Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[peterst6906]

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

Typical Dear Wiggo. Bend the words to meet the message you want to portray.

 

[Krebs cycle]

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.

Yes, I also agree this is true, but do you actually know if Wiggins has increased his FTP by 4% in the past 4yrs? No you don't, so who cares.

You do realize also that a 4% increase in FTP is achievable via changes in training or a combination of strategies that each gave 1% on their own? Even if we could know that Wiggins FTP improved by 4% in the past 5yrs it still isn't enough to say for sure, "that cannot be achieved without doping".

Again, you keep looking at results but ignore the fact that we don't have access to the actual power data so we don't really know if the perceived improvement is large or small. Is Cancellara a doper? Are his performances variable due to doping? Are they consistent regardless of doping (ie: maybe Cancellara is doping but his performances have remained consistent)?

He is the only other rider that we can really compare Wiggins to, and when you compare the performances of Wiggins vs Cancellara over a period of 6yrs from 2005-2011, then Wiggins only improved by about 1-2% in all that time, except 2012 where it looks as though he improved about 1% or so in a single year vs Cancellara. Cancellara beat Wiggins in virtually every ITT for years, but not by much, so he had a slight edge of Wiggins all that time. A very small improvement was enough to give Wiggins the edge in 2012. So what is the problem if Wiggins beats Cancellara on several occasions?

Was that due to doping? Maybe so, but we just cannot tell because the improvement looks to be too small and could be achieved without doping.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Do we have any agreement on Wiggins' weight and/or body fat? In particular for the years listed here:

2004
2009
2011
2012?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Yes, I also agree this is true, but do you actually know if Wiggins has increased his FTP by 4% in the past 4yrs? No you don't, so who cares.

Finally. You don't think Wiggins is clean, and you think his improvement could be from doping. Welcome to the club!! Not sure what all that other stuff you posted was about, but it's really nice to reach a common ground with you, Krebs.

 

[Krebs cycle]

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

Our disagreement is about the degree of certainty. I am very uncertain that Wiggins is doping, you seem to be very certain that he is.

What I am certain of however, is that you cannot be very certain that Wiggins is doping (even though you think you can).

 

[Dear Wiggo]

How does this look?

2004 - 82kg 10% bf
2009 - 72kg 5% bf
2011 - 70kg 5% bf
2012 - 69kg 5% bf

 

[Ferminal]

He is the only other rider that we can really compare Wiggins to, and when you compare the performances of Wiggins vs Cancellara over a period of 6yrs from 2005-2011, then Wiggins only improved by about 1-2% in all that time, except 2012 where it looks as though he improved about 1% or so in a single year vs Cancellara. Cancellara beat Wiggins in virtually every ITT for years, but not by much, so he had a slight edge of Wiggins all that time. A very small improvement was enough to give Wiggins the edge in 2012. So what is the problem if Wiggins beats Cancellara on several occasions?

What are your reference points?

Madrid 2005: Wiggins -2%
Stuttgart 2007: (not sure about Wiggins' form here): Wiggins -4%
Annecy 2009: Wiggins -1.5%
Salamanca/Copenhagen 2011: Essentially equal
Besancon 2012: Cancellara -2%

Not really enough to be able to say anything. Don't really like looking at Worlds results either as they are not always a great indicator.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

That's with an 18% drop in body weight for Brad.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Finally. You don't think Wiggins is clean, and you think his improvement could be from doping. Welcome to the club!! Not sure what all that other stuff you posted was about, but it's really nice to reach a common ground with you, Krebs.

What do mean finally? I never said that I think Wiggins was clean. Not once. In fact months and months ago I said I give it roughly a 30% chance he is doping.

That's your problem though, you keep ignoring this fact but instead make believe that I do think Wiggins is totally clean because I pull you up on your dodgy ar$e evidence and cycling performance analysis which you use as your "proof" of doping. It's not proof, its just crap.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

What do mean finally? I never said that I think Wiggins was clean. Not once. In fact months and months ago I said I give it roughly a 30% chance he is doping.

Again you post a bunch of stuff I can't understand. Millenial student you see.

But I am glad you are finally agreeing that Wiggins is not clean. And is probably doped up.

Awesome.

What lead you to think he was doped? Which aspect of his performance was it that really made you sit up and take notice and think - hey now, that's not normal?

 

[Krebs cycle]

What are your reference points?

Madrid 2005: Wiggins -2%
Stuttgart 2007: (not sure about Wiggins' form here): Wiggins -4%
Annecy 2009: Wiggins -1.5%
Salamanca/Copenhagen 2011: Essentially equal
Besancon 2012: Cancellara -2%

Not really enough to be able to say anything. Don't really like looking at Worlds results either as they are not always a great indicator.

