Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Mr.38%]

So we should preventively disagree with things we write today?

 

[the big ring]

I think plenty of us would disagree with things we wrote three years ago.

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.

I agree opinions can change, but this looks more like an about face by an alleged expert in the field.

 

[sittingbison]

3000 clinic posts mean diddly squat...

Great, so why are you here?

...The fact is that his performance is entirely explicable in terms of physiology and sports science...So I repeat, there is nothing in Wiggins' performance to suggest doping....

If it was entirely explicable in terms of physiology and sports science, this thread would have ended 4780 posts ago. I notice you have once again failed to acknowledge in any way very real concerns that have led to those 4780 posts

...There are people in the clinic who are fundamentalists...they will never, ever, be swayed from their "dirty" view of the sport or given athletes/teams, regardless of the facts presented to them...

pot...kettle...

...unless you think he has been juicing since he was 15.

(apart from Lance probably doping since 16), nobody has ever suggested Wiggo doped since 15. In fact, pretty well everyone here seems to agree that prior to 2009 he was clean as a whistle with the appropriate abrasive attitude towards dopers everyone wishes certain others in the peleton had.

The problem is, as has been suggested 4780 times minus fanboys and some serious scientific analysis by acoggan, krebs et al, is the entire dynamic changed when he came 4th in 2009 without the slightest shred of evidence he was capable of that performance. At age 30, not 15. And is now as abrasive to anti-dopers as he once was to dopers, yet sings the praises of Lance and Team USPS

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I think plenty of us would disagree with things we wrote three years ago.

That's not the point. Krebs is a physician who is making statements that contradict, either it is possible to peak whole year long or it is not. I don't think science has changed in 3 years time? I just want to know his expert opinion on Wiggo's Grand Slam and if it is suspicious.

 

[Mr Pumpy]

Great, so why are you here?
If it was entirely explicable in terms of physiology and sports science, this thread would have ended 4780 posts ago.

I'm really interested in the discussions that have been going on recently. I'm not actually very bothered about what the outcome is, I've got nothing to lose in concrete terms or emotionally either way, although I'd prefer everyone to be riding clean. I suspect that there are a goodly number of people on this forum who actually hope Wiggins is doping.

At least, there is measured debate going on now.

 

[personal]

I think plenty of us would disagree with things we wrote three years ago.

Maybe our opinions, but not our science based posts.
Physiology as science didn't change that much in few years.

 

[Krebs cycle]

You say this (and other things) but ... I dunno. Compare what you were saying 3 years ago:



with the very detailed, complex process you come up with today:



Something happened between 2009 and 2012, because your tune has changed dramatically.

And again, you take the time to try to find some tiny inconsistency or flaw in my reasoning that you can jump all over, but you refuse to go and follow the many links I have posted to high quality journal publications. Your information gathering priorities are screwed up dude.

What has changed since I made that post in 2009 is that I have educated myself better on Wiggins' history of results in TTs and I also spent those years working with lightweight rowers and on several occasions the athletes I was working with were able to lose some weight and maintain absolute power within a percent or 2. The other thing that has changed my opinion is that some people (such as Ross Tucker) have taken the time to analyse the estimated power during climbs in the past few years and things this year look very unremarkable.

Funny that I can change my opinion when I become better informed but you can't.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I am a little surprised that someone claiming to be a PhD in exercise physiology is actually saying this

Are you sure you want to post this? Did you perhaps get something wrong (again) and mean something else? Read it carefully - they are your words.

srsly Ms Westermeyer, must I have to continually put up with these ad hominen attacks?

This guy just can't respond to the topic but instead replies with 3 smear campaign style posts about me in a row.

PLAY THE BALL AND NOT THE MAN BIG RING


I'm trying to maintain a civil discussion here and all you want to do is keep trolling me.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I took the liberty to 'dig' into your posts, please explain this:



and compare this to Wiggo's season.

Double standard bust or have you come to the conclusion Contadope was clean after all? And I would like to note Contador had shown 'some' potential in the past in comparison to good old Wiggins.

