Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[the big ring]

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.

Wiggins matched Tony Martin in the final, pretty much flat TT (beat him - if only by a second), 5 months after Tony Martin put 1:15 into him (over 44km) at the 2011 World Champs.

He wasn't holding back, no, but he was riding very well in the TT, wouldn't you agree?

 

[the big ring]

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

That's where we are in agreement, but the logic falls apart.

Believers are saying he wasn't peaking, so he hasn't peaked all year.

Doubters are saying he smashed everyone all year, and wasn't even peaking. People usually only win when they are peaking, or close to peaking, so the term peaking may be used, but what is implied (I believe) is "winning". The main problem being - where the hell did that come from, when noone else, certainly not Wiggins, has done that since forever.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Wiggins matched Tony Martin in the final, pretty much flat TT (beat him - if only by a second), 5 months after Tony Martin put 1:15 into him (over 44km) at the 2011 World Champs.

He wasn't holding back, no, but he was riding very well in the TT, wouldn't you agree?

That's where we are in agreement, but the logic falls apart.

Believers are saying he wasn't peaking, so he hasn't peaked all year.

Doubters are saying he smashed everyone all year, and wasn't even peaking. People usually only win when they are peaking, or close to peaking, so the term peaking may be used, but what is implied (I believe) is "winning". The main problem being - where the hell did that come from, when noone else, certainly not Wiggins, has done that since forever.

Yes, he has clearly improved a lot (unless everyone else slowed down ), to the point that he now wins major stage races like P-N & Romandie at probably less than 95% of his peak FTP.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

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.

Thanx for making that point, now go and compare those two riders and find out wich performance is the more credible.

And, don't forget, the SKY boys were never above 95%. One of the 'secrets'.

 

[richtea]

Doubters are saying he smashed everyone all year, and wasn't even peaking. People usually only win when they are peaking, or close to peaking, so the term peaking may be used, but what is implied (I believe) is "winning". The main problem being - where the hell did that come from, when noone else, certainly not Wiggins, has done that since forever.

Do you really think he needed to be near his peak to win Romandie? The course was so unselective it was always going to come down to the prologue and the time trial. Who was at Romandie that was really going to challenge him?

 

[Catwhoorg]

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.

Thats one of the things that Sky said they did differently this year. Not that many GC guys actually raced week long races to win (except just before their GT of choice)

It seems to be that the consensus was to get into 'race shape' by riding some races, not necessarily to win, but to build towards a GT.

Sky raced em to win, and to get and hold the MJ in each case to practice defending a lead, which is a different aspect of racing.


I really don't have the depth of knowledge of early season results to know if this bears scrutiny or not.

 

[Cerberus]

Of course, that is only in reflection about Wiggo. Sky's credibility is eroding due to the accumulation of marginal evidence

LOL, good one.

 

[Ferminal]

No classics/GT favourite reaches top form in warmup semis and stage races. This is why lesser names have a chance to win said races, if they peak for them.

There are two points here:

1) It is possible for top GT riders to win smaller stage races not in absolute peak form.

2) There are only a few cases of top riders having the legs and desire to win every race they enter.

 

[armchairclimber]

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 notice you have once again failed to acknowledge in any way very real concerns that have led to those 4780 posts



pot...kettle...



(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

I'm anti dopingt. I just don't see any evidence that Wiggins has doped. There isn't anything in his performance (that's performance, not sheet sniffing by a bunch of fundamentalists...and no, I don't include Krebs or ACoggan in that number...they appear capable of rational thought).

Wiggins isn't abrasive towards anti-dopers..

 

[Franklin]

Wiggins isn't abrasive towards anti-dopers...

But as has been proven beyond a shimmer of a doubt that there are indeed nasty facts this makes him? A hypocrite? and you?

As you clearly love facts and are antidoping I assume you agree that the criticism on Sky is spot on... if not I assume your love for facts and anti-doping stance isn't as solid as you claim.

And no, I won't trot them out again, as you know fully well which facts there are. As well as you know that Wiggins himself saw it enough reason to ban a team.

 

[Cerberus]

I'm anti doping you nugget. I just don't see any evidence that Wiggins has doped. There isn't anything in his performance (that's performance, not sheet sniffing by a bunch of fundamentalists...and no, I don't include Krebs or ACoggan in that number...they appear capable of rational thought).

Ah yes, capable of rational thought=agreeing with the speaker. I do believe that is the Oxford Dictionaries definition of rational thought.

 

[Robert21]

For reference, here's a shot of Wiggins in pursuit mode at the Athens Olympics. Pretty sure I can see ribs.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/phot.../bradley_wigginsoct07/WigginspurswinOG804-091

He does look very thin for someone who supposedly weighed 82 kg at this point, a whole 13 kg more than his 2012 Tour weight of 69 kg.

British Cycling's Matt Parker has coached Wiggins for several years, and it was him who did the calculations. "We've always known there's a road rider in there," he says. "Brad is a supreme athlete. He's an Olympic champion and world record holder, the power he produces, we knew he could climb well, maybe not in the first group every day, but definitely in the second, and that would give him a chance of being in the top 10 of the Tour."

Wiggins rode the Olympic Games last summer weighing 82kg...

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/436524/bradley-wiggins-the-transformation.html

 

[DirtyWorks]

I just don't see any evidence that Wiggins has doped.

Ahhh. Another call for evidence. What specific evidence would alter your belief that Wiggins is doping? Please be specific.

 

[Robert21]

In all this discussion about whether the performance of Wiggins and Froome are within the bounds of human possibility, isn't it rather more relevant to ask whether they are in the bounds of possibility for them, given their previous history?

To take the logic further, I know that the only way I could ever ride at tempo on a climb whilst putting out 450 watts would be via a massive doping program, but according to some on here as long as my power output stayed within in the known limits of human physiology, there would be no grounds for suspecting doping!

 

[Franklin]

In all this discussion about whether the performance of Wiggins and Froome are within the bounds of human possibility, isn't it rather more relevant to ask whether they are in the bounds of possibility for them, given their previous history?

To take the logic further, I know that the only way I could ever ride at tempo on a climb whilst putting out 450 watts would be via a massive doping program, but according to some on here as long as my power output stayed within in the known limits of human physiology, there would be no grounds for suspecting doping!

It's one of the two cornerstones of the Sky defense:

1. Never tested Positive
2. Humanly possible performances

Both have been shown to have huge flaws as a cornerstone for belief.

The facts which can be arrayed clearly are not so easy to circumvent

1. it's logical to be extremely critical of TdF winners as the past is a very decisive field-study.
2. the remains of links to prior doping in the staff are surprising and undeniable. Especially Geert Leinders stands out as an uncontested fraud.
and enabler.

 

[the big ring]

He does look very thin for someone who supposedly weighed 82 kg at this point, a whole 13 kg more than his 2012 Tour weight of 69 kg.



http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/436524/bradley-wiggins-the-transformation.html

The shot is from Athens, 2004 - at 75-76kg. Photo is from interview in 2007, a year before 2008 olympics in Beijing.

 

[Robert21]

The shot is from Athens, 2004 - at 75-76kg. Photo is from interview in 2007, a year before 2008 olympics in Beijing.

I think the point being: the whole weightloss thing is a furphy - ala Ed Coyle and LA..

So, Wiggins supposedly put on 6-7 kg between this picture...

And this one?

Can't see it myself!

 

[the big ring]

So, Wiggins supposedly put on 6-7 kg between this picture...

Looking at similar angled photos, I'd say he did put that weight on.

What I question is whether he's really down to 69, or just went back to 75/76kg as per "usual" tour weight - and what that implies given his results to date. Makes the TTs far more believable for me, but makes the climbing somewhat suspect...

 

[DirtyWorks]

... isn't it rather more relevant to ask whether they are in the bounds of possibility for them, given their previous history?

Yes, it is! But the steadfast believers in the Sky fairy tale tend to contrive something to avoid discussing individual performance spikes in certain areas for Wiggins and most every area for Froome.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

He supposedly weighed 72 kg at Garmin. Did Boyet say 76 kg at 5% body fat at Cofidis? If Brad's current weight is actually in the 72-76 kg range, it would give him a more believable threshold w/kg and more in line with his TdF VAM's.

Does anyone really believe 2011 Wiggans could sustain 6.6 W/kg (456W, 69kg) in an hour long TT? I don't.

 

[the big ring]

He supposedly weighed 72 kg at Garmin. Did Boyet say 76 kg at 5% body fat at Cofidis? If Brad's current weight is actually in the 72-76 kg range, it would give him a more believable threshold w/kg and more in line with his VAM's.

Does anyone really believe 2011 Wiggans could sustain 6.6 W/kg (456W, 69kg) for an hour? I don't.

I did some math and this (453W @ 69kg for 57:15) avails a 95 ml/m/kg VO2max, so no, I do not believe it.

But if he is 75-76kg, why the 69kg lie? Why the complete charade of a story for losing weight?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Let the Defections Begin!

Flecha leaving Sky: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/flecha-to-leave-sky-for-vacansoleil

Cavendish probably??? leaving Sky http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-cavendish-should-probably-leave-sky

In both cases though, they are peripheral to the Sky GT goals. If we see a Uran or Froome leave, then I think there might be some interesting anti-doping news to follow later from a former Sky GT rider.

 

[richtea]

I did some math and this (453W @ 69kg for 57:15) avails a 95 ml/m/kg VO2max, so no, I do not believe it.

But if he is 75-76kg, why the 69kg lie? Why the complete charade of a story for losing weight?

He's listed at 76kg on the TDF website, and similar on London 2012. Where does the 69kg come from, the Team Sky website?

 

[the big ring]

He's listed at 76kg on the TDF website, and similar on London 2012. Where does the 69kg come from, the Team Sky website?

http://www.teamsky.com/profile/0,27291,17543_5771661,00.html

If your team don't know how much you weigh...

This "article' says 71.5-72.5 in 2009: http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/436524/bradley-wiggins-the-transformation.html

 

[richtea]

http://www.teamsky.com/profile/0,27291,17543_5771661,00.html

If your team don't know how much you weigh...

I was just asking. I wonder how often they update it. Has it changed at all since 2010 do you think?