Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[acoggan]

Each analysis stands on its own merit.

In that spirit:

http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/2010/04/demands-of-individual-pursuit-part-1.html

http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/2010/05/demands-of-individual-pursuit-part-2.html

http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/2010/05/demands-of-individual-pursuit-part-3.html

(And if you're interested in BMX:

http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/search/label/BMX)

Just a small taste of what I do as a hobby...

 

[JimmyFingers]

Well, that and that they demolish all of those other teams that do the same or worse and don't put so much effort into telling everybody how clean they are, often at races which have the biggest audiences (and the biggest casual audiences, which often intensifies the bipolar us vs them dynamic).

Demolish? One strong season where they dominated one GT and 3 smaller stage races. OPQS won as many races, and a Katusha rider ended as the top rider of the season, and 15 of Sky's wins came from Cavendish.

And it's multiple threads including one monster one of over 13,000 replies, too many of which are mine own. If that's not demonstrative of a lack of objectivity I don't what is, but if you feel the need to justify it yet again, be my guest.

[edit] and it's not UK based site, it's an Australian one. I guarantee a UK based one wouldn't spend so much time discussing Sky's possible doping. And I'll say this again: Australians are rarely complementary about British sporting success. So while your argument does have some merit, it doesn't explain the entire picture, merely a euphemistic one.

 

[Ferminal]

Future Publishing is a British company, the biggest CN office is London.

Also I don't know anyone who thinks OPQS and Katusha are clean, as evidenced by no one defending them in the recent thread.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Demolish? One strong season where they dominated one GT and 3 smaller stage races. OPQS won as many races, and a Katusha rider ended as the top rider of the season, and 15 of Sky's wins came from Cavendish.

And it's multiple threads including one monster one of over 13,000 replies, too many of which are mine own. If that's not demonstrative of a lack of objectivity I don't what is, but if you feel the need to justify it yet again, be my guest.

The reason these type of threads are so large is because of those defending Sky.
Perfectly fair and appropriate, but you find threads on other teams barely get to the second page because they do not have anyone in defending their team.

[edit] and it's not UK based site, it's an Australian one. I guarantee a UK based one wouldn't spend so much time discussing Sky's possible doping. And I'll say this again: Australians are rarely complementary about British sporting success. So while your argument does have some merit, it doesn't explain the entire picture, merely a euphemistic one.

The Australian card? Really?

This is a UK site, has been since it was taken over by Future from Knaap which I believe was Australian - however all of that is irrelevant.
This is the biggest English language site, and caters for the US as much as any other.

 

[thehog]

Sorry - I snipped your text before responding, and thought you'd writen "agree", not "disagree".

Writing for years on end telling he world why Armstrong is "clean" based on scientific analysis has caused severe damage to the sport.

How is Coyle these days? Has he found his notes and data or did he destroy it all?

 

[acoggan]

Writing for years on end telling he world why Armstrong is "clean" based on scientific analysis has caused severe damage to the sport.

To whom are you referring? I never claimed that Armstrong was clean, and I don't recall Ed ever making any public statements to that regard either (although he did of course testify in a civil lawsuit that he thought Armstrong was gifted enough to have succeeded w/o drugs).

How is Coyle these days? Has he found his notes and data or did he destroy it all?

The last time I spoke to him is when he gave an invited lecture here at Washington University in St. Louis (probably one of the top 10 medical schools in the world, BTW) about 5 y ago. I assume, however, that he's plugging along as he always has (at least I haven't heard anything to the contrary).

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Is it just me or are 'top scientists' also 'bullies'?

I guess that is why science boys love to 'get in touch' with the ones who bullied them through highschool.

Bragging on accomplishments, I know other top cycling physiologists wouldn't do that, not even the orange one from Ferrara.

and I don't recall Ed ever making any public statements to that regard either (although he did of course testify in a civil lawsuit that he thought Armstrong was gifted enough to have succeeded w/o drugs)

Really. What do those guys have on you monsieur Coggan?

To the bold part: hey, that is exactly what the nutty scientist from Ferrara said a couple of months ago, what a coincidence.
Please, now your view.

