Bradley Wiggins - MOD Warning - see Opening Post

GT_TDI_150

Just wondering what peoples opinions on B.W are?

I find him/his tactics/style hard to warm to.

I'm sure it is hard to hold a constant tempo up over the mountains but there is no exitement in how he/sky ride.

my 2c

Mod Note - I set out below the warning I posted at post #126

Final warning

Doping speculation is not allowed. Posters continuing to indicate they have "suspicions" about riders or teams is pushing this to or indeed beyond what we can permit on Boards. Boards requires us as mods to step in at the merest hint of anything that could potentially get Boards or its users into trouble. Whatever Paul Kimmage says, he can look after himself.

Now if you want to go ahead and discuss what Sky and Wiggins have done within the rules, as suggested by ROK ON yesterday evening, that's fine. However any more discussion of doping or "suspicions" surrounding any team or rider will result in sanctions being taken against the poster and the likely closure of the thread

Thanks

Beasty

Henlars67

I hate his sideburns. I don't think any cyclist should have facial hair but his is revolting.

He seems like a bit of a tosser as well.

Beasty

Multiple Olympic Golds, TdF - an absolutely fantastic rider in my book. Just because he and his team talke a completely professional approach does not in any way detract from his achievements

I'm a Who rather than Jam fan and do have some reservations over his hairstyle and sideburns though ...

Mycroft H

Henlars67 wrote: »

I hate his sideburns. I don't think any cyclist should have facial hair but his is revolting.

He seems like a bit of a tosser as well.

At least you can spot the sideburns in the petelon

Don't see the problem with facial hair (or his head hair) tbh, it made no difference to how he rides. Great cyclist apart from that (especially at the Olympics)

Beasty

I would like to clarify one thing. Are sideburns considered "facial hair"? Even those that may only be a couple of cm long? Alternatively where is the line drawn?

billyhead

There were a lot of accusations going around that he was doping throughout his career but if was always clean I think hes a fantastic rider

07Lapierre

Side burns are like cycling socks. They can be too long or too short... Brads are WAY to long, end of.

Gipo3

Henlars67 wrote: »

I hate his sideburns. I don't think any cyclist should have facial hair but his is revolting.

He seems like a bit of a tosser as well.

Does this mean you shave your eyebrows?

Staro

The cycling Modfather, Legend, does not suffer fools & takes no sh1t! Share a birthday with him so be is cool in my book :-)

Mycroft H

Beasty wrote: »

I would like to clarify one thing. Are sideburns considered "facial hair"? Even those that may only be a couple of cm long? Alternatively where is the line drawn?

:P:D

Beasty

Phew!!! Looks like I'm just on the right side of it then ...

shaka

irritating guy and i do wonder about the whole sky team but if it is legit fair play..

alexanderomahon

LEGEND!! MAN OF THE PEOPLE !!!end of STORY!!!! Here's proof

happytramp

His tactics dictate that he'll never be as popular as the likes of Rodriguez or Nibali but that shouldn't devalue the magnitude of his achievements this season. I wonder if he'll have the drive to do as well next year. And I do think he'd find it very difficult to match Contador, Schleck, Froome and current form Rodriguez in the mountains.

spoke2cun

He won the softest tour de france in years. He's lucky he didn'nt enter this year's vuellta. He would've been blown away just like Froome. A marketing stunt for british Cycling was this years TDF.

corny

spoke2cun wrote: »

He won the softest tour de france in years. He's lucky he didn'nt enter this year's vuellta. He would've been blown away just like Froome. A marketing stunt for british Cycling was this years TDF.

I'm not really one for conspiracy theories but if he's a non factor next year, like he has been in the past, the above might be true. The most TT friendly course ever coinciding with a suspiciously dominant team performance. Makes you wonder.

Cee-Jay-Cee

I have to admit that i like him but like others have said wonder how much of a contender he'll be in next years tour.

I do wonder how the hell he rode so well this year considering he seems to have no muscle anywhere in his body not even his legs and yeah his sideburns are a bit if a side show on their own but I suppose it's his trade mark now.

