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

[will10]

So what were the times, and what are the assumptions being made in the comparisons?

I don't know. Let's pluck a figure out of the air. I'm going for BW & CF being...ooh...3 minutes slower.

Courtesy of JCR:

Contador/Rasmussen (2007): 23:26
Froome/Wiggins/Nibali (2012): 23:32
gruppo Evans/Kloden (2007): 24:02

I'm sure jens_attacks (who keeps a great blog with ascent times) claimed the Sky train had actually ridden the Peyresourde faster than Alberto and Chicken but I can't find his post now...

EDIT: found it:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=976558&highlight=peyresourde#post976558

 

[The Hitch]

Courtesy of JCR:

Contador/Rasmussen (2007): 23:26
Froome/Wiggins/Nibali (2012): 23:32
gruppo Evans/Kloden (2007): 24:02

I'm sure jens_attacks (who keeps a great blog with ascent times) claimed the Sky train had actually ridden the Peyresourde faster than Alberto and Chicken but I can't find his post now...

EDIT: found it:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=976558&highlight=peyresourde#post976558

Many thanks will.

What is JCR btw?

 

[del1962]

Courtesy of JCR:

Contador/Rasmussen (2007): 23:26
Froome/Wiggins/Nibali (2012): 23:32
gruppo Evans/Kloden (2007): 24:02

I'm sure jens_attacks (who keeps a great blog with ascent times) claimed the Sky train had actually ridden the Peyresourde faster than Alberto and Chicken but I can't find his post now...

EDIT: found it:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=976558&highlight=peyresourde#post976558

Wouldn't you have to take into account how previous climbs were ridden on the same stage to make accurate comparisons, had Contador/Ramussen been attacking each other on previous climbs while 2012 was ridden more tempo.

That is why it is difficult to just pluck these numbers out without context

 

[Ferminal]

Wouldn't you have to take into account how previous climbs were ridden on the same stage to make accurate comparisons, had Contador/Ramussen been attacking each other on previous climbs while 2012 was ridden more tempo.

That is why it is difficult to just pluck these numbers out without context

The stage was basically the same. In 2007 it was just the infernal pace of Dekker/Boogerd which dropped much of the bunch on Bales.

All that matters anyway is that they were slower.

 

[The Hitch]

Wouldn't you have to take into account how previous climbs were ridden on the same stage to make accurate comparisons, had Contador/Ramussen been attacking each other on previous climbs while 2012 was ridden more tempo.

That is why it is difficult to just pluck these numbers out without context

I don't think.it would make.that much of a difference. But even.if it did youd still expect clean cyclists.to.be.a good 2 minutes slower. Especially when its wiggins who isn't even a natural climber.

 

[del1962]

I don't think.it would make.that much of a difference. But even.if it did youd still expect clean cyclists.to.be.a good 2 minutes slower. Especially when its wiggins who isn't even a natural climber.

Here is another bit of news from 2007, what is called context from race report that day

16:18 - Very Windy At Final Summit

The wind at the top of the Col de Peyresourde is very strong. Was howling last night but it didn’t dampen the spirits of the big crowd of campers amased there. Reports are that it hasn’t eased and that the riders are going to have to contend with a strong headwind on the mountain that peaks 11.5km from the end of stage 15.

Now that says Contador/Ramussen were racing into a strong headwind.

 

[thehog]

Here is another bit of news from 2007, what is called context from race report that day



Now that says Contador/Ramussen were racing into a strong headwind.

Phew! Good spot.

For a minute there I thought Wiggins/Froome might have been doping.

Lucky the headwind slowed Chicken down to clean 'marginal gains' speeds

 

[Alphabet]

Closed-minded?

I think you'll find I'm one of the minority here who hasn't already made up their mind.

I don't think most have made up their mind, it's more likely that they're leaning one-way or the other. Personally, I'm leaning toward the Sky are doping camp, but I'm not entirely convinced yet.

You're right about one thing, though. People citing "oh but Lance did this as well" all the time isn't on. There are few similarities with Armstrong and Sky. There were always rumours or even complete exposes (such as L.A. Confidentiel and the L'Equipe articles) following Armstrong around, there appear to be none whatsoever from Sky aside from Basso saying things like 'Wiggin's is extra-terrestrial'. The conspiracy theorists may say that the lack of media scrutiny is only because Murdoch is controlling the press, but that's just taking it a bit too far for me.

Having said all that, it's still all a bit much to believe. Froome, Wiggins, Rogers and Porte's sudden transformations and the presence of Leinders indicates that there's something Sky haven't told us about.

 

[Joachim]

Now here's a thing.

You are trusting this as an authoritative source. Why? Why are you assuming this is correct? Jens_attacks writes a great blog? So what? Anybody can write a blog. It is completely unverified but is being cited by you as evidence, and is already being accepted as fact.

How much else of the so-called 'evidence' is of this quality.

Really, you guys are ready to accept anything that fits in with your prejudices, and you are labelling me as unquestioning?

I'll have to leave you to think about this today, I'll be on the bike for most of it. Enjoy you days!

Courtesy of JCR:

Contador/Rasmussen (2007): 23:26
Froome/Wiggins/Nibali (2012): 23:32
gruppo Evans/Kloden (2007): 24:02

I'm sure jens_attacks (who keeps a great blog with ascent times) claimed the Sky train had actually ridden the Peyresourde faster than Alberto and Chicken but I can't find his post now...

EDIT: found it:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=976558&highlight=peyresourde#post976558

 

[Alphabet]

Now here's a thing.

You are trusting this as an authoritative source. Why? Why are you assuming this is correct? Jens_attacks writes a great blog? So what? Anybody can write a blog. It is completely unverified but is being cited by you as evidence, and is already being accepted as fact.

How much else of the so-called 'evidence' is of this quality.

Really, you guys are ready to accept anything that fits in with your prejudices, and you are labelling me as unquestioning?

I'll have to leave you to think about this today, I'll be on the bike for most of it. Enjoy you days!

Surely you could just re-watch the stage and time the climb yourself, if you doubt Jens?

 

[Joachim]

You'll find several different times published on blogs. Some are quoting a 3 minute difference. It's a general point, I'm making about where you source supposed data, not to mention how you interpret it. There is a plethora of bad science on these pages.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You'll find several different times published on blogs. Some are quoting a 3 minute difference. It's a general point, I'm making about where you source supposed data, not to mention how you interpret it. There is a plethora of bad science on these pages.

Within your posts alone there's a plethora of claims of

bad science
being pwned by a liar
some other gibberish

but no links or proof of any of this.

So ironic that someone bleating about evidence and calling sources into question herself provides no such thing to back up her own claims.

Not even a month to go and we get to see the first PT race of the year in Adelaide. Looking forward to seeing how hard Sky go from day 1.

The Sky con-o-meter is in a state of uncertainty. Schrodinger would be proud.

Are they going to be:
worse
the same
better

than 2012?

Anyone want to hazard a guess? Poll suggestion?

 

[Joachim]

How are you going to measure whether they are 'better'? Go on, give us a laugh.

Also, Wiggo...You really need to stop commenting on things that you have zero knowledge about. It brings down the whole group's understanding of the issues and does not contribute anything worthwhile.

Snort

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Snort

Ah yes. The "I've seen 100s of blood profiles but can't tell you why Hgb is static while retics% increase. Oh wait. Maybe it was hypoxia induced by the 34 minute TT. No, I said or meant hypoxia induced by the Stelvio stage, I forget which. But I am the expert on recognising doping from blood profiles. Let me show you the expert protocol for determining the cleanliness of a rider's last 3 years of questionable results by doing one ramp test and 2 blood+urine tests either side of that test, it's a real winner."

