[Closed] So, do we think Wiggins is clean?

I have to laugh at people who think guys like Wiggins and Evans are clean yet guys like Contador aren't. Look at the 2007 Tour for example, 23 seconds between Contador and Evans. If a guy like Contador was doping and Evans was't the gap would be closer to 23 minutes.

You assume that Contador would be as good as Evans if he wasn't doping. That's one of the really sad parts of this whole saga - like most people I believe Evans is clean, and if he'd been competing on a level playing field against other clean athletes the chances are he'd be discussed in reverential terms as a legend of the sport with multiple TdF wins under his belt.

Meanwhile you also assume that current drugs use results in the same huge advantage drugs had 10 or 15 years ago, when available evidence suggests that isn't the case.

Wiggins dope? I really don't think that he is that stupid.

The difference between Contador and Millar is Millar said sorry, Contador claimed he'd eaten some dodgy steak imported from a Spanish butcher that [s]no one could rememeber the name of[/s] I can't be bothered looking for.

I hope that hes clean. Thats all we can say really.

We? Is that everyone on STW or all cycists in general? Is that the same 'We' that worshiped Lance Armstrong?
Not everyone is so naive.

Does it really effect any of us.

I hope there not for there own sake, but in the long run LA doping didn't effect me in the slightest, all it did was turn another child hood hero into nothing, Like batman,and spiderman and santa and the easter bunnyand the tooth fairy.

I don't think anyone can deny that at the time he was an inspiration, but they come in many forms.

Let them have there time and enjoy it.

That's a bit odd MrSmith? What is wrong with the quote, the subjective bit (hope) is in the first person singular and the objective bit (we don't know) correctly addressed in the plural. Pretty well written IMO.

We? Is that everyone on STW or all cycists in general? Is that the same 'We' that worshiped Lance Armstrong?
Not everyone is so naive.

Hmmm. You did become a [i]teensy-weensy[/i] bit bitter when the Lance thing took off 😉

Receipts produced by Astana — Contador’s team during the 2010 Tour — showed that the butcher belonged to Grupo Larrezabal, which sold the cuts of beef that Contador’s lawyers argue triggered the clenbuterol positive.

I seem to recall some comment about there not being any good meat in France and that was why they drove it across Spain and France to get it to him. Oddly, seeing most French butchers I'd be inclined to call bullshit on that. They may have a receipt but I doubt that's where the clenbuterol came from.

When I'm as old as you I hope I still retain my positive outlook on life and I don't become bitter

I'm very positive thanks, I only have to read some of the posts on here for a life affirming boost.

Wiggins dope? I really don't think that he is that stupid.

Or as Duclos said, you'd have to be stupid to get caught and with a good doctor you won't.

Let's face it, unless you spend your life with him, no one can state that he's either definitely clean or not. It's a question of belief, interpretation and credibility.

On the one hand, logic says that cycling has been dirty as hell for year and that people have always been able to get around the tests so it's very unlikely that the sport is clean now. In addition, Sky hired Leinders who has a far from clean background although that clearly says nothing about what he's actually done at Sky.

On the other hand, detection has gone away from simply checking for a specific drug or a simple (eg over 50%) value both of which can be avoided to something more clever (but arguably less black and white) - eg blood passports/profiling/etc. Thus far and in recent times, doping is all about making the blood carry more oxygen. Manipulation of that is easier to identify with the testing as is though clearly not foolproof. Nowadays, I reckon dopers have to be lucky as well as very careful to avoid detection. In the past you didn't need to be lucky.

If I had to put money on it, I'd be pretty happy to say Wiggins is clean. He's come from the right background, he's been on the right teams, he's said the right things and there are some good reasons why doping would be a real risk for him.

But sadly the logic says that I can't state that he definitely is clean and in some ways that's the worst legacy from Armstrong and the many others.

You can safely say that modern doping is not just

all about making the blood carry more oxygen

it's about marginal gains through doping at undetectable levels to improve every aspect of physiology; strength, power, oxygenation, recovery, coordination... . What Duclos refered to 20 years back as "équilibrage hormonal" is just using lots of different substances at undetectable levels that make a marginal difference but add up all these marginal gains and you end up with a big gain. Duclo's justification was that it was the only way he could reamin in a state to do his job - read his book.

be nice if he was clean, but wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't.

They may have a receipt but I doubt that's where the clenbuterol came from.

