Brits don't dope?

Page 110 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re: Re:

gazr99 said:
The Hitch said:
gazr99 said:
The Hegelian said:
Yes, and it's not just that they're at the top - it's the extraordinary and swift manner of their unimpeachable rise. Seems a long way from the humble days of Obree, S Yates and Boardman.

I suppose the Americans rose swiftly in their glory days, but that turned out pretty ugly didn't it?

And I guess the Aussies have risen swiftly since Anderson and Peiper. But their trackies, juiced or not, are still doing sprint trains and classics. The British ones are all turning into GT contenders.

Honestly, it smells like such a huge, stinky, rotting, maggot infested rat - the British rise. Bias or not, when you're met with that kind of stench you can't help but exhale your displeasure....
The causes of UK's rise are pretty easy to see, same way you can say Lemond caused the US rise. UK is due to a series of events starting with Boardman winning the yellow jersey and the rest of his success, few years later UK Sport says its funding will be based on Olynpic medals so British Cycling created a long term strategy into developing Olympic medal winners with the aim of Britain becoming top of the cycling medals table, during this time Armstrong started dominating which despite what we now know, was extremely captivating and everyone knew about cycling and the Tour. As Britain gained more success, more people took up cycling and had better coaching than previous generations
That would make some sense....


If people like Wiggins, froome and Thomas had shown even an ounce of gt talent in their early to mid 20s. Then you could say it's down to coaching (which wouldn't make much sense anyway since the coaching was based around track not road).

Seeing as how they all magically transformed mid career, it's clearly something else.
Wiggins and Thomas are highly regarded as 2 of the most talented riders to come from Britain, who are known to have exceptionally big engines. Not a massive leap to see that they could survive in the mountains once they lost their track weight and have always trained road as well as track. Thomas was part of the academy which was based in the Italian hills.
no one has seen this dynamic thru a lens of GBP or $$$.

The Eastern Europeans in the 80s and 90s had dominance in track endurance.

Then the centralised sporting system, even the army athletes, went away, and their talent moved to the road and continental Europe.

Brailsford was perhaps, the mastermind, but before he became chief of the national program, p'raps when he was a mere jobbing coach. Linda Mac time. When Rob Hayles and Millar are off to Cofidis, when much of the endurance program went to ride for Landbouwkrediet Colnago, and Colnago Tonissteiner, which was the team that became Chocolade Jacques, then Flandrian Topsport
(Vlaanderen Topsport) and Rambo Nico Eeckhout, I think it is the one team thru different sponsors... think British cycling may hav paid their wages in whatever Flemish francs they were paid in during 2003 period when they were in Belgium riding for that team...

what is my convoluted point?

Brailsford charted, or chartered, the weakspot in the cycling calendar, the quadrennial event, which was a sweetspot and prosperous confluence with the Lotteries money and incentive structure by the government to reward Olympic medals... the weakspot because the Eastern Euros were now on the road in continental Europe, and not in the army or whatever and riding on the boards. They left the track. There were no more talented riders on the track endurance competitions... now that is a tad hyperbolic, it is nigh hyperbole.

Here is the devil's advocate... if Wiggins was Canadian, or New Zealand, would he ever have got the High Road opportunity? About his only result of not. I mean, his only result of note, was his win with Saul Raisin on the bumpy stage in lAvenir...

He went thru Linda Mac, FDJ, CA, Cofidis... chiefly with zero to show for his time. Palmares... squat. His palmares was squat. And you could say he was not doping... but I would place little stock in this conceit, the guy would have been doing everything else what the UK endurance program were doing... which would not be more than anyone else, but it would not be less that anyone else...

Froome and Wigans got lucky, they got their opportunities at the right time, right team, right sport, right squad.

But do a mano a mano comparison with Raimondas Rumsas and Edita Rumsas, see how his time was better than second place Beloki when you net-out the team timetrial of ONCE, the TTT gave enough time for Beloki to be second ahead of Raimondas Rumsas on the podium in Paris behing Lance.

If Rumsas has all the opportunities of LAnce at USPS, he becomes the Tour winner.

Luck and politics play a major part in the result even before you hit the roads and tarmac asphalt and lime of France...

but this explanation is not as amusing as my Gordonstoun and muscular christianity rationale innit? but the Brits are no different from the Eastern Europeans, the Aussies, the Yanks, USPS, the kiwis. tout dope, tous dope, but this does not make them bad characters axiomatically, but it therefore goes, that my favourite player, Ricky Riccio does not deserve the opprobrium, he just had less political instinct and appreciation of this anti-doping agitprop that the Puritans put out in the UK and US and Australia, it makes all of those sportsmen, as criminals, when they just ride a damn bike.
 
Apr 3, 2016
1,508
0
0
Re: Re:

BYOP88 said:
gazr99 said:
The Hitch said:
gazr99 said:
The Hegelian said:
Yes, and it's not just that they're at the top - it's the extraordinary and swift manner of their unimpeachable rise. Seems a long way from the humble days of Obree, S Yates and Boardman.

I suppose the Americans rose swiftly in their glory days, but that turned out pretty ugly didn't it?

And I guess the Aussies have risen swiftly since Anderson and Peiper. But their trackies, juiced or not, are still doing sprint trains and classics. The British ones are all turning into GT contenders.

Honestly, it smells like such a huge, stinky, rotting, maggot infested rat - the British rise. Bias or not, when you're met with that kind of stench you can't help but exhale your displeasure....
The causes of UK's rise are pretty easy to see, same way you can say Lemond caused the US rise. UK is due to a series of events starting with Boardman winning the yellow jersey and the rest of his success, few years later UK Sport says its funding will be based on Olynpic medals so British Cycling created a long term strategy into developing Olympic medal winners with the aim of Britain becoming top of the cycling medals table, during this time Armstrong started dominating which despite what we now know, was extremely captivating and everyone knew about cycling and the Tour. As Britain gained more success, more people took up cycling and had better coaching than previous generations
That would make some sense....


If people like Wiggins, froome and Thomas had shown even an ounce of gt talent in their early to mid 20s. Then you could say it's down to coaching (which wouldn't make much sense anyway since the coaching was based around track not road).

Seeing as how they all magically transformed mid career, it's clearly something else.
Wiggins and Thomas are highly regarded as 2 of the most talented riders to come from Britain, who are known to have exceptionally big engines. Not a massive leap to see that they could survive in the mountains once they lost their track weight and have always trained road as well as track. Thomas was part of the academy which was based in the Italian hills.
Why haven't track riders from other nations started to kick *** on the road too? I mean 95% of the current peloton wouldn't look out of place as extras in Schindler's List, so losing "track weight" isn't the key to road success.
Can you point to which British track riders have appeared on any GT final GC in the last 10 years, other than Wiggins?

Or have you got some other criteria for "kicking ****"?
 
Jul 20, 2015
653
0
0
Re: Re:

BYOP88 said:
gazr99 said:
The Hitch said:
gazr99 said:
The Hegelian said:
The causes of UK's rise are pretty easy to see, same way you can say Lemond caused the US rise. UK is due to a series of events starting with Boardman winning the yellow jersey and the rest of his success, few years later UK Sport says its funding will be based on Olynpic medals so British Cycling created a long term strategy into developing Olympic medal winners with the aim of Britain becoming top of the cycling medals table, during this time Armstrong started dominating which despite what we now know, was extremely captivating and everyone knew about cycling and the Tour. As Britain gained more success, more people took up cycling and had better coaching than previous generations
That would make some sense....


If people like Wiggins, froome and Thomas had shown even an ounce of gt talent in their early to mid 20s. Then you could say it's down to coaching (which wouldn't make much sense anyway since the coaching was based around track not road).

Seeing as how they all magically transformed mid career, it's clearly something else.
Wiggins and Thomas are highly regarded as 2 of the most talented riders to come from Britain, who are known to have exceptionally big engines. Not a massive leap to see that they could survive in the mountains once they lost their track weight and have always trained road as well as track. Thomas was part of the academy which was based in the Italian hills.
Why haven't track riders from other nations started to kick *** on the road too? I mean 95% of the current peloton wouldn't look out of place as extras in Schindler's List, so losing "track weight" isn't the key to road success.
Way to keep what I said in context. I also pointed out that Wiggins and Thomas have been seen for a longtime as 2 of the most talented riders to come from the UK, which is seen from their success on the track and road. Losing track weight has played a major role in their improvement in the mountains, which I thought would be obvious as being lighter helps you go up hill quicker and top of my head Gaviria and Rohan Dennis haven't done bad too bad
 
Re: Re:

gazr99 said:
The Hegelian said:
Yes, and it's not just that they're at the top - it's the extraordinary and swift manner of their unimpeachable rise. Seems a long way from the humble days of Obree, S Yates and Boardman.

I suppose the Americans rose swiftly in their glory days, but that turned out pretty ugly didn't it?

And I guess the Aussies have risen swiftly since Anderson and Peiper. But their trackies, juiced or not, are still doing sprint trains and classics. The British ones are all turning into GT contenders.

Honestly, it smells like such a huge, stinky, rotting, maggot infested rat - the British rise. Bias or not, when you're met with that kind of stench you can't help but exhale your displeasure....
The causes of UK's rise are pretty easy to see, same way you can say Lemond caused the US rise. UK is due to a series of events starting with Boardman winning the yellow jersey and the rest of his success, few years later UK Sport says its funding will be based on Olynpic medals so British Cycling created a long term strategy into developing Olympic medal winners with the aim of Britain becoming top of the cycling medals table, during this time Armstrong started dominating which despite what we now know, was extremely captivating and everyone knew about cycling and the Tour. As Britain gained more success, more people took up cycling and had better coaching than previous generations
Actually, the rise in US cycling was fueled by doping. In the 80's the US was tired of being beaten up by Europeans with more sophisticated doping programs and decided to go all in and join them. That is the history and really is fact. There s a whole thread on that.
Lemond was an extraordinary talent but he did nothing to contribute to the popularity of cycling in the US. And he was lightyears better than Boardman or any other Brit.
 
Jul 20, 2015
653
0
0
Re: Re:

veganrob said:
gazr99 said:
The Hegelian said:
Yes, and it's not just that they're at the top - it's the extraordinary and swift manner of their unimpeachable rise. Seems a long way from the humble days of Obree, S Yates and Boardman.

I suppose the Americans rose swiftly in their glory days, but that turned out pretty ugly didn't it?

And I guess the Aussies have risen swiftly since Anderson and Peiper. But their trackies, juiced or not, are still doing sprint trains and classics. The British ones are all turning into GT contenders.

Honestly, it smells like such a huge, stinky, rotting, maggot infested rat - the British rise. Bias or not, when you're met with that kind of stench you can't help but exhale your displeasure....
The causes of UK's rise are pretty easy to see, same way you can say Lemond caused the US rise. UK is due to a series of events starting with Boardman winning the yellow jersey and the rest of his success, few years later UK Sport says its funding will be based on Olynpic medals so British Cycling created a long term strategy into developing Olympic medal winners with the aim of Britain becoming top of the cycling medals table, during this time Armstrong started dominating which despite what we now know, was extremely captivating and everyone knew about cycling and the Tour. As Britain gained more success, more people took up cycling and had better coaching than previous generations
Actually, the rise in US cycling was fueled by doping. In the 80's the US was tired of being beaten up by Europeans with more sophisticated doping programs and decided to go all in and join them. That is the history and really is fact. There s a whole thread on that.
Lemond was an extraordinary talent but he did nothing to contribute to the popularity of cycling in the US. And he was lightyears better than Boardman or any other Brit.
Didn't say Lemond wasn't better than Boardman. Before Lemond how many professional US road cyclists or teams were there? Lemond winning yellow undoubtedly grabbed the publics attention. You can have the greatest doping program ever but it will never work if there aren't any riders to use it
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

gazr99 said:
The Hitch said:
gazr99 said:
The Hegelian said:
Yes, and it's not just that they're at the top - it's the extraordinary and swift manner of their unimpeachable rise. Seems a long way from the humble days of Obree, S Yates and Boardman.

I suppose the Americans rose swiftly in their glory days, but that turned out pretty ugly didn't it?

