Landis Attacks Vaughters

Page 14 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dr. Maserati said:
His weight? We don't have to spread rumours for Bradley:
Here is what BW said about his 2009 transformation to the Sunday Times June 2010:


But here is an interview with his nutritionist back in 2006:

Doc. I have the benefit of having seen Wiggins at close quarters both before and after his claimed weightloss. Regardless of what is quoted by the people around him, he lost enough weight to be obviously leaner. That is a fact.

Im not discussing the possibilty of him doping again, just that the weightloss is a given.
 
May 15, 2010
833
0
0
warmfuzzies said:
Landis has zero credibility. Accusing an ever-increasing number of riders of doping makes him a miserable fool. What does the guy do to pay the bills these days? Shouldn't he be focusing on moving forward with his life?
Replace 'Floyd Landis' with 'Jose Canseco' and 'riders' with 'baseball players' and I think you will get to see the folly of your accusation.
 
Aug 11, 2009
729
0
0
Paraphernalia said:
That's why I said a lower level of doping, not that doping wasn't going on. It's true that AC was on a different planet, but Armstrong had to post his numbers online and this showed through in his performance.
I'm not quite sure what this is supposed to mean. Are we supposed to assume that on a "level playing field," a rapidly aging Lance Armstrong returning from a several-years-long hiatus should just show up and win the Tour again?

Putting aside my own distaste for Lance for a second, I thought his 3rd place in 2009 was pretty damn impressive. To suggest that going from Tour winner to Tour podium means he was clean(er) seems a stretch to me.
 
Armstrong didn't "have" to post his numbers online. He did because he thought it would show him being transparent - when really all it did was confirm that he was blood doping.

If that was Armstrong being "careful" I'd hate to see it when he's charging (or Bertie's as you seem to think he was doping to a much greater extent).

Funnily enough though, in 2010, when some suggest Armstrong rode a lot cleaner than ever before (due to very poor relative performance), he doesn't post his numbers, so maybe he still took a bag or two.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
0
0
Paraphernalia said:
It was fairly famous that Wiggins was a track cyclist first and foremost and he framed his season to revolve around that. That's how he won all of those gold medals. It's not some invented excuse, it was how it was.

As he focused on the road instead, conbined with less riders around like Landis who were blood doped up to their eye balls, it's not a great surprise that Wiggins shined through.
Brilliant Perspective Chap

Great thread and all but... has anyone mentioned Landis or Vaughters in the last ten pages or so?
 
Jul 17, 2009
406
0
0
Ferminal said:
Armstrong didn't "have" to post his numbers online. He did because he thought it would show him being transparent - when really all it did was confirm that he was blood doping.

If that was Armstrong being "careful" I'd hate to see it when he's charging (or Bertie's as you seem to think he was doping to a much greater extent).

Funnily enough though, in 2010, when some suggest Armstrong rode a lot cleaner than ever before (due to very poor relative performance), he doesn't post his numbers, so maybe he still took a bag or two.
Those numbers confirmed that he was doping? Explain how they do that?
 
Paraphernalia said:
It was fairly famous that Wiggins was a track cyclist first and foremost and he framed his season to revolve around that. That's how he won all of those gold medals. It's not some invented excuse, it was how it was.

As he focused on the road instead, conbined with less riders around like Landis who were blood doped up to their eye balls, it's not a great surprise that Wiggins shined through.
pedaling squares said:
Brilliant Perspective Chap

Great thread and all but... has anyone mentioned Landis or Vaughters in the last ten pages or so?
Well to be fair BPC did just there, in the very post that you quoted. You may not have noticed simply because it was nonsense due to the fact that Landis was suspended by the time Wigans began concentrating on proper "preparation" for the Tour.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
webvan said:
Ah Wiggins...the guys at FDJ certainly couldn't believe their eyes in 2009. The fact is it was an easy tour, only one really hard day when they went up the Col de Romme and Wiggins cracked.
So what if it was an easy Tour? It doesn't change the fact that Wiggo was a top 10 climber. He finished 5th (same time as #4 & #6), 7th (alone) and 10th (alone) on the most decisive mountain stages.

Ferminal said:
Armstrong didn't "have" to post his numbers online. He did because he thought it would show him being transparent - when really all it did was confirm that he was blood doping.

If that was Armstrong being "careful" I'd hate to see it when he's charging (or Bertie's as you seem to think he was doping to a much greater extent).

Funnily enough though, in 2010, when some suggest Armstrong rode a lot cleaner than ever before (due to very poor relative performance), he doesn't post his numbers, so maybe he still took a bag or two.
Publishing normal 2010 values would only make his 2009 numbers look even more suspicious though. Especially given the gulf in performance between 09 and 10.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mambo95 said:
I prefer to make a couple of typos and be right than be as horribly wrong as you often are. Did you check my posting history?

