Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Krebs cycle]

perhaps you could read about 300 posts on this subject. Wiggans just won his 3rd gold medal 7th world pursuit championship bla bla, so presumably was ALREADY at the maximum of muscle optimisation. And what of the other elite climbers? Have they never thought Gee I'm a "fat bastadio", I'd better go on a diet and lose 12kg. Speaking of which, how does 82kg in 2008 to 69kg now equate to 7kg?

And as has ALSO been debunked about 100 times but ignored by certain posters, race results from five or ten years ago do not always prove the point you want to make, in fact often demonstrate the opposite, and have no actual bearing on what happens today. How are his prologue times consistent but ITT performance improved? How has he gone from the broom cart to maillot jeune? By training hard when every other elite cyclist from multiple world champion ITTers to previous GT winners is on the beach?

This is straight up delusion. There is no other way to describe it. You haven't debunked anything.

You just said "gone from broom cart to maillot jeune" but when I turn around and say "hey, that isn't true, look he did very well in 2005 and then again in 2007" you then say "oh that is irrelevant".

And again, its like you think his track pedigree has no bearing on his ability to performance on the road. You really have got no clue about human physiology, power production, or cycling science. I've presented facts upon facts and tried explain stuff for 3 or 4 days now to you and cavalier and others (and I'm over it and thankfully you won't have to put up with me any more) and all you can do is ignore it or poke a tiny little hole somewhere insignificant and then keep repeating the same tired lies and BS ad finitum.

Talk about forest for trees, you guys can't even see past the grass

 

[Cavalier]

You are kidding right? Suffice to say that the gym specific training you would do for track is totally different to what you would do for MUCH longer endurance events such as the TdF, so optimisation for track specialisation is not optimisation for road racing.

So now we've finally established that they're two completely different disciplines, why is it that his track record is continually held up as some sort of evidence that he could succeed in a Grand Tour?

It's a strawman argument at best.

 

[sittingbison]

No, last night was better. Porte actually beat home the riders in 6th and 9th place on GC, and Rogers only managed to finish with them.

silly moi, I was forgetting that they have not destroyed any elite climbers or GC contenders with their accelerations, as I was recently reliably informed there are none

 

[Nocontest]

Perhaps if you watched the race, you would have noticed they rolled across the line only 1:14 behind in 13th and 14th place.

Bit like last night actually, some things never change %)

Oh I did watch the race and like I said they were not racing to the line so of course they were more recovered. Also if they were in 13th and 14th place how come the video showed them just behind Nibali and Evans in the chute? I dont know how much racing you have done but I can tell you that in the years I have raced I would have always had an ability smile coming over the line in 13th place 1min+ behind as opposed to when I have just sprinted for the win.

So Hoggs post IS pure nonsense. If you need further proof check out Greipels first stage win this year. Observe Greg Henderson only moments after having led out Greipel at a full speed anaerobic sprint. you will see him with his hands in the air..SMILING. Wow, how could he manage that!

 

[131313]

Have fun with this headline:

Tinkov wants to re-build Saxo Bank to become just like Sky

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tinkov-wants-to-re-build-saxo-bank-to-become-just-like-sky

personally, I think more teams should adopt the Liquigas model: guys gluing on their own tires the morning of the race, hitchhiking to the start because they don't have enough team cars, stuff like that.

 

[sittingbison]

You just said "gone from broom cart to maillot jeune" but when I turn around and say "hey, that isn't true, look he did very well in 2005 and then again in 2007" you then say "oh that is irrelevant".

And again, its like you think his track pedigree has no bearing on his ability to performance on the road. You really have got no clue about human physiology, power production, or cycling science. I've presented facts upon facts and tried explain stuff for 3 or 4 days now...

krebs this is where you are wrong. I'm not sure if you are deliberately misinterpreting, or just being overly zealous. I have said that in those years 2004-2008 that you keep posting select results from, he was in the broom cart. I have also said those results have no bearing on now, as supposedly his specific gym work, his optimised road training program, and 12kg weight loss have transformed him from the trackie of yesteryear into a GC contender today.

You cant have it both ways, unless you have your gateau and eat it too. When he was concentrating on track he couldn't climb or compete GC because the discipline, training and physiologies are completely different. Now he is concentrating on the road, would not the assumption be he would lose some of the track ability ie not perform in the prologue at the same levels as before?

As we in Australia all know, Brad McGee and StuO et al managed the jump from track to road, but at the expense of their track abilities. And What of Rogers? Three time World ITT champ who is now a magnificent climber but can no longer compete with the big boys in ITT. Why? His weight loss?

Once again, there is a price to pay, and Wiggo has not paid it.

 

[Nocontest]

So now we've finally established that they're two completely different disciplines, why is it that his track record is continually held up as some sort of evidence that he could succeed in a Grand Tour?

It's a strawman argument at best.

Actually for me all his track record shows is that he has the genetic ability to generate a high sustainable power output and just as importantly has an ability to suffer! How he progresses as a road racer and ultimately a GT contender after that is dependent on a number of factors, not the least of which is self belief and the ability to handle pressure.

Adversely I have seen a number of posts which seem to claim that having a track background somehow disqualifies you from being a GT contender which of course is nonsense.

 

[Cavalier]

So Hoggs post IS pure nonsense. If you need further proof check out Greipels first stage win this year. Observe Greg Henderson only moments after having led out Greipel at a full speed anaerobic sprint. you will see him with his hands in the air..SMILING. Wow, how could he manage that!

Bit of a difference between leading out a sprinter for a few hundred metres at maximum effort and setting tempo for a lot further, on a gradient in order to destroy 95% of the guys in the race and make them be unable to hang on.

 

[Cavalier]

Actually for me all his track record shows is that he has the genetic ability to generate a high sustainable power output and just as importantly has an ability to suffer! How he progresses as a road racer and ultimately a GT contender after that is dependent on a number of factors, not the least of which is self belief and the ability to handle pressure.

Adversely I have seen a number of posts which seem to claim that having a track background somehow disqualifies you from being a GT contender which of course is nonsense.

It doesn't disqualify you, but they are two completely different disciplines requiring two very different physical requirements, and that's ignoring the fact one of them is fixed gear.

'Self belief' and 'ability to handle pressure' as an indicator of someone's physical ability to adapt to a completely different type of cycling? Seriously? There's always a trade off in attempting to change completely your physique and riding style. Wiggins hasn't had that trade-off.

 

[mastersracer]

personally, I think more teams should adopt the Liquigas model: guys gluing on their own tires the morning of the race, hitchhiking to the start because they don't have enough team cars, stuff like that.

I've been (mostly) defending Sky. I was only pointing it out re how some of the anti-Sky folks here would react to it - hence the

 

[Caruut]

Ineffectual anonymous self "abusing" troll

Literally, you abused yourself there, not me.

Thanks for the input.

Why is anonymity okay for you but not for others?

 

[Krebs cycle]

krebs this is where you are wrong. I'm not sure if you are deliberately misinterpreting, or just being overly zealous. I have said that in those years 2004-2008 that you keep posting select results from, he was in the broom cart. I have also said those results have no bearing on now, as supposedly his specific gym work, his optimised road training program, and 12kg weight loss have transformed him from the trackie of yesteryear into a GC contender today.

One or both of us is clearly misinterpreting something.

I understand that he was in the "broom cart" a regular "autobus-farer" etc etc in stages races between 2004-2008. But what does that prove about his actual physiological capability as a cyclist? Almost nothing because team tactics play a role in stage racing. If you are not chasing a high GC placing where you actually end up on GC can be quite random. Cancellara was also a regular autobus-farer over exactly the same timeframe and nobody doubts his physiological capacity. Furthermore, from 2004-2008 Wiggins was heavier and therefore not suited to climbing. You keep dismissing the weight issue as Lance propaganda which is simply wrong. Power to weight ratio is vitally important for the mountains.