Pwned. Right. Gotcha. Uh huh.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

The stage was basically the same. In 2007 it was just the infernal pace of Dekker/Boogerd which dropped much of the bunch on Bales.

All that matters anyway is that they were slower.

on Bales it was 100% Dekker. Boogerd only took over at the last climb.

 

[thehog]

My interpretation was that they were saying this is the ceiling. And that, if someone can sustain 450, they can't be beaten by a clean rider. (Allowing for weight, of course.)

Of course, you raise a good point: how are these people hitting the maximum of human capability?

One rider maybe. But 5 guys on the one team? Day in, day out.

I don't buy it. No positive tests of course but don't like what I see.

The question remains; how do you prove a suspect performance? You can't. Without a positive test all riders are assumed clean.

It's only the general public / journalists that can speculate if clean or not.

 

[Joachim]

Try these two propositions:

Wiggins rode the tour clean

Wiggins didn't ride the tour clean.

Only one of these can ever be proved. That is why pointing the finger is the easy win-win position, it can never be gainsaid.

By all means, point the finger, I have no issue with that. You just have to be fair, and part of that is not making stuff up like you blatantly did with the Ferrari connection.

It's amazing how many posters here have stated "Sky are definitely doping", and when challenged on this start backtracking and saying they are merely asking questions. They aren't.

 

[The Cobra]

Try these two propositions:

Wiggins rode the tour clean

Wiggins didn't ride the tour clean.

Only one of these can ever be proved. That is why pointing the finger is the easy win-win position, it can never be gainsaid.

By all means, point the finger, I have no issue with that. You just have to be fair, and part of that is not making stuff up like you blatantly did with the Ferrari connection.

It's amazing how many posters here have stated "Sky are definitely doping", and when challenged on this start backtracking and saying they are merely asking questions. They aren't.

+1
Reading this thread just reminded me to stay out of the clinic. Hope you guys 'enjoy' the 2013 season.

 

[badboygolf16v]

Try these two propositions:

Wiggins rode the tour clean

Wiggins didn't ride the tour clean.

Only one of these can ever be proved. That is why pointing the finger is the easy win-win position, it can never be gainsaid.

You what?

Wiggins either doped or he didn't, and he is in a position to prove or disprove both of those statements.

You and I might not be able to prove it, but it's a simple matter of fact whether he did or didn't.

 

[Joachim]

How can he prove he didn't?

 

[hrotha]

You what?

Wiggins either doped or he didn't, and he is in a position to prove or disprove both of those statements.

You and I might not be able to prove it, but it's a simple matter of fact whether he did or didn't.

I think Wiggins dopes, but if he were clean, I can't think of anything he could do to prove it.

 

[Joachim]

Precisely.

I don't know if he dopes. I won't be surprised if he does, but we'll never know if he doesn't.

 

[thehog]

I think Wiggins dopes, but if he were clean, I can't think of anything he could do to prove it.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-calls-for-biological-passport-data-to-be-made-public

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-reiterates-willingness-to-publish-passport-data

Perhaps he could stop releasing hot air and release his bio?

 

[hrotha]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-calls-for-biological-passport-data-to-be-made-public

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-reiterates-willingness-to-publish-passport-data

Perhaps he could stop releasing hot air and release his bio?

That wouldn't prove he's clean. It would increase the transparency and the chances of him being clean, but it wouldn't be proof.

Unless you're suggesting the passport can't be beaten?

 

[The Hitch]

I think Wiggins dopes, but if he were clean, I can't think of anything he could do to prove it.

I agree.

But it is important to note that Wiggins doesnt even try.

Its important to note becuase this statement leaves open the possibility that Wiggins has done everything he could to show the world he is clean and to aid the anti doping movement, but that ultimately he cant actually prove cleanliness to the small circle of clinic idiots.

A narrative that many are willing to throw on.

But this is most definately not the case.

Wiggins wouldnt be able to convince us, but he hasnt tried, and has done more to hinder the anti doping movement than to aid it.