Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[neineinei]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...ons-doping-Lance-Armstrong-fallout-grows.html

"Leipheimer has testified that a Rabobank doctor, whose name is redacted in the USADA files, sold him EPO in that period, over three years from 2002-2004.
It is not known whether that name is Leinders but the evidence shows at the least he worked within a doping regime. Richard Plugge, of Rabobank, said: 'We don't know if it was Geert Leinders because we had four doctors then. None of them are still with us."

What are the names of the 3 other Rabobank doctors? Do they fit with the length of the name of Other-8 in Leipheimers affidavit (http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Leipheimer,+Levi,+Affidavit.pdf page 7)?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I am suggesting he would be quicker than Brad over 4km on the track, as he was quicker than Brad on the road.

Are you saying a multiple world and olympic champion froze up coz of a road TT? Not enough exposure to competitive stimulation and stress? Seriously?

I'm not saying Wiggo "froze"; just that him underperforming for some reason doesn't seem unreasonable as an explanation.

If you extend your "Zabriskie would be quicker on the track over 4k as he was quicker on the road" logic, then we can conclude that O'Grady would also have been faster on the track over 4k than Wiggo. Interestingly, O'Grady had a lengthy track career, and never got anywhere close to Wiggo's performance levels over 4k.

I don't doubt, however, that the top TT/prologue exponents amongst the "roadies" would be highly competent IPers. Whethere they'd be world/Olympic winning standard is another matter. The finest prologuers and TTers, with no EPO testing and no Hct limits could not get withing 15 seconds of Boardman over 8 minutes in the 1994 Tour prologue. And Boardman wasn't even the best British pursuiter at the time.

 

[bianchigirl]

For those asking questions about performance - the graph at the bottom is most instructive http://www.cyclesportmag.com/features/inside-the-mind-of-dave-brailsford/

 

[sittingbison]

...Interestingly, O'Grady had a lengthy track career, and never got anywhere close to Wiggo's performance levels over 4k....

hmmmm....technically correct in that he was not an IPer. Plenty of form in the TP and other track races though. Over a 12 year track career. Funnily enough combining a relatively successful road and track career. At the same time.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

For those asking questions about performance - the graph at the bottom is most instructive http://www.cyclesportmag.com/features/inside-the-mind-of-dave-brailsford/

Although it must be emphasised that the graph is generated from the interviewer's interpretation of Brailsford's comments, rather than being Brailsford's own graph, the initials "CF" at the bottom of the "borderline" box is what one might call "interesting".

Lokvist (sp?) must look at the graph and wonder where it all went wrong...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'm not saying Wiggo "froze"; just that him underperforming for some reason doesn't seem unreasonable as an explanation.

It does to me.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

hmmmm....technically correct in that he was not an IPer. Plenty of form in the TP and other track races though. Over a 12 year track career. Funnily enough combining a relatively successful road and track career. At the same time.

But if he could beat Wiggo by 6 seconds over 4k on the road, and if Dear Wiggo's Big Ring's theory about "Faster on road than Wiggo => Faster on track than Wiggo" holds, then O'Grady would be a faster IPer than Wiggo, by some distance. Wiggo was unambguously faster than McGee in the IP by a good margin, so O'Grady would be significantly better a pursuiter than McGee.

This all makes sound sense, except that when both McGee and O'Grady rode the IP in the 1994 Commonwealth Games, McGee rode a 4:31 to take gold and O'Grady a 4:35 to take bronze. McGee was 18, O'Grady 21, so you'd think O'Grady's IP superiority would have been clear to see, as McGee would improve more with age than O'Grady from that point, one would think. Both were in the gold medal winning TP quartet, so both would have done some proper pursuit training, one would also think.

Both also rode the TP in the Atlanta OGs, with McGee being the leading Aussie IPer. Don't know if OG ride the IP as well, but this suggests that McGee was a better IPer than OG, as otherwise, as he was there to ride the TP, O'G would presumably have been selected. (Edit - McGee only rode the IP in Atlanta, but the conclusion that he was a better IPer than OG remains.)

O'G was also third in the World IP in 1995 (behind Obree and Collinelli), hardly indicative of him ever being a superior rider over 4k than Wiggo, one might reasonably conclude.

Something doesn't add up here. And I think the least unlikely option is Wiggo underperforming in the TT in 2006.

 

[argyllflyer]

Wiggins self confesses to having been lazy when it came to training anf totally switched off after Beijing. In comes Kerrison for 2010 who focuses on high intensity and far more training than racing for all of the 'A Team'. Unfortunately the sport has had (and continues to have, despite protestations from the likes of Cav and Roche) so many bad eggs that cynicism is a default position for many, especially on this forum. That cynicism can be levelled at virtually every genuine GC contender, and in some cases it's justified. For me, the thing that goes in Froome and Wiggins' favour (for now) is their route to where they are. Froome a tactically naive ex-MTB rider and full-time student in Africa who rarely rode more than 100km races before moving to Europe, Wiggins the lazy but naturally talented track cyclist who dabbled on the road.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

It does to me.

To conclude that Wiggo didn't underperform in the 2006 TT, you need to have a reliable estimate of his power output on the day in question. I'd be interested to see such an estimate.

If Wiggo did output his IP level of 580 watts that day, then we have to conclude that Zabriske was at around 650 watts, with Hincapie just behind and O'G well over 600. Hmmm...

 

[armchairclimber]

Wiggins self confesses to having been lazy when it came to training anf totally switched off after Beijing. In comes Kerrison for 2010 who focuses on high intensity and far more training than racing for all of the 'A Team'. Unfortunately the sport has had (and continues to have, despite protestations from the likes of Cav and Roche) so many bad eggs that cynicism is a default position for many, especially on this forum. That cynicism can be levelled at virtually every genuine GC contender, and in some cases it's justified. For me, the thing that goes in Froome and Wiggins' favour (for now) is their route to where they are. Froome a tactically naive ex-MTB rider and full-time student in Africa who rarely rode more than 100km races before moving to Europe, Wiggins the lazy but naturally talented track cyclist who dabbled on the road.

Careful, talking sense may lead you into pages and pages of Dear Wiggo Ring sophistry...just ask acoggan and Krebs Cycle.

 

[sittingbison]

...Both also rode the TP in the Atlanta OGs, with McGee being the leading Aussie IPer. Don't know if OG ride the IP as well, but this suggests that McGee was a better IPer than OG...

O'Grady was the kilo rider. Set for gold, but pulled his foot from the pedal at the start. McGee was the superior IPer.

As I said (because you qualified your original statement "over 4k"), SOG had an impressive track career at the same time as an impressive road career, and probably should not be the one used in comparison by saying "never got anywhere close". I would suggest he most certainly did get somewhere very close if you look at his palmares over a 12 year track career.

 

[Ferminal]

O'Grady was the kilo rider. Set for gold, but pulled his foot from the pedal at the start. McGee was the superior IPer.

Nah, that was Shane "I only injected vitamins" Kelly.

 

[sittingbison]

Wiggins self confesses to having been lazy when it came to training anf totally switched off after Beijing. In comes Kerrison for 2010....

lol. So how do you explain TdF 2009? Remember he got 4th, just behind one Lance Armstrong in 3rd? The first time he placed better than what, 123rd?

But in 2010, with Kerrison and all that wizz bang new training he got 23rd (laughably just behind one Lance Armstrong in 22nd)

No wonder he cant remember ever racing against Armstrong

EDIT: Its really quite funny the "he was lazy...no he was training for the track not the road... no wait he had new specific training" comments from a variety of sources

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

O'Grady was the kilo rider. Set for gold, but pulled his foot from the pedal at the start. McGee was the superior IPer.

As I said (because you qualified your original statement "over 4k"), SOG had an impressive track career at the same time as an impressive road career, and probably should not be the one used in comparison by saying "never got anywhere close". I would suggest he most certainly did get somewhere very close if you look at his palmares over a 12 year track career.

Shane Kelly was the kilo man, if memory serves.

SO'G is the ideal benchmark for analysis of Wiggo's performance in that 2006 TT as he was in the same event, has done the IP a fair few times in major competitions, has been up against McGee in the IP and there is solid data re Wiggo vs McGee in the pursuit.

Thus, albeit with imperfect data, in terms of IP capability, we have:

Wiggo > McGee > O'Grady. I'd be very surprised if anyone can really dispute this.

Thus, O'G beating Wiggo by 6 seconds over 4k in a road TT is definitely an "outlier" based on what has been observed before.

 

[sittingbison]

Nah, that was Shane "I only injected vitamins" Kelly.

thats right! Was it SOG who had the episode of the super fast heart beat? Over 200bpm? on the side of the track?

 

[sittingbison]

..O'G beating Wiggo by 6 seconds over 4k in a road TT is definitely an "outlier" based on what has been observed before.

perhaps it shows that its harder moving from the track to the road than some would like to believe? But given anecdotal evidence, not surprising

 

[MartinGT]

lol. So how do you explain TdF 2009? Remember he got 4th, just behind one Lance Armstrong in 3rd? .....

Thats a myth

 

[sittingbison]

Careful, talking sense may lead you into pages and pages of Dear Wiggo Ring sophistry...just ask acoggan and Krebs Cycle.

except its not talking sense. Its logically flawed.

 

[Ferminal]

thats right! Was it SOG who had the episode of the super fast heart beat? Over 200bpm? on the side of the track?

I've never heard that one before!

 

[taiwan]

Froome a tactically naive ex-MTB rider and full-time student in Africa who rarely rode more than 100km races before moving to Europe, Wiggins the lazy but naturally talented track cyclist who dabbled on the road.

If you want to boil their careers down to a facile movie pitch then yes, they do look credible. That is exactly the sort of explanation all riders would use if they could get away with it.

Froome has been a European pro since 08, Wiggins since 02. They didn't both just randomly throw their leg over a road bike at Sky.

Careful, talking sense may lead you into pages and pages of Dear Wiggo Ring sophistry...just ask acoggan and Krebs Cycle.

