Bradley Wiggins - MOD Warning - see Opening Post

uphillonly · 03-01-2013 04:37PM

happytramp wrote: »

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.

Two of those three (Contador & Schleck) have been convicting of doping so not really a fair race.

M cebee · 03-01-2013 04:38PM

Orinoco wrote: »

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 arguewy 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.

hypothetically speaking if a team wanted to dope now in 2012 ,they would likely 'grind' it out wouldn't they?

-to avoid raising suspicion with extraordinary performances

-possibly also to keep the blood passport in range

elduggo · 03-01-2013 04:44PM

M cebee wrote: »

hypothetically speaking if a team wanted to dope now in 2012 ,they would likely 'grind' it out wouldn't they?

-to avoid raising suspicion with extraordinary performances

-possibly also to keep the blood passport in range

yes, 'marginal gains'.

03-01-2013 04:46PM

M cebee wrote: »

hypothetically speaking if a team wanted to dope now in 2012 ,they would likely 'grind' it out wouldn't they?

-to avoid raising suspicion with extraordinary performances

-possibly also to keep the blood passport in range

So we've arrived at a place where we think he's doping because he's NOT doing anything that looks like the result of doping, and he's not failing any dope tests.

Not sure the poor bugger can win based on this logic!

Beasty · 03-01-2013 04:57PM

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

M cebee · 03-01-2013 05:12PM

[Quoteyoy.c=Orinoco;82490280]

So we've arrived at a place where we think he's doping because he's NOT doing anything that looks like the result of doping, and he's not failing any dope tests.

Not sure the poor bugger can win based on this logic![/Quote]
your conclusion
i didn't say that

petethedrummer · 03-01-2013 05:33PM

Lumen wrote: »

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 believes in Garmin and they are full of ex-dopers.

The problem is not the hiring process. It's that Sky keep changing their standards to suit. Feigning ignorance over the histories of their team is an absolute joke. Now they fired (or agreed to part ways with) a bunch of people who did their jobs perfectly acceptably, because the PR was bad. That's weasally behaviour. Sky set themselves up for all this. It is their own fault. The internal investigation into Leinders that did or didn't happen. Signing pledges. FFS. You could write a farce about it.

Kimmage is being consistent. Sky are not.

Lumen wrote: »

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.

Didn't he recently state he is sure Lemond was clean after grilling him for 2 hours?

MPFG · 03-01-2013 05:53PM

So Kimmage is infallabile then...Whatever he says goes ???

He believes in Garmin so they are legit and he questions Sky so they are dogey

He quizzed Le Mond for hours so we have proof Le Mond never doped !

I don't know the truth about any of these but surely one man's view with inhernet bias and personal attachments is no evidence or proof ether way .....
My point is how can we undermine a sportsman's acheivements without proof and how can a 'journalist' cast suspicion without valid evidence...

Lumen · 03-01-2013 05:58PM

petethedrummer wrote: »

He believes in Garmin and they are full of ex-dopers...Didn't he recently state he is sure Lemond was clean after grilling him for 2 hours?

Good points. I can't find the Lemond thing though I remember it now, Google fu is weak today.

petethedrummer · 03-01-2013 06:02PM

MPFG wrote: »

So Kimmage is infallabile then...Whatever he says goes ???...

No, i did not say that. The point was not that I suggest everyone take Kimmages word as gospel.

Lumen stated that Kimmage wouldn't say that anyone won it clean. I countered his argument with an example of someone Kimmage thinks won it clean.

I was also pointing out that it is not Sky's hiring policy itself that is the problem. Other teams hire ex-dopers. It is Sky's hiring policy after harping on about cleanliness and transparency that is Kimmage's problem.

MPFG wrote: »

He believes in Garmin so they are legit and he questions Sky so they are dogey

garmin acknowledge their rider's shady pasts. They don;t feign ignorance and then fire people on a whim.

MPFG wrote: »

He quizzed Le Mond for hours so we have proof Le Mond never doped !

I did not suggest that. You inferred it,

MPFG wrote: »

I don't know the truth about any of these but surely one man's view with inhernet bias and personal attachments is no evidence or proof ether way .....
My point is how can we undermine a sportsman's acheivements without proof and how can a 'journalist' cast suspicion without valid evidence...

Again I am not suggesting that Kimmage be the final arbiter on the truth but almost everything Kimmage has been saying since the 90's has turned out to be 100% true.

corny · 03-01-2013 06:31PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

It kind of does though.

The first two home in the most recent Grand tour have served bans for doping. Actually a nice little breakaway after the rest day won the race. I see no evidence, other than talk, that the sport is cleaner.

The days of the superman efforts might be gone but that doesn't directly infer PED's are a thing of the past. Keeping it human but not weakening seems to be goal these days. Staring at a power metre, its easy to achieve.

Russman · 03-01-2013 06:32PM

Deleted User wrote: »

that speeds are down,

Are they really though ? Not a lot of difference in the average winning speed for the last 15 or so years, at least from what I can see after a quick google. The jump to the very high 30s km/h seemed to happen around the time of Indurain's second tour win and to my, untrained eye, have stayed more or less consistent since then, with a few further spikes into the 40s (LA mostly).

Of course, different routes, weather etc will impact on times but sometimes I wonder if this drop in speeds is actually real or a myth.....?

03-01-2013 06:48PM

Russman wrote: »

Are they really though ? Not a lot of difference in the average winning speed for the last 15 or so years, at least from what I can see after a quick google. The jump to the very high 30s km/h seemed to happen around the time of Indurain's second tour win and to my, untrained eye, have stayed more or less consistent since then, with a few further spikes into the 40s (LA mostly).

Of course, different routes, weather etc will impact on times but sometimes I wonder if this drop in speeds is actually real or a myth.....?

The last 2 years have been slower than any since 2000 - and this year was acknowledged to be an 'easy' route. Not forgetting all the other factors that would usually mean a trend towards improved performance in any sport (particularly one that relies on technology).

With Armstrong, Contador and others, as Lemond, Kimmage etc pointed out at the time, the speeds they were riding just did not make sense. Nobody has leveled that accusation at Wiggins, and god knows they would if they could.

Like I say, I am not an idiot. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that half the peloton are still doping.

However I think it's fair to say that there's LESS doping than there was, clean riders have a better chance of competing, and it's more likely that the winner is a clean rider than it was in the EPO years.

happytramp · 03-01-2013 07:45PM

uphillonly wrote: »

Two of those three (Contador & Schleck) have been convicting of doping so not really a fair race.

I was talking about Andy not Frank.

uphillonly · 03-01-2013 07:51PM

happytramp wrote: »

I was talking about Andy not Frank.

Sorry you are correct, my mistake. However, at risk of upsetting the moderator, do you really believe they "train" particularly differently?

Beasty · 03-01-2013 07:55PM

uphillonly wrote: »

However, at risk of upsetting the moderator, do you really believe they "train" particularly differently?

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

TBH, I think that's enough now

Thread closed

Bradley Wiggins - MOD Warning - see Opening Post

Comments