Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Dr. Maserati]

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

Maybe you could help all of us who don't know what a kritical power bar is - however I found this when researching it.

I highlighted some points that you might care to address.

After just a couple of minutes refreshing my memory:

4 km pursuit (2004) ~570 W
10 mi TT (2009 or before) 482 W
30 min climb (2009 or before) ~475 W
British 10 mi TT champs (2010) 476 W
Worlds ITT (2011) 459 W
TdF prologue (2012) 492 W

Obviously, big gap between 2004 and 2009, so perhaps someone else might care to try to fill that in. Regardless, given his (claimed) 4 km power in 2004, the power he (reportedly) generates now is not surprising, i.e., taking the numbers at face value you can't really make the case that he has suddenly increased his sustainable power (which, of course, doesn't necessarily mean he isn't doping now and/or that he wasn't doping years ago).

EDIT: Here's how things look when you apply the critical power approach:

 

[romnom]

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

I really don't. And you really don't need to believe me anyway. Like I said, I don't mind. Coggan might, but I doubt he's reading.

 

[mastersracer]

Maybe you could help all of us who don't know what a kritical power bar is - however I found this when researching it.

I highlighted some points that you might care to address.

cf post 13427 (and the other posts I referred to this plot in detail) for what I said the plot indicates. I have not seen a single post here claim that Wiggins is now doping but his performance is not any better (one way to reconcile the plot with a later-career doping) or that he doped throughout his career (another way). The plot is counter-evidence to the claim that Wiggins is a mule turned race horse circa 2009.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

cf post 13427 (and the other posts I referred to this plot in detail) for what I said the plot indicates. I have not seen a single post here claim that Wiggins is now doping but his performance is not any better (one way to reconcile the plot with a later-career doping) or that he doped throughout his career (another way). The plot is counter-evidence to the claim that Wiggins is a mule turned race horse circa 2009.

Maybe if we ignore that he allegedly lost 13 kg.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

cf post 13427 (and the other posts I referred to this plot in detail) for what I said the plot indicates. I have not seen a single post here claim that Wiggins is now doping but his performance is not any better (one way to reconcile the plot with a later-career doping) or that he doped throughout his career (another way). The plot is counter-evidence to the claim that Wiggins is a mule turned race horse circa 2009.

Great - here is post 13427:

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

Ah, not much detail there.

Also, who claimed Wiggins is a mule turned in to a racehorse?

 

[mastersracer]

Great - here is post 13427:


Also, who claimed Wiggins is a mule turned in to a racehorse?

you did for one - post 13225 (reference to the plot and his GT finish in 05). Also, FGL, Ferryman, Dear Wiggo, Hog, and all the others who accused Wiggins of having some magical transformation circa 2009...

It's OK to be persuaded by data, by the way.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

you did for one - post 13225 (reference to the plot and his GT finish in 05). Also, FGL, Ferryman, Dear Wiggo, Hog, and all the others who accused Wiggins of having some magical transformation circa 2009...

It's OK to be persuaded by data, by the way.

Here is post 13225.
please point out exactly where I say he was a mule turned in to a racehorse, (or the new one of magical transformation?)

I appreciate that you put some effort in to addressing these points, but its more simplistic than easy.



Where is this critical power plot? He finished his first GT in 05 in 123rd position.

No - if Wiggins did dope in 09 it may have been independent of Garmin (or in 12 independent of Sky) - this is just a strawman.


.....And doctors like Leinders.

And there is nothing particularly unique in Skys approach- but even accepting 'marginal gains' it should only only yield marginal increases.


I believe track is slightly better than road whn it comes to PEDs.
But even still BC had Rob Hayles had a +50% HCT and Neil Campbell was banned in 2000.


Where is that published - what years?

Froome??
Taking it as is, the above actually might give some benefit to your Wiggins argument, but it does not relate to Froome IMO.

About as relevant as "never tested positive".


It was an ideal (even unique) scenario for Wiggins to win the Tour - the question is not that though, its how he is at that pointy end in the first incidence.

By the way - I am still awaiting an answer to my other simple question here.

 

[ferryman]

you did for one - post 13225 (reference to the plot and his GT finish in 05). Also, FGL, Ferryman, Dear Wiggo, Hog, and all the others who accused Wiggins of having some magical transformation circa 2009...

It's OK to be persuaded by data, by the way.

You have a hit list

Seriously, this is all becoming very tired folks.

Let's all (me included) cut out the petty personal sniping and get back to Sky stuff.

 

[thehog]

you did for one - post 13225 (reference to the plot and his GT finish in 05). Also, FGL, Ferryman, Dear Wiggo, Hog, and all the others who accused Wiggins of having some magical transformation circa 2009...

It's OK to be persuaded by data, by the way.

No I said he turned from drunk into a pot smoker.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

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

Seems legit.

At the lightest weight he's been since he was 15.

Very legit.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

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

This is the exact same tactic employed by Krebs Cycle and JV when they cannot explain a phenomenon themselves - they berate a poster about "studying up on this stuff".

Cute.

You still haven't responded to the fact that in 2004 Wiggins was ~82kg and in 2012 he was ~ 69kg and the impact that has on a graph of P:W based on the same numbers.

You might say it doesn't make a difference, but so far that's not what you've said.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

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

That is a completely *** conclusion to draw.

You cannot predict sustainable power from 2004 to 2009 based on a 255 second effort in 2004. What utter rubbish.

 

[mastersracer]

This is the exact same tactic employed by Krebs Cycle and JV when they cannot explain a phenomenon themselves - they berate a poster about "studying up on this stuff".

Cute.

You still haven't responded to the fact that in 2004 Wiggins was ~82kg and in 2012 he was ~ 69kg and the impact that has on a graph of P:W based on the same numbers.

You might say it doesn't make a difference, but so far that's not what you've said.

it's not a tactic. It's impossible to argue an issue with someone who thinks 2+2=5. About every other thing you've said about critical power is fundamentally mistaken, and you've apparently made no effort to even understand a position. That's why JV put you on ignore. But, then, maybe it's not so surprising considering you regard a picture to be proof of doping...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

it's not a tactic. It's impossible to argue an issue with someone who thinks 2+2=5. About every other thing you've said about critical power is fundamentally mistaken, and you've apparently made no effort to even understand a position. That's why JV put you on ignore. But, then, maybe it's not so surprising considering you regard a picture to be proof of doping...

Again.

You can't explain what critical power graphs mean. So, so telling.
You claim, just like acoggan did, that I have made errors, but there's no link, there's no rebuttal.

Your words are empty.

Change the graph to P:W or Energy:W and see what happens, mastersracer, then let's chat.

 

[MatParker117]

I asked a relatively simple question.

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

In my opinion apart from Frank Schleck yes.

 

[mastersracer]

That is a completely *** conclusion to draw.

You cannot predict sustainable power from 2004 to 2009 based on a 255 second effort in 2004. What utter rubbish.

Actually, you don't need 255 seconds. You can do it with a single 180 second test.

Bergstrom, A New Single Workbout Test to Estimate Critical Power and Anaerobic Work Capacity

The other points you mentioned - power:weight etc. - have been discussed at length by Coggan in the thread in which the plot was introduced...

 

[The Hitch]

This is the exact same tactic employed by Krebs Cycle and JV when they cannot explain a phenomenon themselves - they berate a poster about "studying up on this stuff".
.

Great. Just what we need. You lot to start telling these trolls that they are like.jv.

I get that you don't like jv and think he's heading some nwo conspiracy, but for the sake of these threads don't start giving these wannabies more justification to play expert, and for gods sakes don't feed their ego.

In my opinion apart from Frank Schleck yes.

What? Even whipping boy.vinokourov ?

Well i guess the faith in cleanliness must run really deep if we are passing up chances to scapegoat vino some.more


Btw. What if Contador wins next year. Clean?

 

[Ferminal]

As fast as Contador/Purito on Mende for twice as long... maybe the beef was tainted afterall?

Drops Cobo on Pena Cabarga... guess the extra motivation from the Spanish mafia doesn't count?

Beats Luigi in a 50min ITT... maybe got the Mancebo placebo?

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

Is that the correlation of P x t with t? Who would have thought!

I am not informed re: Coggan's critical power analysis so I'm not passing judgement on the approach, but the R-squared from such a sample is meaningless. You could change the numbers so the lowest power outputs were the shortest time and the highest the longest, and the R-squared would barely change.

I do not know the exact numbers used but here are some "invented" ones:

500W 3308s
490W 1800s
480W 1100s
470W 1050s
460W 440s
450W 255s

 

[hiero2]

I don't care.

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

Anyway thanks again.

Sure, and that's not a problem. Scroll up to the top of the page when the thread is open. See where it says "Search This Thread"? Click on that, and you will get a list of the POSTS with your search word. Pick one, click it. Takes you right to the post and that page.

If you go up a bit higher, and go to the regular search dialoque, you can select advanced search, and get even fancier.

 

[thehog]

As fast as Contador/Purito on Mende for twice as long... maybe the beef was tainted afterall?

Drops Cobo on Pena Cabarga... guess the extra motivation from the Spanish mafia doesn't count?

Beats Luigi in a 50min ITT... maybe got the Mancebo placebo?



Is that the correlation of P x t with t? Who would have thought!

I am not informed re: Coggan's critical power analysis so I'm not passing judgement on the approach, but the R-squared from such a sample is meaningless. You could change the numbers so the lowest power outputs were the shortest time and the highest the longest, and the R-squared would barely change.