And I guess the Aussies have risen swiftly since Anderson and Peiper. But their trackies, juiced or not, are still doing sprint trains and classics. The British ones are all turning into GT contenders.

Honestly, it smells like such a huge, stinky, rotting, maggot infested rat - the British rise. Bias or not, when you're met with that kind of stench you can't help but exhale your displeasure....
The causes of UK's rise are pretty easy to see, same way you can say Lemond caused the US rise. UK is due to a series of events starting with Boardman winning the yellow jersey and the rest of his success, few years later UK Sport says its funding will be based on Olynpic medals so British Cycling created a long term strategy into developing Olympic medal winners with the aim of Britain becoming top of the cycling medals table, during this time Armstrong started dominating which despite what we now know, was extremely captivating and everyone knew about cycling and the Tour. As Britain gained more success, more people took up cycling and had better coaching than previous generations
That would make some sense....


If people like Wiggins, froome and Thomas had shown even an ounce of gt talent in their early to mid 20s. Then you could say it's down to coaching (which wouldn't make much sense anyway since the coaching was based around track not road).

Seeing as how they all magically transformed mid career, it's clearly something else.
Wiggins and Thomas are highly regarded as 2 of the most talented riders to come from Britain, who are known to have exceptionally big engines. Not a massive leap to see that they could survive in the mountains once they lost their track weight and have always trained road as well as track. Thomas was part of the academy which was based in the Italian hills.
Big engines fed by epo makes for good climbing. Big engines dont make for good climbing they make for average climbing if the climb is consistent and a rider can get into a rythym.

Wiggins transformed from grupetto fodder to GT winner, with PEDs not because he lost some weight. Stop with the myths.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re: Re:

BYOP88 said:
Why haven't track riders from other nations started to kick *** on the road too? I mean 95% of the current peloton wouldn't look out of place as extras in Schindler's List, so losing "track weight" isn't the key to road success.
actually, losing the EXTRA weight, if the control sample is the GC riders of 7 years ago.

It is a combination of AICAR, lipotropin, GW1516, liquid rectal nutrition diet feeding method,

cortisone and gh existed a decade back. They existed the time during Froome at Barloworld when he was still a very lean GC rider, albeit 15lbs heavier. And Wigans at HighRoad, when, pending the year, say, on Olympic year, he was p'raps 25lbs heavier than his Sky weight for GC and tdf, Wiggins lightest weight, say, a 2009 High Road/Columbia, pre-GC road weight, when still lean road weight, he was prolly 20lbs heavier than his Sky road weight for his tdf win in 2011.

How does he get leaner and lighter? The above pharmaceuticals, plus rectum feeding thru a tube.

Froome copies him.

Now if you look at some other riders, that have lost some weight... Nibali looks about 5lbs lighter, minimum, when he won GTs at the other normal GC GT weight. Valverde lost a few lbs too. Now Tejay also looks about 5lbs lighter, his arms rendered of all tissue. Priapus with a greater circumference than his upper arms. LRP about 5lbs leaner too. Chris Horner lost about 10lbs in 2010, and his tt fell off the cliff, but he won the Vuelta. I wonder what Cuddles could have done on the Froome program, he prolly could have dropped 10lbs, plus improved his chrono, he would have been timetralling like Ullrich in 97 and climbing like Riis in 96
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Re: Re:

kwikki said:
Can you point to which British track riders have appeared on any GT final GC in the last 10 years, other than Wiggins?

Or have you got some other criteria for "kicking ****"?
The guy everyone calls 'G'. So if those 2 can do it why haven't F/E the Aussie's, Kiwi's or Danish been able to get a rider to drop track weight(can't be that hard), maintain power(on the flat and ITT's) and climb as fast as guys who were mainlining EPO and win/top 15 a GT?

I'm guessing Sky and British cycling fans are hoping Kennaugh can do well in a GT too.
 
Re: Re:

gazr99 said:
veganrob said:
gazr99 said:
The Hegelian said:
Yes, and it's not just that they're at the top - it's the extraordinary and swift manner of their unimpeachable rise. Seems a long way from the humble days of Obree, S Yates and Boardman.

