Half the world are assuming Wiggo dopes. It's gettng me down
Comments
-
aurelio wrote:
That implies that what is believable, is that you can still dope to the gills and get away with it!Cumulonimbus wrote:
As someone else said, that he got caught?Aurelio wrote:
He must be the only one to find anything to do with De Luca's bust 'unbelievable'!Paulie W wrote:'ll offer this recent statement: http://twitter.com/BradWiggins
It was a twitter post, not the Gettysburg Address. I think you're reading to much in to it just to be contrary.Twitter: @RichN950 -
I wasn't reading anything into what he said, just pointing out the implications of other peoples interpretations of what he meant!RichN95 wrote:It was a twitter post, not the Gettysburg Address. I think you're reading to much in to it just to be contrary.0 -
Pot and Kettle thread, years of throwing accusations at certain riders and the second a 'surprise' rider does well he is immediately dubbed as a doper.
Time will tell as more and more get caught, hopefully he is clean along with other riders who have suffered years of abuse by speculative members of the press and forum posters.0 -
aurelio wrote:
Yes, and he does seem to have lost a lot of weight. What surprises me is that if he was so 'fat' (relatively speaking) before, that he didn't think of losing a bit of weight earlier!Tom Butcher wrote:there were threads on here talking about how much weight Wiggins had lost well before he showed how much better he was climbing - I'm thinking about the pictures taken after Paris Roubaix.
He always loved his beer and he's given up drinking which must help.0 -
why on earth would anyone think he was doping? :roll: :roll:
0 -
Like who? Most of those for whom 'speculation' has been rife have been proved to be dopers, sooner or later, or at the very least have a shed load of evidence standing against them!Tempestas wrote:hopefully he is clean along with other riders who have suffered years of abuse by speculative members of the press and forum posters.0 -
aurelio wrote:
I wasn't reading anything into what he said, just pointing out the implications of other peoples interpretations of what he meant!RichN95 wrote:It was a twitter post, not the Gettysburg Address. I think you're reading to much in to it just to be contrary.
Let's work this one through shall we - you, Aurelio, seemed to imply in an earlier post that Wiggins has stopped being so vocal about dopers and doping by asking for some recent examples of him being so (the additional implication, as I read it, is that if Wiggins WAS doping then, he wouldnt feel comfortable moaning about dopers). I offered what I believe to be an example of him being vocal which was made today (recent enough for you).
Out of context you could read his statement in different ways - but the context here is a man who has been openly critical of dopers (not of dopers being stupid enough to be caught) so I think you have to work hard to read it as anything other than De Luca is a w*nker for doping.0 -
A perfectly reasonable interpretation. But what is so 'unbelievable'?Paulie W wrote:Out of context you could read his statement in different ways - but the context here is a man who has been openly critical of dopers (not of dopers being stupid enough to be caught) so I think you have to work hard to read it as anything other than De Luca is a w*nker for doping.
A pro bike rider who loves beer even more than winning. A man in the Mick Bradshaw mould perhaps!stagehopper wrote:He always loved his beer and he's given up drinking which must help.0 -
aurelio wrote:
A perfectly reasonable interpretation. But what is so 'unbelievable'?Paulie W wrote:Out of context you could read his statement in different ways - but the context here is a man who has been openly critical of dopers (not of dopers being stupid enough to be caught) so I think you have to work hard to read it as anything other than De Luca is a w*nker for doping.
Unbelievably idiotic I read it as.0 -
aurelio wrote:
Like who? Most of those for whom 'speculation' has been rife have been proved to be dopers, sooner or later, or at the very least have a shed load of evidence standing against them!Tempestas wrote:hopefully he is clean along with other riders who have suffered years of abuse by speculative members of the press and forum posters.
Snappy as usual and with a ! to finish, one big name rider springs to mind 'Lance Armstrong'....
