# Doubting Wiggins and Sky



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

Kimmage is calling people out again:

Kimmage Unconvinced By Sky And Wiggins | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

Wiggins reminds me a bit of Usain Bolt: both have impressive pasts that add to the plausibility of their performances, but both had shocking breakout years where they improved radically to become utterly dominant. Also, it goes without saying that they both come from sports with highly checkered pasts. I guess I'm a bit surprised at the world's ability to apparently accept both of these guys unquestioningly. Surely we've been burned too many times at this point not to ask some tough questions. To say it another way: if either had been American or Chinese, I believe there would be much more controversy swirling around them.

Maybe I'm too jaded and suspicious. Tyler Hamilton's book essentially convinced me that all elite athletes dope. It's too easy to get away with and the benefits are too great.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

I really hope he gets nabbed before he wins 7 tours... but to me this looks like a nationally sponsored doping program, so I'd guess they have a lot of doctors to rely on to not get caught for the immediate future. 

Could I be wrong? Sure, anything is possible. But I like my odds of being right which I'd put at 10:1.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Nope. Totally clean. Nobody got caught. We have Armstrong. The END. Do not question things!!!!

His dominance in the stage races building up to the TdF and actual TdF raised a few eyebrows in my mind. Even 'ol Lance didn't do that kind of stuff.


----------



## jmorgan (Apr 13, 2012)

Lets not forget Chris Froomes amazing 2nd place performance.


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

I doubt that Sky doped. If, in the fullness of time, it turns out that they weren't clean, then there is no doubt that cycling would be totally finished as a mainstream sport. No sponsor would go near it again!
The devastating effect of Armstrong's poisonous legacy on our sport would have been catastrophic had it not been was partially offset by Wiggins and Co, who gave us the only Positive(sic) news this year.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Why would it be any different? By then there will be a new amazing cycling team that is winning and people will be all too willing to forget about the abuses of the previously dominating (Sky) team. If you don't believe this you haven't followed cycling long enough. I think you have to be out of your mind to think Sky is clean, for one it means that all the other teams who are doping can't match Sky's clean performance. What beard would you attribute this to? Asymmetric chainrings, skinsuits, manly sideburns? Or is it genetic, that great British pedigree that hadn't won a TDF since it began in 109 years? 



albert owen said:


> I doubt that Sky doped. If, in the fullness of time, it turns out that they weren't clean, then there is no doubt that cycling would be totally finished as a mainstream sport. No sponsor would go near it again!
> The devastating effect of Armstrong's poisonous legacy on our sport would have been catastrophic had it not been was partially offset by Wiggins and Co, who gave us the only Positive(sic) news this year.


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

There seems to be a pattern emerging: 
Some folks NEED Wiggins/Sky to be exposed as cheats. IF(?) Sky are found to have cheated, then these people will feel better about the fact that post-LeMond USA cycling has been exposed as rotten to the core.
Portraying Armstrong and Co as just part of the rich tapestry of cyclings' swashbuckling past is exactly what cycling doesn't need if it is to survive.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

DrSmile said:


> Why would it be any different?


Why indeed! Methinks the LA propaganda worked. If anything, LA's doping created the problem of why Wiggo doped, but Wiggo is a nice guy and so dreamy.....

I know someone is going to neg rep me or report me, but I see little reason for a rider's personality or lack thereof in how a doper is treated. Since nobody was busted, I think it's safe to assume that the people in charge still have a price to look the other way.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

I go this way and that on Sky. On the one hand the performances ARE 
suspicious. In a sport riddled with doping they were dominant last year. Obviously that raises eyebrows and then there's the dodgy doctor, Rogers, Sutton, Yates etc. etc. etc.

Equally it's clear that performances are not golden era doping good. Maybe that's micro dosing, maybe it's only doing what you need to do to win but sometimes I struggle to believe that Brailsford would build such a huge house on such a flimsy foundation. It would put at risk all the track team's success, never mind the road. Cycling as a pro sport clearly wouldn't be finished but in the UK it would fall right back to where it was 10 years ago.

Who knows. The one thing that's damn sure is the more time you spend in the doping forum the less you'll believe in anything.


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

albert owen said:


> There seems to be a pattern emerging:
> Some folks NEED Wiggins/Sky to be exposed as cheats. IF(?) Sky are found to have cheated, then these people will feel better about the fact that post-LeMond USA cycling has been exposed as rotten to the core.


Ah yes. "Exposed as rotten to the core". Name any cycling country without a checkered past. Name one that doesn't currently have problems. Do you think any of the biggest names in cycling history (Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault, Fignon, Indurain, Contador etc) were/are as pure as driven snow?

What I find really surprising is the willingness of some people to take Sky and Wiggins at their word. The man was even knighted.


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

Wiggins didn't just appear out of nowhere to win the TdF. He is a multiple World and Olympic Champion and a terrific ITTer. 
This particular TdF was absolutely designed to play to his strengths. In addition, he had hardly any competition for the Yellow apart from Froome (who followed team orders), an Evans who was clearly not on top of his game and Nibali who try as he might just wasn't up to the job.
Brailsford is a very smart man who likewise didn't come out of nowhere. The sacrifice f potential Cavendish stage wins in the quest for victory plus detailed planning the like of which has blown away every nation on Earth on the track for several years shows what the established teams were up against. 
If Sky did cheat, then it will be the biggest scandal in the history of British Sport. 
If they cheated, it will come out. Kimmage was incredibly brave to take on the cycling establishment once and was proved right. He _could_ be right again. Therefore, I don't rule it out, but several of the above posts seem based on _wishful thinking_ and designed to mitigate the crimes of LA and that whole generation discredited and disgraced riders.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

I don't just dislike British sideburns. I don't like American sideburns, either. It's not a nationalistic thing. I just don't like sideburns.

Likewise, any dominant performance (in this case a team performance) in this era is likely to raise eyebrows and spark comparisons to Postal. The "marginal gains" thing isn't anything any forward-thinking team isn't doing right now. Postal had F1, and other teams have done similar things to find some small edge. However, the fruits of those efforts paled in comparison to doping, and were often used as smokescreens to explain dope-fueled performances.

The real question is- is there _*any*_ ProTour team that we can trust?


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

Wondering atm, has there been any measures to test his samples more closely? Or is this suspicion climbing towards UCI involvement as well?

Not sure what to think of this - the possible exposure of a boring Tour winner. It would be good for the sport period, but at the same time how incredibly lame.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

I'm almost 100% sure at least Wiggins and Froome are, or were (for Wiggo) doped. 
Wiggins doesn't have a big potential as a GC contender, the first few years on the road he wasn't good in anything else than TTs. Then he had a magic revelation, and over the course of a year he became a TT contender. Even then, it takes him a weak year with weak contention to win the tour. I'm convinced he took PEDs to go from track and average rider on the road to "weak" GC contender. I don't know the extent to which he kept doping after his transformation, but there is no way he's been clean the whole way.

Froome...A guy who comes out of nowhere to (almost) win the Vuelta ? When does that ever happen ? His performance at the 2011 Vuelta together with Cobo was, in my opinion, one of the most openly fraudulent of the past 10 years. That being said he has clearly become a better rider than Wiggins, so maybe his response to PEDs is naturally better, a la Armstrong ?


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Gallery: Team Sky Unveils Rapha 2013 Team Kit | Cyclingnews.com

Hahaha. Is there anybody in Sky's management that has a clue?

_The back room staff haven't been left out of the equation either, with mechanics getting their own outfits and the soigneurs receiving hugely oversized, courier style bags with built-in cooling compartments for post-stage recovery drinks._


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

What would we expect to see in a clean winner? 

