Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[Franklin]

Leinders wasn't at the TdF. His particular medical expertise in dealing with athletes after extreme exertion etc (team doctors do far more than administer dope) was something Sky lacked.

Now of course, the most prestigious race of them all and the Sky riders were not exerted

But yes, if we need to deal with saddle sores and extreme exertion we should hire someone who a judge has said to be fraudulent in the Rasmussen case. And who cares that he was member of the management team, and thus full responsibility, had a carte blanche to get a GT winner at any cost and who has been involved in doping fraud.

Also, he never had any special degrees on either saddle sores or heat strokes, but hey!

I know, I'm a bad man for pointing out facts. Sorry.

 

[thehog]

You are a bit confused... Tenerife isn't deserted, but it's remote indeed:

Remote, Definition: Removed to a distance; not near; far away; distant; said in respect to time or to place; as, remote ages; remote lands.

The key to Tenerife is that there is two airports – one that serves all international flights and the other local. Its surrounded by water and you know at what time the planes come in at each day and from where. In the mountains its desolate. You’ll notice someone who doesn’t belong there.

Why do you think it became drug-party capital of Europe? (Water).

You stand a better chance of never being tested than you would being at your home base or anywhere else.

Besides it’s not so much the testing they’re worried about. It’s getting 100% facetime with the doctor, training and drugs minus distraction.

 

[sittingbison]

So:
1) you cannot offer any explanation or information to the weight debate
2) there is no verification from footage of any change in cadence
3) changes in cadence is a maguffin anyway
4) Wiggo has never outperformed the main opposition in ITT until this year. Using your parlance, he didnt have an off day, he had an off career.

Oh, BTW it might be easy to beat Schleck in ITT, but keeping up with him, Contador and Armstrong in the mountains is most certainly not. Especially for noted broom wagon exponent Wiggo

 

[armchairclimber]

For all our enlightenment, please briefly outline the training Brad did for the Olympic IP in 2008.

Thank you.

I said there's nothing in the progression that's a problem.

You are looking for explanations to a problem that doesn't exist. YOu have several people who know their onions with regards to sports science/physiology telling you this, yet you persist in asking for explanations...for the "non-quandary".

Let me put it another way, using your knowledge of physiology, explain exactly why Wiggins' progression from IP specialist to GT contender is a problem. And I mean explain it in terms of aerobic capacity, power output, lactate threshold etc...not just simply say "it doesn't happen very often".

Go on. There are a few of us who would love the benefit of all this knowledge you've been harvesting.

 

[DirtyWorks]

No-one has said what Wiggo has done is a piece of cake, only that it's not impossible,

Not likely though... Otherwise over the history of cycling we would have seen many more pursuiters turn up as Grand Tour contenders. I'm going to do a Krebs Cycle here and ask, how many riders laboured in track obscurity before becoming Grand Tour winners? Lots of great one-day riders came off the track. But how many became Grand Tour champions?

I'll start: let's put Wiggo in with the great Merckx because his 2012 domination was comparable. Merckx raced at the front all year long. Wiggo, not so much. Where have we seen this pattern before since the EPO era began?

so long as you've got the right physiology to start with. Whatever else one might think about Wiggo, he will have trained ****ing hard for his performances in 2008,2009, 2011 and 2012 etc.

Specific to Wiggo, some things are possible, but most are not likely. This is as much about the other Grand Tour supporters miraculous improvements as it is about the Wiggo miracle.

And then there's this: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1033758&postcount=836 Which is telling of a doped TdF performance. Because we've never seen dopers absolutely crush a field and then turn in mid-pack performances since the start of the EPO era. Ever.

 

[davidmam]

And then there's this: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1033758&postcount=836 Which is telling of a doped TdF performance.

And maintaining form for a sustained period is also evidence of doping. And so is winning. And so is not winning. And so is training in appropriate locations. And so is not training.

Is there *anything* *anyone* can do to win a bike race without being accused of doping by the peanut gallery?

I'm still waiting for the supposed data that demonstrates that his performances are physiologically infeasible without doping. Not unlikely, but infeasible. Unlikely is not an indication of doping because these are unusual people. You expect them to be selected as outliers.

 

[DirtyWorks]

using your knowledge of physiology, explain exactly why Wiggins' progression from IP specialist to GT contender is a problem. And I mean explain it in terms of aerobic capacity, power output, lactate threshold etc...not just simply say "it doesn't happen very often".

Go on. There are a few of us who would love the benefit of all this knowledge you've been harvesting.

Right back at you. The problems begin with the data. There's no reliable source for the population over time so neither side of the argument can use this.

This is more veiled references to a sports science language and yet no one from the sports science culture/industry is willing to stick their neck out using their industry's language to justify Sky performances. They know they have no good data from which to draw conclusions.

They won't use extremely unreliable information and end up like Ed Coyle. That's the right thing to do professionally, but to then go slumming in The Clinic strategically denying everything is the epitome of unprofessionalism.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I'm going to do a Krebs Cycle here and ask, how many riders laboured in track obscurity before becoming Grand Tour winners?

None, but I'm not sure how this is strictly relevant to Wiggo who is a triple Olympic champ and multiple world champ across 3 disciplines on the track, and thus did not labour in obscurity!

Wiggo's performances are indeed unlikely, but he's a rare athlete. No-one had retained the Olympic IP until he did. I'd be surprised if many have won the IP, TP and Madison in the same World Champs either.

His track performances don't prove he's not doping, but they do prove that he is an exceptional trackie, with capabilities way in excess of the norm at international level.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

And maintaining form for a sustained period is also evidence of doping. And so is winning. And so is not winning. And so is training in appropriate locations. And so is not training.

Is there *anything* *anyone* can do to win a bike race without being accused of doping by the peanut gallery?

I'm still waiting for the supposed data that demonstrates that his performances are physiologically infeasible without doping. Not unlikely, but infeasible. Unlikely is not an indication of doping because these are unusual people. You expect them to be selected as outliers.

Good Lord, man. Don't come in here being all sensible. You'll get the place a bad reputation!!

 

[DirtyWorks]

Is there *anything* *anyone* can do to win a bike race without being accused of doping by the peanut gallery?

In Sky's case? Win more bike races. The 2012 performances were Merckx/Lemond/Hinault in scale. They were so obviously dominant that the phrase "We may as well win this one too." is actually appropriate.

But, what did we get?
-Mid-pack performances at WC. If Wiggo was naturally talented, he should be wearing ITT stripes right now.
-Awful strategy at the Olympics RR that doomed them from the start despite the fact they dragged the peloton all the way around the race until some 5/10K to go..

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

If Wiggo was naturally talented, he should be wearing ITT stripes right now.

Glossing over the fact that Wiggo's been training in the pub since OGs, does your definition of natural talent being equivalent to winning the "stripes" apply to just Wiggo, or the rest of the talentless wasters yesterday who aren't called Phil?

 

[DirtyWorks]

None,

Why then, would pursuiters become Grand Tour champions now if they didn't in the last 50+ years of competitive cycling. At this point in time every non-doped method of selecting talent has been tried for more than 50 years over hundreds of thousands of athletes and now suddenly pursuiting is a viable path to Grand Tour domination? Really?

His track performances don't prove he's not doping, but they do prove that he is an exceptional trackie, with capabilities way in excess of the norm at international level.

To this point I agree. But then that observation is used as a lever to assume this is the source of Grand Tour domination where in the past 50+ years of competitive cycling over hundreds of thousands of athletes no(??) such thing has existed before.

 

[acoggan]

FFS here we go again, another scientist starting the entire cycle again, ignoring completely the 5000 posts in Sky thread, the thousands in the various Wiggo and Froome threads and the TdF thread. Starting with weight loss.

Do you have any idea what weight loss we are talking about? Care to make a guess? Or post the figures that have been discussed as nauseum?

FYI are you aware that the weight loss itself is evtremely concerning, due to the rapid losses and gains without change in power output. Yup, total power.

And it's funny you mention Cav struggling with weight and a track program, seeing as Krebs just contradicted himself just a few posts above with the opposite view point.

I just love how you say oh it's easily explained and totally within THEORETICAL physiological limits that Wiggo can within 10 months move from track to road, shed 10% weight, climb and ITT with Contador Schleck and Armstrong. No problem, happens all the time. Not Cav though, or Canc. or Martin. Or ANYONE

Seeing as you are a scientist, please explain how wiggos understanding of Kerrisons theory on cadence made him unbeatable in this years ITTs. Did he peddle faster or slower than usual, and what effect would it have had.

