Von Mises said:
Did you see my 2006 Dauphine post? Wiggins is no world-class athlete.
I would not expect Brad to win back in 2005/6 either - but if he placed well and showed promise in some hills and TTs against world-class opposition all in the same GT it would have been believable - top 20 would be enough to convince me he could win one day. As it was he couldn't finish top 20 in a dead flat, windless 4.1km prologue.
Same with Bobridge. A good mountain stage or 2 and good showing in a long TT, yes a believable GT debut. He's only 23, so I'd prefer to give him a couple of years to 25.
I would not believe it if he won.
2013 pro road riding is a very different kettle of fish to 1962, however.
Bobridge needs a team - I think he's about to get that. Bit hard to hit your straps first year in the team.
Hepburn is on Greenedge, so no, definitely weird if he wins a GT.
Keep in mind Rudy was on Anquetil's team (or vice versa heh) so that was a good team from the outset.
- Jul 5, 2012
- 2,878
- 1
- 11,485
Krebs cycle said:
hahaha, lets take krebs word for it. S/he's not some random guy on an internet site, ohhhhh no s/hes a scientist. With a PhD no less. Every scrap of empirical evidence is completely wrong. Silly moi. Silly clinic. Silly Kimmage. Silly Ashenden.
1) Leinders - no sweatski, hired for saddle sores behind Brailsfords back
2) Tenerife training. No stigma there
3) Rapid weight loss in Wiggo, Froome and Rogers. No problemo
4) Froomes rise so fast even coach Bobby Julich never heard of him. "Sorry mate, this training is for Sky riders"
5) Rogers admits putting out career best power at age 32. Onya Dodger, what would those kraut doctors know
6) Basso complaining he couldnt escape at 420W. Italian sulky winger
7) Wiggo happily pointing out secret to success is to let Dodger ride at 450W so an escape artist will have to put out 500W
8) Four riders dominating the entire Tour. Easy peasy, after all if USPS can do it, so can we.
9) Transparency, modus operandi. Now, where did I lose the Tome?
10) Bilharzia
11) Kerrison, world renowned cycling coach - errrrrr
12) et al
We imagined it ALL! Didnt happen. Nothing to see here, move along. Thanks krebs.
Krebs cycle said:
er no. I watched the race in slo mo, and counted the rotations, despite what some random guys on an internet site (davidmam aaaaaand....krebs cycle) say. 105rpm down to 90rpm lol.
And what peer reviewed scientific journals? There you go, at it again. There is precisely diddly squat to suggest that what wiggo said about what he thought kerrison said made any scientific sense. Cadence? lol he was taking the pi$$. As if the best trackie of a decade doesn't know anything about cadence. FFS he's not like that German/Brit clown falling off his fixie.
Oh, and BTW thanks very much for pointing I'm off with the fairies. My tin foil hat was deflecting all those fairy vibes.
oh noes that pesky science stuff again. Just a mountain of research studies spanning the last 20yrs that show cadence effects efficiency. Doesn't fit my imaginary world so I'll just deny its existence.sittingbison said:
the big ring said:
I would not believe either.
And yes, 2013 is not 1962. That was my point, when I said that I do not think that Altig´s (or Rivière or Coppi) example is very relevant. Things have changed.
It seems to me that both camps, those who are defending Wiggins and those who are accusing , have made their mind from the start. Whatever follows is interpretated suitable direction, what suits into theory is beliaveble, what does not, is unbelievable.
Btw, I do not want to say that you are incorrect and krebs is right or vice versa.
- Jul 5, 2012
- 2,878
- 1
- 11,485
Krebs cycle said:
the point krebs, as you very well know, it is doesn't fit what wiggo said he thought kerrison meant, or what we think kerrison was actually trying to say seeing as what wiggo said was a pile of steaming BS.
You are being obtuse.
the big ring said:
It was a very interesting post that one. I can certainly see where you're coming from, but noted that O'Grady was at +6 to Zabriskie, with Wiggo a further 5 seconds back.
Now, in an IP, Wiggo is in a different class to SOG. It's hard to find performance data from SOG's track career, but he was generally a few seconds slower than Brad McGee, who was then a few seconds slower than Wiggo at their respective bests.
Thus in an IP in 2006, assuming everyone was at their best, Wiggo would most likely have hammered SOG, so I would think there were factors other than natural ability at play in that Dauphine prologue.
A lot of ifs, buts and maybes, but food for thought, none the less.
the big ring said:
I think your 2006 Dauphine post is unfair. Ok the bit about he expected to win the prologue and then got creamed is fair, but you can't conclude he's not world class on the basis of one result.
In 2007, "all for the road" according to blackcat, he won the dauphine prologue and was 4th in the tour prologue, bit better than 21st. Also a handy 4th/5th (Vino dq'ed) in the time trial (54km quite far), and guess what, he rode that in the rain
Edit: To be fair to you and distance myself from the merry band of holier-than-thou scientists, I'm going to say I think the anaerobic stuff is rubbish. Luke Durbridge was dropped from the australian team pursuit squad this year because he couldn't handle a 1st km in 1:02, the team pursuit surely has high demands on the anaeorbic system, and Wiggins clearly excelled in the team pursuit.
