Wiggo's form

BikingBernie

RichN95 wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

squired wrote:

You only have to read the recent articles in the Guardian and Telegraph (I think) about the training in Tenerife to see that Sky are far more professional than some other teams in terms of their preparation.

Plenty of other teams and riders seem to favour Tenerife as part of their 'preparation'. For example, Astana, Radioshack...

Tenerife has guaranteed good weather all year round, lots of clear roads at over 2000m, good quality hotels both at sea level and altitude, excellent sports training facilities and is accessible daily from most major airports including Manchester. Why wouldn't you go there? Can you name somewhere better?

I am sure it is lovely. As I said, "Bottom line is, having trained in Tenerife is no proof of being more 'professional' than other teams, however you interpret the term 'professional'. "

plectrum

Bernie,

I wrote a huge reply but ultimately it boils down to this:

How did Cobo beat Froome & Wiggins in the Vuelta - two riders who were better last year than Cobo, the latter being one of the favourites to contend the Tour and following on are now in a different league.

If all are dirty; how did they lose?

I've watched cycling for 25 years and to date I haven't seen a questionable performance from Wiggins; not one that made me think hmm.

TMR

On a slightly different tack, I am shocked at the poor season Gilbert has had after owning everyone like little bitches last year. What's happened there?

BikingBernie

plectrum wrote:

How did Cobo beat Froome & Wiggins in the Vuelta - two riders who were better last year than Cobo, the latter being one of the favourites to contend the Tour and following on are now in a different league.

If all are dirty; how did they lose?

Apparently, not even USP got onto a serious 'programme' until it became clear that if they didn't, they would remain also-rans...

RichN95.

BikingBernie wrote:

Apparently, not even USP got onto a serious 'programme' until it became clear that if they didn't, they would remain also-rans...

What have US Postal got to do with anything? They disbanded years ago and Armstrong has definitely retired. You seem to be having trouble dealing with this, trying to make weak comparisons all the time isn't going to help you move on. Armstrong got away with it. Trying to find someone to transpose the blame to isn't going to change that.

TMR

Stop arguing with each other and answer my question please

I like to go off on a tangent!

BikingBernie

RichN95 wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

Apparently, not even USP got onto a serious 'programme' until it became clear that if they didn't, they would remain also-rans...

What have US Postal got to do with anything? They disbanded years ago and Armstrong has definitely retired. You seem to be having trouble dealing with this, trying to make weak comparisons all the time isn't going to help you move on. Armstrong got away with it. Trying to find someone to transpose the blame to isn't going to change that.

Perhaps you are hard of understanding, but I had thought the allusion was obvious. That is, teams don't necessarily dope from day one, and history shows us that a transformation of a team's performance can often be put down to them deciding to arrange a serious 'programme'. with US Postal being a prime example. As to your cod psychology about 'transposing the blame' :roll:

Anyhow, even the mainstream press seem to see SKY as the new USP. Perhaps they are also have an 'arrangement' with fat Pat.

Nairo Quintana of Movistar won stage six of the Criterium du Dauphine in Morzine today, but the story of the day was Team Sky decimating the field on the Col de Joux Plane, exerting a level of control not seen in years.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... ntrol.html

RichN95.

The Mad Rapper wrote:

On a slightly different tack, I am shocked at the poor season Gilbert has had after owning everyone like little bitches last year. What's happened there?

Theories I've heard are:

1. He's getting paid stupid amounts of money and doesn't care anymore
2. He's been living the celebrity life through the off season a bit too much
3. He flogged himself half to death last season and hasn't really recovered
4. He's been having problems with the wife.

Take your pick.

BikingBernie

The Mad Rapper wrote:

On a slightly different tack, I am shocked at the poor season Gilbert has had after owning everyone like little bitches last year. What's happened there?

Everyone else but him has been on holiday in Tenerife perhaps?

BikingBernie

From the Dauphine thread:

iainf72 wrote:

No one has called out that one of Sky's top 2 men used to be coached by Dr Ferrari? You lot disappoint me.

RichN95.

BikingBernie wrote:

Anyhow, even the mainstream press seem to see SKY as the new USP. Perhaps they are also have an 'arrangement' with fat Pat.

