Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Netserk]

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

Updated 3 hours ago, article claiming that Boswell goes to Paris-Nice

For American neo-pro Ian Boswell, Paris-Nice is the latest adventure

 

[JRanton]

Updated 3 hours ago, article claiming that Boswell goes to Paris-Nice

For American neo-pro Ian Boswell, Paris-Nice is the latest adventure

Hmm.. We'll have to wait and see then.

EDIT: Note that he gave those quotes to VN at the Algarve last week.

 

[mastersracer]

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.

on behalf of Simeon Poisson, the probability that you get any semi-quantitative statement right is statistically a rare event.

 

[thehog]

on behalf of Simeon Poisson, the probability that you get any semi-quantitative statement right is statistically a rare event.

You're an amazing person.

 

[blackcat]

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.

and indicate a predisposition when the road tilts up.

wiggins could never climb. before that first giro with garmin.

#NN

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

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).

He averaged ~456 W in Copenhagen.

 

[acoggan]

He averaged ~456 W in Copenhagen.

Thanks! So what race was it that his average power was "only" ~400 W? I seem to recall the trace showing a definite fade during the 2nd half...

 

[Netserk]

Thanks! So what race was it that his average power was "only" ~400 W? I seem to recall the trace showing a definite fade during the 2nd half...

Most likely in the Vuelta.

 

[mastersracer]

You're an amazing person.

that's a qualitative statement. Quantitative ones pertain to number and such things (like random variables in probability and statistics).

 

[Libertine Seguros]

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).

Wiggins in ITTs 2011:

Paris-Nice, stage 6: 2nd (+20" from Tony Martin over 27km)
Critérium International, stage 3: 2nd (+4" from Andreas Klöden over 7km)
Tour de Romandie, prologue: 77th (+12" from Jonathan Castroviejo over 2,9km)
Tour de Romandie, stage 4: 4th (+18" from Dave Zabriskie over 20,1km)
Bayern-Rundfahrt, stage 4: 1st (33" up on Fabian Cancellara over 26km)
Dauphiné, prologue: 3rd (+6" from Lars Boom over 5,5km)
Dauphiné, stage 3: 2nd (+11" from Tony Martin over 42,5km)
Vuelta a España, stage 10: 3rd (+1'22 from Tony Martin over 47km)
World Championships: 2nd (+1'15 from Tony Martin over 46,4km)

While the two ITTs in September see Martin making bigger time gaps over everybody else, Wiggins also beat Cancellara by the same margin in each, so it would seem that Martin's performance is the yardstick there rather than Wiggins'. I find it hard to see either as an underperformance, as I see them as a comparatively fair reflection of Wiggins' capabilities at the time (bearing in mind that he was returning from a collarbone injury at the time too). He was consistently a top 3-4 competitor, but was also consistently beaten by Tony Martin. The margins he held over the rest of the competition were very small compared to the margins he was powering out over everybody except his own teammate time trialing with his spindly legs akimbo.

Wiggins, aesthetically speaking, is about as good as it gets in terms of time trial position. But there was a clear step up in his capabilities 2008 to 2009 as he went from specialising in prologues and short-to-mid-length TTs to being a guy who can compete over all lengths and terrains, and there was also another one 2011 to 2012. It was exacerbated by comparative underperformance from Cancellara and especially Martin - but the margins he was pulling out on people compared to where he'd been the previous year speak of a significant improvement in his time trialing capabilities.

 

[MatParker117]

Wiggins in ITTs 2011:

Paris-Nice, stage 6: 2nd (+20" from Tony Martin over 27km)
Critérium International, stage 3: 2nd (+4" from Andreas Klöden over 7km)
Tour de Romandie, prologue: 77th (+12" from Jonathan Castroviejo over 2,9km)
Tour de Romandie, stage 4: 4th (+18" from Dave Zabriskie over 20,1km)
Bayern-Rundfahrt, stage 4: 1st (33" up on Fabian Cancellara over 26km)
Dauphiné, prologue: 3rd (+6" from Lars Boom over 5,5km)
Dauphiné, stage 3: 2nd (+11" from Tony Martin over 42,5km)
Vuelta a España, stage 10: 3rd (+1'22 from Tony Martin over 47km)
World Championships: 2nd (+1'15 from Tony Martin over 46,4km)

While the two ITTs in September see Martin making bigger time gaps over everybody else, Wiggins also beat Cancellara by the same margin in each, so it would seem that Martin's performance is the yardstick there rather than Wiggins'. I find it hard to see either as an underperformance, as I see them as a comparatively fair reflection of Wiggins' capabilities at the time (bearing in mind that he was returning from a collarbone injury at the time too). He was consistently a top 3-4 competitor, but was also consistently beaten by Tony Martin. The margins he held over the rest of the competition were very small compared to the margins he was powering out over everybody except his own teammate time trialing with his spindly legs akimbo.