If you have to pick up typos to continue a debate, you're really struggling.
Oh, I understand the problem now. You think that taking a cursory look at your posting history means I give a sh!t about you and your fanboy excuses? Sorry to give you the wrong impression. No, I don't really care all that much. Dang man, frowny face.

BTW booch tag, you brought up the "schooling" issue...and made yourself look like quite the fool in doing so by spelling two fairly simple words wrong. I can tell it has affected your self-esteem. It should have.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Well to be fair BPC did just there, in the very post that you quoted. You may not have noticed simply because it was nonsense due to the fact that Landis was suspended by the time Wigans began concentrating on proper "preparation" for the Tour.
Ah, good point Hugh. The whole post looked like binary code to me so I overlooked the name.
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,499
0
0
one thing is clear. Extra efforts and more sets of numbers don't help anybody. It only makes people that see doping everywhere have more variables to prove anything. Radio Shack, BMC, Liquigas and Trek Leopard have all publicly stated that they will not post numbers other than UCI mandates. Wiggins probably regrets the day that he responded to people saying he was a GC contender. He bought into the hype.
 
Aug 11, 2009
729
0
0
pedaling squares said:
Great thread and all but... has anyone mentioned Landis or Vaughters in the last ten pages or so?
Fair enough.

Here's my Vaughters-related remark for now: it seems a little premature for the front page cyclingnews opinion piece to be proclaiming that JV is exactly what cycling needs right now. I respect the fact that it's an "opinion" piece (but, then again, most newspapers don't allow editorials to appear as page one cover stories...)

Admittedly, if JV is simply enforcing the rules, then that is great for the sport. But, it seems a few questions need to be put to rest before anyone can be comfortable calling JV the cure to what ails cycling.

Was Matt White referring Slipstream riders to a doping doctor?

Was JV purposefully "unaware" of White's activities (i.e. plausible deniability)?

Was this move meant to preempt an inevitable public revelation (such as one arising from the current Spanish investigation)?

Is JV willing to openly address his doping past and explain how exactly he is moving past it?

I'm sure we can think of a few more questions to ask.

I want to believe in JV, but I don't think he has earned my trust just yet. Hopefully firing White will ultimately help to earn that trust, but I think that only 36 hours or so into this mess, it's a little early to be singing his praises. I also think cyclingnews.com has been awfully happy to build up JV's public image over the past few years.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
131313 said:
Some of the world's best time trialists:

Chris Boardman, Jacque Anquetil, Tony Rominger, Bernard Hinault, Greg LeMond...

Pretty much all of these guys are less than 64kgs (except maybe Anquetil).

Why does everyone think that Cancellara is the only guy who's ever been able to ride a time trial, ergo all time trialists must look like him?

It's not his musculature which is responsible for his power output or success, it's his cardiac output and capillary density.
And if you've ever stood next to Lemond or Hinault, you'd know that they are "shorter than average". Very small guys. Not guys that a layman would ever consider to be "powerful".
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,499
0
0
I think JV like many others have addressed the issue of doping extensively. I also think he has expounded on how cycling has evolved. With the rules made and followed to a much higher degree than when he was in the saddle. To go over his history would be foolish. With no true off season, there is no time for a personal history trial for Vaughters.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
fatandfast said:
I think JV like many others have addressed the issue of doping extensively. I also think he has expounded on how cycling has evolved. With the rules made and followed to a much higher degree than when he was in the saddle. To go over his history would be foolish. With no true off season, there is no time for a personal history trial for Vaughters.
I think JV is part of a "con". Not sure if it's "his" con or not (yet). My hunch is that the UCI is experimenting with different ways to manage the future of the doping problem. Several of these experiments are going on simultaneously. So some riders get protected. Some teams get protected. Some get thrown under a bus and some we just can't figure-out yet.

But the highly-managed dismissal of Matt White is very very suspicious that something weird is going on. I think he's willingly taking a bullet to help save the reputation of that team's positioning. And yes, I think the UCI is involved in the con.
 
Mar 10, 2009
504
0
0
BotanyBay said:
I think JV is part of a "con". Not sure if it's "his" con or not (yet).
Yeah, I've often considered that the UCI might engage in the long con with key teams and or DS's/riders.

The ultimate win is the global success of the sport--cost (monetary/physical/reputation) be damned.
 
May 11, 2009
1,301
0
0
Having sat on several juries in the USA over the years I can easily see Landis being torn to shreds by a good defense attorney if he ever appears as a witness.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
BotanyBay said:
And if you've ever stood next to Lemond or Hinault, you'd know that they are "shorter than average". Very small guys. Not guys that a layman would ever consider to be "powerful".
Spot, they were the builds of scrawny teenagers, many ( most?) riders still are. Its a strange efect of the cameras that many, many riders are much smaller in the flesh than you`d imagine. Much the same as many actors are much slighter than they seem on camera. Dunno why but the camera "adds" weight.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY