Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[sittingbison]

...Wiggins power output is self-consistent from 2004-present day...

What are the best power numbers produced by a clean GT winner in the last decade?

My point is that the dawn of EPO and systematic team doping and blood transfusing, lets say 1992 for ease of argument, also coincides with power measurement. Therefore power estimates and data are all 'corrupted', and what is physiologically possible (let alone probable) are unknown. Power alone cannot indicate clean, but it sure can indicate dope, if the figures approximate those of known dopers.

Rogers blithely saying he happily put out what? 480W? which was 7% increase is ludicrous. Wiggo saying Rogers thought 500W escapes were difficult and all they had to do was hold 450W continuously is ludicrous. Basso confirming this with his 420W comment. Now acoggan suggests Wiggo does 450W+, others say 490W for an hour continuous.

Ferminal, how many GT winners in the past decade were clean? The answer is what were all of them putting out (LA and FL included), because whatever it was, clean riders should not be within kooee. Here is a list of TdF, Giro and Veulta winners since 2000. Red are known dopers (age at win in bracket)

2000 Lance Armstrong (29)
2001 Lance Armstrong (30)
2002 Lance Armstrong (31)
2003 Lance Armstrong (32)
2004 Lance Armstrong (33)
2005 Lance Armstrong (34)
2006 Óscar Pereiro (28)
2007 Alberto Contador (24)
2008 Carlos Sastre (33)
2009 Alberto Contador (26)
2010 Andy Schleck (26)
2011 Cadel Evans (34)
2012 Bradley Wiggins (32)

2000 Stefano Garzelli (27)
2001 Gilberto Simoni (29) (cocaine)
2002 Paolo Savoldelli (29)
2003 Gilberto Simoni (31) (cocaine)
2004 Damiano Cunego (23)
2005 Paolo Savoldelli (32)
2006 Ivan Basso (28)
2007 Danilo Di Luca (29)
2008 Alberto Contador (25)
2009 Denis Menchov (31)
2010 Ivan Basso (32)
2011 Michele Scarponi (31)
2012 Ryder Hesjedal (31)

2000 Roberto Heras (26)
2001 Ángel Casero (29)
2002 Aitor González (27)
2003 Roberto Heras (29)
2004 Roberto Heras (30)
2005 Denis Menchov (27)
2006 Alexander Vinokourov (33)
2007 Denis Menchov (29)
2008 Alberto Contador (25)
2009 Alejandro Valverde (29)
2010 Vincenzo Nibali (25)
2011 Juan José Cobo (30)
2012 Chrisopher Froome (25)

and there is a question mark over Menchov, Cunego and Nibali

 

[Hugh Januss]

My point is that the dawn of EPO and systematic team doping and blood transfusing, lets say 1992 for ease of argument, also coincides with power measurement. Therefore power estimates and data are all 'corrupted', and what is physiologically possible (let alone probable) are unknown. Power alone cannot indicate clean, but it sure can indicate dope, if the figures approximate those of known dopers.

Rogers blithely saying he happily put out what? 480W? which was 7% increase is ludicrous. Wiggo saying Rogers thought 500W escapes were difficult and all they had to do was hold 450W continuously is ludicrous. Basso confirming this with his 420W comment. Now acoggan suggests Wiggo does 450W+, others say 490W for an hour continuous.

Ferminal, how many GT winners in the past decade were clean? The answer is what were all of them putting out (LA and FL included), because whatever it was, clean riders should not be within kooee. Here is a list of TdF, Giro and Veulta winners since 2000. Red are known dopers (age at win in bracket)

2000 Lance Armstrong (29)
2001 Lance Armstrong (30)
2002 Lance Armstrong (31)
2003 Lance Armstrong (32)
2004 Lance Armstrong (33)
2005 Lance Armstrong (34)
2006 Óscar Pereiro (28)
2007 Alberto Contador (24)
2008 Carlos Sastre (33)
2009 Alberto Contador (26)
2010 Andy Schleck (26)
2011 Cadel Evans (34)
2012 Bradley Wiggins (32)

