Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[Turner29]

None of the recent world champions/world record holders who form the top "anchor" of my power profiling charts have ever tested positive. Hence, unless you know something that you should report to WADA, your statement technically isn't correct.

My statement was off the cuff and I do apologize. In addition, I really meant in terms of individuals being discussed.

 

[Lajeretta4Ever]

Hey here is a revelation. The faster your cadence usually mean the faster your bike goes, no? It works that way for me.

 

[the big ring]

Hey here is a revelation. The faster your cadence usually mean the faster your bike goes, no? It works that way for me.

Fixie hipster

 

[TheInternet]

Anquetil and Obree might argue otherwise.

 

[acoggan]

Well then who are the clean riders that figure at the top of your power charts?

The men's 5 min and FTP columns are based upon Boardman's power as estimated by Peter Keen (note that although these are only estimates, I still consider them sufficiently trustworthy, due to the conditions under which the data were obtained).

As for the other 6 top anchor points, though, I am not at liberty to share.

 

[acoggan]

hehe anyone remember THESE Italians?

Trivia: I was an extra in that movie.

 

[Turner29]

Hey here is a revelation. The faster your cadence usually mean the faster your bike goes, no? It works that way for me.

Only if your gearing remains the same...

 

[D-Queued]

Trivia: I was an extra in that movie.

I hope you weren't playing the bicycle pump.

BTW - read a very interesting paper of yours from 1992...

Dave.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Beating the BP and getting small (marginal ) gains is possible.

And that is part of the issue. Wiggo and a few other Sky riders have appeared to be at a different level than everyone else pretty much all year. However, with the BP we no longer see the "extraterrestrial" performances. As has been said by numerous people, the BP has definitely narrowed the gap between clean and doping. It has also facilitated a better understanding of how to dope without triggering a positive.

Of course, my doubt comes from the accumulation of quite a few things rather than a focus on 'increased power', etc. And not just of Wiggo. If it were just 1-2 things, I would not be so biased against Sky.

This is a good post and I agree with a lot of it. The trouble is that everytime anyone on the "Sky is doping" side of the fence raises what looks like a pretty good point, it highlights some inconsistency with the points that others on the same team are making.

Here we both acknowledge that it is possible to continue doping and beat the ABP, but the performance gains are smaller than pre-2008. However, on a number of occasions people have pointed out that Ashenden has publicly stated (although it was 2yrs ago) that he sees just as much evidence of blood manipulation as previously. Herein lies the inconsistency. If Sky are only achieving "marginal gains" from doping, then we basically need to assume that everyone else stopped doping except Sky in order for them to have achieved a distinct advantage over the rest of the field. I think that is unrealistic. If everyone is still doping and sky are too, well then the conclusion is that they're just better and more prepared than their rivals. That cannot be accepted by some people here, they must invoke "better program" to explain it. I don't know why, I assume its because their favourite guy didn't win or something. My favourite guy is Cadel Evans because I'm an Aussie and a mtn biker at heart. I believe he is clean and thus the tdf can be won clean, but this year its possible he just got beat by a better prepared team. That is all.

Wrt blood manipulation I believe the playing field has leveled considerably and it has gotten much closer to what can be achieved clean, and thus any talented rider or team that comes along can still compete against doped riders. I've been involved in lab testing of national level cyclists (some who have gone onto pro careers) and IMO also, acoggan's power profile tables are accurate and representative of clean performance.

The point I have thus been making all along for the past month is not that Team Sky are clean, but that they have not actually done anything in terms of performance that cannot be achieved without doping. The same just could not be said if this were 2007 or before. Short of eyewitness testimony and a positive test result, unrealistic performance is the biggest "tell". All the other stuff like hiring Leinders etc is basically just deciding first that Sky are doping and then looking for anything, no matter how trivial or moot, to support your pre-conceived belief.

The same cannot be said of Armstrong. It was evident even in 1999 that he was cycling up mtns at unrealistic speeds and many people have also said that his TT drastically improved. These important "tells" have not occurred in Wiggins' case.

 

[acoggan]

I hope you weren't playing the bicycle pump.

I'm skinny enough.

BTW - read a very interesting paper of yours from 1992...

Which one?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

This is a good post and I agree with a lot of it. The trouble is that everytime anyone on the "Sky is doping" side of the fence raises what looks like a pretty good point, it highlights some inconsistency with the points that others on the same team are making.

