Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Tom375]

"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.

Bolded - think everyone can agree with that.

 

[armchairclimber]

Indeed, on that point I would agree with Sniper.

 

[mastersracer]

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.

Your example is instructive. If we take the last two performances of your rider and Wiggins' 2011 and 2012 performances from the coggan plot, we can extrapolate their critical power at 255 seconds for your rider and 256 seconds for Wiggins (his 2004 pursuit time). The estimate for Wiggins is 519.3 watts. Wiggins in fact averaged 570 watts in 2004, so his power is down from then, which is consistent with losing some absolute power, as one might expect from either his weight loss and/or not specializing in the pursuit. In contrast, your rider's recent critical power at 255 seconds in 663 watts, so obviously there is something quite different from his 2008 power of 500 watts. Your example helps illustrate why Wiggins recent power outputs is consistent with his 2004 performance and why your rider's outputs are suspicious.

 

[Ferminal]

...

You've been talking for weeks how the R-squared on the critical power plot for the data given is evidence of no transformation in the rider's career. Let's stick with this.

1) Can you tell everyone what the R-squared value would be if the rider did undergo a transformation? Please explain how you arrived at this and keep in mind that the article you referred to earlier had a mean R-squared of 0.9965 in controlled circumstances!

2) Manipulate power output numbers above so that the R-squared on the critical power plot falls below the limit set for a rider who didn't transform.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Your example is instructive. If we take the last two performances of your rider and Wiggins' 2011 and 2012 performances from the coggan plot, we can extrapolate their critical power at 255 seconds for your rider and 256 seconds for Wiggins (his 2004 pursuit time). The estimate for Wiggins is 519.3 watts. Wiggins in fact averaged 570 watts in 2004, so his power is down from then, which is consistent with losing some absolute power, as one might expect from either his weight loss and/or not specializing in the pursuit.

OR!! Heaven forbid, it was a ~1200W standing start at the track, for a ~4:15 minute effort around said track on a fixed gear bike, vs a ~600W rolling start off a ramp for a ~60 minute effort, and the anaerobic power generated for an all-out effort of 4km bumps the power up, vs an aerobic focused effort coming at the end of a 3 week tour.

It would indeed help if people understood not only physiology, but also the demands of the events for which they are discussing.

You know that old chestnut where anaerobic contribution over a 1 hour effort is 1-2% and for a 4km effort is around 15-25%?

So no, the fact that Wiggins generated (~10%) more power than the magical "extrapolate backwards from not normal TT values" is not necessarily indicative of losing weight and therefore absolute power, and far more likely the demands of the event and its greater dependence on anaerobic power.

 

[acoggan]

OR!! Heaven forbid, it was a ~1200W standing start at the track, for a ~4:15 minute effort around said track on a fixed gear bike, vs a ~600W rolling start off a ramp for a ~60 minute effort, and the anaerobic power generated for an all-out effort of 4km bumps the power up, vs an aerobic focused effort coming at the end of a 3 week tour.

It would indeed help if people understood not only physiology, but also the demands of the events for which they are discussing.

You know that old chestnut where anaerobic contribution over a 1 hour effort is 1-2% and for a 4km effort is around 15-25%?

So no, the fact that Wiggins generated (~10%) more power than the magical "extrapolate backwards from not normal TT values" is not necessarily indicative of losing weight and therefore absolute power, and far more likely the demands of the event and its greater dependence on anaerobic power.

1. The critical power model explicitly recognizes such issues.

2. I've served as a consultant to national champions, world champions, and world record holders in the pursuit (and team pursuit), and have been invited by international sporting organizations to lecture to coaches about the event - can you say the same?

 

[thehog]

2. I've served as a consultant to national champions, world champions, and world record holders in the pursuit (and team pursuit), and have been invited by international sporting organizations to lecture to coaches about the event - can you say the same?

During a period of rampant doping.

 

[acoggan]

...

You've been talking for weeks how the R-squared on the critical power plot for the data given is evidence of no transformation in the rider's career. Let's stick with this.

1) Can you tell everyone what the R-squared value would be if the rider did undergo a transformation? Please explain how you arrived at this and keep in mind that the article you referred to earlier had a mean R-squared of 0.9965 in controlled circumstances!

2) Manipulate power output numbers above so that the R-squared on the critical power plot falls below the limit set for a rider who didn't transform.

1. The best measure of the strength of a regression isn't R^2, but the S.E.E.

2. Making up numbers really doesn't address the question at hand.

 

[acoggan]

During a period of rampant doping.

All the more evidence of the (perceived) value of my advice.

Deleted material

"What I do" for a living is biomedical research...anything cycling-related is really just a hobby. Yet, my contributions as a hobbyist are clearly highly valued, at least by some...

