto were leading at the time) for political reasons. Are you getting this? If any institute was found out to be engaged in doping you can bet your life that funding would be cut real fast. Hence ALL the institutes have strict anti-doping policies.

This doesn't mean that individual rogue athletes didn't try to find their own sources, but it doesn't happen within a country mile of the institutes. Thus, claiming that the "AIS" (ie: the institution as opposed to a rogue athlete or coach) has a strong history of doping is complete and utter BS and smacks of the same kind of ignorance and baseless accusations that are endemic in this forum.

You want me to talk about Porte and Rogers. Ok well as far as Porte goes, he is a new kid on the block. He could easily be a highly talented late starter and indeed his progression so far looks exactly to be just that. There is no reason to suspect him of doping. Regarding Rogers I was really disappointed when the whole Freiburg thing broke. If the doping was team wide then its quite possible he was mixed up in it, but then again was he? He only joined T-mobile in 2006 which is when the story broke (which means the program was occurring BEFORE he was even part of the team). Prior to that he was in quick-step and so before he was even part of T-mobile he showed evidence of his pedigree by winning the world TT 3yrs in a row. I also know that Rogers has been tested at the AIS over the years and I know that his numbers in the lab suggest that he is capable of performing at the level we have seen this year and I don't believe that every test he ever did in the lab, he was doping. So either Rogers is getting a big boost from doping this year and pretending to go slow, or he is getting a small boost from doping (which means he is good anyway), or maybe he just isn't doping and always has been the 2nd best cyclist that Australia ever produced after Cadel (which is also reflected in the lab results over many years).

If you really are Australian you should be ashamed of yourself for believing such crap as you have written above. I'm ashamed of the Australian's who "booed" Rogers and Porte at the tour. Yeah it sucks they were riding for Rupert Murdoch's evil empire and not for GreenEdge, but still they are Aussies and we should support them, no boo them. If STRONG evidence of doping surfaces, then yeah they should be booed.

if aussies dont dope then this table will be empty

http://www.asada.gov.au/rules_and_violations/sanctions.html

no athlete from any country is above suspicion

 

[the big ring]

You've got no clue whatsoever about this stuff. For starters not a single human on the face of the earth could produce more energy from anaerobic sources over 4min than aerobic. Not even a pure sprinter would stay above 50/50 over that duration. This is why I get so entertained by the inane bullsh!t that you post. It's like watching a child trying to learn their 2x tables and then throwing a tantrum because the teacher corrects their mistakes.

Either that or you have reading comprehension issues..

For starters, I said that that the MAOD is a test which can be used ESTIMATE the percent contribution of aerobic vs anaerobic sources. I never stated that it was an accurate measure of anaerobic CAPACITY which is an entirely different physiological variable.

Thirdly, I speculated that if an IP rider was "more aerobic" than typical then this would lend itself to successful transition to road cycling. No matter how "debunked" you think the MAOD test is, that makes no difference to Wiggins' physiology.

If you really do have a PhD in exercise physiology, explain the physiological foundation of someone generating more of their 4 minute IP power from aerobic vs anaerobic power. acoggan couldn't.

Yeah. You have reading comprehension issues. And like to play the man.

Regardless, I'd still like an explanation. Because you just point at the result - imagined or real noone knows - and use it as "proof" that Brad, who didn't win a road race let alone a TT, for years, on the road, suddenly wins 4 tours in a row.

So expand on your MAOD theory and explain why it means he can PWN everyone into the ground for a season, after doing sweet FA prior to that.

 

[Krebs cycle]

if aussies dont dope then this table will be empty

http://www.asada.gov.au/rules_and_violations/sanctions.html

no athlete from any country is above suspicion

Are you blind? I stated in that post that Aussies have tested positive. This is the problem with this forum. Some of you just can't read properly. You read one thing (eg: I say aussies have tested positive, but doping doesn't occur within the sport institutes) and then your brain twists it into something else (aussies don't dope).

 

[Krebs cycle]

Either that or you have reading comprehension issues..





Yeah. You have reading comprehension issues. And like to play the man.

Regardless, I'd still like an explanation. Because you just point at the result - imagined or real noone knows - and use it as "proof" that Brad, who didn't win a road race let alone a TT, for years, on the road, suddenly wins 4 tours in a row.

So expand on your MAOD theory and explain why it means he can PWN everyone into the ground for a season, after doing sweet FA prior to that.

I'm normally a really nice guy, but congratulations, you discovered my evil side, I like to poke fun at ignorant trolling stupidity on an internet forum.

Stop asking me to wipe your behind and go study what I told you in the previous post.

 

[the big ring]

I'm normally a really nice guy, but congratulations, you discovered my evil side, I like to poke fun at ignorant trolling stupidity on an internet forum.

Stop asking me to wipe your behind and go study what I told you in the previous post.

Man alive.

You teach this stuff but can't explain it. In fact. All you can do is repeat words easily found in published studies.

And as for some can do 80% vs some only do 70% - this is incredibly telling.

All along you've claimed Brad is awesome sauce coz he generates more power from aerobic sources, and here the range you quote is 70-80, like 80 is the special.

Surely, if you were continuing your line of reasoning you'd say 90% from aerobic, given the average is 85%? How on earth did you pass your oral.

Can you even begin to explain anything? You claim to have been lecturing for 2 years at uni.

Or is playing the man all you're good for?

No worries on the lack of apology after misreading my post. Big of you.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Do Aussie sports institutes have an incentive that's results based ?...Ie Ausie athletes do well in international competition better funding is attracted...they perform less than competitive funding could be cut/ frozen?
IF that's the case then there's a conflict of interest and doping has an incentive. Yes there are risks, yes they will take great care to separate ( plausible deniability) any knowledge of doping by an institute and the Government equally has incentive NOT to catch dopers cus its bad PR when it happens on there watch.
Not singling out Australia here, but that pattern of state supported institute has a long history..GDR, Russia....State University teams etc and so on.
I'm not singling any persons out here just showing how a very clear conflict of interest is set up.

 

[the big ring]

Do Aussie sports institutes have an incentive that's results based ?...Ie Ausie athletes do well in international competition better funding is attracted...they perform less than competitive funding could be cut/ frozen?

Most definitely. Not only that, but the junior development squads get all the funding derived from license fees, etc.

If cycling gets booted from the UCI, they are out of business.

Here's a few lines from the annual report (income, $AU) for CA in 2011:

OPS:
Membership 1,554,243
Total Operations Income $4,194,418

High performance:
Total High Performance Programs Income $11,743,808

I would need to look much more closely to see where the money is spent, but essentially they moved from pure racing to racing + recreational "grand fondo" rides recently - and the only logical reason for that is to increase revenue.

Cut out that high performance $11.7M funding and they'd be gone in a week.

 

[sartoris]

The answer to your question is - yes he does.

But you are wrong. Really.