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

[Wallace and Gromit]

And training harder than you race, then focusing only on racing to win, not racing for training. - Wiggins and Sky's PR, 2012.

The "training harder than you race" line relates to the fact that in a typical early season stage race, the contenders sit in the bunch all day and only extend themselves in a TT or a short uphill section.

Wiggo's book relates a typical race wattage in such circumstances of 190 watts, which is pretty gentle for any pro. The Sky logic is not to faff around racing in such circumstances as it's a waste of time. The time is better spent training, when wattages can be set at whatever is consistent with the structured training programme. In addition, there is no loss of productive time and gain of fatigue due to travelling.

At the races Sky do attend, they then race hard, with one purpose only: winning it. Racing to train doesn't exist, as training can be undertaken more effectively out of the racing environment.

The point you've missed is that the racing that is harder than training is early season stuff that most folk don't take seriously, not necessarily the sharp end of major races.

 

[D-Queued]

The "training harder than you race" line relates to the fact that in a typical early season stage race, the contenders sit in the bunch all day and only extend themselves in a TT or a short uphill section.

Wiggo's book relates a typical race wattage in such circumstances of 190 watts, which is pretty gentle for any pro. The Sky logic is not to faff around racing in such circumstances as it's a waste of time. The time is better spent training, when wattages can be set at whatever is consistent with the structured training programme. In addition, there is no loss of productive time and gain of fatigue due to travelling.

At the races Sky do attend, they then race hard, with one purpose only: winning it. Racing to train doesn't exist, as training can be undertaken more effectively out of the racing environment.

The point you've missed is that the racing that is harder than training is early season stuff that most folk don't take seriously, not necessarily the sharp end of major races.

Why do cyclists lose weight (and 'normally' have declining HCT, T levels, etc.) during a stage race?

If they spend most of the time sitting in, then they must experience even more considerable physical impacts from a similar duration of 'hard' training.

Dave.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Why do cyclists lose weight (and 'normally' have declining HCT, T levels, etc.) during a stage race?

If they spend most of the time sitting in, then they must experience even more considerable physical impacts from a similar duration of 'hard' training.

Plasma expansion.

Agreed. Study showed 3 x 90 minute training days, back to back, induced plasma expansion.

 

[D-Queued]

Plasma expansion.

Agreed. Study showed 3 x 90 minute training days, back to back, induced plasma expansion.

Hi Dear Wiggo,

I am certain that the effects can be mimicked or observed from training efforts.

But, my question was rhetorical. I suppose I should have added one of these:

Please recall that, as Anquetil and many before him tried to convince us, these races are so long and hard that the riders have to take drugs to survive.

Now, I have had a coach or two that almost certainly relished the belief that their workouts were the hardest exertions known to man. Then again, they weren't racing.

However, perhaps what dear Bradley is trying to explain to us here is why cyclists in the Pro Peloton do most of their doping during training, and not during the races themselves.

Back in the old days, cyclists used to have to take Pot Belge to survive a race. Now, they need EPO, CIRA, HGH, IGF-1, T, blood bags, and a long list of other substances just to survive practice.

These guys are real professionals, not like those amateurs of years past.

Oh, don't forget the

Dave.

 

[sniper]

only just noticed, from the uci suspicion list:
wiggins 5, lance 4.

 

[Chef_Vodnik]

Or, it could also be THE OTHERS have become lazy c@nts and are riding/training at perhaps 70%!

Like Jan, being a fat lazy German guy eating Pretzels, Schnitzel and Sauerkraut and drinking Beer like a boss during the off-season
That's why he could not keep up all these years, wasn't it?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Like Jan, being a fat lazy German guy eating Pretzels, Schnitzel and Sauerkraut and drinking Beer like a boss during the off-season
That's why he could not keep up all these years, wasn't it?

Just a reminder that 3 months after he won the Tour, Lance was 79kg with a relative VO2 of 71ml/m/kg.

 

[thehog]

Howman on the money.

Problematic zero tolerance approach

But catching doping abusers needs to be done in a nuanced way, Howman argues. After the Armstrong case had created big headlines in the media Howman warned against simplistic ‘zero tolerance’ policies, for instance in professional cycling, threatening athletes with all sorts of consequences from sackings to life bans if they admitted they had been using performance enhancing substances at some point.

“The words ‘zero tolerance’ make nice reading and, for the public, sound as though you’re being really tough. What it is actually doing is driving underground those who might have otherwise come forward and given information to clean the thing up. And all I think will happen in relation to cycling if this zero tolerance thing is pursued is that people will shut up and then in two or three years’ time we’ll have another saga.”

http://www.playthegame.org/news/det...has-given-people-a-significant-jolt-5511.html

 

[BroDeal]

only just noticed, from the uci suspicion list:
wiggins 5, lance 4.

Let's not forget how the numbers are to be interpreted.

As explained by the newspaper, only the scores of zero and one meant that the riders had a very clean record. Ratings from two to four were based on stable passports which nevertheless showed a rare abnormality at a precise time. From five upwards, the comments associated to the rider files started to become much more precise, "even affirmative" according to L'Equipe.

From six to ten, the circumstantial evidence of possible doping was "overwhelming".

So Wiggins was just beneath the "overwhelming" level. One can only guess what his level was in 2012. Avogadro's number?.

 

[maltiv]

Let's not forget how the numbers are to be interpreted.

As explained by the newspaper, only the scores of zero and one meant that the riders had a very clean record. Ratings from two to four were based on stable passports which nevertheless showed a rare abnormality at a precise time. From five upwards, the comments associated to the rider files started to become much more precise, "even affirmative" according to L'Equipe.

From six to ten, the circumstantial evidence of possible doping was "overwhelming".

So Wiggins was just beneath the "overwhelming" level. One can only guess what his level was in 2012. Avogadro's number?.

So that makes Siutsou, Knees, Rogers, Hunt and Geraint Thomas "overwhelming".

 

[sniper]

Let's not forget how the numbers are to be interpreted.

As explained by the newspaper, only the scores of zero and one meant that the riders had a very clean record. Ratings from two to four were based on stable passports which nevertheless showed a rare abnormality at a precise time. From five upwards, the comments associated to the rider files started to become much more precise, "even affirmative" according to L'Equipe.

From six to ten, the circumstantial evidence of possible doping was "overwhelming".

So Wiggins was just beneath the "overwhelming" level. One can only guess what his level was in 2012. Avogadro's number?.

Also interesting to recall Landis' claim/observation:

Landis claimed that his own blood values from the 2006 Tour de France were similar to that of Wiggins's, who released his data in the aftermath of the 2009 Tour in a bid to quash any speculation that his fourth place finish was down to anything but hard work and a strong period of form.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gripper-concerned-over-bio-passport-publishing

 

[D-Queued]

Let's not forget how the numbers are to be interpreted.

As explained by the newspaper, only the scores of zero and one meant that the riders had a very clean record. Ratings from two to four were based on stable passports which nevertheless showed a rare abnormality at a precise time. From five upwards, the comments associated to the rider files started to become much more precise, "even affirmative" according to L'Equipe.

From six to ten, the circumstantial evidence of possible doping was "overwhelming".

So Wiggins was just beneath the "overwhelming" level. One can only guess what his level was in 2012. Avogadro's number?.

Good one!

More than likely, in fact almost certainly, his 2012 level was '0' since he had obviously paid the annual UCI fee.

If I recall the best part about Lance's 4 and Wiggins' 5, it was that the WADA overseers reported that targeted cyclists were not tested and that no EPO tests were run by the UCI.

Dave.

 

[martinvickers]

So that makes Siutsou, Knees, Rogers, Hunt and Geraint Thomas "overwhelming".

And Michael Barry (0), cleaner than clean.

Of course.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

And Michael Barry (0), cleaner than clean.

Of course.

Welcome back vickers.

Barry quite doping in 2006 we are to believe

 

[ferryman]

And Michael Barry (0), cleaner than clean.

Of course.

Of course not. But would you have posted this before the 'news' about Barry broke? Honest answer now.

 

[D-Queued]

Of course not. But would you have posted this before the 'news' about Barry broke? Honest answer now.

I would not have - but I live here and have to put up with the Dudley Do Right nonsense. Doesn't mean that some of us didn't flag the (0) as highly unlikely.

Dave.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Of course not. But would you have posted this before the 'news' about Barry broke? Honest answer now.

Probably would have been too busy, ROTFL, over Tommy Voeckler and Pappy Horner.
Or maybe "Saint" Linus Gerdemann being an "overwhelming" 6.

 

[ferryman]

Probably would have been too busy, ROTFL, over Tommy Voeckler and Pappy Horner.
Or maybe "Saint" Linus Gerdemann being an "overwhelming" 6.

Ger'aint' seeze points

 

[martinvickers]

Of course not. But would you have posted this before the 'news' about Barry broke? Honest answer now.

Absolutely not. 'Cos I didn't know.

Kinda my point, actually - there's a fair amount of reputation/politics in those numbers I suspect; which gives them some, but rather limited, analytical value.

 

[martinvickers]

Welcome back vickers.

Barry quite doping in 2006 we are to believe

He may well have done, for all i know!

But I don't think that list is the evidence to prove it one way or the other, somehow.

 

[ferryman]

I would not have - but I live here and have to put up with the Dudley Do Right nonsense. Doesn't mean that some of us didn't flag the (0) as highly unlikely.

Dave.

If another post of mine arrives from cyberspace please ignore this one as it seems to have gotten lost in space.

Anyway, I admit I had to Google Dudley! Also was praising your perception And decrying the fact that the girl I have dealings with in our Montreal office has never heard of Neil Young WTF with those Frenchies (big smile no offence anyone) I doubt she has heard of Barry either mind you!!

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

But I don't think that list is the evidence to prove it one way or the other, somehow.

I agree, when you don't know the parameters there is no way of telling anything. If they would have published the offscores it would be a total different thing.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Ger'aint' seeze points

Exactly.
I thought LG is considered "clean" by most.

 

[blackcat]

Exactly.
I thought LG is considered "clean" by most.

on the WR british pursuit time. my ****

 

[thehog]

on the WR british pursuit time. my ****

Sad that even the Sky fans reduce themselves who might be "considered" clean.

Should be clean by default.

Transparency is what is needed at Sky/British Cycling.