/sits back and waits for large amounts of unproven accusations and speculations0 -
The scientific proof is good enough for me.Tempestas wrote:
Snappy as usual and with a ! to finish, one big name rider springs to mind 'Lance Armstrong'....aurelio wrote:
Like who? Most of those for whom 'speculation' has been rife have been proved to be dopers, sooner or later, or at the very least have a shed load of evidence standing against them!Tempestas wrote:hopefully he is clean along with other riders who have suffered years of abuse by speculative members of the press and forum posters.
sits back and waits for large amounts of unproven accusations and speculations
UCI experts do not believe in Armstrong
It may be that Lance Armstrong never officially tested positive, but according to Robin Paris Otto, one of UCI's anti-doping experts and the man who in 2000 developed the first analytical method for the detection of EPO, there is evidence that the opposite is true.
...He adds that the results which showed that the American was doped in1999 must be considered to be valid from a scientific point of view . "The methods used were valid. It is clear that the question mark concerning whether Armstrong was doped really is more of a legal than scientific nature. So there is scientific evidence that he was doped in1999 and that he took epo. To deny it would be to lie. "
http://www.feltet.dk/index.php?id_paren ... yhed=17128
"...there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden0 -
aurelio wrote:
The scientific proof is good enough for me.Tempestas wrote:
Snappy as usual and with a ! to finish, one big name rider springs to mind 'Lance Armstrong'....aurelio wrote:
Like who? Most of those for whom 'speculation' has been rife have been proved to be dopers, sooner or later, or at the very least have a shed load of evidence standing against them!Tempestas wrote:hopefully he is clean along with other riders who have suffered years of abuse by speculative members of the press and forum posters.
sits back and waits for large amounts of unproven accusations and speculations
UCI experts do not believe in Armstrong
It may be that Lance Armstrong never officially tested positive, but according to Robin Paris Otto, one of UCI's anti-doping experts and the man who in 2000 developed the first analytical method for the detection of EPO, there is evidence that the opposite is true.
...He adds that the results which showed that the American was doped in1999 must be considered to be valid from a scientific point of view . "The methods used were valid. It is clear that the question mark concerning whether Armstrong was doped really is more of a legal than scientific nature. So there is scientific evidence that he was doped in1999 and that he took epo. To deny it would be to lie. "
http://www.feltet.dk/index.php?id_paren ... yhed=17128
"...there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden
So when will he be banned for this?
If this was 100% true the UCI would have to act upon it0 -
aurelio wrote:Paulie W wrote:Out of context you could read his statement in different ways - but the context here is a man who has been openly critical of dopers (not of dopers being stupid enough to be caught) so I think you have to work hard to read it as anything other than De Luca is a w*nker for doping.
A perfectly reasonable interpretation. But what is so 'unbelievable'?
Unbelievable that someone would be doing CERA now?0 -
Ha! Don't make me laugh! Perhaps you don't know the history behind this, but the response of the UCI / Hein Verbruggen was to protect Armstrong, their icon of 'global cycling', by commissioning a notorious 'hatchet job' on the lab which did the research that turned up these positive tests. WADA described this report as being 'so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical'. (The UCI had already accepted a pre-dated Therapeutic Use Exemption from Armstrong when he tested positive for corticoids in the 1999 Tour despite this being against their rules and Armstrong only days earlier having stated that he had no active TUE).Tempestas wrote:
So when will he be banned for this? If this was 100% true the UCI would have to act upon itaurelio wrote:"...there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden0 -
-
aurelio wrote:
Hope you don't mind me asking, but is your native language English aurelio?0 -
stagehopper wrote:
It always happens doesn't it - you take somebody up on their language and you hit the wrong letter on the keyboard!
0 -
johnfinch wrote:aurelio wrote:
What pictures did you look at? Any differences should be very obvious. After all 7 kg is 15.4 pounds of fat / muscle! Now perhaps Wiggins really did have a 12.6% body fat, despite looking so 'skinny'. I would think that it was more realistic to think that his body fat percentage was previously about 8%. This would mean, according to your reasoning, that he has lost 7- 8 lb of muscle from his upper body, or about half a stone! That much extra muscle on his upper body should have made him look like a pedalling Arnie Schwarzenegger!johnfinch wrote:I never actually said that Wiggins HAS lost muscle mass, I only said that it is plausible. I have just done a quick google image search for Bradley Wiggins in 2007, and Bradley Wiggins now, and although I haven't exactly got a trained eye for this sort of thing, he does look like he isn't as muscular as he was back then.
Half a stone off a 190cm body? Again, you'll have to take my word for this, I'm as tall as Wiggins, and half a stone here or there does not make the difference between Arnie and an antelope.
Just type Bradley Wiggins 2007 into Google images and then do Bradley Wiggins 2009. It may just be my perception, but he does seem to have lost a fair amount of bulk since then.
Just as a quick one, here's the man in 2007
http://wa2.images.onesite.com/blogs.tel ... iggins.jpg
And 2009 from the Giro:
http://www.velonews.com/files/images/WIGGINS2.jpg
Like I say, I'm not really qualified to verify Wiggins' claims, as he wouldn't let me near him with my measuring instruments. I'm just going off what I can see. Maybe we need a third opinion.
His hair is a lot shorter this year. And no gel.
Maybe that's it...The most painful climb in Northern Ireland http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs200.snc1/6776_124247198694_548863694_2335754_8016178_n.jpg0 -
paulcuthbert wrote:johnfinch wrote:aurelio wrote:
What pictures did you look at? Any differences should be very obvious. After all 7 kg is 15.4 pounds of fat / muscle! Now perhaps Wiggins really did have a 12.6% body fat, despite looking so 'skinny'. I would think that it was more realistic to think that his body fat percentage was previously about 8%. This would mean, according to your reasoning, that he has lost 7- 8 lb of muscle from his upper body, or about half a stone! That much extra muscle on his upper body should have made him look like a pedalling Arnie Schwarzenegger!johnfinch wrote:I never actually said that Wiggins HAS lost muscle mass, I only said that it is plausible. I have just done a quick google image search for Bradley Wiggins in 2007, and Bradley Wiggins now, and although I haven't exactly got a trained eye for this sort of thing, he does look like he isn't as muscular as he was back then.
Half a stone off a 190cm body? Again, you'll have to take my word for this, I'm as tall as Wiggins, and half a stone here or there does not make the difference between Arnie and an antelope.
Just type Bradley Wiggins 2007 into Google images and then do Bradley Wiggins 2009. It may just be my perception, but he does seem to have lost a fair amount of bulk since then.
Just as a quick one, here's the man in 2007
http://wa2.images.onesite.com/blogs.tel ... iggins.jpg
And 2009 from the Giro:
http://www.velonews.com/files/images/WIGGINS2.jpg
Like I say, I'm not really qualified to verify Wiggins' claims, as he wouldn't let me near him with my measuring instruments. I'm just going off what I can see. Maybe we need a third opinion.
His hair is a lot shorter this year. And no gel.
Maybe that's it...
Less drag, that's for sure.0 -
Grown men discussing pictures of how bulky another man is? I thought this was a family site0
-
johnfinch wrote:paulcuthbert wrote:johnfinch wrote:aurelio wrote:
What pictures did you look at? Any differences should be very obvious. After all 7 kg is 15.4 pounds of fat / muscle! Now perhaps Wiggins really did have a 12.6% body fat, despite looking so 'skinny'. I would think that it was more realistic to think that his body fat percentage was previously about 8%. This would mean, according to your reasoning, that he has lost 7- 8 lb of muscle from his upper body, or about half a stone! That much extra muscle on his upper body should have made him look like a pedalling Arnie Schwarzenegger!johnfinch wrote:I never actually said that Wiggins HAS lost muscle mass, I only said that it is plausible. I have just done a quick google image search for Bradley Wiggins in 2007, and Bradley Wiggins now, and although I haven't exactly got a trained eye for this sort of thing, he does look like he isn't as muscular as he was back then.
Half a stone off a 190cm body? Again, you'll have to take my word for this, I'm as tall as Wiggins, and half a stone here or there does not make the difference between Arnie and an antelope.
Just type Bradley Wiggins 2007 into Google images and then do Bradley Wiggins 2009. It may just be my perception, but he does seem to have lost a fair amount of bulk since then.
Just as a quick one, here's the man in 2007
http://wa2.images.onesite.com/blogs.tel ... iggins.jpg
And 2009 from the Giro:
http://www.velonews.com/files/images/WIGGINS2.jpg
Like I say, I'm not really qualified to verify Wiggins' claims, as he wouldn't let me near him with my measuring instruments. I'm just going off what I can see. Maybe we need a third opinion.
His hair is a lot shorter this year. And no gel.
Maybe that's it...
Less drag, that's for sure.
Haha, right on! I think he's had a nose job. He looks like Concorde this year. Possibly to improve aerodynamics???The most painful climb in Northern Ireland http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs200.snc1/6776_124247198694_548863694_2335754_8016178_n.jpg0 -
Testing isn't very good, so saying "I've never tested positive" isn't good enough. The fact is that any cyclist who does well will be under suspicion. Especially those who have ridden like a donkey for years then all of a sudden do brilliantly. (eg Kohl) I've got no reason to believe BW is doping but then WTF do I know? And if you're driven to win, then saying "Doping is like a cancer in cycling" is pretty easy to say whether or not you're charged.0
-
What an odd question! Why do you ask?stagehopper wrote:Hope you don't mind me asking, but is your native language English aurelio?0 -
I'm guessing its cos you struggled with BW's twitter talk about Di Luca ?
I'd bet on BW being clean as :
1 He's got how many gold medals at the Olympics and Titles to his name - so he has pedigree
2 The pics at Paris Roubaix were shocking - so painfully thin - and thats what you need to be.
3 In the past he's been off the rails - with all that drinking after the Olympics - thats got to mess up your weight/season.
4 He's always slagged off dopers. Some riders still seem to keep quiet on the topic - that just makes me suspicious.
5 Contador just hammered him in the TT....0 -
In today's Independent there is an interview with Bradley Wiggins and it says he has asked the UCI to publish theblood values from his biological passport and will also be publishing Garmin's internal testing results. The data will be available on Monday.0
-
Bradley Wiggins is no doper, a simple look at the man's life and achievements thus far and the way he suffered today, should be enough to qualify that for anybody.
Anybody with any sense that is.
He's been a hero throughout the Tour this year, both in the race and on camera afterwards, and it's easy to see what it means to him and why.
He's a genuine guy, hit hard in the past, and a man that may have made life as tough as possible for himself at times.
As an Irish cyclist who grew up with Kelly, Roche, Early and Kimmage carrying the flag in the peloton and notwithstanding Nicholas Roche's achievement in this year's Tour, I envy the fact that UK fans have characters and riders of the quality of Wiggins and Cavendish in the Protour, and I congratulate them for giving me and my mates enjoyment this past three weeks.
I simply cannot understand why this daft debate has gotten legs, not to mention the fact that some of you wish Cavendish had Mother Teresa's personality.
Enjoy them while you can, riders wont realise until later in life how much a part of your sporting memories these guys will become.Spesh Works Roubaix '10
28 Charolais and counting.0 -
Foucault wrote:In today's Independent there is an interview with Bradley Wiggins and it says he has asked the UCI to publish theblood values from his biological passport and will also be publishing Garmin's internal testing results. The data will be available on Monday.
There we go, wouldn't it be nice if other riders did that. Instead, we get "next question"....Le Blaireau (1)0 -
DaveyL wrote:Foucault wrote:In today's Independent there is an interview with Bradley Wiggins and it says he has asked the UCI to publish theblood values from his biological passport and will also be publishing Garmin's internal testing results. The data will be available on Monday.
There we go, wouldn't it be nice if other riders did that. Instead, we get "next question"....
... maybe the 3 riders who will finish above him should do the same ?... Why wouldn't they, what have they got to hide if they are all riding clean ?... if they wont, well maybe tells you who the real winner is ?
0
