Bradley Wiggins - Legend?
Comments
-
gabriel959 wrote:Jay dubbleU wrote:I'm curious as to why Armstrong is held responsible for the doping reputation of the tour - the only thing against him at the moment is rumour and innuendo. Doping on the tour started with Tommy Simpson's generation and has continued to date with Contador
He is because he failed 6 doping tests, because according to certain scientists the performances he did achieve are not actually physiologically achievable by any human being that didn't take drugs, because more than one of his teammates has tested positive for doping, for all the new blood data that has just come up to the fore... etc...
Did he really fail 6 tests? I knew there was one which supposedly "went away" after an alleged payment to the UCI and then there was one retrospective test where he complained there was contamination but I wasn't aware of the others. How did he get away with them? Lots of dodgy payments?0 -
ShandyH wrote:gabriel959 wrote:Jay dubbleU wrote:I'm curious as to why Armstrong is held responsible for the doping reputation of the tour - the only thing against him at the moment is rumour and innuendo. Doping on the tour started with Tommy Simpson's generation and has continued to date with Contador
He is because he failed 6 doping tests, because according to certain scientists the performances he did achieve are not actually physiologically achievable by any human being that didn't take drugs, because more than one of his teammates has tested positive for doping, for all the new blood data that has just come up to the fore... etc...
Did he really fail 6 tests? I knew there was one which supposedly "went away" after an alleged payment to the UCI and then there was one retrospective test where he complained there was contamination but I wasn't aware of the others. How did he get away with them? Lots of dodgy payments?
They're being investigated by the USADA.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... MmMw&pli=1
OFF score is a score for how suspicious blood doping is. 85-93 ish is OK. Over 100 is looking dodgy.0 -
BigMat wrote:gabriel959 wrote:rubertoe wrote:
It is ok - better than the insults but his argument is lacking in logic, look at Lance Armstrong, Alberto Contador, Pantani, etc...
I don't follow? He is giving HIS reasons why HE would never dope. Its as emphatic a denial as you could ever hope to hear. What "logic" does it lack?
The same reasons HE uses why HE would never doped weren't sufficient for plenty of riders in the past to dope.
Lance Armstrong, Pantani, Virenque, Contador, Merckx, etc...x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
Commuting / Winter rides - Jamis Renegade Expert
Pootling / Offroad - All-City Macho Man Disc
Fast rides Cannondale SuperSix Ultegra0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:ShandyH wrote:gabriel959 wrote:Jay dubbleU wrote:I'm curious as to why Armstrong is held responsible for the doping reputation of the tour - the only thing against him at the moment is rumour and innuendo. Doping on the tour started with Tommy Simpson's generation and has continued to date with Contador
He is because he failed 6 doping tests, because according to certain scientists the performances he did achieve are not actually physiologically achievable by any human being that didn't take drugs, because more than one of his teammates has tested positive for doping, for all the new blood data that has just come up to the fore... etc...
Did he really fail 6 tests? I knew there was one which supposedly "went away" after an alleged payment to the UCI and then there was one retrospective test where he complained there was contamination but I wasn't aware of the others. How did he get away with them? Lots of dodgy payments?
They're being investigated by the USADA.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... MmMw&pli=1
OFF score is a score for how suspicious blood doping is. 85-93 ish is OK. Over 100 is looking dodgy.
So those results from 16th and 17th June 2009 are way off the charts? I can see 4 over 100. In today's testing would these constitute a ban or is this just indicator that something is amiss but whatever it is remains unidentified?0 -
These figures don't "prove" anything, that's the problem with it..
2009 looks very dodgy, although it would be more concrete if 2010 followed a similar pattern.
Interesting though.0 -
pitchshifter wrote:These figures don't "prove" anything, that's the problem with it..
2009 looks very dodgy, although it would be more concrete if 2010 followed a similar pattern.
Interesting though.
Very interesting. Cheers RC.0 -
Riders can only be responsible for themselves, not what anyone else does."If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got."
PX Kaffenback 2 = Work Horse
B-Twin Alur 700 = Sundays and Hills0 -
I think the assumption is that the figures are put up against the testimonies from former teammates.