Who do we expect to win clean? How do we expect him to ride? How will his teammates ride?


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

I'll tell you the first sign of a clean winner: his team staff, especially the team DS and the doctors, are unconnected to doping scandals. Hem hem, sky...
In terms of said winner's riding abilities, he would not be a guy coming out of nowhere to destroy the already established competition after years of not winning anything (Froome)

The rest doesn't really matter, because we've become paranoid enough to question anything. But the fact that sky domestiques completely dominated everyone US Postal style didn't help either. 
I would have a lot less trouble believing Wiggins if the two points stated above didn't stand.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

Kimmage is regaded as a pain (irrespective of the LA stuff, where he followed Walsh's lead) by many in and out of cycling. If the riders don't like him because of his personality (rather than his journalism) then they should not have to put up with him. He is just a hack like many others. If Sky want to embed a journalist then that is up to them (but be aware of the many data protection issues vis a vis any individual's medical records being made public). They don't have to put up with some self-declared arbiter of good and bad.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

moskowe said:


> I'll tell you the first sign of a clean winner: his team staff, especially the team DS and the doctors, are unconnected to doping scandals.


Their lack of connections don't necessarily imply innocence, just that they're very smart.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

Well a lack of connections would already be better than big, obvious connections, no ? 
And for a DS coming from the cycling world it would be pretty hard to hide anything. For a doctor it might be easier, but even then it's a small world.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

Yes, as if the guy hasn't been bullied enough, let's add on to the plate. Clearly you have no clue what you're talking about. Kimmage is far from a "hack."

By the way, releasing power data has nothing to do with medical records, and would not have any significant impact on the way riders race. Only idiots like Andy Shleck (see cyclingnews interview) claim that releasing power data is stupid). That's all concerned journalists and fans are asking for, power data. It's the ultimate proof of a clean team, because power doesn't lie. You should take a look at captaintbag's blog for instance.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

Clearly you have no clue what you're talking about. Kimmage is a hack and my opinion on that is as valid as yours or anyone else's. Your attempted troll about power data is risible. I mentioned specifically access to *medical records*. Kimmage is just the type to take umbrage at being excluded from a meeting between a cyclist and his team doctor. He has no right to attend these and/or see their outcome.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

And when exactly did Kimmage say that he wanted access to medical records ? 

Is Sky becoming the new USPS ? Certainly the fans make it look like it. Just because a well-known anti-doping advocate questions the extremely suspicious connections of a team doctor he becomes a "hack" ? Who's trolling now ?


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

moskowe said:


> Just because a well-known anti-doping advocate questions the extremely suspicious connections of a team doctor he becomes a "hack" ? Who's trolling now ?


No. He's always been a hack (no harm is that; it’s a fairly common term for journalist of all kinds) well maybe apart from the period when he was an active doper himself.

No team is above suspicion and all hacks have to earn a crust. I've no doubt that Kimmage is sincere but that doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't have an eye on the bottom line and self-aggrandisement.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

moskowe said:


> Well a lack of connections would already be better than big, obvious connections, no ?
> And for a DS coming from the cycling world it would be pretty hard to hide anything. For a doctor it might be easier, but even then it's a small world.


It's not like Dr. Ferrari is the only guy who can do that. I'd assume the $ would have motivated a few others to practice this. Upon learing of Ferrari's mistakes, it wouldn't be impossible to stay under the radar.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Rashadabd said:


> Kimmage is calling people out again:
> 
> Kimmage Unconvinced By Sky And Wiggins | Cyclingnews.com


In this case tbh I think Kimmage is looking for publicity in regards to his cause. I say this because in essence he says "anyone or any team with consistently good performances should be suspected of doping." Sorry but if this is the case then wtf watch sport? There will ALWAYS be athletes and/or teams that kick the butt of other "top flight teams." Whether it's because the team simply spends more money, lucks out and finds that diamond in the rough athlete etc. it is going to happen. Anyone who has watched port for any length of time knows this. To essentially jump immediately to "doping must be a consideration" is grand standing.

I like this guy, he has the balls to call it like it is BUT in the past when he did so he actually had some stuff that resembled evidence beyond who won.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Kimmage has a long track record of being right, often in the face of ostracism by former friends and popular rejection of his views. Hack is probably the last word I'd use to describe him.


----------



## cq20 (Mar 24, 2007)

Paul Kimmage would gain more credibility on this if he had something a bit more than something along the lines of "They won; that is suspicious". It looks a bit like a tabloid headline.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

coldash said:


> Kimmage is regaded as a pain (irrespective of the LA stuff, where he followed Walsh's lead) by many in and out of cycling. If the riders don't like him because of his personality (rather than his journalism) then they should not have to put up with him. He is just a hack like many others. If Sky want to embed a journalist then that is up to them (but be aware of the many data protection issues vis a vis any individual's medical records being made public). They don't have to put up with some self-declared arbiter of good and bad.


In fact, despite playing the victim card, Kimmage comes off as a bully. He asks to be embedded and claims the team is suspect when they deny him. 



badge118 said:


> I say this because in essence he says "anyone or any team with consistently good performances should be suspected of doping."


That line of reasoning cuts directly against the "Froome came out of nowhere, that is suspect of doping."


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

If Cadel Evans had won the 2012 tdf people would call it suspect. 

Connections and all that. 


Who could have won in 2012 that would have been above reproach?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> If Cadel Evans had won the 2012 tdf people would call it suspect.
> 
> Connections and all that.
> 
> ...


Cadel's previous connection to certain doctors aside, Cadel _seemed_ to be a clean rider. He typically had good and consistent results in stage races. Simply put, he doesn't have the obvious dominance in the TdF that previous winners/dopers had. 

I didn't watch this year's TdF because I was upset that my cable company raised my rate a lot AND cut the cycling channels. I can't totally comment on this year because I haven't watched it a bunch of times during base. The lack of big name riders getting busted and Wiggo winning basically every preparation stage race should raise a few red flags.


----------



## Purt (Dec 23, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> He asks to be embedded and claims the team is suspect when they deny him.


No actually Sky allowed it. They had it all setup. Kimmage hired a van and organised it all with Brailsford. The day before he was to arrive he got a phone call saying Wiggins didn't want him there till 8 days in. The idea of embedding was to show complete transparency (basically finding out if the team dopes or not). Kimmage did this with Garmin in 2008 and they gained a lot of credibility from it.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Of course. But wasn't Wiggo a podium favorite in 2011, before crashing out?


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

BUT when he did so in the past he pointed to evidence. he would show how riders A, B and C, that were on the same team had been caught out for doping, connections with notorious prepatore' etc. While circumstantial he had evidence. This is a case where his only evidence is performance. If you are going to apply that kind of metric then there is ultimately no point to watching sport if you hate doping because every winner is a doper.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Purt said:


> No actually Sky allowed it. They had it all setup. Kimmage hired a van and organised it all with Brailsford. The day before he was to arrive he got a phone call saying Wiggins didn't want him there till 8 days in.


This was 2010? 



> The idea of embedding was to show complete transparency (basically finding out if the team dopes or not). Kimmage did this with Garmin in 2008 and they gained a lot of credibility from it.


Kimmage gained a lot from it.


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

A few points.

1 - Kimmage is not just a Hack journalist. He was a Pro Rider and witnessed doping at first hand. Read his book. He is clearly is "driven" character and is "out to get" all cheats.
2 - Walsh and Kimmage were relentless in their pursuit of Armstrong and were proved right. 
3 - I repeat: IF his suspicions about Sky end up being right then Pro Cycling is finished as a mainstream sport.

