Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[DirtyWorks]

This has probably already been posted. French anti-doping says Froome and Wiggo's power from the TdF are comparable to the EPO era.

""Work together with Antoine Vayer [LeMond columnist], the performance specialist, helped show the implausibility of the power generated in watts on the climbs. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the UCI has banned the publication of such real-time statistics in 2012. And we can understand why when you see that the power production by [Bradley] Wiggins and [Chris] Froome (first and second of the Tour) is comparable to the turbulent times of the late 1990s and early 2000s.""

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-warned-before-all-doping-controls

Don't tell me. Conjecture, right? The French are just bitter losers. What else?

 

[Franklin]

??I never said management team. I said the management. To me that means brailsford. or the DS calling the shots. A team doctor does not go round setting up a doping regime for a team. And my comments have been in reference to the conversation on Sky doping. As a team. now i'm pretty sure brailsford was the team manager from day 1. And i don't think he wants doping in the team.

As i said before, i think riders are the real risk at sky. Doping independently of the team.......

Okay, time to make it a bit easier, as you are utterly lost (which is no surprise considering your lack of knowledge over Sky and Leinders is jarring):

Leinders. was. Upper. Management. at. Rabo. during. both. chicken. affair. as. Humanplasma.

There. is. undisputed. proof. the. Upper. Management. including. GL. was. involved. in. fraud. during. the. chicken. affair

There. is. undisputed. evidence. GL. was. involved. in doping. at. rabo. and. actually. had. a. carte. blanche. to. make. the. medical. decisions. to. create. a. GT. winner.

Stating Leinders is just a doctor is completely and utterly moronic. And DB certainly knew this as this was not only in the press, a judge awarded the chicken approx. one million in a case where the management team (including GL) was shown to be fraudulent.

Why would you hire GL? DB said he was a wizzkid with Saddle sores

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Vayer is such a hack.

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/225697706218246144

So, it was 1680 VAM per hour. Eighty meters down on Armstrong in 2001? Says enough. He would be faster than LeMond/Hinault/Herrera in their days.

You could also keep in mind they [Sky] just set a race pace high enough so nobody would escape, known as tactics.

When u use statistics, use them good. That said, it was quite obvious the Froomster could do much much better. Where would his VAM end up? I bet he could top Pharmstrong's 2001 with ease.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Krebs, you are assuming the UCI WOULD ACTUALLY START A SANCTION process for a positive should one arise.

Go back to Contador's positive where the UCI tried to supress that. Go back to Armstrong's 'comeback' and the longitudinal positive that the USADA has that the UCI never initiated.

The problem you refuse to acknowledge is the UCI's total corruption in the apparent pursuit of an audience, or money, or something. Except you keep reasoning like the UCI is an honest enforcer/actor/etc. They are not. You cannot rely on the UCI to enforce anything once you have a real shot at the TdF, or pay WCP, or Pat or Hein or somebody.

Who said anything about a sanction from the UCI? I am well aware of the corruption that exists in the UCI and have been strong critic of the anti-doping efforts (or lackthereof) of the UCI for many years.

I was referring to something that links Wiggins to any direct evidence of doping whatsoever, eg: leaked test results, syringes in the trash, eyewitness testimony, initials on a blood bag, name in a ledger, something, anything that amounts to a published accusation of doping by a reputable cycling journalist and not some anonymous twitterers.

 

[hrotha]

Who said anything about a sanction from the UCI? I am well aware of the corruption that exists in the UCI and have been strong critic of the anti-doping efforts (or lackthereof) of the UCI for many years.

I was referring to something that links Wiggins to any direct evidence of doping whatsoever, eg: leaked test results, syringes in the trash, eyewitness testimony, initials on a blood bag, name in a ledger, something, anything that amounts to a published accusation of doping by a reputable cycling journalist and not some anonymous twitterers.

That's a fair point.

Contador was tainted in 2006. After that, however, there wasn't anything more tangible than what we have on Wiggins until 2010, 3 years after his first Tour victory. edit: well, there's the Astana syringes in 2009, I suppose.

