Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Also: pretending to know the limits of human performance, based on your knowledge of training, is like a fuel expert pretending to know how much power a car can generate based on the Octane value of the fuel.

#fail.

Best to ignore iznogood, she has been trolling/looks to be trolling slash baiting this section for quite some time now. We are all rettards in her mind. So be it.

Ignore.

 

[Netserk]

Best to ignore iznogood, she has been trolling/looks to be trolling slash baiting this section for quite some time now. We are all rettards in her mind. So be it.

Ignore.

Don't worry. S/he is perma banned.

 

[Boeing]

So despite the fact that Brad himself has admitted to doing 450W for over an hour, which matches my estimated 6.5w/kg based on the recent Giro TT 20 minute effort, you are going to continue this dismissive tone.

Gotcha.

Umm kinda, but allow me to suggest that "admitted" isn't the best word choice here..

 

[The Hitch]

Relatively meaningless, but worth a chuckle. Accidentally when searching for something else, found this of some forum from pre Tour 2006

Floyd Landis has been picked by many to be a contender. This year he won Paris-Nice, The Tour of Georgia and The Tour of California. Many have been saying that he's peaked too early in the season but who knows, he could still pull it off, especially if Ulrich or Basso have a bad day in one of the mountain stages. Landis' coach has been saying his numbers recently have been looking really good

http://askville.amazon.com/favored-win-Tour-de-France-2006/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=34159

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I don't really disagree with what you say, but I can't see the point of being critical. Isn't the original claim in this discussion the one made by the promoters of the current clean era of cycling? You know, that speeds are down and performances are much more human? This should be an easy enough claim to prove for the ones making it, but for whatever reason the people trying to discuss these things are left calculating estimates and relying on third hand information.

As it is, it just looks bad. You have one set of 'experts' making fairly big claims with little public evidence to back it up. And when people discuss the issue with what little information is available to them, another set of 'experts' steps into the discussion to educate the ignorant layman on how poor their evidence is. I guess it's only logical though, who cares what people say to promote a sport as long as the science is solid in the forum discussions.

All I am saying is that:
- we have a paucity of valid data to be making such claims

- that lack of valid data drives people to make estimates, which is not unexpected

- by their nature such estimates will be rubbery figures and/or based on hearsay, and as such the level of confidence or error should be indicated

- I don't have the confidence of many here in drawing strong conclusions based on such estimates

If people want to validate claims about the trends in speeds / climbing times over the years, then look at speeds / climbing times - this is not subject to the same estimation error as power is (if you don't have valid power meter data to use) and does not require hearsay, just a stopwatch and established timing points.

But really, all riders at this level should be under doping scrutiny anyway, so I really don't know what such estimates are supposed to achieve other than a bit of clinic chew the fat fun?

Those that claim such changes (e.g. slower climbing rates) are an indication of "cleanliness" are relying on a logical fallacy (non-sequiter), and those that claim estimates of W/kg numbers are "proof of doping" resort to the same logical fallacy. Neither is correct.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

All I am saying is that:
- we have a paucity of valid data to be making such claims

- that lack of valid data drives people to make estimates, which is not unexpected

- by their nature such estimates will be rubbery figures and/or based on hearsay, and as such the level of confidence or error should be indicated

- I don't have the confidence of many here in drawing strong conclusions based on such estimates

If people want to validate claims about the trends in speeds / climbing times over the years, then look at speeds / climbing times - this is not subject to the same estimation error as power is (if you don't have valid power meter data to use) and does not require hearsay, just a stopwatch and established timing points.

But really, all riders at this level should be under doping scrutiny anyway, so I really don't know what such estimates are supposed to achieve other than a bit of clinic chew the fat fun?

Those that claim such changes (e.g. slower climbing rates) are an indication of "cleanliness" are relying on a logical fallacy (non-sequiter), and those that claim estimates of W/kg numbers are "proof of doping" resort to the same logical fallacy. Neither is correct.

