Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[mastersracer]

It's easy.

2. Wiggin's 2009 Tour performance was the result of his first year dedicated entirely to the road following his decision to leave the track after the 2008 Olympics.

Which were in August 2008 and it has been well documented that he went on the bender of benders afterwards for months. I'm sure it will be out there somewhere exactly when he buckled down for the 2009 season.

But given the facts he had only ever been a 120-130 finisher in any of the GTs he did previously and couldn't climb for toffee, that he had token road miles in his legs in 2008, was totally focussed on track in 2008, what he did in those, let's be generous, 8 months after the Olympics is simply beyond belief. But I am sure you are going to explain differently. Please take your time and make it easy for me to understand.

Bearing in mind all your other points of proof have already been ripped.

I was going to respond to Dr. Maserati's post item by item, but will start with this. Andy Coggan posted a critical power plot of Wiggins 2004-2012 performances here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=972813

Based on this data, Wiggins' 2009-2012 performances are entirely consistent with his 2004 performances. There simply is no 'sudden transformation' in his performances. An R2 of .9997 rebukes this central claim in the doper account that Wiggins magically transformed.

For the record, Vaughters has also stated publicly that he believes Wiggins' 2009 performance was clean. He stated this most recently on twitter and in the JV speaks thread. So, those who believe Wiggins 2009 performance involved doping are claiming to have more expertise than his coach - a coach who has a doping past and knows the telltale signs of a doper. So, you are claiming Vaughters couldn't recognize that his top rider was doping, that he couldn't recognize the mysterious gaps in his schedule? The secret trips for transfusions? The shady characters showing up at Tour hotels, all of which would be necessary if Wiggins was doping?

Sorry, but Vaughters' opinion gets more weight than internet posters on a forum. Hamilton also thinks Wiggins is clean. He's thrown his former manager under the bus (just testified under oath that Riis told him to get in touch with Fuentes). Sorry, but Hamilton's opinion also gets more weight.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I was going to respond to Dr. Maserati's post item by item, but will start with this. Andy Coggan posted a critical power plot of Wiggins 2004-2012 performances here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=972813

Based on this data, Wiggins' 2009-2012 performances are entirely consistent with his 2004 performances. There simply is no 'sudden transformation' in his performances. An R2 of .9997 rebukes this central claim in the doper account that Wiggins magically transformed.

For the record, Vaughters has also stated publicly that he believes Wiggins' 2009 performance was clean. He stated this most recently on twitter and in the JV speaks thread. So, those who believe Wiggins 2009 performance involved doping are claiming to have more expertise than his coach - a coach who has a doping past and knows the telltale signs of a doper. So, you are claiming Vaughters couldn't recognize that his top rider was doping, that he couldn't recognize the mysterious gaps in his schedule? The secret trips for transfusions? The shady characters showing up at Tour hotels, all of which would be necessary if Wiggins was doping?

Sorry, but Vaughters' opinion gets more weight than internet posters on a forum. Hamilton also thinks Wiggins is clean. He's thrown his former manager under the bus (just testified under oath that Riis told him to get in touch with Fuentes). Sorry, but Hamilton's opinion also gets more weight.

Yet Wiggins was able to slip out of JVs sight long enough on a rest day in the Tour to secretly meet Brailsford and agree to ride for Sky.

 

[ferryman]

I was going to respond to Dr. Maserati's post item by item, but will start with this. Andy Coggan posted a critical power plot of Wiggins 2004-2012 performances here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=972813

Based on this data, Wiggins' 2009-2012 performances are entirely consistent with his 2004 performances. There simply is no 'sudden transformation' in his performances. An R2 of .9997 rebukes this central claim in the doper account that Wiggins magically transformed.

For the record, Vaughters has also stated publicly that he believes Wiggins' 2009 performance was clean. He stated this most recently on twitter and in the JV speaks thread. So, those who believe Wiggins 2009 performance involved doping are claiming to have more expertise than his coach - a coach who has a doping past and knows the telltale signs of a doper. So, you are claiming Vaughters couldn't recognize that his top rider was doping, that he couldn't recognize the mysterious gaps in his schedule? The secret trips for transfusions? The shady characters showing up at Tour hotels, all of which would be necessary if Wiggins was doping?

Sorry, but Vaughters' opinion gets more weight than internet posters on a forum. Hamilton also thinks Wiggins is clean. He's thrown his former manager under the bus (just testified under oath that Riis told him to get in touch with Fuentes). Sorry, but Hamilton's opinion also gets more weight.

No need to be sorry. I guess my not so well drafted reply was just that. You can quote the figures, data, references in his defence. I, and others can easily post reasons, why those don't fit the reality of his career progression.

