Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[SundayRider]

I think you might be reading more into my post than was there.

I'm saying that I think clean cycling in the modern era would be muted. No more looks from Armstrong then an unassailable attack, no more Ricco episodes, or Contador for that matter.

Whether what we are seeing now is clean cycling I'm really not sure, but it sure as hell looks more muted than the EPO era.

I said leave Sky out of the equation because it is pretty obvious that some of you guys have lost all sense of perspective over this. I think the hysterical reactions when you think somebody is 'defending Brailsford' says it all. You guys can think what you want about that, but I'll speak as I find, good and bad.

450 watts divided by Wiggins Tour weight (68Kg) 6.61w/Kg - doesn't seem that clean to me.

 

[mastersracer]

I posted a nice set of data just a few pages ago on the w/k, I guess you just dit not see them.

Wiggins 5.98w/k versus 5.97w/k for Armstrong. Go search. At the same time, Evans was waaaaaaay back to that figure. Never mind the numbers, masterbot.

Science is PR.

you were asked about source and what these numbers meant, since they don't correspond to published climbing data. I haven't responded to them because they appear meaningless without context you seem unwilling to provide.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Tour de France, the ranking of the 2000s (W / kg)

1 Lance Armstrong | 2003 | 6.18 W / kg
2 Alberto Contador | 2009 | 6.17 W / kg
3 Lance Armstrong | 2004 | 6.09 W / kg
4 Lance Armstrong | 2005 | 6.09 W / kg
5 Lance Armstrong | 2001 | 6.07 W / kg
6 Bradley Wiggins | 2012 | 5.98 W / kg
7 Lance Armstrong | 2000 | 5.97 W / kg
8 Lance Armstrong | 2002 | 5.97 W / kg
9 Alberto Contador | 2007 | 5.92 W / kg
10 Carlos Sastre | 2008 | 5.85 W / kg
11 Alberto Contador | 2010 | 5.78 W / kg
12 Cadel Evans | 2011 | 5.68 W / kg
13 Floyd Landis | 2006 | 5.67 W / kg

Fearless - What do these figures represent? Average power on climbs throughout the Tour? Average power on the final climb of each day? Maximum power on final climb of the day? etc. etc.

Any power ranking with Lance 2003 at the top makes me suspicious, as he was way down on prior and previous years in terms of performance. On the Alpe D'Huez stage, for example, Mayo won, doing the final climb in 39:06, with Lance at +2:12, around 10% slower than his best ascents. He only made significant time on the Luz Ardiden stage and even then it was less than a minute.

Rumours abounded that the extreme heat that year rendered Motoman's refridgerated pannier's ineffecive so Lance didn't enjoy his usual performance advantage.

 

[Bag of Guts]

....or, if we assume he isn't doping his riders it looks like justifiable anger.

or if he doesn't know many of his riders are doping he would look like a hapless clown. There are many options.

Aha! The Holczer defence! Brailsford already tried that with Leinders.

I'm not sure about anyone else but I wasn't entirely convinced.

 

[SundayRider]

Fearless - What do these figures represent? Average power on climbs throughout the Tour? Average power on the final climb of each day? Maximum power on final climb of the day? etc. etc.

Any power ranking with Lance 2003 at the top makes me suspicious, as he was way down on prior and previous years in terms of performance. On the Alpe D'Huez stage, for example, Mayo won, doing the final climb in 39:06, with Lance at +2:12, around 10% slower than his best ascents. He only made significant time on the Luz Ardiden stage and even then it was less than a minute.

Rumours abounded that the extreme heat that year rendered Motoman's refridgerated pannier's ineffecive so Lance didn't enjoy his usual performance advantage.

450 watts divided by Wiggins Tour weight (68Kg) 6.61w/Kg - doesn't seem that clean to me.

This information comes from Wiggins himself, Rogers and Porte.

 

[zigmeister]

I posted a nice set of data just a few pages ago on the w/k, I guess you just dit not see them.

Wiggins 5.98w/k versus 5.97w/k for Armstrong. Go search. At the same time, Evans was waaaaaaay back to that figure. Never mind the numbers, masterbot.

Science is PR.

Funny how Sky hasn't posted a single thing since last year's Giro on their Training Peaks page.

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/races/team-sky-races.aspx


But Froome has posted PM analysis on his website...ridiculous numbers...

http://www.chris-froome.com/news/7-froome-trainingpeaks-analysis

 

[thehog]

“David Walsh who just had his contract renewed at the Times, will tell all of you that we are clean. David please tell everyone how clean we are…”

 

[del1962]

450 watts divided by Wiggins Tour weight (68Kg) 6.61w/Kg - doesn't seem that clean to me.

