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

[BroDeal]

Bailsford explaining marginal gains as working because cycling was entirely doping based and everyone was too.focused with doping to.think.about actually training before 2010...

That argument of Sky's was always a huge laugh. Armstrong was an a-hole and a doper, but he trained hard with the best training information available. Landis was legend for his work ethic. When Landis had to attend the TdF route announcement in Paris, instead of driving from Spain, he cycled it in one long day. To get back in shape after his arbitration so he could race Leadville, he did 150 miles a day in Colorado.

 

[thehog]

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?

You need to take it up with Bradley. It was his suggestion not mine.

Sorry.

 

[Joachim]

I think some of the misunderstood science that I've read on this forum these past months are a good indication as to why Wiggins is unlikely to release his blood profile data.

Besides, why on earth do a bunch of people on an Internet forum think they will spot something that the bio-passport panel have missed?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I think some of the misunderstood science that I've read on this forum these past months are a good indication as to why Wiggins is unlikely to release his blood profile data.

Besides, why on earth do a bunch of people on an Internet forum think they will spot something that the bio-passport panel have missed?

Why did someone like Ashenden quit that panel?

Next try.

 

[Joachim]

Because he didn't like the confidentiality clause that required him to check before speaking to the media.

There are several ways you can look at that. One of which is that you'd be crazy not to have some sort of control over what gets released and by whom. If you look at what they do and how judgements are made you can see why. These things are rarely black and white. They are something that is open to interpretation.

Its much the same as the common misconception over drugs testing. You don't just feed a sample into a machine and get a yes/no answer.

Like everyone else, I understand the need for transparency in the light of the alleged corruption at the UCI, but these are not straightforward issues.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Because he didn't like the confidentiality clause that required him to check before speaking to the media.

There are several ways you can look at that. One of which is that you'd be crazy not to have some sort of control over what gets released and by whom. If you look at what they do and how judgements are made you can see why. These things are rarely black and white. They are something that is open to interpretation.

Its much the same as the common misconception over drugs testing. You don't just feed a sample into a machine and get a yes/no answer.

Like everyone else, I understand the need for transparency in the light of the alleged corruption at the UCI, but these are not straightforward issues.

Nice try, but, if it wasn't for a German journalist that same UCI panel would have rubbed Contadope's positive under the carpet. So?

 

[Gregga]

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.

From Wiggins' book :
- average power at threshold 450w
- weight 69,5 kg

6,5W/kg

Not normal.

 

[martinvickers]

That argument of Sky's was always a huge laugh. Armstrong was an a-hole and a doper, but he trained hard with the best training information available. Landis was legend for his work ethic. When Landis had to attend the TdF route announcement in Paris, instead of driving from Spain, he cycled it in one long day. To get back in shape after his arbitration so he could race Leadville, he did 150 miles a day in Colorado.

I entirely agree about Armstrong/Landis - but that was, in a way, the point.

i know I labour the comparison, but it bears multiple telling -there's a very strong similarity between the LA/Bruyneel doping and the '80s East Germans. Cutting edge dope - allied to cutting edge legit science - anything for the edge. A lot of country's doped in the 70's and 80's - But NONE like GDR, not even the soviets.

Hell, GDR AVERAGED 30+ golds in every summer games it took part in.

Now, looking at Armstrong et al, They saw a sport already choc full of dopers (Roche 87, Delgado 88 are good examples) - but what they brought to it was an amazing, alarming machine-like system - hire the 'best', pay the best, do the 'best' - and I don't think that an 'american' team doing that was an accident - compare with the example of Ullrich, who was a wunderkind, and also did serious dope - and then regularly f*cked it all up by partying and putting on weight. Result : Utter, utter domination by Arsmtrong and allies for best part of a decade. And the other teams never seemed to be able to ally the work with the dope...

Reading Hamilton's book, one thing struck me in his conversation with Riis - There was no doubt Riis was happily running a doping programme when he spoke to TH - but the odd thing was he asked TH , in a friendly and relaxed manner, what he and his former teammates were on/doing.

Can you imagine Bruyneel or Armstrong ever not already knowing that? Every scintilla of it? Can you imagine them letting anyone get one step ahead on the science. But Riis - certainly a serious customer - clearly did.