I suppose the Americans rose swiftly in their glory days, but that turned out pretty ugly didn't it?

And I guess the Aussies have risen swiftly since Anderson and Peiper. But their trackies, juiced or not, are still doing sprint trains and classics. The British ones are all turning into GT contenders.

Honestly, it smells like such a huge, stinky, rotting, maggot infested rat - the British rise. Bias or not, when you're met with that kind of stench you can't help but exhale your displeasure....
The causes of UK's rise are pretty easy to see, same way you can say Lemond caused the US rise. UK is due to a series of events starting with Boardman winning the yellow jersey and the rest of his success, few years later UK Sport says its funding will be based on Olynpic medals so British Cycling created a long term strategy into developing Olympic medal winners with the aim of Britain becoming top of the cycling medals table, during this time Armstrong started dominating which despite what we now know, was extremely captivating and everyone knew about cycling and the Tour. As Britain gained more success, more people took up cycling and had better coaching than previous generations
Actually, the rise in US cycling was fueled by doping. In the 80's the US was tired of being beaten up by Europeans with more sophisticated doping programs and decided to go all in and join them. That is the history and really is fact. There s a whole thread on that.
Lemond was an extraordinary talent but he did nothing to contribute to the popularity of cycling in the US. And he was lightyears better than Boardman or any other Brit.
Didn't say Lemond wasn't better than Boardman. Before Lemond how many professional US road cyclists or teams were there? Lemond winning yellow undoubtedly grabbed the publics attention. You can have the greatest doping program ever but it will never work if there aren't any riders to use it
you've missed my point. There was still cycling going on at the time, but until thr docs were able to transform those numerous pack fodder into medals did cycling start to get more attention.
Lemod was an outlier. I live in the US and remember very well how much publicity was generated for Lemond. A small paragraph at the bottom of the sixth page. The Olympics were and are much bigger than the TdF here.
 
Apr 3, 2016
1,508
0
0
Re: Re:

BYOP88 said:
kwikki said:
Can you point to which British track riders have appeared on any GT final GC in the last 10 years, other than Wiggins?

Or have you got some other criteria for "kicking ****"?
The guy everyone calls 'G'. So if those 2 can do it why haven't F/E the Aussie's, Kiwi's or Danish been able to get a rider to drop track weight(can't be that hard), maintain power(on the flat and ITT's) and climb as fast as guys who were mainlining EPO and win/top 15 a GT?

I'm guessing Sky and British cycling fans are hoping Kennaugh can do well in a GT too.
Those two can't do it. Geraint Thomas has never got in the GC of GT.

(Assuming you understand that GT= TdF, Giro, Vuelta. GC=top ten)

Wiggins is the only track rider to do so.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Big engines fed by epo makes for good climbing. Big engines dont make for good climbing they make for average climbing if the climb is consistent and a rider can get into a rythym.

Wiggins transformed from grupetto fodder to GT winner, with PEDs not because he lost some weight. Stop with the myths.
Wiggins woulda been on the track endurance enhancement PED program for those nascent road years /alliterationz/tautologicpleonasmp[sic]

think the Wiggins clean, Lemond clean, specific Australian champions clean, think this premise just does not wash. its #bovinescatology

but did not #bovinescatology lead to #madcowdisease and #Oprah then harpo gave out the new lexus prius to those sycophantz in her audience
 
Jul 20, 2015
653
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
gazr99 said:
The Hitch said:
gazr99 said:
The Hegelian said:
Yes, and it's not just that they're at the top - it's the extraordinary and swift manner of their unimpeachable rise. Seems a long way from the humble days of Obree, S Yates and Boardman.

I suppose the Americans rose swiftly in their glory days, but that turned out pretty ugly didn't it?

And I guess the Aussies have risen swiftly since Anderson and Peiper. But their trackies, juiced or not, are still doing sprint trains and classics. The British ones are all turning into GT contenders.

Honestly, it smells like such a huge, stinky, rotting, maggot infested rat - the British rise. Bias or not, when you're met with that kind of stench you can't help but exhale your displeasure....
The causes of UK's rise are pretty easy to see, same way you can say Lemond caused the US rise. UK is due to a series of events starting with Boardman winning the yellow jersey and the rest of his success, few years later UK Sport says its funding will be based on Olynpic medals so British Cycling created a long term strategy into developing Olympic medal winners with the aim of Britain becoming top of the cycling medals table, during this time Armstrong started dominating which despite what we now know, was extremely captivating and everyone knew about cycling and the Tour. As Britain gained more success, more people took up cycling and had better coaching than previous generations
That would make some sense....


If people like Wiggins, froome and Thomas had shown even an ounce of gt talent in their early to mid 20s. Then you could say it's down to coaching (which wouldn't make much sense anyway since the coaching was based around track not road).

Seeing as how they all magically transformed mid career, it's clearly something else.
Wiggins and Thomas are highly regarded as 2 of the most talented riders to come from Britain, who are known to have exceptionally big engines. Not a massive leap to see that they could survive in the mountains once they lost their track weight and have always trained road as well as track. Thomas was part of the academy which was based in the Italian hills.
Big engines fed by epo makes for good climbing. Big engines dont make for good climbing they make for average climbing if the climb is consistent and a rider can get into a rythym.

Wiggins transformed from grupetto fodder to GT winner, with PEDs not because he lost some weight. Stop with the myths.
So you're basically saying Wiggins decided he won't take PED's when everyone was doing it, he will wait for when the media are more focused on drugs on the peleton to start taking them.

It would be a shame if It turns out Wiggins did take PED's but I honestly get the feeling he didn't. I think focusing all his efforts on winning the tour, losing that extra weight and with a strong team behind him who played the tactics very well as well as the route suiting his strengths, all contributed to his success.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re: Re:

kwikki said:
Those two can't do it. Geraint Thomas has never got in the GC of GT.

(Assuming you understand that GT= TdF, Giro, Vuelta. GC=top ten)

Wiggins is the only track rider to do so.
yet. the caveat YET.

this was one of my thought insights into Wigans,

incentive, motivation, $$$$ and GBP

why if Wigans was a worldbeater, would he ride around for 100k GBP from 2000-2010, when Froome now is on about 5mill GBP and Armstrong on the same. If you are the most talented, you would beat everyone else and receive the highest financial rewards...

I would have liked to see a TdF where everyone had the same preparation, the same support team, and the same preparation doping, and intra tour doping.... and a fair TdF route

so lets see what Chavanel can do

Ullrich, Armstrong, Kloeden, Beloki, Rumsas, Chavanel, Boogerd, Andy Shleck, Gesink, TonyMartin, Wiggins, Froome, Basso, Landis... LANDIS... Evans, Mcgee, Mayo, Pantani, Vandenbroecke. Ricly Riccio

so previous doping infringements mean jack.

lets see who wins that race when everyone is on the good stuff. That would be entertaining.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

gazr99 said:
Benotti69 said:
gazr99 said:


Big engines fed by epo makes for good climbing. Big engines dont make for good climbing they make for average climbing if the climb is consistent and a rider can get into a rythym.

Wiggins transformed from grupetto fodder to GT winner, with PEDs not because he lost some weight. Stop with the myths.


So you're basically saying Wiggins decided he won't take PED's when everyone was doing it, he will wait for when the media are more focused on drugs on the peleton to start taking them.

It would be a shame if It turns out Wiggins did take PED's but I honestly get the feeling he didn't. I think focusing all his efforts on winning the tour, losing that extra weight and with a strong team behind him who played the tactics very well as well as the route suiting his strengths, all contributed to his success.


As blackcat says, Wiggins was probably on a PED program for his track and what Cofidis gave him or expected of him was little. But once he decided to up his road ambitions well the Sky was the limit!

Wiggins did take PEDs, there is no doubt about it. You dont win a 3 week GT against a Ferrari client (Nibali) without PEDs no matter how much weight you lose.

The idea the people think riders can race every day for 3 weeks, without dope, give over!
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re:

kwikki said:
I find it extremely unlikely that any GT winners in recent years has been PED-free.
I find it unlikey that anyone riding a GT in recent years has been PED free.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Re: Re:

kwikki said:
BYOP88 said:
kwikki said:
Can you point to which British track riders have appeared on any GT final GC in the last 10 years, other than Wiggins?

