Pulling a Wiggins

[Netserk]

-------
Wiggins was physically probably the second strongest rider in the giro.

fyp.

10char

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

the lance chronicles created ideal chances for cycling to start with a clean sheet.

along came Sky.

i think many who dislike Sky, do so because they see Sky as main responsibles for reigniting the PED arms race.

Wonder where that myth came from. Radioshack with their "Rentner-Gang" (Horner, Klöden, Leipheimer not so long ago, Zubeldia, Popovych) & suspicious/caught/banned riders/DSes/Docs is at least the same suspicious and were there before Sky. Seems many clinic members forgot about it. What a hypocrisy...

 

[the sceptic]

Wonder where that myth came from. Radioshack with their "Rentner-Gang" (Horner, Klöden, Leipheimer not so long ago, Zubeldia, Popovych) & suspicious/caught/banned riders/DSes/Docs is at least the same suspicious and were there before Sky. Seems many clinic members forgot about it. What a hypocrisy...

But all of those stopped doping in 2006.

Did any of them sprint up a mountain as fast as armstrong or peak for 6 months before winning the tour?

 

[Afrank]

-------
Wiggins was physically probably the strongest rider in the giro. However the dope didn't make him a good descender. I think he'll try again, no matter what he says.

But Your theory seems very plausible, why risk more than what gets you a fat paycheck ?

The strongest guy in the race who was finished a minute back of his own teammate and almost all the other GC guys on the first mountain stage. Strongest time trialist, maybe. Far far from the physically strongest in the race though.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

1.) But all of those stopped doping in 2006.

2.) Did any of them sprint up a mountain as fast as armstrong or peak for 6 months before winning the tour?

1.) To be sarcastic just shows there is no argument against what i said...
2.) Yep, just recently, a 41 yr old grandpa with 15 racing days & an injury peaked so good that he matched those old times. More absurd than any of Armstrongs tours he finished (yes, including the one he finished 36th)...

 

[the sceptic]

I dont think anyone is saying that everyone had stopped doping, and then sky came around.

But sky took it to another level as evident by 6 month peak, donkey-racehorse, Armstrong climbing etc, so if others want to be competitive they are forced to raise their game too.

Thats what I mean by sky starting an arms race.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Now the chicken-egg Q is: What is less suspicious;
A.) peaking for 3 weeks in July (like Ulle, LA) or September (like Cobo, Horner) or
B.) peaking for half a year like in the old times (pre-90)

I prefer B.) BTW...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

BTW, the arms race never stopped. Only the tactics changed (from heavy EPO/Blood-Dope to a more sophisticated micro doping system).

It´s a myth Sky started an arms race, and even if there was a short time of relative clean cycling, RSH with its oldtimers and shady Docs/riders/DSes wold be the ones who started a new one...

 

[the sceptic]

Im not interesting in entering a vortex over this. But please give me an example of a team that dominated the sport as much as sky have done in the last 2 years.

dont you think other teams are gonna try to catch up? similar to what happened with usps in the wake of festina.

 

[The Hitch]

Now the chicken-egg Q is: What is less suspicious;
A.) peaking for 3 weeks in July (like Ulle, LA) or September (like Cobo, Horner) or
B.) peaking for half a year like in the old times (pre-90)

I prefer B.) BTW...

I see several massive assumptions you have made on the spot without any backup.

I mean you reduce a complex question about peak length into 2 simple supposedly opposing values. Those who peak for only 3 weeks who you present as dopers and those on the other side of the scale who peak year round -clean(er), as if there was no middle ground.

Ignoring the fact that 2011 Froome fits perfectly into the A list.

Ignoring the fact that Horner was injured most of the season so you have absolutely no justification for saying he isn't able to peak season round.

Ignoring, of course, several examples of doped riders who had very long peaks.

Ignoring the unanswered question that lies at the heart of your conclusion- why would in this case the physical advantage lie with those who don't take performance enhancing drugs. The definition of performance enhancement is that it increases your performance.

And most astonishingly totally ignoring the fact that doping is not the only variable in cycling and so to say that because year round peaks were more common in the 1970's than the 2000's there must be a correlation between doping and peak length, is a false dichotomy.

There are a million differences between cycling in the 70's and 2000's. You can't just pick out one - doping, and say you know this is the one true variable.

 

[martinvickers]

When did Daniel Benson or any other journalist do that?

where did I equate ignoramuses with journalists, and only journalists?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Im not interesting in entering a vortex over this. But please give me an example of a team that dominated the sport as much as sky have done in the last 2 years.

dont you think other teams are gonna try to catch up? similar to what happened with usps in the wake of festina.

I guess you mean the newest new era...
So here we go: Kern and Europcar leading Voeckler trou the mountains. The clinic was exploding back then until they found Sky is a better target.
Other than Froomes rise there isn´t anything (more) suspicious on team Sky than for example on RSH or Movistar. Wiggins had his outcome on the "clean team" Garmin, not at Sky. Porte had his one at Saxo (yeah he was in the 16-mins-break at the Giro, but even w/o it would have finished T-10). Sivtsov at HTC, Cataldo at QST, and so on.
The highest payroll = best riders = (should be) dominating (actually Sky was underperforming every GT except the 2012-TdF).
Anyway, we had this discussion endless times. We are going in circles.
For me, nothing changed. I don´t know what shady experiments they are doing at Sky (if at all), but i am sure a "Rentner-Gang" (Zubeldia, Klöden, Horner) shouldn´t have different riders in/around the T-10 in any given GT, unless they are on a full program. And Horner is the top of the top of überdoped riders. He is a slap into the face of those who believe cycling had changed at least a little.

 

[aphronesis]

And Horner is the top of the top of überdoped riders. He is a slap into the face of those who believe cycling had changed at least a little.

I'm curious why you feel the need to repeat this and only this on a more than daily basis?

The sun's coming up on the Atlantic now: want to hear about it? How about tomorrow?

 

[leon7766]

Yeh. Froome, unlike Wiggins, seems to have the ambition and commitment to get the most out of his career.

The success you must have achieved in your life must be on a scale that's beyond belief if you think Wiggins hasn't got the most out of his career .How do you find the time to post on a forum when the standards you set for success are so stellar

 

[sittingbison]

Ok everyone, listen up.

This thread is NOT about Sky or any other team. It is NOT about Dawg or any other rider including Sir Wiggo being extraterrestrial. It is NOT about a corrupt UCI.

The thread is about THIS:

.... Is this the new strategy for doping: Dope yourself to the moon then coast on the results? Who is next?

which has been termed "pulling a Wiggins"

So keep it on track please, nobody wants this thread degenerating to be all about Sky etc. As such I will be shifting about the last 50 posts out to Sky and Dawg threads, and deleting otbers.

 

[del1962]

Ok everyone, listen up.

This thread is NOT about Sky or any other team. It is NOT about Dawg or any other rider including Sir Wiggo being extraterrestrial. It is NOT about a corrupt UCI.

The thread is about THIS:



which has been termed "pulling a Wiggins"

So keep it on track please, nobody wants this thread degenerating to be all about Sky etc. As such I will be shifting about the last 50 posts out to Sky and Dawg threads, and deleting otbers.

The problem is that their is a assumpion in the thread title that neeeds to be challenged though.

 

[sittingbison]

The problem is that their is a assumpion in the thread title that neeeds to be challenged though.

I think the title an the OP are quite clear. I do understand your point about pulling a Shlech etc though.

However the words used are immaterial, ts the issue that matters. I AM going to change the title slightly, depersonalising to the modern caricature

 

[del1962]

None of this fundementally changes the point that the original post makes two assumptions neither of which can be verified about Wiggo (firstly that he doped and that secondly his season is due to less dope), so this makes the thread fundamentally flawed

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

After juicing his performance to levels unseen in his career, Wiggins now cannot be bothered to ever try for a grand tour again. Convenient. Hesjedal was pretty much a joke this season. Even Contador does not seem willing to risk much. Is this the new strategy for doping: Dope yourself to the moon then coast on the results?

Who is next?

This pattern has been noticeable for a few years now.

What does such a graph tell us? In fact it tells nothing, it shows some rider having an absolute cracker of a season. Scoring 5 times your average baseline does look like that. But what happened to the rider in the following years? Was he a victim of bad luck? Every year? Or did he stop doping? Or, was he clean and the ones around him upped their game? Did he get scared after a bad crash? Did he get injured? Did he miss his old team doctors who worked or are working at Sky and Katusha? In fact the rider did get involved in a bad crash or two and perhaps due to that he switched his attention [more] to other races. Does that explain his 2009 explosion? Not really.

Or this rider:

What does this graph tell us? Well, I see a rider getting better and better untill he gets his explosion in 2011. Winning and predicting he will win where he wants. Just like Frank VandenBroucke in his golden year. A year later he is at the level of 2006. Was he sick? Injured? Bad luck? Well, the rider had a toothache and everyone was racing against him, according to him. Is he a bad rider now? Not exactly but the ridiculousness of 2011 is gone. But how did he scoop to his 2011 level? Was it due to WADA making cortisone [ab]use possible? I can somehow see a rider progress to his 2009-2010 level but the spike and downfall of 2011-2013 is certainly hard to explain. I do expect him to do well in Firenze though.

Or this fellow:

Whats with that sudden spike in 2009? And, even more so, how come a fellow that was never able to climb suddenly is attacking on every mountainstage in one of the dirtiest GT's known? So, what happened to him in 2010? Well, he had some decent/good results, mostly on the flat, and, to be fair, no GT since he rode for a pro continental team. 2011? Basicly the same but he did have an horrible crash which bothers him to this day. 2012 a good/very good early season but after april nothing left in the tank.This season is not representable since he had another bad accident earlier this year. So, a lot of bad luck for this rider yet the 2009 spike is a questionmark.

To sum up, sudden peaks are very questionable with a lot of possible explanations but often just one. The downhill part is the most interesting.

 

[hrotha]

Behold!

He did have that nasty crash in 2008 but he was already very mediocre before then.

 

[roundabout]

He was top-15 on GC before the crash, I think.

 

[del1962]

A rider who has admitted to doping and then said he stopped doping

Now which year did he say he last took dope in?

 

[hrotha]

Yes, he was 15th, but he was not the rider he was before 2006, and I'm not talking just about the Tour here.

 

[Benotti69]

None of this fundementally changes the point that the original post makes two assumptions neither of which can be verified about Wiggo (firstly that he doped and that secondly his season is due to less dope), so this makes the thread fundamentally flawed

The sport is fundamentally flawed, that is why you are here posting about it.

Assumptions in cycling are pretty much bang on the money.

When riders change their tune from anti doping to loving the biggest doper it does not take much to see why their performances rose from grupetto to winning the TdF and eads to assumptions of doping.

End of Wiggins talk from me in this thread.

 

[roundabout]

Yes, he was 15th, but he was not the rider he was before 2006, and I'm not talking just about the Tour here.

Apart from the Tour he was kinda crap in 2006. Injury? I really can't recall what happened there.

He was certainly less competitive in other races, but I am not sure that his Tour level suffered that much.