USADA seem to be suggesting there's a correlation between the offscores and what they're suggesting Armstrong was up to.0 -
-
rubertoe wrote:Riders can only be responsible for themselves, not what anyone else does.
That I would agree, in any case, doping or not, I think that is much better than his poor previous rants which didn't help him.x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
Commuting / Winter rides - Jamis Renegade Expert
Pootling / Offroad - All-City Macho Man Disc
Fast rides Cannondale SuperSix Ultegra0 -
gabriel959 wrote:rubertoe wrote:Riders can only be responsible for themselves, not what anyone else does.
That I would agree, in any case, doping or not, I think that is much better than his poor previous rants which didn't help him.
Doping or not? What are you on about? He's clearly clean and has worked his nuts off to get to where he is. What during this race points towards any doping by him or Sky? If he was doping he would have flown up that mountain yesterday to catch Froome when Froome pushed on with 3km to go. As for Froome, in a team managed by Brailsford, who has ploughed a consistent furrow on anti-doping, I would absolutely say his performances are credible. He's come back from 2 years of illness into the prime of his cycling age and it seems you assume it is dope-fuelled. It's extraordinarily cynical. I think it's totally feasible that he, a very talented climber could push those numbers? It's not like they're doing Armstrong's times up the mountains is it?0 -
gabriel959 wrote:BigMat wrote:gabriel959 wrote:rubertoe wrote:
It is ok - better than the insults but his argument is lacking in logic, look at Lance Armstrong, Alberto Contador, Pantani, etc...
I don't follow? He is giving HIS reasons why HE would never dope. Its as emphatic a denial as you could ever hope to hear. What "logic" does it lack?
The same reasons HE uses why HE would never doped weren't sufficient for plenty of riders in the past to dope.
Lance Armstrong, Pantani, Virenque, Contador, Merckx, etc...
do you think there is any "logical" reason not to dope then? I think the cultural differences are valid - former dopers here aren't welcomed back with open arms in the same way as Virenque, Valverde etc (obviously Millar is an exception
)
By the way, sorry bout the capitals, came over all DennisN there!0 -
gabriel959 wrote:BigMat wrote:gabriel959 wrote:rubertoe wrote:
It is ok - better than the insults but his argument is lacking in logic, look at Lance Armstrong, Alberto Contador, Pantani, etc...
I don't follow? He is giving HIS reasons why HE would never dope. Its as emphatic a denial as you could ever hope to hear. What "logic" does it lack?
The same reasons HE uses why HE would never doped weren't sufficient for plenty of riders in the past to dope.
Lance Armstrong, Pantani, Virenque, Contador, Merckx, etc...
do you think there is any "logical" reason not to dope then? I think the cultural differences are valid - former dopers here aren't welcomed back with open arms in the same way as Virenque, Valverde etc (obviously Millar is an exception )
By the way, sorry bout the capitals, came over all DennisN there!0 -
BigMat wrote:gabriel959 wrote:BigMat wrote:gabriel959 wrote:rubertoe wrote:
It is ok - better than the insults but his argument is lacking in logic, look at Lance Armstrong, Alberto Contador, Pantani, etc...
I don't follow? He is giving HIS reasons why HE would never dope. Its as emphatic a denial as you could ever hope to hear. What "logic" does it lack?
The same reasons HE uses why HE would never doped weren't sufficient for plenty of riders in the past to dope.
Lance Armstrong, Pantani, Virenque, Contador, Merckx, etc...
do you think there is any "logical" reason not to dope then? I think the cultural differences are valid - former dopers here aren't welcomed back with open arms in the same way as Virenque, Valverde etc (obviously Millar is an exception )
By the way, sorry bout the capitals, came over all DennisN there!
Yes, health reasons alone would warrant it for me, not saying it would be the same for everyone else.
Aren't they? David Millar is one, but what about Tom Simpson, he is seen as a legend here in the UK and as far as I know he is the only cyclist of his generation to have died during a race because of drug intake. That is grotesque.x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
Commuting / Winter rides - Jamis Renegade Expert
Pootling / Offroad - All-City Macho Man Disc
Fast rides Cannondale SuperSix Ultegra0 -
Is Simpson a legend? His story is well known and well read because it's so sad, not because it's something to aspire to.Mud - Genesis Vapour CCX
Race - Fuji Norcom Straight
Sun - Cervelo R3
Winter / Commute - Dolan ADX0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Asprilla wrote:Is Simpson a legend? His story is well known and well read because it's so sad, not because it's something to aspire to.