We already discussed this ages ago. Wiggins is not a physiologist and who knows what Kerrison said to him. So take whatever Wiggins said on the subject with a massive grain of salt. You guys scrutinize it and look for doping code language, but the reality is that Wiggins probably just doesn't really understand whatever it was Kerrison said to him (rather like you lot when I try to explain science stuff to you!). But that doesn't mean there isn't an actual proven and well known reason why lowering your cadence could potentially result in a "marginal gain" ie: lower cadence is slightly more efficient.sittingbison said:
I even posted a link to an interesting study which shows that efficiency has more to do with motor control patterns and coordination. So even if there was no change in actual cadence, there is still the possibility you could slightly improve efficiency at the SAME cadence if you were mostly trained at a much higher cadence than that at which you raced ie: Wiggins says he was used to track cadences which are up around 120 and beyond. So maybe when he rode at 95-100 he was actually a little bit unco. So he spends a lot more time training at 95-100 in order to improve motor coordination.
Now here is another thing. Has anyone ever ridden a bike with left and right force profiles? You think you've got a nice smooth and balanced pedalling action but it only takes about 1hr on bike with realtime feedback to start making things a lot MORE balanced. Imagine if you did that day in day out for 6 months. Its not impossible that it could enhance efficiency by say 0.1%. Better than nothing, so that is a marginal gain.
And another thing, over in the recently bumped Ed Coyle thread you'll note that acoggan is stating his justifications for improving efficiency in pro cyclists. 20yrs ago Ed Coyle published papers about type I fibres being more efficient than type II. So lets assume you spend a LOT more time at really low cadences and high force. What this does is recruits larger (fast twitch) motor units (there is a classic paper on glycogen depletion at same power output at two different cadences by Saltin & Gollnick from the 60s or 70s which shows that at the lower cadence glycogen depletion is higher). So if you spend a LOT more time at lower cadences maybe you train those fast twitch fibres to become more aerobic. There is a large amount of research over the past 10yrs that suggests that fibre type conversion is possible, particularly fast to slow but not so much the other way around.
When I think about all this stuff, it actually makes more sense that it could really only happen in a cyclist that made a fairly substantial changes to his overall training program. Did every other top 10 GC contender make substantial changes to their training programs over the past 3-4yrs? I don't know and I won't make assumptions as to whether they did or didn't. In Wiggins case however, we can be much more confident that his program changed markedly because he went from track to road.. There is an old saying about training programs.....
The best training program is the one you haven't done yet.
It is true and for good reason.
For what its worth I commend you in continuing to post in the face of so much vitriol. You're not saying what many of them want to hear so the reaction is to shout as loudly as possible to drown you out. For me I find your and acoggan's posts the most objective in the forum
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 60
- 22,580
Von Mises said:
Trust me half the brits defending wigo here (and almost all of the wiggins defense is pure blind british nationalism) would immediately start moaning about how the paragons of clean cycling wiggins and froome was being defeated by these cheaters, and how suspicious their performances are.
We saw it when Froome faced Cobo and they were all screaming that Cobo was doping and somehow beating the tests, while using that very same testing as evidence that froome was doing it clean.
Bumeington said:In 2007, "all for the road" according to blackcat, he won the dauphine prologue and was 4th in the tour prologue, bit better than 21st. Also a handy 4th/5th (Vino dq'ed) in the time trial (54km quite far), and guess what, he rode that in the rain
My definition of "world class" - just so we are clear - is podium against the best in the world.
And at face value, your example results look like they support the idea Brad is world class (if 4th is world class - for me it is not). I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to look at the detail.
Brad won the 2007 Dauphine TT - 4.2km
To match Brad's time, George Hincapie (4th) needs to increase his power by 2%.
Cyclingnews says:
Brad says:
Potential for doing things like this? Yes, like this, winning a 4km prologue.
2007 Tour de France prologue, over 7.9km, Cancellara put 23 seconds into Brad.
Meaning Fabian was 4% quicker than Brad Wiggins, requiring a 12% increase in power for Brad to win.
(Same as in 2006, when David Zabriskie was 4% quicker than Wiggins over 4.1km, requiring a 12% increase in power for Brad to win.)
He didn't even make the podium of the Tour prologue in his home town. Where was the home town advantage then? A month later though, he's 4km IP world champion. Why? Small pond.
2007 Tour de France stage 13 TT, over 54km, Vinokourov was DQ'd, so look at Cadel's time:
Cadel is 1.5% quicker than Brad, requiring a 4% increase in power to win. (NB: Vino is 3.3% quicker, meaning Brad needs another 10%.)
3 days later, Cofidis is ejected from the Tour. When Vino gets done, Brad is understandably upset, and says this:
He doesn't want to win the Tour - he's purely focusing on maybe winning the time trial. This, IMO, is clean, realistic Brad talking.
Fastforward 5 years to the 2012 Tour de France. Brad is already minutes ahead of everyone, here's the results:
Wiggins is 3.7% faster (2:25) than 5th place. In a mostly flat TT, Porte would have to increase his power 12% to match Brad's time.
He has not just won the time trial unbelievably, he has won the Tour, the last 3 multi-stage races, 3rd in the one before that, then 3rd in the Vuelta before.
World class IP track rider: yes.
World class road rider pre-2009: no.
Believable 2009-2012: no.
Krebs cycle said:
Not impossible? For a 0.1% efficiency gain? After 6 months day in day out training for an hour on a realtime feedback bike? For someone who is already world class pursuit rider years in a row?
I am trying to reconcile this "reason" with:
1. Time availability and the fact that Brad has never mentioned L/R balance
2. That you are a PhD in exercise physiology and actually believe this will make one iota of difference
Alex Simmons lost half of one of his legs in a bicycle accident. Here is his WKO+ graph detailing his best power figures pre and post amputation: http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/mean-maximal-power-unique-comparison.html
If the graph does not make a lot of sense, it is essentially saying this:
since half of Alex's left leg was amputated, his sustainable power, from 20 minutes up to around 120 minutes, has increased through training.
Krebs cycle said:
So you take what you found in some scientific article as to be the guarenteed truth. I remember reading scientific articles about how the economic crisis was pure bogus a few years ago. Look how that turned out..
The fact is, anyone claiming to know 100% that they are doping, or not doping is a unreliable source. We do not know, but there sure as hell is a lot of strange indicators. And taking cycling history into account, i think its fair enough that people are suspicious.
the big ring said:
1. Very roughly, I wouldn't be suprised if Wiggins is 12% heavier than Porte. Whereas Vino 2007 vintage is lighter than Wiggins, so that 10% means vino's power:weight is much much better than Wiggins (we could even say 10% - blood bag).
2. I guess my conclusion is this: 2007 to 2012 either Brad got dirtier or the sport got cleaner, and I think the latter is a resonable suggestion given it's backing by Vaughters. Personally, I'm not naive enough to chose absolutely between the two, but the optimist in me wants to keep the second option alive, and I see no reason not to do that based on all your performance analysis. For e.g. the Cancellara of the 2009 WC TT would have surely crushed Wiggins this year.
Bumeington said:
If the sport got cleaner as most are suggesting, yet cleaner meaning there are some who are still doping, would that not suggest that those who are still at it are the ones at the top ? Surely logic dictates that if less are doping the easier it is to spot the ones who are by out of the norm performance against those that have stopped.
- May 27, 2012
- 6,458
- 0
- 0
Krebs cycle said:
Look dude, all I did was point out that the guy making the "I am a scientist therefore when I make a supposition, you need to respect my authoriti (said in my best Cartman voice) because I am a scientist and when I suppose, it is clearly more valid than a non-scientist person making a supposition" argument is the same person who came in here and condescendingly told everyone that there was no such thing as a person who responds better to doping products as another. I mean, heck, I knew that was bull****, and I am not even scientifical. Seems there have been some things written here lately by people in the sport that suggest you were talking out of the lower ejection port of your digestive system when you made that argument. Don't blame me. Surely you can see where I would find your current condescension about this subject (considering you are relying on a certain amount of SUPPOSITION to make your argument) to be a bit funny. I guess if you can't take it, don't dish it out.
As for the Brad argument, I have read with interest, but have to admit that I just don't think any of you are proving anything in relation to whether or not Brad is doping. I find it some of his performance and actions suspicious, but I am certainly not prepared to say that closes the case on it. But this is the intertubes, and arguing about a point is the third most important thing next to cat videos and porn. Carry on please, but drop the air of legitimacy you seem to think "I am a scientist" gives you because some of us have long enough memories to know how that argument turned out for you the last time you spread that specific condescension.
Toodles!
- Mar 18, 2009
- 2,553
- 0
- 0
Krebs cycle said:
I was going to call that an exaggeration, but jeez, you're right, it's been 18 y since Labros' paper in IJSM.
Anyway, where do you now stand on the issue of training-induced changes in efficiency? Obviously you were quite skeptical when you started this thread 3 y ago, but now you seem to have changed your opinion. Is that correct? If so, what has swayed you the most?
(Back later...got to go beg the NIH for more money.)
Bumeington said:
Could mean that they have to keep doping to keep the passport figures from being suspicious perhaps = same performance for those doping who didnt stop with passport introduction.
the big ring said:
Well, this is not exactly the same, but I do know one pro rider, whos one leg is 5mm shorter than other. This diffrence, though small and not unusual, had many consequences. Knee, ankle and hip had different pedalling angle (3-4 degrees difference) , this influenced movements of heel, muscle and even upperbody. Changes in saddle position only increased these diffrences. Also, peddaling over 350 watts, increased these differences.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 23K
-
Teams & Riders Jonas Vingegaard thread: Love in Iberia- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 10K
-
Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.- Started by Miburo
- Replies: 22K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram