Bradley Wiggins - MOD Warning - see Opening Post

Brad768

Currently reading his book as well and feel exactly the same to everyone else. I feel Wiggins has done nothing wrong but questions definitely should be asked to not just Wiggins, but the whole team.

uphillonly

I don't think it's been mentioned yet but he has a beautifully fluid cycling style. Probably true of most excellent time trialists.

His back was like an ironing board in the Olympic TT.

MPFG

There is a difference between asking questions and casting a pall of suspicion and cynicism over the achievements of very good sportsmen
I believe Wiggins when he says he doesn't dope and his achievements and the manner of his wins, ie speed etc indicate to me that he is telling the truth

In my opinion one is innocent until proven guilty .....Kimmage continues to perpetuate his claim to fame but I wish he would do it with some more concrete examples rather than a general air of negativity as otherwise I think it is very unfair

happytramp

MPFG wrote: »

There is a difference between asking questions and casting a pall of suspicion and cynicism over the achievements of very good sportsmen
I believe Wiggins when he says he doesn't dope and his achievements and the manner of his wins, ie speed etc indicate to me that he is telling the truth

In my opinion one is innocent until proven guilty .....Kimmage continues to perpetuate his claim to fame but I wish he would do it with some more concrete examples rather than a general air of negativity as otherwise I think it is very unfair

No offence but change the word Wiggins to Lance in that post and it reads like a myriad of starry eyed journalists reports from 2000-2005

12 sprocket

MPFG wrote: »

There is a difference between asking questions and casting a pall of suspicion and cynicism over the achievements of very good sportsmen
I believe Wiggins when he says he doesn't dope and his achievements and the manner of his wins, ie speed etc indicate to me that he is telling the truth

In my opinion one is innocent until proven guilty .....Kimmage continues to perpetuate his claim to fame but I wish he would do it with some more concrete examples rather than a general air of negativity as otherwise I think it is very unfair

I agree with you mpfg that the approach is very unfair. when people are proven gulity throw the book at them and get them out of the sport. but let them be proven guilty first ..

Heres a few quotes about some of the principles that justice is founded on. Can you imagine kimmages reaction if someone said that" Allegedly kimmage didnt write his articles but had a ghost writer... THe Hulk wouldnt be in it.!!!
Quotes below

"It isbetter and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put asingle innocent one to death." A quote from a legal philosopher from the12 century
Abraham from the bible originally said it isbetter to let ten guilty men go free than let one innocent man be convicted.

ROK ON

Fwiw I do not believe that any Sky rider is doping. I do believe that they are at the edge of the envelope in terms of the letter of the law however. What is marginal gains, if not pushing every conceivable non cheating angle.

I do not believe Bradley when he says he has won a bagful of races on bread and water. Training, diet, psychology and the hardedged legal application of science (from physiology to equipment) helped claim those victories.

Some of their alleged training techniques are frankly dubious and while not presently outlawed it would be unsurprising if at a future time that they were.

That said in the here and now I would like to think that he and the team are credible within the bounds of the rules as they stand presently.

Cycling is becoming crazily scientific. For stage races, mountainous races and tts the combination of a talented team, money and science will win.

It is for this reason that I love Flanders and Roubaix - for the most part chaos rules. The strongest or best prepared often does not even finish let alone win.

Raam

It is imperative that Kimmage and others like him continue to question any dominating performances which raises their suspicion. Too many people with vested interests in cycling have proven that they cannot be trusted to keep the sport clean. If people don't bother to question them and instead ease the pressure then it's quite clear what will happen.

corny

ROK ON wrote: »

Cycling is becoming crazily scientific. For stage races, mountainous races and tts the combination of a talented team, money and science will win.

That implies Sky are well ahead of the game and thats something they are very keen to convey. They'd almost have you believe that the rest of the pro peloton are imbeciles not capable of getting the best out of their riders. I don't buy it for a second tbh. BMC, Astana etc also have deep pockets and their own versions of Leinders and Brailsford.

