Bradley Wiggins - MOD Warning - see Opening Post

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"

MrCreosote

Lumen wrote: »

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"

My point is that the whole bread-and-water thing is a total fantasy. All elite sports, and particularly cycling, have been taken over by sports science. The training and performance methods they use are not natural in the sense that they are extremely clinical.

Altitude simulation and carbon monoxide are natural in that they boost oxygen delivery via the body's own mechanisms

So same word but different contexts!

ednwireland

Back on topic people, if you want to discuss supposed training enhancements used by sky create a new thread, this is about bradley wiggins

RobFowl

MrCreosote wrote: »

Altitude simulation and carbon monoxide are natural in that they boost oxygen delivery via the body's own mechanisms

So same word but different contexts!

Neither natural!

Altitude simulation on the borderline of legality in terms of WADA (differing opinions among experts) and carbon monoxide use has not been ruled on yet (potentially very dangerous so would probably be deemed illegal under WADA's guidelines).

MrCreosote

RobFowl wrote: »

Neither natural!

Altitude simulation on the borderline of legality in terms of WADA (differing opinions among experts) and carbon monoxide use has not been ruled on yet (potentially very dangerous so would probably be deemed illegal under WADA's guidelines).

If altitude simulation is banned, then so should all altitude training, because there's no real difference. Same with carbon monoxide, although I agree it cranks the danger level up a notch.

I'll bring the thread back on topic by saying that I think Wiggins is great. He did what he had to do throughout the year. The Tour was boring because of the lack of creditable challengers, which wasn't his fault. All he can do is beat those that turn up on the day.

Lumen

MrCreosote wrote: »

If altitude simulation is banned, then so should all altitude training, because there's no real difference. Same with carbon monoxide, although I agree it cranks the danger level up a notch.

Apologies to the mods for the possible off-topic, but this is relevant to Wiggins specifically, who has tweeted about being forced to spend all night in an altitude tent after eating a kilo of beetroot.

I posted some unqualified ramblings about altitude simulation here yesterday.

The most effective form of "altitude training" is apparently "live high, train low". Done naturally this I assume means you have to live up a mountain and cycle (or drive, fly etc) down every day to train at low altitude. This is a massive pain in the arse, particularly for a busy professional racer but it's the sort of "natural" inconvenience that we expect and appreciate as fans.

On the other hand, achieving the same thing using an altitude tent involves spending the 18 hours a day that you're not training living in a plastic bubble. This is just a ridiculous carry-on. They're cyclists, not terraforming astronauts.

So I think altitude simulation should be banned purely on the basis of extreme dorkiness and indignity. There is historical precedent for this aesthetic approach in the UCI technical regulations for bikes, which is why they're not all be riding the TdF on faired recumbents.

BQQ

alexanderomahon wrote: »

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.

But why hasn't he condemned any dopers since 2007 though?
He says "nothing has changed", but something has changed. He's gone silent.
What he said at the tour is reminicent of Hamilton's denials. The lack of condemnation for the likes of Armstrong is glaring.

Now, I don't want this to be construed as doping speculation, as I consider him to be clean, but I also feel disappointed by his observation of the omerta.

dandanmur

You can't but admire the man, constant dedication to reach the pinnacle of the sport.

ThisRegard

dandanmur wrote: »

You can't but admire the man, constant dedication to reach the pinnacle of the sport.

I'm not alluding to any illegal activity here, but that could be a comment about Lance Armstrong any time over the last 15 year or so.

MPFG

Bradley Wiggins is a superb cyclist and a bit of an unique character which is great for cycling .. He can be rather grumpy and contrary but hey ho , who isn't
As to the question of his suitabilty as a grand tour winner...
He won it as he knew how and played to his strengths....so he dosn't fly up a mountainside nor is he a punchy riders ...but I like the differnce in riders ...cycling needs all sorts... You can't win with some people...
I do not think however he will win again for 2 reasons ...1. it will be hard to sustain motivation and 2. With Contodor, Purito and Shleck in the tour next year it will be hard to repeat this year's achievement
I for one can't wait for next years tour when all will be answered

Morrisseeee

Perhaps people's opinion of Bradley is being clouded by Team Domination (Sky) ?!

He got really lucky this year, it all lined up for him, but in fairness he still had to go out and perform, which he did.

<snip>