Doping brits

2456

Comments

  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    CyclingBantam wrote:
    I can't comment on the Millar comments. I didn't realise he had said Floyd should shut up. Have you a link?
    Here's one:

    Garmin-Transitions' David Millar, who came back in 2006 from a two-year doping ban after admitting his guilt, is furious at Landis.

    "He's reached the end of the road and I just find it disgusting," said Millar from his home training base in Girona, Spain. "He's a liar and a cheat and he has nothing left in cycling so he just wants to burn the house down.

    http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_15175682?

    I did read some similar comments from Miller, possibly in the news section of this site, where he was arguing that Landis should have kept quite as the era he was talking about was all in the past and it was bad for the image of cycling, especially when teams like Garmin were now racing clean. Ho hum...

    As to Wiggins' views on Armstrong

    Wiggins, who won two golds in Beijing to add to his Individual Pursuit title in Athens, has been outspoken in his criticism of cyclists who take performance-enhancing drugs. But the Londoner said in September that Armstrong's return was "fantastic" and "exciting" for the sport.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... cling.html
  • CyclingBantam
    CyclingBantam Posts: 1,299
    Fair enough. Burn the witch.

    :wink:
  • ThunderQuaker
    ThunderQuaker Posts: 3
    These are pretty poor links to say that Wiggins is doping. When he came fourth I seem to remember it being a tour which was suited to him. Two time trials, a team time trial in which he was part of a cracking team and the mountain stages were not the hardest. He didn't really set the race alight and hung in for as long as possible on the mountain stages consolidating his losses each day. He also went into the race not as a team leader and with no pressure on him at all. It was basically a perfect storm for a GT for Wiggins and he capitalised on this.
  • stfc1
    stfc1 Posts: 505
    BikingBernie wrote:
    CyclingBantam wrote:
    I can't comment on the Millar comments. I didn't realise he had said Floyd should shut up. Have you a link?
    Here's one:

    Garmin-Transitions' David Millar, who came back in 2006 from a two-year doping ban after admitting his guilt, is furious at Landis.

    "He's reached the end of the road and I just find it disgusting," said Millar from his home training base in Girona, Spain. "He's a liar and a cheat and he has nothing left in cycling so he just wants to burn the house down.

    http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_15175682?

    I did read some similar comments from Miller, possibly in the news section of this site, where he was arguing that Landis should have kept quite as the era he was talking about was all in the past and it was bad for the image of cycling, especially when teams like Garmin were now racing clean. Ho hum...

    As to Wiggins' views on Armstrong

    Wiggins, who won two golds in Beijing to add to his Individual Pursuit title in Athens, has been outspoken in his criticism of cyclists who take performance-enhancing drugs. But the Londoner said in September that Armstrong's return was "fantastic" and "exciting" for the sport.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... cling.html

    On the basis that speaking positively about Armstrong is tantamount to doping, Geraint Thomas's interview in this month's Sky Sports mag should please some:

    "I grew up watching Lance Armstrong winning the Tour de France, but I always wanted him to lose."

    Of course he does continue: "I supported Jan Ullrich." :wink:
  • eh
    eh Posts: 4,854
    Wasn't that long ago a Brit was rested from a high profile event for having a Hct greater than 50.

    but that was track so doesn't count, eh Dave?

    I assume you are talking about the GB rider who was on the same pro team as Millar from '01 to '03?
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Who was it on this forum again who refered to Flandis as a "c**t"?

    Marco Pinotti has talked about the conflict of being anti-doping and what you can say / think / feel.

    It's not a black and white issue.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • calvjones
    calvjones Posts: 3,850
    eh wrote:
    Wasn't that long ago a Brit was rested from a high profile event for having a Hct greater than 50.

    but that was track so doesn't count, eh Dave?

    I assume you are talking about the GB rider who was on the same pro team as Millar from '01 to '03?

    Indeedy.
    ___________________

    Strava is not Zen.
  • Neil Buckley
    Neil Buckley Posts: 334
    BarryBonds wrote:
    Which of our current crop of riders do you think (if any) will be the first to get caught using?

    and will the bust be from a large well funded organised team (like Sky) or one of the continental teams or another pro tour team?

    we could have a book

    What a stupid fucking thread by a fuckng stupid bloke...Ai Landis a cunt so is Di Luca, Ricco.....
    Helmand Province is such a nice place.....
  • Bakunin
    Bakunin Posts: 868
    iainf72 wrote:
    Who was it on this forum again who refered to Flandis as a "c**t"?

    Marco Pinotti has talked about the conflict of being anti-doping and what you can say / think / feel.

    It's not a black and white issue.

    Why is not a black and white issue? Is it that the UCI, the media, sponsors, riders, teams, and fans would lose money if it was a black and white issue?

    Cheating is a black and white issue -- there is a massive failure of will on all of our parts to stop it.

    Contador in the Giro this year, Basso in 2006 -- both dirty as sin? Probably, but I couldn't stop watching.

    It is what it is.
  • ThunderQuaker
    ThunderQuaker Posts: 3
    calvjones wrote:
    eh wrote:
    Wasn't that long ago a Brit was rested from a high profile event for having a Hct greater than 50.

    but that was track so doesn't count, eh Dave?

    I assume you are talking about the GB rider who was on the same pro team as Millar from '01 to '03?

    Indeedy.

    Are you on about Rob Hayles?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... -test.html
  • Cleat Eastwood
    Cleat Eastwood Posts: 7,508
    Bakunin wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Who was it on this forum again who refered to Flandis as a "c**t"?

    Marco Pinotti has talked about the conflict of being anti-doping and what you can say / think / feel.

    It's not a black and white issue.

    Why is not a black and white issue? Is it that the UCI, the media, sponsors, riders, teams, and fans would lose money if it was a black and white issue?

    Cheating is a black and white issue -- there is a massive failure of will on all of our parts to stop it.

    Contador in the Giro this year, Basso in 2006 -- both dirty as sin? Probably, but I couldn't stop watching.

    It is what it is.

    The road to 'cheating' is as ian suggests far from black and white. Here's a snippet of an interview Millar gave; he's been there, done that, wore the tainted T-shirt, doesn't sound like the choices presented to him to dope or not were anything other than morally complex.

    If you had to take a course of action to save the livelihoods of your 'family' and friends where would you honestly draw the line.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/8785907.stm
    The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
    momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Bakunin wrote:

    Cheating is a black and white issue -- there is a massive failure of will on all of our parts to stop it.

    I meant from a riders perspective. If you always assumed the rider ahead of you in a race was doping you're drive yourself absolutely insane.

    Or be French.

    I think as I rider you need to do the best you can and not assume whoever is beating you is cheating.

    Some people seem to think doping = bad or unpleasant person, but that's not true. You can be a blood transfusing EPO hound and still be a pleasant likeable guy.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,549
    iainf72 wrote:

    I meant from a riders perspective. If you always assumed the rider ahead of you in a race was doping you're drive yourself absolutely insane.

    Or be French.

    I think as I rider you need to do the best you can and not assume whoever is beating you is cheating.

    Some people seem to think doping = bad or unpleasant person, but that's not true. You can be a blood transfusing EPO hound and still be a pleasant likeable guy.

    Like Ricco or Di Luca or Armstrong you mean?
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    andyp wrote:

    Like Ricco or Di Luca or Armstrong you mean?

    Smarty pants.

    More like Hamilton or Basso or Contador or Millar.

    Something of this parish pointed out to me that during the "suspicion index" scandal, everyone was leaping to G. Thomas defence, but no one seemed to bother with Jez Hunt. Why is that?
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • P_Tucker
    P_Tucker Posts: 1,878
    andyp wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:

    I meant from a riders perspective. If you always assumed the rider ahead of you in a race was doping you're drive yourself absolutely insane.

    Or be French.

    I think as I rider you need to do the best you can and not assume whoever is beating you is cheating.

    Some people seem to think doping = bad or unpleasant person, but that's not true. You can be a blood transfusing EPO hound and still be a pleasant likeable guy.

    Like Ricco or Di Luca or Armstrong you mean?

    Well that proves it. Well done for selecting three convicted dopers who happen to come across as tools and ignoring those that don't. Amazing stuff.
  • P_Tucker
    P_Tucker Posts: 1,878
    iainf72 wrote:
    andyp wrote:

    Like Ricco or Di Luca or Armstrong you mean?

    Smarty pants.

    More like Hamilton or Basso or Contador or Millar.

