Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Darryl Webster]

We're talking mathematics.

You are mathematically correct when you say that speed and time are inversely directly proportional.

You are not mathematically correct in saying that an x% increase in speed is an x% decrease in time. A 50% increase in speed is only a 33% decrease in time.

To go 10 % faster requires much more than 10% increase in power as resistance increases steeply the faster you go. To state the obvious most of that resistance is air, the one constant .

 

[The Cobra]

Can we have a minute's silence for Boardman then?

Boardman has had plenty of accusations in the clinic as well. Which fits in perfectly with the clinics logic of he won so he must be juiced. Im just pointing out the flaws in applying this logic to every single case.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I'm not claiming anything, you claim that his GT performance can be foreseen if we look at his TT performance.

of ffs franklin. I never said that at all. I've been repeating the same thing over and over for 3 days now which is this...

TT performance is the best way to look for the changes we might expect to see if someone started a doping program. I'm not trying to predict GT performance from a TT, never have, never will.

For the record, for me personally it was Wiggins who tossed the glove in my face.

Secondly, the problems I keep on outlining by pointing to Sky's structure are for me much more important than Wiggins, Froome, Rogers or Porte. In the end they are athletes and I respect them even if they use unsavoury methods (barring personality issues which I do have problems with).

I find it absolutely disgusting that managers like Yates and Breukink, doctors like Menuet and Leinders are still being allowed to manage/facilitate teams. And yes, there are teams MUCH worse than Sky in this regard, but Sky is the leading example, both by their performance and their own rhetoric.

Giving them a pass on all these counts because they are good at peeing is not going to help cycling.

Well I agree on all that stuff too. I think a whole of stuff should be done at the level of the corrupt UCI and also within the laws of individual nations.

 

[red_death]

Here in the UK Yates is looked upon as some kind of folk hero in the cycling fraternity. Along with , but not as lionised, Tom Simpson.
<snip>
No one ever seems to consider that that fateful day was most certainly not the first time Tom used dope or the obvious contradiction of being so very critical of "Johny Foreigner " and there doping histories while lauding Tom at every opportunity.
I've always found it quite sickening.

I think the reasons are a bit more complex - to the British cycling fan there isn't that many Tour stage winners to look back on coupled with the ethics of the time. I don't think British fans are any more contradictory about doping in the past than any other nation.

Money mainly. Risk. Team’s in Europe it’s much harder has doping is a crime in Italy, France and several other nations. Not Spain (yet).

Much easier for non-European teams to pull the en masse doping.

Doping costs money.

Sky have a large budget no doubt, but not disportionately larger than some of the other teams, so again it seems pretty unlikely that Sky have a magic bullet in this area if you dismiss innovation in other areas....

The idea that money benefits Sky only in doping and in no other ways (in terms of being able to afford better salaries and invest in tech) is utterly inconsistent. At least when the GB track team was being questioned about doping it was also being accused of financial "doping" as well by thowing lots of cash at the technology and training.

Leinders left rabobank in 2009, could wiggins have been working with him then? something drastic happned to wiggins in 09,

This is almost so simple/stupid as to not be worth answering, but 2008 was the last time BW really focussed on the track (at Beijing) after that he applied himself to the road much more.

 

[Ferminal]

Boardman has had plenty of accusations in the clinic as well. Which fits in perfectly with the clinics logic of he won so he must be juiced. Im just pointing out the flaws in applying this logic to every single case.

So you are outraged when people accuse Sky of doping, but call Boardman a doper...

 

[Caruut]

Krebs - I agree that some of the muscle is probably coming off the upper-body, but 12kg in upper-body muscle mass is huge.

Looking at that picture, I really don't see how he has that much upper-body weight to just shed.

Coincidentally, I searched just for "Bradley Wiggins Beijing" to find the picture, and then one I found was actually from Wiggins' Guardian column back in 2009, talking about weight loss.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/jul/19/bradley-wiggins-tour-de-france

He says he went from 78kg to 71kg.

 

[red_death]

But when losing 12kg of muscle mass (there was no fat to lose)

Sorry, but your point in brackets is not necessarily correct - Sky or BW have said that his body fat dropped from somewhere around 10% to 4%. Even dropping muscle isn't necessarily a bad thing (it depends where that muscle is).

he has increased his long ITT performance to match and now better the best two multiple world champion ITTers of a decade (both heavy riders)

You mean the ones still recovering from a broken collarbone and the other recovering from a crash and with a broken wrist bone? If he beats them consistently when either are at full fitness then may be, but no evidence so far.

and ALSO improve his climbing to kill off the worlds best climbers (excluding Andy and AC). Some of the climbers (not all) are good at ITT, but usually not at the same level as the specialists, and that in the last day of the tour, not the first week.

Well he has hardly destroyed them with his attacks! His team and he have kept a decent tempo but nothing special...there were classic shots of that world renowned climber Cav leading the peloton up one of the climbs in the past few days...he must have been killing them with his climbing ability

I'm rolling my eyes here... the big scientist surely has trouble with some basic things like time, speed and drag.

Pray explain the linear relationship with drag involved...

 

[Bonkstrong]

Can we have a minute's silence for Boardman then?

Dan Staite says no...

 

[Caruut]

So you are outraged when people accuse Sky of doping, but call Boardman a doper...

It's not even that, it's just pathetic trolling. Whenever someone rides really well, someone in the clinic says "Is this kosher?". Then some troll comes along, labels the clinic a single entity and now the clinic accuses any winner of doping. Never mind the fact that the clinic is made up of lots of individual fans or that, given cycling's history, it is perfectly natural that questions should be asked.

Some posters seem to think that the proper answer to these questions is to invent a single thought process for an entire forum and then use that (false) thought process to attack posts without ever addressing the substance of the posts. It's a bit sad, really.

 

[The Cobra]

So you are outraged when people accuse Sky of doping, but call Boardman a doper...

No, I wasnt accusing Boardman, I was pointing out that other people have here in the clinic purely because he won and that is flawed logic. Just as it is flawed logic to say Darryl must have been doping becasue he beat Yates or that Wiggins must be doping just because he's leading the Tour. Or that anyone who wins a race in pro cycling must be a doper as is currently the viewpoint of many posters in the clinic.

As I said a few pages ago. Given the current power output by current Tour riders, and theb level of testing presuming innocence makes more sense that presuming guilt.

 

[Ferminal]

No, I wasnt accusing Boardman, I was pointing out that other people have here in the clinic purely because he won and that is flawed logic. Just as it is flawed logic to say Darryl must have been doping becasue he beat Yates or that Wiggins must be doping just because he's leading the Tour. Or that anyone who wins a race in pro cycling must be a doper as is currently the viewpoint of many posters in the clinic.

Right, can you list the people who have used such simple, flawed logic in this thread? Or are we just going to talk in ridiculous terms about this "clinic" chap?

 

[Bonkstrong]

It's not even that, it's just pathetic trolling. Whenever someone rides really well, someone in the clinic says "Is this kosher?". Then some troll comes along, labels the clinic a single entity and now the clinic accuses any winner of doping. Never mind the fact that the clinic is made up of lots of individual fans or that, given cycling's history, it is perfectly natural that questions should be asked.

Some posters seem to think that the proper answer to these questions is to invent a single thought process for an entire forum and then use that (false) thought process to attack posts without ever addressing the substance of the posts. It's a bit sad, really.

The clinic is a fantastic place for discussion on doping, but there is without doubt a tinfoil hat brigade who will make the jump from somebody riding well within themselves to a team-wide super doping programme done by doctors that are 100% dirty because they kept people alive who chose to dope in the past.

Posters like you, Franklin and others provide a platform for debate, others do not and not everyone should be tarred with the same brush.

I also think that the meaning of some posts don't always come over in the same way when read by different people. I for one know I struggle to get my point across in text.

 

[Bonkstrong]

Right, can you list the people who have used such simple, flawed logic in this thread? Or are we just going to talk in ridiculous terms about this "clinic" chap?

Are you just trying to make me re-read 300 pages? I'm pretty sire they're in there somewhere!

 

[The Cobra]

Right, can you list the people who have used such simple, flawed logic in this thread? Or are we just going to talk in ridiculous terms about this "clinic" chap?

The Hog for one. Plenty of other posters as well who say that Sky are winning, therefore doping and its up to them to prove that they are not. Any reasons to explain Sky's dominance is then mocked as an obvious cover up of what is 'really going on.' Im not about to go through 3000+ posts and pick them out. Surely the fact that after alomst every dominant display in any race a new thread is opened in the clinic about said rider/team is evidence of this mentality by some posters.

 

[Ferminal]

Are you just trying to make me re-read 300 pages? I'm pretty sire they're in there somewhere!

The point is, silly generalisations contribute nothing. Who cares what other people think, people will come to their own conclusions. What is important is that an adequate factual basis is laid out (and this is something which benefits from healthy debate) - resorting to strawmen about "typical clinic" or "typical fanboy" adds nothing.

 

[sittingbison]

On IPhone so bare with me:
1) There is no way on this earth a gold medallist 4000m pursuit champion had 10% body fat, that is ludicrous
2)Cancellara still managed to stick it to the rest of the field in the ITT and the prologue - except for Wiggo and renowned ITTer Froome. And it has been postulated Froome sat up to allow a Wiggo victory, and both eased through the corners etc while everyone else Canc and Evans included hammered it taking risks
3) as has been said many times but ignored, they do NOT ride tempo, they raise the pace to capture escapes and destroy the yellow group in the process. Last night both Wiggo and Froome had to respond to Nibali without domestique support, and reeled him in with consummate ease. It was clear Froome was going to keep going, Wiggo had to dissuade him

 

[red_death]

1) You clearly have the data in front of you, I can only go on what BW and/or Sky have said.
2) FC rode so well against which other renowned TTers - he rode so well in fact that he beat that world-renowned TTer Mr Nibbles by 1m. BW has come close enough to FC before that if FC wasn't fully fit then he could expect to beat him.
3) when Porte, EBH and Rogers are on the front it sure looks like tempo to me. BW's devastating turns of speed have destroyed the field so much so that he is leading the KoM and won several mtn stages, except of course he hasn't. Froome has looked capable of attacks and without doubt been reined in.

None of which is any evidence that they are doping except if you are going to say that improvement is impossible and anyone who leads a race = doper.

 

[Cavalier]

The point is, silly generalisations contribute nothing. Who cares what other people think, people will come to their own conclusions. What is important is that an adequate factual basis is laid out (and this is something which benefits from healthy debate) - resorting to strawmen about "typical clinic" or "typical fanboy" adds nothing.

Think the last 150 posts or so in here have been littered with that rubbish, not to mention the other classic "you must know nothing about cycling". It's incredibly irritating to read generalisations.

 

[Cavalier]

1) You clearly have the data in front of you, I can only go on what BW and/or Sky have said.
2) FC rode so well against which other renowned TTers - he rode so well in fact that he beat that world-renowned TTer Mr Nibbles by 1m. BW has come close enough to FC before that if FC wasn't fully fit then he could expect to beat him.
3) when Porte, EBH and Rogers are on the front it sure looks like tempo to me. BW's devastating turns of speed have destroyed the field so much so that he is leading the KoM and won several mtn stages, except of course he hasn't. Froome has looked capable of attacks and without doubt been reined in.

None of which is any evidence that they are doping except if you are going to say that improvement is impossible and anyone who leads a race = doper.

1) Nobody anywhere has ever said Wiggins had that amount of body fat. He's claimed the 4% figure in the past, and this is easily verifiable using google (he posted it on the guardian website, in an article he authored himself, in 2007) - he has since lost weight from that point and the Sky website lists him as 69kg. Now, how does a man, with a mediocre record at best 5 years ago on the road, and with 4% body fat at that point, LOSE weight and become one of the best time trialists and climbers in the world? Seriously, there's no medical explanation for it unless he was lying about his numbers.
2) Everyone claiming Cancellara wasn't fully fit conveniently overlooks the fact that he won the prologue by a reasonable margin. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
3) It's not quite as simple as setting a pace and then the racing having natural attrition. We've seen circumstances where Sky had 40% of the riders in the lead group. That's not natural attrition and riding tempo - that's setting a pace which is absolutely blistering and only the best being able to stay on.

 

[Von Mises]

2) Everyone claiming Cancellara wasn't fully fit conveniently overlooks the fact that he won the prologue by a reasonable margin. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

These things are not mutually exlusive. It is entirely possible that your form is good for shorter effort, but not good enough for longer effort.

 

[The Cobra]

1) Nobody anywhere has ever said Wiggins had that amount of body fat. He's claimed the 4% figure in the past, and this is easily verifiable using google (he posted it on the guardian website, in an article he authored himself, in 2007) - he has since lost weight from that point and the Sky website lists him as 69kg. Now, how does a man, with a mediocre record at best 5 years ago on the road, and with 4% body fat at that point, LOSE weight and become one of the best time trialists and climbers in the world? Seriously, there's no medical explanation for it unless he was lying about his numbers.
2) Everyone claiming Cancellara wasn't fully fit conveniently overlooks the fact that he won the prologue by a reasonable margin. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
3) It's not quite as simple as setting a pace and then the racing having natural attrition. We've seen circumstances where Sky had 40% of the riders in the lead group. That's not natural attrition and riding tempo - that's setting a pace which is absolutely blistering and only the best being able to stay on.

As has been mentioned in this thread many many posts ago. The power output of the peloton has dropped significantly since the mid 00's. If Wiggins has been clean throughout his entire career and was managing to top 5 TT's against dopers is it really that much of a push to imagine that he is now winning TT against a much cleaner field? I would imagine his 5 minute power output will have dropped since his best pursuiting days due to weight loss. However when you're talking about efforts of an hour, muscle mass doesnt have a big impact, aeorbic engine is a much bigger factor.

If Sky hired the best riders in the race why is it surprising to see them there near the end?? Porte and Rogers have performed as they would have if they were riding for themselves. Be up there with the best for a long time, but then blow up when the real contendors start attacking.

 

[thehog]

The Hog for one. Plenty of other posters as well who say that Sky are winning, therefore doping and its up to them to prove that they are not. Any reasons to explain Sky's dominance is then mocked as an obvious cover up of what is 'really going on.' Im not about to go through 3000+ posts and pick them out. Surely the fact that after alomst every dominant display in any race a new thread is opened in the clinic about said rider/team is evidence of this mentality by some posters.

Excuse me?

You were the one suggesting warming down after a race is the secret sauce to Sky's success!

Then you disappeared from the thread once it was proved that the technique has been around for years.

Well I never.

Kettle pot black.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Perhaps someone here knows a lot more about this but body fat levels bellow 5 or 6% seem , from my reading , to seriously dangerously low with high risks of organ damage / failure .
For Wiggo to be claiming 4% four years ago and then claim further losses seems to me to be incredulous to say the least.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Body_fat_percentage

 

[AcademyCC]

The point is, silly generalisations contribute nothing. Who cares what other people think, people will come to their own conclusions. What is important is that an adequate factual basis is laid out (and this is something which benefits from healthy debate) - resorting to strawmen about "typical clinic" or "typical fanboy" adds nothing.

+1

I started off this tour a strong Team sky supporter and still am. I still strongly believe they are riding clean. One of my main reasons being cycling has real potential to become one of the most popular sports over the next decade in the UK. If sky have initiated a team wide doping program and get caught the ramifications for British cycling both road and track would be huge, the sport would basically collapse in the UK imo. I cant believe the powers that be in UK would take this risk.

However - I then realized that my thoughts were all based on my own individual beliefs. If I saw a team from a different country doing what Sky are doing I would definitely want answers to the questions raised here eg: Leinders, transparency etc. I don't think its much to ask at all really. Its not good for people to accuse every rider of doping after a good performance and its not good for people to defend blindly a team or rider because they are a fan. I can understand why people want answers to a few questions given the history of cycling.

Cycling fans need to be able to believe in riders performances again, this is a must for the sport to be taken seriously. I don't think this lies at the feet of the riders but instead the UCI and testing procedures. Whilst money is involved their will always be riders willing to take the risk of doping. Fans need to have confidence in the governing body are honestly doing everything in their power to provide a platform for a clean sport. That trust is not there and rightly so. For this reason people in clinic will always have issues with certain performances again due to the number of times they have been let down in the past.

Without being able to say how this should be done the UCI needs to be restructured providing a clean slate and fans will have to take a leap of faith of sorts whilst still being able to ask important questions.

 

[Forunculo]

Amazing EBH dropping everybody except his teammates