I have been selecting TT results because there is NO confounding influence of racing unknowns (eg: crashes, mechanicals etc) and team tactics, and if you check both short TTs such as prologues or long road TT results which are NOT in stage races (and thus subject to team tactics), then the raw undeniable fact is that Wiggins was world class. In my definition world class is top 10 at world championship level. He did that both in 2005 and 2007. When you combine this with his track pedigree, it is clear and undeniable that Wiggins has one of the biggest engines the world has ever seen. You might not like it, I certainly don't because he is a pom and I'm an aussie, but I can call spade a spade when I see one.

And how can you possibly say results from 2004-2008 have no bearing on what has happened from 2009-2012? If someone demonstrates they are world class in long TTs and the undisputed #1 in 4km pursuit, then it has EVERYTHING to do with his performances from 2009-2012. To repeat, it means that Wiggins must have one of the biggest aerobic engines ever.

I would not be surprised at all if Jack Bobridge says to himself, "well if Wiggins can do it, then maybe I can too" and in 5yrs time we see him top 10 in a GT. He was 5th in the UCI TT world championships last year, 1'10" behind Cancellara. The kid clearly also has a v12 turbo

You cant have it both ways, unless you have your gateau and eat it too. When he was concentrating on track he couldn't climb or compete GC because the discipline, training and physiologies are completely different. Now he is concentrating on the road, would not the assumption be he would lose some of the track ability ie not perform in the prologue at the same levels as before?

This stuff is just nitpicking. There are lots of results which show that the best long TT'ers are generally also the best short TT'ers. What we would expect is that between 2004-2008 when Wiggins was #1 on the track, is that he would not be #1 in a long TT, but would be closer in a short TT. This is EXACTLY what history shows. In long TTs he was 2-4% behind Cancellara (which is normal variation), but in prologues it was more like 1-2%. I think you would be 100% correct in saying that at present Wiggins would not be at his best in the pursuit any longer. There is a strong chance he would be a couple of percent down. But that still equates to one of the best in a prologue. Besides, last year Bobridge showed us that it is possible and perhaps even likely. He was #1 in the world over 4km but 1'13 back on Cancellara over 46km. I guarantee you that if Bobridge starts riding more stage races over the next few years he will win prologues.

Secondly, you are repeating another falsehood. The training and physiologies are not completely different between track endurance and road. The training is not perfectly equal, but there is a high degree of overlap. The physiology could be identical and so the small differences in performance (ie: road vs track) could be 100% attributable to the differences in training. The simple fact remains, you cannot be undisputed #1 fastest man on the planet over 4km without a giant engine to begin with.

Thirdly, again with the can't climb can't place high in GC prior to 2009. So what? We ALL know he was heavier. It was not his job to climb and chase a high GC place. This doesn't tell us anything about his physiology.

As we in Australia all know, Brad McGee and StuO et al managed the jump from track to road, but at the expense of their track abilities. And What of Rogers? Three time World ITT champ who is now a magnificent climber but can no longer compete with the big boys in ITT. Why? His weight loss?

Once again, there is a price to pay, and Wiggo has not paid it.

Again, what the hell planet are you on? Rogers was 8th at the 2008 olympcs, 2'35" behind Cancellara and 5th at the UCI TT world championships in 2010, 2'24" behind Cancellara.

One more time for the dummies, stage race placing and TT results must be viewed with a degree of caution due to team tactics. They do not indicate performance unless we know for certain the athlete is racing for the best time possible.

You aren't even both to check results before you start posting all this crap.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I've been (mostly) defending Sky. I was only pointing it out re how some of the anti-Sky folks here would react to it - hence the

I'm not even defending Sky. I couldn't care less about Sky or Wiggins.

I am defending basic common sense, truth and reason.

 

[Ripper]

I'm not even defending Sky. I couldn't care less about Sky or Wiggins.

I am defending basic common sense, truth and reason.

One of the reasons some folks are not listening to you Krebs is that there are two strong but opposite views.

Sky riders are doing something wrong (doping?) that others are not. Any view the the contrary is just delusional.

Sky/Wiggo are doing everything proper, have good character, folks who dare question this are at best misguided, worst cowards.

Of course, extreme comments on either side don't make sense, and you have presented some good facts. I just think those get lost in the more emotional argument.

 

[Hugh Januss]

One or both of us is clearly misinterpreting something.

I understand that he was in the "broom cart" a regular "autobus-farer" etc etc in stages races between 2004-2008. But what does that prove about his actual physiological capability as a cyclist? Almost nothing because team tactics play a role in stage racing. If you are not chasing a high GC placing where you actually end up on GC can be quite random. Cancellara was also a regular autobus-farer over exactly the same timeframe and nobody doubts his physiological capacity. Furthermore, from 2004-2008 Wiggins was heavier and therefore not suited to climbing. You keep dismissing the weight issue as Lance propaganda which is simply wrong. Power to weight ratio is vitally important for the mountains.

I have been selecting TT results because there is NO confounding influence of racing unknowns (eg: crashes, mechanicals etc) and team tactics, and if you check both short TTs such as prologues or long road TT results which are NOT in stage races (and thus subject to team tactics), then the raw undeniable fact is that Wiggins was world class. In my definition world class is top 10 at world championship level. He did that both in 2005 and 2007. When you combine this with his track pedigree, it is clear and undeniable that Wiggins has one of the biggest engines the world has ever seen. You might not like it, I certainly don't because he is a pom and I'm an aussie, but I can call spade a spade when I see one.

And how can you possibly say results from 2004-2008 have no bearing on what has happened from 2009-2012? If someone demonstrates they are world class in long TTs and the undisputed #1 in 4km pursuit, then it has EVERYTHING to do with his performances from 2009-2012. To repeat, it means that Wiggins must have one of the biggest aerobic engines ever.

I would not be surprised at all if Jack Bobridge says to himself, "well if Wiggins can do it, then maybe I can too" and in 5yrs time we see him top 10 in a GT. He was 5th in the UCI TT world championships last year, 1'10" behind Cancellara. The kid clearly also has a v12 turbo

This stuff is just nitpicking. There are lots of results which show that the best long TT'ers are generally also the best short TT'ers. What we would expect is that between 2004-2008 when Wiggins was #1 on the track, is that he would not be #1 in a long TT, but would be closer in a short TT. This is EXACTLY what history shows. In long TTs he was 2-4% behind Cancellara (which is normal variation), but in prologues it was more like 1-2%. I think you would be 100% correct in saying that at present Wiggins would not be at his best in the pursuit any longer. There is a strong chance he would be a couple of percent down. But that still equates to one of the best in a prologue. Besides, last year Bobridge showed us that it is possible and perhaps even likely. He was #1 in the world over 4km but 1'13 back on Cancellara over 46km. I guarantee you that if Bobridge starts riding more stage races over the next few years he will win prologues.

Secondly, you are repeating another falsehood. The training and physiologies are not completely different between track endurance and road. The training is not perfectly equal, but there is a high degree of overlap. The physiology could be identical and so the small differences in performance (ie: road vs track) could be 100% attributable to the differences in training. The simple fact remains, you cannot be undisputed #1 fastest man on the planet over 4km without a giant engine to begin with.

Thirdly, again with the can't climb can't place high in GC prior to 2009. So what? We ALL know he was heavier. It was not his job to climb and chase a high GC place. This doesn't tell us anything about his physiology.

Again, what the hell planet are you on? Rogers was 8th at the 2008 olympcs, 2'35" behind Cancellara and 5th at the UCI TT world championships in 2010, 2'24" behind Cancellara.

One more time for the dummies, stage race placing and TT results must be viewed with a degree of caution due to team tactics. They do not indicate performance unless we know for certain the athlete is racing for the best time possible.

You aren't even both to check results before you start posting all this crap.

When Cancellara starts winning TdF overall I for one will be questioning it. When good sized guys who win TTs start dropping everyone on the climbs (when they showed no ability to to so until their late 20s), yeah, I will question it.

 

[sittingbison]

One or both of us is clearly misinterpreting something....Cancellara was also a regular autobus-farer over exactly the same timeframe and nobody doubts his physiological capacity. Furthermore, from 2004-2008 Wiggins was heavier and therefore not suited to climbing...world class is top 10 at world championship level. He did that both in 2005 and 2007...And how can you possibly say results from 2004-2008 have no bearing on what has happened from 2009-2012? If someone demonstrates they are world class in long TTs and the undisputed #1 in 4km pursuit, then it has EVERYTHING to do with his performances from 2009-2012....There are lots of results which show that the best long TT'ers are generally also the best short TT'ers. What we would expect is that between 2004-2008 when Wiggins was #1 on the track, is that he would not be #1 in a long TT, but would be closer in a short TT. This is EXACTLY what history shows. In long TTs he was 2-4% behind Cancellara...The training and physiologies are not completely different between track endurance and road. The training is not perfectly equal, but there is a high degree of overlap. The physiology could be identical and so the small differences in performance (ie: road vs track) could be 100% attributable to the differences in training...Rogers was 8th at the 2008 olympcs, 2'35" behind Cancellara and 5th at the UCI TT world championships in 2010, 2'24" behind Cancellara...You aren't even both to check results before you start posting all this crap.

krebs, you really don't have a clue. Perhaps you and straydog should get together and straighten your stories out viz a viz training and optimisation between road and track? Are they different or are they the same? What is the difference between 82 kg Cancellara (prologue king and world ITT champ, and 69kg Wiggo? Are those times of Rogers climber v2.2 showing him leeping up with the big boys of ITT (when Wiggo just handed Canc his head on a plate)?

Don't bother to answer, you just don't get it, and I cant be bothered reading long winded misinformed diatribe.

 

[Franklin]

Anyone who watches Wiggo's gut reaction to his team being thrown off the 2007 tour for doping, and thinks he would dope, is a poor reader of character.

Hey jimmy... great wonderful post, it surely shows Wiggo's character.

Wasn't that the interview where he said that a team with a 1% suspicion of a link to a tainted doctor should be banned?

And didn't he humbly say he fully understood it would take many years before cycling earned the trust of fans again?

I'm so happy that he still fully works on that modus operandi!

 

[blackcat]

Anyone who watches Wiggo's gut reaction to his team being thrown off the 2007 tour for doping, and thinks he would dope, is a poor reader of character. None of the numbers from this year's tour backs it up anyway, and there is a desperate attempt to cling to assumption and hearsay to back up any accusations. But yet this thread rumbles on and on.

I know the history of the sport, I know why these assumptions are easy to make, I can see why parallels are easy to draw with dopers that have gone before. But utter conviction of guilt on that basis is a bridge too far in my opinion. He has pedigree, he has heart and honesty and is a solid character who wants to make a mark on cycling history, Cynicism is understandable, blind assumption of guilt because of performance isn't.

did you see the reaction of Dave Millar about Vino testing positive at the same tour, and being thrown out.

Millar said he did not believe it, Vino was his favourite rider.

dont believe liers, dont believe riders.

 

[Krebs cycle]

krebs, you really don't have a clue. Perhaps you and straydog should get together and straighten your stories out viz a viz training and optimisation between road and track? Are they different or are they the same? What is the difference between 82 kg Cancellara (prologue king and world ITT champ, and 69kg Wiggo? Are those times of Rogers climber v2.2 showing him leeping up with the big boys of ITT (when Wiggo just handed Canc his head on a plate)?

Don't bother to answer, you just don't get it, and I cant be bothered reading well informed and accurate sport science commentary

Whatevs dude. I've got over 10yrs experience working at the AIS and NSWIS with elite athletes and coaches as a sport scientist and for the last 2yrs I've been teaching exercise physiology at tertiary level.

You can chose to be lazy, stubborn and ignorant for the rest of your life or you can chose to follow up on some of the points I've made and learn something about sport science.

It's a solid F- grade though for you and cavalier at present. The bit in bold above is why you fail.

 

[Cerberus]

Anyone who watches Wiggo's gut reaction to his team being thrown off the 2007 tour for doping, and thinks he would dope, is a poor reader of character.

Anyone who thinks they can accurately tell the difference between a convincing liar and an honest person is a poor judge of their own judgement. Also of cause 2007 =/ 2009.

 

[sittingbison]

...whilst my experience as an elite doesn't render my opinion per se as more relevant than yours....

...I've got over 10yrs experience working at the AIS and NSWIS with elite athletes and coaches as a sport scientist...

hehe gotta love it two experts with diametrically opposed views on how Wiggo can transform from elite pursuiter to GC contender. Lads, get your story straight please.

I don't recall blowing the trumpet on my own credentials, just as well krebs knows them:

...lazy, stubborn and ignorant...a solid F- grade though for you...

krebs, you have again proven to be intolerant in the extreme. And still no attempt to answer simple observations other than bluster and obfuscate.

 

[Krebs cycle]

hehe gotta love it two experts with diametrically opposed views on how Wiggo can transform from elite pursuiter to GC contender. Lads, get your story straight please.

I don't recall blowing the trumpet on my own credentials, just as well krebs knows them:



krebs, you have again proven to be intolerant in the extreme. And still no attempt to answer simple observations other than bluster and obfuscate.

Well I just went back and read several pages of straydogs posts and it looks pretty obvious we are both saying precisely the same thing ie: Wiggins always had a huge engine and he proved it on numerous occasions prior to 2009 in both short and long ITTs. It's a really simple concept bloke. You are wrong and we are right. That is it.

Too bad, you get F- for basic comprehension too. Please don't start crying. I can't handle it when grown men cry. Its embarrassing for you.

 

[the big ring]

I was climbing fairly well in the 2007 Tour, but I've lost seven kilos since then: 78 to 71. It's taken nine months, in little increments, without any sort of crash diet. I've had regular check‑ups with Nigel Mitchell, the nutritionist at the Olympic team, to make sure I'm only burning fat, not any muscle. The last one was the day before the national championship, 28 June. He said I didn't have an ounce of fat left on my body. I was at 4% body fat

"You develop a lot of muscle mass, particularly on the upper body, while training for the track over the winter," says Parker. "We wanted him to lose that, but to do it slowly, so that it didn't affect his power.

I'm confused

Brad says he was only burning fat, no muscle.
BC coach only mentions losing muscle mass (NOT just upper body).

So which is it?

Brad is a classic ectomorph, and would not have that much upper body to lose. IP starts equate to very little of the IP race and upper body strength is nowhere near as important as core strength in developing an effective start.

Krebs cycle - your name suggests you can tell us. IF Brad did lose muscle mass in his legs, does he also lose mitochondria? If he does lose mitochondria, does his absolute VO2max reduce proportionately (whilst relative VO2max may increase)?

My point being: flat TT power would go down, climbing ability would increase.

 

[sittingbison]

krebs, you are correct. It wasn't straydog saying the complete opposite to your good self, it was nocontest - saying the complete opposite for the same result. Here is the gist of it again as you didnt bother to read it.

...gym specific training you would do for track is totally different to what you would do for MUCH longer endurance events such as the TdF, so optimisation for track specialisation is not optimisation for road racing. Secondly prologue times have little relevance to longer ITT times..

hehe once again cant see the woods from the trees. So on the one hand we have his 4000m track pedigree that allows him to be competitive in prologues, ok in ITTs and broom cart GTs, but when his gym specific training and optimisation for GTs kicks in there is no loss in performance in the prologue.

That's called having your gateau and eating it too lol.

 

[simo1733]

krebs, you are correct. It wasn't straydog saying the complete opposite to your good self, it was nocontest - saying the complete opposite for the same result. Here is the gist of it again as you didnt bother to read it.



hehe once again cant see the woods from the trees. So on the one hand we have his 4000m track pedigree that allows him to be competitive in prologues, ok in ITTs and broom cart GTs, but when his gym specific training and optimisation for GTs kicks in there is no loss in performance in the prologue.

That's called having your gateau and eating it too lol.

It's not like Wiggins is the first pursuiter to win a GT.