Here we both acknowledge that it is possible to continue doping and beat the ABP, but the performance gains are smaller than pre-2008. However, on a number of occasions people have pointed out that Ashenden has publicly stated (although it was 2yrs ago) that he sees just as much evidence of blood manipulation as previously. Herein lies the inconsistency. If Sky are only achieving "marginal gains" from doping, then we basically need to assume that everyone else stopped doping except Sky in order for them to have achieved a distinct advantage over the rest of the field. I think that is unrealistic. If everyone is still doping and sky are too, well then the conclusion is that they're just better and more prepared than their rivals. That cannot be accepted by some people here, they must invoke "better program" to explain it. I don't know why, I assume its because their favourite guy didn't win or something. My favourite guy is Cadel Evans because I'm an Aussie and a mtn biker at heart. I believe he is clean and thus the tdf can be won clean, but this year its possible he just got beat by a better prepared team. That is all.

Wrt blood manipulation I believe the playing field has leveled considerably and it has gotten much closer to what can be achieved clean, and thus any talented rider or team that comes along can still compete against doped riders. I've been involved in lab testing of national level cyclists (some who have gone onto pro careers) and IMO also, acoggan's power profile tables are accurate and representative of clean performance.

The point I have thus been making all along for the past month is not that Team Sky are clean, but that they have not actually done anything in terms of performance that cannot be achieved without doping. The same just could not be said if this were 2007 or before. Short of eyewitness testimony and a positive test result, unrealistic performance is the biggest "tell". All the other stuff like hiring Leinders etc is basically just deciding first that Sky are doping and then looking for anything, no matter how trivial or moot, to support your pre-conceived belief.

The same cannot be said of Armstrong. It was evident even in 1999 that he was cycling up mtns at unrealistic speeds and many people have also said that his TT drastically improved. These important "tells" have not occurred in Wiggins' case.

Being hot from spring to fall? Versus the entire pro peloton?

That's a big question for me...

 

[Krebs cycle]

Being hot from spring to fall? Versus the entire pro peloton?

That's a big question for me...

And how is that any different from Cadel's 2011 season or indeed Wiggins' 2011 season? In fact in numerous years Cadel Evans looks as though he has been consistently good from early on in the season.

Compare that to Andy Shleck, Contador and Armstrong, none of whom ever performed so well in 3 consecutive 7 day races throughout the season. Armstrong in particular is virtually absent in the early season, then turns up at the TdS or Dauphine in superb form and goes on to win the TdF. This pattern seems to fit with what we know about doping methods 2001-2007 ie: mainly transfusions. The off season is not long enough to accumulate sufficient blood stores to last for the entire season, so they reserve them for the tour and perhaps one other important lead up race.

Now compare that to the pre EPO era in which it was also rather common for the top riders to race well for the entire season. Same goes for every other endurance sport. The best performers do NOT suddenly come good at the World Championships, they win all year round as long as they don't race too much. This is the key IMO, you cannot race too much. Cadel kept his race days down last year and Wiggins did the same this year.

On the one hand, everyone is saying Wiggins is doping because he suddenly improved, but on the other hand here you're saying, Wiggins is doping because he didn't suddenly improve.

edit: IMO when bigger performance jumps were possible (ie: pre biopassport), then it just wasn't possible for a consistent rider (which is circumstantial evidence of "cleanliness") to win the TdF because the dopers surpassed them at the tour via use of PEDs. However, in a "cleaner" era (not saying 100% totally clean), then only a consistent rider will go on to win because its not possible to increase one's performance by a large amount naturally in a short space of time. Its also much more difficult to be doping all season compared to only one or two races because you're going to get tested more often.

 

[The Valley]

But then in 2009 he was juiced.

Clueless. Absolutely clueless.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Something else I came across recently which is yet another myth that the tin foil hat brigade around here keep crapping on about.... Wiggins showed ZERO climbing ability pre 2009.

From a Eurosport race report of the Tour de l’Avenir 2005 quoted here

On a hilly route with seven climbs, the Briton proves he can also cross the mountains
Bradley Wiggins isn’t just a time triallist. He proved it winning Thursday’s 8th stage of the Tour de l’Avenir on a route with seven climbs. However the reigning world and Olympic pursuit champion doesn’t have the look of a climber. He’s proved that it’s not just against the clock where he can win.

 

[richtea]

And how is that any different from Cadel's 2011 season or indeed Wiggins' 2011 season? In fact in numerous years Cadel Evans looks as though he has been consistently good from early on in the season.

I also think this point is key in understanding how Sky managed the appearance of dominance. There was a remarkable difference between Cadel's 2012 season and 2011 - his performances were consistently below par over the early season and this was also reflected in his Tour performance. Clearly, motivation had dipped (or he was increasingly distracted by his new status as champion). Additionally, while Nibali was clearly on form, Liquigas brought several top riders (e.g. Basso, Szymd) that were already used up in the Giro and were never going to compete with a team that had built their season around the Tour. Nibali being behind Wiggins was not unexpected as the Tour started.

 

[roundabout]

Funnily enough back when he was climbing well (enough) in 2005 he had to rely on the weather to finish 2nd in the ITT.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

and IMO also, acoggan's power profile tables are accurate and representative of clean performance.

The point I have thus been making all along for the past month is not that Team Sky are clean, but that they have not actually done anything in terms of performance that cannot be achieved without doping. The same just could not be said if this were 2007 or before. Short of eyewitness testimony and a positive test result, unrealistic performance is the biggest "tell". All the other stuff like hiring Leinders etc is basically just deciding first that Sky are doping and then looking for anything, no matter how trivial or moot, to support your pre-conceived belief.

The same cannot be said of Armstrong. It was evident even in 1999 that he was cycling up mtns at unrealistic speeds and many people have also said that his TT drastically improved. These important "tells" have not occurred in Wiggins' case.

First of all, is there a reference as to you can say 'that's a clean rider' or is it an assumption?

In that case you are doing the same thing you are accusing the SKY - sceptics, just in a different direction.

When I took a look at the 'great Ferrari' website he measured a VAM of 1844 at la Planche de Belle Fille - really don't know if it is correct - what would put the SKY train in front of good old Bjarne Riis at Hautacam 1996.
If these numbers are correct, how can we say there is nothing to suspect at the SKY performances? And I do keep in mind the climb was shorter.

There may be less blood manipulation, they stay inbetween the parameters nicely, what could suggest there is 'a new Holy Grail' out there. Remember it took a while in the nineties before they perfected the EPO-HGH-steroids cocktail.

When I take a look at the sportsscients website they clearly are comparing the outputs of riders to the outputs in the nineties, that's not a good reference in any scientist book because we simply don't know the FACTS of that era. Certain FACTS of this 'SKY era' we also don't know since the health checks pre - Tour have been abolished.

Something else I came across recently which is yet another myth that the tin foil hat brigade around here keep crapping on about.... Wiggins showed ZERO climbing ability pre 2009.

From a Eurosport race report of the Tour de l’Avenir 2005 quoted here

Arrogance is not your biggest virtue?

I have taken the liberty to look at that result and saw this list of competitors:
http://www.letour.fr/2005/TDA/LIVE/us/800/classement/ITE.html

Lots of mountaineers in my book, only a 20 year old Andy Schleck when I take a quick look.
Taking another quick look at the GC we see Wiggo 20 minutes down on Lars Bak, wouldn't it be the case he and the great climber Saul Raisin were let of by the peloton?
http://www.letour.fr/2005/TDA/LIVE/us/800/classement/ITE.html

Just an idea....

So please try again.

No climber, decent road TT'er untill 2009, then a more than okay climber only outclassed by his matey Chris and the best TT'er in the world. That is a leap in performance that needs explanation, or is it just the cleaning up of pro cycling?

 

[roundabout]

I'll be the first of the "haters" to admit it, but Wiggins was climbing okay in those 10 days. Weren't big mountains, wasn't the greatest of fields, but for a 2005 Wiggins he was doing okay.

IIRC he lost something like 20 minutes in the crosswinds on one of the early stages.

Of course it may be against my better judgment and the next line of argument would be that being a 4th best time trialist and a top 20ish climber in the Tour de l'Avenir means that Wiggins always had what it takes to win the big one.

 

[badboygolf16v]

Clueless. Absolutely clueless.

Given the three riders ahead of Wiggins in 2009, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the next finisher may be using the same methods?

 

[the big ring]

Something else I came across recently which is yet another myth that the tin foil hat brigade around here keep crapping on about.... Wiggins showed ZERO climbing ability pre 2009.