Which was the thrust of my post. Anyway, leave you to get it on with the good Dr But keep it civil guys

 

[Froome19]

But given the facts he had only ever been a 120-130 finisher in any of the GTs he did previously and couldn't climb for toffee, that he had token road miles in his legs in 2008, was totally focussed on track in 2008, what he did in those, let's be generous, 8 months after the Olympics is simply beyond belief. But I am sure you are going to explain differently. Please take your time and make it easy for me to understand.

Imagine it like this. Wiggins was a rider who was always capable of riding to that Top 4 place. He was the Thibau Pinot of 2005 or whatever but instead of climbing mountains in France he is focusing on riding in circle in Manchester. He just never had the chance. When would he have had the chance to prove it? When he was practising every day riding prologues on the track?

Or do you expect Wiggins who is riding on the track and weighs a significant amount more than the other GC contenders and is training in an entirely different manner to start actually being capable of climbing in GTs?

 

[mastersracer]

No need to be sorry. I guess my not so well drafted reply was just that. You can quote the figures, data, references in his defence. I, and others can easily post reasons, why those don't fit the reality of his career progression.

Which was the thrust of my post. Anyway, leave you to get it on with the good Dr But keep it civil guys

But here's the thing. A respected sports scientist and the person who literally wrote the book on training with a powermeter presents a critical power plot from Wiggins 2004-2012 and concludes "taking the numbers at face value you can't really make the case that he has suddenly increased his sustainable power." But this is exactly what you are claiming -so give us some reasons for your view and why Coggan is wrong. Also, why is your opinion more accurate than Vaughters?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But here's the thing. A respected sports scientist and the person who literally wrote the book on training with a powermeter presents a critical power plot from Wiggins 2004-2012 and concludes "taking the numbers at face value you can't really make the case that he has suddenly increased his sustainable power." But this is exactly what you are claiming -so give us some reasons for your view and why Coggan is wrong. Also, why is your opinion more accurate than Vaughters?

I just checked the Coggan piece you liked to.
It is a standalone threshold test, done on individual results - we are talking about a guy who went from doing 4k pursuits to winning 3 week GTs.

As for JV - ok, if JV knew BW was doping in 2009,(either assisting or finding out about it later) do you think he would acknowledge it?

 

[Froome19]

As for JV - ok, if JV knew BW was doping in 2009,(either assisting or finding out about it later) do you think he would acknowledge it?

Not now. But yes then.
Wouldn't have been worth it for Wiggins to go off and do his own doping away from the auspices of Vaughter and therefore jepoardise the whole team.

Unless you say that is the reason Wiggins left after that season which is a possibility.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It's easy.

1. Wiggins' performance at the 2012 Tour is consistent with his performances going back to 2004 according to a critical power plot.

Wrong. It starts at 2004 and then leaps to 2009 - the first year that everyone uses the word, "surprise" for Wiggins' performance.

And in 2006 and 2008, 2 then 4 years after 2004 if you're counting, his 4-minute power was EXACTLY THE SAME.

ie no improvement.

2. Wiggin's 2009 Tour performance was the result of his first year dedicated entirely to the road following his decision to leave the track after the 2008 Olympics. It took place on a team widely regarded to be the best case for clean cycling. If Wiggins' 2012 Tour performance was doped, then one is committed to his 2009 performance as doped as well, which means Garmin would be as dirty as Sky. Maybe, but this is a big leap.

Wrong. 2006 was dedicated to the road.

3. Sky's marginal gains approach utilizes plausible incremental advances in training, equipment, and management.

Advances in training? Reverse periodisation? Uh huh.
Advances in equipment? Uh. No.
Advances in management? Read the latest Brailsford BS about how he is responsible for Froome's performance at Oman. What a PR spin master that guy is.

OR did you mean all the "management" that have since been dumped due to doping pasts?

4. Sky is more disciplined and structured. Nibali regrets not going to Sky because he realizes it is the best team. Their approach comes out of British Cycling, which has a proven record of success and has never had a rider implicated in doping.

Except Rob Hayles, who, after 8 years as a track rider, all of a sudden needs a high HCt exemption. Such a short memory you masters blokes seem to have. Or David Millar, how can you forget good old Davey boy.

5. What is often overlooked. The 10% reduction in power outputs over the last few years means new riders will emerge as previously dominant doped riders are no longer competitive without doping - Basso is a prime example. Under this scenario, it would be predicted that riders such as Froome would emerge.

Except people are still doping. And the "clean" guys are making a mockery of them. They have not drawn even. They have smashed them into the ground.

6. No Sky performance has been documented to be physiologically suspicious by sports scientists examining power outputs during the last 2 Tours.

Until you look at the turn around of form - then it looks almost ridiculous.

almost forgot: Wiggins won the Tour because it had over 100km of ITT, few real mountain finishes, and Schleck and Contador did not participate.

