Wiggo's form

DeadCalm

Jonathan Vaughters ‏@Vaughters
@UCI_Overlord not sure why ppl are surprised by sky:a few €800k guys pulling a €900k guy, who then pulls for a €1.3m guy,who helps a €2m guy

Gazzetta67

Bernie i think that wiggins results are a steady progression of hard work and lets face its he's hardly come out of knowhere eh.....Lets talk about Chris Froome if we want to mention his "weird" results....only result i could find up till before the vuelta was a win in that GRAND tour of Guadaloupe ?????? Call me old fashioned but this reminds me of a nobody i.e. Evgeny Berzin having no results of note to winning the giro

RichN95.

Gazzetta67 wrote:

Bernie i think that wiggins results are a steady progression of hard work and lets face its he's hardly come out of knowhere eh.....Lets talk about Chris Froome if we want to mention his "weird" results....only result i could find up till before the vuelta was a win in that GRAND tour of Guadaloupe ?????? Call me old fashioned but this reminds me of a nobody i.e. Evgeny Berzin having no results of note to winning the giro

As a 23 year old neo pro (with little road background), Froome did the Tour and came 30th on the Alpe d'Huez stage and 14th in the final TT, so there was clearly some potential there.

Gazzetta67

RichN95 wrote:

Gazzetta67 wrote:

Bernie i think that wiggins results are a steady progression of hard work and lets face its he's hardly come out of knowhere eh.....Lets talk about Chris Froome if we want to mention his "weird" results....only result i could find up till before the vuelta was a win in that GRAND tour of Guadaloupe ?????? Call me old fashioned but this reminds me of a nobody i.e. Evgeny Berzin having no results of note to winning the giro

As a 23 year old neo pro (with little road background), Froome did the Tour and came 30th on the Alpe d'Huez stage and 14th in the final TT, so there was clearly some potential there.

I bow to your superior knowledge Rich - giving what you have just said i just find it a little odd going from that to nearly winning one of the hardeast vuelta's for years...I started watching the tour in 82 and yes you could point to Fignon the next year winning his 1st tour....maybe like some of us 80's kids were just very cynical of what weve seen through the years.

RichN95.

Gazzetta67 wrote:

I bow to your superior knowledge Rich - giving what you have just said i just find it a little odd going from that to nearly winning one of the hardeast vuelta's for years...I started watching the tour in 82 and yes you could point to Fignon the next year winning his 1st tour....maybe like some of us 80's kids were just very cynical of what weve seen through the years.

Every sport has people that seemingly come out of the blue. Sometimes it's a fluke, sometimes it's dodgy and sometimes it's just opportunity, a bit of confidence and some defined goals.

With Froome, I think previously he may have been told to 'see what you can do, maybe get in the break, attack if you feel good' and he was a bit lost. While at the Vuelta, Sky probably told him 'at the 7km mark, hit the front with Brad on your wheel and rid at a steady 350w' and that worked for him.

heavymental

If you're going to be suspicious of Wiggo then you've got to ask yourself if you have any faith in pro cycling or indeed, your fellow man! The guy has never really done anything unexpected. His whole approach is anti doping, he speaks out against it and just his manner doesn't, to me, arouse any suspicion whatsoever. I've got better things to think about than whether or not Wiggins is doping. It really is a waste of time, no?

I'd be interested to know how his and Sky's training differs to any other team but I feel pretty safe in the knowledge that it isn't down to a dodgy doctor. It's quite a nice feeling of safety that has been quite rare until the last couple of years in pro cycling. I intend to enjoy it and I don't feel that is being ignorant, just enjoying the fruits of a little faith based on solid foundations.

Could be interpreted as blind faith but time will tell. Feel free to quote me when Wiggo gets busted as a complete dope fiend.

inkyfingers

Bernie, I have found your next target. You've made your feeling on him clear before, but don't waste the opportunity to have another go.

British - check
Successful - check
Large Ego - check
Playing the weight loss card - check

Knock yourself out:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12089/Nervous-Cavendish-working-hard-towards-Olympics-is-four-kilos-lighter.aspx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+velonation_pro_cycling+%28Cycling+News+%26+Race+Results+%7C+VeloNation.com%29

BikingBernie

ddraver wrote:

...except that you re not subjecting it to proper scrutiny - you re just making some scrutiny up and then saying it does nt fit.