Yes, because The Big Ring/Dear Wiggo was the original proponent of the tl:dr physiology post style rather than anyone else mntioned above.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

perhaps it shows that its harder moving from the track to the road than some would like to believe? But given anecdotal evidence, not surprising

That makes sense.

 

[PCutter]

Maybe Wiggins didn't win in the prologue because the track had corners.

 

[The Hitch]

Careful, talking sense may lead you into pages and pages of Dear Wiggo Ring sophistry...just ask acoggan and Krebs Cycle.

Froome having an overnight transformation twice as shocking as lance, mosquera, kash,grabowsky etc being explained as clean because he is a former mtb rider, makes sense to you?

Stop acting as if you are on higher ground. I asked you 3 times which of the magical powers you think you possess that you know 100%wiggins isn't doing and your behaviour is identical to the guardian journo who declared on pdbf that this was the moment the peloton became clean and could muster know better explanation for how he came across the knowledge other than - they are British, like me

 

[JimmyFingers]

I believe once you hit your genetic potential, it's not changing much. I believe that takes 3-5 years to achieve full-time. I believe Brad hit it in 2004, given his IP time in 2008 was identical.

That's a bold statement, and as you say it is a belief rather that a proven fact. Clearly different training regimes can tweak athletes performance, and form can fluctuate over a career.

What I have said is, if he was any good on the road, he would have displayed this ability before 2009, all those years he rode as a pro. All his road wins were accidental or luck.

However his focus was never the road until post-Beijing i.e. he wasn't trying very hard, and his training and focus was about the track.

I gave sufficient information to answer this, that you must have missed, but you are polite and I am prepared to explain in a different way. And to clarify: Wiggins was an average world-level (roadie) fish in the tiny pond of 4km IP riders.

Brad was World and Olympic champion on the track in the 4km pursuit in 2004 and 2008. To do this, he rode at an average of ~580W.

There is a 4km TT on the road in 2006. Brad is competing, as are a host of professional bike riders. Brad is the only World and Olympic champion at this 4km distance on the track competing on the day. He is averaging 580W in training in the lead up to the TT.

Everyone else trains for 200+km multi-stage races. This stage is not all that important to them.

Brad is training exclusively for this stage, with a team of assistants devoted to helping him, spending 2 weeks in Mallorca to train for this single, 4km TT road stage.

Who will win this 4km road TT?

A. The current and future World and Olympic champion at 4km IP? OR
B. Some roadie who trains for 200+km/day stage races?

Answer: Brad came 21st. To win, he would have needed to ride at approximately 630W. (ie 10% more power)

Now stick the first 20 riders from that race on the track, give them the same amount of BC style support and funding and let them focus purely on the IP event, and tell me they won't pound Brad into the ground in a 4km IP.

2 years later, Brad is still only averaging ~580W for the 4km IP.

For me the danger here is you are using the evidence of one race and applying it to an athlete's entire career. He underperformed here ergo he is a poor athlete. I'm not a sports scientist but its clear to me that form can fluctuate, and often that can be a mental thing as much as a physical. Trying to apply definitives to an athlete's performance for me is a bit like asking how long is a peice of string: reducing them to mere numbers might define them physically but ignores the huge variables that affect performance in a race, from simple things like the parcours, climatic conditions, crowd noise/distractions to mental state, nutrition, health etc which will vary from race to race.

Brad by his own admission didn't really think much about his road career until after 2008. That means he was neither training specifically for it, and wasn't training that hard for it, nor was he mentally focussed on it. To suceed on the road takes both tremendous physical strength but also mental strength.

Hypothetical of course, but that is one possible paradigm: yours is another. Neither is the definitive answer, however I do acknowledge both are plausible.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

To conclude that Wiggo didn't underperform in the 2006 TT, you need to have a reliable estimate of his power output on the day in question. I'd be interested to see such an estimate.

If Wiggo did output his IP level of 580 watts that day, then we have to conclude that Zabriske was at around 650 watts, with Hincapie just behind and O'G well over 600. Hmmm...

630W for Z.

4:15 inside on an african hardwood track for Brad at 82kg.

4:35 for Zabriskie on a road. I would guesstimate 10 seconds to come to a complete stop and turn around (the TT was out and back 2km) and get going again vs going straight through (@ 53km/hr).

I have always wondered what a stop and restart costs in terms of time vs continuing through - if anyone can provide data or a model for this I would be very interested.

Very rough calculation:
Let's say 100m to get to a stop (the Internet tells me a car takes 50m at 50km/hr).
53km/hr is 14.7m/s so 6.8 seconds.
Linear decelleration gives average 26.5km/hr = 13.5seconds
Difference for the distance travelled to turn around: 6.8seconds.

Turn for 2 seconds.

Give them 100m to accelerate back up to 53km/hr: 6.8seconds difference compared to just riding through at 53km/hr

Total: 15seconds

So assuming no mid-point turn, I estimate a time of 4:35-15 = 4:20 for the TT for Zabriskie.

On the road.

If anyone else wants to have a crack at this and point out my error, please do. But at face value, based on these calculations, if Zabriskie was on a track vs on the road, I'd hazard another 5 seconds or so for rolling resistance, taking him down to 4:15.

Giving Brad 4:26.