Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[Gregga]

For me the problem is not to know if Wiggins gained power at FTP between 2009 and 2012 - I'm convinced his FTP increased a little bit that's why he won every long TT this year - but how did he keep his power of 2004 loosing at least 10% of body mass...

Actually, the problem is also Froome who increased his climbing and TT skills at the same time, looking like a skeleton on the TdF podium, if Froome rode for, say Astana, qustions about Wiggins numbers wouldn't be IMO not the same.

 

[DarkWing]

No what is ridiculous is claiming that the winner of the TdF is doping because past winners also doped and a highly profile past winner publicly attributed his performances to some of the same elements we have been discussing here.

For like the 100th time. Estimations of power based on velocity contain a large amount of error. Wiggins could have improved his FTP slightly over the last 3yrs due to TRAINING specifically for road instead of track in addition to making small changes in the unknown variables such as CdA and cadence (which effects efficiency). The power improvement is not enough to be detected by these error riddled estimations, but it could be enough to account for his ever so slightly improved performance against Martin and Cancellara (his nearest rivals in ITTs).

Gee who would have thought that training specifically for a particular event for 4yrs could slightly improve one's performance in that event over that time?

You have stated previously that Wiggins' has improved by 10-12%. Yet neither his (estimated) power nor his relative performance compared to Martin and Cancellara has gone up by anywhere near that amount. You haven't produce a single shred of evidence to support that claim.

None of this rules out doping, but the performance data alone is not very convincing when it is viewed by the eyes of qualified professionals the world over. I have discussed this topic with some of my peers (ie: other lecturers and experts in cycling physiology), Tucker has posted an article on his website about it, and everyone is in agreement. It is only unqualified armchair scientists that seem to disagree.

can you send us a link?

 

[Krebs cycle]

can you send us a link?

So that's what we're all getting at when we say the Tour is getting slower. It is, and it's a good sign, because it brings everything back into the realm of expected physiology.

So we can't rule anything out this way. All I will say, and I'm very confident in saying this, is that what we saw on the slopes of Les Planche des Belles Filles did not have me thinking "That's just not right, there's something not adding up". It adds up. It's exactly what you'd expect, just as I expect that when we do hit the longer HC climbs later this week, we'll see the top men ride at 5.9 to 6 W/kg, just as they have done for the last three years.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/07/tour-in-mountains-analysis-discussion.html

So lets have a look at what 131313 wrote a few posts back.....

Either way, we still come back to the point that he's performing significantly better to the competition compared to '09. This is pretty much unarguable if you look at his results. So, something's going on: everyone's going slower, he's increased his power or he's reduced the energy demands.

And in response to yourself 131313, these three explanations are not mutually exclusive. It is quite possible, in fact probable that all three are occurring simultaneously, but by small margins so they are very difficult to detect. The fact that it was a weak field and the previous winner was not in the same form as last year was plain to see. When you add them up, it accounts for the observed improvement in performance. It looks suspicious when you only look at results, but if you look at the factors that contribute to performance then the evidence of doping is weak at best.

Now if you or anyone wants to repeat the forest for the trees cliche then I'll point out there here in this thread you are trying to explain Wiggins' mystery mega power explosion this year by arguing about whether his cda was 0.22 or 0.23. This is a variable none of us know for certain so then you assume a worst case scenario and take that as proof that his power must have dramatically increased? That's a tiny little twig there which seems to be obscuring your view of this forest.....

There is no unrealistic feats of human performance (Tucker article above)
There is no sudden and large change in TT performance relative to his rivals (publicly available data), he isn't even going "significantly" faster as you put it.
There is no sudden and large change in his work/time relationship as determined by publicly available data (acoggan posted in this thread)

And compared with the USADA case against LA (since everyone LOVES to compare Wiggins to LA)......
There is no eyewitness testimony (Landis, Hamilton et al)
There is no evidence of a cover up (tds 2001)
There is no evidence of UCI bribery/corruption
There is no evidence of blood manipulation (tdf 2009-10)

Unofficial evidence that exists against LA....
There is no evidence of positive A samples (EPO: tdf 1999, corticosteroids circa 1993)

And finally, there just is no history of doping accusations going back 10-12yrs throughout Wiggins' entire career.

edit: I actually wish there were more evidence against Wiggins because he seems like a bit of d@#che and I don't like it when Aussies get beaten by Poms.