Nairo Quintana of Movistar won stage six of the Criterium du Dauphine in Morzine today, but the story of the day was Team Sky decimating the field on the Col de Joux Plane, exerting a level of control not seen in years.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... ntrol.html

That's just Cycling Weekly getting carried away.

It's pretty easy to exert control when the only person to attack on the final climb is 15 minutes down on GC. What Sky had was four riders who have in the top 7 in a GT in the last three seasons (three while on different teams) riding at a reasonably high tempo, but not so high that they couldn't get rid of moderate climbers like Weening and Kiryenka (and only just shook off Machado who had been in the break).

This was just a team working well as a unit in the face of very little opposition. It wasn't some freak performance.

TMR

RichN95 wrote:

Theories I've heard are:

1. He's getting paid stupid amounts of money and doesn't care anymore
2. He's been living the celebrity life through the off season a bit too much
3. He flogged himself half to death last season and hasn't really recovered
4. He's been having problems with the wife.

Take your pick.

And which do you think to be the most likely? It's clearly something significant, the difference in his form is incredible.

RichN95.

The Mad Rapper wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Theories I've heard are:

1. He's getting paid stupid amounts of money and doesn't care anymore
2. He's been living the celebrity life through the off season a bit too much
3. He flogged himself half to death last season and hasn't really recovered
4. He's been having problems with the wife.

Take your pick.

And which do you think to be the most likely? It's clearly something significant, the difference in his form is incredible.

A mixture of 2 and 3.

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

This was just a team working well as a unit in the face of very little opposition. It wasn't some freak performance.

This

jibberjim

Yes, the only surprising performance were the quality of various riders. (Dan) Martin and Sanchez had good excuses for not being there, Schleck maybe even too, although slightly less obviously, but Menchov, Nibali, Brajkovic, Rolland should all be very comfortable in out-climbing Weening or Kiriyenka. Sky were impressive, but it was more how poor all the others were that made them look so dominant.

RichN95.

jibberjim wrote:

Yes, the only surprising performance were the quality of various riders. (Dan) Martin and Sanchez had good excuses for not being there, Schleck maybe even too, although slightly less obviously, but Menchov, Nibali, Brajkovic, Rolland should all be very comfortable in out-climbing Weening or Kiriyenka.

Rolland (and a lot of good climbers) was in the breakaway, which looked good on paper but didn't really work together well. Brajkovic wasn't too far back and I think Menchov has been in terminal decline for at least a year now.

finchy

BikingBernie wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Why don't you just write him a letter saying "Dear Bradley, the following is a list of things that you must say in public so that I'll stop implying that you're a doper on a forum"?

The implication that he is not racing clean was slight and an aside to the main point that I was making. That is, given that almost every dominant rider and team of the last 2 decades has been shown to be doping at some level, doesn't anyone even stop for a moment to wonder whether the explanations given for Wiggins performances of late hold water, or is everyone so desperate for a British tour winner that they have traded in their critical faculties for a Union Jack flag? I think we have the answer.

Have you noticed how nobody started accusing Cadel Evans of doping last year? And Pierre Rolland? And Thomas Voeckler? And Thor Hushovd? That's because, like Wiggins, they've never tested positive and never been linked to a scandal. Nobody is claiming that Wiggins is definitely clean - after all, how could anyone say such a thing - but in the absence of any evidence, people are giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, his performances haven't exactly been superhuman - he's won a few time trials and then hung on in the mountains. Have you ever seen him blow the peloton away in the mountains? Even Westra managed to drop him on the slopes in Paris-Nice.

BikingBernie wrote:

As to things that Wiggins could say to increase my faith in him. Perhaps he could explain why he said nothing when he was kept off the TDF podium by a rider who not only has been implicated in doping by half the people he ever worked with, in that year's event raced with some very dodgy blood values, so much so that some prominent experts on doping publicly doubted that he was racing clean. I know if that was me and I was racing clean I would have been very vocal about it, but Wiggins said nothing. In fact he went out of his way to praise Armstrong and express his admiration for him!

Because he doesn't want to end up looking like a sore grapes loser? Why don't you ask him yourself instead of putting these things on a forum which he isn't going to read? Then you could come back and tell us all what he said.

jibberjim

RichN95 wrote:

Rolland (and a lot of good climbers) was in the breakaway, which looked good on paper but didn't really work together well. Brajkovic wasn't too far back and I think Menchov has been in terminal decline for at least a year now.

Yeah - but so was Machado and he only got dropped about 2km from the top, and as you say the break didn't really work, the pace for the day was slow, so whilst it gives Rolland a bit of a get out - I don't think it does that much, but yes I agree the break did add more reasons for why that final group was so small, and it wasn't just because Sky were off the scale dominant.

RichN95.

jibberjim wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Rolland (and a lot of good climbers) was in the breakaway, which looked good on paper but didn't really work together well. Brajkovic wasn't too far back and I think Menchov has been in terminal decline for at least a year now.

Yeah - but so was Machado and he only got dropped about 2km from the top, and as you say the break didn't really work, the pace for the day was slow, so whilst it gives Rolland a bit of a get out - I don't think it does that much, but yes I agree the break did add more reasons for why that final group was so small, and it wasn't just because Sky were off the scale dominant.

I think Rolland was only ever interested in the stage win. He got fined two minutes drafting in the Time Trial, so he was a long way back on GC. I don't think he was willing to bust a gut for a top 20 finish.

BikingBernie

johnfinch wrote:

Nobody is claiming that Wiggins is definitely clean - after all, how could anyone say such a thing - but in the absence of any evidence, people are giving him the benefit of the doubt.

That is fair enough. However, as I have said several times, what I really want to know is whether the reasons given for the apparent change in Wiggins' form - that he rides all year round at 95-97% and so forth - make any physiological sense, given that it seems to run counter to most well-established training lore.

If not it wouldn't be the first time that 'the numbers haven't added up', as when Wiggins put his 4th place in the Tour down to weight loss, emphasising he had been careful to lose no muscle mass, and then provided figures that indicated he was previously racing at about 16% body fat, even though he looked like a stick!

Of course, the above might just be BS, but one would think that riders would be careful not to make bogus claims when they know that people will carefully analyse what they say, and that plenty of riders have been caught out when what they say to explain changes in their abilities has been shown to make no sense.

BikingBernie

johnfinch wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

As to things that Wiggins could say to increase my faith in him. Perhaps he could explain why he said nothing when he was kept off the TDF podium by a rider who not only has been implicated in doping by half the people he ever worked with, in that year's event raced with some very dodgy blood values, so much so that some prominent experts on doping publicly doubted that he was racing clean. I know if that was me and I was racing clean I would have been very vocal about it, but Wiggins said nothing. In fact he went out of his way to praise Armstrong and express his admiration for him!

Because he doesn't want to end up looking like a sore grapes loser? Why don't you ask him yourself instead of putting these things on a forum which he isn't going to read?

Because someone asked me what he could say to increase my faith in him, and I was simply giving them my answer? :roll:

plectrum

BikingBernie.......

You are talking sh1t!

plectrum

Oh and ..... who cares! Tour is going to rock, Sky are going to pwn, Wiggo is going to win us a yellow and no-one is going to get caught for doping. Yippee - going to be a great 3 weeks!

finchy

BikingBernie wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Nobody is claiming that Wiggins is definitely clean - after all, how could anyone say such a thing - but in the absence of any evidence, people are giving him the benefit of the doubt.

That is fair enough. However, as I have said several times, what I really want to know is whether the reasons given for the apparent change in Wiggins' form - that he rides all year round at 95-97% and so forth - make any physiological sense, given that it seems to run counter to most well-established training lore.

If not it wouldn't be the first time that 'the numbers haven't added up', as when Wiggins put his 4th place in the Tour down to weight loss, emphasising he had been careful to lose no muscle mass, and then provided figures that indicated he was previously racing at about 16% body fat, even though he looked like a stick!

Of course, the above might just be BS, but one would think that riders would be careful not to make bogus claims when they know that people will carefully analyse what they say, and that plenty of riders have been caught out when what they say to explain changes in their abilities has been shown to make no sense.

I don't know about the 95-97% bit. I have no idea where it comes from and if there is any truth to it. Maybe new advances have been made in training and nutrition and Sky are the first to latch on. I would say though that allegations of doping against Sky could be countered by the fact that, for such an obviously talented group of riders, they still have no GT win and no monument win (not even a podium in fact, just a couple of top 10s in the past 2 years). Let's not forget that after the spring classics season people on this forum were slagging Sky off.

As for the weight numbers, we've already had this discussion 3 or 4 times on here.

finchy

BikingBernie wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

As to things that Wiggins could say to increase my faith in him. Perhaps he could explain why he said nothing when he was kept off the TDF podium by a rider who not only has been implicated in doping by half the people he ever worked with, in that year's event raced with some very dodgy blood values, so much so that some prominent experts on doping publicly doubted that he was racing clean. I know if that was me and I was racing clean I would have been very vocal about it, but Wiggins said nothing. In fact he went out of his way to praise Armstrong and express his admiration for him!

Because he doesn't want to end up looking like a sore grapes loser? Why don't you ask him yourself instead of putting these things on a forum which he isn't going to read?

Because someone asked me what he could say to increase my faith in him, and I was simply giving them my answer? :roll:

No I didn't. I asked you why you don't write to him. :P

RichN95.

BikingBernie wrote:

That is fair enough. However, as I have said several times, what I really want to know is whether the reasons given for the apparent change in Wiggins' form - that he rides all year round at 95-97% and so forth - make any physiological sense, given that it seems to run counter to most well-established training lore.

What does 95-97% mean? This is a meaningless figure. Even when he was full of cake instead of EPO, Ullrich was at least at 90% capacity. A great amateur like Dr Hutch is around 90% of Wiggins at any time.

BikingBernie wrote:

If not it wouldn't be the first time that 'the numbers haven't added up', as when Wiggins put his 4th place in the Tour down to weight loss, emphasising he had been careful to lose no muscle mass, and then provided figures that indicated he was previously racing at about 16% body fat, even though he looked like a stick!

There were pictures of Wiggins at the 2009 Paris-Roubaix. A lot of people were shocked at who thin he looked. But then when he did well at the Tour, the likes of you piped up saying 'weight loss, where have we heard that before. Armstrong - that's where'.

BikingBernie wrote:

Of course, the above might just be BS, but one would think that riders would be careful not to make bogus claims when they know that people will carefully analyse what they say, and that plenty of riders have been caught out when what they say to explain changes in their abilities has been shown to make no sense.

You've spent years on this forum and C+ before that almost exclusively posting about Armstrong. And now he's gone. I understand your loss and the need to replace him. But don't get desperate. This probably isn't the scandal you're looking for. Contador is more accessible, but maybe he doesn't have the fans on here that you crave an argument with.
Seeing as you've never really posted about actual cycle racing, I assume you could easily transfer to different sport. Tennis looks suitable.

RichN95.

johnfinch wrote:

no monument win (not even a podium in fact, just a couple of top 10s in the past 2 years).

Flecha. 3rd Paris-Roubaix 2010. Credit where it's due.

But Sky's strengths certainly mirror the GB track team. The more controllable events (e.g. pursuit, stage races) they excel at, the more random events (e.g. points, classics) they are worse at.

finchy

RichN95 wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

no monument win (not even a podium in fact, just a couple of top 10s in the past 2 years).

Flecha. 3rd Paris-Roubaix 2010. Credit where it's due.

But Sky's strengths certainly mirror the GB track team. The more controllable events (e.g. pursuit, stage races) they excel at, the more random events (e.g. points, classics) they are worse at.

Ah, yes, silly me. Apologies to Juan.

BikingBernie

johnfinch wrote:

I don't know about the 95-97% bit. I have no idea where it comes from and if there is any truth to it.

From Wiggins himself:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins ... philosophy

RichN95.

BikingBernie wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

I don't know about the 95-97% bit. I have no idea where it comes from and if there is any truth to it.

From Wiggins himself:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins ... philosophy

So what about all those footballers that say they are going to give 110%. They must be on one hell of a doping program.

But seriously, he probably doesn't dip below 95%. Even riders with massive highs and lows like Ullrich and Schleck probably don't drop below 90% ever. It's a meaningless figure.