And for the mather, you as a scientist, do you think it is possible someone who has caught the bilharzia virus completes the Tour de France? Even showing remarkable recuparation in the third week competing?

Just to get back on topic.

 

[acoggan]

Is it just me or are 'top scientists' also 'bullies'?

No, just me.

Bragging on accomplishments

As they say in Texas: it ain't braggin' if you can back it up.

More seriously: you'll kindly note that I was responding to Dear Wiggo's attempt to imply that I didn't understand the demands of pursuiting.

Really. What do those guys have on you monsieur Coggan?

Absolutely nothing. I just don't care who specifically is doping, so don't bother to speculate.

And for the mather, you as a scientist, do you think it is possible someone who has caught the bilharzia virus completes the Tour de France? Even showing remarkable recuparation in the third week competing?

You're asking a medical question, not a scientific one, so all I can say is "apparently".

 

[The Hitch]

To whom are you referring? I never claimed that Armstrong was clean, and I don't recall Ed ever making any public statements to that regard either (although he did of course testify in a civil lawsuit that he thought Armstrong was gifted enough to have succeeded w/o drugs).

The last time I spoke to him is when he gave an invited lecture here at Washington University in St. Louis (probably one of the top 10 medical schools in the world, BTW) about 5 y ago. I assume, however, that he's plugging along as he always has (at least I haven't heard anything to the contrary).

I don't think this does your argument much good. Basically what you are saying is that the top scientist giving top lectures at all the top universities new far less about what Armstrong was capable of than the average July only cycling fan getting results on telext.

 

[Granville57]

It just occurred to me that I may not have contributed to this thread yet, and that's left me feeling a bit left out of such a popular place.

whatever Sky are doing, they're no better or worse than any other cycling team

Well, except for that whole "winning" thing. I heard that they did pretty well at one of those French races in July, so that might account for at least some of the increased scrutiny.

they don't deserve the vitriol and bile spewed at them on a daily basis here.

So what? It's an internet forum. Why in the world any of them would care, in the slightest, is beyond me. The people most often in the crosshairs are paid huge sums of money for riding bicycles. They should just be glad that anyone knows their names.

Plenty of other teams do the same or worse than Sky, but because Sky talk about it they get threads spiralling into the tens of thousands of posts, the teams that say nothing barely get talked about.

See above re: "winning."

if this place has taught me anything it is that professional sport is largely a sham.

It seems we're all in agreement then.

Meanwhile we'll continue to watch and secretly hope what we're watching isn't a lie.

Who is "we," exactly?

I just want to believe people like Vaughters are telling us the truth.

Why JV cares one bit about what goes in within The Clinic is mystifying to me. Again, this goes back to the aforementioned riding-a-bicycle-and-making-lots-of-money thing. I couldn't care less about any criticism I might receive from internet warriors in my professional life. If I had someone to actually prepare my meals and offer daily massage (as the riders do), I am quite certain that I would care even less.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Yup, that's what Nicko just said, and that's why/how the critical power model can be used (within limits) to extrapolate from performance at shorter durations to performance over longer durations.

But what mastersracer did was extrapolate from long efforts back to the short effort.

Here you are suggesting you can go the other way.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I was merely responding to Dear Wiggo's (implied) claim that I didn't understand the demands of pursuiting. In fact, I understand them quite well (which is why coaches consult w/ me).

My post was responding to, and quoted mastersracer - not you. It's not all about you!

Dude, this is getting painful...
Once you understand the CP concept, these posts of yours will an embarrassment even to yourself.

Not for me it ain't:

Sorry - I snipped your text before responding, and thought you'd writen "agree", not "disagree".

 

[JimmyFingers]

It seems we're all in agreement then.

Who is "we," exactly?

You tell me

 

[JimmyFingers]

Future Publishing is a British company, the biggest CN office is London.

Also I don't know anyone who thinks OPQS and Katusha are clean, as evidenced by no one defending them in the recent thread.

I've been told several times that CN is an Australian site, apologies if I am wrong

And I'm not even saying that Sky are clean, just that they get a disproportionate amount of attention

 

[acoggan]

I don't think this does your argument much good. Basically what you are saying is that the top scientist giving top lectures at all the top universities new far less about what Armstrong was capable of than the average July only cycling fan getting results on telext.

My argument? What argument is that??

 

[acoggan]

But what mastersracer did was extrapolate from long efforts back to the short effort.

Here you are suggesting you can go the other way.

You can go both ways.

 

[Race Radio]

Wiggins in 2007

"If there is a 1% suspicion or doubt that a team is involved in doping, or working with certain doctors who are under suspicion of doping, then they shouldn't be invited to the Tour de France, simple as that."

 

[Krebs cycle]

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".

I have explained the concept of accumulated oxygen deficit, aerobic and anaerobic energy systems contribution to maximal performance to literally hundreds of students, coaches and athletes over the past 10yrs. I provide them with articles to read (some of which I have posted on this forum) to improve their understanding beyond what is presented in the lecture + prac + tutorial due to time limitations. Also, students complete things called assignments where they write an essay about a particular topic. On the advice of the lecturer, they go to the scientific literature and "study up on stuff". Pretty normal stuff for tertiary education. So the "same tactic" that I advised you to do is also used by thousands of educational institutions all over the world, and it has been that way for hundreds of years.

But some students cannot quite grasp the concept, and they are too lazy to "study up on stuff" and so they end up failing. Maybe you are like those students, or maybe you are unique? Unlike many students your ego is SOOOO massive that you ALREADY think you know everything there is to know, so you simply refuse to "study up on stuff".

Either way, its not my fault if you fail to understand and don't bother to read and learn yourself. What an ocean of tears there would be if every student who failed and was told to "study harder" started crying because they felt "berated".

Toughen up princess.

here is a simple proven fact for you one last time....

Long TTs and short TTs and the IP are all events in which the duration dictates that the aerobic energy system dominates the total energetic contribution. If you are good at one, chances are you will be good at the others. Hence the reason why many of the world's best long TT'ists also perform exceptionally well in short prologues and why numerous world class IP'ers whom have turned their hand to road have performed exceptionally well in prologues and/or long TTs.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

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.

We use a straight line formula in a critical power model (which neatly describes the work-time relationship for maximal efforts from a couple of minutes to about an hour) because in such a model, critical power is the slope of the line and the anaerobic work capacity is the intercept on the vertical axis.

The model can be used to assess changes over time in both the slope (CP) and intercept (AWC).

I do agree that to use the model properly, one does need to ensure the inputs are valid. Nevertheless, it's one way of identifying obvious outliers - but not to assess why it's an outlier.

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

The proportions of total work contribution from aerobic and anaerobic energy metabolism vary but the total contribution of anaerobic metabolism in absolute terms will be similar.

In fact the absolute contribution of anaerobic metabolism can be higher in total work terms for a longer ride since one can deplete AWC, recharge it by riding under threshold levels, and use it again. It wouldn't typically be very good pacing method in a flat TT, but it can certainly happen.

 

[MatParker117]

Wiggins in 2007

Wiggins in 2013 (Talking to a cycling mag I forget which one):

The older you get the less you give a ****

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Wiggins in 2013 (Talking to a cycling mag I forget which one):

This is a much finer argument than the spin. Wiggins was furious about dopers in 2007, but now that he's older he doesn't really care about it.

Of course, the fact that he was being beaten by said dopers and those doctors and people he wanted out of the sport in 2007, and has now been able to enlist the help of those suspect people so that he is beating the dopers makes it a lot easier not to really care about it. Strange what a bit of success will do to your vitriol. I'd wager that factors into the change in attitude more than the age.

Still doesn't explain his odd timeline in relation to Armstrong according to his self-contradicting public statements, but at least goes some way to providing some kind of explanation for one of the shifts in views.

 

[Ferminal]

Apparently Lance didn't care either... then came the tears.

 

[The Hitch]

This is a much finer argument than the spin. Wiggins was furious about dopers in 2007, but now that he's older he doesn't really care about it.
.

Huge flaw in that. He seemed pretty upset last month about what Armstrong did. And the month before and the month before.

 

[thehog]

Wiggins in 2007

??

But you think Sky are clean, neit?

 

[thehog]

Wiggins in 2013 (Talking to a cycling mag I forget which one):

Thanks Matt. Keep us posted when his viewpoint changes (again).