 

[hrotha]

You're aware that the witness testimony, the evidence of the cover-up and all that only came out years (in some cases over a decade) after Armstrong won his first Tour, right?

 

[the big ring]

You're aware that the witness testimony, the evidence of the cover-up and all that only came out years (in some cases over a decade) after Armstrong won his first Tour, right?

Good grief man! Don't let simple facts like timelines get in the way of a good story.

 

[thingswelike]

You're aware that the witness testimony, the evidence of the cover-up and all that only came out years (in some cases over a decade) after Armstrong won his first Tour, right?

Wiggo arrived on the clinic radar in 2009. So we've had 3 years and a month.

By that time in the LA timeline, we already knew that LA worked with Ferrari, Lemond had openly criticised this relationship and that Simeoni had admitted what Ferrari did for riders.
In fact going back as far as 1993 we knew that Ferrari was bad news.

Maybe someone else can fill in other things we knew about LA back then. I don't think Heras was caught until 2005, but I'm sure I remember other things.

 

[Krebs cycle]

You're aware that the witness testimony, the evidence of the cover-up and all that only came out years (in some cases over a decade) after Armstrong won his first Tour, right?

Umm yeah, I guess you don't understand what FOREST FOR THE TREES actually means.

Good grief man! Don't let simple facts like timelines get in the way of a good story.

Good grief you do realize the 1999 TdF samples were analyzed in 2004 and L'Equipe broke the story in 2005?

Oh noes! David Walsh published his book LA Confidential in 2006 which contains accounts of eyewitness testimony dating from years prior.

Good grief you do realize (no you don't actually) that cycling scientists knew back in the early 2000s that LA was producing performances that were physiologically unrealistic.

I've learnt by now that you guys don't really understand the concept of "facts" which is obviously why I need to keep schooling you in them!!

 

[mb2612]

Umm yeah, I guess you don't understand what FOREST FOR THE TREES actually means.



Good grief you do realize the 1999 TdF samples were analyzed in 2004 and L'Equipe broke the story in 2005?

Oh noes! David Walsh published his book LA Confidential in 2006 which contains accounts of eyewitness testimony dating from years prior.

Good grief you do realize (no you don't actually) that cycling scientists knew back in the early 2000s that LA was producing performances that were physiologically unrealistic.

I've learnt by now that you guys don't really understand the concept of "facts" which is obviously why I need to keep schooling you in them!!

I've learnt they you have never accepted any viewpoint bar one which agrees with your "facts", and as such you are not really a person worth debating with, for example, Tucker only deals with the climbing in the tour, and not the time trialling, which has been the debate for the last 10 pages.

 

[noddy69]

Umm yeah, I guess you don't understand what FOREST FOR THE TREES actually means.



Good grief you do realize the 1999 TdF samples were analyzed in 2004 and L'Equipe broke the story in 2005?

Oh noes! David Walsh published his book LA Confidential in 2006 which contains accounts of eyewitness testimony dating from years prior.

Good grief you do realize (no you don't actually) that cycling scientists knew back in the early 2000s that LA was producing performances that were physiologically unrealistic.

I've learnt by now that you guys don't really understand the concept of "facts" which is obviously why I need to keep schooling you in them!!

Em...it seems plain and simple to me what the holes are in your argument. The 1999 samples tested in 2004.....that could mean that Wiggins 2012 samples could be retested in 2017 and something found.

Same thing on the book. The Facts you go on about re Armstrong all came out years later by what you wrote. This is Wiggins first TDF and really the first time with maybe the vuelta that some serious questions are being asked. So while you go on about facts there are some facts right in front of you that you are not taking into consideration.

 

[the big ring]

Good grief you do realize the 1999 TdF samples were analyzed in 2004 and L'Equipe broke the story in 2005?

