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

[blackcat]

I understand that we all have a right to be suspicious, but what is really sad is when people start making stuff up that just isn't true in order to justify their own beliefs.

yeah, lets pull out the "you are sad" meme.


Now, Jens Voigt, who also plays the game, had a far superior tt record than Wiggins.

The thing with Wiggins is, he was never gonna win on the road, so a smart cyclist wishing to maximise his earning capacity in 2003-2008, in the Linda Mac, FDJ, Credit Ag, Cofidis, High Road era, woulda been pulling out stops, each and every chrono he rode, to step on the podium, to increase his salary.

That is economics, incentive, and intelligence. Because he could not win an open individual stage, in a stage race, and he could not win GC, even in a race like Criterium Internional, where you need to follow wheels, then bust out a chrono, ie. The Jesnie Modus Operandi.

for his GBP

£

 

[xcleigh]

So it isn't ridiculous to compare Hinault to Wiggins as long as it is used to draw the conclusion that Wiggins and his team ain't half the rider of Hinault and his team so is clearly and indictor that something is odd?? So a pre epo Hinault and his team it's fine to dominate but a post epo Sky it's not? So do I assume that The comparison to Postal is used to further damn them too as this was the last to dominate like this (or was it Hinault?).

Oh and the libel comment was not directed at the whole thread merely posters who stated that Sky were definitely doping as a point of fact (based on nothing more than what they see and joining some dots). The suggestion was that such comments could be libel (cerainly a magazine or newspaper wouldn't be able to print such definitive statements- libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image).

I doubt team sky really give two hoots what is written here as ably demonstrated by wiggins See You Next Tuesdays comments but I'm certainly enjoying it!

And doubling down again. The claim that Wiggins is as dominant as bernard Hinault is beyond silly.

The comparison of Renault-Gitane with Sky is about as idiotic. Renault-Gitane at that time had three TdF's (1 van Impe, 2 Hinault), a Giro and a Vuelta under their belt.

You say without blinking what we can expect from Sky's performance is just the same as that of the second greatest rider ever and his extremely experienced GT team.

Yes it is idiotic which is why I didn't make the comparison merely trying to understand why thehog would! I wouldn't choose that comparison as I don't have a point to make with it but thehog was trying to. Not sure what but I tried to understand as you can see in my post??

 

[Krebs cycle]

3-4% is an absolute age in any sport. The amount of improvement needed to bridge that gap is excessive at an elite level. It's the equivalent of a 10 second 100m runner suddenly running 9.7 - it just doesn't happen that suddenly. You need to be able to better demonstrate someone jumping to the head of the pack, and a track background doesn't remotely factor in as evidence. Completely different discipline.

You are slightly misinterpreting those meaning of those percentages Cavalier. Please trust me on this.....

The normal coefficient of variation of an elite athlete in TT performance is about 1%. What this means is that even within the space of a week, Wiggins could go 1% faster and Cancellara 1% slower which would be a relative change of 2% between the two. This is simply natural variation in human performance. However this is under controlled laboratory conditions, so I would expect the natural variation to be a little higher on the road due to factors such as road conditions, wind, temperature and humidity.... perhaps 1.5% maybe even as high as 2%.

However, since 2005, Wiggins has barely moved 2-3% against Cancellara in road TT and prologues. What this means is that he has pretty much stayed within the natural coefficient of variation.

A few weeks back people were in here discussing a study which shows that EPO gives you a 13% improvement in PPO (maybe one of the aerodynamics mathematicians can work out what that would equal over 40km?). There is also a study in 1987 on elite middle distance runners and they had a 3% improvement in 10km time following red cell infusion.

Thus if Wiggins started doping around 2009 and he only achieved a 3 or 4% improvement, it is virtually inconceivable that he could not start beating, or at least matching, Cancellara on a regular basis.

 

[Franklin]

Yes it is idiotic which is why I didn't make the comparison merely trying to understand why thehog would! I wouldn't choose that comparison as I don't have a point to make with it but thehog was trying to. Not sure what but I tried to understand as you can see in my post??

Thehog pointed out that the last comparable performance was Hinault 1981... This makes Sky's performance rather incredible wouldn't you say?

And that was the point The hog made with quite some succes.

 

[Krebs cycle]

yeah, lets pull out the "you are sad" meme.

Franklin pulled it, not me.

lrn2read

 

[Franklin]

Franklin pulled it, not me.

lrn2read

Yep sadness all around. A sad day for cycling, sad that we have to suspect Sky, sad that people abuse historic facts, sad that people take offense when their is very solid reason to be suspicious.