2000 Stefano Garzelli (27)
2001 Gilberto Simoni (29) (cocaine)
2002 Paolo Savoldelli (29)
2003 Gilberto Simoni (31) (cocaine)
2004 Damiano Cunego (23)
2005 Paolo Savoldelli (32)
2006 Ivan Basso (28)
2007 Danilo Di Luca (29)
2008 Alberto Contador (25)
2009 Denis Menchov (31)
2010 Ivan Basso (32)
2011 Michele Scarponi (31)
2012 Ryder Hesjedal (31)

2000 Roberto Heras (26)
2001 Ángel Casero (29)
2002 Aitor González (27)
2003 Roberto Heras (29)
2004 Roberto Heras (30)
2005 Denis Menchov (27)
2006 Alexander Vinokourov (33)
2007 Denis Menchov (29)
2008 Alberto Contador (25)
2009 Alejandro Valverde (29)
2010 Vincenzo Nibali (25)
2011 Juan José Cobo (30)
2012 Chrisopher Froome (25)

and there is a question mark over Menchov, Cunego and Nibali

I would say there is a question mark over Schleck, Evens, Froome, Wigans, and Sastre and a big "COULD IT REALLY BE TRUE?" over the last one, Hesjedal.

 

[Ferminal]

Ferminal, how many GT winners in the past decade were clean? The answer is what were all of them putting out (LA and FL included), because whatever it was, clean riders should not be within kooee. Here is a list of TdF, Giro and Veulta winners since 2000. Red are known dopers (age at win in bracket)

Basso 2010 is the cleanest IMO. Power outputs should confirm that.

 

[sittingbison]

Basso 2010 is the cleanest IMO. Power outputs should confirm that.

yup I agree, his name is in red as a known doper (regardless of the "only thinking about it" defence). In 2010 he did not win with the ridiculously over dominant performance. Perhaps a look at the parcours? I can't remember how difficult it was.

Interestingly this is the race several posters use to demonstrate Richie Porte has Sky quality, because he came 10th (?). As pointed out though, he got 16 odd minutes in a breakaway, but lost significant time on the climbs, not at all Sky like.

Now Basso had done the Giro this year, and was really a superdomestique for Nibali, but we always come back to that intriguing comment about how it was impossible to attack at 420W. And he kept getting either swallowed up or dropped every time Rogers accelerated the yellow jersey group.

 

[Krebs cycle]

krebs, I think you might be confused as to what "circumstantial evidence" means.

I was using the definition of direct vs indirect evidence, ie: direct evidence would be a positive test result or eyewitness testimony from someone who claims that actually saw someone in the act of doping. Indirect, and thus circumstantial evidence, to my understanding means something that infers doping eg: eyewitness testimony of an admission of doping without actually witnessing the act itself. So in that respect, yes I agree with you that many things can "infer" doping.

All the issues that have been raised during the Tour about Team Sky ARE "circumstantial evidence".
1) Ditching their own Code by employing several suspect riders (Rogers et al).
2) "Marginal gains" being complete and utter BS (Froome etc) = UNPROVEN
3) Employing two dodgy doctors without checking their pedigree
4) Using Tenerife as training location
5) Wiggos about stance on doping 2007-2012
6) Not publishing rider data or blood values
7) Dominating team performance
8) Sudden drastic improvements in domestiques = UNPROVEN
9) Sky in bed with UCI/ASO

You know what, I agree with you that a number of the above can be viewed as circumstantial evidence. And yes they can be debated which is what would happen in a court of arbitration.

Since circumstantial evidence only infers some fact, then it carries with it some level of robustness. Some circumstantial evidence carries more weight than other evidence. For example, surely you must agree that on its own, training in Tenerife would be an extremely weak inference of doping right? However in the context of the rest (the other 6 points which are not heresay), well then it carries some more weight.

The problem that both myself and acoggan are telling this forum, is that the MOST POWERFUL circumstantial evidence that infers doping, is MISSING ie: there appears to be no marked deviation from linearity in Wiggins work/time relationship from 2005-2012. There are possibly small changes in watts/kg and/or FTP occurring that cannot be detected from estimations yet are sufficient to produce the observed improvement in TT performance, which has actually been very minor and took a long time.

Without that evidence it makes everything else look weak at best.

Now, back to topic which our two PhD doctors seem to increasingly ignore in an avalanche of "data" about other issues, namely Wiggos ludicrous utterances viz-a-viz cadence, rolling resistance etc. There has not been the slightest shred of evidence (lol) that he changed his cadence by any detectable or meaningful amount, nor that a change in cadence would in fact lead to improvements.

The two doctors in the house with PhDs in exercise physiology are not ignoring the other data, we're telling you that when you dope, you produce noticeably more power, and short of a positive test result this is the MOST robust inference of doping we can lay our hands on, but it's just not there.

Regarding the weight loss, you are making an assumption in order to justify your point of view. You have said that Wiggins had ZERO bodyfat to lose (presumably you are referring to 2009). You might be right, but we've got no proof and we don't actually know if it is true, so we might as well throw it out. Heresay just doesn't cut it when you want to properly and accurately analyze human performance.

As a final word though, what I am happy to admit Wiggins could be doing is getting "marginal gains" from doping. The gains are not large enough to be noticeable from estimations of power data, but they are enough to slightly improve performance. If that is the case though, then it still means the biopassport is working and things are getting "cleaner". This gives clean riders who are good enough a chance to beat the dopers. That wasn't really possible 5yrs ago. This is the same opinion as that of Rob Parisotto who is one of the originators of the EPO test and has written a book about doping in sport.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

If that is the case though, then it still means the biopassport is working and things are getting "cleaner". This gives clean riders who are good enough a chance to beat the dopers. That wasn't really possible 5yrs ago. This is the same opinion as that of Rob Parisotto who is one of the originators of the EPO test and has written a book about doping in sport.

Maybe in a one day event, not in a grand tour. Would be nice if the biopassports became public domain. What is there to hide when you are clean is a fair assumption in my book.

Riders never having a bad day is to me a clear indication of extraordinary preparation. But, if you stay inbetween the bandwith of the bio passport it seems all ok to the UCI/scientists.

 

[Gregga]

Regarding the weight loss, you are making an assumption in order to justify your point of view. You have said that Wiggins had ZERO bodyfat to lose (presumably you are referring to 2009). You might be right, but we've got no proof and we don't actually know if it is true, so we might as well throw it out. Heresay just doesn't cut it when you want to properly and accurately analyze human performance.

We know from Eric Boyer - Former Cofidis DS - that the 2007 Wiggins had 5% of fat mass, "he had nothing to lose" said Boyer in an interview in 2009.
http://www.lavoixdessports.com/Tour-de-France/Actualites/2009/07/18/article_bradley-wiggins-le-rouleur-qui-monte-qui.shtml

 

[biker jk]

Maybe in a one day event, not in a grand tour. Would be nice if the biopassports became public domain. What is there to hide when you are clean is a fair assumption in my book.

Riders never having a bad day is to me a clear indication of extraordinary preparation. But, if you stay inbetween the bandwith of the bio passport it seems all ok to the UCI/scientists.

Dr Ashenden has said that the biological passport can be beaten. He also suggested that Alberto Contador was blood doping and the BP seems to have failed to notice. In short, the BP is a failure. Not really a surprise given the UCI's involvement.

 

[Ferminal]

The BP is not a failure if it has reduced the gap between a doper and a clean rider. But yes, as an enforcement mechanism it is a failure.

 

[sittingbison]

sensible and reasoned thoughts krebs, which I completely agree with.

