Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Dear Wiggo]

DZ would have had better aero figures, as he's shorter and lighter, but I have no problem at all that that just proves my point: Wiggo did well on the track because:

1. it was easy
2. he got funding to do it and could muck around on the road
3. you don't make money in IP anywhere in the world unless you're a UK citizen eligible for Lottery funding - so the good riders ride road and earn proper money

He was the quintessential lazy w*nker.

But if the pros could earn 200k on the track riding 4-6 x 4km pursuits every year, I think you would find Wiggo would not have been as successful as he was. But regardless, the people that would have beaten him would not have ever won a GT, just as Wiggo never expected to.

 

[King Boonen]

He lost by 11 seconds and because that shakes your theory, there must be an explanation other than the simplest one: those riders in front of him were stronger.

Gotcha.

Hint: in a TT, you are in front.

I didn't say they weren't, but you brought up the numbers so you explain it. If Wiggins was correct and he put out 580 watts how did DZ beat him by 11 seconds.

 

[King Boonen]

DZ would have had better aero figures, as he's shorter and lighter, but I have no problem at all that that just proves my point: Wiggo did well on the track because:

1. it was easy
2. he got funding to do it and could muck around on the road
3. you don't make money in IP anywhere in the world unless you're a UK citizen eligible for Lottery funding

He was the quintessential lazy w*nker.

But if the pros could earn 200k on the track riding 4-6 x 4km pursuits every year, I think you would find Wiggo would not have been as successful as he was. But regardless, the people that would have beaten him would not have ever won a GT, just as Wiggo never expected to.

He was beaten in that prologue by Nibali, Valverde, Hejsadal, Landis, Menchov and Pereiro so it seems that based on your logic they would all beat him on the track. Tell me, have any of those guys won a GT?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

He was beaten in that prologue by Nibali, Valverde, Hejsadal, Landis, Menchov and Pereiro so it seems that based on your logic they would all beat him on the track. Tell me, have any of those guys won a GT?

To clairfy:

I really struggle to see how someone wins a 4km pursuit on the track, they would then think - hey wow, I could win a GT.

For me, one does not follow from the other, particularly when noone (of note) rides the track.

But for some people, Wiggins' "track pedigree" explains his GT success. You are in good company - both Andy Coggan and Krebs Cycle share the same opinion, so don't let my attempt to disagree with you sway you.

 

[BYOP88]

To clairfy:

I really struggle to see how someone wins a 4km pursuit on the track, they would then think - hey wow, I could win a GT.

For me, one does not follow from the other, particularly when noone (of note) rides the track.

But for some people, Wiggins' "track pedigree" explains his GT success. You are in good company - both Andy Coggan and Krebs Cycle share the same opinion, so don't let my attempt to disagree with you sway you.

Surely riders and teams should just test on the track. Whoever wins the 4km pursuit(which = winning a GT,natch) is that years leader for the TdF, 2nd place is Giro leader and 3rd get to lead at the Vuelta if the other 2 riders don't fancy doing 2 GT's in a year.

 

[proffate]

To clairfy:

I really struggle to see how someone wins a 4km pursuit on the track, they would then think - hey wow, I could win a GT.

Lots of people think they are going to win the TDF. Most are wrong. Wiggins may have jumped to conclusions that were at the time ill-founded. But maybe he's a GT rider who can also win on the track because it's a "tiny pond".

So sure, track success doesn't exclusively explain road success, nor is it required for road success. But there's a lot of evidence these past years from both GB and AU that endurance track is a fair predictor of road success. These riders might rely on doping. But why would doping change the truth value of the statement "endurance track success predicts road success"?

 

[King Boonen]

To clairfy:

I really struggle to see how someone wins a 4km pursuit on the track, they would then think - hey wow, I could win a GT.

For me, one does not follow from the other, particularly when noone (of note) rides the track.

But for some people, Wiggins' "track pedigree" explains his GT success. You are in good company - both Andy Coggan and Krebs Cycle share the same opinion, so don't let my attempt to disagree with you sway you.

My opinion of Dr. Coggan is probably similar to yours, lets just say I don't really see that as good company...

I'm happy to be swayed, you are swinging me to moving him higher up my suspicion index.

I think if the pursuit was so easy then countries would have just entered road riders and taken home the medals, that didn't happen though so it seems clear that riding on the track and road are pretty different.

All of those guys beat him in this on prologue, so in theory they would all beat him on the track at that time. I'm assuming that you picked this race because of the distance and the fact it was a very simple course, so as close to an IP as you can get. So I disagree with you on the fact that people who might have beaten him wouldn't win a GT, I think it's clear that some would, but I also think it shows that he could mingle with those guys, on the flat at least and the mountains of the TdF do suit riders who can deliver a high constant power, they are long drags. It's difficult to know how those guys would go on the track, because they didn't race there (much, they may have done some but I'm not aware of it) but I think they would have been around Wiggins, better or worse I'm not sure. So I do think that the pursuit can be a good indicator, but I will admit we don't have the required data points yet.

I apologise for my earlier comment, it was obviously unfair. I'll move Wiggins up to a 6, but please try and push me higher.

 

[BYOP88]

Lots of people think they are going to win the TDF. Most are wrong. Wiggins may have jumped to conclusions that were at the time ill-founded. But maybe he's a GT rider who can also win on the track because it's a "tiny pond".

So sure, track success doesn't exclusively explain road success, nor is it required for road success. But there's a lot of evidence these past years from both GB and AU that endurance track is a fair predictor of road success. These riders might rely on doping. But why would doping change the truth value of the statement "endurance track success predicts road success"?

In July 2007, Wiggins said the best he could do in a GT was to win a TT. But history shows us that Wiggins changes his mind quicker than a Chameleon changes at a disco.

 

[the sceptic]

Lots of people think they are going to win the TDF. Most are wrong. Wiggins may have jumped to conclusions that were at the time ill-founded. But maybe he's a GT rider who can also win on the track because it's a "tiny pond".

So sure, track success doesn't exclusively explain road success, nor is it required for road success. But there's a lot of evidence these past years from both GB and AU that endurance track is a fair predictor of road success. These riders might rely on doping. But why would doping change the truth value of the statement "endurance track success predicts road success"?

Not buying it. There is a much simpler explanation.

If Wiggins was a real talent on the road he wouldnt be in the autobus on every MTF.

 

[GuyIncognito]

quicker than a Chameleon changes at a disco.

Chameleons only change color to attract mates, never to hide so....surprisingly accurate!

 

[The Hitch]

I think you've misunderstood what I was talking about. I was referring to Wiggins thinking he wasn't GT material, not his opinions on known dopers which are very suspect I'm willing to admit.

Well, I'll take my hat off to you for that much.

And of course people's opinions can change about being a gt rider. I bet Riis's opinion on the matter also changed at some point in the 90's The point was if a guy at the age of 28 having ridden several grand tours, doesn't see any hope in challenging in them, then that is highly suggestive of the fact that he is incapable of challenging in them as is the case for 95% of riders.

as for your rugby friend, I can't really comment on what I don't know, but how old was he when he thought he wouldn't play for England. Was it over 25? Becuase its different when people are young and still developing (and even then rare).

 

[King Boonen]

Well, I'll take my hat off to you for that much.

And of course people's opinions can change about being a gt rider. I bet Riis's opinion on the matter also changed at some point in the 90's The point was if a guy at the age of 28 having ridden several grand tours, doesn't see any hope in challenging in them, then that is highly suggestive of the fact that he is incapable of challenging in them as is the case for 95% of riders.

as for your rugby friend, I can't really comment on what I don't know, but how old was he when he thought he wouldn't play for England. Was it over 25? Becuase its different when people are young and still developing.

No, he was young, about 22. He also had the ability, just didn't know what position and if he would get a spot over others.

Wiggins had ridden GTs but with very little focus on the road. I can see the problem with this though, we'll end up second guessing what he thought based on small snippets of interviews.

I've always viewed Wiggins as good for a quote but he probably doesn't think about it much, so I've tended to ignore what he says,otherwise... well... It's hard to believe anything he says to be honest but I'm not convinced he's lying about doping. Yet...

 

[The Hitch]

In July 2007, Wiggins said the best he could do in a GT was to win a TT. But history shows us that Wiggins changes his mind quicker than a Chameleon changes at a disco.

No, thats a false Sky defense of Wiggins. Wiggins started hero worshipping Armstrong in 2009 and didn't stop for over 3 years. That doesn't look like frequent mind changing to me. He chose his side and stuck with it.

 

[the sceptic]

I always enjoy laughing at Wiggins.

Here is our man, at 28 years old in the giro d'italia

 

[tweak37]

So Contador is an 8 but was even higher in 2011. How come Froome is only an 8 too then? Surely if Contador was at least a 9 in 2011 Froome is at least a 9 now too? Or do you consider pre-2012 Contador more suspicious than post-2011 Froome?

Well yes, a positive test, the plasticizers, his involvement with Fuentes, his involvement with Saiz and Bruyneel, his performances in times we know doping was widespread. That is close to a 10 for me.
Froome has mainly his transformation against him. Then there is his out of this world performance at the tour last year. And the aggravating fact that he is not the only rider at Sky who made suspicious progress. But clearly there are not as many concrete indications as there are (or were) in Contador's case.

So, if the question is: "do you believe Contador/Froome has used doping at some point in his career?", then Contador scores definitely higher. If it's "do you believe that Contador/Froome used doping in 2013", then Froome is at least on the same level as Contador, if not higher. Dopers can ride disappointingly too though, so you have to be careful with giving Contador's below par season too much weight.

 

[gooner]

Then comes July, and given the number of questions that Sky have had to field on the subject of doping over the last two years, Wiggins feels he will have another role there: handling some of the pressure that Froome will once again be subject to because, he predicts, there will be few changes in the current claustrophobic levels of cynicism.

"He got so much crap," Wiggins says. "His performances were so dominant but they were also genuine. I know everyone says that we were all lied to by Lance [Armstrong] but the testing wasn't as scrupulous back then. You'd have to be mad to do it [dope] in this day and age, maybe a bit psychopathic."

However, he is under no illusions that the tide of public opinion is still very difficult to turn. "That's the stage cycling is in at the moment and I don't know if the cynicism and suspicion is going to get worse. Maybe for the next few years that is what we have to expect."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...y-to-toe-the-team-sky-party-line-9171980.html

 

[Froomster]

Maybe, but I don't really buy that as an explanation alone. I'm only half way through Cycle of Lies, but it's pretty clear that Armstrong didn't just transform overnight, mid-season, in the way Froome did (as others have pointed out literally in a month between the tour of poland and the Vuelta): Armstrong was working with Ferrari and EPO in the '95 tour and was still an hour and a half off the pace - it obviously took a lot of organisation and trial and error for Armstrong to realise the full advantages of his programme, not just some magic luck that he happened to be the best responder (even though perhaps he was and that helped as well).

Marginal gains?

So the idea that Chris Froome wakes up in July '11, thinks 'contract time is coming, best get on the EPO for the first time' and WHAM a month later he's more or less a GT winner (bar bonus seconds) having ridden half the race as domestique, and seemingly on his way to being the stand-out GC rider of his era, just doesn't ring true for me.

Yes, the results don't ring true to me. Occam's Razor: The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct. Given the history of professional cycling...
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...he-tour-de-france-tainted-by-doping.html?_r=0

That's not to say he didn't start doing drugs then (if not before), or that I have any better explanation as an alternative - I don't. I'm just not sure that explanation is that convincing in and of itself.

I, too, am curious - exactly what regime can do this in a month? From zero to hero. Whatever it was, it was good!

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I am saying that the only data you can properly judge Wiggins past performances on are the track, because that is what he focused on and where his training was ultimately aimed.

Just out of curiosity: dont you find that track focus a little bit odd? Like the money involved in track racing is comparable with the millions of pounds he is getting now on the road scene? Him being that GT king he always had the talent for given his 4k pursuit powers?

To me his prologue results of his track focus years say a lot. When you are hired by teams for being a one trick pony - win prologues - and dont deliver one could think that track pedigree isnt all that amazing after all.

 

[RownhamHill]

Wiggins- believes he can beat everyone who is doping anyway. Comes 4th in arguably dirtiest tdf ever.

Out of interest Hitch, could you make the argument for 2009 being the dirtiest TdF ever? Dirtier than let's say 1996, or 1998, or 2005 for that matter? I'm interested how you've reached that conclusion.

Zabriskie beat him by 11 seconds, over 4.1km.

So that'll be David Zabriskie, who in his own words: "In late May and early June 2006 for two weeks I used EPO and Growth hormone"

He lost by 11 seconds and because that shakes your theory, there must be an explanation other than the simplest one: those riders in front of him were stronger.

Gotcha.

Undoubtedly Zabriskie was stronger than Wiggins in that prologue. No doubt.

See above.

As it happens George Hincapie was just 2 seconds behind Zabriskie. I wonder why neither of those riders were winning GTs in 2012. . .

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Zabriskie beat him by 11 seconds, over 4.1km.

Never mind Zabriskie - the key man in the 2006 Dauphine prologue was Stuart O'Grady as unlike the other riders in the prologue, he too has form in the IP. He beat Wiggo by 5 seconds that day whereas at his best as an IP rider, he was several seconds down on Wiggo.

Wiggo and O'Grady didn't race head-to-head in an IP much (if every) but O'Grady raced McGee a lot (and generally got hammered) and by 2004, Wiggo was dishing it out to McGee in the IP.

Thus, in IP terms, there is a very consistent relationship: Wiggo > McGee > O'Grady.

Yet in the Dauphine in 2006, there was a massive reversal of form between Wiggo and O'Grady. Whether this was due to O'Grady being "prepared" better than in his track days or that Wiggo was simply sub-par that day one can't be sure, but it is reasonable to conclude that there was something odd happening and that drawing conclusions about Wiggo's ability from just that ride is a tad risky.

I doubt very much that Zabriskie would be 11s faster than Wiggo's best in an IP, doped or not. 4:04 for an IP won't be seen for a while yet, I suspect!

 

[Bumeington]

Just out of curiosity: dont you find that track focus a little bit odd? Like the money involved in track racing is comparable with the millions of pounds he is getting now on the road scene? Him being that GT king he always had the talent for given his 4k pursuit powers?

To me his prologue results of his track focus years say a lot. When you are hired by teams for being a one trick pony - win prologues - and dont deliver one could think that track pedigree isnt all that amazing after all.

Two opinions here:

1. Wiggins does well on the track but not road, then starts doping for road and wins

2. Wiggins does well on track but not road, then everyone else (Dave Z etc.) stops doping - Wiggins wins

Ok from pure logic 1 is much more likely than 2 but I don't think this discussion on prologue results during the track years adds any information to sway opinions from 1-->2 or 2-->1

 

[Dear Wiggo]

As it happens George Hincapie was just 2 seconds behind Zabriskie. I wonder why neither of those riders were winning GTs in 2012. . .

What I find stranger than DZ or GH not winning, is Bradley Wiggins winning. And not just winning; dominating for 2 weeks, untouchable in the mountains (apart from Froome) and smashing all and sundry in the final TT. And sustaining that for 6 months of the year. You know. Cadence and rolling resistance and stuff.

NOT normal.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I always enjoy laughing at Wiggins.

My guess is that Sir Bradley Wiggins, Tour winner, multiple Olympic gold medalist, possessor of a huge contract for Sky and oodles of lucratic off-track contracts would probably enjoy laughing at you as well.

But I guess one of the laughs might be a bit on the hollow side!

 

[nomapnocompass]

And sustaining that for 6 months of the year...

NOT normal.

This is what rings the biggest alarm bells to me. The dominance shown by Wiggins and Froome over their respective Tour winning seasons was quite spectacular, some might even say impossible. Even more so when you consider that their palmares has not shown that this was in anyway possible in the past.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

In the very early days of this thread, I posted up a list of results of Wiggins in ITTs. It's here - every road ITT he did up to July 2012. There are two very clear steps up in level, one into 2009 where he goes from being a reasonably competitive prologue specialist, with a few wins and top 10s, and the occasional good showing in a longer TT, to being a candidate for the top 10 of any TT he enters. Then after the startlingly inconsistent 2010, in 2011 he's suddenly fighting for the podium in every TT he enters, and in 2012 he wins every single long TT he enters, and is 2nd in every prologue except one (Romandie, where he's 11th).

What I neglected to do was take margins into it, but it's clear that using the argument that the guys that were beating Wiggins eight years ago were doping and they aren't two years ago hence that's why he's winning is a little too limited, because Wiggins' capabilities in long TTs are changing. Riders like Martin and Cancellara have not greatly changed their performance levels, so 'clean Martin/dirty Martin' and 'clean Fäbu/dirty Fäbu' are not really distinctions we can draw like we can with Dave Z, Millar, Rogers, Hincapie and so on, yet Wiggins' performances relative to them most definitely do change as he becomes more road focused. It is unfortunate that the Chrono des Nations isn't as important as it once was, as it would have been very interesting to see how Wiggins stacked up over the years on a consistent course.

However, while increasing one's endurance from that of a prologue specialist to being competitive in the longer distance TTs is absolutely the kind of change I would expect to see from a former track specialist now looking to the road, that in no way whatsoever accounts for the simultaneous discovery that he can climb, a near instantaneous discovery.

2008 Giro mountain stages:
173rd +28'11, Pescocostanzo
126th +41'37, Pampeago
141st +35'17, Fedaia
99th +6'43, Kronplatz TT
140th +36'53, Monte Pora
135th +37'19, Tirano

Yes, that field was dirty as all hell, but so was the 2009 Giro field with di Luca and Pellizotti on the podium and Menchov hardly above suspicion. But David Harmon nearly had a coronary on Alpe di Siusi when he saw Wiggins, hanging on to the tail of the lead group, ride around a struggling Damiano Cunego. This is on a stage where the top 15 entered the final kilometre together because the climb was long and grinding but not especially steep. Wiggins finished a highly creditable 21st, +1'47, by FAR his best climbing performance to date (and also 30 seconds ahead of Chris Froome, natch). Elsewhere?
86th +12'34, Pinerolo
151st +16'52, San Luca
166th +48'14, Monte Petrano
94th +11'53, Blockhaus
156th +17'11, Vesuvio

So he's clearly improving, but there's a long way to go.

Then, a month later, in a field which is also extremely dirty with Contador, Fränk Schleck, Armstrong, Klöden, Leipheimer all up in the mix:
12th +3'47, Arcalis
5th +1'06, Verbier
12th +53, Bourg-Saint-Maurice
7th +3'07, Le Grand Bornand
10th +1'03, Mont Ventoux

That's not a track guy thinking "I will convert to the road and develop my climbing". That is a track guy thinking "I will be a climber" and saying Avada Kedavra and being one. Using the "the field was dirtier in 2008" argument won't wash because the field was dirty in 2009. That is simply the increase in capabilities that comes from switching a track focus to a road focus. It's quite something. In May 2009 it was an enormous shock to see Wiggins in the top 30 of even a short and relatively uncomplicated mountain stage, in July he was ready to be anointed as a GT contender. It is an incredible turnaround.