Sorry, but just such information examined over and over led a lot of people on this subforum to conclude that Armstrong was a doping freak MANY years prior to that revelation to a wider audience. Have you ever heard of this dude named Edward Coyle? Yea, thanks for the admonishment from the science circus, but I'll still rely on the smell test.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

All I am saying is that:
- we have a paucity of valid data to be making such claims

- that lack of valid data drives people to make estimates, which is not unexpected

- by their nature such estimates will be rubbery figures and/or based on hearsay, and as such the level of confidence or error should be indicated

- I don't have the confidence of many here in drawing strong conclusions based on such estimates

If people want to validate claims about the trends in speeds / climbing times over the years, then look at speeds / climbing times - this is not subject to the same estimation error as power is (if you don't have valid power meter data to use) and does not require hearsay, just a stopwatch and established timing points.

But really, all riders at this level should be under doping scrutiny anyway, so I really don't know what such estimates are supposed to achieve other than a bit of clinic chew the fat fun?

Those that claim such changes (e.g. slower climbing rates) are an indication of "cleanliness" are relying on a logical fallacy (non-sequiter), and those that claim estimates of W/kg numbers are "proof of doping" resort to the same logical fallacy. Neither is correct.

Curious that I have never seen you refute someone posting about speeds being down as evidence the peloton is cleaning up, or the BP is working.

Never.

And this is kinda why you and your ilk look suspicious to me.

Always on the side of the rider. Silent when it suits, vocal when it doesn't.

It's working for Coggan though, he got the call up to Sky recently when there were questions to ask, and they quoted that call up in the media.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Curious that I have never seen you refute someone posting about speeds being down as evidence the peloton is cleaning up, or the BP is working.

Never.

And this is kinda why you and your ilk look suspicious to me.

Always on the side of the rider. Silent when it suits, vocal when it doesn't.

It's working for Coggan though, he got the call up to Sky recently when there were questions to ask, and they quoted that call up in the media.

Not sure what you mean by my "ilk". I know what the word means, but not what you are implying.

I don't see myself taking any sides for or against a rider. The only side I am on is that which prefers quality of evidence and eschews lazy analysis. Sometimes that entails playing devil's advocate so that claims can be reasonably tested for their validity (and they may be claims for clean or claims for dirty).

I don't have any obligation to make a statement on everything in this place. Let's face it, it's just an on-line pub where most wear masks. I sometimes visit other pubs too, but I choose not to wear a mask. I pop into this pub occasionally, and might choose to join in on whatever that day's chat is about.

I prefer evidence to be from quality valid sources, or when estimations are made, that the level of precision be provided so such information can be placed in context.


All a reduction of the peloton's speeds* says to me is that what doping is going on is not as physiologically effective as what was going on before. I have no idea if one can validly assume there is less doping but it might be a bit of both (i.e. less doping and less effective doping). Surely a reduction of speeds could not be taken to be an indicator of more effective doping?

* I don't actually know what evidence of speed changes actually exists, so all I suggest is what it might imply if it is in fact the case.


One only has to view the podium matrix on dopeology.org to see that doping is still a persistent and suckerific problem. And it's a massive problem at levels below pro-tour (and women pro-tour) which ****es me off no end, and rider's I've coached have had career ending experiences due to corruption and doping of others.


I find it curious that some would choose to believe some things Wiggins/Sky says, e.g. anecdotal quoting of power numbers, but don't believe other things he might say. How do people decide which things to believe? I suppose that's easy if you have reached a conclusion and then decide to choose the evidence to support it and discard that which does not.

For me it's easy, I don't believe any of it until it can be validated. But I can still comment on something as if it were true, while acknowledging that it may be a false assumption.

 

[Retro Trev]

Kerrison's methods don't work in the long run. He keeps the riders too fit all year round. All this does is make the riders jaded mentally and over susceptible to illness. The numbers may look OK in training but when they need to really dig deep the resilience is missing.

There is also a question mark over their power meter data, osymetric rings cause SRM power meters to over state power.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I find it curious that some would choose to believe some things Wiggins/Sky says, e.g. anecdotal quoting of power numbers, but don't believe other things he might say. How do people decide which things to believe? I suppose that's easy if you have reached a conclusion and then decide to choose the evidence to support it and discard that which does not.

You mean things like, Brad saying, "I did 450W for an hour" vs "Why I don't dope"?

And you find that curious that one statement is believable and the other not as easily?

Gotcha.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Kerrison's methods don't work in the long run. He keeps the riders too fit all year round. All this does is make the riders jaded mentally and over susceptible to illness. The numbers may look OK in training but when they need to really dig deep the resilience is missing.

2012 called. They don't believe you.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I don't have any obligation to make a statement on everything in this place. <snip> I pop into this pub occasionally, and might choose to join in on whatever that day's chat is about.

Doubly curious that your excursions here are always resulting in a defence of the peloton then.

 

[Retro Trev]

2012 called. They don't believe you.

The methods worked in 2012 for Wiggins but he is a broken man now.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The methods worked in 2012 for Wiggins but he is a broken man now.

Let's wait and see, shall we?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I prefer evidence to be from quality valid sources, or when estimations are made, that the level of precision be provided so such information can be placed in context.

For me it's easy, I don't believe any of it until it can be validated. But I can still comment on something as if it were true, while acknowledging that it may be a false assumption.

Valid points. What is evidence for you? A positive test or an insane achievement? Then, what is insane.

I've seen some insane stuff in the past, and seeing insane stuff going on right now.

 

[Retro Trev]

Let's wait and see, shall we?

Yes.

Remember 2010 when Sky claim they were not getting the correct numbers from Wiggins?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Yes.

Remember 2010 when Sky claim they were not getting the correct numbers from Wiggins?

No, I do not remember that. I do remember Wiggins looking very human in road races and GTs though.

 

[Retro Trev]

Curious that I have never seen you refute someone posting about speeds being down as evidence the peloton is cleaning up, or the BP is working.

Never.

And this is kinda why you and your ilk look suspicious to me.

Always on the side of the rider. Silent when it suits, vocal when it doesn't.

It's working for Coggan though, he got the call up to Sky recently when there were questions to ask, and they quoted that call up in the media.

Can't find anything about this anywhere.

 

[zlev11]

Relatively meaningless, but worth a chuckle. Accidentally when searching for something else, found this of some forum from pre Tour 2006



http://askville.amazon.com/favored-win-Tour-de-France-2006/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=34159

the funniest thing from that page has to be:

For what it's worth, here are the predictions from the three famous Tour Comentators: Phil Ligget, Paul Sherwin and Bob Roll:

Bob Roll:
1. George Hincapie
2. Jan Ulrich
3. Levi Leipheimer

ol' Bob Troll must have been REALLY confident in discovery's doping system to make that pick

 

[acoggan]

Curious that I have never seen you refute someone posting about speeds being down as evidence the peloton is cleaning up, or the BP is working.

Never.

And this is kinda why you and your ilk look suspicious to me.

Always on the side of the rider. Silent when it suits, vocal when it doesn't.

It's working for Coggan though, he got the call up to Sky recently when there were questions to ask, and they quoted that call up in the media.

You actually fell for that troll post by Trev the Rev?!?

 

[Retro Trev]

You actually fell for that troll post by Trev the Rev?!?

It was satire.

 

[acoggan]

It was satire.

Call it what you want, I thought it was pretty funny. Even funnier, though, is how many people actually went for it!

 

[acoggan]

Can't find anything about this anywhere.

You might (or might not - I haven't checked) deleted your original post, but others have shared it, e.g.,:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1234595&postcount=20065

 

[Retro Trev]

You might (or might not - I haven't checked) deleted your original post, but others have shared it, e.g.,:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1234595&postcount=20065

Andrew,

I posted it originally on timetrialling forum. But as you know they don't show my posts anymore. I was wondering if Sky really had consulted you. Perhaps they should.

Trev.

 

[acoggan]

Andrew,

I posted it originally on timetrialling forum. But as you know they don't show my posts anymore. I was wondering if Sky really had consulted you. Perhaps they should.

Trev.

Nah. I would have just told them what I'm sure they already know, i.e., that crashing, losing confidence in your descending ability, then getting sick leads to more-than-marginal losses.