Yep after going and looking at results from the last 50yrs of grand tours I've changed my view on that one too.

Gee there it goes again..... become more informed about something and change ones opinion. I guess that is a foreign concept to most of you guys?

 

[ebandit]

thanks!

[/IMG]

thanks! it's great to Read Everyone's Posts...............as with many Subjects
Everything is Not Clear Cut.........to Me All Posts have Merit

I'm Not Nearly as Bright as You Guys .............I Feel that without doubt Wiggins as an Exceptional Athlete He Could have Won the Tour Clean but He Might Not have done

No doubt Evidence will Surface Very Soon if PEDS were Used........Until then Brad is Clean

it's a Shame that Cyclings Tainted Past brings so Much Doubt

Now I Hear that Brad thinks that Sky will be Aiming for the Whole Set of Grand Tour Wins in 1 Year...........I magine how Thin He will be Then!

 

[the big ring]

This guy just can't respond to the topic but instead replies with 3 smear campaign style posts about me in a row.

PLAY THE BALL AND NOT THE MAN BIG RING

I'm trying to maintain a civil discussion here and all you want to do is keep trolling me.

If I remember correctly, I was recently posting about the physiology of the IP vs FTP vs VO2max - and you were telling me:

The bit in bold is WRONG.

This is WRONG WRONG WRONG. If you know how much power someone can produce over 4min then you can predict with a high degree of accuracy how much power they can sustain for 40min.
If you cannot understand or refuse to even try to understand the relevance that the critical power model has to this discussion then I cannot help you. That IS the physiological explanation.

But finally, after much toing and froing, you admitted:

Ok you got me. I over-exaggerated here slightly because I was trying to get you to accept the fact that a hyperbolic function describes the relationship between power output and time in human beings.

I think the whole "play the man" thing is a projection. I have only ever refuted or argued with your claims about Wiggins' apparent ability. The mistakes you make lead me to question other things, true, but you are basing a lot of what you are saying on the premise that you are an expert. The small snippet highlighted above is an example of many that are making this look doubtful.

I am still waiting to hear the protocol that allows you to determine the % of aerobic vs anaerobic energy production in an IP, and how this was measured in Brad Wiggins. JV claimed it in his "talk" thread, you claim to have said the same thing a month ago (can't find that) but the method for determining this is missing, let alone the results being claimed.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Yep after going and looking at results from the last 50yrs of grand tours I've changed my view on that one too.

Gee there it goes again..... become more informed about something and change ones opinion.

Don't misinterpret me here please, I am not trying to be a DB, but are you stating science is also just an opinion?

So, you researched results of the last 50 years of the Tour and that made you decide peaking all year long is now plausible? In the history of cycling I can recall just one 'freak of nature' [with all the respect] with the name of Eddy - surname isn't even necessary - able to handle these kind of results. Now we learn a former 4k individual pursuit Campionissimo [I give him that, with capital C] could also do the trick?

As an historian - also science - I call this highly questionable.

And, don't forget Sky's statement at being whole year long at 95%, not 100%.

I guess that is a foreign concept to most of you guys?

You don't have to become an ***, really not necessary.

I have a question for you. I read somewhere, gotta look again where, forgive me for not having a direct link, LeMond and 'his peloton' drove up the mountains at wattages of not even 400. Don't you as a physician find it a bit strange domestiques like Porte are pushing up the mountains at much more wattages?

 

[noddy69]

And again, you take the time to try to find some tiny inconsistency or flaw in my reasoning that you can jump all over, but you refuse to go and follow the many links I have posted to high quality journal publications. Your information gathering priorities are screwed up dude.

What has changed since I made that post in 2009 is that I have educated myself better on Wiggins' history of results in TTs and I also spent those years working with lightweight rowers and on several occasions the athletes I was working with were able to lose some weight and maintain absolute power within a percent or 2. The other thing that has changed my opinion is that some people (such as Ross Tucker) have taken the time to analyse the estimated power during climbs in the past few years and things this year look very unremarkable.

Funny that I can change my opinion when I become better informed but you can't.