This information comes from Wiggins himself, Rogers and Porte.

Where did you get his weight from, I thought his weight was slighty higher?

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

I posted a nice set of data just a few pages ago on the w/k, I guess you just dit not see them.

Wiggins 5.98w/k versus 5.97w/k for Armstrong. Go search. At the same time, Evans was waaaaaaay back to that figure. Never mind the numbers, masterbot.

Science is PR.

Went to that site through the link, thanks. Loads of info there, problem is that as it is in Finnish I can't see where the numbers came from and how they were calculated.

Did you see the table at the bottom with Wiggins data for the climbs in the TDF. Comparing his numbers with a 6.7w/k mythical rider (Pantani numbers?) he would have been 13 minutes down over 4 climbs.

http://www.fillarifoorumi.fi/forum/...usutietoja-(aika-km-h-VAM-W-W-kg-etc-)/page10

 

[SundayRider]

69Kilos according to various websites but I'm 99% sure he said in the book 68Kg.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Where did you get his weight from, I thought his weight was slighty higher?

Wiggins' weight is as elusive as the sasquatch

 

[Franklin]

I think you might be reading more into my post than was there.

I'm saying that I think clean cycling in the modern era would be muted. No more looks from Armstrong then an unassailable attack, no more Ricco episodes, or Contador for that matter.

You think, but you have no facts to build this upon. Would you say Andy Schleck and Cadel Evans (2011, just one TdF ago) weren't having an Epic fight? Or are you telling me that that wasn't clean cycling? If the latter, you suggest that clean cycling started with Sky?

Whether what we are seeing now is clean cycling I'm really not sure, but it sure as hell looks more muted than the EPO era.

It's more muted than the Pre-epo era. And let's go back to the source; Dave claims it's a sign of clean cycling. This is nonsense. I point to 2011 where Contador and Evans kept on hammering to win the TdF. Now of course that could be dirty... but that would bring us to the notion that in 2012 as by magic cycling got clean. You want to go with the "magic" explanation?

I said leave Sky out of the equation because it is pretty obvious that some of you guys have lost all sense of perspective over this. I think the hysterical reactions when you think somebody is 'defending Brailsford' says it all. You guys can think what you want about that, but I'll speak as I find, good and bad.

People pointed out where Dave is talking nonsense or telling things that are based in a paralel fantasy dimension. You answered with:

....or, if we assume he isn't doping his riders it looks like justifiable anger.

Take your pick.

You suggest that justifiable anger is enough reason to just dispense with reality.

 

[SundayRider]

'Do that and he will be at the front in the mountains, which is crucial. When Wiggins won the 2011 National 10-mile title he said his average power output was 476 watts, which because 10s are ridden at slightly above threshold meant his threshold then would have been around 460 watts. This tallies with what Sutton told me in 2009 when he put Wiggins's threshold at between 440 and 460. Wiggins weighed around 70 kilograms going into the 2011 Tour, which gave a watts per kilo of 6.57.'

This is from cycling weekly - not far off the mythical 6.7

 

[blackcat]

450 watts divided by Wiggins Tour weight (68Kg) 6.61w/Kg - doesn't seem that clean to me.

This information comes from Wiggins himself, Rogers and Porte.

wrong terminology.

it is

in Clinic speak



NOT
________________NORMAL

and then you may be inducted into the prestigious Clinic 12

 

[the sceptic]

'Do that and he will be at the front in the mountains, which is crucial. When Wiggins won the 2011 National 10-mile title he said his average power output was 476 watts, which because 10s are ridden at slightly above threshold meant his threshold then would have been around 460 watts. This tallies with what Sutton told me in 2009 when he put Wiggins's threshold at between 440 and 460. Wiggins weighed around 70 kilograms going into the 2011 Tour, which gave a watts per kilo of 6.57.'

This is from cycling weekly - not far off the mythical 6.7

He did 480 watts at tour and olympics ITT according to one analysis.

 

[SundayRider]

'The tests he'd done suggested he could. "In a ten-mile time trial I averaged 482 watts for 18 minutes, and if I did a 30-minute test on a climb I'd be averaging 475 watts. At 71, 72kg that gives me a chance. It's a level playing field now, or so they keep telling us, and I believe that, so why not? I'm in the bike race, we've all got two arms and two legs, so why not? If I blow up one day and lose 20 minutes, so what?"

Wiggins own words.
My words - Not Normal.

 

[mastersracer]

I posted a nice set of data just a few pages ago on the w/k, I guess you just dit not see them.