Wiggins, aesthetically speaking, is about as good as it gets in terms of time trial position. But there was a clear step up in his capabilities 2008 to 2009 as he went from specialising in prologues and short-to-mid-length TTs to being a guy who can compete over all lengths and terrains, and there was also another one 2011 to 2012. It was exacerbated by comparative underperformance from Cancellara and especially Martin - but the margins he was pulling out on people compared to where he'd been the previous year speak of a significant improvement in his time trialing capabilities.

Wiggins puts his improvement from 11 to 12 down to studying Martin after the worlds and changing his cadence and gearing in response. (At least that's what I remember from my uncle's copy of his book).

 

[The Hitch]

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?

If you flip a coin 20 times and it comes up head 20 times that is pure coincidence.

The fact that dopers won a sporting event so many times is not a coincidence. The result clearly has a lot to do with the fact that doping increases one's ability and performance.

For the analogy to work the coin has to be biased towards heads in some way. In which case the answer to the question would be - more likely than that the next flip will be tails.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Just so I can be clear, cyclists can't get any better at certain disciplines over time with specific training and changes in technique or equipment?

It's only ever dope right?

We've trodden this path before, comparing Wiggins/Martin/Cancellara's relative times from year to year.

So many variables, from parcours to climatic conditions to equipment to form to nurtition. Who is clean? And if doping are the individual riders on the same drugs and doses everytime? For this to be scientific you need a control, don't you? Where is that?

The basis for such analysis lies with the assumption that a rider's performance is set in stone, in which case Martin>Cancellara>Wiggins in every race. It's an exercise in futility.

There's an old saying in football: form is temporary, class is forever. Which translates as that on any given day performance will fluctuate due to a myriad of variables, but generally the cream rises to the top, which is born out by the comparisons I am reading. But such comparisons prove precisely nothing, basically because we lack huge chunks of data to make such comparisons simply more hearsay

 

[D-Queued]

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?

50:50. Shouldn't you know probabilistic chance?

That has nothing to do with the point about the pro peloton.

If everyone in the peloton dopes, as expert insiders have testified, and a doper wins the Tour each year for twenty years, the odds that a doper will win the 21st time are 100%.

Occam's razor says the same thing.

Dave.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Just so I can be clear, cyclists can't get any better at certain disciplines over time with specific training and changes in technique or equipment?

It's only ever dope right?

We've trodden this path before, comparing Wiggins/Martin/Cancellara's relative times from year to year.

So many variables, from parcours to climatic conditions to equipment to form to nurtition. Who is clean? And if doping are the individual riders on the same drugs and doses everytime? For this to be scientific you need a control, don't you? Where is that?

The basis for such analysis lies with the assumption that a rider's performance is set in stone, in which case Martin>Cancellara>Wiggins in every race. It's an exercise in futility.

There's an old saying in football: form is temporary, class is forever. Which translates as that on any given day performance will fluctuate due to a myriad of variables, but generally the cream rises to the top, which is born out by the comparisons I am reading. But such comparisons prove precisely nothing, basically because we lack huge chunks of data to make such comparisons simply more hearsay

The idea was not to say that Wiggins doped between 2011 and 2012 to cause the improvement. It was to say that the Copenhagen performance was in fact not a major disappointment in terms of Wiggins' performance because it was not at all out of line with his previous performances that year, and only seems that way because of the successes of 2012.

 

[blackcat]

Just so I can be clear, cyclists can't get any better at certain disciplines over time with specific training and changes in technique or equipment?

It's only ever dope right?

We've trodden this path before, comparing Wiggins/Martin/Cancellara's relative times from year to year.

So many variables, from parcours to climatic conditions to equipment to form to nurtition. Who is clean? And if doping are the individual riders on the same drugs and doses everytime? For this to be scientific you need a control, don't you? Where is that?

The basis for such analysis lies with the assumption that a rider's performance is set in stone, in which case Martin>Cancellara>Wiggins in every race. It's an exercise in futility.

There's an old saying in football: form is temporary, class is forever. Which translates as that on any given day performance will fluctuate due to a myriad of variables, but generally the cream rises to the top, which is born out by the comparisons I am reading. But such comparisons prove precisely nothing, basically because we lack huge chunks of data to make such comparisons simply more hearsay

ask D-Q about his rounding errors

 

[thehog]

that's a qualitative statement. Quantitative ones pertain to number and such things (like random variables in probability and statistics).

You and google make a great couple.

 

[Ferminal]

4-5 s in a 4 km pursuit = only ~2%. Just sayin'...

8% power apparently.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

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.

But when you look at the graphs - which you clearly fail to understand, Cancellara's performance has increased, not declined at all, since 2009 (and in fact, since 2008). He is podiuming more since 2008 than he did before.

More.

As much as Wiggins, in fact.

Except he didn't drop ~16% bodyweight in the process.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

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).

It was ~450W - he would have had to average 470+ to match Martin.