4 - Personally, I doubt that Sky did cheat, but if they did then they should suffer my preferred option for ALL dopers, their teams and managers, namely:
A lifetime ban for individuals and expulsion from the sport + reimbursement of sponsorship money.

5 - There are folks who seem to WANT Sky to have cheated and, presumably, would find some cathartic solace re: Armstrong if this turns out to be the case.


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

moskowe said:


> ... But the fact that sky domestiques completely dominated everyone US Postal style didn't help either...


This.
I didn't believe it when I saw it and I don't believe it now.
I was really surprised when this was discussed on RBR right after the tour and most people seemed to think it was genuine.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

For the record, I like Wiggo warts and all and would be very bummed if it were shown they were doping. That said there are reasons to question their day after day dominance. 

If they were doping it would be a body blow. I might go back to ignoring pro racing.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

The problem with Cadel is the list of teams he rode with before BMC, which makes it pretty much a given that he did dope at some point in his career. Whether he is still doping (and was in 2011) is less clear.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

George Hincapie says he raced clean for Cadel Evans during 2011 and 2012 Tour de France | News.com.au


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> George Hincapie says he raced clean for Cadel Evans during 2011 and 2012 Tour de France | News.com.au


People _say_ a lot of things. Aren't you a lawyer?


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

Couldn't have said it better myself. George Hincapie isn't exactly the most trustworthy person in pro cycling when it comes to doping.
The presence of guys like Phinney at BMC is encouraging, the presence of guys like Hushovd ad Gilbert isn't. Then again both those guys saw performance decrease after joining the team, so who knows.

Another factor that contributes to Cadel being shielded from doping talk is that he never had a team built around him, so he never really was able to measure himself to the others when it came to GCs. The fact that he managed to place consistently well with no support against top dopers should tell you something. Once he got a team to help him he won the Tour...


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Wiggo is clean. Her Majesty doesn't give knighthoods to dopers. And nobody lies to The Queen.

Nah...I have my suspicions about Wiggo and probably more about Froome. As a Brit I want it all to be true: Wiggo kicked arse and won fair and square. It's not an issue I'd burn my passport over but there's a lot at stake for British cycling dominance if it was all done on carpet rugs. Kimmage I respect, but he'd better be able to come up with more than the suspicions of a tabloid hack. He was right about Armstrong and Postal but you're only as good as your last fight.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Greg LeMond and others voiced that climb times and power outputs should be analyzed as a possible indication of doping.

Here is an article looking at the climbs of the 2012 TdF:

The Science of Sport: The Tour in the mountains: Analysis & discussion

Maybe not 100% clean, but certainly 2012 appeared to be cleaner than past years....


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

The problems with averaged power data of a large group is that it usually only indicates trends. The winner is the first guy across the line, and a smart doper knows that nothing sticks out more than an overly impressive performance (Landis), so if the rest of the contenders are putting out X watts, all you have to do is put out a small fraction more. If the pro's claims are correct and cycling is much cleaner, that average will go down. That doesn't mean that there aren't dopers in the peloton taking advantage of that fact. Why expend more energy than you need to, even if you have it in reserve?


----------



## fschris (Jul 21, 2010)

who cares if elite athletes dope. they are exciting to watch. entire teams do it, foot ball players, soccer, baseball, etc....

It is crazy how in baseball you get a 3 week suspension but what they did to Lance was INSANE.


I think lance did what he had to do to win. I do not fault him. I still support him.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

OT but who is *Robdamanii*. Is he a sock puppet for someone who has actually posted on this thread? He's given me a neg and accused me of being a "Lance fanboy". He obviously didn't see my comment on the LA confession thread. Does he do this sort of thing often?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

sir duke said:


> As a Brit I want it all to be true: Wiggo kicked arse and won fair and square. It's not an issue I'd burn my passport over but there's a lot at stake for British cycling dominance if it was all done on carpet rugs.


So, you bash the Americans who felt the same about Lance?


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Alaska Mike said:


> The problems with averaged power data of a large group is that it usually only indicates trends. The winner is the first guy across the line, and a smart doper knows that nothing sticks out more than an overly impressive performance (Landis), so if the rest of the contenders are putting out X watts, all you have to do is put out a small fraction more. If the pro's claims are correct and cycling is much cleaner, that average will go down. That doesn't mean that there aren't dopers in the peloton taking advantage of that fact. Why expend more energy than you need to, even if you have it in reserve?


A few things. First you do not get said averaged telemetry until AFTER a race and usually it is gained indirectly anyway via math. There isn't a control room like the APC in Aliens where someone is looking at the telemetry of every rider in real time.

Second that is actual evidence and as such has value until proven otherwise. You can use the "a smart doper blah blah blah...." until the end of time to justify any and all accusations. Hell you could say "bob is a smart doper so crashed on purpose in that race season so he could win later and not appear suspicious."

In the end actual quantifiable data > than a suspicion based only on results.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

I love looking at the average speed graph, it gives a nice historical picture of when new doping methods emerged... Look at the early 80s for example:

View attachment 273163


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

What's with the spike in the 80's?


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

The (slight) difference between the two is that Wiggins, and Brits in general, are a lot less arrogant about their victories than Lance was.
And Wiggins hasn't won 7 tours yet, so suspicions about his doping haven't become certainty about his doping. No offense, but you had to be blind not to see Lance was doping if you knew anything about cycling.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

1981-1982 Tour, won by Hinault in just under 38 and then 38+ kph.
They were some of the "shorter" tours and given the fact that it was the early 80's and Hinault was the winner, the higher speeds were probably due to the circumstances of the time, i.e. Hinault didn't have access to a magic drug that made him better than everyone else.

What you can see is that in the 90s the average has gone way up and it's not really gone down by that much. It's still 39+ kph and that's a pretty good signed that the good guys are still doped to the gills.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

coldash said:


> OT but who is *Robdamanii*. Is he a sock puppet for someone who has actually posted on this thread? He's given me a neg and accused me of being a "Lance fanboy". He obviously didn't see my comment on the LA confession thread. Does he do this sort of thing often?


Never heard of the guy but he sounds angry.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

DrSmile said:


> I love looking at the average speed graph, it gives a nice historical picture of when new doping methods emerged... Look at the early 80s for example:
> 
> View attachment 273163


Don't forget, the routes will change. That would have more of an impact on the "average" speed. TT and flatter stages = faster average.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

I'd say if you come out on a doping forum to insult one of the only people in the past 15 years who was doing something about doping, and who got spat on by everyone because of it, then you deserve a little neg rep.

Robdamanii does have an annoying habit to give neg rep and not actually comment on threads.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> So, you bash the Americans who felt the same about Lance?


Do you feel 'bashed'? Well, sorry about that mate. Silly of me not to realise that only Americans are allowed to bash anyone. I thought you had a thicker skin than that and didn't care. Seems I was wrong. Wanna report me?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

moskowe said:


> I'd say if you come out on a doping forum to insult one of the only people in the past 15 years who was doing something about doping, and who got spat on by everyone because of it, then you deserve a little neg rep.
> 
> Robdamanii does have an annoying habit to give neg rep and not actually comment on threads.


And Muskowe hits right on the head why the whining poster got negative rep.

Local Hero, YOU'RE the one who got banned. Don't blame me for your outbursts.


----------



## perpetuum_mobile (Nov 30, 2012)

It's all about marginal gains and fast cadence. Marginal gains - they add up to make a winning advantage. SKY was really the first team to come up with this brilliant stuff.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> And Muskowe hits right on the head why the whining poster got negative rep.
> 
> Local Hero, YOU'RE the one who got banned. Don't blame me for your outbursts.


lol 

You shall henceforth be known as Run2mommy. 


I know REPORTED.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Local Hero said:


> I know REPORTED.


Hey, dat's my line!


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

sir duke said:


> Do you feel 'bashed'? Well, sorry about that mate. Silly of me not to realise that only Americans are allowed to bash anyone. I thought you had a thicker skin than that and didn't care. Seems I was wrong. Wanna report me?


The only thing that would offend me is if you thought I took you serious enough to be offended. 

Bashing is bashing. I don't think Wiggo is as clean as most would like to believe, but I think he'd be smarter than LA to prevent enough people getting angry enough to turning him in (yet).


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

I'm an equal opportunities basher. I bash cheats and frauds, I don't care where they come from. The G.B. team fielded the sprinter Dwain Chamberlain at the Olympics, a doper, a cheat, a fraud. He shouldn't have been there, the British athletes didn't want him there, most of the home crowd felt it embarrassing. I don't think Millar should have been there either. 
One of the worst ever cases of cheating or at the very least bad sportsmanship was perpetrated by the English cricket team against the Australians in the so-called 'bodyline' test cricket series in the 1930's. They were quite prepared to cause severe injury to the Aussie batsmen to win. It stank and everyone knew it. If Sky are doping they stink too, Lance's behaviour means that the default setting for any Tour winner is a bad smell.

You took took me seriously enough to accuse my of 'bashing', didn't you? So which is it?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

sir duke said:


> i'm an equal opportunities basher. I bash cheats and frauds, i don't care where they come from. The g.b. Team fielded the sprinter dwain chamberlain at the olympics, a doper, a cheat, a fraud. He shouldn't have been there, the british athletes didn't want him there, most of the home crowd felt it embarrassing. I don't think millar should have been there either.
> One of the worst ever cases of cheating or at the very least bad sportsmanship was perpetrated by the english cricket team against the australians in the so-called 'bodyline' test cricket series in the 1930's. They were quite prepared to cause severe injury to the aussie batsmen to win. It stank and everyone knew it. If sky are doping they stink too, lance's behaviour means that the default setting for any tour winner is a bad smell.
> 
> You took took me seriously enough to accuse my of 'bashing', didn't you? So which is it?


tl;dr


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> tl;dr


oyyd..


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

YamaDan said:


> Don't forget, the routes will change. That would have more of an impact on the "average" speed. TT and flatter stages = faster average.


Explaining away a 5kph difference based on terrain and one time trial stage is idiocy. The stages may have slightly more or less vertical climbing one year to the next, but compared to the overall distance of the tour this is a very small difference. If anyone has the climbing feet/meter data for the tour I'd love to see it.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

perpetuum_mobile said:


> It's all about marginal gains and fast cadence. Marginal gains - they add up to make a winning advantage. SKY was really the first team to come up with this brilliant stuff.


I'm really hoping this is dry humor. This exact explanation of superhuman results has been used for decades in numerous sports, never mind just cycling, as a beard for obviously doped athletes. Come up with a bunch of new inconsequential and poorly-researched training methods and claim that combining them leads to stellar performance. It's pretty much impossible to quickly disprove and will hold up long enough to make a cash grab.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

moskowe said:


> 1981-1982 Tour, won by Hinault in just under 38 and then 38+ kph.
> They were some of the "shorter" tours and given the fact that it was the early 80's and Hinault was the winner, the higher speeds were probably due to the circumstances of the time, i.e. Hinault didn't have access to a magic drug that made him better than everyone else.


I think that may be slightly revisionist. The 1981 tour won by Hinault was 3,757km long. The previous year's tour was marginally longer (3,946km) and averaged just over 35kph. Less than 5% longer, but an 11% speed increase? Hinault only averaged 36.5 kph in his win two years before (1979) with a total length of 3,720km. It is also worth pointing out that doping with blood transfusions was not generally outlawed until 1986, and that there was widespread blood doping in athletics in the 1980 and 1984 Olympics. I believe it is commonly accepted that cyclists used blood transfusions en masse (as in pretty much every pro) in the early and mid 80s before it was declared illegal.

I agree with your conclusion though about the current situation.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

My point was that the speed increase was not due to the advent of a newer drug. The 1982 tour was even shorter (and faster), while Hinault's winning time in 1985 was "slow," still before your 1986 deadline.
The length of the Tour is also not nearly as important as elevation, unfortunately I don't have access or motivation to look for the data. 

I'm sure Hinault was as dirty as anyone else, but I don't think he had a significant advantage when it came to drugs.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

If you want to measure, try sampling uphill speeds over the years.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*



Local Hero said:


> lol
> 
> You shall henceforth be known as Run2mommy.
> 
> ...


And you shall be known as "_Very Slower Learner_" take a week off and review the lesson again.


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

IMO, if we were to rely on substance testing and identification alone, the doping war has already been lost by the testers. Given that, I agree that tracking a specific set of performance metrics over a "known" course combined with a biological passport and archived samples is probably the best way to identify doping. 

Cycling has some unique opportunities for this sort of data gathering and mining that may not be available in other sports. For example, I agree that power output to weight ratio over a given course is probably the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes a "reasonable" performance. Tracking VO2 max, hemocrit levels and a variety of other biological factors over time and identifying any anomolies should be required as well. I honestly believe that if the UCI were serious about solving this issue, it could be solved.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

Damn that was fast.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

moskowe said:


> Damn that was fast.


It's not even worth having some people on my ignore list because they're banned half the time anyway.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

If anyone hasn't already seen it, this is a good read:

The Science of Sport: The Tour in the mountains: Analysis & discussion

What makes me believe doping is ongoing what the author mentions at the end of the article--doping helps recovery and consistency. That's what made the Team Sky effort odd--the team never had an off day, and even the domestiques were back on the front day after day in the mountains. I just don't believe that's possible without pharmaceutical assistance.


----------



## coldash (May 7, 2012)

*moskowe* I did reply to you but I don't know where it has gone. My problem with Kimmage's statement is that it is not evidence-based. I admire Walsh's work on the LA topic and later Kimmage's contributions but his latest stuff is not up to the same standard (more tabloid, as others have said).

Climbing data e.g, VAMs would be an interesting start point in comparisions between tours.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Fireform said:


> If anyone hasn't already seen it, this is a good read:
> 
> The Science of Sport: The Tour in the mountains: Analysis & discussion
> 
> What makes me believe doping is ongoing what the author mentions at the end of the article--doping helps recovery and consistency. That's what made the Team Sky effort odd--the team never had an off day, and even the domestiques were back on the front day after day in the mountains. I just don't believe that's possible without pharmaceutical assistance.


Plus, when was the last time you saw the yellow jersey as part of the lead out train on the final day? 

All of Lance's results have been voided, but I don't recall him ever doing well in the pre TdF stage races like Wiggo, either.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Fireform said:


> It's not even worth having some people on my ignore list because they're banned half the time anyway.


I have my own ignore list. It's the "read over and don't respond" one. That way you still get the yucks. :thumbsup:

LH is entertaining. Isn't entertainment the whole point of being here in the first place? I mean, I'm not here to learn how to stick a needle in my ass and get away with it.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Coolhand said:


> And you shall be known as "_Very Slower Learner_" take a week off and review the lesson again.


Damn, and I didn't even bother to hit the report button this time. 

My issue with Wiggins and Sky was their remarkable consistency. They were top step or podium in most of their appearances (save the classics) with few to no bad days. The Sky train in the mountains was eerily similar to the Postal train of years past: 4 domestiques that just blew the field away. Although even during the postal years, there were a few who could hang until the protected rider(s) were left on their own...in this case, the train destroyed everyone, evenm the other main contenders.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

I'm not sure why anyone who claims to be a cycling fan is either so keen to point the finger at doping (because nobody can prove they're clean), nor to defend them (nobody has been proven to be doping during the 2012 tdf...yet...)

It's pro cycling, it is what it is. The only positive is that eventually it seems to come out and all the finger pointers can reach permanent internal satisfaction that they won the Internet.


----------



## ratherBclimbing (Apr 2, 2007)

When was the last time a team took first and second? Not claiming it means anything, but curious when the last time it happened.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Saxo 2010, the Schlecks (Contador had a steak).


----------



## ratherBclimbing (Apr 2, 2007)

kbwh said:


> Saxo 2010, the Schlecks (Contador had a steak).


2011? And that was 2nd and 3rd.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ratherBclimbing said:


> When was the last time a team took first and second? Not claiming it means anything, but curious when the last time it happened.


1996. Totally clean, too.


----------



## ratherBclimbing (Apr 2, 2007)

spade2you said:


> 1996. Totally clean, too.


Ah, and the green and white jerseys. Helluva year for Telekom.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Plus, when was the last time you saw the yellow jersey as part of the lead out train on the final day?


Simple answer: Wiggo was repaying Cav for the bottle carrying Cav did during the tour and as a gesture of thanks for Cav sacrificing his green jersey ambitions so that Wiggo could win. Oh, and helping maintain Brit domination on the Champs Elysses in recent years. That's as short as I could make it.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

sir duke said:


> Simple answer: Wiggo was repaying Cav for the bottle carrying Cav did during the tour and as a gesture of thanks for Cav sacrificing his green jersey ambitions so that Wiggo could win. Oh, and helping maintain Brit domination on the Champs Elysses in recent years. That's as short as I could make it.


Yes, nothing suspicious about the TdF winner being part of the lead out train for a sprinter. I must be a Lance fanboy, Wiggo hater, or perhaps racist.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Yes, nothing suspicious about the TdF winner being part of the lead out train for a sprinter. I must be a Lance fanboy, Wiggo hater, or perhaps racist.


It's a short stage with no real racing until the peloton starts doing laps of the Paris circuit, any half decent pro will have enough in his legs to take a few pulls on the front for a few minutes. Wiggo had made clear his intentions to help Cavendish win in Paris well before the final day. You have a fine grip on those straws. 
The fanboy, hater and racist comments are too silly for words.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Yes, a short stage after a bunch of mountains and time trials n' stuff. You're absolutely right. Nothing suspicious. He was simply repaying Cav. He could have easily won the stage himself like Vino in '05.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ratherBclimbing said:


> Ah, and the green and white jerseys. Helluva year for Telekom.


Just a little.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Yes, a short stage after a bunch of mountains and time trials n' stuff. You're absolutely right. Nothing suspicious. He was simply repaying Cav. He could have easily won the stage himself like Vino in '05.


He has the yellow jersey and Tour in the bag. Going after the win on the Champs is ridiculous, it's not about doping, it's about team dynamics, and his history with Cavendish. Even Armstrong wasn't that greedy (or stupid). You really think Cavendish is going to bust a gut for Wiggins for 3 weeks (with no realistic chance of the green jersey) and then roll over so he can grab all the glory in Paris? Wiggo is not a sprinter anyway. You are showing up your lack of knowledge of the sport or at least not thinking straight in order to mould the facts to fit your conclusions. Keep digging that hole.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

I guess if your hero is a cheating jerk, everybody must be cheating jerks too. 

Fanboys.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

sir duke said:


> You are showing up your lack of knowledge of the sport or at least not thinking straight in order to mould the facts to fit your conclusions. Keep digging that hole.


LOL, we now have Wiggo fanboys! It's official.

Yes, I have no idea about racing, especially stage races. 

Team dynamics. LOL. It's not about team dynamics. It's about having the legs at that stage of the game. Even though it's a shorter stage, having the legs to be part of a lead out train is more than a bit of an anomaly. 

Sure, he'll keep the Tour. They're a lot smarter these days. I don't think Froome's going to have a wife that goes after Wiggo.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Fireform said:


> I guess if your hero is a cheating jerk, everybody must be cheating jerks too.
> 
> Fanboys.


Please enlighten us to how common it is for your TdF champ to take part in the final lead out. 

Wasn't Wiggo on a team that pulled out of the TdF in about '07?


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> LOL, we now have Wiggo fanboys! It's official.
> 
> Yes, I have no idea about racing, especially stage races.
> 
> ...


Well he had the legs, otherwise why go public with the intention to help your teammate prior to the last stage? Wiggins wouldn't have left himself open to the charge of broken promises and posturing if he didn't think he could back it up. Watch the video, Wiggins is on the front for 30 seconds, one very short burst but enough to position his man. Payback complete, Cavendish does the rest. 
When you have to resort to the 'fanboy' cop-out and cheap shots comparing Froome's girlfriend with Betsy (is telling the truth 'going after' someone?) then I know you have nothing left to offer. I'd like to go on with this debate, but when your interlocutor has nothing to debate with, then really, what's the point? 

Enjoy your day, I'm off out for a ride.


----------



## Purt (Dec 23, 2010)

People on this forum need to start using the  when they're taking the piss.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Fireform said:


> I guess if your hero is a cheating jerk, everybody must be cheating jerks too.
> 
> Fanboys.


Lance fanboyism notwithstanding, the professional peloton has pretty much shown the world that they are all cheating jerks, so the commentary is relevant.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

I think I've made my skepticism plain on that issue. I just get tired of the attitude that the pros are above reproach because they're pros, and that therefor LA is some kind of victim, and that therefor any kind of pretzel logic can be employed in his defense. 

Wiggo rewarded Cav for the unselfish sacrifice he made in support of the yellow jersey throughout the tour. He's one of the best time trialers in the world so I don't think taking a pull on a leadout was a big deal in itself, but the courage it took to put himself in that position when he had the TDF championship in his hands was. Other issues aside, that was one of the classier moments in the recent history of the TDF.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

I would tend to agree with you. Actually, given Wiggo's past as a track sprinter and his TT abilities, leading out Cav is probably one of the things I can guarantee he could do wihtout drugs. There's the 20 days of stress behind him, but at the same time the realization that he won and the opportunity to affect the last stage and go out in style while helping a teammate would be more than enough motivation to make this one last effort. 
And tbh I don't mean to insult anyone but it's not *that* big of an effort for a guy like him to to leadout for a short period of time like that. He's shielded until the pull, he blows taking it and then he's done. It's also a lot safer to be at the front in the sprint than at the back, so it's an added bonus.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Yes, leading someone out at the end of a stage race you're winning is no big deal. I'm sure almost everyone in this thread has done that a few times.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Yes, leading someone out at the end of a stage race you're winning is no big deal. I'm sure almost everyone in this thread has done that a few times.


Equally how many people on this forum have done most things pro cyclists have done? 

I'm with you on the doc, Rogers, Froome, Yates, Sutton etc. etc. etc. but pointing to doing 60 seconds on the front of the final stage of a won race as cause for suspicion? Reeks a little bit of conspiracy theorist drivel


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

roddjbrown said:


> Equally how many people on this forum have done most things pro cyclists have done?
> 
> I'm with you on the doc, Rogers, Froome, Yates, Sutton etc. etc. etc. but pointing to doing 60 seconds on the front of the final stage of a won race as cause for suspicion? Reeks a little bit of conspiracy theorist drivel


The lead out is just ONE small thing. Sky's dominance made an obviously juiced US Postal look a tad flat. The lead out is only a small comparison to 1st and 2nd on multiple stages and in GC for Froome and Wiggo. Again, not even US Postal could do something like that. 