Andy, to this day, has nothing definite on him, 5 years after his breakthrough.

Fränk's breakthrough came in 2005. He became tainted in mid 2008, for things that happened 3 years prior. He tested positive 4 years later.

Menchov had a stellar 2004 season and won the Vuelta in 2005. As far as I know there was nothing on him until 2009, with the HumanPlasma allegations.

Ullrich broke through in 1996. Recreational drugs aside, he only became tainted in 2006, with Puerto. That's 10 years.

Cunego won the 2004 Giro. The Mantova investigation broke out in 2010. That's 6 years.

Basso broke through in 2003. Tainted in 2006. 3 years.

I'm picking names from top contenders mostly at random, by the way, but regardless I don't think we can say there's a clear timetable for allegations to appear.

 

[draexem]

This has probably already been posted. French anti-doping says Froome and Wiggo's power from the TdF are comparable to the EPO era.

Scientists who questioned the legitimacy of cycling performances during the 90s were never upset about the power Armstrong could produce. It was the fact that he could do it all damn day. I'm not saying that the sport is clean right now, but to compare the performances of Wiggo and Froome to Armstrong and Pantani is, to put it bluntly, quite ridiculous.

The same sport scientists who were proclaiming that Armstrong's performances were superhuman are, from what I have read, saying that Wiggo and Froome were performing within the limits of human abilities during the TDF. Which doesn't mean that they're clean, it just means that if they were cheating they weren't doing so as outrageously as cyclists were during the EPO era.

 

[TShame]

Accusation

I understand someone will always be willing to make unfounded accusations.
Why is CyclingNews so eager to carry it?

From today's article on Lance:

French attorney Thibault de Montbrial, who defended the paper in a suit filed by Armstrong against LA Confidential authors David Walsh and Pierre Ballester, thinks.......

He also believes riders are still showing suspicious signs.

"Work together with Antoine Vayer [LeMond columnist], the performance specialist, helped show the implausibility of the power generated in watts on the climbs. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the UCI has banned the publication of such real-time statistics in 2012. And we can understand why when you see that the power production by [Bradley] Wiggins and [Chris] Froome (first and second of the Tour) is comparable to the turbulent times of the late 1990s and early 2000s."

I happen to be one of those riders who can push more wattage uphill than on a zero level. How can someone just jump in and make a sweeping statement like that? This makes his accusations against Lance seem biased and suspicious. Lance must be guilty because he won 7 times. Wiggins must be guilty because he's British and can climb.

So, if this were true, Wiggins had a wonder drug that made him fast on the track. But, it took a few years for him to find the right drug that could not only make him climb, but be undetected.

Lance and Wiggo are wasting time riding their bikes. They could make billions as a pharmacist or drug rep. apparently.

 

[Galic Ho]

Vayer is such a hack.

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/225697706218246144

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/07/tour-in-mountains-analysis-discussion.html

Yeah dude...wake up.

Andrew Coggan is not a good source other than configuring power readings. That's it. Only thing to take his word on. Ask him about his friend he was defending years ago on this forum. You know, the hack who came up with the Lance is superior garbage...in a discredited scientific paper? You might have read it. That man is from Texas too. Coggan is a BS artist and self serving git. His mate had dodgy numbers for LA that didn't match what he really did on the road...Coggan defended the variances and said they didn't matter. Now extend that courtesy to Vayer. Seriously dude...the hack's are obvious.

So are the Science of Sport guys. All of them lack context. Every time. Let's compare to the 90s! Smart mvoe there. It was uber doping. Why not compare to LeMond? Oh that's right...the numbers are still doping numbers. Vayer on the other hand doesn't lack context...but why not forget that ey?

