Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #8711  
Old 11-14-12, 08:54
RownhamHill RownhamHill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 616
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehog View Post
My thoughts on this thread.

A lot of people thinking Sky are doping.
Many are suspicious.
Some are suspicious but want to see more evidence/proof

No one actually thinks they're clean.

That is telling.
My thoughts on this thread.

All the 'sky fanboys' think that you're a fool to state with 100% certainty that they are clean, because such a statement is essentially unverifiable with the available evidence.

All the 'sky haters' think that you're a fool if you don't state with 100% certainty that they are dirty, despite the fact that such a statement is essentially unverifiable with the available evidence.

That is telling.
Reply With Quote
  #8712  
Old 11-14-12, 09:11
Avoriaz's Avatar
Avoriaz Avoriaz is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 352
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinvickers View Post
I don't think that's true, hog.

Rather, we've all been burnt so many times that we won't categorically state something is clean, because we've learned we can never know.
This.

To make an addition re: Kimmage and the 2010 Tour, it is my understanding that Wiggins went into the Tour incredibly nervous about his form (being dropped by Barry at the Alpine training camp), and therefore wanted a minimum of distraction. Not ideal, but Kimmage was invited, as stated, from stage 8. Why not?

Secondly, very few cyclists have openly criticised Armstrong in the wake of the Tygart report. Indeed, there are threads on this already. Though not alone, Wiggins has gone on record criticising Lance:

Quote:
Had Armstrong been a hero of his? "No, not really a hero," he says flatly. "He was someone I respected and admired. I've met quite a few sportsmen, but I don't think I've met anybody as… powerful as him." How? "In his persona. He's quite an intimidating person to be around. He has an aura. He doesn't live his life like anybody else in our sport. I sit here now as the winner of the Tour and I don't live my life how he lived his life when he was the winner." How did he live his life? "****ing entourage around him, chauffeur-driven car outside."

The more he talks about Armstrong, the more apparent his contempt
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012...interview-tour

Quote:
How did Wiggins feel when the Armstrong report came out? "It wasn't a surprise." It was confirmation? "Yeah. The anger is more: I've got to pick up the pieces. He's still a multimillionaire, and he's not here to answer the questions. I can't not answer them because I've got to go and race next year, and I hate talking about it."
Compare that to those who say they still see Lance as the winner of those 7 Tours de France.

Why hasn't Sky outwardly supported Greg LeMond. Dunno. Why should they?
__________________
Rake Rides Again
Reply With Quote
  #8713  
Old 11-14-12, 09:19
MatParker117 MatParker117 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 759
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehog View Post
My thoughts on this thread.

A lot of people thinking Sky are doping.
Many are suspicious.
Some are suspicious but want to see more evidence/proof

No one actually thinks they're clean.

That is telling.
I think that Team Sky are 100% clean and have seen nothing to convince me otherwise.
Reply With Quote
  #8714  
Old 11-14-12, 09:19
JimmyFingers's Avatar
JimmyFingers JimmyFingers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andy1234 View Post
Dont worry Doc. It is educated.
I know certain staff and riders opinions of Kimmage. I just dont know if they are the reason he isn't being welcomed with open arms.

As far as Garmin not having a problem....
People form their own opinions about other people. I imagine some people like you, but some think you are an a-hole? go figure.


There are many people in the peloton, and their teams, who would prefer Kimmage didn't further his career through them.
Whether this is a part of the decison making process.....?

IMO The tipping point will come if Kimmages opinion becomes important enough to overlook the relationship factor. At the moment it appears it is not.
The first week of the Tour is traditionally very tense, with the GC contenders very twitchy and desperate to avoid the crashes on the bunched, flat stages. I would say its acceptable for an athlete making a serious tilt for yellow to eliminate distractions. You saw what a grumpy **** Wiggins was for the first half of the 2012 tour, as it went on he visibly relaxed in interviews.

Another red herring IMO, and in 2010 when Brad was poor, unless he just got his programme wrong? JV of course insists he was clean at Garmin the year previously
Reply With Quote
  #8715  
Old 11-14-12, 09:24
JimmyFingers's Avatar
JimmyFingers JimmyFingers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avoriaz View Post
This.

