Wiggins 2012 performance

ddraver

^Interesting response....Skirting around the uncomfortable truth but I suppose there's not sure much he can say and it was a pretty big Burn from Wiggins!

Rundfahrt

Stanley222- I did not say I don't insult people, I said I don't start things off with insults. I respond in kind, if I feel it is warranted. He chose to call me a troll in the post I responded to. That seems to be the go to if Sky/Wiggins are questioned.

Dirtymonkey1985- I have posted my reasoning for my suspicions multiple times, so feel free to read my posts to answer your question.

hommelbier

Going back to FF's original post, it was interesting listening to the comments by Thierry Adam and Laurent Jalabert on FR3 following Cadel's misfortunes and praising Bradley's action as that of a British gentleman.

plectrum

Rundfahrt wrote:

Let me see if I have this correct:

- Sky and Wiggins are 100% transparent. - YES 100%

- I don't recall posting any such link, but if you say so ok. - you made reference.

- You believe the UCI is 100% anti-doping and would never cover for anyone. - I didn't say that, everytime you make sh1t up you lose more credence.

- Nothing Wiggins has done has been the least bit suspicious. - Exactly.

- You give Postal full credit for taken, when it suits your argument. - No as I have already said I have no issue with Postal, Armstrong, doping or anything else, I like entertainment and I was entertained. I liked the Contador, Rasmussen tour, I enjoyed Pantani, I liked vino's ride into the Astana sun and Landis' immaculate conception ride.

- You think the peloton is clean now. - I agree with David Milelr, this is cycling in its cleanest era to date.

- If everyone has the right to suspicious then I wonder why you, and others are vehement in attacking me or anyone who questions Sky or Wiggins. (Oh, the line about giving respect until you have actual facts was another used by LA/Postal fans back in their day) - No it really is just you, because you just talk nonsense, with no factual evidence to back up any of your discussions or argument.

- Froome came back from a pretty bad disease that hurt his blood pretty bad and included treatment that would increase red blood cells and now has become one of the best GT riders in the world right after this treatment finished, starting with a big result in the Vuelta. (hmmmm, sounds very familiar) As I said , I am also suspicious of Froome but am happy to give him the benefit of doubt, if in 15 years time after 7 tour titles and countless allegations this question is still surrounding Froome, then I'm sure I'd feel similar to Armstrong today i.e. guilty but don't care.

- Froome had to have treatments that increased his blood cell counts before the Vuelta and now before the Tour. (not days before but in a time period that would definitely be felt during these races.) - Yes but so what; he has Bilharzia, perhaps you'd feel a bit more respectful if you had parasitic worms eating your blood cells

Did I miss anything? - Yes, you are a troll

Rundfahrt

plectrum wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

Let me see if I have this correct:

- Sky and Wiggins are 100% transparent. - YES 100% Then why is Wiggins discussing showing his blood values now if he already shows them?

- I don't recall posting any such link, but if you say so ok. - you made reference. You said "You put a link to a report..." now you claim I made reference. Perhaps you should get your story straight.

- You believe the UCI is 100% anti-doping and would never cover for anyone. - I didn't say that, everytime you make sh1t up you lose more credence.

You really are not the person who should be talking about other making things up...considering the part just above. Of course I am just going by your touting the UCI "clearing" your Brit boys.

- Nothing Wiggins has done has been the least bit suspicious. - Exactly. In your mind, but then you aren't exactly open minded on this topic.

- You give Postal full credit for taken, when it suits your argument. - No as I have already said I have no issue with Postal, Armstrong, doping or anything else, I like entertainment and I was entertained. I liked the Contador, Rasmussen tour, I enjoyed Pantani, I liked vino's ride into the Astana sun and Landis' immaculate conception ride.


So you like dopers, yet you defend Sky/Wiggins against anyone having an opinion of suspicion with everything you have. Nice.
- You think the peloton is clean now. - I agree with David Milelr, this is cycling in its cleanest era to date.

Of course, because to admit to thinking otherwise would be admitting that suspicion of your boys is warranted. (wow, that was an easy one to get you to step right in to.)



- If everyone has the right to suspicious then I wonder why you, and others are vehement in attacking me or anyone who questions Sky or Wiggins. (Oh, the line about giving respect until you have actual facts was another used by LA/Postal fans back in their day) - No it really is just you, because you just talk nonsense, with no factual evidence to back up any of your discussions or argument.

I have presented plenty, you boys just prefer to put your blinkers on, make excuses and insult me. Of course even if it is just me, then you are a liar since you said "everyone."

- Froome came back from a pretty bad disease that hurt his blood pretty bad and included treatment that would increase red blood cells and now has become one of the best GT riders in the world right after this treatment finished, starting with a big result in the Vuelta. (hmmmm, sounds very familiar) As I said , I am also suspicious of Froome but am happy to give him the benefit of doubt, if in 15 years time after 7 tour titles and countless allegations this question is still surrounding Froome, then I'm sure I'd feel similar to Armstrong today i.e. guilty but don't care.

That is your right. The right to look at the information and form your own opinion. Just as I have that right as well...despite what you boys think.

- Froome had to have treatments that increased his blood cell counts before the Vuelta and now before the Tour. (not days before but in a time period that would definitely be felt during these races.) - Yes but so what; he has Bilharzia, perhaps you'd feel a bit more respectful if you had parasitic worms eating your blood cells

Nice job avoiding the point and turning it into a personal attack on me. You should post at the asylum, you would fit in very well.

Did I miss anything? - Yes, you are a troll

Ah, yes, the go to line of the blinkered boys who don't have the balls to let anyone have a different opinion about their favorites.


Would you care to go on and take the honorable route and give up?

plectrum

Rundfahrt wrote:

Stanley222 wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

That's exciting.

You don't help yourself Rundfahrt by putting things like this! :roll:

1) I failed to see what that part had to do with the discussion.

2) Does it matter? Let's be honest, by voicing suspicions about Sky/Wiggins I have been branded a troll, insulted and had people flat out lie in claims of what I have said. To the people who get most involved nothing I post beyond saying I am wrong and Sky/Wiggins are the cleanest of clean and bastions of anti-doping the world over would ever help myself, as they refuse to look at any other point of view. You can roll your eyes all you want but that is a fact.

What are your suspicions based upon: Come on just list it in a 1-10, short succinct statements that you can properly back up if challenged. When you can't do this please stop this futile attack.

Something like:

1. Wiggins came from no-where - to which we can respond er ... multiple track wins from 2000 onwards, on taking road seriously ~ 2009 started to perform well in that discipline.

Wiggins arrived at the 2009 Tour de France having lost six kilos.[16][17] He came third in the opening time-trial in Monaco and helped Garmin to second place in the team time-trial despite losing four riders. In the first mountain finish, Wiggins finished 12th, and at 5th place overall entering the second week, had the highest second-week place by a British rider since Robert Millar. On the second mountain finish, in Verbier, Wiggins finished fifth to climb to third overall. He was attacked by the Schleck brothers on stage 17 and dropped to sixth, but moved to fourth in the stage 18 time-trial. On stage 20 to Mont Ventoux, Wiggins finished tenth and held fourth by three seconds ahead of Frank Schleck. He held that position in the final stage, equalling Robert Millar's highest ever finish by a British rider in the Tour.[18]

i.e. did well in the TTs which put him in contention, rode 'okay' in the mountains where he was helped by Garmin who were also defending Van de Velde and regained lost time in the final TT.

Joined Sky and had a sh1t 2010 - not sure how you explain this as if the team was a dope influenced team then he would have had a remarkable 2010

2011 had a reasonably good season but couldn't match a clearly doped rider Cobo in the Vuelta and if we suppose Cobo was clean then it furthers the argument that Wiggins must be clean as he was battered...

2012 rides well in some relatively easy short tours where a) TTs give a huge advantage and b) has one of the strongest if not the strongest team of proven riders.

2012 - leads tour due to - TT - a discipline he has owned for his entire career and still looks vulnerable in the mountains. Again - with the weight loss if he was doping then the mountains would prove no issue at all and he'd be dancing on those wheels.

You really have a short short memory, dopers destroyed others in mountains, let them in bike wheel dust and literally zoomed up the mountain winding roads, riders like Contador/Schleck the only 2 left bttling it out all the way to the summit or Chicken and Contador minutes ahead of everyone, or Pantani with rockets in his shoes or Armstrong just doing whatever, whenever and never lookign like there is any chink in the armour ..... oh and for the science well there is the VAM, VO2 max, Watts etc which are all considerably lower than from those dopers mentioned above or others.

dirtymonkey1985

plectrum wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

Stanley222 wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

That's exciting.

You don't help yourself Rundfahrt by putting things like this! :roll:

1) I failed to see what that part had to do with the discussion.

2) Does it matter? Let's be honest, by voicing suspicions about Sky/Wiggins I have been branded a troll, insulted and had people flat out lie in claims of what I have said. To the people who get most involved nothing I post beyond saying I am wrong and Sky/Wiggins are the cleanest of clean and bastions of anti-doping the world over would ever help myself, as they refuse to look at any other point of view. You can roll your eyes all you want but that is a fact.

What are your suspicions based upon: Come on just list it in a 1-10, short succinct statements that you can properly back up if challenged. When you can't do this please stop this futile attack.

Something like:

1. Wiggins came from no-where - to which we can respond er ... multiple track wins from 2000 onwards, on taking road seriously ~ 2009 started to perform well in that discipline.

Wiggins arrived at the 2009 Tour de France having lost six kilos.[16][17] He came third in the opening time-trial in Monaco and helped Garmin to second place in the team time-trial despite losing four riders. In the first mountain finish, Wiggins finished 12th, and at 5th place overall entering the second week, had the highest second-week place by a British rider since Robert Millar. On the second mountain finish, in Verbier, Wiggins finished fifth to climb to third overall. He was attacked by the Schleck brothers on stage 17 and dropped to sixth, but moved to fourth in the stage 18 time-trial. On stage 20 to Mont Ventoux, Wiggins finished tenth and held fourth by three seconds ahead of Frank Schleck. He held that position in the final stage, equalling Robert Millar's highest ever finish by a British rider in the Tour.[18]

i.e. did well in the TTs which put him in contention, rode 'okay' in the mountains where he was helped by Garmin who were also defending Van de Velde and regained lost time in the final TT.

Joined Sky and had a sh1t 2010 - not sure how you explain this as if the team was a dope influenced team then he would have had a remarkable 2010

2011 had a reasonably good season but couldn't match a clearly doped rider Cobo in the Vuelta and if we suppose Cobo was clean then it furthers the argument that Wiggins must be clean as he was battered...

2012 rides well in some relatively easy short tours where a) TTs give a huge advantage and b) has one of the strongest if not the strongest team of proven riders.

2012 - leads tour due to - TT - a discipline he has owned for his entire career and still looks vulnerable in the mountains. Again - with the weight loss if he was doping then the mountains would prove no issue at all and he'd be dancing on those wheels.

You really have a short short memory, dopers destroyed others in mountains, let them in bike wheel dust and literally zoomed up the mountain winding roads, riders like Contador/Schleck the only 2 left bttling it out all the way to the summit or Chicken and Contador minutes ahead of everyone, or Pantani with rockets in his shoes or Armstrong just doing whatever, whenever and never lookign like there is any chink in the armour ..... oh and for the science well there is the VAM, VO2 max, Watts etc which are all considerably lower than from those dopers mentioned above or others.

+1

plectrum

Rundfahrt,

Please can we put all this aside and just ask the more pertinent questions:

1. Where were you between 3pm-4pm French time?
2. Do you have it in for cyclists in general or just those who don't dope?
3. have you ever or do you currently work in the carpet laying business
4. If I am to say the letters T.A.C.K are you to show any signs of nervousness or sweat.

I am impressed that after throwing tacks at the peleton, you have managed to get back to log in!

Rundfahrt

No surprise from me about plectrums responses. First ignore the things he got called out on, including outright lying. Then demand an answer that has already been posted many times by me. Do you guys who simply can't stand Sky/Wiggins to be questioned in any way share a brain or just follow a written plan?

I will just go your route and say that your responses just prove you are a troll...and a cowardly one at that. (wow, I can be an anonymous Internet tough guy just like you!)

ddraver

Yet you still don't answer Dirtymonkey...interesting...

airwise

Strikes me that if everyone puts this Rundfaht comedian on their ignore list at once this thread ceases to be.

What's the point in arguing with a troll throughout the Tour when you could be riding your bikes or watching the race?

richard wants a baum

Rundfahrt wrote:

No surprise from me about plectrums responses. First ignore the things he got called out on, including outright lying. Then demand an answer that has already been posted many times by me. Do you guys who simply can't stand Sky/Wiggins to be questioned in any way share a brain or just follow a written plan?

I will just go your route and say that your responses just prove you are a troll...and a cowardly one at that. (wow, I can be an anonymous Internet tough guy just like you!)

I think its a bit rich to say that everyone can have an opinion and then called them "blinkered" when they disagree with you. I'm an Australian, Wiggins is beating my countryman and more importantly my PTP pick for GC and I dont think his doped . The reason you get called a troll is that's how you come across, I find you to be very aggressive so maybe dial it back a bit and everyone can just get along.

ocdupalais

richard wants a baum wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

No surprise from me about plectrums responses. First ignore the things he got called out on, including outright lying. Then demand an answer that has already been posted many times by me. Do you guys who simply can't stand Sky/Wiggins to be questioned in any way share a brain or just follow a written plan?

I will just go your route and say that your responses just prove you are a troll...and a cowardly one at that. (wow, I can be an anonymous Internet tough guy just like you!)

I think its a bit rich to say that everyone can have an opinion and then called them "blinkered" when they disagree with you. I'm an Australian, Wiggins is beating my countryman and more importantly my PTP pick for GC and I dont think his doped . The reason you get called a troll is that's how you come across, I find you to be very aggressive so maybe dial it back a bit and everyone can just get along.

Hey richard, leave it...

pepelepew_2724

OCDuPalais wrote:

Hey richard, leave it...

Chapeau.

frenchfighter

I’m not some shit rider who has come from nowhere

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins ... om-nowhere

RonB

Sounds spot on. Trouble is, someone (pause for effect) will no doubt mention that that is exactly what LA would say - roll avatar if you like that sort of thing.

morstar

The Guardian article goes way beyond anything LA would have said.
However, the situation is like the window scene in the Life of Brian.
"I'm not the Messiah" ...

slim_boy_fat

Quite a good article from Tim Kerrison the teams Head Sport Scientist.

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/features/t ... 0%99-tour/

knedlicky

mfin wrote:

... this is all under 6 watts per kg stuff at the moment apparently, and most experts agree that this power over these efforts is nothing very odd.

An article in Le Monde on Monday gave some wattage figures for a few riders (Froome, Voeckler, Sagan, Porte, Rogers, Peraud) on certain days and certain climbs, and in ‘per kg’ rates, only Rogers’ figure was definitely under 6 watts/kg.
Sagan even reached 6.75 for 2 mins on the Seraing climb, and Richie Porte 6.75 for 11 mins on the Glandon.

The author didn’t exactly put these high figures down to doping, instead he considered that the elliptical chainrings used by Sky were a significant factor in high power being achieved by Sky riders. He attributed Millar’s victory to his elliptical chainring as well.

And he also mentioned Kashechkin decided to try one out during a Tour stage but his mechanic fitted it incorrectly!
How incorrectly wasn’t explained - maybe the pedal crank arms aligning over the wider side of the chainring?
Kashechkin probably worked hard that day!

rick_chasey

90 degrees the wrong way...

inkyfingers

Rick Chasey wrote:

90 degrees the wrong way...

Seriously? Surely you would try something like that out in training or in a minor race, not during the TdF.

Pretty embarassing for the "mechanic" as well.

Crozza

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Quite a good article from Tim Kerrison the teams Head Sport Scientist.

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/features/t ... 0%99-tour/

“At the end of the year Dave said we focused too much on the peas and not enough on the steak, and I think he was right."

Interesting choice of words!

rick_chasey

Crozza wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Quite a good article from Tim Kerrison the teams Head Sport Scientist.

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/features/t ... 0%99-tour/

“At the end of the year Dave said we focused too much on the peas and not enough on the steak, and I think he was right."

Interesting choice of words!

That's what fucks me most off about the Contador steak thing.

Now you can't mention sodding steak in a cycling way without some predictabley smart arsed comment about doping.

Spiny_Norman

morstar wrote:

The Guardian article goes way beyond anything LA would have said.
However, the situation is like the window scene in the Life of Brian.
"I'm not the Messiah" ...

Yes, it is a bit. I made the mistake recently of dropping into The Asylum to see what all the fuss was about. There's at least one guy there who has a particular hatred for Wiggins because he's not just a doper (according to what passes for logic there) but he even "pretends to be clean". Other decent dopers apparently just get on with it without this pretence, which at least makes them honest cheats.

Whatever he does, there are people who are going to conclude that he's a Very Naughty Boy.

slim_boy_fat

knedlicky wrote:

mfin wrote:

... this is all under 6 watts per kg stuff at the moment apparently, and most experts agree that this power over these efforts is nothing very odd.

An article in Le Monde on Monday gave some wattage figures for a few riders (Froome, Voeckler, Sagan, Porte, Rogers, Peraud) on certain days and certain climbs, and in ‘per kg’ rates, only Rogers’ figure was definitely under 6 watts/kg.
Sagan even reached 6.75 for 2 mins on the Seraing climb, and Richie Porte 6.75 for 11 mins on the Glandon.

The author didn’t exactly put these high figures down to doping, instead he considered that the elliptical chainrings used by Sky were a significant factor in high power being achieved by Sky riders. He attributed Millar’s victory to his elliptical chainring as well.

And he also mentioned Kashechkin decided to try one out during a Tour stage but his mechanic fitted it incorrectly!
How incorrectly wasn’t explained - maybe the pedal crank arms aligning over the wider side of the chainring?
Kashechkin probably worked hard that day!

Are those figures really that bad though considering the short times they were being put out? Didn't the US Postal output more than that for 45 mins plus back in the day?

disgruntledgoat

knedlicky wrote:

mfin wrote:

... this is all under 6 watts per kg stuff at the moment apparently, and most experts agree that this power over these efforts is nothing very odd.

An article in Le Monde on Monday gave some wattage figures for a few riders (Froome, Voeckler, Sagan, Porte, Rogers, Peraud) on certain days and certain climbs, and in ‘per kg’ rates, only Rogers’ figure was definitely under 6 watts/kg.
Sagan even reached 6.75 for 2 mins on the Seraing climb, and Richie Porte 6.75 for 11 mins on the Glandon.

The author didn’t exactly put these high figures down to doping, instead he considered that the elliptical chainrings used by Sky were a significant factor in high power being achieved by Sky riders. He attributed Millar’s victory to his elliptical chainring as well.
And he also mentioned Kashechkin decided to try one out during a Tour stage but his mechanic fitted it incorrectly!
How incorrectly wasn’t explained - maybe the pedal crank arms aligning over the wider side of the chainring?
Kashechkin probably worked hard that day!

Not to him being a far better 2 up sprinter than AG2R's mountain biker?

RichN95.

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

knedlicky wrote:

mfin wrote:

... this is all under 6 watts per kg stuff at the moment apparently, and most experts agree that this power over these efforts is nothing very odd.

An article in Le Monde on Monday gave some wattage figures for a few riders (Froome, Voeckler, Sagan, Porte, Rogers, Peraud) on certain days and certain climbs, and in ‘per kg’ rates, only Rogers’ figure was definitely under 6 watts/kg.
Sagan even reached 6.75 for 2 mins on the Seraing climb, and Richie Porte 6.75 for 11 mins on the Glandon.

The author didn’t exactly put these high figures down to doping, instead he considered that the elliptical chainrings used by Sky were a significant factor in high power being achieved by Sky riders. He attributed Millar’s victory to his elliptical chainring as well.

And he also mentioned Kashechkin decided to try one out during a Tour stage but his mechanic fitted it incorrectly!
How incorrectly wasn’t explained - maybe the pedal crank arms aligning over the wider side of the chainring?
Kashechkin probably worked hard that day!

Are those figures really that bad though considering the short times they were being put out? Didn't the US Postal output more than that for 45 mins plus back in the day?

Yeah, the 6W/kg 'limit' refers to sustainable output over an hour, not a few minutes. The power outputs coming from actual riders' SRMs (Sagan, Nibali, Brajkovic) have been comfortably within natural parameters.

ShavenLegs

A view on this topic in Robert Millar's latest article on cycling news.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/robert-millar

And so to the subject of the Team Sky preparation, a subject which has been and will be debated on the cycling fora with much vigour. The fact is you will never know , you can only hope.

Speculation on what former Rabobank doctor Leinders role is or was , or stuff like the remoteness from the testers of the Mount Tiede training camps , the metamorphosis of Wiggins, the emergence of Froome, the revival of Rogers and Porte is all just speculation.

You can calmly explain each point if you want or equally you can make an iffy story about any of them. At the end of the day sport is about entertainment and which aspect of that you find enjoyment in is entirely personal.

Le Commentateur

1 hour report & discussion about Bradley's history and this year's Tour, starting on Radio 5 now.

Fotheringham and Bäckstedt doing the talking. Some interview recordings of Wiggins.

rick_chasey

Anything of note Commentateur?