Yes, the final TdF TT, where Wiggins hoped he might win one day, but not by 2.5 minutes to 5th place like Vino did to him; the margin so clearly indicative of doping. The exact margin from 2012 TdF.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not now. But yes then.

You think if JV knew about BWs doping in 09 he would have mentioned it? Really?

Wouldn't have been worth it for Wiggins to go of and do his own doping away from the auspices of Vaughter and therefore jepoardise the whole team.

Unless you say that is the reason Wiggins left after that season which is a possibility.

Is this back to the theory that Garmin would shut down for a positive test?
That's a theory that has never happened - one positive will be put on the individual. Whether true or not.

 

[Froome19]

Is this back to the theory that Garmin would shut down for a positive test?
That's a theory that has never happened - one positive will be put on the individual. Whether true or not.

And would it stop there?
Garmin's credibility would nevertheless be severely dented.
I don't know if they would shut down but I for one would not take them seriously ever again and I know many who would do likewise.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And would it stop there?

Would what stop where?

Garmin's credibility would nevertheless be severely dented.
I don't know if they would shut down but I for one would not take them seriously ever again and I know many who would do likewise.

This is what I don't get - you said earlier the team would go "bust", now it's damaged.
Every team runs that risk - and quite frankly it is a real possibility in any team.

 

[mastersracer]

Wrong. It starts at 2004 and then leaps to 2009 - the first year that everyone uses the word, "surprise" for Wiggins' performance.

There are some apparent misunderstandings regarding the critical power plot. The fact is, his performances from 2009 and later are self-consistent with his 2004 performance. This is what the R2 value shows - the goodness of fit. There's no leap in sustainable power. The 'magical transformation' is a myth, based on the unreliability of using relative performance.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There are some apparent misunderstandings regarding the critical power plot. The fact is, his performances from 2009 and later are self-consistent with his 2004 performance. This is what the R2 value shows - the goodness of fit. There's no leap in sustainable power. The 'magical transformation' is a myth, based on the unreliability of using relative performance.

Any 'misunderstanding' would be because you claimed this originally:

It's easy.

1. Wiggins' performance at the 2012 Tour is consistent with his performances going back to 2004 according to a critical power plot.
.......

 

[ferryman]

Imagine it like this. Wiggins was a rider who was always capable of riding to that Top 4 place. He was the Thibau Pinot of 2005 or whatever but instead of climbing mountains in France he is focusing on riding in circle in Manchester. He just never had the chance. When would he have had the chance to prove it? When he was practising every day riding prologues on the track?

Or do you expect Wiggins who is riding on the track and weighs a significant amount more than the other GC contenders and is training in an entirely different manner to start actually being capable of climbing in GTs?

You and Mastrer Racer have completely missed the point of my post. Look at the timescales involved that I quoted. Factor in the 2 month, at least, bender, factor in the weight loss, factor in everything else I posted and then come back and tell me why it was always written in the stats that an up until then broomwagon avoider, in the space of months, yes months, can climb with the best climbers in the world.

If he was such a freak of nature, why wasn't he able to switch this phenomenon on and off before then. Or do you really believe Brad woke up hungover on, let's say, being generous again 1 December 2008, grossly overweight (for a pro) and with no road miles in his legs, and certainly no climbing miles at the speed he was about to show, and decided that's enough and turned himself into a Swan. Or did he wake up and think, how the fook do I catch up with these guys and make the big bucks they are on.

 

[martinvickers]

Any 'misunderstanding' would be because you claimed this originally:

Where is the inconsistency between the two statements?

 

[Froome19]

If he was such a freak of nature, why wasn't he able to switch this phenomenon on and off before then. Or do you really believe Brad woke up hungover on, let's say, being generous again 1 December 2008, grossly overweight (for a pro) and with no road miles in his legs, and certainly no climbing miles at the speed he was about to show, and decided that's enough and turned himself into a Swan. Or did he wake up and think, how the fook do I catch up with these guys and make the big bucks they are on.

No he won his Olympic golds on the track and decided that now he had fulfilled that stage of his career he would focus on the road.

Many riders have come back from injury and performed well within a time frame of 8 months. I don't see what is so fishy about that. Those guys would have just about been as much out of shape as Wiggins. It is not like we are teaching Wiggins here to ride up my mountains or anything. It takes proper training to covert from the track to the road but it is not that momentous. Of course you can not compare Geraint Thomas riding up Corkscrew hill to Wiggins riding Ventoux etc but would you be all that surprised if say Thomas was capable of climbing with the big guns that he then goes to the Tour and climbs with the best. He has shown something before, but what difference does that make? He is coming from the shape which Wiggins was in, in 2008. Albeit he has to lose less kgs etc but is it all that much of a leap of faith to extend that Wiggins?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Where is the inconsistency between the two statements?

I didnt say inconsistency - we said 'misunderstanding'.

Masterracer wrote -" Wiggins' performance at the 2012 Tour is consistent with his performances going back to 2004 according to a critical power plot".

Coggan had done some figures on selected events. It was not based on an entire Tour.

 

[mastersracer]

You and Mastrer Racer have completely missed the point of my post. Look at the timescales involved that I quoted. Factor in the 2 month, at least, bender, factor in the weight loss, factor in everything else I posted and then come back and tell me why it was always written in the stats that an up until then broomwagon avoider, in the space of months, yes months, can climb with the best climbers in the world.

If he was such a freak of nature, why wasn't he able to switch this phenomenon on and off before then. Or do you really believe Brad woke up hungover on, let's say, being generous again 1 December 2008, grossly overweight (for a pro) and with no road miles in his legs, and certainly no climbing miles at the speed he was about to show, and decided that's enough and turned himself into a Swan. Or did he wake up and think, how the fook do I catch up with these guys and make the big bucks they are on.

The nice thing about the critical power plot is that we don't have to worry about what happened. All that matters is that his 2009 and later performances are entirely consistent with his earlier ones (2004). In fact, the 2004 performance 'predicts' them. The beauty of numbers.

 

[thehog]

The nice thing about the critical power plot is that we don't have to worry about what happened. All that matters is that his 2009 and later performances are entirely consistent with his earlier ones (2004). In fact, the 2004 performance 'predicts' them. The beauty of numbers.

The nice thing about the 'critical power plot' is you make it up as you go along.

 

[BroDeal]

No he won his Olympic golds on the track and decided that now he had fulfilled that stage of his career he would focus on the road.

The ol' "Wiggins only focused on the road starting in 2009" excuse. That must come as a huge surprise to the road teams that had been paying him good money to race on the road for the previous seven years. 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. SEVEN years!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The nice thing about the critical power plot is that we don't have to worry about what happened. All that matters is that his 2009 and later performances are entirely consistent with his earlier ones (2004). In fact, the 2004 performance 'predicts' them. The beauty of numbers.

But we are not on about Wiggins winning an individual stage, TT or even a uphill stage.
He is replicating what he did in 2004 over 4kms to winning a 3 week GT that was almost 3,500 kms.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The nice thing about the critical power plot is that we don't have to worry about what happened. All that matters is that his 2009 and later performances are entirely consistent with his earlier ones (2004). In fact, the 2004 performance 'predicts' them. The beauty of numbers.

Any proof any of those values are clean?

Let's conveniently forget that as that graph progresses, Wiggins' weight drops from 82kg to what, 70kg?

Now graph his power:weight. Looks a lot more like a "drastic jump" now, doesn't it. Yes, yes in fact it does.

 

[BroDeal]

But we are not on about Wiggins winning an individual stage, TT or even a uphill stage.
He is replicating what he did in 2004 over 4kms to winning a 3 week GT that was almost 3,500 kms.

A 4km time trial is short enough that there will be a large anaerobic component. The anaerobic contribution should be greater than 30%. So now he can generate the same power purely aerobically. That is a huge improvement.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

A 4km time trial is short enough that there will be a large anaerobic component. The anaerobic contribution should be greater than 30%. So now he can generate the same power purely aerobically. That is a huge improvement.

Which is where acoggan's critical power graph confuses the acoggan / Team Sky devotees. Here's the logic:

Wiggins does incredible power output over longer durations, therefore his aerobic engine is large. Therefore his short (4km) IP / TT power must be more aerobically (vs anaerobically) produced than average (cf the MAOD "discussion" held previously).

BUT:

keep in mind, acoggan still supports Ed Coyles study on Armstrong, which argues essentially the same thing, namely:

rider X was good, but then over time improved, despite already being at world beating levels in some respects, (and utter crap at GTs), yet they increased their endurance from 1-2 days at a time competition to 3 weeks at a time.

In Armstrong's case, it's claimed to have been high cadence and 3-6 hours/day training.

In Wiggins' case, it's claimed to be his above average aerobic engine and lowering his cadence, plus superior team management and a host of marginal gains.

Same person (acoggan) supporting the same contentions: rider X's incredible performance over 3 weeks, out of the blue, is explainable without introducing doping.

Then add in JV allegedly telling Wiggins "ZOMG you produce more power aerobically than the average pro, you might be good at stage races" - but there's no paper trail on 1. how JV knew and 2. why BW didn't know, plus 3. JV only mentions it here after Krebs Cycle mentions it here, and 4. it's never been corroborated by Wiggins in any of his biographies.

 

[mastersracer]

A 4km time trial is short enough that there will be a large anaerobic component. The anaerobic contribution should be greater than 30%. So now he can generate the same power purely aerobically. That is a huge improvement.

time for some background reading:

http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/2010/04/power-vs-duration-critical-power.html

p.s. The Hog wishes he were as validated as this model...