I'm a sad panda.

 

[Cavalier]

You are slightly misinterpreting those meaning of those percentages Cavalier. Please trust me on this.....

The normal coefficient of variation of an elite athlete in TT performance is about 1%. What this means is that even within the space of a week, Wiggins could go 1% faster and Cancellara 1% slower which would be a relative change of 2% between the two. This is simply natural variation in human performance. However this is under controlled laboratory conditions, so I would expect the natural variation to be a little higher on the road due to factors such as road conditions, wind, temperature and humidity.... perhaps 1.5% maybe even as high as 2%.

However, since 2005, Wiggins has barely moved 2-3% against Cancellara in road TT and prologues. What this means is that he has pretty much stayed within the natural coefficient of variation.

A few weeks back people were in here discussing a study which shows that EPO gives you a 13% improvement in PPO (maybe one of the aerodynamics mathematicians can work out what that would equal over 40km?). There is also a study in 1987 on elite middle distance runners and they had a 3% improvement in 10km time following red cell infusion.

Thus if Wiggins started doping around 2009 and he only achieved a 3 or 4% improvement, it is virtually inconceivable that he could not start beating, or at least matching, Cancellara on a regular basis.

You need to decide from which position you're arguing. If it's a 3-4% improvement in one athlete, that's unheard of. Literally, in any sport.
If you're arguing from a position of relative performance - that Cancellara's performance receded 2% and Wiggins' improved by the same margin, then that still fails to explain how Wiggins overtook every single person in between, let alone went from a position of being behind by those percentage figures to being in front by the same margin.

You're asking then for the stars to align. The statistical probability of that occurring is baffling.

 

[Franklin]

You're asking then for the stars to align. The statistical probability of that occurring is baffling.

Exactly... and the problem here is that that's just Wiggins.

The stars have to allign on a lot of aspects of the Sky case. It's possible.. but the chances are really slim. History taught that there are more plausible scenarios.

 

[sittingbison]

Which makes Evans comments today on Sky very interesting:

“Their seven riders on the front have been incredible. There performance in the time trial from their two leaders was also incredible...Their riders are all on the best form of their lives. They ride a continuous tempo especially on the climbs.”

 

[Krebs cycle]

You need to decide from which position you're arguing. If it's a 3-4% improvement in one athlete, that's unheard of. Literally, in any sport.
If you're arguing from a position of relative performance - that Cancellara's performance receded 2% and Wiggins' improved by the same margin, then that still fails to explain how Wiggins overtook every single person in between, let alone went from a position of being behind by those percentage figures to being in front by the same margin.

You're asking then for the stars to align. The statistical probability of that occurring is baffling.

Arrggghh... pulling my hair out!! Of course we are looking at relative performances. How can you compare within an individual when they are riding a DIFFERENT time trial course? You cannot, therefore you must look at relative performance between different athletes when riding the same courses. Cancellara is the most useful because there are few others that have competed in enough races together to make meaningful comparisons. Besides its such a lazy cop out for me to do all the work and then you come along make the claim that "oh Wiggins got SOOO much better against everyone". You're making the claim. Prove it. Back it up with some cold hard facts or stfu.

Besides, you can get a 3-4% improvement in a 40km TT from carbohydrates or a taper. You can have a 5% decrement in performance simply from having a bad nights sleep.

There is published data showing that pro-cyclists have 3-4% changes in performance within a season due to differences in training phase. There is published data showing elite middle distance runners can change performance by 3-4% over season.

 

[Krebs cycle]

In 2009 Cancellara was 4.3% faster than Tony Martin in the UCI road TT.

In 2010 Cancellara was 2.1% faster than Tony Martin.

In 2011 Martin was 2.5% faster than Cancellara.

That is a relative change of 4.5% in one year and 6.8% in 2yrs.

Cavalier, are you saying that Tony Martin must be doping because he improved a whopping 4.5% in one year relative to Cancellara?

I bet if you repeat the same calculations with any combination of 2 riders you will find similar percent differences. Wiggins has not done anything remotely different to what is normal year to year variation.

 

[Cavalier]

Arrggghh... pulling my hair out!! Of course we are looking at relative performances. How can you compare within an individual when they are riding a DIFFERENT time trial course? You cannot, therefore you must look at relative performance between different athletes when riding the same courses. Cancellara is the most useful because there are few others that have competed in enough races together to make meaningful comparisons. Besides its such a lazy cop out for me to do all the work and then you come along make the claim that "oh Wiggins got SOOO much better against everyone". You're making the claim. Prove it. Back it up with some cold hard facts or stfu.

