Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[SundayRider]

Interesting parallel, but just another variant on the theme of "To be successful at elite sport you've probably got to dope". No-one ever explains that their current levels of success are due to doping, so alternative theories will always emerge. The trick is to know the genuine theories from the "cover stories" and your link to Balco Baseball doesn't get us any further down this road re Wiggo.

Are we agreed that Wiggo's opposition was weak last year and the courses - in particularly the Tour - were more suited to him than his rivals? If it helps, I'll reconcede that these points on their own don't prove that he was clean last year.

Good point, although last year even in the course had been a bit different, shorter TTs and different climbs etc, I still think he would have won, margin of victory might have been a bit less.

 

[martinvickers]

Interesting parallel, but just another variant on the theme of "To be successful at elite sport you've probably got to dope". No-one ever explains that their current levels of success are due to doping, so alternative theories will always emerge. The trick is to know the genuine theories from the "cover stories" and your link to Balco Baseball doesn't get us any further down this road re Wiggo.

Are we agreed that Wiggo's opposition was weak last year and the courses - in particularly the Tour - were more suited to him than his rivals? If it helps, I'll reconcede that these points on their own don't prove that he was clean last year.

I just don't see the usefulness of the point.

All improvements in all sports will be subject to accusations of doping. That's modern life.

Some will be clean; they will will deny they are doping and try to give alternative explanations. Or they will refuse to discuss it.

Some will be dirty; they will will deny they are doping and try to give alternative explanations. Or they will refuse to discuss it.

In other words, no difference whatsover - a denial and alternative explanation proves nothing either way.

So we end up back at - improvement must by definition equal doping, regardless of denial, regardless of attempted explanation, regardless of silence. An article of faith.

It's an understandable belief, but I don't see how it usefully advances the discussion in any way. Unless the intention is just a more general smear by (tenuous) association...

 

[SundayRider]

Wouldn't actually surprise me if Wiggins, goes for the Tour regardless of how the Giro goes. If he has an average/poor Giro then he will go to the Tour to 'make up for it' and if he wins the Giro 'chance for a historic double'.

 

[thehog]

Sky use advanced training techniques which are ahead of its time so they can go back in time and look like Banesto/USPS

****sou! WTF?

 

[JimmyFingers]

It was one stage. One stage.

What else has he done recently to tip off your radar?

No transformation: his palmares is solid, with decent finishes in Grand Tours and stage wins to his name.

As Ferminal pointed out, more concern should come from who he used to ride for, rather than the usual downplaying of a rider's career is order to manufacture a jump in performance, seen most recently with Kiryenka, until Libertine actually stepped in and corrected it.

 

[thehog]

No transformation: his palmares is solid, with decent finishes in Grand Tours and stage wins to his name.

As Ferminal pointed out, more concern should come from who he used to ride for, rather than the usual downplaying of a rider's career is order to manufacture a jump in performance, seen most recently with Kiryenka, until Libertine actually stepped in and corrected it.

All good and well.

But.

Have you noticed something.....

All these doms are winning. They're all from the same team...

How does that work?

They just win anything they want.

(Queue JimmyFingers quote from Vaughters on recruitment).

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I'd rather wait till the 2013 Giro, and see what happens there.

The 2013 Giro won't tell you much about the opposition or the course for Wiggo in 2012!

All the Giro will tell you (that's you personally, not the collective "you") is how Wiggo's 2012 doping compares to his 2013 doping. You've already decided he was doping last year, so let's consider 3 broad scenarios:

1 - Wiggo does badly: Your conclusion = doping in 2012

2 - Wiggo does even better relatively than in the 2012 Tour: Your conclusion = even better doping this year

3 - Wiggo does well, but not as well as in 2012: Your conclusion = Wiggo has toned it down a bit this year, or the opposition have stepped up their doping.

Don't pretend that you'll be changing your 2012 conclusions about Wiggo based on race performances this year!

 

[Benotti69]

How do Sky get most of their team up to the magical clean numbers that only a select few could make before EPO?

I donk think so. It is performance enhancement and nothing else.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Good point, although last year even in the course had been a bit different, shorter TTs and different climbs etc, I still think he would have won, margin of victory might have been a bit less.

It would have taken a serious course redesign to stop Wiggo winning last year, if the opposition had remained the same. One with no TTs might have persuaded Nibs to chance his arm, which he probably wasn't motivated to do given the amount of TTs involved. Chancing his arm might have lost him 3rd place but was never going to dislodge Wiggo from 1st place.

I know he had it coming, but it was a shame that Berto was "hors de combat" in terms of giving Wiggo a run for his money.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

It was one stage. One stage.

What else has he done recently to tip off your radar?

One stage is enough, considering just how ridiculously strong he was. He had to come back from a horror crash, so I'm not sure what he was supposed to show earlier on.

No transformation: his palmares is solid, with decent finishes in Grand Tours and stage wins to his name.

As Ferminal pointed out, more concern should come from who he used to ride for, rather than the usual downplaying of a rider's career is order to manufacture a jump in performance, seen most recently with Kiryenka, until Libertine actually stepped in and corrected it.

Nothing "manufactured" about this jump in performance, though.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

<speculation that you know what I think>

You're wrong.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Nothing "manufactured" about this jump in performance, though.

True, because there isn't one

 

[martinvickers]

One stage is enough, considering just how ridiculously strong he was. He had to come back from a horror crash, so I'm not sure what he was supposed to show earlier on.

One stage is not close to enough to diagnose a 'transformation'. And if his injury means you don't have the data to diagnose a 'transformation', then tough, you don't have the data, no matter how quickly you want to jump to the conclusion.

 

[martinvickers]

You're wrong.

Yeah, you're open minded on whether Wiggins doped in 2012. Sure you are.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

One stage is not close to enough to diagnose a 'transformation'. And if his injury means you don't have the data to diagnose a 'transformation', then tough, you don't have the data, no matter how quickly you want to jump to the conclusion.

pre-Sky data, that is

True, because there isn't one

36 and a half minutes at 6.01 to 6.06 W/kg - while he was at the front pretty mcuh the entire time.

That doesn't exactly compare to his previous best results.

 

[JimmyFingers]

36 and a half minutes at 6.01 to 6.06 W/kg - while he was at the front pretty mcuh the entire time.

That doesn't exactly compare to his previous best results.

Top 10 in a Grand Tour is a lot more impressive than a stage win in the Giro del Trentino.

As I said, downplay the palmares to manufacture a leap in performance

 

[Dazed and Confused]

36 and a half minutes at 6.01 to 6.06 W/kg - while he was at the front pretty mcuh the entire time.

snipped and hacked..

Still that may not be good enough to make the TdF team....

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

You're wrong.

OK. I'll take your word on that, but it would be interesting if could clarify your conclusions in response to the three scenarios I set out. I'm just curious. It won't affecting anything "real".

 

[Ripper]

Don't pretend that you'll be changing your 2012 conclusions about Wiggo based on race performances this year!

Well, no, I likely won't change my opinion.

But I doubt I'll see a more human performance.

 

[Benotti69]

to remind those that think Sky have discovered unicorns,

“Look at the story. US Postal take del Moral who was at ONCE. Why do you take these doctors? And why do you take them from teams that have done rubbish things? It’s always the same story. Festina was Festina because they took Rijkaert from PDM, Postal was Postal because they took Del Moral. Why would Sky take Leinders? Where did he work before? Why didn’t they go for the doctor at FDJ? Why did they even take a doctor at all? Is there a need for a doctor in the team at all? Leinders was not the model of integrity."

Antoine Vayer's thoughts on Sky and their reason to hire a dodgy doctor.

I have not seen where the so called change to cleanER cycling has happened in the sport and how Sky are beating known doping teams, with their doping doctors.

How can skinny riders maintain and increase their power? Not on pane e acqua!

How can Sky do that? How can they do that without the collusion of UCI and dope?

 

[Ripper]

I don't know. Guys are accelerating like crazy, he's accelerating too, but just a little and yet, always bringing back the attack repeatedly. That's an **ENORMOUS** power advantage.

Other riders can't do it. It's not that they won't it's that they can't. What Wiggo did was not normal.

We're supposed to believe it was just lying in wait for the right marginal gains and such. That wasn't marginal gains.

On top of all of that, only half the Giro squad is there.

And he is not looking too under pressure.

I think we will see an even bigger application of pressure by the W during the Giro.

 

[Ripper]

Putting aside the issue of whether weak fields and favourable courses were the main reasons for Wiggo's dominance, it is very hard to argue that the fields he faced weren't weak or that the amount of TTs in the Tour route didn't work to his advantage.

In the Tour, there was a spectacular absence of credible GT contenders. Evans was so much off the pace that he was beaten by his team mate, Valverde never mounted a challenge (either due to early time losses after a crash or to save himself for the Vuelta) and Nibali was stuffed by the amount of TT miles. Andy S and Berto were absent, and the other credible GT contenders were all crocked from the Giro.

So, whilst these factors may be minor relative to doping, there's not much mileage in trying to claim that the opposition was strong and the course didn't favour Wiggo.

(The 1 week races he won all followed the same template: mark rivals in the road stages and gain a small advantage in the TT.)

But the "weak" opposition argument does not work for all his SR wins.

Also, the advantage was not always small from the TT. He seems to have transformed himself to a world destroyer.

Must just be faith and training harder.

 

[SundayRider]

Well, no, I likely won't change my opinion.

But I doubt I'll see a more human performance.

He's not going to go back to his 2007 level is he

 

[Dear Wiggo]

OK. I'll take your word on that, but it would be interesting if could clarify your conclusions in response to the three scenarios I set out. I'm just curious. It won't affecting anything "real".

In terms of comparing Wiggins from one year to the next, I derive much more value in comparing 2006 Wiggins to 2009 Wiggins to 2012 Wiggins.

Comparing 2012 Wiggins to 2013 Wiggins is, for me, a pointless exercise to date. Wiggins 2013 has already taken a large step back. His CQ points to this time of year in 2012 were 507 vs 129 this year. I am guessing focusing on starting his "season" later and taking it further into the year, with no Olympic games to interrupt things or be a focus.

With the increase in race performances of the Sky domestiques, it would seem things are different to last year, but also very much the same.

I agree that the competition looked weak and the course looked favourable. My MLB parallel does not refute the logic or validity of these Sky faithfuls' arguments. It simply seeks to establish the possibility that the argument is nothing new. If the baseball players are smacking it out of the park more often, the parks look smaller, and the baseballs look doped.

There's a lot of smoke, and the arguments being presented for it do not convince me that there's no fire.

Let me put it to you, seeing as I am on one side of the fence and you are perched precariously on it: if Wiggins podiumed in 2 or more GTs this year, would you say that is normal?

 

[Parrulo]

to remind those that think Sky have discovered unicorns,



Antoine Vayer's thoughts on Sky and their reason to hire a dodgy doctor.

I have not seen where the so called change to cleanER cycling has happened in the sport and how Sky are beating known doping teams, with their doping doctors.

How can skinny riders maintain and increase their power? Not on pane e acqua!

How can Sky do that? How can they do that without the collusion of UCI and dope?

As Ryo would say: "another delusional idiot"

We should send him an invite to join the club of the sad jealous conspiracy theorists people know as "the clinic"