 

[thehog]

All the more evidence of the (perceived) value of my advice.

You're mid 80s investment banker.

You cannot be trusted. Leave the sport to those who plan to serve it well.

We don't need another Coyle.

Sheesh.

 

[Ferminal]

1. The best measure of the strength of a regression isn't R^2, but the S.E.E.
.

I agree, it is not my suggestion. mastersracer has been citing how the R^2 is irrefutable proof that the observed performances are entirely consistent.

Now that you are here can you shed any more light on my questions? How do we use a critical power plot such as the one you did to determine if a rider's performances throughout their career have been inconsistent? Are there any examples?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

1. The critical power model explicitly recognizes such issues.

2. I've served as a consultant to national champions, world champions, and world record holders in the pursuit (and team pursuit), and have been invited by international sporting organizations to lecture to coaches about the event - can you say the same?

1. I am responding specifically to someone (mastersracer) who has claimed that r^2 value approaching one indicates no change in Wiggins' critical power. Despite the fact there was a marked decrease in weight, and the numbers are estimates to start with.

2. How exactly does the critical power model "recognise" such issues - that sounds rather anthropomorphic of said model. The r^2 value (as you have posted it) is applied to a straight line formulae, which would seem to indicate a lack of dealing with the anaerobic contribution % tapering off as the duration increased, regardless of whether it "recognises" it.

3. Do you disagree that there is greater anaerobic power contribution for the 4km pursuit vs the 53km TT?

4. Do you disagree that the 4km pursuit time back calculated from 2 (only) time trials 7 and 8 years later is bad logic / maths / physiology / science, as it is ignoring the values in between, and in particular, discounting the anaerobic contribution?

5. Do you agree with every single thing mastersracer has written, because it seems very strange to me that you only post to disagree with people who have disagreed with him. Just like you refused to reply to anything armchairclimber blathered on about, despite my urging to address his claims for altitude training.

As for your consultancy work, I did wonder what you meant (the "precise"ness seemed to be missing, hiding behind hinting and obfuscation as you are wont to do) when you wrote,

I can't speak for Ed or anyone else, but in my case it is because 1) I have never really been interested in studying "ergogenic aids" (allowed or not), per se, <snip>

Recall what I said about not being interested in ergogenic aids per se?

 

[AcademyCC]

Dear Wiggo - Question - Wiggos chat about (during the tour) "Could you imagine if i got caught doping, i'd have to face up to my childrens school friends"

Is that a man just trying to cover his back?

If so, that is as low as a human being can go. I cant quite believe Wiggins is that bad.

I still struggle with a human being using their family to cover their tracks. What do you think?

 

[acoggan]

I agree, it is not my suggestion. mastersracer has been citing how the R^2 is irrefutable proof that the observed performances are entirely consistent.

Now that you are here can you shed any more light on my questions? How do we use a critical power plot such as the one you did to determine if a rider's performances throughout their career have been inconsistent? Are there any examples?

Mastersracer quoted me just a page or three ago...what I said before pretty much covers it.

 

[Ferminal]

Mastersracer quoted me just a page or three ago...what I said before pretty much covers it.

From the Wiggins thread? I've read it all, doesn't seem to be anything explaining my concerns.

 

[acoggan]

(snip)

2. By specifically incorporating the contribution of "anaerobic" work capacity into the mathematical model.

3. Obviously yes.

4. I've already stated the limitations of the dataset, i.e., that my analysis was based on self-reported power over a number of years. Said limitations, however, do NOT include failure to recognize the contribution from "anaerobic" energy sources, as that is explicitly part of the mathematical model.

5. I haven't read everything he has posted, but in general, yes.

As for posts by armchairclimber, I never read them, nor any suggestion that I respond to them.

6. (Ergogenic aids) I meant what I wrote: I'm not really interested in studying ergogenic aids per se. That said, such substances/procedures/protocols can often be used to test theories about how the human body functions during exercise, and I have leveraged them for this purpose in the past.

 

[The Hitch]

Dear Wiggo - Question - Wiggos chat about (during the tour) "Could you imagine if i got caught doping, i'd have to face up to my childrens school friends"

Is that a man just trying to cover his back?

If so, that is as low as a human being can go. I cant quite believe Wiggins is that bad.

I still struggle with a human being using their family to cover their tracks. What do you think?

There is absolutely nothing in there that a hundred dopers havent already said or gone further.

In a way its a deflection. Here he is, having just won an event which by his own account was rife with doping, working with a bunch of shady people like Lienders, Rogers and Yates, and rather than explaining how he thinks cycling has gotten cleaner and addressing the question marks, he goes off on a tangent - oh but why would i dope, it would be so bad to get caught.

