The Sky-Con-O-Meter. Predictions on how much more ridiculous they can get

[blackcat]

For the same reason he picked him for the world champs last year - expediency to give Cav the best chance. There isn't that many world class road riders in the UK, whereas with Sky he can afford the luxury of splurging some of Murdoch's millions on someone like Porte etc.

nah, olympic year.

See Kennaugh and G Thomas and their evolution at the Tour. They will be top 10s, greater potential than Rogers and Porte

there is no way, Sky and Cav work for a third year. Cav will see out his contract probably. But I dont see him staying with Sky, when he cannot have a minimum of 5 support riders at the Tour.

NB. HE NEEDS NO SUPPORT. One is handy in the finish to position him, but he is the one sprinter, like Mcewen, that does not need a hand.

Problem is, is like yesterdays stage, when it comes time to pull back a break, to ride for the WIN in a field sprint, you gotta stick 3 or 4 on the front. And Cav aint have that luxry atm.

 

[blackcat]

Where's the dip in prologue/TT performance you might expect when Wiggins drops the weight?

dropped the weight, perfected the medical program. Like so many others. More or less, competing on the same terms /allowed_2_dope

 

[red_death]

nah, olympic year.

NB. HE NEEDS NO SUPPORT. One is handy in the finish to position him, but he is the one sprinter, like Mcewen, that does not need a hand.

The question I was addressing was why would Brailsford pick DM for the Olympics.

GT won't be riding the Olympic RR and whatever you might think Cav does need help for the RR to keep the peloton together.

 

[red_death]

Obviously our definitions of "world class" differ. I'll put it in plainer terms then: he's become a much, much better time-trialist ever since he dropped massive amounts of weight. That doesn't make sense.

So explain what you mean then? If by world class you mean he won them then of course you are right. But he was relatively consistently in the top 10 even in longer TTs (I didn't include prologues).

You say he has become "much, much" better - I say that is meaningless without context ie form/injuries to others, course etc. Can he do it when they are all fit again? I say he has improved but not implausably so.

 

[xcleigh]

Oh my, someone has trouble with those pesky things called facts..

Facts
1. Wiggins wanted teams that have a 1% suspicion of hiring doped doctors to be banned.

=> Sky hired Leinders

2. Michael Rogers happily blurts out power numbers beating those of his Freiburg years.

3. Wiggins denounces dopers and implicates Sastre... and adores Armstong. The amount of evidence against lance certainly dwarves that against Sastre.


I could drag up more facts, but this will do.


Now if we look at the facts of defense:

Facts:
1. Power numbers are humanly possible.

=> We know the midlevel also dopes, so power numbers are no indication either way.

2. he was never tested positive.

=> Enough has been said about this one

So there we have it. We have undeniable fact that show inconsistency and doublespeak. the defensive facts on the other hand have been shown many times to be absolutely non indicative.

Xcleigh, as a believer facts hurt like hell and all you can do is troll about it.

Nope still can't see any facts that prove doping on team Sky. Could you run those past me again? As until proof is presented then it is conjecture. I beleive in innocent UNTIL proven guilty. Whether I think without a doubt someone is guilty until that proof is presented then yes they are innocent. Ergo wiggins and Sky are clean until proof is provided. That may or may not come out in the future but until such time I will remain a supporter of Sky and wiggins.

P.s. why am I trolling? I thought I was expressing my opinion and articulating counter arguments to the posters who put forth the Sky is definitely doping
arguments. I see nothing wrong with that??

 

[thehog]

I’m glad Sky clean can beat lowly dope fiends like Frank Shleck on RadioShack. Not only are Sky wining clean but they are cleaning up the peloton at the same time.

I hear they’re planning on the reverse Armstrong. They’re going to chase down known dopers and force them back to the peloton where clean riders will spit on them.

 

[xcleigh]

xcleigh of course this is opinion based.

"Fact" such as an actual failed drug test has become completely irrelevant since the plethora of sanctioned athletes and cyclists who have admitted to doping or been implicated through other means yet never failed a test

"Fact" such as a biopassport irregularity has also become completely irrelevant since the UCI started covering up, or turns a blind eye to cases that are 99% positive.