See, this is why I questioned your qualifications in the past. You're absolutely terrible when it comes to arguing your points from a position of data. Everything you've posted has been a supposition of people accepting your "evidence", simply because you've said it. You're coming out with completely arbitrary information, none of which you're certifying. Here's the evidence Wiggins got so much better than everyone: He just beat every single one of those you're measuring him against by percentage margins in the single biggest event on the calendar, when he'd never managed to even come within 2% of them in the past.

Besides, you can get a 3-4% improvement in a 40km TT from carbohydrates or a taper. You can have a 5% decrement in performance simply from having a bad nights sleep.

There is published data showing that pro-cyclists have 3-4% changes in performance within a season due to differences in training phase. There is published data showing elite middle distance runners can change performance by 3-4% over season.

Right, so now we're establishing performances can change, you need to establish why this is the first time the performance has ACTUALLY changed. Did all his stars simply align, or did he go from not being able to come near these guys to smashing them as a result of them having a bad night's sleep suddenly?

Oh, and stop asking people to prove negatives, it's hideously annoying, and highly ignorant. "Prove that he didn't simply perform within my arbitrary margins of error" isn't remotely an acceptable debating position from anyone even moderately educated. We've shown you he wasn't able to do this in the past, and yet you keep bringing up strawman arguments.

 

[Bonkstrong]

The biggest con of all is Sky convincing the clinic tin-foil hat brigade that they are dominating and crushing a field full of super GC contenders.

I don't know what race other people are watching but all I've seen is an incredible bike engine beat a very weak TT field and limit his losses in the mountains. The new "super responder" has used an entire team of domestiques to drag him to the top in the hills, occaisionaly getting dropped by his own team-mates - this is a long long way from the USPS days where the USPS train would do the same to much much stronger teams and then their fearless hero would launch of the front and ride away from the field putting minutes into his rivals.

We have a peleton that's happy to let Mark "renound for his climbing ability" Cavendish pace them up a hill whilst refusing to take over and up the pace from "glacial". It was be like my 6 year old lad pacing the local chain gang up Box Hill!! - it's not a new drug-fuelled super performance, they just aren't racing like we've seen in days gone by...

 

[Krebs cycle]

See, this is why I questioned your qualifications in the past. You're absolutely terrible when it comes to arguing your points from a position of data. Everything you've posted has been a supposition of people accepting your "evidence", simply because you've said it. You're coming out with completely arbitrary information, none of which you're certifying. Here's the evidence Wiggins got so much better than everyone: He just beat every single one of those you're measuring him against by percentage margins in the single biggest event on the calendar, when he'd never managed to even come within 2% of them in the past.

What the hell are you talking about? The evidence I am posting here are all race results I grabbed off bikeraceinfo.com or wikipedia.

You're barking mad fella. I'm make very simple calculations comparing percent differences between 2 riders and you don't even get it. It seems you're the one having great difficulty in understanding rather basic maths.

I've been waiting for someone to bring up the most recent performance. Yes he won the ITT just last week didn't he? He also beat Cancellara by 5sec last yr in the UCI TT. So when exactly did he start doping then? Was it last year? Maybe this year? If he started doping in 2011 or 2012 how is it possible he could have performed so well in the 2009 TdF? If he started doping in 2009 then how is it possible he DID NOT IMPROVE his TT performance relative to Cancellara compared with 2007?

Right, so now we're establishing performances can change, you need to establish why this is the first time the performance has ACTUALLY changed. Did all his stars simply align, or did he go from not being able to come near these guys to smashing them as a result of them having a bad night's sleep suddenly?

You are still barking mad. If you compare the results of Wiggins vs Cancellara since 2009, YES he is gradually and slowly gaining on Cancellara by about 1% each yr. I've already established ad finitum that after the 2008 Olympics Wiggins would have altered his training. There is NO massive and sudden performance improvement. The change in training focus could easily account for the gradual improvement over a 4yr period vs Cancellara.

Oh, and stop asking people to prove negatives, it's hideously annoying, and highly ignorant. "Prove that he didn't simply perform within my arbitrary margins of error" isn't remotely an acceptable debating position from anyone even moderately educated. We've shown you he wasn't able to do this in the past, and yet you keep bringing up strawman arguments.

What is hideously annoying is having to explain kindergarten level maths to an adult.

 

[Krebs cycle]

The biggest con of all is Sky convincing the clinic tin-foil hat brigade that they are dominating and crushing a field full of super GC contenders.

I don't know what race other people are watching but all I've seen is an incredible bike engine beat a very weak TT field and limit his losses in the mountains. The new "super responder" has used an entire team of domestiques to drag him to the top in the hills, occaisionaly getting dropped by his own team-mates - this is a long long way from the USPS days where the USPS train would do the same to much much stronger teams and then their fearless hero would launch of the front and ride away from the field putting minutes into his rivals.

We have a peleton that's happy to let Mark "renound for his climbing ability" Cavendish pace them up a hill whilst refusing to take over and up the pace from "glacial". It was be like my 6 year old lad pacing the local chain gang up Box Hill!! - it's not a new drug-fuelled super performance, they just aren't racing like we've seen in days gone by...

Thank you for some much needed common sense

 

[johnnycash]

The biggest con of all is Sky convincing the clinic tin-foil hat brigade that they are dominating and crushing a field full of super GC contenders.

I don't know what race other people are watching but all I've seen is an incredible bike engine beat a very weak TT field and limit his losses in the mountains. The new "super responder" has used an entire team of domestiques to drag him to the top in the hills, occaisionaly getting dropped by his own team-mates - this is a long long way from the USPS days where the USPS train would do the same to much much stronger teams and then their fearless hero would launch of the front and ride away from the field putting minutes into his rivals.

We have a peleton that's happy to let Mark "renound for his climbing ability" Cavendish pace them up a hill whilst refusing to take over and up the pace from "glacial". It was be like my 6 year old lad pacing the local chain gang up Box Hill!! - it's not a new drug-fuelled super performance, they just aren't racing like we've seen in days gone by...

Too right. I like the 'Tin Foil Hat Brigade', the Clinic indeed. Cadel and any other 'GC contender' can make loaded comments about Sky all they want, he's only masking the fact that he turned up to this in poor form and has had his *** handed to him by a well-oiled full squad. BMC could have done just the same thing if they worked hard enough in the off-season. Hell even if they ditched Cadel and backed TJVG they may cause some fireworks yet. The fact is there are no other strong GC contenders with decent teams, which makes Sky look suspiciously good.

Sky are clean, certainly Wiggins and Cav. Perhaps a slight question mark over Froome but he's innocent until proven guilty in my book.

 

[will10]

Someone doesn't remember the TT at the 2009 worlds. Wiggo had a mechanical or two. It involved bike tossing and "I'm through with this ****!"-gestures.

Even then he had been caught for 2 mins in 25km by Cancellara and was battling for bronze with Tony Martin. Hardly setting the world alight.

 

[biker jk]

Too right. I like the 'Tin Foil Hat Brigade', the Clinic indeed. Cadel and any other 'GC contender' can make loaded comments about Sky all they want, he's only masking the fact that he turned up to this in poor form and has had his *** handed to him by a well-oiled full squad. BMC could have done just the same thing if they worked hard enough in the off-season. Hell even if they ditched Cadel and backed TJVG they may cause some fireworks yet. The fact is there are no other strong GC contenders with decent teams, which makes Sky look suspiciously good.

Sky are clean, certainly Wiggins and Cav. Perhaps a slight question mark over Froome but he's innocent until proven guilty in my book.

Hmmm. What's your sublimal message here about Sky? "masking", "well-oiled", "suspiciously"...

 

[will10]

Which makes Evans comments today on Sky very interesting:

“Their seven riders on the front have been incredible. There performance in the time trial from their two leaders was also incredible...Their riders are all on the best form of their lives. They ride a continuous tempo especially on the climbs.”

Wow. The wheel turns, nothing is ever new.

Levi Leipheimer (then riding for Gerolsteiner): "They were unbelievable. At the top of the penultimate climb I counted 21 riders in the [lead] group, with seven Postals in front. I've never seen anything like it".

 

[veganrob]

The biggest con of all is Sky convincing the clinic tin-foil hat brigade that they are dominating and crushing a field full of super GC contenders.

I don't know what race other people are watching but all I've seen is an incredible bike engine beat a very weak TT field and limit his losses in the mountains. The new "super responder" has used an entire team of domestiques to drag him to the top in the hills, occaisionaly getting dropped by his own team-mates - this is a long long way from the USPS days where the USPS train would do the same to much much stronger teams and then their fearless hero would launch of the front and ride away from the field putting minutes into his rivals.

We have a peleton that's happy to let Mark "renound for his climbing ability" Cavendish pace them up a hill whilst refusing to take over and up the pace from "glacial". It was be like my 6 year old lad pacing the local chain gang up Box Hill!! - it's not a new drug-fuelled super performance, they just aren't racing like we've seen in days gone by...

Well that's a new argument. Sky only looks to be dominating because no one else is trying.

 

[blackcat]

Wow. The wheel turns, nothing is ever new.

Levi Leipheimer (then riding for Gerolsteiner): "They were unbelievable. At the top of the penultimate climb I counted 21 riders in the [lead] group, with seven Postals in front. I've never seen anything like it".

the same levi that Hans-Michael Holczer talked about missing tests and getting bloodbags

 

[Cavalier]

What the hell are you talking about? The evidence I am posting here are all race results I grabbed off bikeraceinfo.com or wikipedia.

You're barking mad fella. I'm make very simple calculations comparing percent differences between 2 riders and you don't even get it. It seems you're the one having great difficulty in understanding rather basic maths.

I understand quite clearly what you're saying. My issue is this: You're coming out with completely unsubstantiated, or unreferenced numbers. Example:

The normal coefficient of variation of an elite athlete in TT performance is about 1%. What this means is that even within the space of a week, Wiggins could go 1% faster and Cancellara 1% slower which would be a relative change of 2% between the two. This is simply natural variation in human performance. However this is under controlled laboratory conditions, so I would expect the natural variation to be a little higher on the road due to factors such as road conditions, wind, temperature and humidity.... perhaps 1.5% maybe even as high as 2%.

"You would expect" ? So you're basically just attaching an arbitrary number you've plucked from an orifice.

Reality is - and this is why I doubt your credentials in anything - your discussion style screams of an angry child behind a keyboard. You throw insults and name-calling at any dissenting opinion, while completely failing to provide anything that validates yours.

I'm not even going to begin to bring up the entirely spurious suggestion that ITT is a measure of a rider's improvement and ability to compete in a grand tour. A single day doesn't remotely provide that measure of improvement, for the exact reason you wrote off a 3-week race!

 

[doolols]

I understand that we all have a right to be suspicious, but what is really sad is when people start making stuff up that just isn't true in order to justify their own beliefs.

Absolutely. I'd love to do a quick poll on the nationality of those who are crying "dope" for any/all of Sky riders. US cycling fans have seen one of their heros fall by the wayside, and can't accept that a rider of a different nationality might actually be able to win something (actually, several somethings recently) without chemical assistance.

Sky are simply good at creating a method of winning - by using some of their massive budget to buy the best riders to make into a team, and for using analytical methods for training and honing riders to achieve their goal.

 

[Cavalier]

Absolutely. I'd love to do a quick poll on the nationality of those who are crying "dope" for any/all of Sky riders. US cycling fans have seen one of their heros fall by the wayside, and can't accept that a rider of a different nationality might actually be able to win something (actually, several somethings recently) without chemical assistance.

I don't think it's remotely that at all. Arguing that people are against Wiggins because they're not British is just as poor an argument as claiming he's innocent because he's British.

Sky are simply good at creating a method of winning - by using some of their massive budget to buy the best riders to make into a team, and for using analytical methods for training and honing riders to achieve their goal.

When Sky's own DS is saying there are no secret methods and it's down to a talent (which hasn't been demonstrated before), I'm not sure people even know what to how to defend them now - your post is a classic case in point.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I understand quite clearly what you're saying. My issue is this: You're coming out with completely unsubstantiated, or unreferenced numbers. Example:



"You would expect" ? So you're basically just attaching an arbitrary number you've plucked from an orifice.

Reality is - and this is why I doubt your credentials in anything - your discussion style screams of an angry child behind a keyboard. You throw insults and name-calling at any dissenting opinion, while completely failing to provide anything that validates yours.

I'm not even going to begin to bring up the entirely spurious suggestion that ITT is a measure of a rider's improvement and ability to compete in a grand tour. A single day doesn't remotely provide that measure of improvement, for the exact reason you wrote off a 3-week race!

umm hello mods? I'm trying to maintain a fair and balanced on topic discussion and I have to put up with personal attacks and insults like this.

Play the ball and not the man Cavalier. Don't start accusing me of being a charlatan if you can't understand the science.