On the basis that it's been banned in food production throughout the EU since '96, I'd agree. 😉

I'm sure I read somewhere that the times of the TDF rides had slowed markedly compared with the former averages - indicating a lack of drug assistance?

indicating a lack of drug assistance?

You do have a good pint Pigface...

A 460W TT isn't slowing IMO. Tours in which the sprint teams dominate the first week with stage-long duels and leaping on evry break are faster than Tours with a dominant team and not much sprint interest. Climb rates were high, very high even, when the chips were down.

Read
Bradley Wiggins: My Time

Read
Bradley Wiggins: My Time

I've been trying to since Christmas but find it a great cure for insomnia

A 460W TT isn't slowing IMO.

Climb rates were high, very high even, when the chips were down

Everyone knows the times on the climbs have come down so i dont really know what point you are making

Its a really pointless debate the doubters will continue to doubt as you cannot prove a negative

PS Excellent point aracer - cadel may well have been LA if everyone had been clean- thankfully he did at least get one

Haave you selectively removed the link I posted from your memory, Junkyard? You missed "oval rings" the first time and asked me for a link, found it, but seem not to have registered the information it contained. I suppose I'll have to link it again, hang on.

Edit: [url= http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/2012/07/11/le-plateau-ovoide-botte-secrete-de-bradley-wiggins_1731653_3242.html ]Sky power[/url], sorry it was Froome at over 467W up a Vuelta climb, Wiggins was only at 45OW in the TT.

I read it I thnaked you i commented on it and I gave you an example of the translation Google provided so no not forgotten it thanks

However you seem to have failed to read the bit about TT- of course they will be able to do more for shorter periods - there is no great surprise in that and hardly proof of cheating. I suspect I can get about that for a very short period of time [ seconds]

Its not like anyones 10 mile TT wattage is the same as your 100 mile average now is it.
I though[ one of ] the main effects of the PEDS were to aid recovery and stop the effects of tiring over the duration of the tour and to enable harder training and that is why the wattages and climb times were higher

As I said in reply to that post the link to the Vueleta results showed about 400 watts per average which was about 6 watts per kg and way below LA 6.6-6.8 watts per kilo

As for Froome - it was obvious to anyone he was pooped in the Vueleta and he would not have been with PEDS i assume

anyway the key point is that climb times are slower now - not that they cannot produce high wattages for short periods it that they cannot do it every day for 6 hours
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/10/tour-mountains-science-of-sport

So, in terms of what that means for Wiggins and co at the front of the stage, it predicts about 6.4 to 6.5 W/kg. Over 16 minutes, that's not at all unreasonable. To give you some context, calculations of climbing power output in the Tour de France in the 1990s and 2000s often estimated that top riders maintained power outputs of 6.4 to 6.5W/kg on the Tour's HC climbs, most of which take over 40 minutes to climb. So in other words, there was an era where the best riders were maintaining similar power outputs to what we saw on Saturday, for three times the duration. Put differently, all those riders would probably have been a minute clear of this current generation on this climb…

also her ere Alpe D Huez
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/07/tour-in-mountains-analysis-discussion.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FcJKs+%28The+Science+of+Sport%29

The graph below was put together by Alex Simmons, and it shows the time on the famous Alp d'Huez climb as a function of power output. There's a lot of data there but slide your finger across from a time of 38:30. That's the kind of performance (or faster) we saw in the previous generation. Then consider the more recent times - Frank Schleck did 40:46 in 2006, the first time in 12 years they didn't break 40. The best performances in the last 3 years are all slower than 41 minutes. That fits well with what I've added to the graph in blue and yellow - those are the equivalent performances to two climbs in the 2010 Tour, where riders simply don't get above 6W/kg anymore. Not even once, let alone repeatedly during the race, as they once did.

oh and a BBC one just to annoy you 😉

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18921784

Like i say for short periods they can do the super human outputs but they cannot do it for ever - it is the longer outputs we need to look at and when we do it is obvious that people are slower now and doing less watts per kg

it proves nothing but it is what one would expect if they were no longer doing PED

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the Padua investigation. According to the magistrate "nothing has changed" and there are a couple of EPO variants in use that cannot be identified using the current tests:
http://road.cc/content/news/72609-doping-padua-magistrate-says-nothing-has-changed-cycling

It's this kind of stuff that makes me cock an eyebrow at David Millar's assertions that "Doping is just a non-subject to the young guys...To them it's the dark ages of the sport." http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/05/david-millar-cycling
You don't have to be an expert on cycling to see that doping is still very much a live issue (and always will be).

Sorry, double post

I know that comparing TT speeds is not an exact science as course and conditions vary but they have got faster over the years and very closely followed high power outputs related to better (worse?) doping. With the exception of Obree's superman and paper boy positions aerodynamics have played a smaller role in the gains than increased power ouptputs. (check out the history of hour records and estimated power outputs)

52km/h is silly fast whichever way you look at it. Faster than this lot on EPO, cortisone and growth hormone protocols in 93 anyhow. Have a look at the history of TT speeds and associated power outputs, Wiggins really isn't less powerful than "the dirty generation" that went before.

Stage 9 - 59 km ITT 1993
1. Miguel Indurain en 1h12'50"
2. Bugno Ã* 2'11"
3. Breukink Ã* 2'22"
4. Rominger Ã* 2'42"
5. Zulle Ã* 3'18"
6. Bruyneel Ã* 3'50"
7. Jaskula Ã* 4'00"
8. Alcala Ã* 4'05"
9. Louviot Ã* 4'28"
10. Roche Ã* 4'30"
27. Armstrong Ã* 6'04"

All under 49km/h and Armstrong before Motorola discovered EPO at 45km/h

I know he is not less powerful for short periods but he is much less powerful when you make him ride a complete tour over three weeks as shown by times. watts per Kg and climb times

You can keep posting TT times but as I am not disputing that short efforts are still [broadly] equivalent it serves little purpose.

to repeat

anyway the key point is that climb times are slower now - not that they cannot produce high wattages for short periods it that they cannot do it every day for 6 hours

I'm sure I read somewhere that the times of the TDF rides had slowed markedly compared with the former averages - indicating a lack of drug assistance?

We all know that things aren't as bad as in the days where loads of riders had 60%+ HCTs, and powered along with blood like treacle (before riding all night on rollers to stay alive).

But riders don't have to beat Bjarne Riis, 1996. They've got to beat the bloke next to them today. I've read plenty of stuff, including from people like Mike Ashenden, that suggests that a much more careful doping plan based on microdosing and smaller transfusions would slip through the tests pretty easily.

Still, at least Sky didn't hire any doctors with long alleged histories of doping in teams known to have been filthy.

What? Oh.

So 44km is a short effort. 🙁 Of course it isn't. The decisive moves up cols lasted over 20min too.

Bernard Hinault was the TT master of his day. Research in the Renault wind tunnel, an aero bike, one of the best aero positions ever. He was just under 45km/h on his most famous TT ride:

http://www.ina.fr/sport/cyclisme/video/I00009140/bernard-hinault-remporte-le-contre-la-montre-de-metz.fr.html

Air resistance rises roughly as the square of the speed so to get from 45 to 52km/h you need a power to drag ratio over 20% higher.

Edit: before someone points out Greg Lemond held the TT record for years with 54km/h, I'll stick to quoting TT times of courses that aren't downhill with a following wind.

This thread demonstrates the tragedy of doping better than anything that can be said or done. Regardless of what steps are now taken and what is done or not done the stain is indelibly there for ever more.

Personally, I do believe that the GB end of the sport is way cleaner than has ever been the case before. However, it doesn't really matter does it?

So 44km is a short effort.

Its a bit shorter to complete than the Tour de France and furthermore I am confident my average speed would be greater on a TT than if i did the Tour- what is your point?

Bernard Hinault was the TT master of his day. Research in the Renault wind tunnel, an aero bike, one of the best aero positions ever. He was just under 45km/h on his most famous TT ride:

See the hour record for the UCI rules and the best human effort if you dispute this makes a difference.
EDIT: we could look at Le Mond

The final time trial was over a course approximately 25 kilometres (15.5 mi) long, with a net elevation loss of 75 metres (247 ft). The riders had a moderate tailwind. LeMond put his bike into a huge 55 x 12 gear. His effort was the fastest individual time trial for a distance longer than 10 km ever ridden. A November 1989 Bicycling Magazine article, supported by wind-tunnel data, estimated that LeMond may have gained 1 minute on Fignon through the use of the new aerobars.[10]

I've read plenty of stuff, including from people like Mike Ashenden, that suggests that a much more careful doping plan based on microdosing and smaller transfusions would slip through the tests pretty easily.

What they really mean by marginal gains, eh.

I assume you have some sort of proof for that claim then 😕

What every GB cyclist is a drug cheat now or just wiggins?

Its getting very silly now

Any chance you could eplain why watts per kg are dropping and hill climb

My point is that they are not: Chris Froome, Vuelta, 467W.

Prrof? We're back to the proof people wanted for Armstrong. How much proof do you need? The performances are enough for me. Armstrong put his improved performance post cancer down to weight loss. Sky claim oval rings and marginal gains. Well other teams ried all sorts of ring shapes in the past and "marginal gains" has been in cycling for even longer, ask Duclos.

Countless scandals, years of failed drug enforcement corrupted by clever doctors and conflicted interests, long lists of grand tour winners either busted, implicated or compromised...

Don't you think perhaps the burden of proof shifted to the SPORT, not to its fans, some time ago?

Your wrong then as the stuff I published showed

Why not choose someone who actually won the race or even a stage ?

source and length of climb please- have you anything in English - have a read of the translation they give classics like the closing line of

The Thatcherite pedal and a few allies too powerful and will dominate the world.

is this some sort of anti Sky thing given he did not win a stage nor the event.

Someone did list up the vuleta wattages for stage wins and the averages were all around 400 watts- dont have the link and i dont recall which thread

I found this which shows dropping since the EPO days
http://inrng.com/2012/09/vuelta-power-analysis/

Its also worth noting that the watts are estimates rather than real so will have a margin of error

Prrof? We're back to the proof people wanted for Armstrong. How much proof do you need?

To compare this to LA [with this body of evidence] says more about you than it does about Wiggins or Sky.

For the record, I believe Wiggo (and British Cycling / Team Sky) is clean, and I've read his book, and I enjoyed it.. BUT

I don't agree with (but do understand) Wiggo's attitude towards those who cast the aspersions or ask the questions, be it in a press conference or on twitter. At the end of the day, he's at the top of a sport that has an extensive, recent history of being as dirty as you could imagine. It is naive in the extreme to suggest that, for any reason whatsoever, you could be as successful as he is, in cycling, at this point in history, and not accept the burden of the insinuations as being part of the price you pay for that success.

For the record, I believe Wiggo (and British Cycling / Team Sky) is clean, and I've read his book, and I enjoyed it.. BUT

I don't agree with (but do understand) Wiggo's attitude towards those who cast the aspersions or ask the questions, be it in a press conference or on twitter. At the end of the day, he's at the top of a sport that has an extensive, recent history of being as dirty as you could imagine. It is naive in the extreme to suggest that, for any reason whatsoever, you could be as successful as he is, in cycling, at this point in history, and not accept the burden of the insinuations as being part of the price you pay for that success.

I know that comparing TT speeds is not an exact science as course and conditions vary

Should have stopped there. It would have made you look less silly than trying to compare with a TT on a very windy day.

My link does mention Froome. here it is:

Froome, en récupérant sans doute l'énergie électrique produite, s'est contenté de renouveler son numéro du col de Pena Cabarga lors de la Vuelta 2011 en levant les bras après 16'23 à 21,6 km/h (467 watts), suivi de près par la deuxième "Audi" Wiggins,

It was Junkyard that raised the Lemond TT, Aracer. I anticipated someone quoting it and edited my post but not fast enough to stop Junkyard.

Alas, the first piston in Sky Boasson Hagen in the floor of Mines, false flat amount of 1.6% average slope which preceded the neck has engaged to 46.6 km / h for 4'20. Froome, probably recovering electrical energy produced, merely renew its number Cervical Pena Cabarga in the Vuelta in 2011, raising his arms after 16'23 to 21.6 km / h (467 watts) closely followed by the second "Audi" Wiggins, with Cadel Evans and Vincenzo Nibali . The French left, are well beyond the 17 minutes with less than 440 watts.

I really cannot reply to that I need something in a language i understand

Is that for the whole stage , the climb or the last 3 km sprint to win the stage?

If its 467 watts for 16 minutes then i dont see that as an increase and refer you to the point cheats could do that for 40 mins + as mentioned earlier and would be a minute faster over that sort of distance.

A non cheat can produce cheat levels of output just for far shorter times 1000 watts may be produced for a short fast sprint to get away from the peleton for example but no one can sustain that for any period of time doped or not doped.