Yeah, look at that, Wiggins has gradually improved against Cancellara over a 7yr period. Where exactly is it in those results that Wiggins underwent his sudden "extraterrestrial" performance increase??

Remember that the coefficient of variation (ie: the natural day to day biological variation) in long ITT performance is about 2-3% in an individual. That means in the space of a single week, if you measured 2 riders there could be a movement of up to 5-6% relative to each other. So what those limited results show is that over a 7yr period, Wiggins' relative improvement against Cancellara is within the expected CV. That is what you call "trivial". It represents a very LOW degree of certainty that doping is the only possible answer.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Again you post a bunch of stuff I can't understand. Millenial student you see.

But I am glad you are finally agreeing that Wiggins is not clean. And is probably doped up.

Awesome.

What lead you to think he was doped? Which aspect of his performance was it that really made you sit up and take notice and think - hey now, that's not normal?

It's not my fault that you can't understand. Why don't you try to learn instead of arguing BS all the time?

You do realize the 30% is a less than 50/50 chance don't you? It would imply that I give it 70% probability that he is clean. But more importantly I am accepting the FACT that I don't actually know for certain one way or the other, and I never have. Not even with Cadel am I 100% certain he is clean, although I give him a higher probability, somewhere around 80-90%. Certainty implies 100% probability.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It's not my fault that you can't understand.

I understood Alex Simmons perfectly. I think the problem lies more with your inabilty to explain anything online.

You do realize the 30% is a less than 50/50 chance don't you? It would imply that I give it 70% probability that he is clean. But more importantly I am accepting the FACT that I don't actually know for certain. Certainty implies 100% probability.

Yes yes, but what is it about his performance - given you have no data - that leads you to think he is doping?

 

[Krebs cycle]

I understood Alex Simmons perfectly. I think the problem lies more with your inabilty to explain anything online.

I note that only you could not comprehend the aerobic vs anaerobic discussion whereas many others could. I also thank the many posters on this forum whom have replied to my posts thanking me for explaining things clearly and correctly. Pity you couldn't understand but they were able to.

 

[Ferminal]

Yeah, look at that, Wiggins has gradually improved against Cancellara over a 7yr period. Where exactly is it in those results that Wiggins underwent his sudden "extraterrestrial" performance increase??

Remember that the coefficient of variation (ie: the natural day to day biological variation) in long ITT performance is about 2-3% in an individual. That means in the space of a single week, if you measured 2 riders there could be a movement of up to 5-6% relative to each other. So what those limited results show is that over a 7yr period, Wiggins' relative improvement against Cancellara is within the expected CV. That is what you call "trivial". It represents a very LOW degree of certainty that doping is the only possible answer.

So it cannot be used as evidence to suggest there was no change?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

It's not my fault that you can't understand. Why don't you try to learn instead of arguing BS all the time?

You do realize the 30% is a less than 50/50 chance don't you? It would imply that I give it 70% probability that he is clean. But more importantly I am accepting the FACT that I don't actually know for certain one way or the other, and I never have. Not even with Cadel am I 100% certain he is clean, although I give him a higher probability, somewhere around 80-90%. Certainty implies 100% probability.

So, we have an expert saying there is 30% chance of Wiggins doping with relation to his TT'ing.

How about his rise to the top as a climber? Is there also a 30% change here, or should we think in numbers of 70%? How much has he improved in the mountains? 20%? Is that a normal curve you would expect from a rider? Improving on TT, improving a hell in the mountains?

In the past TT'ers who wanted to improve their climbing skills became less TT'ers, climbers who wanted to improve their TT skills became less climbers. The only ones I can recall who improved on both were guys like Indurain, Armstrong, Jalabert etc etc.

You even see it at sprinters, Cavendish lost weight last season and was not as powerfull as the years before. Yet, Wiggins is the opposite?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

So it cannot be used as evidence to suggest there was no change?

Wouldn't the "Null hypothesis" be "There is no change in the relative performance levels of Cancellara and Wiggins", with there being no evidence to justify rejecting it?

Although the Clinic position - on balance - is that we don't know for sure either way, in statistical terms, there has to be a view one way or another.

 

[peterst6906]

Wouldn't the "Null hypothesis" be "There is no change in the relative performance levels of Cancellara and Wiggins", with there being no evidence to justify rejecting it?

Although the Clinic position - on balance - is that we don't know for sure either way, in statistical terms, there has to be a view one way or another.

My reading of this thread is that the balance of opinion is that there has been a relative change in performance, however there remains a lot of conjecture about what to attribute the change to - marginal gains within physiological possibility, or doping assistance.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

You even see it at sprinters, Cavendish lost weight last season and was not as powerfull as the years before.

I think the loss of weight and loss of power were primarily due to a changed emphasis in training. His aim for 2012 was to win the OG Road Race, and trained accordingly. The key to success was not his sprinting power, it was the ability to be in contention after the multiple ascents of Box Hill, so his training was focused on this, rather than top end sprint speed.

The logic is that if he got dropped before the last ascent of Box Hill he had no chance, whereas if he remained in the group by the top of the last ascent, he would still be in with a chance, even with his reduced sprint speed.

If you look at pictures of Cav from 2008, he was a serious "porker" (maybe less so by 2011) so he had plenty of fat to lose without compromising muscle mass.

 

[Ferminal]

Wouldn't the "Null hypothesis" be "There is no change in the relative performance levels of Cancellara and Wiggins", with there being no evidence to justify rejecting it?

Although the Clinic position - on balance - is that we don't know for sure either way, in statistical terms, there has to be a view one way or another.

I'm sure different points of view would argue for either case. If you look at results, it looks like something has changed. If you ask people they will probably say something changed. Not entirely my concern though.

My point is that if data is inconclusive it can't be used as evidence for either proposition thus is pretty worthless in terms of Clinic debate (I think you said that anyway!).

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

My point is that if data is inconclusive it can't be used as evidence for either proposition thus is pretty worthless in terms of Clinic debate (I think you said that anyway!).

Agreed, so we can all just go with our own views, and no-one can disprove them!!

Joking aside, my interpretation of some a acoggan's posts is that even the extreme climbing performances of the EPO era aren't conclusive proof of doping (apologies to the Good Doctor if this interpretation is incorrect) which suggests that the only real proof is a failed test or a team-mate singing like a canary.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I note that only you could not comprehend the aerobic vs anaerobic discussion whereas many others could. I also thank the many posters on this forum whom have replied to my posts thanking me for explaining things clearly and correctly. Pity you couldn't understand but they were able to.

You are gravely mistaken if you think I didn't understand. Gravely mistaken.

Still waiting on your reasoning for a 30% likelihood of Wiggins doping?

Or are you simply making stuff up again?

At least the people who think Wiggins doped can point to very clear examples of leaps of performance improvement or reasoning for suspicion:

* better TTing results, despite an 18% drop in weight
* extending his IP power W/kg from 4:15 to 7:20
* significantly better climbing
* Geert Leinders
* ex-doper full house of staff

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Agreed, so we can all just go with our own views, and no-one can disprove them!!

Joking aside, my interpretation of some a acoggan's posts is that even the extreme climbing performances of the EPO era aren't conclusive proof of doping (apologies to the Good Doctor if this interpretation is incorrect) which suggests that the only real proof is a failed test or a team-mate singing like a canary.

Indeed, current knowledge of physiology does not rule out that such W/kg performances could never occur in a non-doped rider*, it's just that so far the 6.5+W/kg riders have as far as we can tell turned out to have been dopers (along with quite a few with lower W/kg as well).

IOW, doping is evidence of doping. Power output per se is not
(and misunderstandings in what can and can't be inferred from power data seem to be common).


* all one needs do is examine known non-doped actual tested limits for things such as cyclists' VO2max, % of VO2max sustainable at threshold, and gross mechanical efficiency to see this remains plausible, even if it's right out at the far end of the physiological bell curve.

AFAIK no-one has so far demonstrated such a golden combination for this troika would be impossible although I could very well be wrong in that (and happy to be corrected with appropriate evidence based information).

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Indeed, current knowledge of physiology does not rule out that such W/kg performances could never occur in a non-doped rider*, it's just that so far the 6.5+W/kg riders have as far as we can tell turned out to have been dopers (along with quite a few with lower W/kg as well).

IOW, doping is evidence of doping. Power output per se is not
(and misunderstandings in what can and can't be inferred from power data seem to be common).


* all one needs do is examine known non-doped actual tested limits for things such as cyclists' VO2max, % of VO2max sustainable at threshold, and gross mechanical efficiency to see this remains plausible, even if it's right out at the far end of the physiological bell curve.

AFAIK no-one has so far demonstrated such a golden combination for this troika would be impossible although I could very well be wrong in that (and happy to be corrected with appropriate evidence based information).

Thanks - It's slightly alarming to think that Pantani's 1995 ascent of Alpe D'Huez might be possible naturally, but life is full of surprises!

But coming from a different angle, there was a step-change in climbing speeds across the main contenders from the late 80s to the early 90s, coinciding with the introduction of EPO to the peloton. Would it be reasonable to conclude that such a step-change can't occur naturally across a sizeable(ish) population, even if individual performances can't be labelled as dodgy?

 

[acoggan]

Amy interpretation of some a acoggan's posts is that even the extreme climbing performances of the EPO era aren't conclusive proof of doping (apologies to the Good Doctor if this interpretation is incorrect) which suggests that the only real proof is a failed test or a team-mate singing like a canary.

You got it (although I'd argue that it should take more than just one singing canary).