Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[armchairclimber]

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.

Agreed. It will certainly be harder to pull it off again next year. Aside from the perfect storm of lucky breaks he/SKY had this year, there's also the question of motivation. Will he be able to motivate himself to train the same way...endure the same privations (being away from family etc) to the same degree again? It might be harder to get the team working in the same way too...especially if Froome fancies the MJ.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

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?

That's a good question. If I'd been selecting the team, I wouldn't have picked him. Maybe Sky sent a delegation of Big Cheeses to watch and expected to see Wiggo riding.

Whether there was anyone else sensible to ride in his place is another matter, as Millar, Hunt, Thomas and Kennaugh - the most likely alternatives - were all unavailable for one reason or another. I assume the likes of Blythe and Fenn were considered too inexperienced.

 

[DirtyWorks]

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.

Hold on. Which is it now? The guy *DESTROYED* the TdF field yet he's not a Lemond talent?

The TdF is THE highest visibility race in Pro cycling and other riders just gave it a pass and sponsors didn't care? Seriously?

I get it that your and others can hold these ridiculous contradictions without a single question. Bottom line: this is where we agree to disagree.

 

[RownhamHill]

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.

Out of interest, who was the last tour de france winner to win the WC in the same year? And when was the last tdf winner to finish the WC race?

(NB I'm not asking a question to which I already know the answer)

 

[thehog]

Out of interest, who was the last tour de france winner to win the WC in the same year? And when was the last tdf winner to finish the WC race?

(NB I'm not asking a question to which I already know the answer)

Some guy called Greg LeMond and another called Stephen Roche both won the Tour and Worlds in the same year.

Cadel Evans.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

The TdF is THE highest visibility race in Pro cycling and other riders just gave it a pass and sponsors didn't care? Seriously?

That's a good question. Why would so many teams send their top GT riders to the Giro to ride it seriously, or save them for the Vuelta?

Riding the Giro flat out is cr*p preparation for the Tour, as Berto proved last year, so Ryder, JRod, Scarponi, Basso and Cunego had no change in the Tour. Valverde was obviously saving himself for the Vuelta.

So there were 8 potential rivals to Wiggo (these 6 plus Bert and Schleck) who for one reason or another were unavailable or under par. I guess the Giro contenders didn't fancy taking on Wiggo in two long TTs, but even so, it's a lot of competition to "self-select" itself out of contention.

This left Nibs on a course that didn't favour him and Evans, who was cr*p for some reason.

 

[thehog]

That's a good question. Why would so many teams send their top GT riders to the Giro to ride it seriously, or save them for the Vuelta?

Riding the Giro flat out is cr*p preparation for the Tour, as Berto proved last year, so Ryder, JRod, Scarponi, Basso and Cunego had no change in the Tour. Valverde was obviously saving himself for the Vuelta.

So there were 8 potential rivals to Wiggo (these 6 plus Bert and Schleck) who for one reason or another were unavailable or under par. I guess the Giro contenders didn't fancy taking on Wiggo in two long TTs, but even so, it's a lot of competition to "self-select" itself out of contention.

This left Nibs on a course that didn't favour him and Evans, who was cr*p for some reason.

In 2009 Wiggins rode the Giro “flat out” and then finished 4th at the Tour.

He also rode it hard in 2010 and bombed.

So there goes that theory.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

In 2009 Wiggins rode the Giro “flat out” and then finished 4th at the Tour.

He also rode it hard in 2010 and bombed.

So there goes that theory.

Flat out to finish 71st in the 2009 Giro? You, Sir, are "having a giraffe".

 

[thehog]

Flat out to finish 71st in the 2009 Giro? You, Sir, are "having a giraffe".

You don’t remember do you. Vaughters told him to ride every mountain stage as hard as he could but be prepared to lose time on the flat stages and roll. He rode hard. Want a link for that?

So what happened in 2010?

 

[the big ring]

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.

uh. option 3: he had "help". i thought you were a scientist. yet you only consider the explanations you believe. very unscientific.

 

[acoggan]

uh. option 3: he had "help". i thought you were a scientist. yet you only consider the explanations you believe. very unscientific.

You need to learn to read/reason a bit more closely/logically: that's not option 3, that falls under option 1.

 

[the big ring]

You need to learn to read/reason a bit more closely/logically: that's not option 3, that falls under option 1.

you need to use more precise language, because krebs has spent considerable time defending option 1 sans doping.

you do remember what "precise" means, yeah?

 

[acoggan]

you need to use more precise language, because krebs has spent considerable time defending option 1 sans doping.

I am not responsible for anything Kreb's Cycle has posted, nor do I necessarily agree with him on every point. If you misinterpret something I write because you *** u me that I do, that's your fault, not mine.

 

[the big ring]

I am not responsible for anything Kreb's Cycle has posted, nor do I necessarily agree with him on every point. If you misinterpret something I write because you *** u me that I do, that's your fault, not mine.

your word for option 1 could be interpreted as nondoped or doped. your position at every step is the performance is nondoped. your language is entirely imprecise if you were including the possibility of doping, given your position to date.

krebs uses your agreement with him, often, as evidence of the veracity of his posts. at no point in this thread have you ever sought to rectify this. till now, with my post. how..... convenient.

 

[User Guide]

To be honest,at this point its all speculate or inuendo.For every arguement for and against sky or more specifically wigans are doped,an equally valid(or equally tinfioled)oppossing one could be made.
But in the final analysis it dosent matter.

If your part of the status quo,if your not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.Especially when you promised us more.

 

[acoggan]

your word for option 1 could be interpreted as nondoped or doped.

Correct, and you should have interpreted it that way.

your position at every step is the performance is nondoped.

Nope. In fact, I've said several times that I have no idea whether Wiggins is/is not guilty of doping.

your language is entirely imprecise if you were including the possibility of doping, given your position to date.

In the words of the Great Gipper: there you go again.

krebs uses your agreement with him, often, as evidence of the veracity of his posts.

Again, I have no control over what he does.

at no point in this thread have you ever sought to rectify this.

Why should I, when the points he's made using me to back him up (at least when I've noticed) are factually correct?

 

[DirtyWorks]

uh. option 3: he had "help". i thought you were a scientist. yet you only consider the explanations you believe. very unscientific.

I was asking an honest question about weight loss/power research. I was trying to avoid turning the question into a tactical argument. There's so much back-and-forth already that I didn't want more of it.

 

[DirtyWorks]

But in the final analysis it dosent matter.

Yes, it does. It cuts to core of the game of competitive cycling.

It might be argued that the sport under the UCI's leadership is as scripted as entertainment wrestling. It may be entertainment with highly trained actors at that point, but definitely not a sport.

 

[the big ring]

your word for option 1 could be interpreted as nondoped or doped.

Correct, and you should have interpreted it that way.

Righto. So when your words can be "interpreted", it's the interpreters fault if they get it wrong, but when you "interpret" what I wrote wrongly, after trimming words from what I said, it's my fault.

"The precise communication of precise ideas requires the precise use of precise terminology." - A. Coggan, ca. 1980.

Or IOW: if your "stream of conciousness" writing style leads to miscommunication, you have no one to blame but yourself...

Heads you win, tails I lose.

Very.... convenient.

 

[acoggan]

Righto. So when your words can be "interpreted", it's the interpreters fault if they get it wrong, but when you "interpret" what I wrote wrongly, after trimming words from what I said, it's my fault.

Heads you win, tails I lose.

Very.... convenient.

More sophistry...

 

[the big ring]

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.

And yet. Despite putting me down. And carrying on like an alleged "expert" in the process. You cannot tell me what Brad's training was for the IP in 2008, or any of his training for the IP.

Huh.

Your contribution to date has been one list of physiological terms, not unlike the one that Krebs posted - far, far short of what anyone would call an "explanation".

And now, demanding from the known non-PhD in phsyiology (ie me) proofs and evidence, while you yourself are providing... nothing but insults and condescencion.

No.

I asked for Brad's training. If you can't provide it, say, "I don't know". But don't then turn around and say Brad didn't train on the road and therefore can't have possibly won on the road with any regularity or consistency.

 

[the big ring]

More sophistry...

I am misinterpreting this. Could you be more precise? It sounds like "sorry", but comes out all wrong.

Did all the scientists on this thread set their autocorrect up the same?

 

[User Guide]

OUT!..... advantage accoggan OOOOO its hit the net 40 ALL what a serve advantage the big ring ....................

 

[acoggan]

I am misinterpreting this. Could you be more precise? It sounds like "sorry", but comes out all wrong.

It means that I agree with Krebs Cycle, i.e., you are clearly only interested in a ****ing contest, and are willing to twist words and misstate people's positions in an attempt to "win" the same. It most definitely does NOT mean "I'm sorry".

That precise enough for you?

 

[roundabout]

That's a good question. Why would so many teams send their top GT riders to the Giro to ride it seriously, or save them for the Vuelta?

Riding the Giro flat out is cr*p preparation for the Tour, as Berto proved last year, so Ryder, JRod, Scarponi, Basso and Cunego had no change in the Tour. Valverde was obviously saving himself for the Vuelta.

So there were 8 potential rivals to Wiggo (these 6 plus Bert and Schleck) who for one reason or another were unavailable or under par. I guess the Giro contenders didn't fancy taking on Wiggo in two long TTs, but even so, it's a lot of competition to "self-select" itself out of contention.

This left Nibs on a course that didn't favour him and Evans, who was cr*p for some reason.

Apart from Contador had the other "7 potential rivals" raced the Tour you would have used the unfavorable course argument. Maybe with Contador as well. So it's win-win for you.

The route did suit Wiggins, but he was also the second best climber after Froome.