Or have you got some other criteria for "kicking ****"?
The guy everyone calls 'G'. So if those 2 can do it why haven't F/E the Aussie's, Kiwi's or Danish been able to get a rider to drop track weight(can't be that hard), maintain power(on the flat and ITT's) and climb as fast as guys who were mainlining EPO and win/top 15 a GT?

I'm guessing Sky and British cycling fans are hoping Kennaugh can do well in a GT too.
Those two can't do it. Geraint Thomas has never got in the GC of GT.

(Assuming you understand that GT= TdF, Giro, Vuelta. GC=top ten)

Wiggins is the only track rider to do so.
So the guy who finishes 11th or 15th or 140th at the Giro/Tour/Vuelta doesn't finish on GC?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
the premise that taking PEDs make you of poor character is___F A L S E.

What makes you of poor character, is if you did not go to Gordonstoun, Harrow, Dragon, Westminster, Eten, Rugby and Charterhouse.

then you are of poor stock and character. Is___T R U E #eugenics #breeding #aristocracy


or Eton
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re: Re:

kwikki said:
BYOP88 said:
kwikki said:
Can you point to which British track riders have appeared on any GT final GC in the last 10 years, other than Wiggins?

Or have you got some other criteria for "kicking ****"?
The guy everyone calls 'G'. So if those 2 can do it why haven't F/E the Aussie's, Kiwi's or Danish been able to get a rider to drop track weight(can't be that hard), maintain power(on the flat and ITT's) and climb as fast as guys who were mainlining EPO and win/top 15 a GT?

I'm guessing Sky and British cycling fans are hoping Kennaugh can do well in a GT too.
Those two can't do it. Geraint Thomas has never got in the GC of GT.

(Assuming you understand that GT= TdF, Giro, Vuelta. GC=top ten)

Wiggins is the only track rider to do so.
Mcgee came about 8th in the ~2005 Giro, or ~2004
 
Jul 20, 2015
653
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
gazr99 said:
Benotti69 said:
gazr99 said:
Wiggins and Thomas are highly regarded as 2 of the most talented riders to come from Britain, who are known to have exceptionally big engines. Not a massive leap to see that they could survive in the mountains once they lost their track weight and have always trained road as well as track. Thomas was part of the academy which was based in the Italian hills.
Big engines fed by epo makes for good climbing. Big engines dont make for good climbing they make for average climbing if the climb is consistent and a rider can get into a rythym.

Wiggins transformed from grupetto fodder to GT winner, with PEDs not because he lost some weight. Stop with the myths.
So you're basically saying Wiggins decided he won't take PED's when everyone was doing it, he will wait for when the media are more focused on drugs on the peleton to start taking them.

It would be a shame if It turns out Wiggins did take PED's but I honestly get the feeling he didn't. I think focusing all his efforts on winning the tour, losing that extra weight and with a strong team behind him who played the tactics very well as well as the route suiting his strengths, all contributed to his success.
As blackcat says, Wiggins was probably on a PED program for his track and what Cofidis gave him or expected of him was little. But once he decided to up his road ambitions well the Sky was the limit!

Wiggins did take PEDs, there is no doubt about it. You dont win a 3 week GT against a Ferrari client (Nibali) without PEDs no matter how much weight you lose.

The idea the people think riders can race every day for 3 weeks, without dope, give over!
Well there is doubt, otherwise there would be evidence all over the place but all there is, is conspiracy theory opinions
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re: Re:

gazr99 said:
Well there is doubt, otherwise there would be evidence all over the place but all there is, is conspiracy theory opinions
If Armstrong is nice to Floyd, if Nowitski or Novitski never did the Fed investigation, if Birotte never gets the brief, if Tygart never opens the investigation...

all these things are plausible, the stars ALIGNED against Lance. He was pretty unlucky.

If Lance is not exposed, the Empire crew behind Froome and Wiggins and Gordonstoun and MUscular Christianity have a USPS type hubris.