Brian?

Boring, boring, boring and tedious to watch.

I respect him as he's not a naturally gifted climber like Schleck or Contador but I hope he never wins another Tour.

kumate_champ07

Beasty wrote: »

I would like to clarify one thing. Are sideburns considered "facial hair"? Even those that may only be a couple of cm long? Alternatively where is the line drawn?

this is facial hair

CptMackey

Would have liked a closer fight for the yellow, He is some thing else when it comes to tting. He won the tour and that's no mean feat regardless of the team tactics. It was up to bmc etc to bring the fight and they didn't.

Raymzor

is that seabass-former french rugby player sebastian chabal?

kumate_champ07

Raymzor wrote: »

is that seabass-former french rugby player sebastian chabal?

2002 sprint world champion Sean Eadie (Aus)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Eadie

Mycroft H

Raymzor wrote: »

is that seabass-former french rugby player sebastian chabal?

I thought that too

I enjoyed Wiggens TdF. He's no sprinter nor climber but a real real solid all rounder. (he's the wrong shape to be either a climber or a sprinter)

Wishbone Ash

briankeating wrote: »

Boring, boring, boring and tedious to watch

In fairness though, one doesn't have to be exciting to excel at a particular sport. Steve Davis was exceedingly boring to watch at snooker and Geoff Boycott was probably the most boring exponent of cricket but they both excelled at their game.

As the great Hinault once said "I race to win, not to please people".

Macy0161

I always liked wiggins, and didn't have an issue with this years tour (up to the others to take it to him, and the route suited Evans as much him in theory).

However, his recent ambivalence to doping and sky's ambivalence to transparency, along with his outspoken respect for Armstrong and Indurain take the gloss off for me I'm afraid.

ashleey

spoke2cun wrote: »

He won the softest tour de france in years. He's lucky he didn'nt enter this year's vuellta. He would've been blown away just like Froome. A marketing stunt for british Cycling was this years TDF.

Yes. I've always thought that the French bend over backwards to make the English look good.

Good grief

RobFowl

I think it's disappointing that a previously vocal anti doping cyclist like Wiggins has gone quiet. That said I'd blame his team management for that (see the infamous TDF press conferance where they annnounced any questions about doping and they would stop, also the poor reaction to the questions re the ex rabobank team doc).
Personally I like him and to be fair to him he has ridden to his strenghts this year. In any race you can only beat those who turn up...

dave_o_brien

I find him impossible to warm to, or get enthusiastic about, but as an athlete I think what he has achieved in the sport of cycling is outstanding. To transform yourself over time from a track pursuit specialist to a grand tour contender requires dedication and commitment that would put the pope to shame. His absolute focus and understanding of how long is necessary to allow things to happen, and then a complete understanding of what an individual needs to do to perform on a given day, is simply brilliant. I can think of few athletes in any sport at any time in history who have been capable of transforming themselves so completely over time, and then succeed at the pinnacle of each discipline. The fact that he achieves this through a dedication to numbers is just him using the science available to him. It might be dull, but it's smart.

And even then the way I don't like him, I understand it. He doesn't like the media, and doesn't want to be a celebrity. If I don't like him, I don't think he cares.

Over the years, he has been an outspoken critic of the doping culture that existed/exists in cycling. Fair play, we need more of him. Except more like Voeckler. They should have kids and train them to be great cyclists.

ROK ON

I have mixed feelings about him.

He is a character and shoots from the hip when he is minded to speak.
His honesty about past failings has endeared him to me - for example bus-side interview when Sky flopped at first event.
His interviews are a breath of fresh air. I found his speech about doping at this years tour highly plausible.

The tour cannot be the same every year - organisers mix it up for diversity. This was a tour that he had to go all out for and he did. It was a great season for him and Sky. Everyone knew he would be competitive on such a parcours but he still had to go out and win. He did that and should be lauded as a very worthy champion. What a year.

The things I don't like.
1. The toning down the very worthy aspiration to win with a cometely clean team. If Sky cannot employ Dave Millar then IMHO they cannot employ Gert Linders either.
2. Petethedrummer posted a link a while back which alleged Sky used carbon monoxide to boost performance. While this is not outlawed in my book it is doping - legal doping, but doping nonetheless. Winning a tour on bread & water in my estimation means eating and drinking normally for an elite athlete and not tampering with the bodies bio/chemical make up. Ones body should Chavez from training, racing and diet - carbon monoxide should not feature here.
3. The admission that guys like Rogers and Porte tap out a certain wattage kills my view of what sport should be about. Not Sky's fault tbh, simply using available technology to the max. I think that computers and race radio should be banned from races completely. By all mean use a PM for data recording and training - but do not have a computer feeding live info to the riders in-race.
4. Sky have been building for this year for about 18months. They deserve this. But by Christ they are by and large monotonous to watch. When I watched a lot of rugby (Shannon and Munster) I never cared about entertainment - I simply wanted victory. For cycling I want entertainment. It's why I love Gilbert et al.

I hope he hasn't doped but lots of things like his training regime leave him open to being questioned. Thus far his defense has been a bit of a curates egg.

alexanderomahon

I thought this thread was a joke one, hence my earlier post.

But seriously for me this guy is a massive talent who has achieved what no Brit before has achieved. His record on the road and track speaks for itself and yes the TDF course suited him this year but so what, the course varies from year to year and that is one of the things that makes the TDF so interesting. Due to a shared language I also find him more accessible as a person than other non English speaking riders.

As to the question of doping/stretching rules, well given cycling's history everybody is under a cloud. If he is doubted then the winner of everything is questionable.

Finally, I have really enjoyed this year watching and listening to him, Froome and Cavendish and hopefully next year will bring me as much enjoyment as this one.

letape

Macy0161 wrote: »

However, his recent ambivalence to doping and sky's ambivalence to transparency, along with his outspoken respect for Armstrong and Indurain take the gloss off for me I'm afraid.

This too is my concern. I find it disappointing that he will no longer speak out against convicted dopers. The sport needs established riders to openly condem those that have been found out.

leftism

Have to agree with an earlier poster that Wiggins silent attitude to all the doping controversy this season has definitely left a sour taste in my mouth. Whether this silence was forced by team directors or not, it is hard to justify the dramatic contrast to how outspoken he has been in previous years. For an athlete who's entire image is based being the "honest bloke who always calls it like he see's it", it smacks of hypocrisy to suddenly stop talking about the giant elephant in the room... In contrast to other posters though, i actually admire his controlled style of riding. Its not as flashy or as flamboyant as the great attackers of old, but it requires incredible discipline to stick to your heart rate and power output when everyone around you is trying to stick the knife in, and your gut instinct is to chase down every attack.

Any time i hear the phrase "boring" used to describe the riding style of a grand tour rider , i instantly get a Gladiator flashback, where Russel Crowe is chopping off heads and screaming at the crowd "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!?!?" Seriously like, what are we expecting from these guys???

alexanderomahon

Here is Wiggins talking about doping in the Guardian back in July.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs

davyjose

cycling fans, bloody hell. When someone doesn't cartoonishly rip up a hill, they are boring, but when they do... clearly doping. There are endless pages of smuggery now Lance has been nicked, but Wiggo isn't even in the same class as contador. the hypocrisy is rife, lads.

Wiggins is an extremely gifted rider, and he's a straight up, no BS guy to boot. Give him a break. Him and Evans are possibly the first clean rider of the race in decades. You can't have that and expect the blitzkrieg type of racing we were served up in the 90's and 00's.

davyjose

RobFowl wrote: »

I think it's disappointing that a previously vocal anti doping cyclist like Wiggins has gone quiet. That said I'd blame his team management for that (see the infamous TDF press conferance where they annnounced any questions about doping and they would stop, also the poor reaction to the questions re the ex rabobank team doc).
Personally I like him and to be fair to him he has ridden to his strenghts this year. In any race you can only beat those who turn up...

It is disappointing, but the guy is not Che Guevara. Let Kimmage and Walsh fight the good fight (though Kimmage sure as well wasn't vocal when turning pedals paid the bills). There are very few big name cyclists who speak out. It's very difficult to rub sh!t in your employers nose, and expect to stay employed.

When he was most vocal was when it affected him directly (had Sky been thrown out this year, you can be certain he'd have been vocal about it again). I think he was disillusioned by the sport and he always had the track to return to.

Talking about doping when employed by a team that have to pander to the UCI is very risky business.

RobFowl

davyjose wrote: »

Talking about doping when employed by a team that have to pander to the UCI is very risky business.

Thats a very fair point.

I suspect Wiggins has been muzzled by the team and PR/legal people tbh.
I'm more disappointed by team Sky's attitude regarding doping (and a bit surprised too). That said it is hard to be concentrating on a career at the top level as well a crusading for the future of the sport. Even LeMond was relatively quiet about doping when he was riding.

harringtonp

alexanderomahon wrote: »

Here is Wiggins talking about doping in the Guardian back in July.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs

That's some statement and explanation. Answers a lot of the questions posed here.

mistermatthew

davyjose wrote: »

cycling fans, bloody hell. When someone doesn't cartoonishly rip up a hill, they are boring, but when they do... clearly doping. There are endless pages of smuggery now Lance has been nicked, but Wiggo isn't even in the same class as contador. the hypocrisy is rife, lads.

Wiggins is an extremely gifted rider, and he's a straight up, no BS guy to boot. Give him a break. Him and Evans are possibly the first clean rider of the race in decades. You can't have that and expect the blitzkrieg type of racing we were served up in the 90's and 00's.

Well said mate. If I have to listen to more people complaining about how boring Sky are I might well loose it. I don't believe it is a coincidence that Cadel and Wiggans won the tour in similar styles, not with pop-eye like bursts of power like Landis or Armstrong but through grinding. I believe they are clean. I think their style is the style someone must have if they win GC clean. Explosively winning stages hurts too much in the subsequent days imo for a clean rider.

Sure the Vuelta was great, but did it not make you ask questions? Contador finally breaks Rodriguez the day after the rest day, rest day being a traditional day for blood doping. Contador a proven blood doper.

Sure Wiggo and Cadel are boring, but I believe "I think" that they are clean. The others, the explosive GC winners make me doubt.

Macy0161

harringtonp wrote: »

alexanderomahon wrote: »

Here is Wiggins talking about doping in the Guardian back in July.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs

That's some statement and explanation. Answers a lot of the questions posed here.

The context to that was his failure to answer questions on doping and his attack on those posing questions. Where are his statements on Armstrong, particularly since the USADA case?

seve65

Originally Posted by alexanderomahon
Here is Wiggins talking about doping in the Guardian back in July.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog...ins-dope-drugs

worth reading.

BryanL

ROK ON wrote: »

I think that computers and race radio should be banned from races completely. By all mean use a PM for data recording and training - but do not have a computer feeding live info to the riders in-race.

Agree 100% with that

dvntie

I just love the advert at the bottom of the page below for EPOboost as I'm reading this thread

alexanderomahon

Macy0161 wrote: »

The context to that was his failure to answer questions on doping and his attack on those posing questions. Where are his statements on Armstrong, particularly since the USADA case?

I feel in the article he explains his reaction to the questions put.

As he states at start of the article

There have been a couple of questions asked about doping this week and I don't feel I've been able to give a full answer. I understand why I get asked those questions given the recent history of the sport, but it still annoys me. It's hard to know what to say, half an hour after finishing one of the hardest races you've ridden, when you're knackered.

The insinuations make me angry, because I thought people would look back into my history, the things I've said in the past, such as at the start of the 2006 Tour when I turned up for a first go at the race and Operación Puerto kicked off, what I said when Floyd Landis went positive, and what I said when I was chucked out with Cofidis after Cristian Moreni tested positive in 2007.

On the way home after that, I put my Cofidis kit in a dustbin at Pau airport because I didn't want to be seen in it, and swore I would never race in it again, because I was so sick at what had happened. Those things I said then stand true today. Nothing has changed. I still feel those emotions and I stand by those statements now.

bedirect

Yes the Veulta showed up froomey; Wiggins seems ok, does not seem to hae had it easy growing up. He still has his olympic medals though. The TDF with Alberto Contador will be a good test for him in 2013

ashleey

I have to agree that power meters are what killed the excitement and the 'unexpected'. Unfortunately, Team Sky maximised their efficiency through using them and thus the whole debate.

Brian?

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

In fairness though, one doesn't have to be exciting to excel at a particular sport. Steve Davis was exceedingly boring to watch at snooker and Geoff Boycott was probably the most boring exponent of cricket but they both excelled at their game.

He's a good cyclist, there's no denying that. I just don't like the way he won. TT well and then hold on in the mountains. Just one man's opinion, which was what the OP was looking for.

As the great Hinault once said "I race to win, not to please people".

Hinault was bleeding deadly though.

corny

briankeating wrote: »

He's a good cyclist, there's no denying that. I just don't like the way he won. TT well and then hold on in the mountains. Just one man's opinion, which was what the OP was looking for.

TBF he really didn't need to hold on in the mountains. Who was stronger? Consistently only Froome for me.

I think i'm right saying (not checking the time gaps) take out the TT's, he still beat Nibali in the overall.

MrCreosote

ROK ON wrote: »

The things I don't like.
1. The toning down the very worthy aspiration to win with a cometely clean team. If Sky cannot employ Dave Millar then IMHO they cannot employ Gert Linders either.
2. Petethedrummer posted a link a while back which alleged Sky used carbon monoxide to boost performance. While this is not outlawed in my book it is doping - legal doping, but doping nonetheless. Winning a tour on bread & water in my estimation means eating and drinking normally for an elite athlete and not tampering with the bodies bio/chemical make up. Ones body should Chavez from training, racing and diet - carbon monoxide should not feature here.
3. The admission that guys like Rogers and Porte tap out a certain wattage kills my view of what sport should be about. Not Sky's fault tbh, simply using available technology to the max. I think that computers and race radio should be banned from races completely. By all mean use a PM for data recording and training - but do not have a computer feeding live info to the riders in-race.
.

I just don't get this. If you don't like the rules, complain about the rules rather than the cyclist that keep within them. Carbon monoxide is not banned. Neither are powermeters and race radios. Why should there be any problem using them?

And there very little difference between carbon monoxide and altitude suimulation. Sleeping in a hypoxic tent is hardly "natural" and yet nobody bats an eyelid when it's done. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and the WADA list is where it is drawn. On it-cheating, not on it- fair game.

I agree about Linders though. Disgraceful.

Lumen

MrCreosote wrote: »

Sleeping in a hypoxic tent is hardly "natural" and yet nobody bats an eyelid when it's done

It's illegal in Italy. Probably carbon monoxide is too, as the rule is against manipulation of blood values by artificial means.

MrCreosote

Lumen wrote: »

It's illegal in Italy. Probably carbon monoxide is too, as the rule is against manipulation of blood values by artificial means.

The code is pretty clear- artificial enhancement of oxygen uptake, delivery or transport is banned. Altitude training, altitude simulation and carbon monoxide are all natural methods of boosting oxygen delivery (and probably all work in more or less the same way). Altitude simulation might be banned in Italy (I don't know) but it's not banned by WADA.

Lumen

MrCreosote wrote: »

The code is pretty clear- artificial enhancement of oxygen uptake, delivery or transport is banned. Altitude training, altitude simulation and carbon monoxide are all natural methods of boosting oxygen delivery (and probably all work in more or less the same way). Altitude simulation might be banned in Italy (I don't know) but it's not banned by WADA.

I was only countering your point that "no one bats an eyelid". Clearly the Italians do, at least in theory.

You also say in one post:

'Sleeping in a hypoxic tent is hardly "natural"'

and in the next one:

"...altitude simulation and carbon monoxide are all natural methods of boosting oxygen delivery"