I do not know the exact numbers used but here are some "invented" ones:

500W 3308s
490W 1800s
480W 1100s
470W 1050s
460W 440s
450W 255s

I just love straightline graphs that go up!

That's awesome.

 

[mastersracer]

Is that the correlation of P x t with t? Who would have thought!

I am not informed re: Coggan's critical power analysis so I'm not passing judgement on the approach, but the R-squared from such a sample is meaningless. You could change the numbers so the lowest power outputs were the shortest time and the highest the longest, and the R-squared would barely change.

I do not know the exact numbers used but here are some "invented" ones:

500W 3308s
490W 1800s
480W 1100s
470W 1050s
460W 440s
450W 255s

The concept is not Coggan's. It is one of the most foundational and best validated notions in exercise physiology due to a seminal paper by H. Monod and J. Scherrer in 1965 (THE WORK CAPACITY OF A SYNERGIC MUSCULAR GROUP). They originally modeled power output and time to exhaustion as a hyperbolic relationship, but these terms can be rearranged to yield a linear equation (as the link I provided a while ago illustrated). In a Monod-Scherrer testing protocol, two tests are performed, one at 3 minutes and one at 12. These are then plotted and the slope is critical power. CP60 (critical power at 60 minutes, CP60, which is derived from the plot is a good estimate of functional threshold power). The linear model is applied - it is not derived from the data points (which is why all the comments about the small sample size etc. are mistaken).

If one were doping (and it had an effect on performance), one's critical power would change. In Wiggins' case, it has not. Infer what you want, but there was no leap in power.

Debates in these forums would be a lot more productive if people arguing about the relevance of performances, power output, etc. understood a few basic principles of exercise physiology.

 

[Ferminal]

So what would the R-squared be if he underwent a "transformation" in his career and had one data point pre and five data points post?

Like I said, I'm not questioning the concept of critical power, just the interpretations of Coggan's graph as though it can be used as evidence to suggest the subject did/didn't dope.

 

[Ferminal]

Look at this guy, was bumming it around on the track, didn't make the Olympics in 2008 even though it was his only goal, then he comes to the road the next year with enormous power.

2008 500W 255s
2009 550W 440s
2010 540W 1050s
2011 540W 1100s
2012 530W 1800s
2013 520W 3308s

Doper, surely?

Wait... we better check the R-squared on the critical power plot to verify that he underwent a "transformation".

R-Squared = 0.9996 therefore the later results are entirely consistent with the 2008 effort, no transformation.

 

[romnom]

The concept is not Coggan's. It is one of the most foundational and best validated notions in exercise physiology due to a seminal paper by H. Monod and J. Scherrer in 1965 (THE WORK CAPACITY OF A SYNERGIC MUSCULAR GROUP). They originally modeled power output and time to exhaustion as a hyperbolic relationship, but these terms can be rearranged to yield a linear equation (as the link I provided a while ago illustrated). In a Monod-Scherrer testing protocol, two tests are performed, one at 3 minutes and one at 12. These are then plotted and the slope is critical power. CP60 (critical power at 60 minutes, CP60, which is derived from the plot is a good estimate of functional threshold power). The linear model is applied - it is not derived from the data points (which is why all the comments about the small sample size etc. are mistaken).

If one were doping (and it had an effect on performance), one's critical power would change. In Wiggins' case, it has not. Infer what you want, but there was no leap in power.

Debates in these forums would be a lot more productive if people arguing about the relevance of performances, power output, etc. understood a few basic principles of exercise physiology.

The problem is that you want to compare how the critical power has changed over the years. You don't want to figure out what his critical power has been 'all his career'. So you should try to figure out the critical power in different years. Then compare and see if it has gone up or down. That's why the sample size isn't there since we don't have a clue about years 2005-2008 and 2004 is more than questionable. You can probably make a decent estimate about years 2009-2012. Unless of course this critical power is set in stone, which would make measuring it in the first place a bit futile.

 

[sniper]

...
'not normal' applies relative to what it's applied to. Climbing Anglirú in 45 minutes might be 'normal' for a good climber in the professional péloton, but for a hobby cyclist off the back of a 100km ride, it's most definitely 'not normal'. Cycling is cleaner than it was 15 years ago, even sniper, Dear Wiggo and Mrs John Murphy have to acknowledge that...

"cleaner" is also relative to what it applies to.
i'd readily acknowledge that the overall quantities have gone down, but i don't see how that can satisfy anybody. If anything, the passport has created a situation in which the more wealthier you are, the more chances you have of doping sophisticatedly and getting away with it. If that is indeed the case, arguably, doping makes more of difference now than it did in the 90s and 2000s.
hurray.
And if, I say if, Sky turn out to be doping, it means the fans are being lied to and defrauded in ways very comparable to the USPS era, if not worse.

I haven't seen any reason to think there is less incentive to cheat now than there was before.