At the moment, empire crew merely flirts with Yankee hubris.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

gazr99 said:
Benotti69 said:
gazr99 said:
Benotti69 said:
gazr99 said:
Wiggins and Thomas are highly regarded as 2 of the most talented riders to come from Britain, who are known to have exceptionally big engines. Not a massive leap to see that they could survive in the mountains once they lost their track weight and have always trained road as well as track. Thomas was part of the academy which was based in the Italian hills.
Big engines fed by epo makes for good climbing. Big engines dont make for good climbing they make for average climbing if the climb is consistent and a rider can get into a rythym.

Wiggins transformed from grupetto fodder to GT winner, with PEDs not because he lost some weight. Stop with the myths.
So you're basically saying Wiggins decided he won't take PED's when everyone was doing it, he will wait for when the media are more focused on drugs on the peleton to start taking them.

It would be a shame if It turns out Wiggins did take PED's but I honestly get the feeling he didn't. I think focusing all his efforts on winning the tour, losing that extra weight and with a strong team behind him who played the tactics very well as well as the route suiting his strengths, all contributed to his success.
As blackcat says, Wiggins was probably on a PED program for his track and what Cofidis gave him or expected of him was little. But once he decided to up his road ambitions well the Sky was the limit!

Wiggins did take PEDs, there is no doubt about it. You dont win a 3 week GT against a Ferrari client (Nibali) without PEDs no matter how much weight you lose.

The idea the people think riders can race every day for 3 weeks, without dope, give over!
Well there is doubt, otherwise there would be evidence all over the place but all there is, is conspiracy theory opinions
But there is evidence all over the place. Hell Walsh used the same evidence about Sky it to write books about Armstrong.

TeamSky is currently the goose laying golden eggs in the sport. No one wants to kill it when it is hard to find sponsors. Instead of improving the sport and attracting sponsors to a clean well run sport, they'd rather feed the goose and feather their own nests.
 
There is evidence all over the place. That's why the overwhelming majority of cycling fans (80% in countries like Denmark) are convinced Froome is doping and why people like *** Pound and Ashenden are saying the sport is as bad as ever.

If people want to post factual untruths like - there is no evidence, well, all's the best to them
 
Jul 20, 2015
653
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
gazr99 said:
Benotti69 said:
gazr99 said:
Benotti69 said:
Wiggins and Thomas are highly regarded as 2 of the most talented riders to come from Britain, who are known to have exceptionally big engines. Not a massive leap to see that they could survive in the mountains once they lost their track weight and have always trained road as well as track. Thomas was part of the academy which was based in the Italian hills.
Big engines fed by epo makes for good climbing. Big engines dont make for good climbing they make for average climbing if the climb is consistent and a rider can get into a rythym.

Wiggins transformed from grupetto fodder to GT winner, with PEDs not because he lost some weight. Stop with the myths.
So you're basically saying Wiggins decided he won't take PED's when everyone was doing it, he will wait for when the media are more focused on drugs on the peleton to start taking them.

It would be a shame if It turns out Wiggins did take PED's but I honestly get the feeling he didn't. I think focusing all his efforts on winning the tour, losing that extra weight and with a strong team behind him who played the tactics very well as well as the route suiting his strengths, all contributed to his success.
As blackcat says, Wiggins was probably on a PED program for his track and what Cofidis gave him or expected of him was little. But once he decided to up his road ambitions well the Sky was the limit!

Wiggins did take PEDs, there is no doubt about it. You dont win a 3 week GT against a Ferrari client (Nibali) without PEDs no matter how much weight you lose.

The idea the people think riders can race every day for 3 weeks, without dope, give over!
Well there is doubt, otherwise there would be evidence all over the place but all there is, is conspiracy theory opinions
But there is evidence all over the place. Hell Walsh used the same evidence about Sky it to write books about Armstrong.

TeamSky is currently the goose laying golden eggs in the sport. No one wants to kill it when it is hard to find sponsors. Instead of improving the sport and attracting sponsors to a clean well run sport, they'd rather feed the goose and feather their own nests.[/quote]

Show us this hard evidence that Wiggins took PED's then
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts