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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01kt7d3/More_or_Less_The_Tour_de_France_and_the_statistics_of_cheating/

2:42 to 10:00 on some of the science behind the argument for TdF being cleaner

Nice link and it really is a top programme in general that one .
In general it might just be one for the geeks though 😉

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.

I was referring to your '93 stage 9.

Thanks, I posted it because as evidence-based rationalists ( 😉 ), I know we like data and your previous link was a bit flakey to draw conclusions from IMO! The analysis presented is comforting but hardly definitive and not-at-all geeky.

I am surprised that performance is dropping given all the sports enhancing drinks that are available. 😉

This argument is just happening for the sake of it now.

Unlike any other sport, Edukator fails to believe in human and technology development over a 20 year period that might lead the riders to be posting large wattages for short times, despite the fact they can't maintain them for long periods, an overall spped and power averages are down.

He probably believe Formula one cars atill use 1600 engines yet have magic highly illegal fuel made from condensed baby tear's and Jessica Ennis exists on a diet of magic beans sourced from Eastern Europe.

Don't argue with him Junkyard, despite him being a self confessed cyclist he'll continue to grind the subject in the ground.

I was referring to your '93 stage 9.

45 seconds onwards - it was a touch windy if not ridiculous- I dont recall the stage from memory if arcaer does then chapeau Sir.

I'm afraid 467W for 16 minutes is very much in the suspicious zone. A minute here or ther is not the problem. I think you're forgetting the level of power increase acheived post Seoul when modern doping appeared. When there's a power drop of the order of 15 - 20% then maybe the effectiveness of doping techniques has gone back to pre-90s levels. You'll then have to convince me that all the medical preparation that was being used then was doing nothing to improve performance and that was the non-doped base.

Pre-89 there was plenty of useful stuff you either wouldn't test positive for or that wasn't even on the red list. Consider what the likes of Thevenet have admitted to using back in the mid 70s and the real improved performances they obtained. Now look at their times and power outputs. Have a look at

[url= http://www.cyclisme-dopage.com/puissances/2012-09-10-cyclisme-dopage.htm ]link[/url]

you'll find tables the products used by riders in the 70s. The page I've linked is for Vuelta power outputs. You'll find other pages that compare Froome with Virenque in terms of climbing speeds. They really haven't slowed down.

The cyclisme-dopage site used to be great when the tables listed riders by name not number. I can still remember some of them but can't quote as I no longer have the link to back up my posts. The site had to change to numbers due to french laws on data protection.

Edit: it works now - the conclusion is that the power outputs are lower than the 90s but there is no significant difference with the 2000s; they have not slowed down.

I'm afraid 467W for 16 minutes is very much in the suspicious zone.

Its not for that length of time as I have said numerous times.

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…

I think you're forgetting the level of power increase achieved post Seoul when modern doping appeared. When there's a power drop of the order of 15 - 20% then maybe the effectiveness of doping techniques has gone back to pre-90s levels

Does this rule apply to the mens 100 metres race and we assume they are all cheating till they run slower than that - a race described as the most drug fuelled sprint in history ?
Its a very poor argument indeed.

the link wont help as I am not fluent in French, some would argue not even English 😉

I think Wiggins is clean based purely upon what I've seen in the media.

What exactly does clean mean? Not breaking the rules or law?

I don't think it's quite black and white. As a very crude example, a rider 1 mg below the caffeine limit is clean and 1 mg over a doper?

It would not surprise me if Sky, with their approach to marginal gains, have thoroughly looked into what they can get away with to improve performance and remain inside the law.

So you don't read French, the conclusion is:

[i]power outputs are lower than the 90s but there is no significant difference with the 2000s; they have not slowed down.[/i]

power outputs are lower than the 90s but there is no significant difference with the 2000s; they have not slowed down.

How much of that can be put down to the massive performance enhancement of the bikes themselves though.

You look at what LA rode in the 2000 - 2005 Tours:- it looks woefully outdated now.
Ten years on you've got bikes that are now bang on the weight limit, far stiffer and, more importantly, have power meters, HRM, GPS all built in to measure every single aspect of what a rider is doing and allow that rider to pace themselves far better.

crazy-legs - Member

How much of that can be put down to the massive performance enhancement of the bikes themselves though.

i'm going to make a wild stab in the dark, and say 'next to nothing'

call me a cynic...

I'm afraid 467W for 16 minutes is very much in the suspicious zone.

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree. A chap in my cycling club (aged 48) can quite happily sit (well, I say happily) @ 400w for an hour. He trains just for time trialling and does a LOT of training, but he's clean.

When there's a power drop of the order of 15 - 20% then maybe the effectiveness of doping techniques has gone back to pre-90s levels. You'll then have to convince me that all the medical preparation that was being used then was doing nothing to improve performance and that was the non-doped base.

Did Lemond dope? I understood the consensus to be that he didn't.

How much of that can be put down to the massive performance enhancement of the bikes themselves though.

You look at what LA rode in the 2000 - 2005 Tours:- it looks woefully outdated now.
Ten years on you've got bikes that are now bang on the weight limit, far stiffer and, more importantly, have power meters, HRM, GPS all built in to measure every single aspect of what a rider is doing and allow that rider to pace themselves far better.

I said words to that effect earlier.

[Edukator]

flange - Member

I'm afraid 467W for 16 minutes is very much in the suspicious zone.

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree. A chap in my cycling club (aged 48) can quite happily sit (well, I say happily) @ 400w for an hour. He trains just for time trialling and does a LOT of training, but he's clean.

No he won't be its not possible.

[/Edukator]

😀

* Sorry J I'll stop it now but you really need to broaden your view a bit

I understood the consensus to be that he didn't.

But,
But,
But,

He must have...

...or how about a chap I think even Kimmage acknowledges never doped.

CB, 1996, 1 hour, 56.375km, 442W

The other interesting thing looking at that is how much difference the technology does make. Reportedly CB managed 91% of that power in 2000, yet only managed 88% of the distance (given power required is proportional to speed cubed, he would have only required 67% of the power to maintain that speed on his '96 bike).

Again, what has changed?

The drug tests still don't work... it still takes the odd bit of police work to actually catch cheats. And there aren't many Travis Tygarts.

There's still bags of money in the sport, and huge pressure to keep a team in the money.

Enforcement is still mainly in the hands of organisations who don't really have much interest in busting their top players, because they're the ones who drive public interest and therefore cash.

We're not in 60% HCT land, as I said, but if elite athletes can get away with it, history tells us they do it.

...or how about a chap I think even Kimmage acknowledges never doped.

CB, 1996, 1 hour, 56.375km, 442W

No, no, no, he must have too. 🙂

It's pointless all this though isn't it?

I'd be more surprised if Wiggo et al are doping than I've been at anyone else. But I'm struggling to care so much about professional cycling anymore. I'll still record and watch the tour alright, and just hope they're clean, be disappointed when someone is caught and start the whole cycle again the year after.

Again, what has changed?

The drug tests still don't work...

it still takes the odd bit of police work to actually catch cheats. And there aren't many Travis Tygarts.

We're not in 60% HCT land, as I said, but if elite athletes can get away with it, history tells us they do it.

EDIT: DD nail and hea it would not be that surprising to find another cheat - i was very disappointed with Bertie- but i would be surprised beyond words and gutted if Wiggo is one [ and Cadel and many others i could name]

Wiggo won the tour thanks to a course that suited him and total domination by the Sky Team. Also helped by an off-form Evans and Schleck and Contador not being there. Which sounds like I'm taking away from his achievements - I'm not, I just think he would have had a much harder time of it had these factors been different.

Anyone who thinks the entire pro peleton is now clean is being a bit naive (IMO). Whilst I don't think drugs fuelled Wiggins, I think there's an awful lot of it still going on. With people like Riis managing teams and riders such as Valverde and Contador being so prevalent it does make you wonder if they're still on the sauce.

Do I think Wiggins doped? No. Do I think he'll win another tour? No.

As for the equipment argument, in September '96 Chris Boardman did 56.375km for the hour record. For this attempt he used the leading technology at the time - Obree's Super-man position, carbon wheels and so on. In 2000, Boardman then attempted the Hour again but following the 'Athletes hour' rules - basically the equipment had to mimic what Merckx used. He managed 'just' 49.411kms.

It's pointless all this though isn't it?

Well I don't really care that much apart from taking the wind out of Edu's sails, which a totally clean 442W 1 hour performance 16 years ago ought to when he's claiming a 440W TT is suspicious.

Oh and BTW 467W would result in a ~1km/h increase in speed over 442W. Does anybody here not believe it's possible to go 1km/h faster for 16 minutes than it is for 1 hour (anybody who doesn't should check out hour record splits)?

Anyone who thinks the entire pro peleton is now clean is being a bit naive

Name me anybody on this thread who does.

Funny how people on this forum keep coming up with another cyclist who has never ever doped who just happens to be... .

Bye for now.

I've read his autobiography and he never talks about taking anything to improve his performance..... In fact he does say he doesn't agree with it, and would leave a team if he found out teammates were, or if people tried to get him to

Name me anybody on this thread who does.

Tell you what chief, you carry on looking for an argument.

Funny how people on this forum keep coming up with another cyclist who has never ever doped who just happens to be... .

Bye for now.

could you bring something other than innuendo and rubbish arguments next time?

Name me anybody on this thread who does.
Tell you what chief, you carry on looking for an argument.

He is not looking for an argument he is refuting the point that anyone on this thread has claimed the entire peleton is clean

I said words to that effect earlier.

You don't expect I actually read any of the previous 5 pages do you?!

Funny how people on this forum keep coming up with another cyclist who has never ever doped who just happens to be... .

Why don't you just come out and name who's been mentioned on this thread as being clean who you think doped, and provide some sort of evidence that they did actually dope? Alternatively just don't bother commenting if you want to look less stupid.

It would not surprise me if Sky, with their approach to marginal gains, have thoroughly looked into what they can get away with to improve performance and remain inside the law.

they said as much in The Skys The Limit, talking about legal injections (before the UCI no-needle rule). Garmin introduced a no-needle policy, whereas Sky figured out how much they could inject and how often and stay legal (talking about legal substances such as vitamins, not injecting banned PEDs at levels or regimes below detection).

I dont think Wiggins doped, his argument about just how much he would lose is such common sense it'd be a weird one for a doper to give and still be able to rationalise doping to himself.

I'd also put money on it being clean for the majority. There's no way teams are at it anymore, and with whole teams being expelled for a single rider being caught there must be pressure on the riders not to dope.

You're right...exchange 'entire' for 'majority'. My point still stands

I've read his autobiography and he never talks about taking anything to improve his performance..... In fact he does say he doesn't agree with it, and would leave a team if he found out teammates were, or if people tried to get him to

he aint gonna admit it though is he

I dont think Wiggins doped, his argument about just how much he would lose is such common sense it'd be a weird one for a doper to give and still be able to rationalise doping to himself.

That's pretty weird logic, clearly dopers don't worry about what they might lose because of doping, it's all about what they will win and damn the costs to themselves and the sport.

I've read his autobiography and he never talks about taking anything to improve his performance....

You should read one of Lances books as well, he goes into great lengths talking about his doping regime, surprised they didn't catch him earlier with him being so open about it

sarcasm aside are you two suggesting the fact he denies it is somehow proof he does it ...its not a great argument.

My early comment about his auto biography wasn't supposed to be taken seriously,

To be fair. I read Bruyneel's book & came away pretty convinced that he was involved. It wasn't exactly a convincing denial..

good point doh

im unwell thats my excuse 🙂

She added: "I do despair that the sport [u]will ever clean itself up[/u] when rewards of stealing are greater than riding clean. If that remains the case, [u]the temptation for those with no morals will always be too great[/u]."

Nicole Cooke 14/1/2013. BBC Sport

Just in case we all get a bit too comfy!

sarcasm aside are you two suggesting the fact he denies it is somehow proof he does it ...its not a great argument.

No I am saying that a denial is not proof of anything, to claim it is is a pretty poor argument.

I read that Nicole Cook interview earlier, she is certainly quite scathing...

Back now I've fixed my ski boots. From the climatic chnage thread:

The difficulties in debunking blatant antireality are legion. You can make up any old nonsense and state it in a few seconds, but it takes much longer to show why it’s wrong and how things really are.

“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

– Attributed to Mark Twain

A nice link as Junkyard said.

His argument about just how much he would lose is such common sense it'd be a weird one for a doper to give and still be able to rationalise doping to himself.

Dopers have a track record in that regard: "Why would someone in my position, with my medical history, take something like that?" - Lance Armstrong on growth hormone, in 2001.

"Tyler Hamilton will make more money from a book describing how he cheated than I will make in all my years of honest labour."

Hmmm

I remember having the exact same conversation with a cycling friend of mine about Lancy boy back in 2000/2001.

Is it not the case that in order to compete with everyone else one is forced to dope; as we all would if our families depended on our earnings.

I would.

You can make up any old nonsense and state it in a few seconds

Well that would certainly explain your contributions to this thread.