Wiggo's form

Jez mon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab1kWb_f ... ature=plcp

Interesting to see Pat McQuaid saying similar things to many posters on here about the culture.

Interesting because many of the posters on here generally like to scoff at what comes out of his mouth, but also, there is a tacit admission that a lot of what went on in the past was heavily influenced by doping.

BikingBernie

jibberjim wrote:

Surely the peaking thing came about with Blood doping in the 80's when you needed to remove blood to have it later, ie it was the troughs which were enforced not the peaks. Of course there were always riders who did nothing in the off season, but they can be ignored as that's obviously not going to be possible nowadays.

The need to withdraw the rider's own blood is a very recent phenomenon. WADA only introduced a test for homologous blood doping in 2004. Before this test was introduced, and of course before EPO became the blood doping method of choice, anyone looking to artificially boost their haemocrit levels would have used homologous blood doping. This would not produce 'troughs' as there is no need to remove the rider's own blood.

Also, the use of a rider's own blood requires some expensive blood treatment and storage processes. The idea that in the 'old days' a rider could draw some blood, stick it in the fridge, and then re-inject it a few of weeks later during the Tour doesn't hold much water. Firstly, the rider would be starting the race without having made up all the cells they extracted, and a large proportion of those they might re-inject would no longer be viable. Because of this, such an unsophisticated approach to autologous blood doping simply doesn't work.

Edit: It is also worth noting that there is still no test for autologous blood doping.

BikingBernie

dougzz wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

No, it's more a case of 'Long, painful experience tells us that the best way to spot a doper is simply to look at who is standing on the podium, and whilst the sport may well be getting cleaner, and winning is no proof in itself of doping, it is always best to keep an open mind, especially when the reasons given by riders for going so well don't seem to hold water, when the team employs dodgy doctors and so forth.

The podium bit isn't really true is it. Lots of the EPO period doping was domestiques just trying to hang in there.

True enough, but you could pretty much guarantee that those on the podium were doping!

Pross

jibberjim wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

The 'peaking' thing came along when riders realised that racing in a half-knackered state all season was not necessarily the way to maximise their performance, and when increased incomes allowed riders to pick and choose their events and still earn a living.

Surely the peaking thing came about with Blood doping in the 80's when you needed to remove blood to have it later, ie it was the troughs which were enforced not the peaks. Of course there were always riders who did nothing in the off season, but they can be ignored as that's obviously not going to be possible nowadays.

That's my reading too and is in the part of my post that Bernie doesn't rebut so presumably there's something in it

Considering LA was the person who took peaking to the limits I'm surprised at Bernie suggesting that the reason behind cyclical peaking is all down to sports science.

On the 95 - 97% debate, does anyone on here record all their power data through the season? If so, how do you compare numbers wise between your peaks and troughs? Wiggins FTP is what, about 400 - 450w? So a 5% reduction would be 20 odd watts which is a fair drop in performance.

BikingBernie

Pross wrote:

jibberjim wrote:

Surely the peaking thing came about with Blood doping in the 80's when you needed to remove blood to have it later, ie it was the troughs which were enforced not the peaks. Of course there were always riders who did nothing in the off season, but they can be ignored as that's obviously not going to be possible nowadays.

That's my reading too and is in the part of my post that Bernie doesn't rebut so presumably there's something in it

Considering LA was the person who took peaking to the limits I'm surprised at Bernie suggesting that the reason behind cyclical peaking is all down to sports science.

I think you may have posted before seeing my last post about blood doping.

Nowhere have I said that 'cyclical peaking is all down to sports science'.

The need to use autologous blood doping after the Epo and homologous blood doping tests were introduced obviously provides another reason why riders might need to 'peak'. You are probably right about Armstrong taking this approach to the limit, given that he seemed to 'prepare' all year to ride a single race.

markwb79

Got to page 9 and then got really bored! But where to start....

