Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[andy1234]

I'm too busy watching you making an idiot of yourself!

Thought as much. Now jog on....

 

[Eshnar]

stop that already.
Hog, if you don't have anything to say, be quiet.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Yes, if the lack of actual 6.7w/kg performances is correct, either the Ferrari w/kg calculation was performed over a much shorter duration, or it was BS.
However calculating power from stages, using anything other than a power meter, isn't gong to be entirely accurate.
Also, the way the climbs are tackled has serious implications on the average power calculations. Is it stop start attacking?, sat behind a team mate until a few kms to go? etc....

See why simplifying the points you oppose is dangerous? Your point crumbled before your eyes as there has been shown data that refutes your point, and you are left to try to piece together some explanation using the worst example you can find that still does not prove your initial assertion that Wiggins, riding at his current w/kg would not have podiumed. Hey, isn't that a similar tactic you are accusing your opposition of undertaking? Yea, it is.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Yes, if the lack of actual 6.7w/kg performances is correct, either the Ferrari w/kg calculation was performed over a much shorter duration, or it was BS.
However calculating power from stages, using anything other than a power meter, isn't gong to be entirely accurate.
Also, the way the climbs are tackled has serious implications on the average power calculations. Is it stop start attacking?, sat behind a team mate until a few kms to go? etc....

Again, you are assuming factual information you have no data or proof of to explain a point that is not backed up by the data you oppose. Turnabout is fair play, right?

 

[andy1234]

See why simplifying the points you oppose is dangerous? Your point crumbled before your eyes as there has been shown data that refutes your point, and you are left to try to piece together some explanation using the worst example you can find that still does not prove your initial assertion that Wiggins, riding at his current w/kg would not have podiumed. Hey, isn't that a similar tactic you are accusing your opposition of undertaking? Yea, it is.

You might just be right, so here goes.

I am actually surprised to see the power data for Armstrong etc, given how he dominated those years. The magic 6.7w/kg appear to be B0ll0cks.
It appears, given the power calculations used, that riders during the EPO generation,were in fact riding at completely believable levels?
Who would have guessed?
So to recap, I was wrong. Armstrong, Ulrich, etc, were riding at not much over the 6w/kg threshold on final climbs, which is a believable output.and frankly I'm surprised Wiggins wasn't able to compete.

Andy.

 

[SundayRider]

Interesting comparison on that page.
Wiggins 2012 vs a 6.7 w\kg threshold rider.
Although based on those Top x numbers posted, it would be appear no one has actually been calculated at the 6.7 w/kg figures on a final climb.

Tour de France 2012

"Mr. 6.70 W / kg" vs. Bradley Wiggins

Stage 7, La Planche des Belles Filles (5.9 km, 8.53%, 503 m)

"Mr. 6.70 W / kg" 15 min 47 sec, 22.43 Kph, VAM 1911 m / h, 6.70 W / kg
Bradley Wiggins: 16 min 19 sec, 21.70 Kph, VAM 1850 m / h, 6.48 W / kg

Time difference: 0 min 32 sec


Stage 11, La Toussuire (18.0 km, 6.08%, 1095 m)

"Mr. 6.70 W / kg" 37 min 35 sec, 28.74 Kph, VAM 1748 m / h, 6.70 W / kg
Bradley Wiggins: 44 min 58 sec, 24.02 Kph, VAM 1461 m / h, 5.60 W / kg

Time difference: 7 min 23 sec


Stage 16, the Col de Peyresourde (9.5 km, 6.92%, 657 m)

"Mr. 6.70 W / kg" 21 min 51 sec, 26.09 Kph, VAM 1803 m / h, 6.70 W / kg
Bradley Wiggins: 24 min 48 sec, 23.30 Kph, VAM 1611 m / h, 5.99 W / kg

Time difference: 2 min 57 sec


Stage 17, the Col de Peyresourde (9.7 km, 7.32%, 710 m)

"Mr. 6.70 W / kg" 23 min 16 sec, 25.01 Kph, VAM 1820 m / h, 6.70 W / kg
Bradley Wiggins: 26 min 38 sec, 21.85 Kph, VAM 1599 m / h, 5.85 W / kg

Time difference: 3 min 22 sec

Wiggins was losing far more time than this 'back in the day'. Anyone calculate his power on the climbs in 09?

 

[will10]

Yes, if the lack of actual 6.7w/kg performances is correct, either the Ferrari w/kg calculation was performed over a much shorter duration, or it was BS.
However calculating power from stages, using anything other than a power meter, isn't gong to be entirely accurate.
Also, the way the climbs are tackled has serious implications on the average power calculations. Is it stop start attacking?, sat behind a team mate until a few kms to go? etc....

Valid point. That's why it's useful to look at a wide range of data rather than one climb. Broad strokes. If you do that for the major climbs in GTs in the last 7-8 years you will see the top GC guys hovering around 5.9 - 6.0 w/kg for 30-50 min efforts on the crucial stages. Produce 6.0w/kg on the days that matter in 2006-2011 and you are in the ballpark for a podium. Same in 2012 and same (so far) in 2013. Cycling has slowed down since the 1990s. It has not slowed down since mid-2000s, when we know a lot of the top guys were well prepared. No reason to think that the top guys in 2013 are any less prepared than those in 2006, because they're going just as quick.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You might just be right, so here goes.

I am actually surprised to see the power data for Armstrong etc, given how he dominated those years. The magic 6.7w/kg appear to be B0ll0cks.
It appears, given the power calculations used, that riders during the EPO generation,were in fact riding at completely believable levels?
Who would have guessed?
So to recap, I was wrong. Armstrong, Ulrich, etc, were riding at not much over the 6w/kg threshold on final climbs, which is a believable output.and frankly I'm surprised Wiggins wasn't able to compete.

Andy.

The explanation for this is that he wasn't riding. The assertion was that he wouldn't have been able to podium. The data suggests (does not prove) that your assertion that he would not have been competitive and possibly capable of podiuming in a tour he never rode is based on opinion mostly. Neither side can actually prove their assertion, but the data supports the opposing view more than it supports your's. That being the case, and now knowing what we do about that era, to suggest that it is completely farcical to be suspicious of Wiggins and others riding today seems to be overly critical of those points.

You can be a pretty fair guy sometimes, so all I wanted to point out is that in this instance, you are dismissing things out-right that might deserve some more thorough examination on your part.

I realize that my post has gone outside of the template I am supposed to use if I question Wiggins, but I have some extra time today.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

You might just be right, so here goes.

I am actually surprised to see the power data for Armstrong etc, given how he dominated those years. The magic 6.7w/kg appear to be B0ll0cks.
It appears, given the power calculations used, that riders during the EPO generation,were in fact riding at completely believable levels?
Who would have guessed?
So to recap, I was wrong. Armstrong, Ulrich, etc, were riding at not much over the 6w/kg threshold on final climbs, which is a believable output.and frankly I'm surprised Wiggins wasn't able to compete.

Andy.

There's a big difference between the performance levels pre and post Festina, which coincides roughly with the introduction of the EPO test in 2000. (Riders were presumably conservative in the 1999 Tour, if not the 1999 Giro.)

The top guys from '93 to '98 were a lot faster than the top guys in the Lance era, other than the odd performance by Lance himself. For example, Ullrich was ~38 minutes for Alpe D'Huez in '97, but was 2 minutes down on this by 2001 after getting "The Look".

Lance had the ability - by whatever means, be it extra bloodbags or passes from the UCI to use EPO - to pull out one Mig/Pantani-style performance each Tour, rendering him invincible against the rest. The top end of the rest are still a bit faster than nowadays, e.g. Mayo, Landis and Sastre all did sub 40 minute ascents of Alpe D'Huez in 2003-2008, which is not a performance level seen for a few years.

My view is that people with a desire to knock Lance built up his performances as evidence that he was the "worst" doper of all time. Performance levels don't really support this assertion. His advantage was relative, in the era of EPO testing, which whilst fallible, is something that still needs to be dealt with as a rider. The EPO abuses pre EPO testing were quite something!

This misrepresentation actually distorts the progression of performance levels, giving the poor riders of the post-Lance per Passport era an excuse for underperformance which isn't really justified in isolation (in my view). Though I guess if you're 3% off the pace up hill, there must be a strong motivation to cruise home in the autobus, even though on face value, you're still relatively competitive with the top guys.

 

[andy1234]

The explanation for this is that he wasn't riding. The assertion was that he wouldn't have been able to podium. The data suggests (does not prove) that assertion is not backed up by the data and that he might have been competitive and possibly capable of podiuming in a tour he never rode. Neither side can actually prove their assertion, but the data supports the view more than it supports your's. That being the case, and now knowing what we do about that era, to suggest that it is completely farcical to be suspicious of Wiggins and others riding today seems to be overly critical of those points.

You can be a pretty fair guy sometimes, so all I wanted to point out is that in this instance, you are dismissing things out-right that might deserve some more thorough examination on your part.

I realize that my post has gone outside of the template I am supposed to use if I question Wiggins, but I have some extra time today.

Fair enough.
The data presented does indeed show that a rider averaging 6.0w/kg over the final climbs of a tour, would have been in the running for a podium finish, even in the Armstrong years. My statement to the contrary was simply wrong.

However, I would be interested in the anomalies to that average. i.e. how many times were stages finished with efforts considerably above that range?
Ie 5.9w/kg for 90% of the climb, followed by 6.5w/kg or above for the remaining 10%. The average would remain the similar, but the riders capable of following that change of pace would be considerably different.

A threshold capacity of 6.0w/kg in a perfectly judged effort, is a different animal than an average of 6.0w/kg with spikes of 6.7w/kg. The final figures appear the same though.
A clean rider could possibly compete in the former conditions, but not he latter.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Fair enough.
The data presented does indeed show that a rider averaging 6.0w/kg over the final climbs of a tour, would have been in the running for a podium finish, even in the Armstrong years. My statement to the contrary was simply wrong.

However, I would be interested in the anomalies to that average. i.e. how many times were stages finished with efforts considerably above that range?
Ie 5.9w/kg for 90% of the climb, followed by 6.5w/kg or above for the remaining 10%. The average would remain the similar, but the riders capable of following that change of pace would be considerably different.

A threshold capacity of 6.0w/kg in a perfectly judged effort, is a different animal than an average of 6.0w/kg with spikes of 6.7w/kg. The final figures appear the same though.
A clean rider could possibly compete in the former conditions, but not he latter.

All fair points, and I will freely admit that I don't think (even though the numbers do not necessarily help me) that Wiggins would have podiumed in any of Armstrong's Tours. I don't however find that to be conclusive proof he is clean as I think he would have been in the top 10. I want Wiggins to be clean, but I am very suspicious of cycling in general now, and his dominance last year did not make me want to jump on the "we finally have a clean Tour champion" bandwagon.

 

[Stingray34]

Valid point. That's why it's useful to look at a wide range of data rather than one climb. Broad strokes. If you do that for the major climbs in GTs in the last 7-8 years you will see the top GC guys hovering around 5.9 - 6.0 w/kg for 30-50 min efforts on the crucial stages. Produce 6.0w/kg on the days that matter in 2006-2011 and you are in the ballpark for a podium. Same in 2012 and same (so far) in 2013. Cycling has slowed down since the 1990s. It has not slowed down since mid-2000s, when we know a lot of the top guys were well prepared. No reason to think that the top guys in 2013 are any less prepared than those in 2006, because they're going just as quick.

Incredibly, the bikes a lot of those guys rode in the 90s were Colombus TSX, which are roughly as heavy as your average Colombian climber these days.

 

[sittingbison]

Agreeing with Gloin22. Haven't read this whole thread and been looking for a summary.

20,000 posts to date, and this is really all there is on the charges of major doping offenses?

I hope I live long enough to **** on Rupert Murdoch's grave, and so I find this disappointing.

Cramps I did not give a summary....i suggest you read the whole thread, certainly the first 5000 posts plus the wiggans thread, froome thread, power thread and Olympics thread.

That might get you up to speed

 

[heart_attack_man]

Cramps I did not give a summary....i suggest you read the whole thread, certainly the first 5000 posts plus the wiggans thread, froome thread, power thread and Olympics thread.

That might get you up to speed

We'll convene back here in about 6 months...

Go!

 

[Cramps]

Cramps I did not give a summary....i suggest you read the whole thread, certainly the first 5000 posts plus the wiggans thread, froome thread, power thread and Olympics thread.

That might get you up to speed

I'll let you know what I find. You go on up ahead!

Seriously, is it possible for someone who is familiar to summarise the main case against Sky? The 3 most damning points (or whatever is convenient)?

 

[Catwhoorg]

Sudden improvement of multiple riders

Dirty Doctor associated

'Peaking all year' for 2012

 

[Benotti69]

Sudden improvement of multiple riders

Dirty Doctor Hired

'Peaking all year' for 2012

Fixed the doctor one

Weight loss and no power loss.

Zero transparency.

Lots of PR BS.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Fixed the doctor one

Weight loss and no power loss.

Thanks

Given the peptide type doping products out there, the second point I snipped is at least suspicious.

Compare Froome or Wiggo after weight loss to Hesjedal this week.

Not saying they are doping, but at least one can understand why the questions are being asked.

 

[Benotti69]

Thanks

Given the peptide type doping products out there, the second point I snipped is at least suspicious.

Compare Froome or Wiggo after weight loss to Hesjedal this week.

Not saying they are doping, but at least one can understand why the questions are being asked.

Especially as riders are testing positive for GW1516, which helps weight loss with out power loss.

 

[zalacain]

Makes you susceptible to the common cold though

 

[Benotti69]

Makes you susceptible to the common cold though

Apparently lots of riders in the giro with chest infections and colds. Go figure.

 

[IndianCyclist]

Apparently lots of riders in the giro with chest infections and colds. Go figure.

Easy TUE for medications A puff with 30 km remaining does wonders for any problems.

 

[Benotti69]

Easy TUE for medications A puff with 30 km remaining does wonders for any problems.

Someone once said they never saw so many inhalers till they went to a pro race.

 

[Stingray34]

Someone once said they never saw so many inhalers till they went to a pro race.

...or a swim meet. All swimmers are asthmatics, apparently.

Hello, Tim Kerrison. Got any training plans?

Teide isn't the only thing in Tenerife that goes puff-puff.

 

[DirtyWorks]

My view is that people with a desire to knock Lance built up his performances as evidence that he was the "worst" doper of all time.

Define worst. Actually doping? We'll never know. We know he was the classic hero-to-zero doper's performance over the course of his racing years. If worst is enforced doping program for all riders, bribes, fixing races, then we know that answer.

Performance levels don't really support this assertion. His advantage was relative, in the era of EPO testing.

#1 Performance level at one race? Races? Revisit the notion that oxygen vector doping turns some riders from mid-pack to podium heroes.
#2 His andvantage was overwhelming. He had the UCI's assistance all the way. Among other things, turning in former team riders.

This misrepresentation actually distorts the progression of performance levels.

Ugh. Progress is how so many doped performances have been explained. That well has been poisoned.