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

[BroDeal]

Preparation includes a medical component.

If the medical component no longer provides any gains, why are riders still spending large sums on doctors, why are people still being caught by criminal authorities with doping products? Mantova, Padova, Ferrari, Vansevenant, the BMC guy - all "recent" examples of doping.

Sky may very well be clean, but why are others still looking to people like Ferrari for help when equal gains can be made by a few guys on a salary at BC?

If Elisa Basso was your drug dealer would you stop?

 

[thehog]

Post of the century!!

Also, these until recently unknown, or highly obscure training methods:

Core strengthening


Ivan Basso completing his core strength training


Intervals




Riding/climbing sessions at, or close to, threshold

Pre-season base building

Altitude training

LOTTO - Monachil, Sierra Nevada

Lampre squad training on Teide volcano. Photo © 2009 Lampre/NGC

Ivan Basso prosegue il ritiro al Monte Teide

and recovery sessions


and checking the quality of the French pavement

Bradley Wiggins's Tour de France training

 

[Krebs cycle]

Never read so much bullsh1t in all my life. The most important variable is speed.

Riding the distance in the fastest time possible.

That will never change.

And for that you need power. Nothing else. And that comes from one place.

OMG this is hilarious. Thank you again for proving my point that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Do you know what happens when you reduce the coefficient of drag? You go FASTER at the same power output.


rata can you see why I get frustrated? This comment by thehog is like a kid saying "I never heard so much BS in my whole life.... 2 + 2 = 5 you idiot, not 4"

 

[BikeCentric]

3. Wiggins has not shown a non-linear increase in performance on the above at any point in the last 7yrs.

From consistently struggling to hang on to the autobus to a dominant race leader. Yep, totally linear improvment - of the vertical line variety.

 

[BroDeal]

OMG this is hilarious. Thank you again for proving my point that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Do you know what happens when you reduce the coefficient of drag? You go FASTER at the same power output.


rata can you see why I get frustrated? This comment by thehog is like a kid saying "I never heard so much BS in my whole life.... 2 + 2 = 5 you idiot, not 4"

Come one, dude. I posted all the real possiblities for Wiggins time trialing increase and you came back with bike handling.

You are concentrating on minutua when people's skepticism comes from the implausibility of the whole.

 

[rata de sentina]

If you can't handle it, then don't dish it out in the first place.

Well I haven´t dished it out to you so I assume thatś a general statement. All I can say is that you purport to be scientist and yet I hope that in your professional capacity you don´t argue in the way you have here. I don´t think being dismissive is likely to get you far either here or professionally.

 

[thehog]

OMG this is hilarious. Thank you again for proving my point that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Do you know what happens when you reduce the coefficient of drag? You go FASTER at the same power output.


rata can you see why I get frustrated? This comment by thehog is like a kid saying "I never heard so much BS in my whole life.... 2 + 2 = 5 you idiot, not 4"

Still BS my friend. You're claim was that frontal nasal position is the most important variable - ok you said power to drag. All BS. SPEED will always be the most important variable. Plain and simple.

So list out for me from 1st to 7th the most important variables ranked in order of importance so we all can understand.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Do you know what happens when you reduce the coefficient of drag? You go FASTER at the same power output.

And the faster you go, the less the speed increase due to increases in efficiency because of the scale of air resistance. At elite levels/speeds, the increased efficiency doesn't work out the way you want it.

As another post so elegantly described, you want the loss of Wiggo mass and subsequent fantastic (as in fantasy) performances to be a perfectly logical narrative. It's not.

 

[rata de sentina]

rata can you see why I get frustrated? This comment by thehog is like a kid saying "I never heard so much BS in my whole life.... 2 + 2 = 5 you idiot, not 4"

It´s the hog Krebs, it´s the hog. Why would you get wound up about the hog.

Anyway, if a kid said that to you would you shout at them or get four objects to show them the error of their ways? Presumably you would like to persuade people of your viewpoint since your putting a lot of effort into it so I´m just suggesting you are going about it in the wrong way.

 

[function]

If my discussion style is all over the place its because I'm having to respond to others who are all over the place, or who don't have a strong grasp of performance science and don't get what I am talking about.

I have maintained a single focus throughout this entire debate which is based on the following 3 key points:

1. Without actual lab testing data, stand alone TTs and prologues are the best objective indicators of performance, because we remove the confounding influence of team tactics and fatigue apparent in stage racing.
2. A doping program would produce a non-linear increase in performance on the above
3. Wiggins has not shown a non-linear increase in performance on the above at any point in the last 7yrs.

I've been attacked and hounded more than anyone in here for simply disagreeing with the prevailing dope centric mentality so I have a right to fight back. If you can't handle it, then don't dish it out in the first place.

I appreciate krebs attempt to bring logic and reasoning to the discussion, something that is unfortunately lacking.

 

[function]

Never read so much bullsh1t in all my life. The most important variable is speed.

Riding the distance in the fastest time possible.

That will never change.

And for that you need power. Nothing else. And that comes from one place.

great post hog

 

[mastersracer]

OMG this is hilarious. Thank you again for proving my point that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Do you know what happens when you reduce the coefficient of drag? You go FASTER at the same power output.


rata can you see why I get frustrated? This comment by thehog is like a kid saying "I never heard so much BS in my whole life.... 2 + 2 = 5 you idiot, not 4"

I appreciate your posts and your attempts to swing this thread back to some rational basis. I suspect you are speaking the language of reason to a mob that only wants blood - if anything, these forums only confirm Dan Sperber's theory that argumentation evolved merely to argue, not to find truth.

 

[thehog]

Sad seeing Evans today. He was decimated by the Sky train and Rogers. Must be hard seeing for the Tour champion to be beaten by dope.

I expect Evans make some statements after the Tour to what went on in the race. He's already making some veiled statements to the Sky team train on mountain stages.

 

[thehog]

I appreciate your posts and your attempts to swing this thread back to some rational basis.
.

Swing the thread back to some rational basis?

The thread is called "The Sky-Con-O-Meter. Predictions on how much more ridiculous they can get" - rational?

How would one bring it to a rational state when Sky have made mockery of the clean cycling?

 

[Krebs cycle]

It´s the hog Krebs, it´s the hog. Why would you get wound up about the hog.

Anyway, if a kid said that to you would you shout at them or get four objects to show them the error of their ways? Presumably you would like to persuade people of your viewpoint since your putting a lot of effort into it so I´m just suggesting you are going about it in the wrong way.

I would show them four objects. But if they kept trolling me hog style for another 2 days and then started calling me a lier and bullsh***er I would probably get fed up and kick em in the nads.

Anyway, how do you suggest I go about it? Be fair and objective and take sh** for 3 weeks until I start fighting back?

 

[BroDeal]

I would show them four objects. But if they kept trolling me hog style for another 2 days and then started calling me a lier and bullsh***er I would probably get fed up and kick em in the nads.

Anyway, how do you suggest I go about it? Be fair and objective and take sh** for 3 weeks until I start fighting back?

 

[thehog]

If Sky are clean then they are the most naturally talented team in the history of cycling. Day after day riding on the front of the peloton clean. Beating dopers from Radioshack and Cofidis. Best at the climbs, best at the time trials, not a bad day in sight and all clean.

Yes its true. All 8 of them. Not one bad day. In fact every day has been a good day. Better than a good day a marvellous day.

1-2 in the time trial. 1-2 in the climbs and just about 2-3 in the prologue. Can the put a foot wrong?

 

[BroDeal]

If Sky are clean then they are the most naturally talented team in the history of cycling. Day after day riding on the front of the peloton clean. Beating dopers from Radioshack and Cofidis. Best at the climbs, best at the time trials, not a bad day in sight and all clean.

Yes its true. All 8 of them. Not one bad day. In fact every day has been a good day. Better than a good day a marvellous day.

1-2 in the time trial. 1-2 in the climbs and just about 2-3 in the prologue. Can the put a foot wrong?

It makes you wonder whether McQuaid spent the last six months calling teams to tell them that their riders' passports were dodgy. The UCI has done it the past to help riders not test positive. Why not do it to put an anchor around Team Sky's competition and help expand road cycling into Britain?

 

[movingtarget]

If Sky are clean then they are the most naturally talented team in the history of cycling. Day after day riding on the front of the peloton clean. Beating dopers from Radioshack and Cofidis. Best at the climbs, best at the time trials, not a bad day in sight and all clean.

Yes its true. All 8 of them. Not one bad day. In fact every day has been a good day. Better than a good day a marvellous day.

1-2 in the time trial. 1-2 in the climbs and just about 2-3 in the prologue. Can the put a foot wrong?

They ride like androids like Landis 2006 but do it every day.

 

[thehog]

They ride like androids like Landis 2006 but do it every day.

Landis cracked in the Tour and lost 10 minutes. Floyd was human.

What we're seeing here is robodoping. These guys have Lance 2002 on their bedroom walls.

The worst side effect of doping is what does your brian. Gives you a sickening attitude and makes you macho. You want beat up on everyone.

 

[yourwelcome]

Yeah Rogers clearly never had any hill climbing ability ever in his pro racing career....

2005: 2nd Overall Tour de Suisse
2006: 9th Overall Tour de France
2009: 7th Overall Giro d'Italia
2010: 1st Overall Tour of California

2004:
Stage 16, Wednesday, July 21: 15.5 km, Bourg d'Oisans - L'Alpe d'Huez (TT)
Km 15.5: L'Alpe d'Huez, 13.8 km climb at 7.9%, H.C

Stage 16 Results:

1. Lance Armstrong (US Postal) 39min 41.17sec
2. Jan Ullrich (T-Mobile) @ 61sec
3. Andreas Kloden (T-Mobile) @ 1min 41sec
4. Jose Azevedo (US Postal) @ 1min 45sed
5. Santos Gonzalez @ 2min 11sec
6. Giuseppe Guerini (T-Mobile) @ 2min 11sec
7. Valdimir Karpets (Illes Balears) @ 2min 15sec
8. Ivan Basso (CSC) @ 2min 23sec
9. David Moncoutie @ 2min27sec
10. Carlos Sastre (CSC) @ 2min 23sec
11. Michael Rogers (Quick Step) @ 2min 33sec

It matters not whether he was doping back then or not.

Really? It doesn't matter? We've seen some megastars of cycling come back from doping suspensions and suddenly be light years off their previous pace.

I'd say that speaks volumes.

 

[Krebs cycle]

some lame meme

bravo

This is the clinic modus operandi it seems. When you're owned in a debate about doping and cycling, you just revert to idiotic trolling. How very mature of you.

It's a real shame that you guys have ruined this forum because there are some decent people and knowledgeable posters in here, and many of us hope for the day when pro-cycling is clean. I came here to discuss what is going on and along the way highlight the multiple lines of evidence which indicate that maybe, just maybe, in the past few years pro-cycling is beginning to see a light at the end of a long dark dope tunnel. But its like you guys WANT there to be cheats just so you've got something to whine about in here. It's a real shame that you just cannot accept any strong performance is clean (or cleaner) anymore. I guess you want the top team to be crawling up climbs at cat 2 or 3 level before you'll accept pro-cycling has gotten cleaner.

 

[2oldnslow]

been watching and taking part in cycling across pretty much all it's disciplines for 40 years and all I can say having spent a couple of days enforced idleness reading this and the pro cycling forum is

what a sad bunch of b*****ds some of you are.

 

[sittingbison]

...It's a real shame that you just cannot accept any strong performance is clean (or cleaner) anymore. I guess you want the top team to be crawling up climbs at cat 2 or 3 level before you'll accept pro-cycling has gotten cleaner.

krebs I still think you are misinterpreting, I think you're probably almost on the same track as those you are railing against but just looking at it from a different angle in your enthusiasm.

My interpretation is the majority of the guys on this forum (the tin hat wearing brigade (12? dirty dozen??) lol not the apologists) don't have a problem with strong performance, and don't care what the crawling up hills speed is, as long as nobody is making a chevaux derriere out of everyone else ie they are ALL performing at expected levels given they are ALL professionals at the top (or near to it) of their game. That is no obviously inconsistent performance.

So yes, one team having the same four riders driving the train up the mountains day in day out flags inconsistency, as even USPS on the best ever PED program couldn't really do it, same with the domestiques being in the same group as the GCs after being at the knife edge for an hour straight, same with guys with a dodgy knee in the autobus suddenly winning mountain stages after a rest day, same with GC performances out of nowhere after years in doldrums, same with guys performing better at retiring age than in their prime, same with guys being the very best in every discipline instead of good in all or excellent in some but average in others.

When we hear explanations like "we train harder", "we eat better", bla bla it gets tiresome, when we see medical staff with known doper backgrounds getting hired by the clean team we are incredulous. When we see domestiques called back from jack rabbit accelerations after exposing the GC rider we can laugh...laugh in sorrow at the tragic comedy before us.

 

[Franklin]

Alert alert BS detector going off the scale.

Wiggins apparently lost 6kgs and you are the one pulling stuff out of your orifice when you say "mostly muscle" and "increases his power output". Where did you get that data from hey? Do you have access to Wiggins' lab test results and DEXA scans?

Yes, my BS meter went through the roof after posts like this.

Your claim that an Olympc gold medalist has the room to spare 8KG fat is "special". Good job trying to ride this pony.

Oh, keep in mind that all your "scientific" posturing went out of the window by this claim. You are just posting your own numbers, unrelated papers and act that this is the end all. Oh and knowing a scientist does not equal being on