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

[doolols]

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.

I'm claiming he's innocent because, at this moment in time, he is innocent. I find it strange that, without any shred of evidence, people are calling dope just because there is a dominant team. A team that has been working towards a single goal, working scientifically, and being well-funded means they can get the best riders that suit the team and the team's goal. Vaughters has already said that he tried to buy Froome, but didn't have enough money to counter Sky's bid.

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.

Well of course he's going to say there's no secret methods. I don't know how secret they are, but I see far more science and analysis being put into Sky than any other team. They work together, they train together. They have a travelling chef / nutritionist, something other teams don't have / can't afford.

 

[Cavalier]

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.

I understand the science quite clearly. I'm asking you - continually - to provide reference for the numbers you give that you continually expect everyone to take on face value, simply because you're the one posting them. That is not, has not, and will never be an accepted form of validation no matter what the subject matter is you're debating. Stop being facetious and claiming you're the one on the receiving end of insults when you're the one initiating them:

What the hell are you talking about?

You're barking mad fella.

You are still barking mad.
What is hideously annoying is having to explain kindergarten level maths to an adult.

So, FOR THE THIRD TIME, provide some reference to your 'expected variation in performance' figures.

 

[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.

Just to make you happy.....

Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998 Dec;30(12):1744-50.
A new reliable laboratory test of endurance performance for road cyclists.
Schabort EJ, Hawley JA, Hopkins WG, Mujika I, Noakes TD.

RESULTS: In the first test, time for the 100 km and mean times for the 1-km and 4-km sprints were 151:42 +/- 10:36, 1:16 +/- 0:06, and 5:31 +/- 0:16 min:s, respectively; these times improved by 1.6-2.2% in the second test, but there was little further improvement in the third test (0.7 to -0.5%). The between-test correlation for 100-km time was 0.93 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.98), and the within-cyclist coefficient of variation was 1.7% (95% CI 1.1 to 2.5%). Mean sprint performance showed similar good reliability (within-subject variation and correlations for the 1-km and 4-km sprint times of 1.9%, 2.0%, 0.93, and 0.81, respectively)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9861609

I know four of the five authors on that paper personally. I have been reading the elite sport science literature for over 12yrs. I don't just "pluck numbers out of my orifice".

I'm sure that you enjoy the sport of cycling. Maybe if you spent a little more time reading about the science of cycling performance instead of attacking me, you would gain a greater appreciation for the sport. It enhances my enjoyment of the sport, maybe it could yours too.

 

[Cavalier]

Well of course he's going to say there's no secret methods. I don't know how secret they are, but I see far more science and analysis being put into Sky than any other team. They work together, they train together. They have a travelling chef / nutritionist, something other teams don't have / can't afford.

What other teams? BMC have that, RSNT have that. C'mon, there's no revolution there, nothing that explains a single team suddenly dominating.

 

[Caruut]

I'm claiming he's innocent because, at this moment in time, he is innocent. I find it strange that, without any shred of evidence, people are calling dope just because there is a dominant team. A team that has been working towards a single goal, working scientifically, and being well-funded means they can get the best riders that suit the team and the team's goal. Vaughters has already said that he tried to buy Froome, but didn't have enough money to counter Sky's bid.

It seems to matter to you, so I'll tell you first up that I'm British.

There is no concrete proof, no. That is a world apart from "[no] shred of evidence". There is Leinders, there is the strange camp in Tenerife, there is Wiggins' performance at a level we just haven't seen from him before. Alone, they can be explained away, but all together, they appear rather suspicious. Given the history of this sport, it is naive to assume all is hunky dory without giving it some serious thought first. That is what you would have us do - shut our eyes and ears until there is incontrovertible proof. In a sport with as dodgy a history as this, why is the null hypothesis innocence?

Well of course he's going to say there's no secret methods. I don't know how secret they are, but I see far more science and analysis being put into Sky than any other team. They work together, they train together. They have a travelling chef / nutritionist, something other teams don't have / can't afford.

Sorry, did you ust say that you have no idea what they are doing, but you feel confident that they have more "science and analysis". So you don't know what they're doing, but you still feel safe saying that they're doing it better than others. Everyone trains, works together and eats right - it's professional sport for crying out loud.

 

[Cavalier]

Just to make you happy.....

I know four of the five authors on that paper personally. I have been reading the elite sport science literature for over 12yrs. I don't just "pluck numbers out of my orifice".

Using that paper to try and argue your point is horribly misleading. The amount of variation between it's conditions and the ones present in an ITT is extraordinary, not least of which is the distance involved in the lab test, which would enormously alter the variation in performance. But I'm sure you were aware of that.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I understand the science quite clearly. I'm asking you - continually - to provide reference for the numbers you give that you continually expect everyone to take on face value, simply because you're the one posting them. That is not, has not, and will never be an accepted form of validation no matter what the subject matter is you're debating. Stop being facetious and claiming you're the one on the receiving end of insults when you're the one initiating them:

So, FOR THE THIRD TIME, provide some reference to your 'expected variation in performance' figures.

You very clearly don't understand the science because if you did you would know those numbers I posted are not arbitrary. If you understand the science you wouldn't make a statement (especially the bit in bold) such as....

"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!"

I have repeated many times that examining TT performances over time is the best indication that someone has started a doping program in the absence of a positive test result, I never said that ITT performance alone is a measure of ability to compete in a GT. But regardless, if you understood pro-cycling even at the most rudimentary level you would realize that almost every TdF winner for the last 40yrs has also been an exceptionally good time trialist.

 

[Cavalier]

You very clearly don't understand the science because if you did you would know those numbers I posted are not arbitrary. If you understand the science you wouldn't make a statement (especially the bit in bold) such as....

"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!"

I have repeated many times that examining TT performances over time is the best indication that someone has started a doping program in the absence of a positive test result, I never said that ITT performance alone is a measure of ability to compete in a GT. But regardless, if you understood pro-cycling even at the most rudimentary level you would realize that almost every TdF winner for the last 40yrs has also been an exceptionally good time trialist.

I fixed that bolded section up for you so that you wouldn't quote it horribly out of context, as you pretty clearly intended to. Can you stop with the poorly-hidden insults though? "if you understood pro-cyclling" is seriously about the most idiotic and overused put-down in here, and it's almost entirely 100% inaccurate whenever it's used.
Regardless, three of the last six winners of the TDF were, at best, average time trialists. I don't think anyone's in a position to say those weren't doping years.

But here's the issue you can't answer yet continue to skirt around: A rider loses ten kilos of body weight (most of it muscle), changes to a significantly different discipline, requiring very different capability, and yet increases his power output and ability to climb mountains.

And you're claiming that's not a sudden jump in performance?

 

[Krebs cycle]

Using that paper to try and argue your point is horribly misleading. The amount of variation between it's conditions and the ones present in an ITT is extraordinary, not least of which is the distance involved in the lab test, which would enormously alter the variation in performance. But I'm sure you were aware of that.

Here are two more, the second being a REVIEW article.

Int J Sports Med. 2001 May;22(4):270-4.
Reliability of mean power recorded during indoor and outdoor self-paced 40 km cycling time-trials.
Smith MF, Davison RC, Balmer J, Bird SR.

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess reliability of both indoor and outdoor 40 km time-trial cycling performance. Eight trained cyclists completed three indoor 40 km time-trials on an air-braked ergometer (Kingcycle) and three outdoor 40 km time-trials on a local course. Power output was measured for all trials using the SRM powermeter. Mean performance time across three indoor trials was 54.21 +/- 2.59 (min:sec) and was significantly different (P<0.05) to mean time across three outdoor trials (57.29 +/- 3.22 min:sec). However, there was no significant difference (P = 0.34) for mean power across three indoor trials (303+/-35W) when compared to outdoor performances (312 +/- 23 W). Within-subject variation for mean power output expressed as a coefficient of variation (CV) improved in both indoors and outdoors for trials 2 and 3 (CV = 1.9%, 95% CI 1.0 - 3.4 and CV = 2.1 %, 95 % CI 1.1 - 3.8) when compared to trials 1 and 2 (CV=2.1%, 95% CI 1.2-3.8 and CV=2.4%, 95% CI 1.3-4.3). These findings indicate that power output measured using the SRM powermeter is highly reproducible for both laboratory-based and actual 40 km time-trial cycling performance

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11414669


Sports Med. 2001;31(7):489-96.
Tests of cycling performance.
Paton CD, Hopkins WG.

Abstract
Performance tests are an integral component of assessment for competitive cyclists in practical and research settings. Cycle ergometry is the basis of most of these tests. Most cycle ergometers are stationary devices that measure power while a cyclist pedals against sliding friction (e.g. Monark), electromagnetic braking (e.g. Lode), or air resistance (e.g. Kingcycle). Mobile ergometers (e.g. SRM cranks) allow measurement of power through the drive train of the cyclist's own bike in real or simulated competitions on the road, in a velodrome or in the laboratory. The manufacturers' calibration of all ergometers is questionable; dynamic recalibration with a special rig is therefore desirable for comparison of cyclists tested on different ergometers. For monitoring changes in performance of a cyclist, an ergometer should introduce negligible random error (variation) in its measurements; in this respect, SRM cranks appear to be the best ergometer, but more comparison studies of ergometers are needed. Random error in the cyclist's performance should also be minimised by choice of an appropriate type of test. Tests based on physiological measures (e.g. maximum oxygen uptake, anaerobic threshold) and tests requiring self-selection of pace (e.g. constant-duration and constant-distance tests) usually produce random error of at least approximately 2 to 3% in the measure of power output. Random error as low as approximately 1% is possible for measures of power in 'all-out' sprints, incremental tests, constant-power tests to exhaustion and probably also time trials in an indoor velodrome. Measures with such low error might be suitable for tracking the small changes in competitive performance that matter to elite cyclists.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11428686

how about you go away and do some research instead of acting like a little brat that just got spanked

 

[BroDeal]

There seems to be an inability to see the forest for the trees.

ROGERS
ROGERS
ROGERS
ROGERS
ROGERS

Oh, I forgot. Rogers at the age of thirty-two decided that losing weight was a brilliant idea. No one had ever mentioned this to him in the first decade of his pro racing career, and he was not smart enough to figure it out for himself.

 

[Krebs cycle]

But here's the issue you can't answer yet continue to skirt around: A rider loses ten kilos of body weight (most of it muscle), changes to a significantly different discipline, requiring very different capability, and yet increases his power output and ability to climb mountains.

And you're claiming that's not a sudden jump in performance?

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?

Again you are clearly showing that you have less than no clue about cycling because one's ability to climb mtns is most closely related to watts/kg NOT peak power.

Anyway, I'm done. I tried to play nice with you but you just had to throw all the toys out of the playpen.

 

[Cavalier]

Here are two more, the second being a REVIEW article.

Ha, I love it. You link one saying there's no difference (or negligible difference) to power output in an indoor or outdoor setting, and that therefore the road (and/or weather) conditions are the difference in time measurement, and yet you've said earlier that the differences would be significantly increased outdoors compared to a lab? You really do need to choose which one is your actual true statement, instead of bolding parts of studies in a hyper-responsive fit of pique.

how about you go away and do some research instead of acting like a little brat that just got spanked

Again with the name-calling. Seriously, can you at least pretend you can have a civil discussion for five minutes?

 

[Cavalier]

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?

Well, if it wasn't muscle, you're stating that an elite-level Olympic athlete was carrying around 6kg (we'll play with your figure for the moment) of fat into the highest level of competition there is, and winning gold that way. I think even that's stretching the bounds of credibility just a little.
And yes, I've got access to his test results. They're about as accurate as the Cadel ones you claimed to have done and yet I was the one who posted the result of those.

Again you are clearly showing that you have less than no clue about cycling because one's ability to climb mtns is most closely related to watts/kg NOT peak power.

I never stated it had anything to do with peak power? Seriously, in your frothing rush to hit 'submit reply' you need to actually consider what you're replying to instead of guessing.

e: This is probably easier if I just put you on ignore, it's safer then than having to watch you intersperse your ability to use the search function on pubmed with petty name-calling. Good luck.

 

[Bala Verde]

There seems to be an inability to see the forest for the trees.

ROGERS
ROGERS
ROGERS
ROGERS
ROGERS

Oh, I forgot. Rogers at the age of thirty-two decided that losing weight was a brilliant idea. No one had ever mentioned this to him in the first decade of his pro racing career, and he was not smart enough to figure it out for himself.

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

Core strengthening

strength and conditioning programme building the muscles in his core that cycling can't reach

Ivan Basso completing his core strength training


Intervals

specific bike training, like high-intensity intervals with varying rest, designed to help him mount powerful anaerobic attacks and recover from them, and cope when others make them

Robert Gesink
‏@RGUpdate

Super training gedaan met van Winden. Laatse intensieve bloktraining bergop: 5x(1,5vol,2min rust,1min vol,2min rust,30sec vol) op Els Angels

Riding/climbing sessions at, or close to, threshold

Throughout April and May this year Wiggins did long climbs working at the power calculated to push him towards his optimum threshold, until he was doing sessions like three repetitions of 25-minute climbs in 35 degrees

Pre-season base building

Starting last November he did a lot of low-intensity work to build a base

Altitude training

The sleep-high, train-low model

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

allow for a week for the ‘post-altitude slump', a period when the body readjusts, [rider] to recover from the heavy workload

and checking the quality of the French pavement

route reconnoitring in France

Bradley Wiggins's Tour de France training

 

[BroDeal]

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?

Again you are clearly showing that you have less than no clue about cycling because one's ability to climb mtns is most closely related to watts/kg NOT peak power.

Hmmm. We have Wiggins time trial results relative to other top time trialers. It has improved. So we have these four possibilities:

1) Wiggins power increased.
2) Wiggins aerodynamics improved.
3) The others' power decreased.
4) The others' aerodynamics became worse.

We can toss out number 4.

Number 2 is unlikely. All teams, bikes, and positioning are advancing. Why would Sky's improve dramatically over other teams. In fact, a company like Trek has a good position in the Tri market. Pinarello is a non-factor in that market. Trek can spend large amounts of money to improve their time trial bikes and see real profits from that expenditure. If some teams' aerodynamics advance faster than others then it would make more sense that the Treks, Cervelos, and Specialized teams would gain an advantage.

So we are left with numbers 1 and 2, either Wiggins' power increased, his competitors' power decreased, or a combination of the two. Now the Sky riders have been gleefully telling the world that they are hitting better power numbers than ever before, so I have to go with number 1.

 

[Krebs cycle]

There seems to be an inability to see the forest for the trees.

ROGERS


Oh, I forgot. Rogers at the age of thirty-two decided that losing weight was a brilliant idea. No one had ever mentioned this to him in the first decade of his pro racing career, and he was not smart enough to figure it out for himself.

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. Its possible (probable) that all of them were so it still shows that he must have had climbing ability even if he was on the gear. If Rogers were still doping today, then he should be annihilating Basso but in yesterday's stage it was Basso doing the pacemaking, not Rogers, who finished 20min back.... 10min behind Kloden and 6min behind Basso. Doesn't look like a his super doping program is doing much for his performances does it?

You guys think you know so much about cycling history but every time I check a result I find that you've got no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Hmmm. We have Wiggins time trial results relative to other top time trialers. It has improved. So we have these four possibilities:

1) Wiggins power increased.
2) Wiggins aerodynamics improved.
3) The others' power decreased.
4) The others' aerodynamics became worse.

We can toss out number 4.

Number 2 is unlikely. All teams, bikes, and positioning are advancing. Why would Sky's improve dramatically over other teams. In fact, a company like Trek has a good position in the Tri market. Pinarello is a non-factor in that market. Trek can spend large amounts of money to improve their time trial bikes and see real profits from that expenditure. If some teams' aerodynamics advance faster than others then it would make more sense that the Treks, Cervelos, and Specialized teams would gain an advantage.

So we are left with numbers 1 and 2, either Wiggins' power increased, his competitors' power decreased, or a combination of the two. Now the Sky riders have been gleefully telling the world that they are hitting better power numbers than ever before, so I have to go with number 1.

The important variable is power to drag ratio. The coefficient of drag is related to both frontal surface area, body position and bike aerodynamics.

So his PPO could go down with weight loss (heck maybe it didn't even go down, we don't even know that, it could have stayed the same for all we know) but his power to drag ratio could slightly improve. If you worked on this continuously for 4yrs I reckon you might just be able to make small and gradual improvements, exactly what the results show.

You forgot another thing though and that is bike skill. It is also possible that Wiggins has improved his on road bike handling over the years (for which he was known to be poor at).

I feel as though Wiggins has become completely irrelevant to this discussion. I'm not even defending Wiggins anymore. I'm defending science, logic and reason against the dark forces of irrationality.

 

[sittingbison]

aaarrrrggghhh krebs would you please stop posting completely meaningless race results from 8 years ago!! I reiterate, they do NOT make any kind of point you think they might, in fact often make the opposite.

It was a 15km time trial! He was 24 in that race, on TKom, on the juice program. He was the world ITT champion (2003-2005). Every other rider in that list apart from possibly Sastre and Moncoutie was juiced. And those two beat him!

It is all meaningless when looking at his current performance in driving the Sky train through the mountains, something he has never been able to accomplish.

 

[Ferminal]

Do you have Rogers' output for the Huez ITT? Would be worth comparing to Joux Plane last month.

Also you assume no one else is doping today, either.

Rogers has never been a GT rider on or off the program.

 

[rata de sentina]

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.

¨Fair and balanced¨? As a dispassionate observer I think you are the one sailing close to the wind with your way of addressing other people. Your argumentation is all over the place and hard to follow. Personally I gave up discussing this issue with you when I realised it was like having a discussion with Polish

 

[Krebs cycle]

Do you have Rogers' output for the Huez ITT? Would be worth comparing to Joux Plane last month.

Also you assume no one else is doping today, either.

Rogers has never been a GT rider on or off the program.

Well this the thing. I think the peloton is getting "cleaner". What that means is all this microdosing business and playing around with plasma volume expanders or diruetics etc trying to keep the biopassport numbers in check, reduces the ability to make large unphysiological like changes to an individual's total hemoglobin mass (which is the important variable regarding oxygen transport). There are definitely still riders who are doping, but they probably aren't getting as large performance gains as in the past when there was no ABP. Ashenden and Schumacher have both stated this.

This battle I'm having about Wiggins basically means that members of the clinic disagree with Ashenden and Schumacher, and seem to think that either the biopassport isn't doing much at all and blood doping is still giving large performance gains (and Sky just have a better program than everyone else), or it is working thus only giving a small performance gain and ONLY team sky are doping and everyone else decided not to for the past 2 or 3yrs but especially this year.

Not a single naysayer is bothering to attribute anything to training, preparation and the innate ability of the riders themselves. Richie Porte was 7th in the Giro in 2010 and won the young riders classification. The best anyone can come up with is "oh everyone trains hard". Sure they do, but some prepare better than others in some years. Last year it was BMC with the best lead up, this year it is Sky.

 

[thehog]

The important variable is power to drag ratio. The coefficient of drag is related to both frontal surface area, body position and bike aerodynamics.

.

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.

 

[Ferminal]

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?

 

[Krebs cycle]

¨Fair and balanced¨? As a dispassionate observer I think you are the one sailing close to the wind with your way of addressing other people. Your argumentation is all over the place and hard to follow. Personally I gave up discussing this issue with you when I realised it was like having a discussion with Polish

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.

 

[BikeCentric]

The important variable is power to drag ratio. The coefficient of drag is related to both frontal surface area, body position and bike aerodynamics.

So his PPO could go down with weight loss (heck maybe it didn't even go down, we don't even know that, it could have stayed the same for all we know) but his power to drag ratio could slightly improve. If you worked on this continuously for 4yrs I reckon you might just be able to make small and gradual improvements, exactly what the results show.

You forgot another thing though and that is bike skill. It is also possible that Wiggins has improved his on road bike handling over the years (for which he was known to be poor at).

I feel as though Wiggins has become completely irrelevant to this discussion. I'm not even defending Wiggins anymore. I'm defending science, logic and reason against the dark forces of irrationality.

Yeah but it's totally rational for a pro bike racer to be a "poor bike handler."

LOL!