Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Bernie's eyesore]

Agreed on Eddie.

It seems that the Sky site has been changed, Boswell is doing P-N, and Eddie is going to Tenerife, after all.

So, either...

a. That nasty Mr Brailsford has converted Eddie to the dark side.
b. Leinders/Kerrison/Ferrari/whoever it is these days who injects drugs into the veins of young men, will only be getting the syringes out when Eddie's tucked up in bed.
c. Brailsford has realised that the Clinic 12 are onto him and has quickly changed his plans, and bought Eddie a ticket to Mt. Teide, and now has to work out what the hell he's going to do when he gets there with the other boys.
d. There's actually nothing dodgy going on in Tenerife.

I am quite happy to accept the possibility that Wiggins, Froome, Porte etc were doping but the idea that Boasson Hagen, Hayman and Eisel have all gone off to dope in Tenerife is, quite frankly, preposterous, I couldn't name any cleaner cyclists.

 

[ultimobici]

Pedro I understand you saying Boardman once got a second place in the DL but was hampered in stage races by his physiological issues and lack of bike handling skills.

Based on what? His prologue crash was bad luck, plain & simple. Night time, rain & a change of surface on a corner was a recipe for disaster. Hitting a wall in 98 when the Tour went down a narrow irish road after a touch of wheels, bad luck again. In that Dauphine he lost by just over 2 minutes to Indurain, how'd he do that if he was such a shonky bike handler? Now if you were talking about Alex Zulle, you'd have a point!

 

[acoggan]

Coyle's Armstrong work has to be thrown out.

Armstrong is representative of dopers, that's all. Depending on where Wonderboy was on a doping cycle, the results would vary. Nevermind the unavoidable fact he was doping for his entire cycling career.

It is impossible to replicate/infer/refer to Wonderboy data to a non-doping athlete population. That work still hasn't been sufficiently discredited.

Now, probably, but at the time rumors regarding his doping were still just that: rumors. Thus, for those unaware of such rumors, or willing to give the benefit of the doubt, Coyle's data on Armstrong had at least the potential to provide some valuable insight into what makes champions champions.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I am quite happy to accept the possibility that Wiggins, Froome, Porte etc were doping but the idea that Boasson Hagen, Hayman and Eisel have all gone off to dope in Tenerife is, quite frankly, preposterous, I couldn't name any cleaner cyclists.

While it's true that David Moncoutié has retired, Pierrick Fedrigo is still knocking about.

 

[peterst6906]

Now, probably, but at the time rumors regarding his doping were still just that: rumors. Thus, for those unaware of such rumors, or willing to give the benefit of the doubt, Coyle's data on Armstrong had at least the potential to provide some valuable insight into what makes champions champions.

That's a slippery one. In effect, anyone who relied on Coyle's work at the time was potentially being led up the wrong path (unknowingly) and has the potential for some of their work to be significantly undermined in hindsight (and also any future work that relied on earlier conclusions).

It's a little bit like relying on the work of the University of East Anglia for global warming research. The underlying basis (whether Coyle knew at the time or not) is fraudulent.

From Armstrong's perspective, I am sure that his current line would be, all researchers should have known because there was plenty of evidence out there that he was doping.

 

[andy1234]

Based on what? His prologue crash was bad luck, plain & simple. Night time, rain & a change of surface on a corner was a recipe for disaster. Hitting a wall in 98 when the Tour went down a narrow irish road after a touch of wheels, bad luck again. In that Dauphine he lost by just over 2 minutes to Indurain, how'd he do that if he was such a shonky bike handler? Now if you were talking about Alex Zulle, you'd have a point!

Boardmans bike handling in technical time trials was actually one of his strengths.
His crash in the prologue was more down to a *** or bust mentality on the day than anything else.

Its true he wasn't as confident in the bunch as some though, probably due to less frequent road riding as an amateur, than your average pro

 

[acoggan]

Normal physiology is based on typical biological measurements. In Boardmans case, measurement of testosterone levels.
Levels considerably below normal would be considered a disease for anyone, athlete or otherwise.

The underlying testosterone deficiency, was discovered when he was diagnosed with osteopenia, as it can be an underlying cause of the condition in men.

His retirement was accelerated by the need for treatment, which was not permitted by the UCI, when a TUE was requested.

Normal physiology is for testosterone to decline during periods of intense stress. The question is, how low does it have to go before you declare that someone has a disease justifying medical intervention, vs. simply being "unlucky" (i.e., being more impacted by stress than average)? That isn't an easy question to answer even in the context of aging, where the existence of "andropause" is still debated and where you don't have to concern yourself with issues of sporting ethics, antidoping efforts, etc. Bring those questions into play, and it gets very complicated indeed.

(BTW/by way of background, 1) like Boardman, I am osteoporotic (though not hypogonadal), and 2) I have been involved in a study of testosterone replacement therapy in older men:

http://www.academia.edu/239287/Urba...in_synthesis._Am_J_Physiol_1995_269_E820-E826)

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

While it's true that David Moncoutié has retired, Pierrick Fedrigo is still knocking about.