To make an addition re: Kimmage and the 2010 Tour, it is my understanding that Wiggins went into the Tour incredibly nervous about his form (being dropped by Barry at the Alpine training camp), and therefore wanted a minimum of distraction. Not ideal, but Kimmage was invited, as stated, from stage 8. Why not?

Secondly, very few cyclists have openly criticised Armstrong in the wake of the Tygart report. Indeed, there are threads on this already. Though not alone, Wiggins has gone on record criticising Lance:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012...interview-tour

Compare that to those who say they still see Lance as the winner of those 7 Tours de France.

Why hasn't Sky outwardly supported Greg LeMond. Dunno. Why should they?
I'll await the inevitable quotes from 2010 of 'I love him' from the Wiggins doubters. Wiggins of course has broken omerta in the past, most famously in 2007 and it seems here he is breaking again.

It won't be enough.

And I agree with your points on embedding Kimmage with the team in 2010
Reply With Quote
  #8716  
Old 11-14-12, 10:01
martinvickers's Avatar
martinvickers martinvickers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,721
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyFingers View Post
I'll await the inevitable quotes from 2010 of 'I love him' from the Wiggins doubters. Wiggins of course has broken omerta in the past, most famously in 2007 and it seems here he is breaking again.

It won't be enough.

And I agree with your points on embedding Kimmage with the team in 2010
If you....shiver...read Wiggin's last book, there's a number of paragraphs on Kimmage - not attacks, exactly, but a description of an interview in 2009 which clearly made Wiggins uncomfortable. That he felt "Kimmage wanted to put words in [wiggins] mouth", and got a bit annoyed if Wiggins wouldn't play ball on his agenda.

Given the famous article by Kimmage questioning Sky, seems Wiggo, doper or not, read Paul pretty well

For the record, I love Paul's agenda, and more power to his f***ing elbow - but I can imagine it's a distraction.

It seems from the book that Wiggins has no desire to be a full-on posterboy for clean cycling - the 2007 Cofidis strop was an aberation because it affected him personally, it wasn't 'the real doper-hating pre-sky Wiggo' like some would like to believe.

As I suggested in a different thread, doping annoys him in so far as it affects him directly - Cofidis, Armstrong 2009, accusations from the twitterverse, answering for the peleton as le patron in 2012.

Which doesn't prove he's a doper, or that he's not a doper. It tends to sow he lives in his own bubble.

There's a famous play based on the story of Dreyfuss, the Jewish soldier framed and exiled to Devil's Island for treason for anti-semetic reasons in France - it was the subject of Hugo's famous article, J'accuse.

The play makes a point of showing Dreyfuss was a pretty unpleasant man. Pompous, bit of a bigot, unbending, sanctimonious, unctious, sometimes downright nasty.

And innocent.

The point was that victims are not always heroes, that nasty people are not always guilty, and that only a fool looks for moral character in outward charm.

Or put in another way. Wiggins seems, frankly, a prick. Self-important, strong yob character, and a bit of a nasty drunk (it does run in families) from the sound of it.

And none of that has any evidential value in regards to his cleanness.

Sometimes a b***ard sociopath is also a cheat - Armstrong, obviously

Sometimes a blatant cheat is pretty well liked and respected as a reliable and fun human being, outside the cheating - Yates, Contador

Sometimes someone who can be a bit of a prick has hidden moral courage - Bassons, maybe LeMond

It's not a fairy story world- the good guys aren't always nice, the bad guys aren't always nasty, and nobody really wears black or white hats for ease of reference.
Reply With Quote
  #8717  
Old 11-14-12, 10:18
Tinman's Avatar
Tinman Tinman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,012
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinvickers View Post

The point was that victims are not always heroes, that nasty people are not always guilty, and that only a fool looks for moral character in outward charm.

Or put in another way. Wiggins seems, frankly, a prick. Self-important, strong yob character, and a bit of a nasty drunk (it does run in families) from the sound of it.

And none of that has any evidential value in regards to his cleanness.

