Wiggins 2012 performance
Comments
-
disgruntledgoat wrote:Turfle wrote:It' s a nice read. A lot of dopers have said the same thing though, so ultimately it won't mean much, but still worth writing I think.
Honestly, what more can the bloke do?
Honestly, no matter what he does it's not going to make any difference. Publish blood work and people will pick holes regardless of how clean it is.
Good that he's trying, but it's futile battle imo.rebs wrote:Not trying to call you out. But like who would you refer to? Who has said what Wiggins has in the past and been caught doping?
I found it interesting what he said about how he would be treated in the UK then say France/Italy if he juiced up. Am interested to know what type of a relationship he has with Millar. I see it as a friendly relationship with Wiggins calling him a bellend from time to time like 2 mates in a pub slaging each other off for mistakes they have made :P
Well Armstrong certainly has said similar things, and I'm pretty sure Tyler Hamilton did. Not able to do a proper search at mo, but I'm sure that other forum will have a list of quotes momentarily!
The bit about British cycling culture he should have left out imo. That's what naysayers will be concentrating on now I bet.0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:jswba wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:Turfle wrote:It' s a nice read. A lot of dopers have said the same thing though, so ultimately it won't mean much, but still worth writing I think.
Honestly, what more can the bloke do?
Dare we say 'publish his blood values'?
<runs and hides>
I don't understand publishing blood values publically. They have to submit to the Bio Passport where they're reviewed by experts... I have no knowledge of haematology, to the extent that I've probably spelt it wrong, and neitherdo 99.9% of the population. What would you gain by seeing these?
Twas just a joke, anticipating the next escalation of demands. At the rate people are going, by the end of the Tour we'll be demanding that somebody be shrunk to microscopic size and injected into Wiggins's bloodstream a la InnerSpace in an attempt to find abnormalities in his blood.0 -
Thing he. If Wiggins doped he really would lose everything. The thing about the culture in the UK he hit on is really true. If Wiggins/Froome or anyone in team sky doped. They would certainly get punished much more then Contador would. It would also bring British Cycling down with it. Lottery funding would certainly go. Sky sponsorship would go (just remember how huge the Sky money is).
Look at the bigger picture of Chambers and also Millar. Yes Millar isn't as banged up but his career and approach is totally different how he was when he approached. It's hardly a good example of "hay kids lets get juiced up".0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:LangerDan wrote:pb21 wrote:Turfle wrote:It' s a nice read. A lot of dopers have said the same thing though, so ultimately it won't mean much, but still worth writing I think.
To that extent?
I think His Lanceness has made similar defences in the past and I recall an interview (prob in Procycling or Cycle Sport) with David Millar about a decade ago when he was criticizing dopers at the same time as he was using the stuff himself.
I don't think either ever submited a 500 word piece to a national newspaper exclusively about doping stating categorically that they have never and would never dope and why they've been less vocal about it than in the past.
+10 -
If people are still not happy even after he has stated reason for not doping, then perhaps they themselves are on drugs.
As mentioned above what more can the bloke do, he is tested regularly, has to particpate in the blood passport, and has been vocal against druggies. Also take a look at w/kgs and he is not doing anything abnormal FFS. Perhaps, just perhaps he is looking good because all those that did dope in the past are no longer doping and without drugs they are truely shite and it is showing. Given some of the other displays in this TDF, perhaps Sagan is drugged up to the eyeballs as well. Lets keep things in perspective.0 -
rdt wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:I have added plenty to the debate, but you guys prefer to move the goalposts and use misdirection and insults in order to not even think about what I am putting forth.
Cry-baby trolling is a novel combo, R-fahrt, and you're to be commended for your innovation.
I like how it's simply Mfin, ddraver and pross arguing about everything I say (well, if you call misdirection, spin, and insults arguing), but then, every once in a while when my points get to be too obvious for them one or two people jump into the thread not to post about the topic, but to insult me.
Is it that they are sock puppets, have a little thing for the guys they are trying to defend with these insults or are they simply insecure people that try to gain some form of hapiness by insulting others anonymously on the web?0 -
You can set your watch by it! :roll:0
-
Slim Boy Fat wrote:You can set your watch by it! :roll:
Yes you can set your watch by the minions scurrying in to post insults instead of discuss the topic.0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:Slim Boy Fat wrote:You can set your watch by it! :roll:
Yes you can set your watch by the minions scurrying in to post insults instead of discuss the topic.
I honestly haven't seen you add anything constructive to any topic I've read (admittedly I haven't read all of your posts, I'm not a stalker). But I have read plenty of your posts that either a) make no sense; b) purport your opinions as facts; or c) just talk rubbish. Frankly, it's boring.0 -
Stanley222 wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:Slim Boy Fat wrote:You can set your watch by it! :roll:
Yes you can set your watch by the minions scurrying in to post insults instead of discuss the topic.
I haven't insulted you!
It does appear however that we all have to take your opinion on the matter but you are not open to ours.
I may be wrong but that's how I read it
I'm not trying to upset you or insult you in any way but that's just my feeling from reading your posts
I appreciate your opinion and the way you present it. I have no problem with other opinion, what I do have a problem with is people like ddraver, press and Mfin who demand you agree with ther opinion, insult you if you do not and spin and use misdirection if you make a solid point. I hope Sky/Wiggins are clean, but I see too many things that make me suspicious. I have yet to see anything to alleviate those suspicions from the people here. I do think if this was not a British team and a British rider the mentality would be completely different and, looking at other cycling forums that aren't British I see many people agreeing with my suspicions. Just like in the LA/Postal days when American forums acted just like this one when it came to LA/Postal and non-American forums were voicing their suspicions. Interestingly I know at least two people around here who are pretty vociferous in their defense of Sky/Wiggins who would hear nothing but their suspicions of LA/Postal back in those days, dismiss anything else out of hand.
You guys can hate me, call me a troll, insult me, but the fact remains that the issues I am raising are very real and only those who don't want to see them wont see them.0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:rdt wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:I have added plenty to the debate, but you guys prefer to move the goalposts and use misdirection and insults in order to not even think about what I am putting forth.
Cry-baby trolling is a novel combo, R-fahrt, and you're to be commended for your innovation.
I like how it's simply Mfin, ddraver and pross arguing about everything I say (well, if you call misdirection, spin, and insults arguing), but then, every once in a while when my points get to be too obvious for them one or two people jump into the thread not to post about the topic, but to insult me.
Is it that they are sock puppets, have a little thing for the guys they are trying to defend with these insults or are they simply insecure people that try to gain some form of hapiness by insulting others anonymously on the web?
Really? You just seem to think you are some kind of expert and the only person who can see "the truth". Others speculate whereas you deal only in fact. You say others have to get the last word and yet insist on responding to anything. I haven't seen you put a cogent argument together and you post the same stuff in thread after thread - if you put something I remotely agree with then I will agree with it and if you think I've insulted you at all then I suggest you have a particularly thin skin and perhaps an internet forum isn't your natural domain. As for anonymous, I'm using a common diminuative of my own surname and have a photo of myself in my avatar. Is your name really Rundfahrt and is that your picture 0 -
I would have suspicions if the wattage info, climbing times etc., were on a par with the USPS days. They're not. It's also widely accepted that rivals of Wiggins are not juiced, whereas they were back in the days of USPS. You say you see too many things that make you suspicious, but what? Other than a team winning. Everything that has been achieved, from what I've read, is within the bound of normal physiology. What Armstrong achieved, was not.0
-
mfin wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:LangerDan wrote:pb21 wrote:Turfle wrote:It' s a nice read. A lot of dopers have said the same thing though, so ultimately it won't mean much, but still worth writing I think.
To that extent?
I think His Lanceness has made similar defences in the past and I recall an interview (prob in Procycling or Cycle Sport) with David Millar about a decade ago when he was criticizing dopers at the same time as he was using the stuff himself.
I don't think either ever submited a 500 word piece to a national newspaper exclusively about doping stating categorically that they have never and would never dope and why they've been less vocal about it than in the past.