You really are very miserable Bernie, why on earth do you involve yourself in this sport? You obviously dont believe in anything or anyone. Why not find a different sport?

Just because certain training methods have been around for a long time, that doesnt mean they cant be challenged and improved upon.

As for Wiggins, I dont think he has really been challenged that much this season. He won last week because of his TT and the lack of moutain top finishes. Regardless of the pass setting, very rarely do the main contenders gain large amounts of time when there is 20km of decending to the finish line.

Foorme and the Vuelta. I think he was lucky to get 2nd. Very similar to how Wiggins got 4th in the tour. Supporting a team mate etc.

Monty Dog

I think the 'troughs' were purely a myth to warrant the 'active rest' breaks that certain riders were prone too between their spring and GT campaigns - Manolo Saiz' riders were known exponents. Millar talks about this is his book, where riders simply 'disappeared' whilst they sought to dose-up on hormones and then would return to racing when their blood counts were nearer to normal.

dave_1

BikingBernie wrote:

jibberjim wrote:

Surely the peaking thing came about with Blood doping in the 80's when you needed to remove blood to have it later, ie it was the troughs which were enforced not the peaks. Of course there were always riders who did nothing in the off season, but they can be ignored as that's obviously not going to be possible nowadays.

The need to withdraw the rider's own blood is a very recent phenomenon. WADA only introduced a test for homologous blood doping in 2004. Before this test was introduced, and of course before EPO became the blood doping method of choice, anyone looking to artificially boost their haemocrit levels would have used homologous blood doping. This would not produce 'troughs' as there is no need to remove the rider's own blood.

Also, the use of a rider's own blood requires some expensive blood treatment and storage processes. The idea that in the 'old days' a rider could draw some blood, stick it in the fridge, and then re-inject it a few of weeks later during the Tour doesn't hold much water. Firstly, the rider would be starting the race without having made up all the cells they extracted, and a large proportion of those they might re-inject would no longer be viable. Because of this, such an unsophisticated approach to autologous blood doping simply doesn't work.

Edit: It is also worth noting that there is still no test for autologous blood doping.

but they can see autologus transfusion from the effect it has on red cells..so there is a test in that indirectly they see extraction-transfusion. EPO micro dosing isn't so safe and only covers the troughs..the peaks can't be disguised so easily. There is a high risk of being caught if you blood dope now....and that's why they are getting slower now..

cycling5280

Wiggins has the form of his life right now and had last week been the Tour he would of crushed everyone. He has peaked too soon and will slow in the 3rd week of the Tour. No way can he hold his form until July 22 unless of course he's on the Armstrong 'training' program that had him win the Dauphine and Tour back-to-back.

BikingBernie

Dave_1 wrote:

they can see autologus transfusion from the effect it has on red cells..so there is a test in that indirectly they see extraction-transfusion. EPO micro dosing isn't so safe and only covers the troughs..the peaks can't be disguised so easily. There is a high risk of being caught if you blood dope now....and that's why they are getting slower now..

Doping might have moved on from the days of Riis and Armstrong, but big gains are still to be had from micro-dosing and other blood manipulation techniques, and it is quite possible for such manipulations to remain invisible to the blood passport programme. This has been highlighted by a number of riders, including Jorg Jaksche and Landis, and by academic studies. For example:

Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011 Sep;111(9):2307-14. Epub 2011 Feb 20.
Current markers of the Athlete Blood Passport do not flag microdose EPO doping.
Ashenden M, Gough CE, Garnham A, Gore CJ, Sharpe K.

The Athlete Blood Passport is the most recent tool adopted by anti-doping authorities to detect athletes using performance-enhancing drugs such as recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO). This strategy relies on detecting abnormal variations in haematological variables caused by doping, against a background of biological and analytical variability. Ten subjects were given twice weekly intravenous injections of rhEPO for up to 12 weeks. Full blood counts were measured using a Sysmex XE-2100 automated haematology analyser, and total haemoglobin mass via a carbon monoxide rebreathing test. The sensitivity of the passport to flag abnormal deviations in blood values was evaluated using dedicated Athlete Blood Passport software. Our treatment regimen elicited a 10% increase in total haemoglobin mass equivalent to approximately two bags of reinfused blood. The passport software did not flag any subjects as being suspicious of doping whilst they were receiving rhEPO. We conclude that it is possible for athletes to use rhEPO without eliciting abnormal changes in the blood variables currently monitored by the Athlete Blood Passport.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21336951

That biological passport, which monitors blood values and urine samples over time in order to build evidence of blood manipulation and is financed in large part by the sport's elite tier of teams, was put into place to supplement traditional drug testing.

Yet according to Landis, teams and riders with enough monetary resources and sophisticated medical advice knew how to circumvent the biological passport even before its official implementation in 2007.

Landis told ESPN.com last week that during the two or three years leading up to his 2006 Tour de France victory -- subsequently nullified after he tested positive for synthetic testosterone -- he and some of his fellow riders combined strategically timed transfusions and microdoses of EPO (erythropoietin, a red blood cell booster) in order to keep their blood values constant rather than spiking and dipping.

The main difference between their methodology and that of riders in the 1990s, Landis said, was riders of his era learned to inject EPO intravenously rather than subcutaneously, as a cancer patient or someone with another grave illness would do.

When EPO is injected under the skin, it is absorbed first into soft tissue and released into the bloodstream gradually, prolonging its therapeutic effects. Injecting EPO intravenously has the same effect of boosting red blood cell count and improving oxygen processing capacity. However, the drug disperses more quickly in the bloodstream and thus becomes undetectable sooner -- especially if riders dilute their blood with an intravenous drip of saline solution or simply by drinking a lot of water after injecting it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/n ... id=5222488

tailwindhome

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cavendi ... r-olympics

ratsbeyfus

I think anyone who has suspicons about Wiggins being a doper really should concentrate on Brailsford instead, as it is hard to see how Wiggins could be doped up without the tacit or overt support of Brailsford.

William Fotheringham's Guardian article is worth a read:

Sky's strength, says Brailsford, is the result of careful team building, bringing in riders who would be capable of leading another squad in the Tour. ...
"If it came out of the blue people would be entitled to raise their eyebrows but it's not new, they should look at our record on the track where we went from nothing to dominate an Olympic Games. We've taken the same approach, the same methodology and we are seeing improvements."

Has there ever been any evidence to suggest that the Brailsford's success at improvng British success on the track was anything to do with doping? I'm certainly not aware of any (but would happily read any coherant articles that suggest otherwise). Brailsford appears to be the real deal - i.e. a top class coach/manager. Does this mean that it's impossible to imagine Brailsford actually being an evil genius dope pushing power crazed fiend who's in the pocket of the Murdoch empire and the Western military-industrial complex? No. Does this mean that his (ahem) track record means he's earned the right to be given the benefit of doubt until evidence to the contrary exists? Yes.

Mark my words, if Twiggy wins the tour it won't be long before Southampton sign up Brailsford to be their new director of football a-la Sir Clive Woodward.

BikingBernie

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Brailsford appears to be the real deal - i.e. a top class coach/manager.

A rare breed then. Almost every manager I have ever encountered has been autocratic, self-serving and frequently incompetent. The only real skills many of them seemed to have was the ability to suck up to those in more senior positions and fluency in 'management speak' and 'double think'

bompington

BikingBernie wrote:

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Brailsford appears to be the real deal - i.e. a top class coach/manager.

A rare breed then. Almost every manager I have ever encountered has been autocratic, self-serving and frequently incompetent. The only real talent many of them seemed to have was sucking up to those in more senior positions!

Bernie, in a lot of your posts you hint at vast experience and inside knowledge of sport. Care to tell us your story?

BikingBernie

bompington wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

A rare breed then. Almost every manager I have ever encountered has been autocratic, self-serving and frequently incompetent. The only real skills many of them seemed to have was the ability to suck up to those in more senior positions and fluency in 'management speak' and 'double think'.

Bernie, in a lot of your posts you hint at vast experience and inside knowledge of sport. Care to tell us your story?

You misread me. I was referring to my experiences of working in industry and higher education. OK, Brailsford might be a 'coach/ manager', but all the stuff that seems to come out of the Sky camp about 'inner chimps' and so forth makes me think that Brailsford would feel right at home in many management teams. Christ, the guy's even got an 'MBA'. :roll:

'Managerialism' is the scourge of our age...

cougie

His team gets results though.

Cyclists are never happy - I remember a time when it was exciting to have one British rider in the Tour and any placing on a stage was a cause for celebration. Now we're arguing about how the team manager expresses himself ?

tremayne

BikingBernie wrote:

bompington wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

A rare breed then. Almost every manager I have ever encountered has been autocratic, self-serving and frequently incompetent. The only real skills many of them seemed to have was the ability to suck up to those in more senior positions and fluency in 'management speak' and 'double think'.

Bernie, in a lot of your posts you hint at vast experience and inside knowledge of sport. Care to tell us your story?

You misread me. I was referring to my experiences of working in industry and higher education. OK, Brailsford might be a 'coach/ manager', but all the stuff that seems to come out of the Sky camp about 'inner chimps' and so forth makes me think that Brailsford would feel right at home in many management teams. Christ, the guy's even got an 'MBA'. :roll:

'Managerialism' is the scourge of our age...

What the cocking hell are you on about?

Its precisely the revised approach to management that has put British Cycling in the incredible (and envious from every other countries perspective) position that it is now. BC, through management has achieved literally just about everything. It will never just be about the riders. Somehow, they have to be motivated, listened to, encouraged, helped, mothered, disciplined, etc. Fantastic article in The Times today (many pages long) which is comparing the BC approach to modern business and basically suggesting that big biz could learn a thing or two..... (worth a read)

mroli

Cougie - I think you err in thinking a) that everyone on here is British; and b) that everyone on here who is British is fussed about having British winners.

Bernie - I note what you say about managers, but I would also say that a good manager is worth his/her weight in gold. Brailsford has said that a lot of the "track" secret squirrel stuff wasn't so much about the gains that the kit brought, but the reassurance that the riders had that the kit they were riding was top drawer and the very best they could get. This took out all the insecurity and gave them confidence - which was what gave them the extra % they needed to win.

I know that some of the work done with Wiggins is along those lines - people have described him as like a highly strung racehorse during races and now he is "calmer"

BTW - I wish people would stop getting so FURIOUS at what Bernie has to post - he has a different point of view to people and whilst it may be baffling and bewildering to some (and annoying to others), let him have it.

Monty Dog

You only have to read David Millar's book to understand why Sky's approach is so radical when traditional team management meant leaving riders to their own devices, perhaps under their own coach or, ahem, doctor to develop their own training plans. This 'hands-off' approach was one of the key contributors 'see-no-evil' anti-doping philosophy i.e. what they didn't know about, they didn't worry about.
All Sky have done is take a more hand's-on approach one step further and focused on the management of the team rather than a roster of individuals and ensure everyone is peaking for the same event.
As far as Sky having some other form of 'programme' or preparation, I would hazard that it's highly unlikely because of their high-profile sponsorship, there are plenty out their in media-land who would like the gloss to come off - so expect there's plenty of digging and searching for evidence going on and yet nothing's turned up.

BikingBernie

tremayne wrote:

Its precisely the revised approach to management that has put British Cycling in the incredible (and envious from every other countries perspective) position that it is now. BC, through management has achieved literally just about everything.

Including giving rider talks about their 'inner chimps' and making Rabobank's former doping doctor a part of the team.

tremayne wrote:

It will never just be about the riders. Somehow, they have to be motivated, listened to, encouraged, helped, mothered, disciplined, etc.

Wow, revolutionary. I bet no one has ever thought of that before...

tremayne wrote:

Fantastic article in The Times today (many pages long) which is comparing the BC approach to modern business and basically suggesting that big biz could learn a thing or two..... (worth a read)

Any chance of posting a copy somewhere? I am certainly not paying to look behind Murdoch's Times paywall.

RichN95.

Monty Dog wrote:

You only have to read David Millar's book to understand why Sky's approach is so radical when traditional team management meant leaving riders to their own devices, perhaps under their own coach or, ahem, doctor to develop their own training plans. This 'hands-off' approach was one of the key contributors 'see-no-evil' anti-doping philosophy i.e. what they didn't know about, they didn't worry about.
All Sky have done is take a more hand's-on approach one step further and focused on the management of the team rather than a roster of individuals and ensure everyone is peaking for the same event.
As far as Sky having some other form of 'programme' or preparation, I would hazard that it's highly unlikely because of their high-profile sponsorship, there are plenty out their in media-land who would like the gloss to come off - so expect there's plenty of digging and searching for evidence going on and yet nothing's turned up.

I not sure they're the one's who are being radical. I think Garmin and HTC did many of the same things first. Sky are building on their lead with a much bigger budget.

tremayne

BikingBernie wrote:

tremayne wrote:

Its precisely the revised approach to management that has put British Cycling in the incredible (and envious from every other countries perspective) position that it is now. BC, through management has achieved literally just about everything.

Including giving rider talks about their 'inner chimps' and making Rabobank's former doping doctor a part of the team.

tremayne wrote:

It will never just be about the riders. Somehow, they have to be motivated, listened to, encouraged, helped, mothered, disciplined, etc.

Wow, revolutionary. I bet no one has ever thought of that before...

tremayne wrote:

Fantastic article in The Times today (many pages long) which is comparing the BC approach to modern business and basically suggesting that big biz could learn a thing or two..... (worth a read)

Any chance of posting a copy somewhere? I am certainly not paying to look behind Murdoch's Times paywall.

About the only thing I'm prepared to agree with you on is that a dissapointingly high percentage of managers can't be bothered to listen, have better things to do than encourage, haven't got time to help, etc, etc. This makes them bad managers and not worth the money they are paid. They are out there and sometimes one doesn't have to look too far.
What BC have done in managerial terms is nothing short of incredible. Yes, the 'inner chimp' is a nice little tag for haters to pick on but there is simply no denying what they have been able to achieve.
Yes, TheTimes is a Murdoch owned title, but a paper of that significance isn't likely to punt out a ten page spread linking the success of British Cycling to cutting edge management - just because JamesM said so.

You think my comments regarding management are 'wow, revoluntionary - I bet no one thought of that before'?? Tell that to every cyclist (or employee) who's personal performance is below what it could be - due to bad management....

Paulie W

BikingBernie wrote:

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Brailsford appears to be the real deal - i.e. a top class coach/manager.

A rare breed then. Almost every manager I have ever encountered has been autocratic, self-serving and frequently incompetent. The only real skills many of them seemed to have was the ability to suck up to those in more senior positions and fluency in 'management speak' and 'double think'

Generally if you keep having the same problem with a group of disparate people YOU are the problem.

gabriel959

Monty Dog wrote:

You only have to read David Millar's book to understand why Sky's approach is so radical when traditional team management meant leaving riders to their own devices, perhaps under their own coach or, ahem, doctor to develop their own training plans. This 'hands-off' approach was one of the key contributors 'see-no-evil' anti-doping philosophy i.e. what they didn't know about, they didn't worry about.
All Sky have done is take a more hand's-on approach one step further and focused on the management of the team rather than a roster of individuals and ensure everyone is peaking for the same event.
As far as Sky having some other form of 'programme' or preparation, I would hazard that it's highly unlikely because of their high-profile sponsorship, there are plenty out their in media-land who would like the gloss to come off - so expect there's plenty of digging and searching for evidence going on and yet nothing's turned up.

All based on guess and faith.

Seems like this forum was all well and good when it came to point out the ridiculous performances of foreign riders but when it comes to speaking about your own, all the possible eyebrow-raising performances get hidden under the carpet of "management wizards" or "altitude training in the Canary Islands" or other crap created by the propaganda machine. And to top it all up references to the biggest hypocrite in the sport, David Syringe Millar.

timoid.

gabriel959 wrote:

All based on guess and faith.

Seems like this forum was all well and good when it came to point out the ridiculous performances of foreign riders but when it comes to speaking about your own, all the possible eyebrow-raising performances get hidden under the carpet of "management wizards" or "altitude training in the Canary Islands" or other crap created by the propaganda machine. And to top it all up references to the biggest hypocrite in the sport, David Syringe Millar.

Agree completely up to the last sentence. You can sweep a lot under a chimp shaped rug, but Millar has been a force for good in the past few years. Compare his attitude to that of say Valverde, Ricco or Di Luca.

gabriel959

Oh well, those are worse if that helps!

Valverde is probably the worst of them all, mostly because he is spanish and I understand his crap.

RichN95.

gabriel959 wrote:

Seems like this forum was all well and good when it came to point out the ridiculous performances of foreign riders but when it comes to speaking about your own, all the possible eyebrow-raising performances get hidden under the carpet of "management wizards" or "altitude training in the Canary Islands" or other crap created by the propaganda machine. And to top it all up references to the biggest hypocrite in the sport, David Syringe Millar.

But this forum doesn't point out doping in 'ridiculous' (or just unexpected) performances by foreigners. We tend to give riders the benefit of the doubt. Where are accusations against Sagan or Hesjedal or De Gendt or Gilbert or Voeckler? If it's someone with a past then maybe something may be said.

TMR

Paulie W wrote:

Generally if you keep having the same problem with a group of disparate people YOU are the problem.

A woman said that to me once

inseine

Cougie - I think you err in thinking a) that everyone on here is British; and b) that everyone on here who is British is fussed about having British winners.

That's an interesting point. I think if you are Bristish it's easier to empathise with another Brit. if you care about football and your English you're going to support England. I think if British cyclists are successful it's good for the sport in the UK. It's an over simple extrapolation, but cycling is way more popular today than it was when we did nothing on the world stage.
I know it's not cool, but I'm keen to follow SKYs exploits. Maybe it's because I don't live in the UK.

timoid.

RichN95 wrote:

gabriel959 wrote:

Seems like this forum was all well and good when it came to point out the ridiculous performances of foreign riders but when it comes to speaking about your own, all the possible eyebrow-raising performances get hidden under the carpet of "management wizards" or "altitude training in the Canary Islands" or other crap created by the propaganda machine. And to top it all up references to the biggest hypocrite in the sport, David Syringe Millar.

But this forum doesn't point out doping in 'ridiculous' (or just unexpected) performances by foreigners. We tend to give riders the benefit of the doubt. Where are accusations against Sagan or Hesjedal or De Gendt or Gilbert or Voeckler? If it's someone with a past then maybe something may be said.

[devil's advocate]
- Sagan has been great straight off the blocks, so no magical improvement there
- Hesjedal rides for a genuinely transparant team (and still had a few things slung at him after the Giro)
- De Gent was a once off stage. If he monsters people around next season, tongues may start wagging
- Gilbert has always been a vocal advocate of clean cycling and there has been a natural progression to his career
- Voeckler DID raise a few eybrows with his performance last year. Not the same TV that yo-yo off the back in 2004.
[/devil's advocate]