Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[richtea]

Then mysteriously, just as he underwent the greatest metamorphisis in the history of world sport, he turned 180 degrees into someone who refuses to answer any questions about doping, and defends, looks up and does his best to imitate, its best known proponents.

Out of interest, how do you reconcile this particular story with the estimates that show Wiggins' power has not increased since since 2004? Are the estimates incorrect and in fact his power has increased substantially? Does his doping programme give him benefits that are simply not reflected in his power output? Or was he on a doping programme all along?

 

[Benotti69]

Out of interest, how do you reconcile this particular story with the estimates that show Wiggins' power has not increased since since 2004? Are the estimates incorrect and in fact his power has increased substantially? Does his doping programme give him benefits that are simply not reflected in his power output? Or was he on a doping programme all along?

How do explain Wiggins going from one of the most vociferous anti doping riders to a guy who now instead of talking about doping talks about his love for Armstrong and insults those who question his performances?

 

[King Boonen]

I actually saw the program, but I recall it being very superficial, not really making a case for anything (ETA: not really meant to be a damning criticism BTW, television programs with any kind of scientific depth is a rarity). Also it's not really my impression that he could stick with the climber for five minutes let alone a day pre-2009. Could you give me an example of him sticking with any kind of serious climbers in a major race?

Off the top of my head, no. But then I hardly remember any of the classics from this year let alone stages of races in years gone by! I will have a look and see which ones the programme mentioned if I can find them. If not I may have to watch it again.

 

[jilbiker]

I actually saw the program, but I recall it being very superficial, not really making a case for anything (ETA: not really meant to be a damning criticism BTW, television programs with any kind of scientific depth is a rarity). Also it's not really my impression that he could stick with the climber for five minutes let alone a day pre-2009. Could you give me an example of him sticking with any kind of serious climbers in a major race?

You know I saw a DVD on Lance and it showed his progress on how he would wake up early in the morning, like 4 am climbing the mountains with Bruyneel in the car behind him and all the hardwork he put it to be grow from better than average biker to exceptional....a classic folktale

 

[sniper]

Out of interest, how do you reconcile this particular story with the estimates that show Wiggins' power has not increased since since 2004? Are the estimates incorrect and in fact his power has increased substantially? Does his doping programme give him benefits that are simply not reflected in his power output? Or was he on a doping programme all along?

A few months back there was a lot of calculation on here presumably 'showing' that Contador could not have gotten the Clen through blooddoping.
Later Ashenden publicly stated the positives and additional data were in fact fully consistent with blooddoping.
Just saying, calculations here in the Clinic to prove or disprove doping are tentative at best. Better to trust the writing when it's on the wall.

How do explain Wiggins going from one of the most vociferous anti doping riders to a guy who now instead of talking about doping talks about his love for Armstrong and insults those who question his performances?

Not to forget his appraisal of the UCI, or his refusal to embed Kimmage, etc. etc.

 

[richtea]

How do explain Wiggins going from one of the most vociferous anti doping riders to a guy who now instead of talking about doping talks about his love for Armstrong and insults those who question his performances?

I don't really have any explanation for it, and I certainly don't think it is possible to claim Wiggins is definitely clean. However, surely you would agree that what Wiggins says in press conferences is weaker evidence than estimates of his absolute power outputs?

 

[Benotti69]

A<snip>

Not to forget his appraisal of the UCI, or his refusal to embed Kimmage, etc. etc.

Wiggins had better be careful and i hope he is paying attention to a certain Texan and learning, but i doubt it somehow. His F******W****** and C**** shows he is on the same tracks.

 

[King Boonen]

You know I saw a DVD on Lance and it showed his progress on how he would wake up early in the morning, like 4 am climbing the mountains with Bruyneel in the car behind him and all the hardwork he put it to be grow from better than average biker to exceptional....a classic folktale

That's probably 100% true. Lance didn't become 7 times TDF champion just by doping, it took a gifted athlete and a hell of a lot of hard work too. Almost every cyclist in the peloton is exceptional, I think we forget that sometimes.

 

[King Boonen]

How do explain Wiggins going from one of the most vociferous anti doping riders to a guy who now instead of talking about doping talks about his love for Armstrong and insults those who question his performances?

Is there a transcript of those press-conferences? Would be interesting to read.

And lets remember he's gone from being in the shadows to being centre stage and he'll have had media coaching. One thing you shouldn't do while still riding is publicly criticise people who have not been found guilty.

 

[Benotti69]

I don't really have any explanation for it, and I certainly don't think it is possible to claim Wiggins is definitely clean. However, surely you would agree that what Wiggins says in press conferences is weaker evidence than estimates of his absolute power outputs?

The output estimates is a red herring.

If we look across the board of all the TdF performances, one team has the highest consistently. TeamSky.

Now there have been Numbers bandied about what is actually the natural physical limits. But for one team to be hitting below that number on a consistent 3 weeks basis while all others are not getting near it, suggest something is not right.

We can keep arguing that they never hit over the magic 6.0 or 6.2 figure for long enough etc, but when i see the doping teams suffering and TeamSky with 4/5 riders looking relaxed, again something is not right.

You know, if Wiggins continued with his "kick everyone out of the TdF and ban them for life if they have a 1% chance of doping links" he would be long gone.

Now he has i would say a bigger than 90% chance that he is doping.
Team Domination, doping doctors, no transparency as promised, lashing out at critics, loving Armstrong, refusal to discuss doping in a calm and reasonable manner, peaking all year so far.

Any of the above would have the old Wiggins criticising a rider, but in this supposedly new clean age of cycling (how many is that now) it is ok for Wiggins to do all of the above. Nah.

 

[the big ring]

Is there a transcript of those press-conferences? Would be interesting to read.

And lets remember he's gone from being in the shadows to being centre stage and he'll have had media coaching. One thing you shouldn't do while still riding is publicly criticise people who have not been found guilty.

Multiple world and Olympic pursuit champion = in the shadows? Why was he even interviewed post Cofidis ejection then?

You won't find the article online easily, you have to search way back when internet archive engine to see the interview. You won't like it either.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Out of interest, how do you reconcile this particular story with the estimates that show Wiggins' power has not increased since since 2004? Are the estimates incorrect and in fact his power has increased substantially? Does his doping programme give him benefits that are simply not reflected in his power output? Or was he on a doping programme all along?

Is the weight loss also an estimate? Sustaining that power while obviously loosing body muscle as there was nog fat to burn of his 5% body fat in 2007 at Cofidis?
http://www.lavoixdessports.com/Tour...radley-wiggins-le-rouleur-qui-monte-qui.shtml

However, surely you would agree that what Wiggins says in press conferences is weaker evidence than estimates of his absolute power outputs?

If you don't have a basis for what is supposed to be CLEAN, how can you say power outputs say anything? I would like to see a comparison on Mont Ventoux between the bunch and for example Luicho Herrera. That would be interesting, I bet the bunch is quicker.

 

[King Boonen]

Multiple world and Olympic pursuit champion = in the shadows? Why was he even interviewed post Cofidis ejection then?

You won't find the article online easily, you have to search way back when internet archive engine to see the interview. You won't like it either.

Relatively speaking. Track cycling means nothing in the UK until the Olympics, then after two weeks we forget about it for another four years (some may last a bit longer with sponsorship deals but other than that, nothing).

Brad's road exploits even last year hardly made the papers, I'd be suprised if there were any articles about his time before 2009 except an interview about Confidis and then only because he is British.

I'll have a look and see if I can find it.

 

[poupou]

That's probably 100% true. Lance didn't become 7 times TDF champion just by doping, it took a gifted athlete and a hell of a lot of hard work too. Almost every cyclist in the peloton is exceptional, I think we forget that sometimes.

Hard work is easier and needed to benefit of a good doping program. A gifted athlete who is cheating is a cheater, we forget it often too.
BTW, Lance without doping would never have won a single TDF, even on a clean field. And most important, we cannot known what is his real level because he has been doped since young. Was he really gifted? As boy he only finished on 3rd rank at local swimming races.

 

[jilbiker]

That's probably 100% true. Lance didn't become 7 times TDF champion just by doping, it took a gifted athlete and a hell of a lot of hard work too. Almost every cyclist in the peloton is exceptional, I think we forget that sometimes.

All the pros can all train 4am in the morning etc. But not all will cheat the natural process of rest and recovery. Folks have no clue that advantage that PED gives to an athlete. One can train intensely for 5 consecutive days and not feel one bit tired. Your body is totally reconditioned to function in a very different way. So yes the DVD or TV program is right, they did train hard (LA, Wiggo) .......sort of

 

[King Boonen]

Hard work is easier and needed to benefit of a good doping program. A gifted athlete who is cheating is a cheater, we forget it often too.
BTW, Lance without doping would never have won a single TDF, even on a clean field. And most important, we cannot known what is his real level because he has been doped since young. Was he really gifted? As boy he only finished on 3rd rank at local swimming races.

Oh, I never forget that. I dislike the love that seems to abound for Vino and Pantani and any other dopers. I don't really have a problem with them competing after a bad but that's a different discussion.

I never said he would win it without doping, but even with doping he was a gifted athlete, I don't really think that can be argued against. How gifted we'll never know, but he certainly wasn't some bum who just happened to get selected.

Also, taking childhood performances as an indicator for adult ability is fraught with danger. On that basis I would be playing rugby or kayaking for England and one of my friends would be in the England squad and playing soccer for Manchester United.

 

[the big ring]

I never said he would win it without doping, but even with doping he was a gifted athlete, I don't really think that can be argued against. How gifted we'll never know, but he certainly wasn't some bum who just happened to get selected.

Actually Vaughters points out the opposite is more correct. The worse you are as a cyclist (eg Hct 34%) the better chance you have of gaining an advantage with PEDs.

Increasing your Hct to 45% vs someone whose Hct is already at 44%, your 34% rider gets a 33% increase, vs 2% for the better rider, assuming they can bump it to 45% - which is not always the case.

PED response is a lottery. Some guys find they go slower.

LA is not smart, not tactical and not special athletically, any more than any other rider at the Tour. He just got lucky, had some good connections, and perhaps was more ruthless than others. Just like McQuaid becoming President of the UCI.

Obviously this is open to interpretation and very subjective, but if you know ANYTHING about lactate, FTP or power in general, you should not look as completely clueless as the rider in the following video does:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QcIHRUELuY&feature=relmfu

 

[King Boonen]

Actually Vaughters points out the opposite is more correct. The worse you are as a cyclist (eg Hct 34%) the better chance you have of gaining an advantage with PEDs.

Increasing your Hct to 45% vs someone whose Hct is already at 44%, your 34% rider gets a 33% increase, vs 2% for the better rider, assuming they can bump it to 45% - which is not always the case.

PED response is a lottery. Some guys find they go slower.

LA is not smart, not tactical and not special athletically, any more than any other rider at the Tour. He just got lucky, had some good connections, and perhaps was more ruthless than others. Just like McQuaid becoming President of the UCI.

Obviously this is open to interpretation and very subjective, but if you know ANYTHING about lactate, FTP or power in general, you should not look as completely clueless as the rider in the following video does:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QcIHRUELuY&feature=relmfu

I think we are really saying the same thing. I'm saying every cyclist in the peloton is a gifted cyclist and athlete, but I'm not saying where, from top to bottom, Lance would fall in that group as I don't know.

 

[red_death]

"No they didn't" is not an argument. red_death, "something anything" is not specific. Specifics please.

Red herring to cover that yuo have nothing - how can I be any more specific? A tiniest shred of hard evidence eg failed doping tests, admissions from team members etc etc

The doubters are right that absence of evidence does not mean he is not doping, but equally it is plainly ridiculous to say I know for 90% certainty he is...

How do explain Wiggins going from one of the most vociferous anti doping riders to a guy who now instead of talking about doping talks about his love for Armstrong and insults those who question his performances?

I can't and I think he is foolish (though he has always been a loose cannon prepared to speak his mind), but that doesn't make him a doper.

 

[the big ring]

I think we are really saying the same thing. I'm saying every cyclist in the peloton is a gifted cyclist and athlete, but I'm not saying where, from top to bottom, Lance would fall in that group as I don't know.

Ah. Understanding achieved

 

[King Boonen]

Ah. Understanding achieved

It's happened to me a couple of times now, maybe I should look at my writing style...

 

[the big ring]

It's happened to me a couple of times now, maybe I should look at my writing style...

Reasonable and rational responses like this do not belong in the clinic. Please desist or I shall be forced to report you.

 

[ebandit]

robust?

being British and Cycling + Watching Cycle Sport most of My Life ( a Long Time! ) I should be Excited by a British TDF Win.....but I'm Not

1 it was a Boring Tour Won by a Boring Rider with Boring Tactics

2 I felt Cheated after the 2011 Tour and Feel Cheated now.........unlike Many Observers I don't see Much Evidence just Indicators which suggest a lack of Honesty.......however what is the most Telling point for Me is Seeing Pictures of Brad Post Tour Standing up in His Team Kit..............He looked Anorexic
.............My thought.....No-One that Skinny is Robust enough to Win the TDF?

Gentlemen Your right to be incredulous............keep watching if Your correct
real Evidence of Malpractice will surface

 

[sniper]

(...)My thought.....No-One that Skinny is Robust enough to Win the TDF? (...)

I agree: without dope, and without sufficient natural bodyfat, you don't survive half a week of TdF.
As skinny as Brad, riding the TdF one would normally drop dead on the first col.
unless of course...

 

[King Boonen]

I agree: without dope, and without sufficient natural bodyfat, you don't survive half a week of TdF.
As skinny as Brad, riding the TdF one would normally drop dead on the first col.
unless of course...

Quick kg per cm calculations work out as Contador and Sastre skinnier than Wiggins.

P.S. isoltaed stats are less than useless and this is just hand-waving.