Sometimes a b***ard sociopath is also a cheat - Armstrong, obviously

Sometimes a blatant cheat is pretty well liked and respected as a reliable and fun human being, outside the cheating - Yates, Contador

Sometimes someone who can be a bit of a prick has hidden moral courage - Bassons, maybe LeMond

It's not a fairy story world- the good guys aren't always nice, the bad guys aren't always nasty, and nobody really wears black or white hats for ease of reference.
I wonder how many self important yobbo nasty drunk's are also likely to have a very strong moral and ethical compass, ie. be one of the few clean ones in the peloton. And a strong moral/ethical compass is what you'd need with all those dopers around you, including the well liked reliable fun ones.

I'd say it's possible, and appreciate the consideration, but far less likely than the other way around. No black and whites, yes, but correlations between variables, absolutely.
__________________
Verbruggen: 'J'ai les moyens de vous faire un coureur positif quand je veux...'
'I have the means to make you a rider positive when I want to'
Reply With Quote
  #8718  
Old 11-14-12, 10:37
Wallace and Gromit Wallace and Gromit is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
And Wiggins kept the jersey from that point forward, never having to "win" it back. I think they knew he would be able to do that too.

Interviewed: on the 11th, Pat knew Sky were going to be the overall winners, 11 days before the finish of the race.
Theory: before the start, Sky knew Wiggins was going to be in yellow, 8 days into the Tour. I also believe they knew he was going to keep the jersey.
In respect of 2012, of course no-one knew for certain that Wiggo was going to take Yellow on a particular stage. However, if he was in winning form and didn't crash in the first week, then if he was going to take Yellow at any point it would either be on stage 7 (to Planche des Belles Filles) or stage 9, the first ITT.

Cancellara or Martin would have been favoured to win the Prologue and then lose time on stage 7. If in form, Wiggo and Froome would be expected to be prominent in the Prologue, with either one of them in the frame to take Yellow in stage 7.

Given Wiggo's form through the early season, it was a good bet that he would still be in form for the Tour, so taking Yellow on stage 7 was a "probable" rather than a "possible".

Once in Yellow, the odds on him losing it other than by crashing or illness were pretty remote, as none of the opposition was clearly superior in the hills, and Wiggo was clearly dominant in the ITTs.

Other than Froome's one-handed riding and Wagwars on Twitter, the Tour panned out in the least unlikely fashion that might have been predicted in advance.
Reply With Quote
  #8719  
Old 11-14-12, 10:49
JimmyFingers's Avatar
JimmyFingers JimmyFingers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinvickers View Post
Or put in another way. Wiggins seems, frankly, a prick. Self-important, strong yob character, and a bit of a nasty drunk (it does run in families) from the sound of it.

And none of that has any evidential value in regards to his cleanness.

Sometimes a b***ard sociopath is also a cheat - Armstrong, obviously

Sometimes a blatant cheat is pretty well liked and respected as a reliable and fun human being, outside the cheating - Yates, Contador

Sometimes someone who can be a bit of a prick has hidden moral courage - Bassons, maybe LeMond

It's not a fairy story world- the good guys aren't always nice, the bad guys aren't always nasty, and nobody really wears black or white hats for ease of reference.
The truth of it is that nice guys dope. Armstrong is the pantomime villain, the doper of all dopers that not only cheated but was a bully with it, borderline psychopath who initmidated and smeared anyone who was a threat. But plenty that doped with him, like Hincapie and Dave Z, come accross as stand up blokes. There is no forgiveness forthcoming for Lance from pretty much any quarter, but plenty of calls for reconciliation for other (ex) dopers, and only a 6 months ban for the 11 that fessed up.

And then you get Wiggins, who many see simply as the second coming of Lance. It is telling that many posters here are pre-occupied with raking through his life, tabloid-style, looking for dirt, and when they can't find it twisting facts to suit their agenda. Most recently was several pages discussing his postcode and whether he was from Kilburn or Maida vale. There is an obvious attempt to paint Wiggins as black as possible, make him as close to the Lance-model of doper as possible.

While he certainly has a spikey personality, he's no demon and since anyone, nice guy or *******, is a potential doper, his character is irrelevant unless you simply come here to call him a ****.

Which a few seem to do.
Reply With Quote
  #8720  
Old 11-14-12, 11:14
thehog thehog is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatParker117 View Post
I think that Team Sky are 100% clean and have seen nothing to convince me otherwise.
That's because you work for them! You're compromised.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:25.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.