Entirely leaving aside whether Sky dope or not, i don't find it at all difficult to believe that they throw sports science at their team like evangelicals. the whole track programme was based on it.

now it could all be PR bull, but the new american on Sky has noted in an interview that other, more experienced, new arrivals with him this year at sky are very surprised at the sheer volume and 'science' in the training

exact quote -

“Talking to the older GC guys that are new to the team, like Dario Cataldo [from Omega Pharma-Quick Step] and David López [Movistar], they seemed really surprised about the training load in volume and structure at this point in the year,” Dombrowski said.

“They said almost all the other teams are not working this hard this early. There’s such a focus on details in training, which is perhaps different because the coaches and training plans come from within the team.”

Now, I repeat two things -

1. It makes no difference to whether Sky, or parts of Sky, dope or not.
2. It could very well just be PR bull.

But I do think the possiblity is worth noting that non-traditional teams, or riders, (not from the 'classic' road nations) can sometimes have non-traditional ideas. Sometimes, these ideas are just stupid. And occasionally, some of these can be effective.

Hell, I remember when Lemond's tri-bars were considered bonkers. Of course, that ended on the Champs elysee, but you get my point.

 

[martinvickers]

Nice try, but, if it wasn't for a German journalist that same UCI panel would have rubbed Contadope's positive under the carpet. So?

So go after Contador (the cheat) and UCI (the enablers).

Simple, surely?

 

[Joachim]

Nice try, but, if it wasn't for a German journalist that same UCI panel would have rubbed Contadope's positive under the carpet. So?

Correct me if I'm wrong. Contador tested positive for Clen. This was not a bio passport panel issue.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Because he didn't like the confidentiality clause that required him to check before speaking to the media.

There are several ways you can look at that. One of which is that you'd be crazy not to have some sort of control over what gets released and by whom. If you look at what they do and how judgements are made you can see why. These things are rarely black and white. They are something that is open to interpretation.

Its much the same as the common misconception over drugs testing. You don't just feed a sample into a machine and get a yes/no answer.

Like everyone else, I understand the need for transparency in the light of the alleged corruption at the UCI, but these are not straightforward issues.

Give it a rest. Implying there would be no control over what was released by whom without a draconian confidentiality agreement is a strawman.

Ashenden signed the previous agreement covering confidentiality for individual athletes. He also continues to be bound by WADAs confidentiality agreement. The new agreement required by the lab that holds the UCI biopass contract was designed to prevent scientists speaking about the program in general terms. For example it would probably prevent Ashenden from commenting on unusual gaps in profiles if he observed them.

 

[Joachim]

There are nine people on that panel. They have to have some sort of consensus. What kind of credibility would they have if a dispute gets played out in the media. Get real.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

So go after Contador (the cheat) and UCI (the enablers).

Simple, surely?

We are on the same line.

There are nine people on that panel. They have to have some sort of consensus. What kind of credibility would they have if a dispute gets played out in the media. Get real.

The UCI is not credible, wake up. Ashenden quit for a reason.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

There are nine people on that panel. They have to have some sort of consensus. What kind of credibility would they have if a dispute gets played out in the media. Get real.

Other anti doping agencies get by with narrower confidentiality agreements, their disputes are not played out in the media. Get real yourself.

 

[King Of The Wolds]

From Wiggins' book :
- average power at threshold 450w
- weight 69,5 kg

6,5W/kg

Not normal.

You know, I went fishing the other day, and I caught a fish. This big, it was. My mate was pretty impressed. He believed it too, so when I told another mate, I exaggerated a bit and I made out it wasn't just that but this big. True story.

You know before every boxing fight, both fighters always, without fail, come out with the following - 'I'm the best shape of my life, hitting harder than ever, I can't be beaten, I'm a monster". Every single time. Wonder why they do that?

People talk a lot of s***. Sometimes to make out they're better than they are. Sometimes to make themselves sound good in a book they want to sell. Sometimes to try to get in the mind of an opponent who might be listening. God knows, if I was a cyclist trying to win a GT next year, I'd be quoting all sorts of power stats I'm capable of knocking out. It would have the opposition riding for 2nd place before I'd even hit the start line.