Research Vayer...he'd know. So what, he didn't put in relative power figures. Do it yourself. That was in the power data thread. Go back and read Coggan's original mumbo jumbo on this forum from 2009...he practically was defending those BS numbers from the 90s if you extended his talk about his buddy (you can figure out his name yourself)...but you'd know this wouldn't you? Apparently not. Everything he says is relative to what he wants you to know. He's far from truthful. He's manipulative and duplicitous. Traits all hacks share.

Until these jack offs compare everything to the 80s, which they could quite easily do, it still screams doping. Especially Sky. Vayer knows this and says so. One figure from Voeckler didn't tickle your liking...Basso said they went high @420W following, Wiggins joked they were doing 480W so 440W ain't out of the question. Seriously...the Science of Sport guys are to be taken seriously!!! But by all means, dumb the duration of the output down. It's still to bloody high. Something comparison with the 80s would reveal. Read their tone, they all but claim cycling is clean. They've been asked to provide proper context and repeatedly refuse to do so. Not like they work with doped up Saffer Rugby Teams is it? No, but excuse them and pick on Vayer, the one guy saying it's BS with calculations. No benchmarks for clean, just assumptions from the guys you believe. Vayer is the one who actually worked in the field during the muck and rot. Wake up and smell the roses...him and Willy Voet both worked for Festina. They know EXACTLY what they are talking about and what is possible clean. Those Saffer tools wouldn't have a clue and their lack of context confirms this.

His idea of what is possible clean is pretty much what Big Boat has claimed. You know...like what Lemond, Hinault and Merckx could do...but you know those numbers right? Please, you're normally posting sensible stuff...quit buying the duplicitous deceit sown by self serving intellectuals looking for their next client and pay cheque. Go ahead, ask them to run Lemonds numbers...they won't do it. Give us a proper benchmark and then scoff at Vayer. It's not like Bassons was clean on at Festina. Perfect sample to compare to let's say Virenque. At least he has one. Hacks are the ones who use Armstrong as the benchmark for all measurements on what is possible and state that if it's only slightly lower then yeah, all is good.

 

[sniper]

I understand someone will always be willing to make unfounded accusations.
Why is CyclingNews so eager to carry it?

From today's article on Lance:


I happen to be one of those riders who can push more wattage uphill than on a zero level. How can someone just jump in and make a sweeping statement like that? This makes his accusations against Lance seem biased and suspicious. Lance must be guilty because he won 7 times. Wiggins must be guilty because he's British and can climb.

So, if this were true, Wiggins had a wonder drug that made him fast on the track. But, it took a few years for him to find the right drug that could not only make him climb, but be undetected.

Lance and Wiggo are wasting time riding their bikes. They could make billions as a pharmacist or drug rep. apparently.

sounds quite interesting re: wiggo and froome.
I'd like to look closer at that.
could you provide a link? I couldn't find the article you refer to.

 

[Galic Ho]

I understand someone will always be willing to make unfounded accusations.
Why is CyclingNews so eager to carry it?

From today's article on Lance:


I happen to be one of those riders who can push more wattage uphill than on a zero level. How can someone just jump in and make a sweeping statement like that? This makes his accusations against Lance seem biased and suspicious. Lance must be guilty because he won 7 times. Wiggins must be guilty because he's British and can climb.

So, if this were true, Wiggins had a wonder drug that made him fast on the track. But, it took a few years for him to find the right drug that could not only make him climb, but be undetected.

Lance and Wiggo are wasting time riding their bikes. They could make billions as a pharmacist or drug rep. apparently.

He worked for Festina moron. Wake up.

He's the only guy who has given numbers and said yeah, lower than Lance, Riis and Pantani, but hey, guess what...STILL DOPING.

But you'd know all about Festina and how dirty they were right? Seriously, if you don't know who Vayer is STFU and do some research. He's the one guy who people should listen to. A loose translation into English aint' the best thing to read either.

Maybe I can fix this for you all. Get Ferrari to run the numbers and ask his opinion. He does this often actually. Everytime he says they are good and nice, they're doping. But you'd know Michele Ferrari does this wouldn't you?

 

[Galic Ho]

sounds quite interesting re: wiggo and froome.
I'd like to look closer at that.
could you provide a link? I couldn't find the article you refer to.

It has been around for weeks. Check about 50 pages back. Pretty sure there was a link there.

Vayer analysed both of Voeckler's wins and Valverde's and said they alone were indicative of doping as their numbers were far too high. Let alone for guys not at the front end of GC...naturally meaning Froome and Wiggins were higher.

There is a bit in the power estimate thread...but it's touch and go analysis. The guys claiming he is wrong and linking to ScienceofSport guys don't give you any context or a benchmark on what is clean...despite there being threads on this years ago in the Clinic. But of course Vayer is French, worked for Festina, is jealous, blah, blah, blah, didn't convert to a measurement I liked because said forumist is too lazy to convert it themself...short story a few think he's wrong. Ironically they all pretty much think cycling is now clean.

No *** I say. Most things look cleanER than the 90s, but they are far from clean. Far from the pre-EPO days.

 

[sniper]

It has been around for weeks. Check about 50 pages back. Pretty sure there was a link there.

Vayer analysed both of Voeckler's wins and Valverde's and said they alone were indicative of doping as their numbers were far too high. Let alone for guys not at the front end of GC...naturally meaning Froome and Wiggins were higher.

There is a bit in the power estimate thread...but it's touch and go analysis. The guys claiming he is wrong and linking to ScienceofSport guys don't give you any context or a benchmark on what is clean...despite there being threads on this years ago in the Clinic. But of course Vayer is French, worked for Festina, is jealous, blah, blah, blah, didn't convert to a measurement I liked because said forumist is too lazy to convert it themself...short story a few think he's wrong. Ironically they all pretty much think cycling is now clean.

No *** I say. Most things look cleanER than the 90s, but they are far from clean. Far from the pre-EPO days.

thanks for this!

 

[The Hitch]

That's a fair point.

Contador was tainted in 2006. After that, however, there wasn't anything more tangible than what we have on Wiggins until 2010, 3 years after his first Tour victory. edit: well, there's the Astana syringes in 2009, I suppose.

Andy, to this day, has nothing definite on him, 5 years after his breakthrough.

Fränk's breakthrough came in 2005. He became tainted in mid 2008, for things that happened 3 years prior. He tested positive 4 years later.

Menchov had a stellar 2004 season and won the Vuelta in 2005. As far as I know there was nothing on him until 2009, with the HumanPlasma allegations.

Ullrich broke through in 1996. Recreational drugs aside, he only became tainted in 2006, with Puerto. That's 10 years.

Cunego won the 2004 Giro. The Mantova investigation broke out in 2010. That's 6 years.

Basso broke through in 2003. Tainted in 2006. 3 years.

I'm picking names from top contenders mostly at random, by the way, but regardless I don't think we can say there's a clear timetable for allegations to appear.

And we know the British weill never ever investigate Wiggins.

Hes already been proclaimed as the paragon of clean cycling. Seriously, what we think of Moncoutie, that is how Wiggins has been presented in the British press over the last few days and then some.

No one would touch him, and if they tried would be shut down. Even the pm was spouting Fabiani like crap - The French are jealous that there were brits on the Champs Elysee.

Never mind it would kind of taint the olympics which is supposed to be the rebirth of the nation.

The likes of Valverde, Basso, Cunego, Armstrong, they are simply subjected to a whole new level of testing than wiggins.

So wiigins is home free.

 

[The Hitch]

btw, there is all this measuring of power up climbs, which imo doesnt really work for this year because there were no mountains raced.

What about the tts. Race of truth. What about comparing those with the Armstrong years? WHy would that not work?

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

*irrelevant babble*So are the Science of Sport guys. All of them lack context. Every time. Let's compare to the 90s! *neverending irrelevant babble*

Yeah, they compare to the 90's and LA-era (and try to derive the physiological characteristics necessary to produce the estimated wattages), which is why their work is an excellent rebuttal to the mechanic's absurd and bogus claims about Sky's wattages compared to the stars of the 90's and early 00's. When someone states that Wiggans climbs like Pantani and Armstrong, you just have to laugh.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

It has been around for weeks. Check about 50 pages back. Pretty sure there was a link there.

Vayer analysed both of Voeckler's wins and Valverde's and said they alone were indicative of doping as their numbers were far too high. Let alone for guys not at the front end of GC...naturally meaning Froome and Wiggins were higher.

There is a bit in the power estimate thread...but it's touch and go analysis. The guys claiming he is wrong and linking to ScienceofSport guys don't give you any context or a benchmark on what is clean...despite there being threads on this years ago in the Clinic. But of course Vayer is French, worked for Festina, is jealous, blah, blah, blah, didn't convert to a measurement I liked because said forumist is too lazy to convert it themself...short story a few think he's wrong. Ironically they all pretty much think cycling is now clean.

No *** I say. Most things look cleanER than the 90s, but they are far from clean. Far from the pre-EPO days.

Totally agree. When there is no true benchmark what the f is your 'research' worth?

Yeah, they compare to the 90's and LA-era (and try to derive the physiological characteristics necessary to produce the estimated wattages), which is why their work is an excellent rebuttal to the mechanic's absurd and bogus claims about Sky's wattages compared to the stars of the 90's and early 00's. When someone states that Wiggans climbs like Pantani and Armstrong, you just have to laugh.

What till you see a full geared Froome.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

So, it was 1680 VAM per hour. Eighty meters down on Armstrong in 2001? Says enough. He would be faster than LeMond/Hinault/Herrera in their days.

You could also keep in mind they [Sky] just set a race pace high enough so nobody would escape, known as tactics.

When u use statistics, use them good. That said, it was quite obvious the Froomster could do much much better. Where would his VAM end up? I bet he could top Pharmstrong's 2001 with ease.

It was 24 min climb and still well short of what these guys did on 40 min climbs and that's supposed to be "comparable to the turbulent times of the late 1990s and early 2000s"? Can't you see how ridiculous that claim is? There's just no context. Sky duo did like 6.5 w/kg for 16 minutes at the end of a stage with only a couple of 3rd cat climbs before it and this hack thinks it's reasonable to use that to conclude Froome and Wiggans climb like Pantani.

 

[the big ring]

It was 24 min climb and still well short of what these guys did on 40 min climbs and that's supposed to be "comparable to the turbulent times of the late 1990s and early 2000s"? Can't you see how ridiculous that claim is? There's just no context. Sky duo did like 6.5 w/kg for 16 minutes at the end of a stage with only a couple of 3rd cat climbs before it and this hack thinks it's reasonable to use that to conclude Froome and Wiggans climb like Pantani.

480/69 = 6.95W/kg

 

[the big ring]

In fact it's even better:

http://www.myspace.com/janifanclub/blog/546060920

Jani is reportedly angry and disappointed about an additional minute lost due to wrong tactics today, as he stayed behind the leading group on the finas ascent.

On his 8th place in stage 7, he says: "It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't bad either. I'm very satisfied with my shape. I hope to be a bit better and come back for the fight in the GC once more. I expected (team Sky to be so strong in stage 7), what surprised me was their rhythm as they started the final ascent. It was incredible, how fast we were racing. My computer showed 480W. The good thing is, that the climb wasn't tipical for the Tour. It was much steeper than the ones which will come in the next two weeks. This was a hell of an ascent. On top, I lost the drive a little bit, but I think I did a very good ascent."

ie Jani was trying to sustain 7.38W/kg and for some, strange reason, could not.

They did this climb in what, 17 minutes?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

It was 24 min climb and still well short of what these guys did on 40 min climbs and that's supposed to be "comparable to the turbulent times of the late 1990s and early 2000s"? Can't you see how ridiculous that claim is? There's just no context. Sky duo did like 6.5 w/kg for 16 minutes at the end of a stage with only a couple of 3rd cat climbs before it and this hack thinks it's reasonable to use that to conclude Froome and Wiggans climb like Pantani.

