Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[roundabout]

I take it as time trials, not GC.

 

[The Hitch]

Given the three riders ahead of Wiggins in 2009, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the next finisher may be using the same methods?

Or the 2 riders behind him

Also worth considering that the riders either side of him are his role models.

Wiggins was denied a podium by Armstrong which by then clearly looked like his limit (wiggins would continue saying through 09 and 10 until it slowly changed to "win" in 11 that his dream.was to podium.the tour). Armstrong denied him that and yet it seems logging was thankful even for it.

 

[Krebs cycle]

You bit off more than you could chew with your Avenir example. Don't assume that people here are idiots who don't know more about the race than 5 lines quoted from an article linked by a pro-Sky, pro GB and pro Wiggins blog.

I don't have to assume, many of you have proven it with a host of pigs fly backwards claims like Wiggins was climbing as fast as Pantani, or Wiggins showed no potential in road TTs, or Wiggins dramatically improved his TT performance, or Wiggins lost more weight after he was already at 4% bf, or Wiggins went from 82kg to 69kg and lost NO power, or Wiggins' performance was extraterrestrial!!!

Stick to your pi$$weak evidence like Wiggins did altitude training and Team Sky employed some guy who worked for Rabobank when the chicken got busted because you've got nothing else.

 

[Sørensen]

So your "research" about a guy you don't care about leads you to quote an editor's quick appraisal of a rider based on ONE STAGE of a race from 7 years ago. And you know nothing else about that race, the stage, or the way it was won. Yet you claim it as evidence of Wiggin's climbing ability.

And you claim to have a PhD!?

As a starter, here's the definition of "editorial":

Editorial: A newspaper article written by or on behalf of an editor that gives an opinion on a topical issue.

If we go to the data (you'd know about data being a "sports scientist", right?), from CN, we see the following:

1. Brad was already so far down noone cared if he got in a break:
Stage 6 GC:
71 Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Credit Agricole 24.35
76 Steve Cummings (GBr) Landbouwkrediet-Colnago 25.30

That's right, Brad won the race from a break - not by climbing with the best climbers in the race and beating them.

2. He'd been pro for 4 years and NEVER WON A RACE.
"The Brit has been a pro for four years now and this is the first time he has won a road race since he joined Française des Jeux in 2002."

And if you really think his team mate Saul Raisin was going to take the stage win after mopping up the mountain points for the stage, you really do not understand professional cycling.

3. The stage was not difficult
Another quote from Brad: " I didn't think of the win until we were left with the three of us in front. The green jersey Jesus Del Nero was the right man to have with us. When we got five minutes lead at one point, I believed we could make it."

Did you catch that? The green jersey, Jesus Del Nero. There were 3 left in the break: 2 x Credit Agricole riders AND THE CURRENT BEST SPRINTER AT THE RACE. Who had won the stage 2 days earlier and went on to finish 2nd in the green jersey competition by 1 point. A sprinter.

4. It was a stage so short even Brad dismissed it:
"Wiggins added: "I never got bored because it was such a short stage."

5. Steve Cummings, from the same country, the same age, height and weight, finished over 2 minutes ahead of Wiggins on a relatively undulating but not mountainous final stage 2 days later.
57 Steve Cummings (GBr) Landbouwkrediet-Colnago 2.22
75 Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Credit Agricole 4.40

Please. Do not try again. It is too easy swatting your pathetic attempts at reasoning and logic aside. You are failing to provide any real evidence to support the argument that B Wiggins showed any sort of GT GC ability at any stage other than the last few years where he's gone from ZERO to HERO.

FWIW. I do not hate B Wiggins. I hate dishonesty.





I call shenanigans.

Booom Headshot!

 

[the big ring]

I don't have to assume, many of you have proven it with a host of pigs fly backwards claims like Wiggins was climbing as fast as Pantani, or Wiggins showed no potential in road TTs, or Wiggins dramatically improved his TT performance, or Wiggins lost more weight after he was already at 4% bf, or Wiggins went from 82kg to 69kg and lost NO power, or Wiggins' performance was extraterrestrial!!!

Stick to your pi$$weak evidence like Wiggins did altitude training and Team Sky employed some guy who worked for Rabobank when the chicken got busted because you've got nothing else.

And all you have is "someone who can ride quick for 4.25 minutes" can win the Tour de France.

At least we're simply repeating what Brad or his team manager at the time were prepared to state publicly.

On par at least, I'd say.

Or should we look forward to other top 10/5 GT TTers winning the whole shebang soon?

 

[roundabout]

I don't have to assume, many of you have proven it with a host of pigs fly backwards claims like Wiggins was climbing as fast as Pantani, or Wiggins showed no potential in road TTs, or Wiggins dramatically improved his TT performance, or Wiggins lost more weight after he was already at 4% bf, or Wiggins went from 82kg to 69kg and lost NO power, or Wiggins' performance was extraterrestrial!!!

Stick to your pi$$weak evidence like Wiggins did altitude training and Team Sky employed some guy who worked for Rabobank when the chicken got busted because you've got nothing else.

You seem angry for some reason.

Also, are we celebrating harvest already, because I see straw men everywhere.

 

[hrotha]

Wiggins was climbing as fast as Pantani

How many people have said that, and did you fail to spot the literary device of hyperbole?

or Wiggins showed no potential in road TTs

Who said that? Pretty much everybody here has said that's the one thing he showed potential for on the road.

or Wiggins dramatically improved his TT performance

This is a fact.

or Wiggins lost more weight after he was already at 4% bf

His boss at Cofidis, Éric Boyer, said this (he said 5%, by the way). Not a credible source?

or Wiggins went from 82kg to 69kg and lost NO power, or Wiggins' performance was extraterrestrial!!!

You lose weight yet you do even better on time-trials=you didn't lose power.

 

[The Hitch]

And how is that any different from Cadel's 2011 season or indeed Wiggins' 2011 season? In fact in numerous years Cadel Evans looks as though he has been consistently good from early on in the season.

Compare that to Andy Shleck, Contador and Armstrong, none of whom ever performed so well in 3 consecutive 7 day races throughout the season. Armstrong in particular is virtually absent in the early season, then turns up at the TdS or Dauphine in superb form and goes on to win the TdF. This pattern seems to fit with what we know about doping methods 2001-2007 ie: mainly transfusions. The off season is not long enough to accumulate sufficient blood stores to last for the entire season, so they reserve them for the tour and perhaps one other important lead up race.

Now compare that to the pre EPO era in which it was also rather common for the top riders to race well for the entire season. Same goes for every other endurance sport. The best performers do NOT suddenly come good at the World Championships, they win all year round as long as they don't race too much. This is the key IMO, you cannot race too much. Cadel kept his race days down last year and Wiggins did the same this year.

On the one hand, everyone is saying Wiggins is doping because he suddenly improved, but on the other hand here you're saying, Wiggins is doping because he didn't suddenly improve.

edit: IMO when bigger performance jumps were possible (ie: pre biopassport), then it just wasn't possible for a consistent rider (which is circumstantial evidence of "cleanliness") to win the TdF because the dopers surpassed them at the tour via use of PEDs. However, in a "cleaner" era (not saying 100% totally clean), then only a consistent rider will go on to win because its not possible to increase one's performance by a large amount naturally in a short space of time. Its also much more difficult to be doping all season compared to only one or two races because you're going to get tested more often.

That's because cycling has become a specialized sport.
People can't win every race in a season because there are far more.riders in the peloton with smaller gaps between 1st and 10th and so on.
so the top riders can no longer win every race even when at 90% and have learned to save energies for different goals.
Epo is not the only variable you know take a look at nationalities in the peloton for example oin the 70s and now.

What's the argument, that drugs are actally counterproductive and having wiggins like seasons can only come if you are clean? Wow i wonder why no one figured that one out before.

Oh and of wiggins goes full mapei and starts to.contend Paris roubaix are you going to take that as proof that he is clean because gt winners contending that race only happened pre epo ?

Also putting Contador who came 2nd in cq 5 years running to Armstrong who sometimes.made the top5 and schleck who usually comes around 20th, shows just how all over the place what you write is.

 

[Krebs cycle]

How many people have said that, and did you fail to spot the literary device of hyperbole?

Fearless Greg Lemond said that. The problem is there are so many inaccuracies and errors of fact that I simply can't keep up with all of them, so yeah, I did fail to spot the literary hyperbole.

Who said that? Pretty much everybody here has said that's the one thing he showed potential for on the road.

In the beginning quite a few people said that Wiggins never showed any potential in road ITTs.

This is a fact. (Wiggins dramatically improved his TT performance)

No it isn't. This is the sort of silliness I'm talking about.

His boss at Cofidis, Éric Boyer, said this (he said 5%, by the way). Not a credible source?

This is more of the sort of silliness I'm talking about. Eric Boyer was Wiggins boss in 2007. How the hell would he know exactly what Wiggins body composition was through 2009? Of course Eric Boyer is not a credible source for 2009. In fact nobody is a credible source of Wiggins' %bf at anytime unless they are talking about gold standard measures such as DEXA or hydrostatic weighing.

You lose weight yet you do even better on time-trials=you didn't lose power.

This is repeating the same silliness as above re TT performance. It's just not true. Wiggins didn't improve his TT performance around 2009 when he lost weight. He claims to have put on a couple of kgs in the past 12mths as you might expect given this yrs tdf parcours.

I'm quite happy to admit that the Avenir example is weak supporting evidence of Wiggins' climbing potential, but the track pedigree is not. Does anyone (except acoggan) understand the critical power model of human performance?

And for like the millionth time, I'm not saying that Wiggins is clean, just that his performances are not strongly indicative of doping. I'm an Aussie and if anyone knows anything about the sporting rivalry between Australian and GB then you'll know that it is like a fundamental law of the universe impossible for me to be a Team Sky fanboy.

Go GreenEdge!

 

[hrotha]

In the beginning quite a few people said that Wiggins never showed any potential in road ITTs.

I doubt they represent the mainstream Clinic opinion.

This is more of the sort of silliness I'm talking about. Eric Boyer was Wiggins boss in 2007. How the hell would he know exactly what Wiggins body composition was through 2009? Of course Eric Boyer is not a credible source for 2009. In fact nobody is a credible source of Wiggins' %bf at anytime unless they are talking about gold standard measures such as DEXA or hydrostatic weighing.

Éric Boyer wasn't talking about 2009, but about 2007. Wiggins was the one who mentioned the 4% body fat figure for 2009. Boyer pointed out he was already at 5% in 2007, so he questioned the figures and explanations Wiggins had given.

The rest of your post has already been discussed to death and if you still think along those lines nothing I say will change it.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

edit: IMO when bigger performance jumps were possible (ie: pre biopassport), then it just wasn't possible for a consistent rider (which is circumstantial evidence of "cleanliness") to win the TdF because the dopers surpassed them at the tour via use of PEDs. However, in a "cleaner" era (not saying 100% totally clean), then only a consistent rider will go on to win because its not possible to increase one's performance by a large amount naturally in a short space of time. Its also much more difficult to be doping all season compared to only one or two races because you're going to get tested more often.

What about Froome? Andy? Cobo?

 

[acoggan]

nobody is a credible source of Wiggins' %bf at anytime unless they are talking about gold standard measures such as DEXA or hydrostatic weighing.

And even then you'd have to cautious comparing data obtained at different times by different people, since even these measures can vary depending on how they are collected.

 

[the big ring]

I'm quite happy to admit that the Avenir example is weak supporting evidence of Wiggins' climbing potential, but the track pedigree is not. Does anyone (except acoggan) understand the critical power model of human performance?

How does this sound? according to acoggan's graph, Brad Wiggins is riding around with a VO2max of 95ml/m/kg and his absolute power has not diminished, even though his weight has dropped from 82kg to 69kg.

Sounds a bit unbelievable to me. But not to you. Yet you cannot show any other cyclist that has done this.

And for like the millionth time, I'm not saying that Wiggins is clean, just that his performances are not strongly indicative of doping. I'm an Aussie and if anyone knows anything about the sporting rivalry between Australian and GB then you'll know that it is like a fundamental law of the universe impossible for me to be a Team Sky fanboy.

Go GreenEdge!

If your defence was not so vociferous this would be believable, but you "research" above and beyond normal for someone who "doesn't care about Wiggins" - including "finding" a TT where he beat Tony Martin - in 2005. This is 3 years before Martin turned professional, and 3 years after Wiggins turned professional. Then there's the 2005 climbing example. Both of these are stretches of imagination for proof.

Only 8 victories out of 20 are by Aussies on the GreenEdge team - discounting TTTs, so I'm not sure how you can claim nationalistic cliche with your last line there.

 

[acoggan]

according to acoggan's graph, Brad Wiggins is riding around with a VO2max of 95ml/m/kg

??

That was your calculation, not mine.

 

[the big ring]

??

That was your calculation, not mine.

True.

How would you feel if I modified the statement to:

according to acoggan's graph, Wiggins absolute power has not diminished between the 2004 IP (570W for 4.25min) and the 2011 WC TT (453W for 57:15)?

 

[the big ring]

Oh god.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ol...im-to-emulate-hero-in-Olympic-time-trial.html

Wiggins, with his track pursuiting background, is a natural time-trial rider who has has an innate ability to pace his effort, but that comprehensive world championships defeat against Martin in Denmark suggested something was not quite right.

Kerrison booted up his computer, did the maths and concluded that Wiggins’s cadence, sometimes in excess of 105rpm, was too high and not all of that power from one of the biggest engines in cycling was getting transmitted through to the bike.

This year Wiggins has dropped the cadence slightly and rides in a higher gear.

“Without boring you too much with the technicalities I averaged 456 watts for 55 minutes at the Worlds last year against Tony and still finished 1min 20sec behind.

"He was fantastic that day but it seemed like I should have been getting more return for my effort,” said Wiggins.

“We’ve dropped the cadence and I am trying to power my way along a bit more, get more distance per pedal stroke. It’s been working well this year and it has helped my strength generally.

ETA. Brad has a poor / inaccurate memory. It wasn't 55 minutes - it was 57:16

 

[badboygolf16v]

... not all of that power from one of the biggest engines in cycling was getting transmitted through to the bike.

Where the **** was it going then?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

The biggest question is how much better Wiggo will be when he lowers his cadence to let's say Segei Honchar's.

That Kerrison man is a remarkable fast learner or did he also lower the breststroke rate at the Aussie swimmers?

 

[acoggan]

True.

How would you feel if I modified the statement to:

according to acoggan's graph, Wiggins absolute power has not diminished between the 2004 IP (570W for 4.25min) and the 2011 WC TT (453W for 57:15)?

That is implied, yes, but if you really understand the critical power approach and its limitations, you recognize that it may not be absolutely true, yet doesn't invalidate the calculations.

To be more explicit: Wiggins' power at shorter durations may not be as high now as it was in 2004...

 

[the big ring]

That is implied, yes, but if you really understand the critical power approach and its limitations, you recognize that it may not be absolutely true, yet doesn't invalidate the calculations.

To be more explicit: Wiggins' power at shorter durations may not be as high now as it was in 2004...

ie his power at VO2(max) at age 32 + focus on endurance training may be lower than it was when he was 24 and training for IP?

 

[Sigmund]

ie his power at VO2(max) at age 32 + focus on endurance training may be lower than it was when he was 24 and training for IP?

Which would make sense as durations of 4-5 min is where a high vo2max is most needed as you are operating on or slightly above it.

When going for longer you can go faster Even if your vo2 Max falls if you can operate gloser to it for longer. For example you might start out with 40 min at say 82-84% of vo2max. With training you get that up to 86-88% of vo2max. So, your vo2max is lower, you're probably slower over 4-5 min but faster over 40 min.

Or that's how I understand it.

 

[the big ring]

Which would make sense as durations of 4-5 min is where a high vo2max is most needed as you are operating on or slightly above it.

When going for longer you can go faster Even if your vo2 Max falls if you can operate gloser to it for longer. For example you might start out with 40 min at say 82-84% of vo2max. With training you get that up to 86-88% of vo2max. So, your vo2max is lower, you're probably slower over 4-5 min but faster over 40 min.

Or that's how I understand it.

We're talking different things here. Brad's VO2 max (how much oxygen he can consume when exercising) has not gone down measurably, I would argue, for 2 reasons:

1. he won gold medals in IP and TP only 4 years ago
2. VO2 max does not change significantly with age if you are maintaining intense training - and he's doing that in spades.

His ability to produce power at VO2max may have gone down due to no specific training for that type of effort, as he focuses on GC ambitions.

 

[Sigmund]

We're talking different things here. Brad's VO2 max (how much oxygen he can consume when exercising) has not gone down measurably, I would argue, for 2 reasons:

1. he won gold medals in IP and TP only 4 years ago
2. VO2 max does not change significantly with age if you are maintaining intense training - and he's doing that in spades.

His ability to produce power at VO2max may have gone down due to no specific training for that type of effort, as he focuses on GC ambitions.

I would say a bit of both. 4 years is a long time. Though I agree it probably hasn't fallen much.

 

[the big ring]

I would say a bit of both. 4 years is a long time. Though I agree it probably hasn't fallen much.

I should have gone to bed

It's /kg, so his has gone up dramatically since 2004, having dropped 82kg to 69kg.

 

[Sigmund]

I should have gone to bed

It's /kg, so his has gone up dramatically since 2004, having dropped 82kg to 69kg.

You're right, I guess we both should have gone to bed. But thanks for righting my wrongs