Yes, that's what we call a timeline. Things do not happen immediately - but some years after, as you have so aptly shown.

 

[Sigmund]

I've learnt they you have never accepted any viewpoint bar one which agrees with your "facts", and as such you are not really a person worth debating with, for example, Tucker only deals with the climbing in the tour, and not the time trialling, which has been the debate for the last 10 pages.

You do realize of course that the fact remains that his climbing speeds did not surpass anything that is physiologically plausible. In other words, his power output for the time trial would also be physiologically plausible, unless it is your opnion that he sandbagged the climbing and could have gone significantly faster.

You do of course also realize that the result of these last ten pages of debate has been that most likely, Wiggins has, at best only marginally improved his absolute power since 2009.

Tucker only deals with climbing in the tour because that is what he has data for, calculating w/kg outputs from TT speed is a lot more difficult and has much bigger uncertainties.

 

[noddy69]

You do realize of course that the fact remains that his climbing speeds did not surpass anything that is physiologically plausible. In other words, his power output for the time trial would also be physiologically plausible, unless it is your opnion that he sandbagged the climbing and could have gone significantly faster.

You do of course also realize that the result of these last ten pages of debate has been that most likely, Wiggins has, at best only marginally improved his absolute power since 2009.

Tucker only deals with climbing in the tour because that is what he has data for, calculating w/kg outputs from TT speed is a lot more difficult and has much bigger uncertainties.

Whether its physiologically plausible isnt really the question as that is for A person not the person we are talking about. Now I dont have his progression over time on climbs to hand but wouldnt that be where to start looking for large jumps in performance.
For Lance it was easy to see,just take his time trialling which was a weakness then went through the roof. So for wiggins wouldnt you have to look at his climbing in comparison to where he used to be and correlate that to begin to piece together whats happened.

 

[mastersracer]

Whether its physiologically plausible isnt really the question as that is for A person not the person we are talking about. Now I dont have his progression over time on climbs to hand but wouldnt that be where to start looking for large jumps in performance.
For Lance it was easy to see,just take his time trialling which was a weakness then went through the roof. So for wiggins wouldnt you have to look at his climbing in comparison to where he used to be and correlate that to begin to piece together whats happened.

Originally Posted by mb2612

"I've learnt they you have never accepted any viewpoint bar one which agrees with your "facts", and as such you are not really a person worth debating with, for example, Tucker only deals with the climbing in the tour, and not the time trialling, which has been the debate for the last 10 pages."

Hard to discuss issues when posters don't appear to grasp a relationship between TT performance and climbing.

 

[WonderLance]

You don't need a PhD in Sports Science to realise that Wonderlance is right on the money.

Darn right! These guys hiding behind their so called PHD's and their computer screens will never understand the dedcation that someone like wiggans is willing to put into their cycling. He's better because he traind harder and rode smarter.

 

[the big ring]

Darn right! These guys hiding behind their so called PHD's and their computer screens will never understand the dedcation that someone like wiggans is willing to put into their cycling. He's better because he traind harder and rode smarter.

And pedaled slightly slower than last September.

 

[WonderLance]

And slightly slower than last September.

People hear just cant deal with the simple fact that their little pet rider got smacked down by a Prime British rider in the form that he has always promised to produce. Which has coincided with their favorite rider being suspended or being forced to race clean thanks to the good work of the UCI.

 

[the big ring]

People hear just cant deal with the simple fact that their little pet rider got smacked down by a Prime British rider in the form that he has always promised to produce. Which has coincided with their favorite rider being suspended or being forced to race clean thanks to the good work of the UCI.

I no write? Bunch a cry-babies the lots of them. Hiding behind they're PhDs and slow cadences.

Viva the UCI!

 

[SirLes]

Yes, that's what we call a timeline. Things do not happen immediately - but some years after, as you have so aptly shown.

Didn't LA test positive in the 99 tour (his first win) and then produce the TUE. So there were suspicions right from the start?

 

[WonderLance]

This thread is not about HIM. If you want to get on your little lance bashing horse go somewhere else. I wont woran you again.