Just a few questions. When these said rowers lost weight, where did they lose the weight from ?
How much weight did they lose?
Was the weight lost from peak performance weights ?
Just want to see if we can compare it to Wiggins in some way and as you have the figures it would be a good place to start.

 

[the big ring]

If you do a test called an MAOD then you can estimate the aerobic vs anaerobic contribution. I have performed this test on many occasions on rowers, runners, sprint kayakers and cyclists, so I have NO DOUBT whatsoever that British Cycling has this data on Wiggins and are thus able to make informed decisions about his potential to compete successfully on the road.

Whereas us dumb folk just look at his road results prior to 2009 and - apart from the odd prologue TT, go, "Meh".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20364874

From the studies that evaluated the reliability of the MAOD method it is clear that the MAOD method may not be a reliable measure of anaerobic capacity. From these findings it can be concluded that the MAOD method may have limitations as a valid and reliable measure of anaerobic capacity and needs to be further improved.

 

[Cavalier]

That snapping sound is the audible measure of credibility disappearing.

 

[D-Queued]

That's not the point. Krebs is a physician who is making statements that contradict, either it is possible to peak whole year long or it is not. I don't think science has changed in 3 years time? I just want to know his expert opinion on Wiggo's Grand Slam and if it is suspicious.

Maybe our opinions, but not our science based posts.
Physiology as science didn't change that much in few years.

You guys are both missing the obvious.

Science has changed a lot in three years. We have now 'found' the God Particle.

Physiology science has changed even faster. And god has endowed new humans with even greater gifts than our sharpest minds could have imagined three years ago.

We have 'found' the incredible genetic improvements in the new human Jamaican track athletes. Now, a new human British Rider has demonstrated that is possible to peak all year long. Next, the new human British riders will demonstrate that it is possible to peak for multiple years.

New humans are better than old humans.

Evolution is a strange thing. Small or little changes for eons, then all of the sudden massive shifts.

That is what we are seeing here.

Dave.

 

[bobbins]

If Sky are clean, they are doing a worse than *** job in convincing people that they are.

If Sky are dirty, they are doing a worse than *** job of convincing people otherwise.

Either way, they need a new PR strategy. FFS, playing the dead soigneur card to justify hiring a dirty doctor must be a new low even for them.

Combine this with trying to manage the Cav exit strategy, they need to be clearing out some of the hangers on / lovers / parasites that inhabit the team management and get a bit more professional.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

That's not the point. Krebs is a physician who is making statements that contradict, either it is possible to peak whole year long or it is not. I don't think science has changed in 3 years time? I just want to know his expert opinion on Wiggo's Grand Slam and if it is suspicious.

Wiggins isn't peaking all year long, unless you think Talansky in Romandie form is just as good a TT'er as peak form Wiggins, that Westra in P-N form is as good a climber as peak form Wiggins and that TJVG was in much better form at Algarve than at the Tour. The argument is absolutely ludicrous and I cannot believe people keep making it. It's especially silly coming from a Greg Lemond fan, as pre-gun shot wound Greg was quite successful from spring-autumn.

 

[the big ring]

Wiggins isn't peaking all year long, unless you think Talansky in Romandie form is just as good a TT'er as peak form Wiggins, that Westra in P-N form is as good a climber as peak form Wiggins and that TJVG was in much better form at Algarve than at the Tour. The argument is absolutely ludicrous and I cannot believe people keep making it. It's especially silly coming from a Greg Lemond fan, as pre-gun shot wound Greg was quite successful from spring-autumn.

Name a race Wiggins has entered and not won this year? GC contenders don't enter multi-stage races to win stages, they enter to win the race. That's what Wiggins has done, all year.

 

[roundabout]

Algarve. He merely finished 3rd.

 

[hrotha]

FFS, playing the dead soigneur card to justify hiring a dirty doctor must be a new low even for them.

This. Personally I don't understand how that was overlooked by nearly everyone. It was disgusting, and some journo should publicly call Brailsford out on it.

 

[the big ring]

Algarve. He merely finished 3rd.

I sit corrected. Porte 1st, Wiggins 3rd, with Tony Martin, second.

It's not a win, but there are people who would be very happy with 3rd in that race at that early in the season.

 

[D-Queued]

And again, you take the time to try to find some tiny inconsistency or flaw in my reasoning that you can jump all over, but you refuse to go and follow the many links I have posted to high quality journal publications. Your information gathering priorities are screwed up dude.

What has changed since I made that post in 2009 is that I have educated myself better on Wiggins' history of results in TTs and I also spent those years working with lightweight rowers and on several occasions the athletes I was working with were able to lose some weight and maintain absolute power within a percent or 2. The other thing that has changed my opinion is that some people (such as Ross Tucker) have taken the time to analyse the estimated power during climbs in the past few years and things this year look very unremarkable.

Funny that I can change my opinion when I become better informed but you can't.

This is not necessarily a good comparison.

Lightweight rowers, like boxers, wrestlers, and other athletes with 'weight limits' can and will drop a considerable amount of weight prior to 'making weight', then gain that weight back quickly, e.g. through re-hydrating, even in the hours before an event.

Such weight loss is 'artificial'. (REF: see also 'diuretics')

And not the same as a pro in the peloton who will go to great lengths to avoid dehydration and does not have to 'make weight'.

In other cases, some athletes are better able to maintain their weight within a certain range. And, some lightweight rowers (e.g. those smaller in stature) may already be in their optimal power:weight range.

There is a definite power:weight advantage in lightweight oarsmen over heavier rowers, but a loss in absolute power. Bigger rowers are stronger and have more power. This loss in power is demonstrated between lightweight and heavyweight crews, over and over again, for decades, in course times.

To make your case, you would need to demonstrate a statistically significant sample of gold-medal class heavyweight rowers (e.g. ~190+ lb race weight) who could drop to <160 lb, sustainably without dehydration make weight tricks, and be within 2% of their max power.

Dave.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

From The Science of Sport:

The first problem arises out of the sudden improvements Semenya makes at championships. Or put differently, it's how well off the pace she is in European races, before she arrives to championships looking close to unbeatable (by all but Savinova, it turns out). This year, Semenya had been "stuck" in the 1:59 to 2:01 range since April, and had run half a dozen races where she was unable to get faster. Then suddenly, she runs 1:57 looking rather easy, and it is going to cause questions.

Remember, this is exactly the same thing that was done for Ye Shiwen of China and for Makhloufi of Algeria - they improved significantly in a short time, it was deemed "peculiar" and the speculation of doping began. Semenya's improvement is similar, if not larger in magnitude over a shorter period, and so the same logic leads to questions.

Well, I'm not sure I agree entirely here. Symmonds situation is very different. Remember, Semenya has run 8 races this year, only 2 of them under 2 minutes. Her "typical" time in the last 3 months is 2:00 - 2:01.

Symmonds ran a 1:43.92 at the US trials, and then improved by 1 sec in the Olympic Games. That is a 1% improvement. You're cherry picking his race to find your 2 sec improvement - he's not a 1:45 guy normally. If he were, and ran that time, it's different.
If you apply the same to Semenya, you should realize that Semenya is typically at 2:00 - 2:01 and drops 3 seconds, that's twice the peak, or 3%.
Look also at Rudisha - 1% improvement with peak. Bolt was 1% faster in the Games than the season. Kirani James is 1.5% faster than in the season. Those are typical.
So it's not a question of "weak" analysis - it's just pointing out that such large drops are unusual. Not impossible though - look at Nijel Amos in the final. To go from struggling in Diamond League races to a 1:57 is a big jump. It's going to ask questions. That's normal.

OMG! Jonathan and Ross don't expect athletes to suck 11 months of the year and then improve by 15%. They must be on more drugs than Wiggins!

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Name a race Wiggins has entered and not won this year? GC contenders don't enter multi-stage races to win stages, they enter to win the race. That's what Wiggins has done, all year.

Doesn't matter if he won those races. His threshold power was evidently substantially lower. Ergo, he certainly wasn't at his peak.

Those races came down to the TT's, so it's not like he was holding back.