Lots of people around here think Wiggins and Rogers talk a lot of s***. They don't believe a word they say. Apart from when they're stat checking their own power files. Very strange.

Of course, I'd love to see some sort of evidence to show that they aren't talking s***.

 

[maltiv]

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

24/7 surveillance with live filming.

Unfortunately I don't think anyone will ever agree to that, regardless of whether they are clean or not.

 

[taiwan]

@ martinvickers - minor point, but Armstrong often did not know what his rivals were up to, and was paranoid about it. In the book I recall that he at times convinced himself that rivals, including Hamilton, were "on some new shiit" (implying some as yet unknown technique) and took action. Hence the anecdote with Hamilton getting a letter from Hein Verbruggen and confronting Armstrong about it.

Hamilton does emphasise, though, that Armstrong was particularly obsessive about training/equipment.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

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?

Good post, Hog.

Such a short memory in some people.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

There are nine people on that panel. They have to have some sort of consensus. What kind of credibility would they have if a dispute gets played out in the media. Get real.

In your world 9 experts agreeing on everything is credible.

In my world, that's called a whitewash.

 

[thehog]

Good post, Hog.

Such a short memory in some people.

Thanks Dear Wiggo.

My posts are always of an excellent quality.

Not always popular but always right.

 

[martinvickers]

@ martinvickers - minor point, but Armstrong often did not know what his rivals were up to, and was paranoid about it. In the book I recall that he at times convinced himself that rivals, including Hamilton, were "on some new shiit" (implying some as yet unknown technique) and took action. Hence the anecdote with Hamilton getting a letter from Hein Verbruggen and confronting Armstrong about it.

Hamilton does emphasise, though, that Armstrong was particularly obsessive about training/equipment.

In a way, that's my point- I read that as Armstrong DID know the most up to date techniques - and he knew it precisely because of his paranoic need to know more. He was on a constant hair trigger for the next big thing.

Riis, and other, just didn't seem as obsessive.

 

[taiwan]

In a way, that's my point- I read that as Armstrong DID know the most up to date techniques - and he knew it precisely because of his paranoic need to know more. He was on a constant hair trigger for the next big thing.

Riis, and other, just didn't seem as obsessive.

Nah you suggested it was inconieveable that LA and Hog did not know "every scintilla" of their rivals' medical programmes. In Hamilton's and Mayo's case, they evidently did not, and I think there were other examples.

 

[red_flanders]

You know, I went fishing the other day, and I caught a fish. This big, it was. My mate was pretty impressed. He believed it too, so when I told another mate, I exaggerated a bit and I made out it wasn't just that but this big. True story.

You know before every boxing fight, both fighters always, without fail, come out with the following - 'I'm the best shape of my life, hitting harder than ever, I can't be beaten, I'm a monster". Every single time. Wonder why they do that?

People talk a lot of s***. Sometimes to make out they're better than they are. Sometimes to make themselves sound good in a book they want to sell. Sometimes to try to get in the mind of an opponent who might be listening. God knows, if I was a cyclist trying to win a GT next year, I'd be quoting all sorts of power stats I'm capable of knocking out. It would have the opposition riding for 2nd place before I'd even hit the start line.

Lots of people around here think Wiggins and Rogers talk a lot of s***. They don't believe a word they say. Apart from when they're stat checking their own power files. Very strange.

Of course, I'd love to see some sort of evidence to show that they aren't talking s***.

It would seem likely that since those kind of numbers are 100% sure to arouse suspicion and questions, that few would choose to lie about them and incur the waste of time, energy and effort answering them.

Hard data and empirical measurements are measurable, exact, and not as prone to subjective exaggerations like "best shape of my life".

 

[Alphabet]

From Wiggins' book :
- average power at threshold 450w
- weight 69,5 kg

6,5W/kg

Not normal.

Where do we make the cut-off for doped vs. clean performance? 6 W/kg?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Where do we make the cut-off for doped vs. clean performance? 6 W/kg?

Any objection in starting with Greg Lemond's threshold PB?