Why are you keeping comparing with the nineties? Suits it better for the 'clean peloton myth'?

Also you just want to forget the point I was making about race tactics, hell, even Wiggo has said they were going to ride at 450 watts because no one can sustain 500 for long. 450 watts on the climbs is normal? Please endulge me and explain why the whole Sky train can put those numbers and the guys of the eighties were at top 380-390? Or were Hinault/LeMond a bunch of lazy w@nkers?

 

[mastersracer]

Totally agree. When there is no true benchmark what the f is your 'research' worth?

What till you see a full geared Froome.

Lemond himself has estimated his wattage during the final stage of the 89 Tour was between 420-430 watts (down from his rested state power of 450-460 watts). Depending on his weight estimate, this would yield an average wattage for the final time trial of between ~6.17 and 6.5 watts/kg.

 

[draexem]

Why are you keeping comparing with the nineties? Suits it better for the 'clean peloton myth'?

Also you just want to forget the point I was making about race tactics, hell, even Wiggo has said they were going to ride at 450 watts because no one can sustain 500 for long. 450 watts on the climbs is normal? Please endulge me and explain why the whole Sky train can put those numbers and the guys of the eighties were at top 380-390? Or were Hinault/LeMond a bunch of lazy w@nkers?

Lemond said he produced 380-390 Watts up the entirety of l'Alpe d'Huez, not whatever ****ty short climb Wiggins was on.

CB: Were you aware of what you could do in terms of average rate of vertical ascent? For instance, Ivan Basso made everyone's eyes bug out when he was ascending at 1800 vertical meters an hour on the Colle San Carlo in the 2006 Giro.

GL: What wattage was he doing? I would look more at wattage because the rate of vertical ascent could vary so much depending on the pavement. Wattage is the ultimate truth. You know I'm very controversial because I think that you have to look at numbers.

My wattage, relative to VO2 Max...a VO2 Max of 92 or 93 in a fully recovered way...I think I was capable of producing 450 to 460 watts. The truth is, even at the Tour de France, my Tour de France climb times up l'Alpe d'Huez yielded a wattage of around 380 and 390. That was the historic norm for Hinault and myself. You've got times going back many, many years. But what was learned recently, in the last 5 years, was that when you start the Tour de France, you start with a normal hematocrit of, say, 45 percent. By the time you finish, it's probably down 10 or 15 percent. Which means my VO2 Max dropped 10 or 15 percent. So that's why I was never producing the same wattage. And then there a lot of other factors that help performance if you've recovered. My last time trial in '89, I averaged about 420, 430 watts, which would match or be slightly down from what my real VO2 Max was.

Of course, in the '90s drugs came on the scene, so the wattages have gone out. There are some things that are just not explainable, people with VO2 Maxs in the low 80s producing 500 watts. A physiologist friend of my said that for a person to do that, 500 watts, he has to have to have nearly 100 milliliters of Oxygen. There are a lot of questions there for me.

http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html

 

[the big ring]

Lemond himself has estimated his wattage during the final stage of the 89 Tour was between 420-430 watts (down from his rested state power of 450-460 watts). Depending on his weight estimate, this would yield an average wattage for the final time trial of between ~6.17 and 6.5 watts/kg.

Which I don't mind so much for a short, final TT, for someone who has a VO2 max of 93 ml/m/kg.

But as the final climb on a 200km stage ridden at an average of 40km/hr at the end of a week where the riders have ridden 1400km at an average of 40.7km/hr?

 

[acoggan]

Andrew Coggan is not a good source other than configuring power readings.

Well that, and everything else I ever express an opinion on.

(BTW, both Vayer and the S.o.S. guys put way too much faith in estimates of power based on VAM.)

 

[draexem]

Well that, and everything else I ever express an opinion on.

(BTW, both Vayer and the S.o.S. guys put way too much faith in estimates of power based on VAM.)

VAM is very dodgy. Too many variable involved.