Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[JimmyFingers]

Just wondering what data exactly 'explains' a GT performance

 

[acoggan]

I appreciate that - but the data does not (and as far as I can see never) explain a GT performance.

Straw man: I didn't post it to address that issue.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Straw man: I didn't post it to address that issue.

I never said you did.

Just wondering what data exactly 'explains' a GT performance

This is the point.
I don't believe there is any. In fact I have often requested just that and have never received an answer.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I appreciate that - but the data does not (and as far as I can see never) explain a GT performance. So using that data is rather pointless.

The data available on Wiggo and Doctor Coggan's analysis, if valid(*) does have a point in that it shows that Wiggo's transformation in GT terms is down to factors other than his power output.

Thus, those looking to nail Wiggo need to look to nefarious explanations other than traditional blood-doping, where step-changes in power output appeared to my untutored eye to be rather obvious. eg Riis, Lance, Basso, Ricco, Schumacher, Kohl etc.

(*) I'm not suggesting it's not, Doc. Just highlighting that there is uncertainty.

 

[acoggan]

The data available on Wiggo and Doctor Coggan's analysis, if valid(*) does have a point in that it shows that Wiggo's transformation in GT terms is down to factors other than his power output.

...over a duration of up to ~1 h.

Thus, those looking to nail Wiggo need to look to nefarious explanations other than traditional blood-doping,

Agreed (or he is using EPO or transfusions, but only getting a marginal benefit).

(*) I'm not suggesting it's not, Doc. Just highlighting that there is uncertainty.

Understood (indeed, I am one of the first to always remind people to never lose sight of their assumptions).

 

[DirtyWorks]

Agreed (or he is using EPO or transfusions, but only getting a marginal benefit).

It's not just oxygen vector doping any more. It seems to me it's some oxygen vector doping combined with a large number of other drugs along with the UCI protecting whatever testing Wiggo gets.

As other doping doctors have said, it's finding the doping combination that works best for that athlete. In this sense, even you can agree that every body is different. So, AICAR, or a number of peptides used to lose weight but not power, and some peptides to inspire recovery, and Test inspiring peptides, and non-positive Test dosage, or some other combination that includes some oxygen vector doping gives him the best W/Kg.

 

[BroDeal]

Big assumption that Wiggins was riding clean at the height of the EPO era. Big assumption.

A lot of these guys will turn out like Armstrong, people who were doping from the earliest age possible and their previous test results and performances don't mean jack.

 

[SundayRider]

Big assumption that Wiggins was riding clean at the height of the EPO era. Big assumption.

A lot of these guys will turn out like Armstrong, people who were doping from the earliest age possible and their previous test results and performances don't mean jack.

If BW was doping pre 2009 he sure as hell wasn't doing much with it on the road.

 

[acoggan]

Big assumption that Wiggins was riding clean at the height of the EPO era. Big assumption.

A lot of these guys will turn out like Armstrong, people who were doping from the earliest age possible and their previous test results and performances don't mean jack.

Let me take this opportunity to remind everyone what I said when I posted that plot of Wiggins' data last August (http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=972830&postcount=184):

". . . taking the numbers at face value you can't really make the case that he has suddenly increased his sustainable power (which, of course, doesn't necessarily mean he isn't doping now and/or that he wasn't doping years ago)."

(Note: emphasis added.)

 

[SundayRider]

Let me take this opportunity to remind everyone what I said when I posted that plot of Wiggins' data last August (http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=972830&postcount=184):

". . . taking the numbers at face value you can't really make the case that he has suddenly increased his sustainable power (which, of course, doesn't necessarily mean he isn't doping now and/or that he wasn't doping years ago)."

(Note: emphasis added.)

His weight has gone down A LOT though - at least according to the man himself and he has kept all of that power at least, maybe even increased it.

 

[BroDeal]

If BW was doping pre 2009 he sure as hell wasn't doing much with it on the road.

Maybe that's because he is not very good. He went from a being big fish in a small pond to being a small fish in a big pond. The road is where the talent is because that is where the money is. Most riders dial back their doping and suddenly he is the one eyed king in the land of the blind.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

So let me get this straight: I'm the one who bothered to dig up Wiggins' data, and I'm the one who first pointed out the limitations of the dataset (i.e., that it was 1) was based on self-reports, and 2) had important gaps in the timeline), and I'm still the only one who has offered any quantitative insight/analysis into the question of whether or not Wiggins' power in 2012 was greater than in previous years...and you accuse me of "lazy science"?!?

Here's a suggestion: instead of making yourself look foolish by posting nonsense such as the above, why don't you do a little digging around yourself, and see if there are any contradictory data out there...or are you too lazy?



Bigger gear, yes, more power, not necessarily.

Sorry mister Coggan, I thought you had made a scientific critical power model on Wiggins. I misread. Lazy reading on my part, I apoligize for that.

Nevertheless, I see some people linking to your critical power model as in that would be prove Sky are normal, while a lot of cynics say Sky are not normal. Would you agree you have not given them scientific prove to even link to your critical power model to say we cynics are wrong on Sky?

On the bigger gear/more power part, could you explain in normal English what you mean with that? I am okay with physics but no Einstein with regards to formulas.

Cheers.

 

[richtea]

^ there is a cheap joke there if someone fancies it.

 

[martinvickers]

Sorry mister Coggan, I thought you had made a scientific critical power model on Wiggins. I misread. Lazy reading on my part, I apoligize for that.

Nevertheless, I see some people linking to your critical power model as in that would be prove Sky are normal, while a lot of cynics say Sky are not normal. Would you agree you have not given them scientific prove to even link to your critical power model to say we cynics are wrong on Sky?

On the bigger gear/more power part, could you explain in normal English what you mean with that? I am okay with physics but no Einstein with regards to formulas.

Cheers.

Fearless, could you help me with one thing....

My understanding was the point of the data as interpreted by acroggan was NOT that it ever proved cleanliness, but that it DIDN'T prove dirtiness. Is that basically the argument he's making?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Care to put a % on the likelihood that Wiggins is doping, acoggan?

Krebs Cycle has said 30%. Mind you in his non-millenial studiousness he seems incapable of providing a rationale for that number.

How about it?

 

[martinvickers]

Care to put a % on the likelihood that Wiggins is doping, acoggan?

Krebs Cycle has said 30%. Mind you in his non-millenial studiousness he seems incapable of providing a rationale for that number.

How about it?

Forgive me, wiggo, but how can one sensibly describe in terms of mathematical probability a hunch? It's a meaningless question, surely, and will only give meaningless answers. And yes, that includes if Krebs gave one....

 

[Ferminal]

The data available on Wiggo and Doctor Coggan's analysis, if valid(*) does have a point in that it shows that Wiggo's transformation in GT terms is down to factors other than his power output.

It's more about 2009-2012 Wiggins than anything else.

 

[acoggan]

Care to put a % on the likelihood that Wiggins is doping, acoggan?

I don't waste my time with idle speculation.

 

[M Sport]

??

It hasn't been proven incorrect. That is, just because Armstrong has now confessed to doping doesn't necessarily mean that his efficiency didn't improve over time.

But again, that's just me being logical (i.e., A being true only means that B is false if they are mutually exclusive, which isn't true in this case).

Yes it was. The method, the equipment, the conclusions, the blatant error in calculating the 1993 Delta efficiency mispresenting it lower by 2% and then the comical claim that he 'lost' all the other other data for the subsequent tests over the next 6 years. That study was pulled apart by at least five scientists that I know of.

Do I need to dig all that information up for you? Surely you would know all that?

 

[acoggan]

Yes it was. The method, the equipment, the conclusions, the blatant error in calculating the 1993 Delta efficiency mispresenting it lower by 2% and then the comical claim that he 'lost' all the other other data for the subsequent tests over the next 6 years. That study was pulled apart by at least five scientists that I know of.

Do I need to dig all that information up for you? Surely you would know all that?

By all means, be my guest. I'll shoot down any criticism that you come up with just as I have done before, and you'll end up with your pants down around your ankles just like the Science of Sports guys, etc.

(Moral of the story: don't bring a knife to a gun fight. )

 

[sittingbison]

Can we please take the discussion of [Lance, Coyle, efficiency, systematic doping and fallacious study] to the various appropriate threads other than Sky

cheers
bison

 

[Semper Fidelis]

"5. Alessandro Ballan, Matti Breschel, Alberto Contador, Cyril Gautier, Inaki Isasi, Sergei Ivanov, Vladimir Karpets, Alexandr Kolobnev, Karsten Kroon, Steve Morabito, Benjamin Noval, Jose Rojas, Nicki Sörensen, Alexander Vinokourov, Bradley Wiggins"

enough said.

all in all cool story bro.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Clearly not enough said, but if you're making reference to the UCI's 'risk index' number one it's from the UCI, number 2 the same index puts Armstrong at 4 and number 3 this is incredibly old news. And discussed already

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Clearly not enough said, but if you're making reference to the UCI's 'risk index' number one it's from the UCI, number 2 the same index puts Armstrong at 4 and number 3 this is incredibly old news. And discussed already

http://www.slipstreamsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/brad-wiggins-blood-profile-3.pdf

Still, those spikes in Giro and Tour are a bit strange Jimmy.

 

[The Hitch]

So what that Armstrong got a 4

Armstrong was out of gc contention a week in and with the exception of 1 stage (where he was also poor), spent the entire rest of the tour deliberately losing time.

It was probably the closest Armstrong has come to clean in his entire 20 year cycling career.

I dont see how the fact that he has a 4 (which according to the guide, is a suspicious number anyway) in any way excuses wiggin's even more suspicious number.