I was looking back at the 09 tour where Wiggins finished fourth and it turns out that 6 of the first 11 have either been banned or tested positive for PED's. Yes cycling is becoming more sophisticated but the doping isn't going away. I laughed, most of us did, when i heard the defence from the majority of the peloton around the time of the Vuelta, cycling has changed, cleaner sport etc.

Against this can we really describe the gains Sky have made (Froome for eg) as marginal? I hope (i rather like Wiggins tbh) its all legal but its foolish not to think twice given the backdrop. Time will tell of course.

MPFG

I can only go with my gut feelings as no one including Kimmage has produced any evidence about SKY..I like Wiggins...He can be tetchy, prattish and irritable but I believe he is a good bloke with integrity and is honest.......Pity his achievements are being undermined..by suggestion ..Have we gone too far the other way ….Can no one improve now or win without the finger of suspicion ?? How dreadful for all those out training and working hard

Kimmage may have integrity but my gut wonders if he is just weded to the agenda of suspicion for motives other than a love of cycling ....people can do good after all for all the wrong reasons
Reading ‘Riis’ at present …cannot like this man at all…..He is full of self justification for doping , anger at being questioned by Danish journalists during Festina in 1998 with objections as to how he was treated when all long he was lying through his back teeth on every media. He also put self interest above all including his sons…Wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him...

I know you could say Wiggins has also strongly objected to questioning about doping but he is to my mind a different person , he understands the risks outweigh the gains for a British cyclist doping in today’s climate….and he seems such a stubborn so an so that he would never let it be said he cheated
If I am to believe any of them I choose to believe Wiggins

niceonetom

A clean Tour winner?



Honestly though, I'm sceptical. And Kimmage has to use that legal fund for something.

iregk

I'm unsure about Wiggins. That is to say I don't suspect him of being guilty I'm just undecided if he is completely clean or not. I'd like him to be though. Most people bring up the tour but lets look at it. It was perfect for him. All the big dangerous riders were either out or injured/sick. Evans, Bertie, Schlek. Wiggo would be in the top 4 and when the other 3 of that bunch are out then by default you should win.

Add to that the fact that the tour of 2012 was perfect for him, double TT and not as much climbing as previously all led to him being crowned winner. Now what people do forget is how good he is on a TT bike. If you look at any video shots of him his position is amazing all the way to the end so he will always have that edge. Last year as well he also wobbled on one of the climbs when Froome for some reason when on the attack, so he is vulnerable.

Onto Sky and their training. I do think they are at the head of training methodology and what is legal or not. Wasn't their O2 tent banned last year along with their cryo chamber? All of these things help give them the competitive edge even without substances.

Beasty

I've deleted a post - please do not accuse named individuals of "lying through their teeth" unless there is unequivocal evidence in the public domain to back up your assertions (and of course the same applies to doping allegations)

Kimmage may be awash with funds to fight any legal challenges - Boards is not

Thanks

Beasty

death1234567

happytramp wrote: »

Same here. I'm not really skeptical about Wiggins ...(sure Indurain did the same thing for years) ...

If you are comparing him to indurain then shouldn't that tell you that you should be very skeptical?

happytramp

death1234567 wrote: »

If you are comparing him to indurain then shouldn't that tell you that you should be very skeptical?

Possibly. But then again Indurain raced and chased through the mountains. Wiggins follows and has trouble responding to an acceleration. Had Contador, Rodriguez or Schleck been challenging him as opposed to Nibali and Evans it's likely Wiggins and the sky boys would have been left for dead at the business end of the MTF's.

Macy0161

Sky haven't been transparent with their numbers, their appointments or even their resignations/ retirements/ transfers out. They're creating the scepticism in my opinion. The whole zero tolerance is PR BS, which does nothing to help cycling going forward, and is a bit late to make a song and dance about implementing after you've won the bloody tour.

I still come down on believing in Wiggins, if not necessarily the wider Sky project. Liking him less and less though - moaning about the public profile/ lack of privacy, but then getting up on stage with Weller etc. He can't have it both ways.

seve65

leading edge they may be, but i wonder sometimes, he quotes in his book using Training Peaks and a stress score like its a novel new concept ? Also the idea that setting a pace up a climb to suit your team is a new idea. Possibly all this tells us that cyclists may have somewhat ingrained ways of thinking.

RobFowl

Macy0161 wrote: »

Sky haven't been transparent with their numbers, their appointments or even their resignations/ retirements/ transfers out. They're creating the scepticism in my opinion. The whole zero tolerance is PR BS, which does nothing to help cycling going forward, and is a bit late to make a song and dance about implementing after you've won the bloody tour.

I still come down on believing in Wiggins, if not necessarily the wider Sky project. Liking him less and less though - moaning about the public profile/ lack of privacy, but then getting up on stage with Weller etc. He can't have it both ways.

Their Doctors now are all UK registered and with a sound basis in sports/emergency medicine and GP.
I know of them by reputation and would be astounded (to put it mildly) if they would even consider turning a blind eye to anything dodgy.

Macy0161

RobFowl wrote: »

Their Doctors now are all UK registered and with a sound basis in sports/emergency medicine and GP.
I know of them by reputation and would be astounded (to put it mildly) if they would even consider turning a blind eye to anything dodgy.

That was part of the point I was trying to make - they are now... They could've done that from the very start.

elduggo

Macy0161 wrote: »

That was part of the point I was trying to make - they are now... They could've done that from the very start.

they did do it at the very start, did they not? Something changed along the way though (after a poor season or 2).

Remember David Millar saying in his book about how he could never ride for Team Sky because of his doping past and of how they had a policy in place preventing those with such a past being part of the team?

Something changed, and when something changes theres usually good reason for it. One wonders how much their atrocious first year in existence had to do with it........

I'm dying to see how they get on this year but its a case of they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. Continue to dominate and nothing in 'popular' opinion changes. Have an average season and more weight is given to the part that Leeinders, Yates, Julich, etc played.

I'm skeptical and will remain so.

el tel

RobFowl wrote: »

Their Doctors now are all UK registered and with a sound basis in sports/emergency medicine and GP.
I know of them by reputation and would be astounded (to put it mildly) if they would even consider turning a blind eye to anything dodgy.

Robfowl, was wondering if you have any knowledge on the following?

Do you think if a Team doctor knew that a rider was doing something, for example taking a banned substance, or taking a substance or undergoing a regime that is not banned so therefor technically 'clean', do they have a an obligation to inform any particular authority?

My OH is a doctor and she always says that the doctor is the patients advocate. In a Team situation, I presume the doctor is paid by the Team, so would their obligation (to report 'unusual' activity) be to the team? However, would they also under obligation to pass info to WADA or other as well? If they knew about something, or were complicit by saying nothing, could they be struck off their national medical register?

Just wondering!

petethedrummer

elduggo wrote: »

they did do it at the very start, did they not?

No they talked about cleanliness and transparency alot. They never actually demonstrated either. The latest clearout was done under media pressure and wasn't entirely transparent.

elduggo

petethedrummer wrote: »

No they talked about cleanliness and transparency alot. They never actually demonstrated either. The latest clearout was done under media pressure and wasn't entirely transparent.

It certainly smacked of panic alright. And their actions and supposed 'new attitude' is in complete contrast with that of Vaughters/Garmin. And I think most cycling fans would prefer the approach he's adopted.

As regards demonstrating their cleanliness, I agree. Other than Millar writing what he did in his book I know of no other case where they prevented anyone joining the team due to their past.

happytramp

happytramp wrote: »

No offence but change the word Wiggins to Lance in that post and it reads like a myriad of starry eyed journalists reports from 2000-2005

Not true. The post you responded to specifically talked about the nature and speed of his wins. Ultimately, that is what made Lance unbelievable (literally) and makes Wiggins less suspicious.

He's a grinder. The more notorious dopers of recent years (Virenque, Pantani, Contador etc) have been the reverse - constantly out of the saddle, accelerating repeatedly in the mountains as if they could carry on like that all day. You'll never see Wiggins ride like that.

This year's tour was set up for someone like him and he won it. Not a vintage year, but nothing he did was spectacular and his power outputs are consistent with everything we know about him.

Of course he might be doping. Only a fool would argue otherwise. But right now, there is literally no evidence, either in the narrow 'Armstrong defence' sense or the broader 'how the f**k does he do that?' sense.

RobFowl

el tel wrote: »

Robfowl, was wondering if you have any knowledge on the following?

Do you think if a Team doctor knew that a rider was doing something, for example taking a banned substance, or taking a substance or undergoing a regime that is not banned so therefor technically 'clean', do they have a an obligation to inform any particular authority?

My OH is a doctor and she always says that the doctor is the patients advocate. In a Team situation, I presume the doctor is paid by the Team, so would their obligation (to report 'unusual' activity) be to the team? However, would they also under obligation to pass info to WADA or other as well? If they knew about something, or were complicit by saying nothing, could they be struck off their national medical register?

Just wondering!

Being a team Doctor has different obligations. Effectively you are there not as a patient advocate /representative but to ensure the team runs to maximum effectiveness.
If a team Doc suspected a rider was doping they would usually report it through the management structure (there are usually predefined protocols for doing this).
Team doctors and teams have and continue to pass information on to WADA and other authorities re athletes under their care.

Bruckner and Khan "Clinical Sports medicine" has a section on this (It's on of the best Sports Med texts) if your OH is interested.

elduggo

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course he might be doping. Only a fool would argue otherwise. But right now, there is literally no evidence, either in the narrow 'Armstrong defence' sense or the broader 'how the f**k does he do that?' sense.

right, but mostly through no fault of his own, there are grounds for suspicion. Not of him specifically, but certainly of the team he rides for.

Lumen

elduggo wrote: »

right, but mostly through no fault of his own, there are grounds for suspicion. Not of him specifically, but certainly of the team he rides for.

I don't know what you mean by "grounds for suspicion". That's the sort of weaselly wording governments and tabloids use when trying to discredit their opponents ("X was linked to Y").

Perhaps what you mean is there are "grounds for displeasure", in that Sky's behaviour has not been Kimmage-perfect. But TBH had they been entirely perfect in their hiring processes and then still won the TdF, Kimmage would still not be declaring the win unarguably clean. He won't ever do that, because he can't ever do that, because absence of evidence is not, and never will be, evidence of absence.

elduggo

Lumen wrote: »

I don't know what you mean by "grounds for suspicion". That's the sort of weaselly wording governments and tabloids use when trying to discredit their opponents ("X was linked to Y").

Perhaps what you mean is there are "grounds for displeasure", in that Sky's behaviour has not been Kimmage-perfect. But TBH had they been entirely perfect in their hiring processes and then still won the TdF, Kimmage would still not be declaring the win unarguably clean. He won't ever do that, because he can't ever do that, because absence of evidence is not, and never will be, evidence of absence.

what a highly offensive post.

I chose the word 'suspicion' carefully. I only speak for myself but I know full well what I meant.

But thank you for double-checking, from that moral high ground you would appear to occupy.

Lumen

elduggo wrote: »

what a highly offensive post.

What's offensive? I've no idea.

el tel

Lumen wrote: »

What's offensive? I've no idea.

I think he thinks you were offensive to weasels :pac:

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

Perhaps what you mean is there are "grounds for displeasure", in that Sky's behaviour has not been Kimmage-perfect. But TBH had they been entirely perfect in their hiring processes and then still won the TdF, Kimmage would still not be declaring the win unarguably clean. He won't ever do that, because he can't ever do that, because absence of evidence is not, and never will be, evidence of absence.

I've got a massive amount of respect for Kimmage, but I think it's a shame that in this context he can't at least state the obvious - that speeds are down, incredible lone breakaways by GC contenders aren't happening, power outputs are within normal ranges (for elite athletes) - and that on the face of it cycling is at least winning the battle to an extent.

Even if there are still dopers, at least we are getting to a place where clean riders can compete, and that has to mean something.

Constantly carping makes it sound like nothing has changed, whereas going by the very same evidence (speeds, inferred power outputs etc) that made Armstrong an obvious cheat, it's pretty clear that a lot HAS changed.

Pointing that out doesn't / shouldn't make you hopelessly naive.