That's because I have pointed out some claims that don't fit with what we know about physiology and so forth! If you can show me some figures that, for example, show that losing just 1kg will result in you climbing a minute faster over a 30 minute climb, which for the Pros' means a climb like the Joux-Plane, I will happily accept them.

ddraver wrote:

We don't have the whole story because Sky do not want everyone using their training methods..They are not peer reviewed, published results.

Thing is, there is a huge body of research relating to physiology, training and so forth, most of which indicates that a cyclical approach to training, 'peaking' and so forth give the best results. If Sky are using an approach that differs from that used by other teams, and it is genuinely more effective, I am sure that it must be supported by 'peer reviewed, published results' by others. If so I would love to read those papers. In fact I said the same very early on in this thread.

BikingBernie wrote:

All the studies of training methods I have ever read indicate that the most effective programmes are strongly cyclical in nature, with relatively few periods of targeted form. If anyone can point me in the direction of any others showing that this is false, I would love to read them.

napoleond

I don't normally post much in pro race. This ridiculous series of posts by bikingbernie reminds me why.

BikingBernie

inkyfingers wrote:

Bernie, I have found your next target. You've made your feeling on him clear before, but don't waste the opportunity to have another go.

British - check
Successful - check
Large Ego - check
Playing the weight loss card - check

Knock yourself out:

But Cavendish has always looked like a lardy 'sportive' rider to me, so he probably would benefit from losing a few kg!

http://velochimp.com/2012/05/cavendish- ... ng-pushed/

BikingBernie

NapoleonD wrote:

I don't normally post much in pro race. This ridiculous series of posts by bikingbernie reminds me why.

The only 'ridiculous' thing that have been said have not been said by me, such as Wiggins' claim that losing just 1kg would result in him climbing a 30 minute climb a minute faster. :roll:

napoleond

All I'm hearing is successful rider = must be doping. No evidence, just relentless drivel.

Maybe he is doping? We'll never know unless he rests positive. Maybe every rider is doping? Maybe only very few are.

What do you aim to achieve by your posts?

I for one feel like I'm seeing a much cleaner peloton that I have seen since I was a kid.

BikingBernie

NapoleonD wrote:

All I'm hearing is successful rider = must be doping.

That's obvious, and you are clearly not the only one. Why not try reading what has actually been said instead?
:roll: :roll: :roll:

BikingBernie

NapoleonD wrote:

All I'm hearing is successful rider = must be doping.

I take it that you didn't bother to even read this on the previous page? :roll:

BikingBernie wrote:

I know that people get all uppity when they feel that their 'sacred cows' are being challenged, but just to add a little perspective I feel that I should point out, again, that I have not categorically said that Wiggins / Sky are doping. Rather I have said that just because we want to believe in them, this doesn't mean we should accept everything that we are told at face value, as with Wiggin's claim that losing just 1kg will save you a full minute on a 30 minute climb. In fact, I have pointed out on other threads that there isn't the sort of evidence against Wiggins as stands against many other riders. For example:

BikingBernie wrote:

cycling5280 wrote:

Agree to disagree on Armstrong doping. Until he is busted I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Might as well throw Wiggins, Ryder, Cancellara and De Gendt under the bus because they are surprisingly stronger and faster now yet you have no hard proof they doped.

The thing is with the likes of Wiggins is that they haven't had half the people they have worked with, from riders to masseurs to doctors to mechanics all saying that they doped, as is the case with Armstrong. Nor has Epo been found in their samples, as is the case with Armstrong's. Nor has Wiggins had a long term relationship, kept secret for 6 years, with the most notorious doping doctor in the sport, as is the case with Armstrong. etc. etc. etc.

viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12856262&p=17645400

napoleond

TLDR

BikingBernie

NapoleonD wrote:

TLDR

No wonder you are talking out of your arse then. Unfortunately, plenty of others on here seem to have been responding in the same 'knee jerk' way without even bothering to read what has actually been said.

P.s. I hope that isn't too long for you to read. I do know that in the age of twitter many people can't process more than 160 characters at a time.

ilovebigwig

I can only ever deal with 140.

ddraver

We ve all read your posts bernie and we all think they're rubbish. You re opinion has no more validity than any other post here, unless you can point to something concrete, which thus far you have failed to do.

As to the last one, that's how science works, something new come out that is different and better and the subject moves on. This is particularly important in cycling as the subject has been masively skewed by doping for the last 20 years.

I suggest you talk to a sports scientist if you want to know the papers you need to read.

napoleond

I did read the post tbh, wish I hadn't bothered!

BikingBernie

ddraver wrote:

We ve all read your posts bernie and we all think they're rubbish.

So you think, for example, that Wiggins is right in claiming that losing just 1kg will see you up a 30 minute climb a full minute faster? That the finding of the last few decades of sports science are wrong? You can't argue against credulity like that...

Jez mon

BikingBernie wrote:

ddraver wrote:

We ve all read your posts bernie and we all think they're rubbish.

So you think, for example, that Wiggins is right in claiming that losing just 1kg will see you up a 30 minute climb a full minute faster? That the finding of the last few decades of sports science are wrong? You can't argue against credulity like that...

FWIW, I did an extremely basic calculation, based on how long it would take two riders (one 70 kg, one 69 kg) putting out 300W to gain the same amount of gravitational potential energy as they would climbing alp d'heuz

Basically, it's a bit of rubbish, but the time saving I got was well under a minute.

I put his climbing form down partially, to his weight, partially, down to the cleaner blood passport using peleton and down to the fact that he is now training for road racing, rather than 4000m efforts round a circle...

ddraver

You re not a.scientist are you - very rarely is science right or wrong, its good and better.

And as said before, I would ny take anything that Bradley says about numbers seriously, he just does what he's told, someone else does the analysis. Perhaps you need to re read some posts too?

RichN95.

BikingBernie wrote:

ddraver wrote:

We ve all read your posts bernie and we all think they're rubbish.

So you think, for example, that Wiggins is right in claiming that losing just 1kg will see you up a 30 minute climb a full minute faster? That the finding of the last few decades of sports science are wrong? You can't argue against credulity like that...

Do you take everything that comes out of a sportsmen's mouth as though it a scientific paper? It's just a trite generalisation and exaggeration. If a sportsman says he's 'going to give 110%', you think that's evidence of doping don't you?

And a lot of the last couple of decades of sports science in cycling has been based around doping programmes. The big peaks and troughs were due to doping programmes, in clean sport it's an outdated idea - it's all about being fresh, well rested and free of injury these days and maintaining a high year round level so you don't have waste time and energy getting into shape.

What are these 'training manuals' you read. I bet they're all prehistoric.

plectrum

ddraver wrote:

We ve all read your posts bernie and we all think they're rubbish.

It has nothing to do with sacred cows...more that people just do not believe you.

You are the one claiming guilt and so the onus is on you to prove evidence; You talk about weight, well what were his actual recorded weights. You talk about performance, well what is the peer reviewed papers linking climbing speeds and power output in relation to weight. Whether you have this evidence or not still doesn't even broach the doping query and for that where is the evidence that his performances i.e. power outputs, climbing speeds etc show any indication of doping. Have you at least analysed his bio-passport?

I would suspect the instant and honest response to all these questions is no.

I also am interested as to which performances are so unbelievable as to date I haven't seen Wiggins dominate in any mountain stage and to the contrary in all so far I have seen him struggle a little against those who are putting in the super human performances. i.e. in Vuelta vs Cobo (final position 3rd) or in Tour vs Contador/Schleck (final position 4th).

It is just that this year the field of main contenders does seem as clean as it has been and the race offers him much to suit. Most expect him to can the TTs and gain between 1m and 5 mins on his rivals, the most gained on those who will then win back a few minutes on him in the mountains.

This hasn't been rocket science, just a great TT who has altered his game to be able to contend the high mountains.

BikingBernie

Jez mon wrote:

FWIW, I did an extremely basic calculation, based on how long it would take two riders (one 70 kg, one 69 kg) putting out 300W to gain the same amount of gravitational potential energy as they would climbing alp d'heuz

Basically, it's a bit of rubbish, but the time saving I got was well under a minute.

Well, 300w would be too low a value to apply your figures directly to a Tour contender, but by 'well under a minute', I would think that you mean 'about 15 seconds', which is the figure I got using numbers more appropriate to Wiggins.

ddraver wrote:

And as said before, I would ny take anything that Bradley says about numbers seriously...

I see a consensus is developing on this point.

ddraver

BikingBernie wrote:

I see a consensus is developing on this point.

Well fine - but that does not equal doper

Are you going to watch the Tour this year now you can't dismiss everyone as a doper?

BikingBernie

RichN95 wrote:

And a lot of the last couple of decades of sports science in cycling has been based around doping programmes. The big peaks and troughs were due to doping programmes, in clean sport it's an outdated idea...

"In a clean sport". Wow, that the biggest declaration of unsubstantiated faith that I have ever seen with regards pro bike racing. More likely doping is still rife, but the gains to be had are now much less and they days of riders like Armstrong and Riis, riding with haemocrit levels of 58-64%, are over.

Fact is, many of the 'old school' are still involved in the sport, and that can hardly be a positive thing. For example, just look who is the team doctor for Sky: non other than Geert Leinders, the guy who was team doctor at Rabobank, and we all know what they got up to:

Team Rabobank tolerated the use of doping up until at least 2007, according to a Dutch newspaper. The riders could select their own products, but the team medical staff made sure that they did not hurt their health, the Volkskrant newspaper claimed. At least three former riders, including Michael Boogerd, were also said to have been involved in the HumanPlasma blood doping ring, as well.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/raboban ... ooy-claims

bompington

BikingBernie wrote:

ddraver wrote:

And as said before, I would ny take anything that Bradley says about numbers seriously...

I see a consensus is developing on this point.

Yes, and that just PROVES he's a doper! And hasn't he been seen wearing black socks? And doesn't he ride for a team that is sponsored by a company whose boss actually chose to be an american, so must be totally evil?
All we need now is a graph and then it'll be case closed.


Sadly, I suspect you won't be able to say the same for this thread for a while...

PS @dd - I don't think he dismisses everyone as dopers, it would appear that in BB-world the likelihood of a rider being a doper is roughly proportional to the degree of support shown on this forum ;-)

BikingBernie

plectrum wrote:

It has nothing to do with sacred cows...more that people just do not believe you. You are the one claiming guilt and so the onus is on you to prove evidence...

Show me just one post where I unequivocally say that Sky and Wiggins are doping. :roll:

I'll try positing the following for the third time, highlighted just for you in case you are hard of understanding...

BikingBernie wrote:

I know that people get all uppity when they feel that their 'sacred cows' are being challenged, but just to add a little perspective I feel that I should point out, again, that I have not categorically said that Wiggins / Sky are doping. Rather I have said that just because we want to believe in them, this doesn't mean we should accept everything that we are told at face value, as with Wiggin's claim that losing just 1kg will save you a full minute on a 30 minute climb. In fact, I have pointed out on other threads that there isn't the sort of evidence against Wiggins as stands against many other riders. For example:

BikingBernie wrote:

cycling5280 wrote:

Agree to disagree on Armstrong doping. Until he is busted I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Might as well throw Wiggins, Ryder, Cancellara and De Gendt under the bus because they are surprisingly stronger and faster now yet you have no hard proof they doped.

The thing is with the likes of Wiggins is that they haven't had half the people they have worked with, from riders to masseurs to doctors to mechanics all saying that they doped, as is the case with Armstrong. Nor has Epo been found in their samples, as is the case with Armstrong's. Nor has Wiggins had a long term relationship, kept secret for 6 years, with the most notorious doping doctor in the sport, as is the case with Armstrong. etc. etc. etc.

viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12856262&p=17645400

BikingBernie

bompington wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

ddraver wrote:

And as said before, I would ny take anything that Bradley says about numbers seriously...

I see a consensus is developing on this point.

Yes, and that just PROVES he's a doper!

For you maybe, but not for me. :roll:

Not even the fact that Geert Leinders, ex Rabobank doping doc, now works for Sky proves that they are doping. :roll: