AcademyCC said:
Not much SKY chat recently. And rightly so. My own opinion is - Wiggo won the tour in 2012 clean. Poor field, parcours that suited him, strong team and couple of time trials for him to put distance into the opposition.
I actually think Nibali was fairly low octane that year, maybe even close to clean. I also think Contador was low octane in 2013. They were both thinking about being normal.
Then came along the Dawg and he massacred everyone. Alot of pressure piled on both Contador and Nibali from team/sponsors and they went back on whatever juice is floating about now. Hence we have seen both of them come back and dominate in separate events since. I wish we would have seen Froome and Contador take on Nibali at the tour - would have given a better insight.
In summary IMO - Wiggo is clean. Froome is a mutant. Contador thought about being clean then sacked it and the same for Nibali.
Wow There are some pretty massive gaps in this story, not least of all the idea that that 2 riders on the exact same team using the exact same coaching and the exact same training methods, and the exact same doctors and saying the exact same things getting the exact same transformation at more or less the exact same time to perform at the exact same level at the exact same tour de France and then essentialy have the exact same season back to back but one of them was on a full blown doping programme and the other was the cleanest cyclist in history.
It's like saying 2 of the gewiss ballan guys were doping but the one who won was clean.
I think those who say froome doped but Wiggins was clean are even more delusional than those who say both were clean. If the team were doping froome and covering it up, then every remaining argument for the idea that Wiggins would have been clean (and there aren't many) gets thrown out of the window. It makes no sense that sky would heroically try to win the tdf clean but then dope up to incredible levels the guy who is both his main domestique and will be his runner up, thereby doing everything to taint the supposedly clean victory they are about to achieve.
Then there is the idea that Wiggins won because the field was easy but froome was doped in 2012. Considering froome has the 5th fastest tt in tdf history in his 2013 performance was armstrongesque then he did not beat an easy field but one of the all time most powerful riders, even when considering that froome had to wait on the mountain stages, then you also have to accept that froome would have been 10x fresher than Wiggins in the tt because a -he has ridden the mountains at a far slower speed than he is capable unlike Wiggins who.has had 3 weeks on the limit and b he's doping. But a 10x more tired clean Wiggins still wipes the floor with froome in the final tt
do you even know how doping works, the final tt of the tdf has tended to be the event where the biggest dopers really prevail. Not for Wiggins though, for his fans who view his story as some sort of comic book. Superman defeats any evil, even when it's too powerful and makes no sense.
Then you have the question of what's the point of Wiggins being clean and sky being clean if he's being driven around by a train fill of dopers (well froome and rogers at least) and with with loads of doping staff of course.
And your idea that riders just go in and out of.doping programmes as they likez with no major performance changes either. Oh contador and Nibali try to be clean and then they dope. Yeah they thought - let's be clean, lost a race then went on eBay and bought some epo.
What on earth is that based on. Why would they randomly stop their doping programmes then randomly start again?
Why did they succumb to doping but not hero Wiggins?
And heres another question you don't seem to have considered. If froome was doping to such massive lengths in 2012 and getting away with it then was be the only doper. No one else was doping? That makes no sense either. Wiggins says he won clean because the sport cleaned up but if froome is going full pantani at that exact same time the sport is not clean. Why would none of his opponents dope, it makes no sense. Why wouldn't he for that matter. And why do you think froome is lying when he says the scar same thing but Wiggins is telling the truth.
Oh and what makes Wiggins different to froome, or Nibali. He's been far more supportive of dopers and defensive of their accomplishments than the other 2 combined. What on earth do you see in him that you don't see in those 2 that tells you he wouldn't dope.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram