Pulling a Wiggins

[Justinr]

So now Wiggins won because of Froome dragging him by some magical invisible rope. Bet Wiggins will be happy to hear that!

Probably not the stroppy b*gger.

One thing that most people can probably agree on is that had Froome been let off the leash (invisible or otherwise ) in the mountains then he would have been the first British winner.

 

[gillan1969]

Dan Martin's Uncle won more

roche 'raced' those...he didn't sit on the front and dominate with a team...he attacked opportunistically in the giro with only schepers and Bob to help him...he needed to rely on the final tt and a very fast Joux Plane descent in France after a scrappy race with JFB and Delgado and the Worlds was sheer luck

Team sky do not run a season like Roche's 87...it was not 'textbook'

 

[gillan1969]

Probably not the stroppy b*gger.

One thing that most people can probably agree on is that had Froome been let off the leash (invisible or otherwise ) in the mountains then he would have been the first British winner.

and thank god he wasn't...

 

[martinvickers]

So now Wiggins won because of Froome dragging him by some magical invisible rope. Bet Wiggins will be happy to hear that!

Who cares? What does Wiggins' happiness or otherwise have to do with the accuracy of the comment?

If you want to challenge the accuracy of the earlier post, challenge the accuracy, but don't try and obfiscate with a sneer.

 

[Justinr]

roche 'raced' those...he didn't sit on the front and dominate with a team...he attacked opportunistically in the giro with only schepers and Bob to help him...he needed to rely on the final tt and a very fast Joux Plane descent in France after a scrappy race with JFB and Delgado and the Worlds was sheer luck

Team sky do not run a season like Roche's 87...it was not 'textbook'

That is true and the stuff of legends. He was probably lucky not to have been sacked either during or after the Giro.

The Tour was scrappy and the shirt changed hands on an almost daily basis. This is the La Plagne stage with Phil Liggett almost having a heart attack:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQojh-wqL04

Roche even admits in his book that the Worlds were luck - he was meant to be protecting a team mate but he missed the break and Roche didn't (or something like that).

 

[Digger]

Your bloke in 1987.

firstly he didn't win as often as wiggins...or was his pieak for as long...and secondly he doped....so yeah that's a great example

 

[Digger]

Exactly and so the time gaps would be more significant in Wiggins's favour. Plus Nibali had an injury for the Peyragudes and the TT which is a fact that now seems to be forgotten.

No one seems to address this, would Wiggins have been the 2nd best climber if Froome wasn't held back? It would have opened up the whole race and in La Toussuire, Pinot and Nibali would have got significant time. Wiggins would have been more isolated. At the time of the route announcement for this Tour, it was said by many that this was one tailored made for Wiggins and this was before his P-N, Dauphine and Romandy wins.

I don't get this Lance level comparison. The same thing was indeed said in 99 about the route design and no Pantani/Ullrich but he dispelled all this in the years to come. He also never had a Froome level team mate who could out climb him in those Tours.

Do we think Wiggins on 2012 form would have been the 2nd best climber in 2013 edition? Fast forward even a couple of months, how would he have coped with Contador, Valverde and Purito going back and forth at each other in the Vuelta? I don't think he would have been the second best climber there.



Heras did say if the others went more for it at the bottom of Alpe d'Huez, Armstrong was in trouble. That Tour was a big opportunity miss.

So you just dismiss all the other races he won that year for six months....were they all TT's as well..

 

[Digger]

Willy Voet said of Roche in '87 that he needs to show how this is possible...basically he didn't believe it for a second...but we are expected to believe in Wiggins. Eventhough Roche actually won from day one in the Pro ranks.

 

[Mellow Velo]

firstly he didn't win as often as wiggins...or was his pieak for as long...and secondly he doped....so yeah that's a great example

So, 3 stage races trumps a GT win...................mmm........ok, if you say so.

So, win as often?
Phil Gilbert 2011 then.
8 month peak.

You only asked for someone who had won as much.
Knew you'd be back to shift your goal posts.

 

[King Boonen]

So you just dismiss all the other races he won that year for six months....were they all TT's as well..

Romandie was won on the TT, Paris-Nice was won on the TT (without it Westra beats him) and the Criterium was won based on the TT with Cadel Evans clawing time back on Wiggins on the last two stages.

So yes, without the TT's in those races, using the same method others do by assuming the races go exactly the same without the TTs, Wiggins would have lost all of those races if he had not gained time in the TTs.

 

[The Hitch]

With the exception of 2003(still my favourite Tour) Lance dominated all before him in those other Tours. There was one or two hiccups like Botero beating him in the MTT or the Morzine stage in 2000 but Wiggins's domination doesn't come anywhere near him.
What if Froome was allowed to go on La Toussuire at the time of his attack?

Funny how what ifs are only ever applied to Wiggins. What if Horner had started cycling earlier. What if Heras hadn't been paid off. What if Lance wasn't making sure other riders didn't dope as much as he did.

Oops, no, not allowed to do what ifs for anyone else. Only Wiggins gets what ifs for every single race he ever did well in.

What if the 2012 Tour de France was a sprint. Then wiggins wouldn't have won. Ergo he didn't dominate the Tour de France at all, and its not suspicious at all.

hrotha pointed out months before the TDF even in 2012 how even then the wiggins fans were in desperation making excuses, and at some point if wiggins keeps winning everything they have to stop. But then he won Romandie, and then he won Dauphine, and the excuses kept coming - oh he wont keep it up. But he does keep it up, and he decimates the tour and its not even close. And then he wins the olympic time trial 1 week after the TDF with a body shape less suited to a flat time trial than eddy Merckx's current frame, and he does it in an exceptionally fast speed.

But still the excuses keep coming. Oh it was all just a coincidence. All of it. An entire season of unprecedented in the modern era domination an accident.

Somehow a guy who said at age 26 that grand tours are not for him who can't outclimb the Autobus until 8 months before he turns 30 ends up winning the TDF and all of its prep races, with extraordinary ease, while taking advice from Lance Armstrong (according to himself), and its all normal.

Favourable route and his team mate with the shackles on helped the cause.

They helped his case. He still beat Nibali by over 6 minutes. If he had scraped by by 30 seconds maybe one could look at these things and do - what ifs. But he didn't. Nibali never got a whiff of the jersey.

As far as whether Nibali would have won if things went another way goes-
Wiggins outclimbed Nibali at the 2012 Dauphine. He also outclimbed Nibali at the 2011 Vuelta. He outclimbed Nibali on the final mountain stage of this Tour and on the PDBF finish with everyone at their limit and 0 team advantage to wiggins since Nibali had followed wheels all day just like wiggins had, Nibali did not gain a single second on Wiggins and in fact lost 2.

Train or no train, it wasn't even close. Talk to me about favourable routes when the tdf is close and decided by a minute or 2, not when its 6.

 

[The Hitch]

Romandie was won on the TT, Paris-Nice was won on the TT (without it Westra beats him) and the Criterium was won based on the TT with Cadel Evans clawing time back on Wiggins on the last two stages.

So yes, without the TT's in those races, using the same method others do by assuming the races go exactly the same without the TTs, Wiggins would have lost all of those races if he had not gained time in the TTs.

The tt's in Paris Nice and Romandie were uphill tts.

 

[The Hitch]

3. Plenty of people will care whether wiggins goes for gold 5 on the track come 2016. You're polish, and you hate the guy, and you have little regard for track, so I wouldn't frankly expect you to be one of them, but to try and argue it will not be of interest to a goodly number of people who are british, and/or like the guy/ and or follow and enjoy track (and yes, I fall in category 3)is facetious self regard masquerading as opinion

I do care about the track, I have no idea what mind reading skills you think you possess that you start telling me I don't, and start lecturing me on why you think its important.

What I pointed out to you was that Wiggins has already announced he is going back to the track. So I didn't understand why you were presenting it as some option you had just in your infinite wisdom thought up that no one else had considered.

 

[Digger]

So, 3 stage races trumps a GT win...................mmm........ok, if you say so.

So, win as often?
Phil Gilbert 2011 then.
8 month peak.

You only asked for someone who had won as much.
Knew you'd be back to shift your goal posts.

February to August...stage races and an Olympic TT....


And the only guy you could come up with, won less, and was doped...but yeah other than that yeah it's a great example.

 

[King Boonen]

The tt's in Paris Nice and Romandie were uphill tts.

Uphill? That's stretching the term some what.

But yes, that is played out in the results where Wiggins only just beats Westra in PN, 2 seconds, and he only put 23 seconds on Costa in Romandie.

It's still a time trial so still very different to climbing in a group on a road stage, Romandie had enough flat to make a difference, the last 8km were flat and the first 4 were downhill.

Those races were won in the TT's. People pretend that the TT's didn't make a difference to tactics in the Tour and Wiggins would have won without one of the TT's. If that is the case then they have to agree he would have lost every other overall he won without the TT's.

 

[Digger]

Uphill? That's stretching the term some what.

But yes, that is played out in the results where Wiggins only just beats Westra in PN, 2 seconds, and he only put 23 seconds on Costa in Romandie.

It's still a time trial so still very different to climbing in a group on a road stage, Romandie had enough flat to make a difference, the last 8km were flat and the first 4 were downhill.

Those races were won in the TT's. People pretend that the TT's didn't make a difference to tactics in the Tour and Wiggins would have won without one of the TT's. If that is the case then they have to agree he would have lost every other overall he won without the TT's.

So the 2011 Dauphine and 2012 Dauphine...TT's as well?

 

[Justinr]

They helped his case. He still beat Nibali by over 6 minutes. If he had scraped by by 30 seconds maybe one could look at these things and do - what ifs. But he didn't. Nibali never got a whiff of the jersey.

Over 5 minutes of that lead came from the TTs (inc Prologue) so talking about the TTs giving BW a favourable route is valid in my view.

 

[Benotti69]

Uphill? That's stretching the term some what.

But yes, that is played out in the results where Wiggins only just beats Westra in PN, 2 seconds, and he only put 23 seconds on Costa in Romandie.

It's still a time trial so still very different to climbing in a group on a road stage, Romandie had enough flat to make a difference, the last 8km were flat and the first 4 were downhill.

Those races were won in the TT's. People pretend that the TT's didn't make a difference to tactics in the Tour and Wiggins would have won without one of the TT's. If that is the case then they have to agree he would have lost every other overall he won without the TT's.

Wiggins was so strong that he won the bunch sprint stage 2 TdR leading it out expecting people to come around him at the line and he was so surprised, that is how strong he was.

TdR TT stage "On the parcours was the first-category climb to Aminona.."

 

[King Boonen]

So the 2011 Dauphine and 2012 Dauphine...TT's as well?

If you saw my reply to your post you'll see the the 2012 Dauphine was clearly won on the TT. You were not talking about 2011 so I didn't bother looking.

 

[Digger]

If you saw my reply to your post you'll see the the 2012 Dauphine was clearly won on the TT. You were not talking about 2011 so I didn't bother looking.

And how exactly did he get over the mountains with the best climbers in the world...call a taxi?

 

[King Boonen]

Wiggins was so strong that he won the bunch sprint stage 2 TdR leading it out expecting people to come around him at the line and he was so surprised, that is how strong he was.

TdR TT stage "On the parcours was the first-category climb to Aminona.."

Yeah, don't bother listing who he beat. Westra, Tiralongo, Van Garderen, Paterski. Just say bunch sprint to make it sound like he beat Sagan and Degenkolb in a drag race.

Yes, first category, lets just pull that out and not actually bother taking into account how that varies race to race. I know, how about we actually look at to profile?

http://www.steephill.tv/players/pro...olltv.com/2012/tour-de-romandie/profile-5.png

Hardly an MTF finish is it?

 

[martinvickers]

So you just dismiss all the other races he won that year for six months....were they all TT's as well..

Well, yes basically. They were. You ought to know that if you checked, Digger.

Indeed, we can go further - Tour aside, the TT has won him every stage race he has EVER won.

Dauphine 11
Wiggins won race-
- by 1'26 over Cadel Evans : of which 1'13 was TT advantage, before taking a vital bunch of seconds when Evans cracked on the last stage, a stage where Purito still took 54 seconds out of Wiggins.
- by 1' 56 over Vinkourov, less than the 2'04 Wiggins took out of him on TT

In other words, NO TT? Wiggins loses.

Paris - Nice 12
Many racers were hi by echelons on a flat but windy stage 1. Wiggins arrived with lead group. Thereafter -
- by 8 secs from Westre, less than the 18 seconds he took out of him on TT
- by 1'10 from Valverde, less than the 1'40 he took out of him on TT

In other words, NO TT? Wiggins loses.

Dauphine 12
Wiggins won race -
- by 1'17 from rogers, his own team mate - less than the minimum 1'18 he took from rodgers in TT
- by 1, 26 from Evans, less than the 1'48 he took from Evans in TT.

In other words, NO TT? Wiggins loses.

