Team GB - Proof that cycling is now clean?
Comments
-
Gossip and tittle-tattle now? Jesus wept.
The gist of your argument on Wiggins seems to be this; because he doesn't say what you'd expect him to say, then he must be doping.
It's a shame you're not a lawyer, you'd be a brilliant success with logic like this.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:I often wonder why Wiggins, once an outspoken critic of doping and dopers, should have become so reticent on the issue now that he is is up there with the big hitters. I know that if I came 4th in the Tour de France behind 3 people associated with doping I would find it hard to be uncritical, if I had ridden clean. Certainly, many take the refusal of riders like the Schlecks to be openly critical of those who have been convicted of doping suggests and who finished ahead of them as being evidence that they too are on 'the hot sauce'. I feel the 'old' Wiggins would have been even more outspoken, and yet he has instead gone out of his way a number of times to openly praise Armstrong. How odd.
On the subject of oddness, I was told by a training partner of his that he bought a surprise present for his wife this Christmas: an appointment to have breast enlargement surgery. Word is she didn't know whether to be pleased or insulted!
His new found GT ability is through losing a bit of weight though remember?"A cyclist has nothing to lose but his chain"
PTP Runner Up 20150 -
ShockedSoShocked wrote:BikingBernie wrote:I often wonder why Wiggins, once an outspoken critic of doping and dopers, should have become so reticent on the issue now that he is is up there with the big hitters.
His new found GT ability is through losing a bit of weight though remember?
That's what Armstrong claimed as well...
Wiggins first claimed that he had lost nothing but body fat and had a doctor /dietician controlling his diet so that he lost no muscle mass and so power. Then people looked at the figures have gave and realized that, if they were true, although he was already a very skinny looking pro beforehand, his body fat percentage would have had to be somewhere between 15 and 16%, which was obviously nonsense. Wiggins then gave a different story saying that he had actually lost a lot of muscle mass as well. Might all be a mistake, but bells inevitably ring when people claim their transformation from also-ran into podium contender is all down to weight loss and the figures they give simply don't make any sense.0 -
Both worked with Allen Lim as well, as did Landis."A cyclist has nothing to lose but his chain"
PTP Runner Up 20150 -
BikingBernie wrote:ShockedSoShocked wrote:BikingBernie wrote:I often wonder why Wiggins, once an outspoken critic of doping and dopers, should have become so reticent on the issue now that he is is up there with the big hitters.
His new found GT ability is through losing a bit of weight though remember?
That's what Armstrong claimed as well...
Wiggins first claimed that he had lost nothing but body fat and had a doctor /dietician controlling his diet so that he lost no muscle mass and so power. Then people looked at the figures have gave and realized that, if they were true, although he was already a very skinny looking pro beforehand, his body fat percentage would have had to be somewhere between 15 and 16%, which was obviously nonsense. Wiggins then gave a different story saying that he had actually lost a lot of muscle mass as well. Might all be a mistake, but bells inevitably ring when people claim their transformation from also-ran into podium contender is all down to weight loss and the figures they give simply don't make any sense.
Not sure he claimed it was all down to weight loss. Anybody could see that he had lost significant weight before the 2009 tour. Whether it was all fat, or mainly fat and some muscle, its likely to have had an impact (cf Lance who I believe - and I'm sure you can clarify - didn't actually lose significant weight post the big C). There was also a big change in his mental approach to road racing in 2009. Look at him on the start ramp in Monaco, he looked 100% focused and up for it like I had never seen him in a road race before. He has since continued to step up his workrate, seems to have cut down on the previously reported drinking sessions and carb-munching during training and overall I'd say his progress seems genuine.
Also, factor in that it might be that other riders are cleaning up their act that makes him (and the other Brits) appear relatively better.
None of us can rule out anyone being on PEDs, but I don't think there's a lot you can base allegations against Wiggins on.0 -
Similarly I find it odd that Brailsford was sat across a table from Millar when the Police kicked the door in yet that seemed to be kept relatively quiet. His policy for not hiring anyone with a history of doping seemingly didn't extend to backroom staff when he took on Yates, Sutton and Sunderland.
Was it kept quiet though? Millar certainly doesn't think it was - covered in quite a lot of detail in his book. I think that Brailsford has interviewed and discussed this quite a lot too.
Also, he has addressed the backroom staff question a lot too - in fact you posted on a thread where it was discussed/debated almost a year ago: viewtopic.php?p=16770121
In fact - I'm sure that we've done this entire thread before too in some form or another!http://www.georgesfoundation.org
http://100hillsforgeorge.blogspot.com/
http://www.12on12in12.blogspot.co.uk/0 -
Crankbrother wrote:Jez mon wrote:The track success.
A select few, talented very talented riders, a highly controlled environment, and notably, few other nations who take it seriously, with success came money, which bred more success.
I'm not saying they didn't dope. But it's hardly difficult to see why we dominated the track, a serious lack of quality competition.
So we are to believe that while GB miraculously found about 10 world beaters in the space of about 2 years, every other country just so happened to be sh!t? ... Colour me sceptical ... It's like saying LA only won 7 TdF's as the competition was rubbish ... and we all know about the level that his competition was working at ...
Which two years did they suddenly appear over? The British track success was built up from Keen taking charge in the early 90s and seriously concentrating on the details resulting in Boardman's win in '92. The introduction of lottery funding in the mid 90s gave BC the funding to really push things on towards the Sydney games which is when the cyclists really became a force. I was talking to a mate who is track coach for another international team who started out coaching with BC. He was saying how Keen would look at the best in every field that could offer an improvement and entice them to join him.
Look at the track world's results from '95 onwards (lottery started in '94):-
95 1 Gold
96 1 Gold
97 1 Bronze
98 Nothing
99 1 silver
00 1 gold 2 silver 2 bronze
01 1 silver 1 bronze
02 3 gold 1 silver 1 bronze
03 2 gold 1 silver 1 bronze
04 2 gold 2 silver 1 bronze
05 4 gold 1 silver 1 bronze
06 1 gold 4 silver 1 bronze
07 7 gold 2 silver 2 bronze
08 9 gold 2 silver
09 2 gold 4 silver 3 bronze
10 3 gold 5 silver 1 bronze
11 2 gold 4 silver 3 bronze
To me that looks perfectly normal. A few years of quality coaching and significant funding increase before the medals started to come, tapering to a peak over the next few years and dropping off a bit as others catch up and the new generation of riders start to come in (and less Olympic events so less focus on some others).0 -
Like BB, I am very wary of Wiggo's silence in last couple of years.
I hope it's because continuing to be so vociferously anti-doping might lead to others GC contenders co-operating to eliminate him from contention. But I have this nagging fear that it might be for other reasons.
I also hate the nagging fear I get when I think back to the video of Cav with Big George and specifically LA. Looked to me as though he got on too well with LA, inner circle like. Hoping it's just me being mistaken and/or being overly cynical.
Let's face it, if Wiggo, Cav, Froome weren't British then I (and many others on here) would suspect them dirty. That leaves me with suspicions.0 -
Choppered wrote:Like BB, I am very wary of Wiggo's silence in last couple of years.
I think three things have happened in the last few years.
1. He became somebody that journalists actually listened to, rather than just Cycling Weekly, so he toned it down a bit.
2. He had some achievements to talk about, so he preferred to talk about them
3. David Millar became the go-to guy for doping quotes for the British media
As a further point, while some people are often quick to point the finger at a cyclist for riding for a series of dodgy teams (e.g see Contador), they never apply it the other way around. If Wiggins is doping, then why does he keep picking the worst teams to do it at?Twitter: @RichN950 -
Choppered wrote:Like BB, I am very wary of Wiggo's silence in last couple of years.
I hope it's because continuing to be so vociferously anti-doping might lead to others GC contenders co-operating to eliminate him from contention...
But if doping was no longer the norm, surely there would no longer be any need to adhere to the 'omerta'? And if doping is still the norm, how on Earth can a clean rider hope to beat the dopers?0 -
Come on now Bernie, where's the graph? Without it this is all the purest speculation...0
-
JonGinge wrote:I think it's more that he's now concentrating on the road. Before 2009 the road was just the day job between the important track meets.
Do they exist?
0 -
RichN95 wrote:Choppered wrote:Like BB, I am very wary of Wiggo's silence in last couple of years.
I think three things have happened in the last few years.
1. He became somebody that journalists actually listened to, rather than just Cycling Weekly, so he toned it down a bit.
2. He had some achievements to talk about, so he preferred to talk about them
3. David Millar became the go-to guy for doping quotes for the British media
As a further point, while some people are often quick to point the finger at a cyclist for riding for a series of dodgy teams (e.g see Contador), they never apply it the other way around. If Wiggins is doping, then why does he keep picking the worst teams to do it at?
Here's some more possibilities for your list:
4. He's a bit more cautious having been taken in by the police to be questioned following his team-mates positive test.
5. He feels that clean riders have more chance of success these days: Hushovd, Evans, Gilbert, himself
6. Dopers can no long act with impunity: Since 2006 there have been lengthy suspensions for loads of the sport's top names: Basso, Valverde, Contador, Ullrich, Di Luca, Petacchi, Ricco, Rasmussen, etc.
7. He's said what he has to say many, many times before and doesn't feel the need to keep repeating his opinion.0 -
Brailsford has always said that the road team would have as a basic underpinning principle, it's running as a clean team. I don't think other team managers have stated similar aims as strongly as David has - maybe apart form Vaughters but he has taken on acknowledged dopers whereas Brailsford has not ?
Of course if it possible that either that was a smokescreen or he changed his attitude as time has gone on but it would be a total about face if his team was found to be running/allowing doping to knowingly take place in his team and he woudl be out of a job sharpish if that was discovered.
Despite being one of the best-funded teams in the peleton they have only had relatively limited success -Team GB/Sky are not sweeping all before them in a USPS at the TdF manner. Certainly some of their riders, Wiggins and Cavendish to name but 2, have been handled by the Team GB system and have had some great results but this has been, in the main, down to maximising the rider's performance : Worlds - flat course, team totally dedicated to 1 man, TdF 2009 - course suiting Wiggins and weaker opposition than some years, Cav green jersey 2011 - pretty dedicated trade team, aiming for a small number of specific stages, able to ride to lose tons of time elsewhere.
Re Wiggins comments on other riders, I can see that it could be pretty difficult to work (ride) alongside other guys and their friends and team-mates who you have just slated off in the press that morning. Anyone that did similar in a more normal working environment would find it a pretty uncomfortable thing to do so as Wiggins has continued in the pro-peleton he may find the idea of tempering his comments as something that he has needed to do.0 -
Surely, he would only need to 'temper his comments' if they were still doping? And if they are still doping surely this would mean his comments about getting on the podium in the Tour are little more than hot air?andyrr wrote:Re Wiggins comments on other riders, I can see that it could be pretty difficult to work (ride) alongside other guys and their friends and team-mates who you have just slated off in the press that morning. Anyone that did similar in a more normal working environment would find it a pretty uncomfortable thing to do so as Wiggins has continued in the pro-peleton he may find the idea of tempering his comments as something that he has needed to do.0 -
Pre-2009 Wiggins was very much an outsider in the peloton and spoke like one as he had no status or position to protect. If he pissed people off, so what?
There is no question that he is less emotive and less vocal about doping and dopers since the Tour 2009. This may be because he himself is now a doper. It may also be because he has a status within the peloton to protect and cant afford to say things that will impact on that status. This may disappoint us but he is an insider in a culture that has traditionally kept silent on the subject of doping for a range of reasons. It also strikes me that he is just generally less controversial these days not just in relation to doping (perhaps Sky are coaching him).0 -
I think also that people are forgetting what happened over the "should David Millar be able to ride in the Olympics" question. Wiggins was asked, gave an honest answer, it made massive sporting news, Millar got pissed off, Wiggins had to "retract" his position to stop it being a massive story. Whatever happened to a presumption of innocence?http://www.georgesfoundation.org
http://100hillsforgeorge.blogspot.com/
http://www.12on12in12.blogspot.co.uk/0 -
Choppered wrote:Let's face it, if Wiggo, Cav, Froome weren't British.
But hang on, they are only British because they hold the passport
Wiggo- Born in Belgium?
Froome - Born somewher in Africa
Cav - Born on some provincial island
Thats it they must be dopers after all LOLCoach H. (Dont ask me for training advice - 'It's not about the bike')0 -
Which only makes sense if doping is still rife. No?Paulie W wrote:...It may also be because he has a status within the peloton to protect and cant afford to say things that will impact on that status. This may disappoint us but he is an insider in a culture that has traditionally kept silent on the subject of doping for a range of reasons...0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Which only makes sense if doping is still rife. No?Paulie W wrote:...It may also be because he has a status within the peloton to protect and cant afford to say things that will impact on that status. This may disappoint us but he is an insider in a culture that has traditionally kept silent on the subject of doping for a range of reasons...
So maybe doping is less prevalent/effective than in the past.0 -
the whole point of the omerta metaphor is that everyone, not just the bad guys, has to keep quiet.
cycling certainly has an omerta, and one of the things that means is that even if you're clean you shut up or suffer (in a million intangible ways) for speaking out.
if I was a clean rider turning into a GC contender, even if I had got away with having a loose mouth so far, I'd shut up about doping. unless you carve out a niche for yourself as a special case (like Millar) speaking out can only harm you. this is just the sad reality of pro cycling and wiggins has no individual responsibility to trade his chances as a rider for the future of the sport.
hopefully one day this will change. ideally because the bad bad days are already over and a transition is slowly happening. if that's optimistic, hopefully one day it will become true. but it clearly hasn't yet.
i'm not saying he's clean. i'm saying that his silence is prudent and provides zero evidence against him.0 -
Choppered wrote:Let's face it, if Wiggo, Cav, Froome weren't British then I (and many others on here) would suspect them dirty. That leaves me with suspicions.
A bit unfair. Among various successful cyclists over the last few years, I haven't seen accusations levelled at Hushovd, Voeckler, Gilbert, Evans....
People will start to make accusations when there is some evidence against Wiggins, Cavendish or Froome. There is a lot of evidence (as opposed to proof) for Lance Armstrong, but none whatsoever against the riders mentioned.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Which only makes sense if doping is still rife. No?Paulie W wrote:...It may also be because he has a status within the peloton to protect and cant afford to say things that will impact on that status. This may disappoint us but he is an insider in a culture that has traditionally kept silent on the subject of doping for a range of reasons...
Maybe but maybe not because the peloton "culture" appears pretty conservative and slow to change.0
