So, do we think Wiggins is clean?

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:

I would answer again but as i said it is pointless as i am not really disputing this point re TT times.
Quickly – no helmet no TT bars, no disc wheels etc from you link

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]

No point using Hinault really for comparison.
Any chance you could explain why watts per kg are dropping and hill climb times as this seems so much more relevant

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.

from your last link
It does not mention Froome so i am not sure what you are referring to

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?

considerably more than the absolutely nothing at all that you have put fwd
Something , anything?
You have given nothing at all literally Nothing.

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.

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.

i thought I mentioned that actually – here is the you tube link where you can see the flags fluttering at the start

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QCbUy4xb_o

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

link

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:

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

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?

you really think there has been no changes in the professional teams or in cycling ?

The drug tests still don’t work…

Still catching folk though so I disagree

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

Nor are there many LA

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.

History tells us some do and some dont
LA or lemond
Contador or wiggins

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.