From a Eurosport race report of the Tour de l’Avenir 2005 quoted here

So your "research" about a guy you don't care about leads you to quote an editor's quick appraisal of a rider based on ONE STAGE of a race from 7 years ago. And you know nothing else about that race, the stage, or the way it was won. Yet you claim it as evidence of Wiggin's climbing ability.

And you claim to have a PhD!?

As a starter, here's the definition of "editorial":

Editorial: A newspaper article written by or on behalf of an editor that gives an opinion on a topical issue.

If we go to the data (you'd know about data being a "sports scientist", right?), from CN, we see the following:

1. Brad was already so far down noone cared if he got in a break:
Stage 6 GC:
71 Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Credit Agricole 24.35
76 Steve Cummings (GBr) Landbouwkrediet-Colnago 25.30

That's right, Brad won the race from a break - not by climbing with the best climbers in the race and beating them.

2. He'd been pro for 4 years and NEVER WON A RACE.
"The Brit has been a pro for four years now and this is the first time he has won a road race since he joined Française des Jeux in 2002."

And if you really think his team mate Saul Raisin was going to take the stage win after mopping up the mountain points for the stage, you really do not understand professional cycling.

3. The stage was not difficult
Another quote from Brad: " I didn't think of the win until we were left with the three of us in front. The green jersey Jesus Del Nero was the right man to have with us. When we got five minutes lead at one point, I believed we could make it."

Did you catch that? The green jersey, Jesus Del Nero. There were 3 left in the break: 2 x Credit Agricole riders AND THE CURRENT BEST SPRINTER AT THE RACE. Who had won the stage 2 days earlier and went on to finish 2nd in the green jersey competition by 1 point. A sprinter.

4. It was a stage so short even Brad dismissed it:
"Wiggins added: "I never got bored because it was such a short stage."

5. Steve Cummings, from the same country, the same age, height and weight, finished over 2 minutes ahead of Wiggins on a relatively undulating but not mountainous final stage 2 days later.
57 Steve Cummings (GBr) Landbouwkrediet-Colnago 2.22
75 Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Credit Agricole 4.40

Please. Do not try again. It is too easy swatting your pathetic attempts at reasoning and logic aside. You are failing to provide any real evidence to support the argument that B Wiggins showed any sort of GT GC ability at any stage other than the last few years where he's gone from ZERO to HERO.

FWIW. I do not hate B Wiggins. I hate dishonesty.

Whatevs dude. I've got over 10yrs experience working at the AIS and NSWIS with elite athletes and coaches as a sport scientist -

I'm not even defending Sky. I couldn't care less about Sky or Wiggins.

I am defending basic common sense, truth and reason.

I call shenanigans.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I call shenanigans.

whatevs. I suppose you believe that global warming is a hoax too.

 

[hrotha]

whatevs. I suppose you believe that global warming is a hoax too.

If he posted solid data on global warming being a hoax like he just did on Wiggins's Avenir exploits not being anything special, then yeah, I'd be inclined to believe global warming is a hoax.

 

[Krebs cycle]

If he posted solid data on global warming being a hoax like he just did on Wiggins's Avenir exploits not being anything special, then yeah, I'd be inclined to believe global warming is a hoax.

I never said it was something special which is why the big ring's massive moot rant is so stupidly ridiculous.

What I think is special is 9 gold medals at world and olympic level on the track between 2003 and 2008 and consistently finishing in the top 10 or top 5 in the road TT at world championship level and in various stage races.

 

[roundabout]

Do words myth, tinfoil hat brigade and crapping on sound familiar to you?

You bit off more than you could chew with your Avenir example. Don't assume that people here are idiots who don't know more about the race than 5 lines quoted from an article linked by a pro-Sky, pro GB and pro Wiggins blog.

 

[the big ring]

I never said it was something special which is why the big ring's massive moot rant is so stupidly ridiculous.

What I think is special is 9 gold medals at world and olympic level on the track between 2003 and 2008 and consistently finishing in the top 10 or top 5 in the road TT at world championship level and in various stage races.

Nice backpedal.

Name 3 stage races before 2009 (the period in doubt as to his authenticity) that Brad top 10 or 5'd in.

If you can.

Or maybe start with 1.

But please do not claim innuendo and fantasy as fact. It's getting old.

ETA: or you mean he top 10/5'd in TTs in stage races?