Wiggins 5.98w/k versus 5.97w/k for Armstrong. Go search. At the same time, Evans was waaaaaaay back to that figure. Never mind the numbers, masterbot.

Science is PR.

hilarious: your source for this data is the same one who calculated 5.9 watts/kg for Froome you dismissed a few posts ago. Oops. Average power for the entire Tour climbs or whatever isn't very revealing.

 

[Gloin22]

Btw, I remeber Hogg saying he had some clear info about Sky doping few months ago and the info was going to go out into the open soon afterwards.

Well, did it ? :lol: ....

 

[lavieclaire]

You think, but you have no facts to build this upon. Would you say Andy Schleck and Cadel Evans (2011, just one TdF ago) weren't having an Epic fight? Or are you telling me that that wasn't clean cycling? If the latter, you suggest that clean cycling started with Sky?

I'm afraid you are trying to pick a fight with the wrong guy. 'leave Sky out of the equation' means I am not commenting at all on Sky, however much you try and pretend that I am. I don't know who is or isn't doping, but I'm pretty certain if there is any going on it is marginal. (yes, I chose that word deliberately, no pun intended)

It's more muted than the Pre-epo era. And let's go back to the source; Dave claims it's a sign of clean cycling. This is nonsense. I point to 2011 where Contador and Evans kept on hammering to win the TdF. Now of course that could be dirty... but that would bring us to the notion that in 2012 as by magic cycling got clean. You want to go with the "magic" explanation?

I'm sorry, no offence, but this just reads like the ramblings of a maniac

People pointed out where Dave is talking nonsense or telling things that are based in a paralel fantasy dimension. You answered with:

You suggest that justifiable anger is enough reason to just dispense with reality.

You are taking my quote out of context. I'm pointing out that if Brailsford IS telling the truth then his demeanour reflects anger and that anger would be justified.

That is not the same as saying Brailsford IS telling the truth.

 

[Franklin]

I'm afraid you are trying to pick a fight with the wrong guy. 'leave Sky out of the equation' means I am not commenting at all on Sky, however much you try and pretend that I am. I don't know who is or isn't doping, but I'm pretty certain if there is any going on it is marginal. (yes, I chose that word deliberately, no pun intended)

Even if we disregard that this is the Sky thread, you commented on Dave Brailsford. Do you want me to separate him from Sky?

I'm sorry, no offence, but this just reads like the ramblings of a maniac

I know, I'm a mean guy for pointing out facts. Good for you to withdraw when confronted with them.

Because I'm glad you realize that 2011 was a very combatative TdF... which implies in your splendid logic it was dirty

You are taking my quote out of context. I'm pointing out that if Brailsford IS telling the truth then his demeanour reflects anger and that anger would be justified.

That is not the same as saying Brailsford IS telling the truth.

You are forgetting a minor, ever so minor point.

It is factually impossible that he is telling the truth.

 

[SundayRider]

hilarious: your source for this data is the same one who calculated 5.9 watts/kg for Froome you dismissed a few posts ago. Oops. Average power for the entire Tour climbs or whatever isn't very revealing.

Just keep ignoring Wiggins own words.

 

[lavieclaire]

Even if we disregard that this is the Sky thread, you commented on Dave Brailsford. Do you want me to separate him from Sky?



I know, I'm a mean guy for pointing out facts. Good for you to withdraw when confronted with them.

Because I'm glad you realize that 2011 was a very combatative TdF... which implies in your splendid logic it was dirty



You are forgetting a minor, ever so minor point.

It is factually impossible that he is telling the truth.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on what I meant

 

[mattghg]

Wiggins' weight

Wiggins' weight is as elusive as the sasquatch

Tim Kerrison:

Brad’s racing at about 71kgs at the Tour

Source: http://www.biscuittinmedia.com/tim-kerrison-training-wiggins/

 

[SundayRider]

Tim Kerrison:



Source: http://www.biscuittinmedia.com/tim-kerrison-training-wiggins/

Skys website puts it at 69Kg, just another similarity to Armstrong I guess...

 

[mattghg]

BTW, I'm glad I actually read the report on what Brailsford said, rather than just rely on how it was reported in this thread.

All the comparisons to Bruyneel and Lance ... did they make a habit of saying things like

The Leinders question is legitimate and when we do things there are legitimate questions that should be asked.

Of course it was a mistake. Absolutely.

I think it was a legitimate question to ask, there's no harm in asking a question ... I'm not defending Matt's reaction

I think Matt and everyone else realises that 'no comment' in this day and age is a bit of a challenge

?