Romandie 12
Wiggins won the race -
- by 12 seconds from talansky, made up entirely of 2 seconds from TT and the bonus seconds
- by 36 seconds from rui costa, less than he took from Costa in TT

In other words, NO TT? Wiggins loses.

Tour of Britain 2013 (barely deserves bold, but anyway...)

Wiggins won the race -
- by 26 secs from Martin Elmiger, less than the 47 secs he took from Elmiger in the TT
- by 1'03 from Simon Yates, less than the 1'33 he took from Yates in the TT

In other words, NO TT? Wiggins loses.


He needs TT's in EVERY single race or he loses them all. Every single one of them.

He needs echelons at Paris Nice or he probably loses anyway, some bonus seconds at Romandie or he loses. Dauphine seems to suit him mind, solid wins based on TT two years in a row.

Indeed, le tour '12 is technically the only stage race he would have won without TT. although, in reality that's nonsense, since Nibali would have attacked completely differently on the last mountain if he was looking to pick up 20 odds seconds rather than the 3 minutes it was and the 6 minutes as it turned out to be.

 

[The Hitch]

Wiggos gap to Froome in the 2012 TDF was bigger than the gaps of the 4 previous grand tours put together.

And the 2012 TdF had considerably more TT KMs than those previous 4:

2012 TdF : 101
2012 Giro : 70
2011 Vuelta : 56
2011 TdF : 66
2011 Giro : 58

And what was BW's speciality? Oh yes TTs...

What is one of Froome's specialities - oh yes, tts.

And since my point was that Wiggins gap was bigger than all 4 previous put together what you actually need to do is offer those tt distances also put together

2012 TdF : 101
Previous 4 gts : 250

Do we think Wiggins on 2012 form would have been the 2nd best climber in 2013 edition? Fast forward even a couple of months, how would he have coped with Contador, Valverde and Purito going back and forth at each other in the Vuelta? I don't know ifhe would have been the second best climber there.

Fixed it for you. You don't know.

And btw what you are doing really is taking "clutching at straws" to its extreme. You are pointing out the slightest flaws in Bradleys 2012 performances, acting as if they could only have been suspicious if he had climbed like Pantani, ttd like Indurain, sprinted like Cipolini, beaten Boonen on the cobbles, won all 3 Ardennes, the worlds etc etc.

No he was not as dominant as Armstrong in some aspects of his TDF. So? he was as good as Armstrong in other aspects - recovery, and surpassed Armstrong in other aspects - tting. Failing to be as good as the most notorious doper in world history, at 1 or 2 aspects is supposed to be an argument for his cleanliness?

The standards of perfection you are measuring Wiggins against are so incredibly high, they are ridiculous.

Here is a list of people who have doped in cycling. http://www.dopeology.org/people/

99% of them acheived far less in their entire careers than Wiggins did in 2012. 99% of them never climbed as fast as Wiggins 99-100% of them never ttd as fast as him. They all doped and Wiggins was better than 99% of them.

People like Frei and Garcia doped heavily and only managed to be higher level domestiques. People like Alex Dinitz dope to be competitive in South American races. People like Valjavec and countless others doped to scrape top 10s. And you are here arguing that because Wiggins maybe showed a weakness once on one mountain stage his performance isn't radioactive?

I think you hold the suspicion barrier on Wiggins to such ridiculous standards even Pantani and Indurain and the rest wouldn't fail them - Pantani - not good enough in tts, Armstrong was better, Indurain - not enough mountain stage wins - a doped rider would have won them. etc,

 

[King Boonen]

And how exactly did he get over the mountains with the best climbers in the world...call a taxi?

I'm not engaging in a discussion on that, it's pointless and has been rehashed countless times. I'm replying to your dismissive suggestion that claiming the TT was a big factor in the Tour is silly because the other races were won elsewhere. It is clear that all of Wiggins 2012 GC victories relied on gaining time in the TT and on stages in some of those races he lost time on the climbs.

How about you just admit you were wrong, and make a different argument. It doesn't mean he wasn't doping.

 

[martinvickers]

roche 'raced' those...he didn't sit on the front and dominate with a team...he attacked opportunistically in the giro with only schepers and Bob to help him...he needed to rely on the final tt and a very fast Joux Plane descent in France after a scrappy race with JFB and Delgado and the Worlds was sheer luck

Team sky do not run a season like Roche's 87...it was not 'textbook'

So, basically, Roche achieved more with less support, right?