It has been claimed that Wiggins reduced his body mass from 82 to <70 kg. As I have pointed out before, whether that is true or not is less certain than his absolute power output, but that doesn't change the fact that if it is true, such a large reduction in body mass would be quite beneficial when climbing.

As for Wiggins' understanding of Kerrison's theory re. cadence, I don't think it matter one bit that he understand it - only that he believe it.

 

[acoggan]

I thought one of the major factors re Wiggo and Cav not replicating their 2008 World Champ performance in the OGs was that Wiggo had an extra round of both the IP and TP to get through, so that by the time of the Madison, he was pretty much done for.

That's part of what I meant by "focus", i.e., he prioritized the IP and TP (and/or the chance at more medals total) over winning the Madison.

 

[thehog]

Glossing over the fact that Wiggo's been training in the pub since OGs, does your definition of natural talent being equivalent to winning the "stripes" apply to just Wiggo, or the rest of the talentless wasters yesterday who aren't called Phil?

I like this.

When Wiggo can’t even finish a race he becomes “mild mannered Brad, who likes a beer just like the rest of us” but when he is crushing the opposition by 2+ minutes in time trials and riding an entire Olympic road course at the front of the peloton he becomes “in the bounds of reasonable physiology as presented by several scientific studies”.

Seriously if he is that good. He should have finished the race. Most did.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Glossing over the fact that Wiggo's been training in the pub since OGs, does your definition of natural talent being equivalent to winning the "stripes" apply to just Wiggo, or the rest of the talentless wasters yesterday who aren't called Phil?

I get where you are going with this, but I can play that game too. In Sky-no-racing-is-good-training strategy predicted all of them would have turned in a performance like so many idle w@nkers they criticize. Somehow some guys riding 2x-5x the schedule of Wiggo did pretty well yesterday, like they do in most races throughout the season. Unlike, say a Wiggo or a Froome.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I like this.

When Wiggo can’t even finish a race he becomes “mild mannered Brad, who likes a beer just like the rest of us” but when he is crushing the opposition by 2+ minutes in time trials and riding an entire Olympic road course at the front of the peloton he becomes “in the bounds of reasonable physiology as presented by several scientific studies”.

Seriously if he is that good. He should have finished the race. Most did.

Of course he could have finished the race. He chose not to, due to a state of mind best demonstrated by his post Olympic training regime. Not saying he'd have won, obviously, or even could have won in top form.

The point is that Dirty Works opined that "If Wiggo was naturally talented, he'd have won the race yesterday." This is a statement of an unconditional relationship between having natural talent and winning the "stripes" ie if you have the former then the latter follows. As Wiggo didn't win, it's natural to conclude that in Dirty Works' logic, Wiggo is not naturally talented, as otherwise, there exists a combination of talent (ie got some) and winning the "stripes" (ie didn't) that Dirty Works has explicitly stated as not existing.

From this, the question about other riders' perceived levels of talent from DW's viewpoint is an obvious one to ask, as he's essentially saying that everyone bar Phil Gilbert has no natural talent.

 

[DirtyWorks]

if it is true, such a large reduction in body mass would be quite beneficial when climbing.

Are there multiple research sources for the consequences of lowering one's weight on elite endurance athletes? Conventional wisdom is power is lost on athletes who go below some weight specific to the athlete. I've never dug around on this issue and maybe you have.

It's an honest question, no suprise attacks buried in there.

 

[acoggan]

haha acoggan, fancy suggesting Wiggos Beijing performance indicated MORE track specific and LESS road training.

No. What I was alluding to was the fact that there is a trade-off between (in layman's terms) speed and endurance, such that optimizing your performance in an IP and TP is going to make you less fatigue-resistant than if you were specifically preparing for longer events (e.g., Madison or road).

To understand what I mean, try looking at qualifying and finals times in the IP from World Cups, etc...it is a bit unusual for a rider to be able to "back up" their qualifying time by going just as fast, or even faster, in subsequent races. In most cases, people go a bit slower, even if the semi-final or finals rides occur on a subsequent day.

One thing that I was really proud of about my wife's performance when she won nationals was that she actually went faster in the semi-finals (beating this woman just a few weeks before Worlds, BTW: http://erinmirabella.com/) than she did in qualifying, and faster in the final than she did in the semi-finals. I ascribe this to the "depth" of her fitness, which was accrued in part by months of, e.g., 5+ h informal races w/ pro men over the winter, racing on the road (e.g., Montreal World Cup, Liberty Classic) until just ~6 wk out from nationals, etc. What would be interesting to know is whether Wiggins used a comparable approach (in terms of volume and intensity...obviously he was riding/racing on the road) when he was a trackie. If not, then he would have more potential to improve when he finally turned his back on the track.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

That's part of what I meant by "focus",

Laser-like focus? The last person to claim focus is currently subject to a USADA investigation

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I get where you are going with this, but I can play that game too. In Sky-no-racing-is-good-training strategy predicted all of them would have turned in a performance like so many idle w@nkers they criticize. Somehow some guys riding 2x-5x the schedule of Wiggo did pretty well yesterday, like they do in most races throughout the season. Unlike, say a Wiggo or a Froome.

I think that in your previous post, you really meant "If Wiggins was as naturally talented as his supporters claim then he'd have been competitive at the business end of the race."

What you actually wrote did imply that everyone bar Gilbert is untalented, which I doubt you really mean!

 

[acoggan]

Are there multiple research sources for the consequences of lowering one's weight on elite endurance athletes? Conventional wisdom is power is lost on athletes who go below some weight specific to the athlete. I've never dug around on this issue and maybe you have.

It's an honest question, no suprise attacks buried in there.

I haven't looked, but even if such data exists I'm not sure it would mean much when applied to a specific individual. That is, even w/o such specific research it is already well-established that it is difficult (albeit not impossible) to maintain nitrogen balance (and hence lean body mass, including organ masses) when in negative energy balance. Yet, all indications are that Wiggins was able to maintain his absolute power output. So, either he was able to do so despite losing significant amounts of weight (again, not necessarily impossible, even if unlikely), or he didn't lose as much weight as claimed. The problem is, we don't know which answer is correct.

 

[DirtyWorks]

From this, the question about other riders' perceived levels of talent from DW's viewpoint is an obvious one to ask, as he's essentially saying that everyone bar Phil Gilbert has no natural talent.

Haha. I see what you did there. reductio ad absurdam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I hope we both agree that just like Lemond/Hinault/Merckx's many, many top-10's. some of what makes bike racing great is the strongest guy/girl is not always the winner.

You got my point here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1033859&postcount=858

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Haha. I see what you did there. reductio ad absurdam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I hope we both agree that just like Lemond/Hinault/Merckx's many, many top-10's. some of what makes bike racing great is the strongest guy/girl is not always the winner.

You got my point here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1033859&postcount=858

Although I'm a big Wiggo fan, I think he got very lucky in this year's Tour with its course and the quality of opposition. Most of the major GT contenders either prioritised (or appeared to) the Giro or the Vuelta. And obviously Berto was banned and Schleck Junior injured. He only had to contend with an out of form Evans, Nibali (on a TTers course) and Chris Froome's girlfriend. In a more normal year, I don't think he'd have enjoyed the same level of success.

In short, good the Wiggo is, I don't think he's particularly close to Lemond et al in ability on the road.

 

[thehog]

Of course he could have finished the race. He chose not to, due to a state of mind best demonstrated by his post Olympic training regime. Not saying he'd have won, obviously, or even could have won in top form.

The point is that Dirty Works opined that "If Wiggo was naturally talented, he'd have won the race yesterday." This is a statement of an unconditional relationship between having natural talent and winning the "stripes" ie if you have the former then the latter follows. As Wiggo didn't win, it's natural to conclude that in Dirty Works' logic, Wiggo is not naturally talented, as otherwise, there exists a combination of talent (ie got some) and winning the "stripes" (ie didn't) that Dirty Works has explicitly stated as not existing.

From this, the question about other riders' perceived levels of talent from DW's viewpoint is an obvious one to ask, as he's essentially saying that everyone bar Phil Gilbert has no natural talent.

Fiddlesticks. A Grand Tour winner can finish a 260km road race. I mean JTL was up in the mix with 3km to go! Imagine the massive engine of Brad and Froome powering him to the line.

OK seeing you can “see” inside his head and he wasn’t in the “right frame of mind” then why have him race at all? Could have plugged someone else who would have finished and do a hell of a lot more than someone “not in the right frame of mind”.

For Christsakes little Richie Porte was up there and finished and he’s ridden 28 Grand Tour’s this year along with following Wiggins on his winning streak.

When will Wiggins be back in the “right frame of mind”? After a trip to Tenerife?