Its a stupid argument that absolutely anyone can make on any level.

""Could you imagine if i got caught stealing the other kids pencils, i'd have to stay back after school and do detention".

Oh thats all right then. Must have been pure coincidence that we found them all in your bag.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

3. Obviously yes.

So you think the 4km pursuit and the 53km TT use the same % of anaerobic power.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Dear Wiggo - Question - Wiggos chat about (during the tour) "Could you imagine if i got caught doping, i'd have to face up to my childrens school friends"

Is that a man just trying to cover his back?

If so, that is as low as a human being can go. I cant quite believe Wiggins is that bad.

I still struggle with a human being using their family to cover their tracks. What do you think?

From that big, "Why I wouldn't dope" article, yeah? I read it, twice, because I was sure I had missed something. And even reading it a second time I did not see it.

From here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs

I did not see the following:

I would not dope because it is cheating.
I would not dope because it is wrong.

Nowhere in that article, did I read anything of the sort.

The focus of the entire article was, "IF I got caught, this is what would go wrong". Almost as if he had doped, and here's what he was worried about most, but I digress.

As to your question:

Wiggins: if I got caught I would have to face up to my children's school friends.

Is that a man trying to cover his back / his tracks?

1. To be honest, I think he does realise the impact it would have on himself and his family if he were caught, but it does remind me of Armstrong saying, "I just came back from cancer, WTF do you think I would put more bad stuff into my body?"

2. Consider it from the school friends POV: the family is now a millionaire family, and want for nothing. If he did get pinged, how much of the lifestyle they have would he lose? Any of it? I do not understand the mechanism by which he loses his house - as claimed in the article. I disagree with quite a few things there, in fact, and fail to see how David Millar can continue to ride for Team GB at the Olympics, but Wiggins' father in law would lose his job. Or how Landis and Levi are doing Grand Fondos but Wiggins would no longer be able to.

I must admit, I do not understand the phrase "covering his tracks / back" in relation to issuing a press release about why he won't dope and mentioning his kids' friends.

I mean.

He came out of the Olympics, saying, "I thought I'd get rich on a few gold medals, but nup, nada". He was on the gravy train with BC and didn't have to do much beyond 6-12 x 4km pursuits each year, months apart.

Where was the, "I love that I can do my job, get paid, and be home for Kath and the kids as much as I like" back then?

And when he left Garmin for Sky - again it was for money, and yet he was not allowed to mention it, and had to make up a bunch of "I needed a better team" BS.

Bottom line, the only thing (IMO) that changes if he gets caught is: a brief pariah period, and then he is less well off. His kids will still have friends, his family will still get work, and he will still have a house. He will probably even still run a Grand Fondo.

So he's doing what any sane, intelligent person would do, and mentioning his family, etc, to deflect from the motivation that is really driving him to compete for so long so far from home: money.

 

[AcademyCC]

I know its been said before. Ive had to rip my head away from believing the sky propaganda. I just struggle to get how a man can use his family to disguise his doping.

For me that is the lowest of the low

 

[Ferminal]

I know its been said before. Ive had to rip my head away from believing the sky propaganda. I just struggle to get how a man can use his family to disguise his doping.

For me that is the lowest of the low

What about using life threatening illnesses?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I know its been said before. Ive had to rip my head away from believing the sky propaganda. I just struggle to get how a man can use his family to disguise his doping.

For me that is the lowest of the low

Have you seen the study where they asked athletes whether they would be prepared to take a drug that would guarantee gold medals, but kill them in 10 years?

It's a different breed of person that says, "Yes".

Also consider his own background - his Dad and he had little or no relationship.

So he wants to do right by them, and to be honest; a few years as millionaires then revelation and some angst for Dad is as good a gig as being lower middle class for the same period of time.

 

[AcademyCC]

What about using life threatening illnesses?

Yep you are completely right. I cant put Wiggo on Lances level. Maybe he should be. The sport is so riddled with lies and half truths that i do not know where to begin.

Dont know what to say. Torn

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I would also add: I do not think he wrote it himself. Not without coaching from someone, at any rate.

So I fully believe it was scripted, or assisted.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

1. The critical power model explicitly recognizes such issues.

2. I've served as a consultant to national champions, world champions, and world record holders in the pursuit (and team pursuit), and have been invited by international sporting organizations to lecture to coaches about the event - can you say the same?

So has Chris Carmichael. Only hacks attempt to support their opinions by lauding their accomplishments. Each analysis stands on its own merit. Plenty of "accomplished" people use their position to advance ridiculous theories.

Further, as a statistician, when I hear people citing R-squared values as "proof" of anything, I immediately know they're either a) largely uneducated in statistical analysis or b) full of sh!t.