I have no problem with peoples doubts and suspicions. However it's that many posters are being judge and jury and saying WITHOUT a doubt Sky are dopers. Whether we like it or not the system is such that we must assume innocence until proven guilty. The fact the current system is perhaps unable or unwilling to catch dopers does not change that presumption of innocence. It holds in the legal system so why should sport be differrent? Of course it is right that people probe, question and raise concerns but to definitively say that Sky ARE doping I don't think is right or fair.

 

[blackcat]

but you place a burden that is just not provable. Armstrong and USPS ran 7 years.

We are not denying liberty, nor denying an income.

 

[Franklin]

Nope still can't see any facts that prove doping on team Sky. Could you run those past me again?

You are railing against suspicion, not against proof of doping.

So here we go again: this is not proof of doping, but they are very much facts about Sky. And the nature of these facts raise large red flags.

P.s. why am I trolling? I thought I was expressing my opinion and articulating counter arguments to the posters who put forth the Sky is definitely doping
arguments. I see nothing wrong with that??

If you were actually critical you would have a point, but instead you ridiculize those who doubt.

And this is where the facts versus faith kicks in. Any unbiased person would doubt Sky and demand transparancy and answers. The history of cycling itself is a huge motivator here. If we add the flags and the USPS parallels it only becomes stronger.

If you want cleaner, more transparant cycling we need to kick against the Pro teams. And Sky really threw the spark themselves with their inflammatory behavior. Keep in mind that this forum was rather benign about Sky (check the Tenerife thread).

But what do you do? You ridiculize the criticasters by nothing more than blind faith. When you drew a parallel between Wiggins and Hinault shows how deep you go to make a point. It's simply mindbogling idiotic to liken Wiggins with Hinault. Or make the preposterous claim that doubting Sky is libel.

So either you are someone who really doesn't know anything about the history of cycling or you are trolling. Pick your poison.

 

[Square-pedaller]

For the same reason he picked him for the world champs last year - expediency to give Cav the best chance.

Really going for the anti-doping highground, eh

 

[Franklin]

We are not denying liberty, nor denying an income.

Exactly. We are NOT judge and jury.

 

[armchairclimber]

Exactly. We are NOT judge and jury.

Nope, you're the folks with pitch forks.

 

[Franklin]

Nope, you're the folks with pitch forks.

An apt comparison I'd say. We won't stop clamoring until a guy like Menuet is tossed out.

 

[xcleigh]

You are railing against suspicion, not against proof of doping.



But what do you do? You ridiculize the criticasters by nothing more than blind faith. When you drew a parallel between Wiggins and Hinault shows how deep you go to make a point. It's simply mindbogling idiotic to liken Wiggins with Hinault.
So either you are someone who really doesn't know anything about the history of cycling or you are trolling. Pick your poison.

Can i clear up one slight error in that it was thehog who made the initial comparison between Wiggins and Hinault I merely perpetuated that rather odd connection. I couldn't lay claim to that one. Cheers. I know a bit of the history of cycling and no I'm not trolling (though you're opinion might differ of course). Anyhoo I'm not here to ridiculize (sic) the critcasters (sic) but offer a counterpoint to their arguments which are as much fueled by blind faith in their own belief that what they are seeing amounts to proof of doping. My stance isn't based on faith but merely fairness in giving the benefit of doubt. It's an opinion which you are of course free to ridicule and criticise as you see fit. Feel free to do so.

 

[Franklin]

Anyhoo I'm not here to ridiculize (sic) the critcasters (sic) but offer a counterpoint to their arguments

By for example launching the ridicuous statement that this whole thread is libel

About the Hinault-Wiggins claim:

Hog pointed out that we had to go back to Hinault to see a team rule so supreme. You then made the comparison and actually doubled down upon that one.

Comparing Hinault and Wiggins... it's trolling or stupidity. Again, pick your poison.

 

[function]

Krebs you are defeating yourself. We ALL understand exactly the physiology required to be a track pursuit gold medallist, and road ITTer capable of beating world and national champions, and a GC contender capable of beating the worlds best climbers and previous or current Tour/Giro/Veulta winners. And despite your arguments to the contrary, in the entire history of cycling there has NEVER been anyone capable of all three (in fact not even two of three).

Chris Boardman?

World pursuit champ
World ITT champ
Bronze Olympic ITT
Multiple prologues
2nd in 1995 Dauphine http://www.les-sports.info/cyclisme...esultats-hommes-s2-c0-b0-g28-t100-u24-v1.html

 

[Krebs cycle]

Hullo? Do you read your own posts? People are responding to your post about Wiggins relative performance to other people in a road TT. Since you made absolutely no mention of "track" in your post it is hardly surprising that people aren't referring to it either. Sheesh, you have no right to be exasperated.

I've been discussing Wiggins track performance in lots of posts, I've also mentioned that I expect it would be very difficult to be world class in both at the same time, yet the close relationship between pursuit performance and road TT would indicate to anyone with an ounce of cycling science knowledge that to transfer from one to the other is not a great leap. You and others chose not to discuss these points but focus on the tour de l'Avenir post. I agree it is a little unfair to compare a 4th yr pro against 20 and 22yr olds Martin and Monfort, but that was not the point. Those 2 riders have gone on to become world class TT'ists and that doesn't happen without some pretty decent talent to begin with that would be plenty evident at those ages. For example, Luke Durbridge is only 21 and he just won the Dauphine prologue.

I just find it weird that nobody seems to think Wiggins' track endurance background is transferable to road simply because there are a lack of others who have done it. Everyone seems to be pointing to 2008-09 as the period that Wiggins suddenly decided to become a doper because that is around the time his road performances started improving. It completely ignores the strong probability that at that time Wiggins altered his training program and focused it on winning the TdF, and it also ignores the fact that in short TTs such as prologues he didn't show this dramatic improvement compared to his rivals......

2007: Wiggins was 23sec behind Cancellara in the TdF prologue (7.9km).
2009: Wiggins was 19sec behind Cancellara in the TdF prologue (15.5km).
2012: Wiggins was 7sec behind Cancellara in the prologue (6.4km)

Where is this dramatic performance improvement you are all talking about? If Wiggins started doping in 2008-09 and has continued until this year he should have smashed Cancellara in both the 2009 and 2012 prologues.

Remember also a strong part of my reasoning is that Cadel won last year and has been close on several other occasions. That tells me if you have a big enough engine (ie: Wiggins track performance is proof of this) and you dedicate your entire season to winning the TdF, then it is actually possible without doping. The only reason I believe it has become possible is because the biopassport is actually working and those who are still doping (or were in 2009 such as LA) are/were not getting as much of a performance improvement as previously (circa 1995-2005). I believe this because it is exactly what Michael Ashenden and Olaf Schumacher have said on public record.

 

[BroDeal]

Once the English speaking riders started winning again, the GTs have been declared clean. Three out of the last four, and a narrow miss on the fourth. Hooray.

I think I know how this one ends.

The one part the Führer the one part the Pope,
It's the inevitable return, baby, of the Great White Dope,

 

[Krebs cycle]

So a "little" research is OK but a "little" more research is better

2005 UCI Road World Championships – Men's time trial

1. Michael Rogers (AUS) 00:53.34
2. Iván Gutiérrez (ESP) + 0.23.77
3. Fabian Cancellara (SUI) + 0.23.89
4. Rubén Plaza (ESP) + 0.44.06
5. Alexandre Vinokourov (KAZ) + 1.20.24
6. Andrey Kaschechkin (KAZ) + 1.29.00
7. Bradley Wiggins (GBR) + 1.31.60

 

[Krebs cycle]

Wiggans, who in the intervening years did nothing on the road

oh rly?

2007 UCI Road World Championships – Men's time trial

1. Fabian Cancellara (SUI) 00:55.41,35
2. László Bodrogi (HUN) + 0.52,1
3. Stef Clement (NED) + 0.57,8
4. Bert Grabsch (GER) + 1.12,2
5. Sebastian Lang (GER) + 1.17,5
6. Vladimir Gusev (RUS) + 1.47,0
7. Iván Gutiérrez (ESP) + 1.56,2
8. Andrey Mizurov (KAZ) + 2.02,7
9. Vasil Kiryienka (BLR) + 2.03,5
10. Bradley Wiggins (GBR) + 2.10,8

 

[thehog]

So big day tomorrow.