Contador drops someone in the climbs and we're all up in arms.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

spade2you said:


> The lead out is just ONE small thing. Sky's dominance made an obviously juiced US Postal look a tad flat. The lead out is only a small comparison to 1st and 2nd on multiple stages and in GC for Froome and Wiggo. Again, not even US Postal could do something like that.
> 
> Contador drops someone in the climbs and we're all up in arms.


*shrugs* I just think the leadout is one irrelevant thing. Wiggins has owed Cav since Beijing and it didn't do his own PR any harm either.


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

This thread is getting desperate and IMO is, for many, nothing to do with Wiggins. It is to do with a sense of mourning and in some cases an almost personal loss. These people just can't come to terms with LA's genuinely shocking crimes. So they are thrashing about looking for anyone, any *thing*, no matter how irrational, that with assuage the humiliation of having their hero brought down in such a dramatic and conclusive manner.
What we are witnessing here is a grieving process.
Whoever wins next year will get the same treatment until they are exhausted and feel able to move on.
America needs another hero - and - the sooner the better.


----------



## Purt (Dec 23, 2010)

roddjbrown said:


> Equally how many people on this forum have done most things pro cyclists have done?


I'd like to believe most people on this forum ride some form of bicycle.


----------



## biker jk (Dec 5, 2012)

Wiggins a few years back said that the biological passport data should be made public. He's since changed his tune which is another reason for suspicion apart from the dodgy team Doctor Leinders, Froome's come from nowhere performances, Rogers pulling 450 watts on the climbs (his best since Ferrari days), Wiggins losing weight to both climb and time trial better (huh?).


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Yes, leading someone out at the end of a stage race you're winning is no big deal. I'm sure almost everyone in this thread has done that a few times.


I know you like to be wrong but there's no need to be greedy about it.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

Sorry to break it to you, but no, it's not a big deal. Especially for a guy like Cav who doesn't even need a particularly strong lead-out to win. The reason you don't see it (e.g. US Postal) is that usually the team doesn't place its bets on two horses and have both a world-class contender and a world-class sprinter at the Tour.

It's also pretty well-known that the stage to Paris is usually very relaxed until the finish, and flat races are pretty "easy" when you stay in the peloton to start with. You'll also notice that every year, the yellow jersey is close to the front in the Champs regardless, precisely to avoid a last minute crash. 

I'm quite confident that Wiggins laid on the dope, whether only in his preparation for the Tour or during the tour as well. But as roddjbrown pointed out, the many other signs of Sky domination are a lot more relevant signs of his doping than a 60s lead-out at the end of a flat ride.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

moskowe said:


> Sorry to break it to you, but no, it's not a big deal. *Especially for a guy like Cav who doesn't even need a particularly strong lead-out to win. *


Excuse me????? Lead out trains NEED to be strong or another team will come to the front, there could be a late attack that sticks, etc. 

Ok, which stage race were you leading that was no big deal to give a lead out to your sprinter on the final stage? No big deal. Lots of climbing and time trialing.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Purt said:


> I'd like to believe most people on this forum ride some form of bicycle.


Ride? Yes. Race? It's not as high as you would like to think based on comments in this and the pro racing subforums.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

albert owen said:


> This thread is getting desperate and IMO is, for many, nothing to do with Wiggins. It is to do with a sense of mourning and in some cases an almost personal loss. These people just can't come to terms with LA's genuinely shocking crimes. So they are thrashing about looking for anyone, any *thing*, no matter how irrational, that with assuage the humiliation of having their hero brought down in such a dramatic and conclusive manner.
> What we are witnessing here is a grieving process.
> Whoever wins next year will get the same treatment until they are exhausted and feel able to move on.
> America needs another hero - and - the sooner the better.


Sure, you can say that LA is responsible for this thread. You could even pull the jealousy card if you like. However, it is US Postal and T-Mobile that might show us _why_ a performance like this might be a little suspect. 

When was the last time a rider was on form for so long? How many threads claimed that Wiggo couldn't hold his form at Romandie all the way to the TdF? Not only that, but he held it beyond the TdF to the Olympics. This is also a year where only one big name rider tested positive for anything with Frank and for some virtually unheard of diuretic. No EPO, no blood doping, no violations of the bio passport, or anything else among all the other big name riders.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

As has been demonstrated a number of times, Cavendish doesn't need an extremely strong leadout to win. He's already the fastest in the world.

And as several people have been telling you, the effort required to put a leadout on the final stage of the Tour, when you already have to be at the front, is entirely negligible when compared with the mountains efforts. 
If you look right under that passage you just quoted, you'll also find my explanation for why no one does it. Most teams don't have both a world class sprinter and a world class GC contender at the Tour.


----------



## g29er (Mar 28, 2009)

It would the worst if Sky was not a clean team. They are supposed to be on the cutting edge of what a non doping team looks like. But until proven otherwise, I believe. I cant allow myself to be cynical every time someone like Wiggins has a great year all of the sudden. Some people do come into form later in their career.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

Good for you, keep drinking the kool-aid. "on the cutting edge of what a non doping team looks like," you mean on the cutting edge of what USPS looked like ? Same dubious doctors, same claims about high cadence, same dominating team in the mountains, a bunch of riders who used to speak out against doping and now suddenly have reversed position, tons of connections to USPS...Nothing wrong with all that.

People don't suddenly become world class later in their career. Froome, for instance, is a complete and utter fraud. If Wiggo did dope, at least he had some sort of form before that.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

albert owen said:


> This thread is getting desperate and IMO is, for many, nothing to do with Wiggins. It is to do with a sense of mourning and in some cases an almost personal loss. These people just can't come to terms with LA's genuinely shocking crimes. So they are thrashing about looking for anyone, any *thing*, no matter how irrational, that with assuage the humiliation of having their hero brought down in such a dramatic and conclusive manner.
> What we are witnessing here is a grieving process.
> Whoever wins next year will get the same treatment until they are exhausted and feel able to move on.
> America needs another hero - and - the sooner the better.


This really isn't about Postal, any more than it's about Mapei, or T-Mobile, or ONCE, or... you could go on and on. A few may be expressing some sort of grief over what happened to Lance, but for most of us it's more about the sport as a whole- even in today's "clean" peloton. When a _team_ shows that sort of domination (like going 1-2-3 in Roubaix), eyebrows need to be raised. It's healthy for the sport at this juncture to be skeptical, and not accept claims of marginal gains at face value. After all, micro dosing EPO provides "marginal gains" as compared to turning your blood to red cell jello with a full dose.

Good people do bad things some times. Bad people do good things some times. 
...and I still hate sideburns.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

moskowe said:


> Good for you, keep drinking the kool-aid. "on the cutting edge of what a non doping team looks like," you mean on the cutting edge of what USPS looked like ? Same dubious doctors, same claims about high cadence, same dominating team in the mountains, a bunch of riders who used to speak out against doping and now suddenly have reversed position, tons of connections to USPS...Nothing wrong with all that.
> 
> People don't suddenly become world class later in their career. Froome, for instance, is a complete and utter fraud. If Wiggo did dope, at least he had some sort of form before that.


Just replace high cadence with elliptical chainrings.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

moskowe said:


> People don't suddenly become world class later in their career. Froome, for instance, is a complete and utter fraud. If Wiggo did dope, at least he had some sort of form before that.


This is actually pretty funny that I read this. I was watching a DVD of the '09 Giro while doing my trainer workout the other day, and Froome was being dropped on a short uphill finish, both by the breakaway he was in and then the group of the favorites. 

Amazing how things have turned around in just a few short years. Of course, he was with Barloworld back then, not the uberdopers on Sky.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

biker jk said:


> Wiggins a few years back said that the biological passport data should be made public. He's since changed his tune which is another reason for suspicion apart from the dodgy team Doctor Leinders, Froome's come from nowhere performances, Rogers pulling 450 watts on the climbs (his best since Ferrari days), Wiggins losing weight to both climb and time trial better (huh?).


That's the thing. These guys have been doing this for a while as pro's, and they have maxed out their physiology. Once maxed out, it's hard to made another leap in performance. Their improvement is akin to going from teens years to mid-20's. It just don't happen naturally once you're at this level,, not without dope.

The only miracle here is the dope and the docs.


----------



## shoemakerpom2010 (Apr 25, 2011)

I am not going to say or even mention that SKY doped or Wiggins had any part in doping because negativity in the sport just bothers me. What I will say is Wiggins looked ethiopian skinny in his upper frame so the whole time watching the race I was like where is the power comming for those amazing breakaways...


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

moskowe said:


> As has been demonstrated a number of times, Cavendish doesn't need an extremely strong leadout to win. He's already the fastest in the world.
> 
> And as several people have been telling you, the effort required to put a leadout on the final stage of the Tour, when you already have to be at the front, is entirely negligible when compared with the mountains efforts.
> If you look right under that passage you just quoted, you'll also find my explanation for why no one does it. Most teams don't have both a world class sprinter and a world class GC contender at the Tour.


First of all, Cav most certainly needs an effective leadout train. Without a great leadout train, he's good. With his ideal leadout scenario, he's almost unstoppable. Compare this year's results to last year or the year before. His 3 stage wins were a slow year for him.

As for the leadout at the end of a SR you're leading, NOBODY has come forward and said when they've done this. Saying it's easy is talking out of one's anus. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I'm going to expect to see the race results.


----------



## ratherBclimbing (Apr 2, 2007)

spade2you said:


> This is also a year where only one big name rider tested positive for anything with Frank and for some virtually unheard of diuretic. No EPO, no blood doping, no violations of the bio passport, or anything else among all the other big name riders.


That's because professional cycling is cleaning up its act.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

ratherBclimbing said:


> That's because professional cycling is cleaning up its act.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

spade2you said:


> First of all, Cav most certainly needs an effective leadout train. Without a great leadout train, he's good. With his ideal leadout scenario, he's almost unstoppable. Compare this year's results to last year or the year before. His 3 stage wins were a slow year for him.
> 
> As for the leadout at the end of a SR you're leading, NOBODY has come forward and said when they've done this. Saying it's easy is talking out of one's anus. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I'm going to expect to see the race results.


Ok buddy, you win. Nobody in the doping forum can prove they've raced Tour de France distances and then put in a 60s leadout for a sprinter.

Since that's apparently the burden of proof can you show sky are doping? I'm going to need to see failed tests.


I swear it used to be possible to have reasoned discussion in this forum


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

roddjbrown said:


> Ok buddy, you win. Nobody in the doping forum can prove they've raced Tour de France distances and then put in a 60s leadout for a sprinter.
> 
> Since that's apparently the burden of proof can you show sky are doping? I'm going to need to see failed tests.
> 
> ...


I didn't even say it had to be the TdF. Prove you've done it and I'll allow that individual to say it's no big deal. At the moment nobody who frequents the racer forum has come in here to say that it's easy and they've done it.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

spade2you said:


> I didn't even say it had to be the TdF. Prove you've done it and I'll allow that individual to say it's no big deal. At the moment nobody who frequents the racer forum has come in here to say that it's easy and they've done it.


But does that mean you're qualified to comment on people doping if you haven't yourself? 

I don't think anyone's saying its easy, but relative to everything that's has gone before in the race, putting in a short, intense effort after a stage that's been taken comparatively easily is really not evidence of doping. Of the plenty of reasons to suspect Sky, I really don't think this one has legs. Each to their own I guess.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

Seriously ? How many amateur stage races do you know that even last a week ? This is an incredibly stupid burden of proof. From personal experience racing , if you really want to know (Cat3 then Cat2) a lead-out has more to do with proper technique and coordination than raw power. 

Again, consider this: everyone rolls at 3 to the Champs. Then everyone rolls at 55-60. So peloton speed demanding, said leader HAS to stay in there at 55-60. And then when you watch the finish of past years' Tours, the maillot jaune is always somewhere close to the front. How much MORE effort does it take to sacrifice yourself for a sprinter ? Not much more of you've got such a well geared setup as Sky. 

And you still haven't answered the basic question: which GC team has an actual sprinter to leadout in a working leadout train ? None. This was a unique situation for unique circumstances. 
By the way, in 2011, Hushovd led Farrar to Stage 3 win while in yellow. Obviously different circumstances, but even back then people complained that it was weird and "not normal." Traditions also hold on a lot in cycling...

EDIT: well that settles that. Bernard Hinault didn't lead out anyone in 1979 and 1982, both years where he won the Tour. No, he just flat out won the final stage...What with all those mountains behind him, no EPO and a 20 pound bike. There's your precedent.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

I've got no problem with Wiggins leading out Cavendish, especially given his track background. Cav did do a lot of domestique work throughout the Tour for the team which he wasn't used to doing, and it certainly affected his ability to contest sprints. Sure he's more effective with a Columbia-style leadout train (who wouldn't be?), but he's shown himself to be a pretty effective opportunist sprinter when he doesn't have one.

My only problem with that leadout was that it caught Jens and the breakaway. I would have rather seen that one succeed than another sprint finish.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

moskowe said:


> Seriously ? How many amateur stage races do you know that even last a week ? This is an incredibly stupid burden of proof. From personal experience racing , if you really want to know (Cat3 then Cat2) a lead-out has more to do with proper technique and coordination than raw power.
> 
> Again, consider this: everyone rolls at 3 to the Champs. Then everyone rolls at 55-60. So peloton speed demanding, said leader HAS to stay in there at 55-60. And then when you watch the finish of past years' Tours, the maillot jaune is always somewhere close to the front. How much MORE effort does it take to sacrifice yourself for a sprinter ? Not much more of you've got such a well geared setup as Sky.
> 
> ...


There was also Hamilton's long breakaway and climbing to 4th that one year, as well as the time Vino attacked on the Champs and won. I guess it's totally legit and I'm just a hater or something. 

As for Hinault and Merckx, hard to say how they'd fare among a field of specialists these days.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

I don't think you're a hater, I just think that you're grasping at straws. There are much more convincing suspicions over Wiggins than that. 
You asked if there was a precedent, and I gave you two. Hamilton and Vino have nothing to do with it. 

Now I'll put it out there, and say that personally, I think it was a selfless act by Wiggins and one of the few things I respect him for, but that it goes against tradition and he should have anticipated that quite a few people would scoff at it.


----------



## g29er (Mar 28, 2009)

moskowe said:


> Good for you, keep drinking the kool-aid. "on the cutting edge of what a non doping team looks like," you mean on the cutting edge of what USPS looked like ? Same dubious doctors, same claims about high cadence, same dominating team in the mountains, a bunch of riders who used to speak out against doping and now suddenly have reversed position, tons of connections to USPS...Nothing wrong with all that.
> 
> People don't suddenly become world class later in their career. Froome, for instance, is a complete and utter fraud. If Wiggo did dope, at least he had some sort of form before that.


Wow aren't we cynical? Why in the world do you even follow cycling if you are going accuse everyone of doping if they have a great performance in the Tour? Comparing Sky with USPS? That is laughable at best.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

Sky has a sh*tload of connections to USPS. Didn't you notice the massive cleanup they had to do recently ? Did you watch the Tour this year ? Did it not strike you as suspect to see domestiques crushing GC contenders ? 

I was pro cycling for its entertainment value. I watch cycling for the culture, and because I race myself and I like to watch other people race. I like to look at Orica-Greenedge call me maybe parodies, Lotto Belisol training camp photos and Cannondale Sagan Gump videos, because I like the team aspect of the sport and the bonds it creates. 
Doesn't mean I'm naive about the performances of the best athletes. Seriously, had you heard of Froome before the Vuelta 2011 ?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

g29er said:


> Wow aren't we cynical? Why in the world do you even follow cycling if you are going accuse everyone of doping if they have a great performance in the Tour? Comparing Sky with USPS? That is laughable at best.


Laughable at best? 

Sky train shedding the entire peloton. 4 or 5 domestiques that NEVER tired once in 3 weeks. Domestiques that were at a higher level than the GC contenders of other squads.

Add to that, Mick Rogers having "his best year ever (in terms of power numbers)" since he left Ferrari?

Sure, nothing like postal at all.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

moskowe said:


> Sky has a sh*tload of connections to USPS. Didn't you notice the massive cleanup they had to do recently ? Did you watch the Tour this year ? Did it not strike you as suspect to see domestiques crushing GC contenders ?
> 
> I was pro cycling for its entertainment value. I watch cycling for the culture, and because I race myself and I like to watch other people race. I like to look at Orica-Greenedge call me maybe parodies, Lotto Belisol training camp photos and Cannondale Sagan Gump videos, because I like the team aspect of the sport and the bonds it creates.
> Doesn't mean I'm naive about the performances of the best athletes. Seriously, had you heard of Froome before the Vuelta 2011 ?


Yep, I'd heard of him.

I watched him be dropped off the back of the break (and then main bunch) during a finish into a hilltop town in the '09 Giro. 

Same style, same spider monkey body, not even CLOSE to the same amount of power or form. Huge difference from 2010.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

_Yep, I'd heard of him.

I watched him be dropped off the back of the break (and then main bunch) during a finish into a hilltop town in the '09 Giro. 

Same style, same spider monkey body, not even CLOSE to the same amount of power or form. Huge difference from 2010._

Marginal gains Rob.
errrrrrrrrrr.
I mean cadence.
errrrrrrrrrrrr.
Post stage spin downs.
errrrrrrrr.
I give up!


----------



## perpetuum_mobile (Nov 30, 2012)

DrSmile said:


> I'm really hoping this is dry humor.


We all know who else used "fast cadence" riding uphill.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

perpetuum_mobile said:


> We all know who else used "fast cadence" riding uphill.


Thing is that fast cadence thing is actually a fact. Yes LA doped but so did Jan (as an example) Jan was still kinda old school and pushed bigger gears. 

The best way I ever heard it explained was thus..."your legs will give out long before you heart and lungs do" and this is very true. The bigger a gear you push the more you task the anaerobic system, the smaller (and thus faster to reach the same speed) a gear you push the more you task the aerobic system.

Don't let distaste for a specific athlete and his propaganda blind you to physiological realities.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

badge118 said:


> Thing is that fast cadence thing is actually a fact. Yes LA doped but so did Jan (as an example) Jan was still kinda old school and pushed bigger gears.
> 
> The best way I ever heard it explained was thus..."your legs will give out long before you heart and lungs do" and this is very true. The bigger a gear you push the more you task the anaerobic system, the smaller (and thus faster to reach the same speed) a gear you push the more you task the aerobic system.
> 
> Don't let distaste for a specific athlete and his propaganda blind you to physiological realities.


There is absolutely no scientific evidence for what you just said. Articles published on this topic specifically point out that higher cadence is less efficient than lower cadence. The actual reality is that if you can get enough oxygenated blood to your legs, the extra inefficiency doesn't matter. This is exactly what dopers take advantage of when they increase the red blood cells in their blood stream.

For factual science results see:

The relationship between cadence, pedaling technique and gross efficiency in cycling. Stig Leirdal, Gertjan Ettema Eur J Appl Physiol (2011) 111:2885–2893

As for physiology, as you said you need to stay away from the muscles functioning anaerobically, but if you look up the definition of that, you start to see why that blood is so important!


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

DrSmile said:


> There is absolutely no scientific evidence for what you just said. Articles published on this topic specifically point out that higher cadence is less efficient than lower cadence. The actual reality is that if you can get enough oxygenated blood to your legs, the extra inefficiency doesn't matter. This is exactly what dopers take advantage of when they increase the red blood cells in their blood stream.
> 
> For factual science results see:
> 
> ...


Of course there is a limit for goodness sakes. /facepalm

I was simply trying to point out that simply pooh poohing on a proven technique because a doper used it is stupid.

I could go into studies that complicate things like the study by Takaishi, T. that seemed to indicate that lowest oxygen cost was not the same as lowest muscular fatigue....and how Marsh and martin found something similar. Then you have the studies that follow hemodynamics in a narrow sense and don't look at EMG findings....

All of this however misses the point that the guy I was responding to was inferring, that he mere fact a doper used a specific cycling technique can invalidate the validity of the technique. This is simply ignorant (if they were not simply tolling).

Also since you wanted to impress with references...

Takaishi, T. et al (1996) Optimal pedalling rate estimated from neuromuscular fatigue for cyclists. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 28(12): 1492-1497.

Marsh, A.P. & Martin, P.E. (1993) The association between cycling experience and preferred and most economical cadences. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 25(11): 1269-1274.

Gotshal, R.W. et al (1996) Cycling cadence alters exercise hemodynamics. Int. J.Sports Med. 17(1): 17-21.

I think you get the point.

People REALLY need to take a valium around this topic.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

The problem is, I have seen quotes over in the clinic attributed to Sir Bradley that he is actually at a slower cadence now; at least in the T.T. So you have Sky apologists saying "higher cadence" and Wiggins saying the opposite. Not to mention the obvious fact that we are talking about a guy who prior to '09 was pack fodder, and now is the best cyclist in the world. That is why this "marginal gains" rubbish is an insult to one's intelligence.


----------



## perpetuum_mobile (Nov 30, 2012)

The argument is not about the cadence. It is about some lame explanations. Call it "marginal gains" or "fast cadence" it does not matter.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Very good article, and one of the main reasons I have my doubts about Sky. Well, besides the dodgy staff members and the unreal domestique rides from last year's TdF.

Tom English: Wiggins soft-pedals on Lance Armstrong - Sport - Scotsman.com


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

So now we have Vaughters calling out Brad for his "born again" moral outrage at Lance after watching the Oprah dog and pony show. It is evident that in 2009, Sir Bradley knew the full scope of Lance's BS thru Vaughters, CVDV, Tommy D, Zabriskie, et al. Then we have the abundant quotes from Wiggo in 2010-early 2012 expressing his "love" for his new BFF Lance Armstrong, and his praise for all he did for cycling. Now we get the swearing and disdain. Ah, love is so fickle!

So, being outed as a serious liar does not make Sir Brad a doper. But it does bring into question exactly what we can believe in what he says. Any thoughts?


----------

