Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[acoggan]

I do know one thing, I'm gonna make a ton of money betting on Bobridge and Phinney the next couple of years, it's only a matter of time until they start dominating the GT's.

I don't know about Bobridge, but if I were Phinney I'd certainly be paying very close attention to Wiggins' career path, and not close my mind prematurely to the possibility of contending for GT victories just 'cause I'm taller (and hence heavier) than the average winner.

 

[acoggan]

it is entirely plausible that Wiggins' ABSOLUTE performance has been relatively constant while that of his competitors has declined, thereby improving his relative performance.

Extending that logic a bit further, you could argue that someone like Boardman might have had similar success previously if not for the fact that so many others were doping.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

In my experience, said recovery really has more to do with how the athlete in question has trained in the weeks and months preceding the competition than any innate physiological "toughness". (OTOH, the ability to not break down under high training/racing loads would pay off in both situations.)

I would guess like most physical aspects, one would need to be naturally predisposed to good ability to recover between rounds, but also train hard for months/years to fully exploit this natural ability.

 

[the sceptic]

As even Martin himself sees it, he went backwards due to injury, etc. But (to quote the Great Gipper), there you go again, ignoring quantitative analyses (no matter how limited) in favor of subjective judgments and relative comparisons to moving targets.

Ok. How about Grabsch. 15 seconds behind Wiggo in Copehagen 2011, 2min 38 seconds behind at the olympics.

Westra 2:03 behind in Copenhagen, 3:40 behind in London.

Fuglsang 2:15 behind in Copenhagen ,3:55 behind in London.

Castroviejo 2:19 behind in Copenhagen, 2:50 behind in London.

Brajkovic 2:30 behind in Copenhagen, 3:30 behind in London.

Now, im no scientist, but to my untrained eye it looks like Wiggo did improve a hell of a lot in one year against riders that finished top 15 in both events. Or were they all injured and out of shape?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Indeed, given his riding style I suspect he'd make a very good points or Madison rider (with adequate track-specific training, of course).

Can't say I have enough of an idea of his relative strengths and weaknesses to really say. Regardless, you're making (yet another) straw man argument, as the saying "it's an aerobic sport, dammit!" refers to road racing, not track cycling (although the majority of events on the track are primarily aerobic in nature, of course).

Why am I making a strawman argument with regards to Froome? If it fits Contador why wouldn't it be fitting for Froome. He must be the most aerobic rider in the field given his choice of gears wouldn't you say?

Having a sufficiently high VO2max is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for elite performance in any endurance sport. Both the pursuit and a GT are predominantly aerobic in nature. Ergo, someone who can ride a fast 4 km pursuit obviously possesses at least one of the physiological traits needed to perform well in stage races.

Or to put it another way: from a physiological perspective, there's a very good reason why the Australian and now British approach of using their national endurance track team as a feeder system into professional road cycling works quite well...

So the Aussies and the Brits have reinvented the wheel are you saying? And, in the case of Wiggins and Froome in such a short time of period? That is an enormous secret I must say.

1, you do realize that Cancellara has been implicated in OP and is likely the rider known as Luigi.

2. Given the critical power discussion (which you continue to misunderstand) it is entirely plausible that Wiggins' ABSOLUTE performance has been relatively constant while that of his competitors has declined, thereby improving his relative performance.

1: you do know of the dodgy staff at team SKY?

2: Ah, the 'competition has become weaker' argument.

As even Martin himself sees it, he went backwards due to injury, etc. But (to quote the Great Gipper), there you go again, ignoring quantitative analyses (no matter how limited) in favor of subjective judgments and relative comparisons to moving targets.

I rather have a qualitative analysis I must say.

Ok. How about Grabsch. 15 seconds behind Wiggo in Copehagen 2011, 2min 38 seconds behind at the olympics.

Westra 2:03 behind in Copenhagen, 3:40 behind in London.

Fuglsang 2:15 behind in Copenhagen ,3:55 behind in London.

Castroviejo 2:19 behind in Copenhagen, 2:50 behind in London.

Brajkovic 2:30 behind in Copenhagen, 3:30 behind in London.

Now, im no scientist, but to my untrained eye it looks like Wiggo did improve a hell of a lot in one year against riders that finished top 15 in both events. Or were they all injured and out of shape?

The rest just had a bad year, were not as committed as the Brits.

Extending that logic a bit further, you could argue that someone like Boardman might have had similar success previously if not for the fact that so many others were doping.

Boardman? You mean the man who beat the EPO fuelled Ferrari/Conconi clients over an hour? It is getting better and better.

Question: does 02vector doping help with aerobic capacities?

 

[andy1234]

Boardman? You mean the man who beat the EPO fuelled Ferrari/Conconi clients over an hour? It is getting better and better.

As you LeMond fans like to say....
Show me a single shred of evidence....

 

[Dr. Maserati]

As you LeMond fans like to say....
Show me a single shred of evidence....

Bit of a pattern starting to creep in to your posts recently Andy.

So we are only discussing one rider other than Wiggins now?

I thought Sky had a few riders with the ability of LeMond and Fignon?

The same reason LeMond would have been an unknown if he had started his career in the 90s instead of the 80s.

6.7 w/kg makes 6.1 w/kg look very ordinary.

LeMond would have been mid pack material in the 6.7 generation.
In fact, he was, at even lesser power numbers.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

As you LeMond fans like to say....
Show me a single shred of evidence....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0UigKmSVmU

Classic TV.

1. Miguel Indurain en 1h19'31" (/Moy : 49.046 km/h/)
2. De las Cuevas à 3'00"
3. Bugno à 3'41"
4. Jaskula à 3'47"
5. LeMond à 4'04"
6. Lino à 4'06"
7. Roche à 4'10"
8. Kasputis à 4'26"
9. Zulle à 4'29"
10. Delgado à 4'52"
11. Bernard à 4'54"
14. Yates à 5'10"
23. Fignon à 6'01"
26. Breukink à 6'15"
27. Moreau à 6'17"
33. Zhdanov à 6'56"
46. Ampler à 7'43
56. Hampsten à 8'29"
88. Ekimov à 10'09"
95. Jalabert à 10'23"
162. Weltz à 14'21"

Just common sense andy, common sense.

edit: the rest had a bad day

 

[andy1234]

Bit of a pattern starting to creep in to your posts recently Andy.

What pattern is that?

 

[andy1234]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0UigKmSVmU

Classic TV.

1. Miguel Indurain en 1h19'31" (/Moy : 49.046 km/h/)
2. De las Cuevas à 3'00"
3. Bugno à 3'41"
4. Jaskula à 3'47"
5. LeMond à 4'04"
6. Lino à 4'06"
7. Roche à 4'10"
8. Kasputis à 4'26"
9. Zulle à 4'29"
10. Delgado à 4'52"
11. Bernard à 4'54"
14. Yates à 5'10"
23. Fignon à 6'01"
26. Breukink à 6'15"
27. Moreau à 6'17"
33. Zhdanov à 6'56"
46. Ampler à 7'43
56. Hampsten à 8'29"
88. Ekimov à 10'09"
95. Jalabert à 10'23"
162. Weltz à 14'21"

Just common sense andy, common sense.

edit: the rest had a bad day

No idea what point you are trying to make.

You inferred that Boardman may not have been clean, I asked for proof.

Got any?

 

[xcleigh]

Boardman? You mean the man who beat the EPO fuelled Ferrari/Conconi clients over an hour? It is getting better and better.

Obree dopped as well!?! Dammit. No one was immune it seems.

 

[mastersracer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0UigKmSVmU

Classic TV.

1. Miguel Indurain en 1h19'31" (/Moy : 49.046 km/h/)
2. De las Cuevas à 3'00"
3. Bugno à 3'41"
4. Jaskula à 3'47"
5. LeMond à 4'04"
6. Lino à 4'06"
7. Roche à 4'10"
8. Kasputis à 4'26"
9. Zulle à 4'29"
10. Delgado à 4'52"
11. Bernard à 4'54"
14. Yates à 5'10"
23. Fignon à 6'01"
26. Breukink à 6'15"
27. Moreau à 6'17"
33. Zhdanov à 6'56"
46. Ampler à 7'43
56. Hampsten à 8'29"
88. Ekimov à 10'09"
95. Jalabert à 10'23"
162. Weltz à 14'21"

Just common sense andy, common sense.

edit: the rest had a bad day

This game is fun: Stage 8 ITT 1999 Tour de France

1 Lance Armstrong 1hr 8min 36sec
2 Alex Zulle @ 58sec
3 Christophe Moreau @ 2min 5sec
4 Abraham Olano @ 2min 22sec
5 Tyler Hamilton @ 3min 31sec
6 Chris Boardman @ 3min 32sec
7 Alvaro Gonzalez de Galdeano @ 3min 40sec

 

[thehog]

Straw man argument = sign of a weak position (and possibly mind).

I have to admit I have lost my mind at the number of dopers who have won the Tour in the last 20 years.

Statistical evidence shows that to win the Tour you must dope. Period.

 

[andy1234]

I have to admit I have lost my mind at the number of dopers who have won the Tour in the last 20 years.

Statistical evidence shows that to win the Tour you must dope. Period.

Until recently, statistical evidence shows that to be president of the USA you must be white. Period.

Good job no one told Obama.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Until recently, statistical evidence shows that to be president of the USA you must be white. Period.

Good job no one told Obama.

I know you are attempting more deflection but can you show this data that says 'to be'.

 

[thehog]

Until recently, statistical evidence shows that to be president of the USA you must be white. Period.

Good job no one told Obama.

What's white? Do you mean Caucasian?

I wonder what the statistical evidence shows on number of people whom are ignorant?

My point stands. More dopers have won the Tour in the last 20 years than not. 99% in fact winners have been dopers. Proven. Fact.

 

[JRanton]

Does anyone know why Edvald Boasson Hagen won't be joining the other Sky boys in Tenerife?*

*That's if we're to believe Sky's site which has him down as riding Paris-Nice instead.

I'll remind readers that EBH scored a ''0'' on the UCI's suspicion rating index and is widely recognised as a very (naturally) gifted athlete.

 

[acoggan]

Why am I making a strawman argument with regards to Froome? If it fits Contador why wouldn't it be fitting for Froome. He must be the most aerobic rider in the field given his choice of gears wouldn't you say?

You're making a straw man argument, period (as "it's an aerobic sport, dammit!" refers to road cycling).

So the Aussies and the Brits have reinvented the wheel are you saying?

No, I'm just saying that the way their systems are set up makes perfect sense from a physiological perspective.

 

[Netserk]

Does anyone know why Edvald Boasson Hagen won't be joining the other Sky boys in Tenerife?*

*That's if we're to believe Sky's site which has him down as riding Paris-Nice instead.

I'll remind readers that EBH scored a ''0'' on the UCI's suspicion rating index and is widely recognised as a very (naturally) gifted athlete.

EBH is as far as I can tell only a reserve (to go to Paris-Nice).

 

[acoggan]

My point stands. More dopers have won the Tour in the last 20 years than not. 99% in fact winners have been dopers. Proven. Fact.

If I flip an ideal coin 20 times in a row and it comes up heads each time, what are the odds that the next flip will be tails?

 

[acoggan]

Ok. How about Grabsch. 15 seconds behind Wiggo in Copehagen 2011, 2min 38 seconds behind at the olympics.

Westra 2:03 behind in Copenhagen, 3:40 behind in London.

Fuglsang 2:15 behind in Copenhagen ,3:55 behind in London.

Castroviejo 2:19 behind in Copenhagen, 2:50 behind in London.

Brajkovic 2:30 behind in Copenhagen, 3:30 behind in London.

Now, im no scientist, but to my untrained eye it looks like Wiggo did improve a hell of a lot in one year against riders that finished top 15 in both events. Or were they all injured and out of shape?

Or Wiggins grossly underperformed in Copenhagen (wasn't his average power ~10% lower than normal, or am I thinking of some other race where he averaged only ~400 W).

 

[thehog]

Does anyone know why Edvald Boasson Hagen won't be joining the other Sky boys in Tenerife?*

*That's if we're to believe Sky's site which has him down as riding Paris-Nice instead.

I'll remind readers that EBH scored a ''0'' on the UCI's suspicion rating index and is widely recognised as a very (naturally) gifted athlete.

Must be scared of needles. What a whimp. Should be released from his contract by years end.

 

[Lanark]

Or Wiggins grossly underperformed in Copenhagen (wasn't his average power ~10% lower than normal, or am I thinking of some other race where he averaged only ~400 W).

Like he did in every time trial prior to 2012.

 

[thehog]

If I flip an ideal coin 20 times in a row and it comes up heads each time, what are the odds that the next flip will be tails?

That’s probability not statistics.

Sorry – nice try. You really should have know that.

My point remains. A clean-winner of the Tour would be a complete abnormality in the last 20 years of the Tour.

 

[JRanton]

EBH is as far as I can tell only a reserve (to go to Paris-Nice).

Yes, but Sky's site has him down as starting instead of Boswell: http://www.teamsky.com/races/0,27631,2013,00.html#month=3