    Something of this parish pointed out to me that during the "suspicion index" scandal, everyone was leaping to G. Thomas defence, but no one seemed to bother with Jez Hunt. Why is that?

    No-ones heard of him?
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,549
    edited June 2011
    P_Tucker wrote:

    Well that proves it. Well done for selecting three convicted dopers who happen to come across as tools and ignoring those that don't. Amazing stuff.

    WHOOSH2.gif
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,653
    iainf72 wrote:
    Bakunin wrote:

    Cheating is a black and white issue -- there is a massive failure of will on all of our parts to stop it.

    I meant from a riders perspective. If you always assumed the rider ahead of you in a race was doping you're drive yourself absolutely insane.

    Or be French.

    I think as I rider you need to do the best you can and not assume whoever is beating you is cheating.

    Some people seem to think doping = bad or unpleasant person, but that's not true. You can be a blood transfusing EPO hound and still be a pleasant likeable guy.


    It's hugely noticeable that Hamilton and Landis both go on about how "everyone was doing it". If the belief that the peloton is riddled with drugs is out there in the peloton itself then it's going to be very hard to not be tempted, especially if you keep getting beaten...

    Though of course it might just be a post-confession rationalisation...
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,653
    From a rider's perspective breaking the omerta must be seriously hard. Who are you going to denounce? The guy that pulls you up the mountain? The guy that leads out your sprint? The guy that works his arse off pulling in a breakaway?

    They're the people you'd be most likely to have direct knowledge of them doping.

    Or maybe you speak up about someone on another team, but how did you know? Because you used to ride with them? Or because one of your mates in the peloton carries his water? That's a betrayal of trust...
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • Rodrego Hernandez
    Rodrego Hernandez Posts: 1,436
    iainf72 wrote:
    andyp wrote:

    Like Ricco or Di Luca or Armstrong you mean?

    Smarty pants.

    More like Hamilton or Basso or Contador or Millar.

    Something of this parish pointed out to me that during the "suspicion index" scandal, everyone was leaping to G. Thomas defence, but no one seemed to bother with Jez Hunt. Why is that?

    The same Jeremy Hunt who suddenly dropped out of the Athens Olympics team and hasn't been picked to ride for GB until last year?
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    BikingBernie wrote:
    A huge question mark must hang over Wiggins. It is interesting how he went from being a Tour no-hoper who said things like "If there's a 1% suspicion or doubt that a team is involved in any way in a drugs ring or doping or working with certain doctors, then they shouldn't be invited to the Tour de France - as simple as that", to a supposed Tour contender who not only stopped making outspoken comments about doping, frequently sang the praises of the likes of Armstrong. He never even commented on the Landis revelations, and his Twitter feed went conspicuously silent the day the story broke.

    Maybe Wiggins changed his mind about the 1% suspicion when he was hauled into the police for questioning and then his team kicked off the Tour for 1 rider's positive test.

    I've never hear Wiggins single out a particular rider unless that rider had had a positive test/ban. If he was asked a question about Armstrong, he'd have to just ignore any of the doping stories. If you want to have your faith re-affirmed, why not wait until the Armstrong case is resolved, one way or another, then, if he is found guilty, contact BW over Twitter and ask his opinion?

    His Twitter feed didn't mysteriously go quiet on the day the Landis story broke - it went quiet a month before.
    BikingBernie wrote:
    Wiggin's explanation for his transformation into a 'TDF contender' also had an Armstrong-like flavour to it, claiming it was due to him losing weight. However like Armstrong's version what he said was riddled with inconsistencies. First he claimed he had been under the guidance of a doctor who ensured that he lost only fat and not muscle, then people did the maths and pointed out that according to his figures he was previously racing with over 12% body fat. Then he changed his story and claimed he had lost a lot of muscle mass as well...

    We went over this subject about 18 months ago. As I recall, he said that he burned off fat, and tried to minimise muscle loss.
    BikingBernie wrote:
    Miller is another one who has made it clear that he thinks the sport should just shut up about the issue of doping, and attacked Landis for revealing what he knows. Oh and he has been busted for Epo use in the past.

    I would imagine that quite a few people in the peloton hate Landis - the man has brought a hell of a lot of negative publicity to cycling - positive dope test, got millions in donations to fight it, wrote a book, then confessed all. Imagine if somebody did that much damage to your profession - wouldn't you be angry?
    BikingBernie wrote:
    Cavendish also has also sung the praises of Armstrong and is supposedly a good mate of his. He also seems to be very competitive, as long as there is no climbing involved...

    Very few sprinters have tested positive for dope, maybe Cav doesn't need it to compete? It's mainly been climbers and TTers.
    BikingBernie wrote:
    On the management side Yates has a long history of associating with some very dodgy teams and people, not least Armstrong and Bruyneel.

    True, but who, of his age, having worked in cycling all their lives, hasn't associated with some very dodgy teams and people? Marco Pinotti's ridden for Saunier Duval, Christophe Bassons for Festina, Cadel Evans for T-Mobile..... If they are all as clean as their reputations' suggest, then we can see that associating with doping doesn't necessarily equate to doping itself (although according to Wikipedia, Yates did test positive once in his career - not sure what for).
  • jerry3571
    jerry3571 Posts: 1,532
    I know someone who rode in France in the past with Jez Hunt being Devon chaps and they were suppose to be pretty friendly and my friend says that he was sure Jez Hunt was ok on the doping front. That was a few years back so things can change.
    Another mate of mine said when riding the Surrey League with Liphook Cycles they chased a rider all day who looked as though he was extremely stimualted at the start and they didn't see this guy until the finish. Can't remember which rider but I knew the name from him being a top National rider.
    It does go on..Hmmm...
    As I may have mentioned before, the whole Pro cycling scene is about keeping your job.
    Under 23s want to get to be a Neo pro, a Neo Pro wants to get on to a smaller or feeder Team and then get on to the 1st Team. A guy in the 1st Team wants to keep his/her place and doping is a way to do that. All the riders have a job to do and if a younger guy seems to be stronger than the older guy then doping can improve the older guys performance so he can protect his job. It's dog eat dog. If you refuse to dope and keep getting dropped then you get the sack and a pay cut. If you want the addictive adulation and big money then it's all out there if they want it.

    As far as Wiggins coming 4th, I think it is more about garmin than Wiggins. Garmin always seem to get a guy in the top placings at the Tour whether it is Wiggins, Hesjedal or Vande Velde.

    -Jerry
    “Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving”- Albert Einstein

    "You can't ride the Tour de France on mineral water."
    -Jacques Anquetil
  • emerywd
    emerywd Posts: 52
    BikingBernie wrote:
    CyclingBantam wrote:
    I can't comment on the Millar comments. I didn't realise he had said Floyd should shut up. Have you a link?
    Here's one:

    Garmin-Transitions' David Millar, who came back in 2006 from a two-year doping ban after admitting his guilt, is furious at Landis.

    "He's reached the end of the road and I just find it disgusting," said Millar from his home training base in Girona, Spain. "He's a liar and a cheat and he has nothing left in cycling so he just wants to burn the house down.

    http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_15175682?

    I did read some similar comments from Miller, possibly in the news section of this site, where he was arguing that Landis should have kept quite as the era he was talking about was all in the past and it was bad for the image of cycling, especially when teams like Garmin were now racing clean. Ho hum...

    As to Wiggins' views on Armstrong

    Wiggins, who won two golds in Beijing to add to his Individual Pursuit title in Athens, has been outspoken in his criticism of cyclists who take performance-enhancing drugs. But the Londoner said in September that Armstrong's return was "fantastic" and "exciting" for the sport.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... cling.html

    You're a self righteous idiot, taking quotes out of context and extrapolating opinion to suit your arguments. Facts man. Not opinion, mud slinging and guilt by association.
  • domhopson
    domhopson Posts: 259
    BarryBonds wrote:
    Which of our current crop of riders do you think (if any) will be the first to get caught using?

    and will the bust be from a large well funded organised team (like Sky) or one of the continental teams or another pro tour team?

    we could have a book

    Wiggins!!!
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    The thing with the idea that Wiggins doped at the 2009 Tour is that while there was an obvious improvement in his climbing, there was no change in his TT ability. As far as I know there's nothing which specifically makes climbing better. If had started doping, he would have beaten Cancellara and Contador in Annecy.

    There's probably not a single successful rider in the peloton that you can't construct some sort of doping case against by using some really tenuous 'evidence'. (Admittedly, Thomas Voeckler might be a stretch)
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Bakunin
    Bakunin Posts: 868
    Cleat Eastwood wrote:
    Bakunin wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Who was it on this forum again who refered to Flandis as a "c**t"?

    Marco Pinotti has talked about the conflict of being anti-doping and what you can say / think / feel.

    It's not a black and white issue.

    Why is not a black and white issue? Is it that the UCI, the media, sponsors, riders, teams, and fans would lose money if it was a black and white issue?

    Cheating is a black and white issue -- there is a massive failure of will on all of our parts to stop it.

    Contador in the Giro this year, Basso in 2006 -- both dirty as sin? Probably, but I couldn't stop watching.

    It is what it is.

    The road to 'cheating' is as ian suggests far from black and white. Here's a snippet of an interview Millar gave; he's been there, done that, wore the tainted T-shirt, doesn't sound like the choices presented to him to dope or not were anything other than morally complex.

    If you had to take a course of action to save the livelihoods of your 'family' and friends where would you honestly draw the line.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/8785907.stm

    Did you actually listen to the Miller interview? He said it very clearly -- he lost touch with reality, was somewhat manipulated (he was young), and then jumped in.

    That is not morally complex -- he made a decision to be a good pro, and doping is what you did.

    David Miller was not a victim, he was a cheat.
  • Bakunin
    Bakunin Posts: 868
    iainf72 wrote:
    Bakunin wrote:

    Cheating is a black and white issue -- there is a massive failure of will on all of our parts to stop it.

    I meant from a riders perspective. If you always assumed the rider ahead of you in a race was doping you're drive yourself absolutely insane.

    Or be French.

    I think as I rider you need to do the best you can and not assume whoever is beating you is cheating.

    Some people seem to think doping = bad or unpleasant person, but that's not true. You can be a blood transfusing EPO hound and still be a pleasant likeable guy.

    I don't follow you.

    From a riders perspective -- or a sponsor's, the team's, the UCI's, and especially fans (all of us) -- it is all very clear (it is very black and white). Dope has been the engine for the spectacle that we all love.

    Of course, Valverde is a nice guy. Ricco's mother thinks he is a wonderful son. Contador helps take care of his disabled brother. Lance does want to eradicate cancer. Basso and his sister are probably a laugh. DiLuca felt bad about what an earthquake did to a community. Ferrari and Fuentes are loved by their families. I believe all these things to be true.

    So what? They all made a decision to cheat. No one made them do it -- they made a decision to go down that path. The sport for all its beauty is rotten. I hate the cheats but I'm addicted to the spectacle. Am I a hypocrite -- probably.

    I just don't think we should make apologies for cheats -- i.e., it is complex, there are all sorts of shades of gray, can't let down the family, etc. We should just acknowledge what they are (cheats) and be clear about the state of pro cycling (very similar in a number of ways to pro wrestling).

    I think Nibs is correct -- if you want to do something about doping, take their licenses and rip them up, life-time bans all around. Yet, as a spectator, there is nothing better than watching them slug it out.
  • P_Tucker
    P_Tucker Posts: 1,878
    RichN95 wrote:
    The thing with the idea that Wiggins doped at the 2009 Tour is that while there was an obvious improvement in his climbing, there was no change in his TT ability. As far as I know there's nothing which specifically makes climbing better. If had started doping, he would have beaten Cancellara and Contador in Annecy.

    There's probably not a single successful rider in the peloton that you can't construct some sort of doping case against by using some really tenuous 'evidence'. (Admittedly, Thomas Voeckler might be a stretch)

    One could easily conceive of a combination of factors that would explain Wiggins freak 4th place - losing a bit of muscle would perhaps have hindered his testing (whilst helping in the mountains obv); doping may simply have restored his lost power. All very hypothetical.

    Of course, the most convincing argument that you can make in favour of anyone in the pro-peloton doping, including Voeckler, is job title.
  • jerry3571
    jerry3571 Posts: 1,532
    Lots of stuff here!
    "You're a self righteous idiot"- bit harsh Gentlemen; lets keep to Queensbury Rules; punches above the waistline and all that.
    The thing with the idea that Wiggins doped at the 2009 Tour is that while there was an obvious improvement in his climbing, there was no change in his TT ability. As far as I know there's nothing which specifically makes climbing better.

    Testosterone can aid a rider's position in the GC over 3 weeks. A rider who gradually fades in a Tour is a sign of a rider who is not on Steriods. The problem is that Wiggins did well in the TTs and Mountains and everything. It's ok to rest up and not push yourself in the Mountains and save yourself for a good TT but doing it all does suggest a little help from chemical assistance.

    Also why does a Cyclist have to have the morals of Mother Teresa. They are not employed to for thier ethics, only to be able to keep the wind off thier top riders and to keep going back to the car for bottles and also win races; that's thier job. If they can't do it clean then they'll do something so they can keep thier job.
    Also there are riders who do no drugs at all, some riders have a little help and others who have the full wack; so "in thier eyes", there are shades of grey in how much doping they need to do to keep thier job. This would be put against the health risks which certain drugs have and whether a rider wants to take the risk.
    If they get the Doping wrong; then it's the Death Penalty so having a 2 year ban does seem a little tame in the rider's eyes.

    -Jerry
    “Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving”- Albert Einstein

    "You can't ride the Tour de France on mineral water."
    -Jacques Anquetil
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    edited June 2011
    johnfinch wrote:
    BikingBernie wrote:
    Wiggin's explanation for his transformation into a 'TDF contender' also had an Armstrong-like flavour to it, claiming it was due to him losing weight. However like Armstrong's version what he said was riddled with inconsistencies. First he claimed he had been under the guidance of a doctor who ensured that he lost only fat and not muscle, then people did the maths and pointed out that according to his figures he was previously racing with over 12% body fat. Then he changed his story and claimed he had lost a lot of muscle mass as well...

    We went over this subject about 18 months ago. As I recall, he said that he burned off fat, and tried to minimise muscle loss.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... -de-france

    I've always had the physical ability to climb, but the big improvement this year is simply from losing weight. One kilogram of body weight over a 30-minute climb is one minute in time. That adds up to about 10 minutes over a three-week race, and if you start to add up the fact that you are shifting less weight every time you go up those little rolling hills we had on Thursday, every time you sprint out of a corner, it accumulates to a heck of a lot of time and energy.

    I was climbing fairly well in the 2007 Tour, but I've lost seven kilos since then: 78 to 71. It's taken nine months, in little increments, without any sort of crash diet. I've had regular check‑ups with Nigel Mitchell, the nutritionist at the Olympic team, to make sure I'm only burning fat, not any muscle. The last one was the day before the national championship, 28 June. He said I didn't have an ounce of fat left on my body. I was at 4% body fat, which is just at the point where you begin to burn muscle because there's nothing else left. It's not a very healthy level to be at, but it's only for these four weeks. It's been perfectly timed. As soon as the Tour is finished, my wife Cath is going to tie me up and force‑feed me cake.

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

    Bradley Wiggins: The transformation
    Monday, 28 December 2009

    British Cycling's Matt Parker has coached Wiggins for several years, and it was him who did the calculations. "We've always known there's a road rider in there," he says. "Brad is a supreme athlete. He's an Olympic champion and world record holder, the power he produces, we knew he could climb well, maybe not in the first group every day, but definitely in the second, and that would give him a chance of being in the top 10 of the Tour."

    Wiggins rode the Olympic Games last summer weighing 82kg. In the past he has ridden the Tour and Giro d'Italia at about 77kg or 78kg. The aim was to start the Tour this year at 72kg. It stands to reason that if you can produce 450 watts for 10 minutes weighing 72kg instead of 78, the gain in performance is going to be considerable. Enough, Parker says, to put him in the front group on the climbs.

    "You develop a lot of muscle mass, particularly on the upper body, while training for the track over the winter," says Parker. "We wanted him to lose that, but to do it slowly, so that it didn't affect his power.

    Do the maths: 71 kg = 4% body fat = 3 kg of fat, add the 7kg he supposedly lost (78kg total) = 10 kg of body fat. For a body weight of 78 kg this give 12.8% body fat. If he really raced at 82 kg and lost only fat this gives 14 kg of body fat or a whopping 17%.

    Clearly his original claim that he took care to lose only body fat and lost 7k ( or is that 11 kg) of fat was a nonsense, and his later claim that much of this weight was actually upper body muscle is also highly suspect. Just look at what even 4 kg of steak looks like.

Categories