+1
+2 what a great piece. I think that comes from the heart so fair play to him. Although: £40 for the Bradley Wiggins Sportif????? I hope most of that goes to charity.0 -
Rundfahrt... Right. So, language used in what Wiggins says vs LA etc aside, cos that can be a matter of opinion of what it means...
You say you 'see too many things that make you suspicious'.
So, lets say that the only real indicators of doping are 'performances which are dubious' and/or tests and medical evidence, doping materials found, testimony etc.
Right, seeing as the only things listed above which could be levelled at Wiggins are 'performances which are dubious' how do you feel about counter-arguing the under 6 watts per kilo as being something that doesn't act as at least a big signal that the potential doping is not true?
There, there's nothing unfriendly about my post there, and Im not 'demanding anything' before you say I am, Im just inviting you to comment on the above directly, rather than an attack/psuedo-analysis of why me, or others are saying these things.
I wonder if you will take up that genuine invitation to try back-up some of what you have been saying.
All the best though, and you are as welcome to your opinion as anyone else.0 -
Here's a challenge to you in which I hope is not insulting (and which I and others have asked throughout this thread). Can you provide me with links to any scientific data that helps support your assertion that there is anything untoward in the Sky teams performance? I am always open to having my opinion changed by evidence, it happened with Armstrong and Bertie. However, I am not prepared to condemn any rider or team purely on idle speculation and innuendo. 3 or 4 riders riding moderately hard on climbs or showing an improvement in form doesn't constitute evidence in my book.0
-
Rundfahrt wrote:Stanley222 wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:
I appreciate your opinion and the way you present it. I have no problem with other opinion, what I do have a problem with is people like ddraver, press and Mfin who demand you agree with ther opinion, insult you if you do not and spin and use misdirection if you make a solid point. I hope Sky/Wiggins are clean, but I see too many things that make me suspicious. I have yet to see anything to alleviate those suspicions from the people here. I do think if this was not a British team and a British rider the mentality would be completely different and, looking at other cycling forums that aren't British I see many people agreeing with my suspicions. Just like in the LA/Postal days when American forums acted just like this one when it came to LA/Postal and non-American forums were voicing their suspicions. Interestingly I know at least two people around here who are pretty vociferous in their defense of Sky/Wiggins who would hear nothing but their suspicions of LA/Postal back in those days, dismiss anything else out of hand.Slim Boy Fat wrote:You can set your watch by it! :roll:
You guys can hate me, call me a troll, insult me, but the fact remains that the issues I am raising are very real and only those who don't want to see them wont see them.
Rundfahrt, read this article. It is about the power outputs in the current tour, and what we are seeing is perfomances that are within the limits of human physiology. It may not convince you utterly but surely its a step in the right direction for you to think "Hmm maybe they are racing clean after all"0 -
God Rundy, I love the way you complain about people insulting you by insulting them in the same sentence. I mean the DoubleThink in that is just astounding!
All 3 of us know your arguments and all 3 of us disagree with you based on the evidence we have shown you. End of...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Pross wrote:Here's a challenge to you in which I hope is not insulting (and which I and others have asked throughout this thread). Can you provide me with links to any scientific data that helps support your assertion that there is anything untoward in the Sky teams performance? I am always open to having my opinion changed by evidence, it happened with Armstrong and Bertie. However, I am not prepared to condemn any rider or team purely on idle speculation and innuendo. 3 or 4 riders riding moderately hard on climbs or showing an improvement in form doesn't constitute evidence in my book.
Nobody is condemning anyone, we are merely voicing our suspicions and have given solid reasoning to have suspicions, but you guys like to ignore that reasoning and demand "scientific data" in order to not besmirch the name of a British team or it's riders. It's funny how you guys will rip on Americans for patriotism but then you do it pretty well yourselves.
In the end what it comes down to is that you can believe and see whatever you want, you can ignore points being made, you can demand anything you want, but you guys have made it clear that you will defend Sky/Wiggins no matter what and that you will not hear anything that does not suit your opinion. Even if I had scientific data and not just the facts that have occurred on the road you guys would demand more or claim they proved nothing...just like LA/Postal fans did back in their day.
Someone used the phrase "blinkered fans" well it describes you guys perfectly. No need to discuss it further with people who refuse to hear anything else and try to make it a personal thing, so I bid you adieu as well. Feel free to take some parting shots like ddraver and Mfin have felt the need to do as it suits you guys.0 -
As some others are saying. I'll be the first to condemn ANYONE including Wiggins if they turned out to be doping.
All Ive been saying is for all the information I can read, at the moment, there is nothing suspicious, and I haven't based that on what I see on the telly, how Sky are riding... if I see a weird performance by anyone I then would go look and see if there are some facts and evidence to support the suspicion, in this case I must admit, all Ive done is look at the evidence and the scientific assessments to see if there's any real basis in anything the 'Wiggins is likely doping' crowd are saying. I can't find anything that makes it hold any water. Can anyone else???0 -
MrTapir wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:Stanley222 wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:
I appreciate your opinion and the way you present it. I have no problem with other opinion, what I do have a problem with is people like ddraver, press and Mfin who demand you agree with ther opinion, insult you if you do not and spin and use misdirection if you make a solid point. I hope Sky/Wiggins are clean, but I see too many things that make me suspicious. I have yet to see anything to alleviate those suspicions from the people here. I do think if this was not a British team and a British rider the mentality would be completely different and, looking at other cycling forums that aren't British I see many people agreeing with my suspicions. Just like in the LA/Postal days when American forums acted just like this one when it came to LA/Postal and non-American forums were voicing their suspicions. Interestingly I know at least two people around here who are pretty vociferous in their defense of Sky/Wiggins who would hear nothing but their suspicions of LA/Postal back in those days, dismiss anything else out of hand.Slim Boy Fat wrote:You can set your watch by it! :roll:
You guys can hate me, call me a troll, insult me, but the fact remains that the issues I am raising are very real and only those who don't want to see them wont see them.
Rundfahrt, read this article. It is about the power outputs in the current tour, and what we are seeing is perfomances that are within the limits of human physiology. It may not convince you utterly but surely its a step in the right direction for you to think "Hmm maybe they are racing clean after all"
The power numbers are lower but power numbers don't tell the whole story. Look at Froome and his ITT numbers. The guy suddenly becomes on of the best in the world last September and keeps it up this year. It's things like that, along with the history of cycling and things like doctors teams use, other riders on the team, etc. that lead to suspicion. Unfortunately I am posting on a British forum which has great discussion...until any talk that may be negative about Sky/Wiggins comes up. It's just like the American forums in the LA/Postal days.
It was an excellent article and I appreciate you linking it. (though, why the fuck is this forum set up to open links on the same page instead of a new one?!?!)0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:Pross wrote:Here's a challenge to you in which I hope is not insulting (and which I and others have asked throughout this thread). Can you provide me with links to any scientific data that helps support your assertion that there is anything untoward in the Sky teams performance? I am always open to having my opinion changed by evidence, it happened with Armstrong and Bertie. However, I am not prepared to condemn any rider or team purely on idle speculation and innuendo. 3 or 4 riders riding moderately hard on climbs or showing an improvement in form doesn't constitute evidence in my book.
Nobody is condemning anyone, we are merely voicing our suspicions and have given solid reasoning to have suspicions, but you guys like to ignore that reasoning and demand "scientific data" in order to not besmirch the name of a British team or it's riders. It's funny how you guys will rip on Americans for patriotism but then you do it pretty well yourselves.
In the end what it comes down to is that you can believe and see whatever you want, you can ignore points being made, you can demand anything you want, but you guys have made it clear that you will defend Sky/Wiggins no matter what and that you will not hear anything that does not suit your opinion. Even if I had scientific data and not just the facts that have occurred on the road you guys would demand more or claim they proved nothing...just like LA/Postal fans did back in their day.
Someone used the phrase "blinkered fans" well it describes you guys perfectly. No need to discuss it further with people who refuse to hear anything else and try to make it a personal thing, so I bid you adieu as well. Feel free to take some parting shots like ddraver and Mfin have felt the need to do as it suits you guys.
You keep referencing your 'solid reasoning' would you care to quote yourself then on where this solid reasoning is, or give us some actual 'facts'??
You keep completely missing the point... noone, well me at least, is defending Wiggins, this could be ANY rider, I couldn't care less that he's British, there is absolutely NO motivational factor in defending Wiggins on his nationality, his team, his personality, or absolutely anything else you would care bring up.
You think you're outing people as being non-impartial based on WHO it is we're talking about. You couldn't be more wrong.0 -
Stanley222 wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:Stanley222 wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:Slim Boy Fat wrote:You can set your watch by it! :roll:
Yes you can set your watch by the minions scurrying in to post insults instead of discuss the topic.
I haven't insulted you!
It does appear however that we all have to take your opinion on the matter but you are not open to ours.
I may be wrong but that's how I read it
I'm not trying to upset you or insult you in any way but that's just my feeling from reading your posts
I appreciate your opinion and the way you present it. I have no problem with other opinion, what I do have a problem with is people like ddraver, press and Mfin who demand you agree with ther opinion, insult you if you do not and spin and use misdirection if you make a solid point. I hope Sky/Wiggins are clean, but I see too many things that make me suspicious. I have yet to see anything to alleviate those suspicions from the people here. I do think if this was not a British team and a British rider the mentality would be completely different and, looking at other cycling forums that aren't British I see many people agreeing with my suspicions. Just like in the LA/Postal days when American forums acted just like this one when it came to LA/Postal and non-American forums were voicing their suspicions. Interestingly I know at least two people around here who are pretty vociferous in their defense of Sky/Wiggins who would hear nothing but their suspicions of LA/Postal back in those days, dismiss anything else out of hand.
You guys can hate me, call me a troll, insult me, but the fact remains that the issues I am raising are very real and only those who don't want to see them wont see them.
I too hope that Sky are clean however there isn't any evidence to suggest otherwise other than they are the dominant team this year - if they weren't then another team would be, this tear just seems to be working for them and the hard work they have put into all aspects of their preparation.
Yes there has been a lot of drugs in cycling and yes there probably still is but what suggests that Sky / Wiggo is cheating???
I have already posted a number of times the reasons to have suspicion, I feel no need to post them again. If you think there is no reason then fine, we can disagree.0 -
Rundy - Serious Question, Did you suspect LiquiGas or Garmin of doping during the Giro? After all LG controlled all the climbs for Basso by riding with 4 riders on the front, dropping off as they cracked and Hej hasnt ever won (or even shown) in a GT before.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:Stanley222 wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:Slim Boy Fat wrote:You can set your watch by it! :roll:
Yes you can set your watch by the minions scurrying in to post insults instead of discuss the topic.
I haven't insulted you!
It does appear however that we all have to take your opinion on the matter but you are not open to ours.
I may be wrong but that's how I read it
I'm not trying to upset you or insult you in any way but that's just my feeling from reading your posts
I appreciate your opinion and the way you present it. I have no problem with other opinion, what I do have a problem with is people like ddraver, press and Mfin who demand you agree with ther opinion, insult you if you do not and spin and use misdirection if you make a solid point. I hope Sky/Wiggins are clean, but I see too many things that make me suspicious. I have yet to see anything to alleviate those suspicions from the people here. I do think if this was not a British team and a British rider the mentality would be completely different and, looking at other cycling forums that aren't British I see many people agreeing with my suspicions. Just like in the LA/Postal days when American forums acted just like this one when it came to LA/Postal and non-American forums were voicing their suspicions. Interestingly I know at least two people around here who are pretty vociferous in their defense of Sky/Wiggins who would hear nothing but their suspicions of LA/Postal back in those days, dismiss anything else out of hand.
You guys can hate me, call me a troll, insult me, but the fact remains that the issues I am raising are very real and only those who don't want to see them wont see them.
Rundy,
You can check all my posts if you want - I have no affiliation to the above posters, nor a history of backing them up, I'm not even that knowledgable about pro cycling. I wasn't on these boards during USPostal years.
I declare an interest - I've liked wiggins for years, since his first olympic medals, and I tend to think lance is a cock - so maybe my views are twisted - BUT
This is how the whole thread looks to me.
"you guys are defending Sky, just like the lance/uspostal fanbois did..."
"well, some of us are sky fans yes, but it isn't the same"
"yes it is"
"ok, well, its the same tactics sure"
"yes, and Lance got mullered for it"
"Well, yes, because as well as shedding riders out the back, they also launched him up the road..."
"You guys just can't see your being hypocritical"
"We're not - Wiggins is a diesel, so this tactic makes perfect sense on this parcours. Sky built a team for this parcours, and same tactic might not work on a more mountainous race"
"can't you see you hassled USPostal for exactly the same thing"
"No - see above, the tactic is the same, for obvious reasons - but outcomes aren't the same (other than the yellow jersey) ..anyway, Sky did throw a shit load of money at riders to cash in ON THE WAY THIS PARCOURS SUITS Wiggins!"
"You guys just can't accept that its the same as US Postal"
"sigh, no, its not. Sky (and British Cycling) have for years now talked about marginal gains, and brought a really scientific method to training etc. Vaughters also spotted Brad's GC potential, it's not out of nowhere. I know what your saying about "it's just because I train harder" sounding just like US Postal - but there are still differences in both what's happening, and the background to it...."
[Edited to add] "what about froome? he's come from nowhere! If he was on US Postal, you'd murder him!"
"True, Froome isn't as clear cut - but given the bigger Sky/BC picture, he gets the benefit of the doubt"[/edit]
"You are all blind and won't say what i want you to say.....you are all incapable of arguing, and have rose coloured spectacles and flim flam, andf EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU who argues with me is just a SKY fanboi...and seeing as noone on this thread seem to agree with me, then therefore everyone who posts to Pro Race is a fanboi, and won't admit THE TRUTH"
"Look, probably the biggest difference is the lower power outputs by all riders - which is fact not opinion...Oh, and don't forget, there's no Contador, or Schleck, so none of the GC contenders, except maybe Nibs are really in a real place to break the Sky drill. If sky do this for seven more years, when AS and AC are back, come back and talk to us"
"Hypocrites - JUST ADMIT IT!!"
"Give us strength"
...deteriorates into silly slanging between the posters left who can be bothered to engage....0 -
Pbo, it looks like you are seeing what you want to see. That's fine, you and Stanley can do that and I'll just say I agree to disagree.
I do appreciate the two of you not being assholes and turning this into a personal thing...unlike others.0 -
PBo, good summary - for that your name vill also go on zee list.
Anyway, I'm out now. I'll save my Sky fanboi posts for the team's Facebook page as I'm plainly deluded that it is possible for 4 riders to ride at power levels well within accepted physiological boundaries :roll:0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:Pbo, it looks like you are seeing what you want to see. That's fine, you and Stanley can do that and I'll just say I agree to disagree.
I do appreciate the two of you not being assholes and turning this into a personal thing...unlike others.
Agreeing to disagree is fine - and maybe that is what you should do with mfin etc., as clearly the debate has now become personal - more about everyone's message board skillz and manners rather than the subject at hand.
But saying "you see what you want to see" is a little bit personal, because you might as well have said "oh dear PBo, you really are incapable of weighing evidence and producing the answer that i want - now run along"
I stated, that I had no affiliation to the other posters - I have read this whole thread and the above is my best attempt at distilling it. (However, to be fair, I did not bring up your fact that Froome is more suspicious than Wiggo - which is true, so in the interest of balance, I've edited the first post.) I was probably a little bit mickey taking of you, in the way I portrayed your responses as getting gradually more sulky, but didn't really mean it in a nasty way, but I do find your response a little condascending...0 -
I get the feeling runfhart is being deliberately antagonistic and if everyone were calling Wiggins a cheat he would be saying where is the evidence!Mañana0