 

[D-Queued]

8% power apparently.

I am sure an expert in cycling power would understand the geometric effect (cross-sectional area = squared function) of air resistance.



Dave.

 

[Ferminal]

Wiggins in ITTs 2011:

Paris-Nice, stage 6: 2nd (+20" from Tony Martin over 27km)
Critérium International, stage 3: 2nd (+4" from Andreas Klöden over 7km)
Tour de Romandie, prologue: 77th (+12" from Jonathan Castroviejo over 2,9km)
Tour de Romandie, stage 4: 4th (+18" from Dave Zabriskie over 20,1km)
Bayern-Rundfahrt, stage 4: 1st (33" up on Fabian Cancellara over 26km)
Dauphiné, prologue: 3rd (+6" from Lars Boom over 5,5km)
Dauphiné, stage 3: 2nd (+11" from Tony Martin over 42,5km)
Vuelta a España, stage 10: 3rd (+1'22 from Tony Martin over 47km)
World Championships: 2nd (+1'15 from Tony Martin over 46,4km)

While the two ITTs in September see Martin making bigger time gaps over everybody else, Wiggins also beat Cancellara by the same margin in each, so it would seem that Martin's performance is the yardstick there rather than Wiggins'. I find it hard to see either as an underperformance, as I see them as a comparatively fair reflection of Wiggins' capabilities at the time (bearing in mind that he was returning from a collarbone injury at the time too). He was consistently a top 3-4 competitor, but was also consistently beaten by Tony Martin. The margins he held over the rest of the competition were very small compared to the margins he was powering out over everybody except his own teammate time trialing with his spindly legs akimbo.

Wiggins, aesthetically speaking, is about as good as it gets in terms of time trial position. But there was a clear step up in his capabilities 2008 to 2009 as he went from specialising in prologues and short-to-mid-length TTs to being a guy who can compete over all lengths and terrains, and there was also another one 2011 to 2012. It was exacerbated by comparative underperformance from Cancellara and especially Martin - but the margins he was pulling out on people compared to where he'd been the previous year speak of a significant improvement in his time trialing capabilities.

Did Wiggins win an elite long ITT before 2012?

 

[Netserk]

Did Wiggins win an elite long ITT before 2012?

Bayern-Rundfahrt, Stage 4 : Friedberg - Friedberg I.T.T. (26 km)

 

[sittingbison]

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.

You are not seriously suggesting that Chris Boardman could have had the same level of success ad Sir Wiggo in GTs? Winning the Tour de France and 2nd in the Veulta?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Dear Wiggo is apparently what a colleague of mine refers to as a "new millenial" student.

> From the LA Times article:
>
> "Allegations Trail Armstrong Into Another Stage
> By Alan Abrahamson, Times Staff Writer
> July 9, 2006
>
> Edward Coyle, a University of Texas sports performance researcher
> retained as an expert by Armstrong's lawyers, testified that Armstrong
> had, post-cancer, not only lost weight, resculpting his body, but
> simultaneously improved his power output - thereby producing a "huge"
> power surge."

Hmm...I did not know that Ed had been called to testify.

Anyway, the quotes around "huge" are probably appropriate, because by
Ed's estimates Armstrong's absolute power was only slightly higher
during his Tour-winning years compared to what it was when he was
younger (and heavier).

Andy Coggan

(Ed's study showed an increase from 374W to 404W - an 8% increase - not huge, apparently. Run of the mill, really).

B. Lafferty wrote:
> "Tim Lines" <SPAM@SPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:HtSdnS7f9qyV3i7ZnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > Gabe Brovedani wrote:
> >> From the LA Times article:
> >>
> >> "Allegations Trail Armstrong Into Another Stage
> >> By Alan Abrahamson, Times Staff Writer
> >> July 9, 2006
> >>
> >> Edward Coyle, a University of Texas sports performance researcher
> >> retained as an expert by Armstrong's lawyers, testified that Armstrong
> >> had, post-cancer, not only lost weight, resculpting his body, but
> >> simultaneously improved his power output - thereby producing a "huge"
> >> power surge."
> >>
> >>
> >> All you need to do is simultaneously lose weight and increase your power
> >> outpout - simple, see.
> >>
> >
> > Simple, but also wrong. The correct method involves pedaling faster while
> > in a higher gear.
>
> And a way to deliver more oxygen to the muscles.

No increase in O2 delivery, or even in O2 utilization, would be
required to explain the magnitude of the increase in Armstrong's
absolute power output.

Andy Coggan

Is anyone else amazed that Wiggins, who has definitely been training 3-6 hours / day since 2004, has not once been cited as an example of "efficiency improvement"?

I mean.

It's the reason Armstrong's power increased 8% - why hasn't Wiggins' power increased 8%? Or even 2%?

According to acoggan's critical power graph, Wiggins' critical power has remained static since 2004.

What gives?