capriccioso

YOU LIKE LIVERPOOL?!

Haha, you should watch as much of South Africa as you can, they're the best team in the world at the moment. If you're looking for a team to support, here's a football comparison guide: Australia- Real Madrid. Between 1987 and 2007 Australia were so far ahead of the pack, winning 4 World Cups out of a possible 6 and aside from brief challenges from the West Indies, India and England, crushed everyone over that 20 year period, totally unopposed; similar to Real Madrid in the 50s. World Cup winners in 1987, 1999, 2003, and 2007; and runners up in 1996. Though still a fairly good team, Australia are light years away from their great teams of the 1890s, 1900s, 20s-40s, 70s, and 90-2000's. Bangladesh- Anzhi. New boys on the block who are fairly shit but improving, fast. England- A mixture of Leeds, Man United and Juventus. Like Australia, they have a great history, but as the fortune of Australian cricket rose, English cricket declined, and the last time (before recently) they were good was the early 80s. They were awful for the next 25 or so years, though. World Cup runners up 1979, 1987 and 1992. India- Man City. Huge money, huge potential, fairly good history. But they tend to be disliked by neutral fans because of their vast financial clout. World Cup winners 1983 and 2011, runners up in 2003. Pakistan- Napoli. Great past, bit of a decline in recent years but back on the rise. World Cup winners in 1992, runners up in 1999. New Zealand- Accrington Stanley. Shit throughout their history, barring brief periods of success during the 80s and early 00's. Sri Lanka- Arsenal. They play exciting cricket, but they don't usually win a lot of trophies to show for it. Consistently very good over the last 15 years, just not quite good enough to take that number one spot. World Cup winners 1996, runners up in 2007 and 2011. South Africa- Bayern Munich/English national team. Currently the best team on the planet, and at many times in their history, they were amongst the best on paper. A failure to execute during key occasions has cost them time and again, and they wear the tag of 'chokers' in world cricket. Threw away the 1999 World Cup semi-final against Australia in a fashion very similar to Bayern's 99 CL Final loss. West Indies- Liverpool. They had a 20 year period of utter dominance like Australia, except it stretched from the 60s to the 80s. Since the late 90's they've been pretty poor, though they are improving, albeit slowly. Like Liverpool, the way back to the top looks like a very long trip. World Cup winners in 1975 and 1979. Zimbabwe- Torino. In the 90s the future looked bright for Zimbabwean cricket, they had some brilliant players and after a sublime performance in the 1999 World Cup, it seemed as though by around 2015 they would be a cricketing power. Administrative problems, Robert Mugabe's racial policies and other internal disputes have torn apart the team and its potential. They aren't going to get to the top anytime soon.

I remember watching that when I was 11. As Mark Nicholas puts it, "So, so, good."

What's your position, SloJo? Oh, I know. Left-right-out.

But 'Cap' must be in the name, somewhere! Start a petition in the change name thread.

Should I change my name to Dr. Cap? Like for yes, quote for no.

I can do everything just fine, except have it in a bent position (as you would need to when cycling, obviously) for a long time. Running's no problem, because my knee is bent for seconds at the most.

Break into the sports market. Selling goods, hosting races, selling TV rights, creating franchises, producing riders, and in general raising people's awareness and interest. Lots of money in that. If Wiggins' win creates another 200k cycling fans in Britain, that's 200,000 people using UCI products, driving up TV rights, etc., for the rest of their lives. And it does work. I only got interested in cycling because of an Aussie, Robbie McEwen.

I was born with a messed up knee. I can't even ride an exercise bike for more than about 10 minutes without it freezing up. With my body, I could have been the next Marco Pantani. The world will never know what it missed out on

When word comes out, I'll bet the UK press will just blame the 'dirty Kenyan' Froome. Or the Aussies. Team Sky's Directeur Sportif, Sean Yates, was himself expelled from the sport for doping. How about that. A doper 'honestly' managing a team. If he's done it before, for his own gain, why wouldn't he do it again? Especially when he'll never face charges, only the riders and the doctors will. That's what will be in Yates' contract, all he has to do if he's charged is to say "I never worked with the medical department, I had no idea this was going on, my contract didn't require me to look into that".

2025 will be the year him and his cronies are busted. Assuming Froome doesn't sing the whole story before that date. Why 2025? It took Lance Armstrong 13 years to be brought to justice. Why that long? The International Cyclists' Union (UCI) are probably only behind FIFA in terms of corruption. They want English speaking riders to do well. They wanted an American to dominate the sport so they could crack the US market and make a packet of money. They've done that, so now they've hung him out to dry. They want British riders to dominate the sport so they can crack the UK market. Which so far they have done.

All the signs point to it. Team Sky have hired two doctors that have a notorious reputation. He's putting out performances that are slaughtering known, clean, world class cyclists like Nibali. His power data is mathematically impossible. He's not the tell though. The big indicators that something is going on at Team Sky are Chris Froome, and the Aussie duo of Richie Porte and Michael Rogers. Froome, gee, talk about donkey to racehorse, this guy was a nobody 11 months ago, about to have his contract cut. Suddenly he's the second best stage racer in the world. Richie Porte had a known dope doctor on his team last year but he was never this good. Michael Rogers hasn't shown this kind of form since 2006, where he was on a team that has now been disbanded because doping cases crippled it of its riders, sponsors and therefore finances.

That's not his heart rate. The yellow and green lines there are what you should be paying attention to. They give you information on his cadence (measured in RPM) and power (measured in watts). Looking at his cadence, its around a steady 105-115. His power is a lot more fluctuating, but we're seeing it spike up to 1000 watts many times. Now, when you take it a little further, you'll see that when his cadence rises (i.e. he's pedalling faster); his power rises. But its not consistent. He does not need to put out 1000 watts to accelerate. The power data there comes from ~40 km on a pan flat road. Here is one involving mountains, which require higher levels of power, and a lower cadence. Even on the massive climb, La Bola del Mundo, which is 21.8 km of pain at an average gradient of 6.2%, the last 3km of which are at an incredibly steep 12.3%, Nibali's power output never crosses the 400 threshold. As expected, his cadence drops on the climb, but to very low levels- between 40 and 60 RPM. That's the mark of either a very, very cunning doper or an honest rider.

Damn it, give me some graphs and I'll catch out a doper. What you want is beyond me

Ok, here we go: 1. Lose weight 2. Race fewer days prior to the Tour. 3. Higher cadence. (Contradicted a few weeks later by saying he has a lower cadence). 4. Warm downs 5. Importance of reccovery 6. Improved planning. That is Bradley Wiggins' list of excuses. Wiggins' reported V02 Max is 70-80; which is not all that high. For example Lance Armstrong (LOL) had a V02 Max of 84. Cadel Evans has a V02 Max of 87. Greg LeMond had a V02 Max of 89, Miguel Indurain; 94. Alberto Contador's V02 Max is the highest ever recorded by a cyclist, at an amazing 99.5. The general formula involving V02 Max and potential power output is V02 (litres per minute)= Power multiplied by 0.0108+ (0.007 multiplied by weight). Substituting in values, we should get 6.1 = (440*0.0108+0.007)(69). Instead, we get 5.235. A large discrepancy. He's lying about his power data. And as for his excuses: 1. At 69 kilograms he's still heavier than his nearest rival, Vincenzo Nibali. Also, he's an elite athlete with body fat levels varying from 4 to 8% depending on whether or not he's racing. Losing 13 kilograms would entail losing at least 12 kilograms of pure muscle. Despite that he has increased his wattage output. 2. If it was that simple, why haven't people done it yet? 3. Contradicted by himself. 4. Everybody warms up/down. 5. Recovery, eh? Do you mean EPO? 6. Everybody plans. Your director sportif (equivalent to a manager in football) is not some revolutionary tactician like Alexandre Vinokourov.

I can't tell you how many times I've lost connection and been given an automatic 3-0 loss.

My name is Eric, damn you! We're Catholic, only my dad (and his siblings + parents) have Sanskrito-Tamil names, my mums side all have Christian names

It's one of my passions, I love to look at data like that. It's one of the few things where I like to step out of my cognitive based comfort zone.

http://forum.cycling...isplay.php?f=20 Interpreting Wiggins' graph is simple. He's lying. This year he has defended himself from doping allegations by citing a lower cadence (that's revolutions of the wheels per minute, for non cycling fans). He was hitting 120 in 2009. He claims to be doing 100 now. That's not a big enough drop to explain his extra terrestrial performances. There's also little scientific evidence that proves the theory of lower cadence = higher wattage figures = better overall performance. He's been talking a lot of noise about having new crankshafts and mechanical improvements, but this is elite sport. All of the cyclists regardless of teams have excellent machines. It's not like bringing a Ferrari to a Toyota Yaris race; at the very best it would be like bringing a Bugatti Veyron to a McLaren F1 race, the advantage cannot be that impossibly large.

You haven't heard proper Tupac until you listen to the albums AmeriKKKa'z Most Wanted and All Eyez On Me. Dr. Dre is a perfectionist twat. Eminem is a rap legend, I can't think of any better lyricists than him, other than perhaps Ice Cube. And 80s rap, with groups like Public Enemy and N.W.A was the pinnacle of the genre, we'll never see better. Mind, underground artists that are around today are still immense. Talib Kweli wouldn't have looked out of place in the 80s.

I'm not a real doctor, I never took the Hippocratic Oath. My only interest in medicine is blood doping, how to spot a doper and sports science data. I live for things like this: I could analyse that for you, right now. I could do nothing else medical related.

I categorically hate 95% of rap singles released after the magic date of 1997. Kanye is a huge wanker, Love Lockdown and Jesus Walks aside, he's produced virtually nothing worthwhile. Even then, both of those songs are more like pop than hip-hop.

Dr. Eric Cap will never treat you again. </3

STOP JOKING ABOUT ME I SWEAR VINO WILL ATTACK YOU ALL FOR THIS