Was a bloody good cyclist.
Yes, but the reason he stands out is his tragic death, not his palmares.Mud - Genesis Vapour CCX
Race - Fuji Norcom Straight
Sun - Cervelo R3
Winter / Commute - Dolan ADX0 -
Asprilla wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Asprilla wrote:Is Simpson a legend? His story is well known and well read because it's so sad, not because it's something to aspire to.
Was a bloody good cyclist.
Yes, but the reason he stands out is his tragic death, not his palmares.
Sure, but if he was a rubbish cyclist who died, no-one would have paid any attention.0 -
Asprilla wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Asprilla wrote:Is Simpson a legend? His story is well known and well read because it's so sad, not because it's something to aspire to.
Was a bloody good cyclist.
Yes, but the reason he stands out is his tragic death, not his palmares.
Slightly unfair, he is one of the greatest British cyclists ever based purely on results. Granted he is more famous because of the way he died.0 -
I think the thing with Simpson is that the manner in which he doped was pretty much accepted as the norm in those days. If he pushed it too far, he certainly paid the price. Back then the penalty for failing a doping test was a time penalty (I think) - it just wasn't looked upon in the same way as now. To judge him from a moral standpoint that didn't exist when he was cycling, especially given the manner of his death, would strike me as "grotesque".
The main reason he is held in such high esteem amongst UK cyclists is because he was a massive trailblazer. Without him and his contemporaries there would probably be no road cycling inthe UK. To do what he did - give up everything and move to Europe where he didn't speak the language or understand the culture, and achieve what he did was phenomenal. The drugs may have helped level the playing field but he was clearly a talented guy.
The thing about road cycling in the UK in general is that it has always been marginalised, I remember years where we had nobody riding the Tour, entire seasons where a lone success in a "chipper" would be applauded. Its in that context that I (and people like me I imagine) get excited about the prospect of a British tour winner - it signifies that the sport has "arrived" in this country and that we are finally on terms with the rest of the world. I can honestly say that I'm not so jingoistic in other sports (or in life generally!)0 -
Framed. So that people can read it again and marvel at how spot on this is!BigMat wrote:I think the thing with Simpson is that the manner in which he doped was pretty much accepted as the norm in those days. If he pushed it too far, he certainly paid the price. Back then the penalty for failing a doping test was a time penalty (I think) - it just wasn't looked upon in the same way as now. To judge him from a moral standpoint that didn't exist when he was cycling, especially given the manner of his death, would strike me as "grotesque".
The main reason he is held in such high esteem amongst UK cyclists is because he was a massive trailblazer. Without him and his contemporaries there would probably be no road cycling inthe UK. To do what he did - give up everything and move to Europe where he didn't speak the language or understand the culture, and achieve what he did was phenomenal. The drugs may have helped level the playing field but he was clearly a talented guy.
The thing about road cycling in the UK in general is that it has always been marginalised, I remember years where we had nobody riding the Tour, entire seasons where a lone success in a "chipper" would be applauded. Its in that context that I (and people like me I imagine) get excited about the prospect of a British tour winner - it signifies that the sport has "arrived" in this country and that we are finally on terms with the rest of the world. I can honestly say that I'm not so jingoistic in other sports (or in life generally!)Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
BigMat wrote:I think the thing with Simpson is that the manner in which he doped was pretty much accepted as the norm in those days. If he pushed it too far, he certainly paid the price. Back then the penalty for failing a doping test was a time penalty (I think) - it just wasn't looked upon in the same way as now. To judge him from a moral standpoint that didn't exist when he was cycling, especially given the manner of his death, would strike me as "grotesque".
The main reason he is held in such high esteem amongst UK cyclists is because he was a massive trailblazer. Without him and his contemporaries there would probably be no road cycling inthe UK. To do what he did - give up everything and move to Europe where he didn't speak the language or understand the culture, and achieve what he did was phenomenal. The drugs may have helped level the playing field but he was clearly a talented guy.
The thing about road cycling in the UK in general is that it has always been marginalised, I remember years where we had nobody riding the Tour, entire seasons where a lone success in a "chipper" would be applauded. Its in that context that I (and people like me I imagine) get excited about the prospect of a British tour winner - it signifies that the sport has "arrived" in this country and that we are finally on terms with the rest of the world. I can honestly say that I'm not so jingoistic in other sports (or in life generally!)
Not to mention that road racing was banned in this country from the late 1800s to the 1950s. Simpson was racing internationally within a few years of the ban being lifted.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
suzyb wrote:Road racing was banned :shock: Why?
http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/blog/2007/10/23/history-of-british-cycle-racing-part-i-the-ban.html
Antagonism between cyclists and other road users has a long history in the UK.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Did anyone catch his comment about what to do with the people that threw tacks on the road? Something about sending them to football matches where they belong. I thought it was funny, but I'm sure it will upset a few of the red top readers if they ever work it out.
That won't do a lot to ease the antagonism against cyclists.0 -
Veronese68 wrote:Did anyone catch his comment about what to do with the people that threw tacks on the road? Something about sending them to football matches where they belong. I thought it was funny, but I'm sure it will upset a few of the red top readers if they ever work it out.
That won't do a lot to ease the antagonism against cyclists.
I don't think the red tops will take a blind bit of notice.
He certainly will go down as legend if he wins this thing.
2 tough stages to go. Beyond that, bar bad luck he's got it.
Like when Jan Janssen won the Tour, people will moan the real rivals were away and the route was toilet and suited him, but, like Jan Janssen, the only thing people will remember is that he won.0 -
Those people won't be watching the programme so therefore no problem.Veronese68 wrote:Did anyone catch his comment about what to do with the people that threw tacks on the road? Something about sending them to football matches where they belong. I thought it was funny, but I'm sure it will upset a few of the red top readers if they ever work it out.
That won't do a lot to ease the antagonism against cyclists.
Unless a red top decides to make it one........None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Veronese68 wrote:Did anyone catch his comment about what to do with the people that threw tacks on the road? Something about sending them to football matches where they belong. I thought it was funny, but I'm sure it will upset a few of the red top readers if they ever work it out.
That won't do a lot to ease the antagonism against cyclists.
I don't think the red tops will take a blind bit of notice.
He certainly will go down as legend if he wins this thing.
2 tough stages to go. Beyond that, bar bad luck he's got it.
Like when Jan Janssen won the Tour, people will moan the real rivals were away and the route was toilet and suited him, but, like Jan Janssen, the only thing people will remember is that he won.
Absolutely right - all he really needs to do is avoid crashing, assuming Froome doesn't go off on one. He's riding well, so even if he cracks you wouldn't expect him to lose more than, what, 2-3 minutes on one of the next two stages? He has enough of a buffer over everyone bar Froome, who you'd expect to help him out unless it was really bad. Wiggins probably knows its now or never if he wants to be Britain's first grand tour winner!0 -
Completely agree, just hoping none of them do pick up on it.daviesee wrote:
Those people won't be watching the programme so therefore no problem.Veronese68 wrote:Did anyone catch his comment about what to do with the people that threw tacks on the road? Something about sending them to football matches where they belong. I thought it was funny, but I'm sure it will upset a few of the red top readers if they ever work it out.
That won't do a lot to ease the antagonism against cyclists.
Unless a red top decides to make it one........0 -
Doping or not? What are you on about? He's clearly clean and has worked his nuts off to get to where he is. What during this race points towards any doping by him or Sky? If he was doping he would have flown up that mountain yesterday to catch Froome when Froome pushed on with 3km to go. As for Froome, in a team managed by Brailsford, who has ploughed a consistent furrow on anti-doping, I would absolutely say his performances are credible. He's come back from 2 years of illness into the prime of his cycling age and it seems you assume it is dope-fuelled. It's extraordinarily cynical. I think it's totally feasible that he, a very talented climber could push those numbers? It's not like they're doing Armstrong's times up the mountains is it?[/quote]
This.0