The stickler with the weight issue is four fold:
1) How much weight has he lost, because actual weight is a closely guarded secret according to Ashendon, as knowledge can give an edge to competitors looking at power output and sustainability
2) At 82kg, how much fat did he have available to lose as opposed to lean muscle mass, because a multiple Olympic and World champ should already be lean and fit.
3) How did he specifically lose it in certain areas (upper torso and arms)
4) How has he maintained (or increased ) power with 10% weight reduction

 

[the big ring]

Chris Hoy was quoted as saying he had 5-6% body fat at race weight / fitness. The sprinter. Where weight is not anywhere near as critical as raw power and Neuromuscular Facilitation.

And we're expected to believe Wiggins had more in pursuiting? Where CdA is KING?

Gimme a break.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Dr Ashenden has said that the biological passport can be beaten. He also suggested that Alberto Contador was blood doping and the BP seems to have failed to notice. In short, the BP is a failure. Not really a surprise given the UCI's involvement.

Beating the passport and getting a large performance gain are two different things. The gap between the two has narrowed and both Olaf Schumacher and Rob Parisotto believe this to be the case. The entire peloton is going slower so clearly something is working, which looks rather consistent with the following figure....

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03/biological-passport-effective-fight-or.html

I posted this figure in here a year ago. Do some homework on the subject son, follow the link, read and learn.

 

[Krebs cycle]

sensible and reasoned thoughts krebs, which I completely agree with.

The stickler with the weight issue is four fold:
1) How much weight has he lost, because actual weight is a closely guarded secret according to Ashendon, as knowledge can give an edge to competitors looking at power output and sustainability
2) At 82kg, how much fat did he have available to lose as opposed to lean muscle mass, because a multiple Olympic and World champ should already be lean and fit.
3) How did he specifically lose it in certain areas (upper torso and arms)
4) How has he maintained (or increased ) power with 10% weight reduction

If knowledge of power data can give an edge to competitors then why did you include that (ie: not providing the data) in your list of "circumstantial" evidence? It's a bit unfair to expect pro cyclists to freely provide this information irrespective of doping.

None of us know the answers to these questions about Wiggins' bodyweight which is why it is silly to base an opinion on it. All I'm saying is that it is possible even for a very lean individual to lose bodyweight and maintain absolute power. Sure there are limits, but I am confident that British cycling knows what it is doing. If anything, you should be proud that it is Aussies who are there providing some of the expertise.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Beating the passport and getting a large performance gain are two different things.

That would be a perfect explanation for Wiggo's 2010 results in comparison to lets say 2011-2012. Not:
http://www.dewielersite.net/db2/wielersite/coureurfiche.php?coureurid=9574
Or was it just the arrival of certain known doping doctors at team SKY after 2010?

The gap between the two has narrowed and both Olaf Schumacher and Rob Parisotto believe this to be the case.

Is that the same Parisotto who wrode a book stating this:

without any, I say any, proof?

book:

Fair to say opinions may be disagreed on.

The entire peloton is going slower so clearly something is working, which looks rather consistent with the following figure....

Again a mistake, for instance this Tour was faster than 2011/2010/2007/2000/1997/1995/1994/1993/1992/1991/and so on. Note the EPO years, hell even pharmstrong years were slower or were just a little faster than this year.

You might be right when u say something is working, but it ain't what u are stating.

EDIT: that chart from sportscientists is really fun, like 2009 was the example for the cleaning up in cycling hahahaha

 

[King Boonen]

Again a mistake, for instance this Tour was faster than 2011/2010/2007/2000/1997/1995/1994/1993/1992/1991/and so on. Note the EPO years, hell even pharmstrong years were slower or were just a little faster than this year.

You might be right when u say something is working, but it ain't what u are stating.

EDIT: that chart from sportscientists is really fun, like 2009 was the example for the cleaning up in cycling hahahaha

How is speed compared though? is it just distance over time? Because surely the errors in that don't need to be pointed out?

Weren't people complaining there weren't enough MTF's in this tour...?

 

[Sigmund]

That would be a perfect explanation for Wiggo's 2010 results in comparison to lets say 2011-2012. Not:
http://www.dewielersite.net/db2/wielersite/coureurfiche.php?coureurid=9574
Or was it just the arrival of certain known doping doctors at team SKY after 2010?

Is that the same Parisotto who wrode a book stating this:

without any, I say any, proof?

book:

Fair to say opinions may be disagreed on.

Again a mistake, for instance this Tour was faster than 2011/2010/2007/2000/1997/1995/1994/1993/1992/1991/and so on. Note the EPO years, hell even pharmstrong years were slower or were just a little faster than this year.

You might be right when u say something is working, but it ain't what u are stating.

EDIT: that chart from sportscientists is really fun, like 2009 was the example for the cleaning up in cycling hahahaha

When you say that this years TdF is the fastest ever, I am assuming you base this on average speeds for the whole shebang? If so, that is pointless, and obviously not what anyone is claiming when they say they were slower this year.

Slower this year means slower up the long climbs, hence indicating lower power on the lead riders. Whether the average speed was faster or not is irrelevant.

As long as we are in the circumstantial evidence camp, your excellent link shows some improvements in Wiggins results in 08, and then vast improvements in results for 09. Coincidentally, in this timespace, the BP data shows a huge decline in bloodmanipulation.

Maybe something to think about.

 

[acoggan]

I can't really see any physiological reason why a person would necessarily lose power for durations over 30-45 seconds or so just by losing weight, including muscle mass, as long as it's done in a way that didn't compromise your overall health.

1. Whole-body nitrogen balance and energy balance are closely related, such that it is very difficult to not lose lean body mass when in a caloric deficit.

2. The heart is a muscle too, and in fact turns over its proteins at a rate several-fold higher than skeletal muscle.

Note that I'm not saying I'm believing or disbelieving Wiggins' claimed weight loss...just pointing out some things you've overlooked.

(BTW, one thing Wiggins - and Froome - would have going for them in this context is the extensive time they reportedly spent at altitude.)

 

[acoggan]

My point is that the dawn of EPO and systematic team doping and blood transfusing, lets say 1992 for ease of argument, also coincides with power measurement.

The cycle ergometer was invented in 1896.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

When you say that this years TdF is the fastest ever, I am assuming you base this on average speeds for the whole shebang? If so, that is pointless, and obviously not what anyone is claiming when they say they were slower this year.

So, what u are basicly saying is it doesn't matter how fast the flat stages go, everything is messured up the mountains? Bullocks.

And, for the good of it, this Tour wasn't the fastest, I did not state that. It was faster than those mentioned, known EPO Tours as well. Sounds interesting to me.

Slower this year means slower up the long climbs, hence indicating lower power on the lead riders. Whether the average speed was faster or not is irrelevant.

It was so slow friggin Michael Rogers and Ritchie Porte dropped known climbers such as Sammy Sanchez. Lets see what our good friend Ivan had to say:

“Look. It’s the same discussion as always, it’s like watching the Tour when Lance [Armstrong] or [Miguel] Indurain raced. You could try to attack, get ahead, but then what are you going to do? Just to have a laugh?” Basso said, sitting on the steps of the team bus.

“If he [Wiggins] goes as they have been, where Richie Porte is pulling and you are on the wheel pushing 420 watts, then explain to me, where are you going to go?

Nothing to see here, move along.

As long as we are in the circumstantial evidence camp, your excellent link shows some improvements in Wiggins results in 08, and then vast improvements in results for 09. Coincidentally, in this timespace, the BP data shows a huge decline in bloodmanipulation.

I see no improvement in 2008 for Wiggo, gotta make that clear to me please.

2009 is a different ballgame, climb to Verbiers being quite interesting we might say, the highest VAM ever [!] in the Tour we are led to believe with the reborn climber Brad Wiggins just a minute behind Contador?

Stating that was all to thank to the BP is quite a contradiction in terminus we might say.

Then we move to Brad 2010: nothing, no results. Nothing like 2009. Loses more than half an hour to the previous year's Tour. At the end of 2010 a certain doctor enters Team Sky resulting in a much better 2011 and extraterrestial 2012.

Indeed, all thanks to the BP.

Maybe something to think about

I will do, thanx for the upper. But promise me you will think about Wiggo at Verbiers, he climbed at the speed of Pantani.

 

[Turner29]

My point is that the dawn of EPO and systematic team doping and blood transfusing, lets say 1992 for ease of argument, also coincides with power measurement. Therefore power estimates and data are all 'corrupted', and what is physiologically possible (let alone probable) are unknown. Power alone cannot indicate clean, but it sure can indicate dope, if the figures approximate those of known dopers.

Correction - on-bicycle power meters have been available since 1989. Laboratory ergometers many years prior. However, I do agree with your point.

Since current maximum power levels are based upon data from those who dope, establishing a clean bar is difficult. The Sports Science guys have commented upon such.

 

[Ripper]

sensible and reasoned thoughts krebs, which I completely agree with.

The stickler with the weight issue is four fold:
1) How much weight has he lost, because actual weight is a closely guarded secret according to Ashendon, as knowledge can give an edge to competitors looking at power output and sustainability
2) At 82kg, how much fat did he have available to lose as opposed to lean muscle mass, because a multiple Olympic and World champ should already be lean and fit.
3) How did he specifically lose it in certain areas (upper torso and arms)
4) How has he maintained (or increased ) power with 10% weight reduction

Two strategies -
1) He tied his arms to his sides on the weekends all winter.
2) He also lost weight above the shoulders ... partial brain removal.

 

[Turner29]

1. Whole-body nitrogen balance and energy balance are closely related, such that it is very difficult to not lose lean body mass when in a caloric deficit.

2. The heart is a muscle too, and in fact turns over its proteins at a rate several-fold higher than skeletal muscle.

Note that I'm not saying I'm believing or disbelieving Wiggins' claimed weight loss...just pointing out some things you've overlooked.

(BTW, one thing Wiggins - and Froome - would have going for them in this context is the extensive time they reportedly spent at altitude.)

Is hyperoxic training a banned method?

 

[Ripper]

Beating the passport and getting a large performance gain are two different things. The gap between the two has narrowed and both Olaf Schumacher and Rob Parisotto believe this to be the case. The entire peloton is going slower so clearly something is working, which looks rather consistent with the following figure....

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03/biological-passport-effective-fight-or.html

I posted this figure in here a year ago. Do some homework on the subject son, follow the link, read and learn.

Beating the BP and getting small (marginal ) gains is possible.

And that is part of the issue. Wiggo and a few other Sky riders have appeared to be at a different level than everyone else pretty much al year. However, with the BP we no longer see the "extraterrestrial" performances. As has been said by numerous people, the BP has definitely narrowed the gap between clean and doping. It has also facilitated a better understanding of how to dope without triggering a positive.

Of course, my doubt comes from the accumulation of quite a few things rather than a focus on 'increased power', etc. And not just of Wiggo. If it were just 1-2 things, I would not be so biased against Sky.

 

[hrotha]

We know from Eric Boyer - Former Cofidis DS - that the 2007 Wiggins had 5% of fat mass, "he had nothing to lose" said Boyer in an interview in 2009.
http://www.lavoixdessports.com/Tour-de-France/Actualites/2009/07/18/article_bradley-wiggins-le-rouleur-qui-monte-qui.shtml

That's truly remarkable. 5% body fat at ~77 kg, and now he claims to be at ~69 kg. It simply doesn't add up, as Boyer pointed out when Wiggins's weight was claimed to be ~71 kg already in 2009.

 

[TheInternet]

3) How did he specifically lose it in certain areas (upper torso and arms)

That's truly remarkable. 5% body fat at ~77 kg, and now he claims to be at ~69 kg. It simply doesn't add up, as Boyer pointed out when Wiggins's weight was claimed to be ~71 kg already in 2009.

If part of Wiggans previous training included upper body weight training, simply decreasing the volume of upper-body weight training, or stopping altogether, could account for atrophy of upper torso/arm musculature.