How far can Sky push the boat out without being laughed at?

I think we'll see Porte & Rogers at he base of the final climb setting a cracking pace. I suspect zero attacks because the speed will be so high.

Nibs may escape on the decent but he'll be chased down by the Sky train.

Should be awesome. Frank Shleck will be missed. With his refill and masking drugs he might have been able to hold on till the end of the stage. Oh well.

 

[sittingbison]

2005 UCI Road World Championships – Men's time trial

1. Michael Rogers (AUS) 00:53.34
2. Iván Gutiérrez (ESP) + 0.23.77
3. Fabian Cancellara (SUI) + 0.23.89
4. Rubén Plaza (ESP) + 0.44.06
5. Alexandre Vinokourov (KAZ) + 1.20.24
6. Andrey Kaschechkin (KAZ) + 1.29.00
7. Bradley Wiggins (GBR) + 1.31.60

krebs, each time these results are published it makes it even worse. First this was seven years ago, second he is smashed by Rogers (on TKom drugs program), he has just put more than 2 minutes into Cancellara, six minutes into Vino (who was on the juice), and six minutes into Kaschechkin. At the age of 32.

 

[Krebs cycle]

2009 UCI Road World Championships – Men's time trial

1 Fabian Cancellara (SUI) 57'55:74"
2 Gustav Larsson (SWE) +01'27.13"
3 Tony Martin (GER) +02'30.18"
4 Marco Pinotti (ITA) +03'02.88"
5 Janez Brajkovič (SLO) +03'08.49"
6 Koos Moerenhout (NED) +03'11.59"
7 Alexander Vinokourov (KAZ) +03'20.95"
8 Ignatas Konovalovas (LIT) +03'33.88"
9 Bert Grabsch (GER) +03'37.39"
10 David McCann (IRL) +03.40:61
11 Jean-Christophe Peraud (FRA) +03'37:39"
12 Lars Bak (DEN) +04'07:66"
13 Dominique Cornu (BEL) +04'09.40"
14 Svein Tuft (CAN) +04'24.25"
15 Lars Boom (NED) +04'24.85"
16 Artem Ovechkin (RUS) +04'27.64"
17 Christopher Froome (GBR) +04'34.55"
18 František Raboň (CZE) +04'39.67"
19 Sebastian Lang (GER) +04'40.97"
20 Bradley Wiggins (GBR) +04'50.39"

For someone who some of you reckon started doping in 2008-2009 he sure must have had a bad program to go backwards here.

So is anyone going to dispute the idea that relative TT performance is a better method of examining sudden changes in performance than GC placing?

 

[BroDeal]

oh rly?

2007 UCI Road World Championships – Men's time trial

1. Fabian Cancellara (SUI) 00:55.41,35
2. László Bodrogi (HUN) + 0.52,1
3. Stef Clement (NED) + 0.57,8
4. Bert Grabsch (GER) + 1.12,2
5. Sebastian Lang (GER) + 1.17,5
6. Vladimir Gusev (RUS) + 1.47,0
7. Iván Gutiérrez (ESP) + 1.56,2
8. Andrey Mizurov (KAZ) + 2.02,7
9. Vasil Kiryienka (BLR) + 2.03,5
10. Bradley Wiggins (GBR) + 2.10,8

One contender and nine no-hopers, maybe 2-8 if Grabsch is counted. Looks like an even weaker field than usual for the Worlds. As is normal, the GT guys who can lay down a good ITT all went on vacation before October.

 

[sittingbison]

2009 UCI Road World Championships – Men's time trial:

1 Fabian Cancellara (SUI) 57'55:74"
2 Gustav Larsson (SWE) +01'27.13"
3 Tony Martin (GER) +02'30.18"
4 Marco Pinotti (ITA) +03'02.88"
5 Janez Brajkovič (SLO) +03'08.49"
6 Koos Moerenhout (NED) +03'11.59"
7 Alexander Vinokourov (KAZ) +03'20.95"
20 Bradley Wiggins (GBR) +04'50.39"

ditto my previous comment. krebs these results are showing just how ridiculous his current performances are.