 

[SirLes]

This thread is not about HIM. If you want to get on your little lance bashing horse go somewhere else. I wont woran you again.

I would never bash him. I never doubted him for a minute but people did and there was more evidence against him than Sir Wiggo even after his first tour win.

 

[WonderLance]

I would never bash him. I never doubted him for a minute but people did and there was more evidence against him than Sir Wiggo even after his first tour win.

NEVER TESTED POSITIVE = no evidence.

Give it a rest. Leave the legend alone.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I've learnt they you have never accepted any viewpoint bar one which agrees with your "facts", and as such you are not really a person worth debating with, for example, Tucker only deals with the climbing in the tour, and not the time trialling, which has been the debate for the last 10 pages.

Why would anyone accept a viewpoint which is incorrect according to the facts? Besides my viewpoint is not whether Wiggins and Team Sky are or are not doping, my viewpoint is that there is absolutely no circumstantial evidence which indicates that they are.

This is in stark contrast to LA. The circumstantial evidence of doping appeared sporadically throughout his entire career. Wiggins has been racing pro since 2004 or thereabouts and not a single shred of circumstantial evidence has surfaced. By the same stage in LA's career there was enough evidence floating around for David Walsh to publish a book about it and journalists were publishing articles about it. So far the only people accusing Wiggins are clinic posters who haven't done their homework properly and are thus making all sorts of wild accusations which are plain and simply FALSE. This is why the entire debate is ridiculous. If anyone here had been able to present convincing evidence that wasn't so completely wrong then I would change my opinion in a blood boosted heartbeat.

The only so called "evidence" that is factually correct is that Wiggins won the TdF and Team Sky hired a doctor who worked for Rabobank when the chicken got busted. Problem with this is that winning the TdF is not evidence of doping now that times have changed and everyone has slowed down to within the realms of possibility, and apparently Leinders didn't even attend the tour this year. Sorry but these just don't meet the criteria of "convincing" for me.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I no write? Bunch a cry-babies the lots of them. Hiding behind they're PhDs and slow cadences.

Viva the UCI!

Mods please note. Yet again these guys fail to address the points made directly and revert to their trolling.

Careful not to make personal insults, but trolling nonetheless.

 

[BroDeal]

The only so called "evidence" that is factually correct is that Wiggins won the TdF and Team Sky hired a doctor who worked for Rabobank when the chicken got busted. Problem with this is that winning the TdF is not evidence of doping now that times have changed and everyone has slowed down to within the realms of possibility, and apparently Leinders didn't even attend the tour this year. Sorry but these just don't meet the criteria of "convincing" for me.

Uh-huh. In the whole of England and the shreds of what is left of its empire Team Sky could not find a single doctor to hire. They had to employ the man who oversaw Rabbank's doping program. He, who was ostensibly hired for his experience with saddle sores and such, was not brought to the Tour. He was only used for training.

I lost track of Sky's other dope doctor. Evidently you did also.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Uh-huh. In the whole of England and the shreds of what is left of its empire Team Sky could not find a single doctor to hire. They had to employ the man who oversaw Rabbank's doping program. He, who was ostensible hired for his experience with saddle sores and such, was not brought to the Tour. He was only used for training.

I lost track of Sky's other dope doctor. Evidently you did also.

The problem with pro cycling is that its like the Kevin Bacon game. Nobody is "clean" if your criteria is x degrees of freedom between yourself and some doctor that worked for some team in which some one tested positive.

Besides nobody has presented any evidence that Leinders actually administered the "program" that Rasmussen and Dekker got busted for. Please present something, anything, a little better than just "worked for Rabobank" because yet again, it just looks like you guys are assuming stuff without actually doing your homework. Has he actually been investigated for doping fraud like various other doctors have? He doesn't have the same reputation as Conconi, Ferrari or Fuentes and besides even if he were dodgy at Rabobank, that is still forest for the trees stuff because literally nothing else adds up to a strong indication of doping.

oh wait, I forget, the clinic is a place where clairvoyants come to congregate and us mere mortals hiding behind our "science" have to wait for 5yrs for more evidence to surface.