Well, you could say the same about every FDJ rider, all as clean as a whistle. Apologies to Ian Stannard by the way, I should have mentioned him alongside Hayman, Eisel and Boasson Hagen.

 

[acoggan]

That's a slippery one. In effect, anyone who relied on Coyle's work at the time was potentially being led up the wrong path (unknowingly) and has the potential for some of their work to be significantly undermined in hindsight (and also any future work that relied on earlier conclusions).

It's a little bit like relying on the work of the University of East Anglia for global warming research. The underlying basis (whether Coyle knew at the time or not) is fraudulent.

Clearly you need to educate yourself on climate change science: eight separate investigations found no evidence of any misconduct by researchers at the University of East Anglia.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Not knowing what van Diemen might have said/written, I can't say. What can be said is that Lemond's mitochondrial myopathy theory is/was just that: a theory (and a poorly-supported one at that).

http://www.sportkroniek.nl/portret/portret/LeMond.html

''The Tour winner had to ignominiously as painfully say goodbye. Van Diemen: "When Gan (LeMonds last professional team) began to beep when the performances were not adopted, he was furious, he would drive them anything to show. Unfortunately, he was tormented by an inexplicable depression which forced him during the Tour of '94 and was forced to resign. His maximal oxygen uptake was reduced by 33 percent. Amateur Level! Greg was a medical problem. Toxicological studies in Minneapolis showed that lead was released to great efforts and acted as a brake on its ability to provide energy to create. "

You are a man on a mission mister Coggan, is buddy Ed also on the board?

 

[andy1234]

Normal physiology is for testosterone to decline during periods of intense stress. The question is, how low does it have to go before you declare that someone has a disease justifying medical intervention, vs. simply being "unlucky" (i.e., being more impacted by stress than average)? That isn't an easy question to answer even in the context of aging, where the existence of "andropause" is still debated and where you don't have to concern yourself with issues of sporting ethics, antidoping efforts, etc. Bring those questions into play, and it gets very complicated indeed.

(BTW/by way of background, 1) like Boardman, I am osteoporotic (though not hypogonadal), and 2) I have been involved in a study of testosterone replacement therapy in older men:

http://www.academia.edu/239287/Urba...in_synthesis._Am_J_Physiol_1995_269_E820-E826)

You could judge almost any condition with the same philosophy though.
Whether disease is a cause or effect of stress is often impossible to determine.

 

[acoggan]

http://www.sportkroniek.nl/portret/portret/LeMond.html

''The Tour winner had to ignominiously as painfully say goodbye. Van Diemen: "When Gan (LeMonds last professional team) began to beep when the performances were not adopted, he was furious, he would drive them anything to show. Unfortunately, he was tormented by an inexplicable depression which forced him during the Tour of '94 and was forced to resign. His maximal oxygen uptake was reduced by 33 percent. Amateur Level! Greg was a medical problem. Toxicological studies in Minneapolis showed that lead was released to great efforts and acted as a brake on its ability to provide energy to create. "

As the New England Journal of Medicine article I linked to previously aptly demonstrates, Lemond's claim that he suffers/suffered from a mitochondrial myopathy never gained any real acceptance among experts in this area. That's probably partially because the doctor with whom he worked, Michelle Taube, was not such an expert. (Like others, I've always been a bit surprised that Lemond didn't consult with someone with more by way of a background in neuromuscular diseases and exercise, such as Ron Haller.)

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

As the New England Journal of Medicine article I linked to previously aptly demonstrates, Lemond's claim that he suffers/suffered from a mitochondrial myopathy never gained any real acceptance among experts in this area. That's probably partially because the doctor with whom he worked, Michelle Taube, was not such an expert. (Like others, I've always been a bit surprised that Lemond didn't consult with someone with more by way of a background in neuromuscular diseases and exercise, such as Ron Haller.)

Thanks for dodging, say hello to Ed.

THIRTYTHREE PROCENT Andy.

Forgot, Adrie is also a dumb@ss.

Edit: has very little to do with SKY, just credibility

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

While I'm expanding on things: the human power-duration relationship is rather complex, and while the primary effect of endurance training is to "lift" the curve over durations longer than a few minutes, the same adaptations tend to "flatten" it as well. Morever, due to the very shallow slope of the terminal decay in power as a function of time, only a very small "lift" will markedly increase the duration that a particular power can be sustained (e.g., in my own case a 4% increase in FTP would mean that I could sustain my previous, lower power at FTP 21% longer). By improving fatigue resistance during longer races (or back-to-back days), it is possible that such a change in Wiggins' power-duration relationship (i.e., a "flattening", perhaps brought about by changes in how he trains) contributes to his improved ability to contend on GC, despite no apparent increase in his TT power measured over shorter durations.

And is presumably a cause of friendly tension between those that prefer time to exhaustion tests versus testing maximal capability for a set duration, as the former can significantly amplify the gains made in the latter.

 

[acoggan]

And is presumably a cause of friendly tension between those that prefer time to exhaustion tests versus testing maximal capability for a set duration, as the former can significantly amplify the gains made in the latter.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18379223

 

[acoggan]

Thanks for dodging, say hello to Ed.

THIRTYTHREE PROCENT Andy

Correlation does not prove causation.

Forgot, Adrie is also a dumb@ss.

You said it, not me.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18379223

I have this sense of dejavu.

 

[Krebs cycle]

And is presumably a cause of friendly tension between those that prefer time to exhaustion tests versus testing maximal capability for a set duration, as the former can significantly amplify the gains made in the latter.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18379223

Will Hopkins flip flopped on this topic a couple of times over the years. Within the space of a year he had gone from hating time to exhaustion tests due to the greater CVs compared with TTs, to loving them because they amplify the percent changes which occur in response to physiological interventions (as can be clearly seen in the above article). He presented a poster one year at ACSM which has a neat formula for converting between the two. Good to see he has refined the discrepancy by using the "sensitivity" index.

Thx for the heads up on this article

 

[Dear Wiggo]

While I'm expanding on things: the human power-duration relationship is rather complex, and while the primary effect of endurance training is to "lift" the curve over durations longer than a few minutes, the same adaptations tend to "flatten" it as well. Morever, due to the very shallow slope of the terminal decay in power as a function of time, only a very small "lift" will markedly increase the duration that a particular power can be sustained (e.g., in my own case a 4% increase in FTP would mean that I could sustain my previous, lower power at FTP 21% longer). By improving fatigue resistance during longer races (or back-to-back days), it is possible that such a change in Wiggins' power-duration relationship (i.e., a "flattening", perhaps brought about by changes in how he trains) contributes to his improved ability to contend on GC, despite no apparent increase in his TT power measured over shorter durations.

Which is why EPO - even at microdosing levels - is so useful. Increasing your FTP by 4% thanks to a little bump in Hgb means you can now sustain your lower previous FTP 21% longer.

 

[sittingbison]

Based on what? His prologue crash was bad luck, plain & simple. Night time, rain & a change of surface on a corner was a recipe for disaster. Hitting a wall in 98 when the Tour went down a narrow irish road after a touch of wheels, bad luck again. In that Dauphine he lost by just over 2 minutes to Indurain, how'd he do that if he was such a shonky bike handler? Now if you were talking about Alex Zulle, you'd have a point!

ask Pedro, hes the one that bought it up. I said I understood his argument

 

[acoggan]

Which is why EPO - even at microdosing levels - is so useful. Increasing your FTP by 4% thanks to a little bump in Hgb means you can now sustain your lower previous FTP 21% longer.

True, true...but based on the objective evidence, Wiggins power (up to ~1 h) seems to be the same as it always has been.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

True, true...but based on the objective evidence, Wiggins power (up to ~1 h) seems to be the same as it always has been.

And in 2006 you said Armstrong did not need to dope to improve his power the amount he did, due to improvements in his efficiency.

So we are stuck with you yet again defending someone who anecdotally has improved out of sight: from autobusser to winner, winner chicken dinner, based on science you and those of your ilk continue to believe in despite a sample size of n=1 for said science.

I'll give you this: you are consistent at least.

 

[Krebs cycle]

So we are stuck with you yet again defending someone who anecdotally has improved out of sight: from autobusser to winner, winner chicken dinner, based on science you and those of your ilk continue to believe in despite a sample size of n=1 for said science.

You and various others keep saying that Wiggins has had this incredible improvement in performance and then point to his road racing palmares as your proof. You've been repeating this utter drivel now for months on end ad nauseum, but that is NOT how you measure changes in performance with any degree of accuracy. Repeat after me and get it through your head.... you cannot determine if someone had a 5-10% change in FTP from GC in stage races and you sure as heck cannot measure <5% changes in FTP.

You cannot even measure 5% changes in FTP from road TTs or estimations from hill climbing. So the fact is that none of us has any idea what has happened to Wiggins' FTP in either absolute or relative terms over the past 5-7 yrs, so you've got idea if he actually "improved out of sight" or simply improved "marginally".

The best we can do is construct a work/time plot and check to see if the relationship is linear and/or if there are any outliers ABOVE the line (ie: unusual increase in work for duration). acoggan has taken the trouble to construct this figure from the best available evidence we have. Based on that, it doesn't not look as though Wiggins' power for a given duration has markedly improved. Given the uncertainty however in those estimations of power, he could have improved marginally (ie: within the level of uncertainty), and that could have been the result of doping OR it could have been the result of changes and improvements to training. There simply is no accurate evidence available that his FTP has improved beyond what would be considered physiologically possible from changes to training and overall preparation alone.

I'm not saying that Wiggins is clean and I never have, I'm only pointing out that YOU and your ilk don't have a clue if he is doping, and that most of the reasons you provide as your "proof" are complete and utter fantasy.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'm not saying that Wiggins is clean and I never have

If you don't think Wiggins is clean, then we are in agreement.

 

[Ferminal]

I agree, any improvements since 2009 would have been minor by comparison.

[In terms of one-off performances at least]