- Jul 25, 2012
- 12,967
- 1,970
- 25,680
- Aug 24, 2011
- 4,349
- 0
- 13,480
Big Mig defends Sir Wiggo
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/racing/miguel-indurain-defends-bradley-wiggins-tue-controversy-296960
So that's that then
:lol:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/racing/miguel-indurain-defends-bradley-wiggins-tue-controversy-296960
So that's that then
:lol:
- Feb 18, 2013
- 614
- 0
- 9,980
This is all playing out just how it was intended. It'll all be forgotten about soon enough. Unfortunately.
- Jul 15, 2016
- 2,152
- 192
- 6,680
- Jul 16, 2010
- 17,455
- 5
- 0
Re: Re:
Froome and Wiggins, for whatever reason, have been given a free pass to cheat as much as they want. How else do you think an untalented donkey and a track cyclist can win the Tour?
Froome's TUE in Tour de Romandie 2014 was also approved by one man.
Craigee said:
Froome and Wiggins, for whatever reason, have been given a free pass to cheat as much as they want. How else do you think an untalented donkey and a track cyclist can win the Tour?
Froome's TUE in Tour de Romandie 2014 was also approved by one man.
Re:
nice comparison to another "one Tour wonder", the ultimate master of EPO, "Mr. 60%" - Wiggo is clearly "master of cortico steroids", training on them for 7 hours without breakfast and they worked so well that he lost too much weight (his own words)
btw. do the knights have to give back the royal horse when they get disgraced?
Lyon said:
nice comparison to another "one Tour wonder", the ultimate master of EPO, "Mr. 60%" - Wiggo is clearly "master of cortico steroids", training on them for 7 hours without breakfast and they worked so well that he lost too much weight (his own words)
btw. do the knights have to give back the royal horse when they get disgraced?
Re: Re:
As a dane, I thoroughly enjoyed Riis' 1996 Tour win and I must say with the Tours of the recent years in fresh memory, I also enjoyed the epic (fueled) battle of Rasmussen and Contador in Rasmussens would-be/should-be Tour win.
Are they much worse than Armstrong, Ullrich, Landis, Schlecks, Valverde, Contador, Indurain, Chiappucci, Vinokurov, Pantani, Froome, Wiggins etc.? So much that Riis is earning his persistent nicknames as Mr 60%, and the ultimate EPO doper? In my mind, no.
Riis answered, directly asked, that he had never tested positive, clearly uncomfortably. Sky and Brailsford with Froome and Wiggins maintain a stance, that they are training better than their competitors, and exploiting marginal gains to get their Tour wins. Holier than thou.
While they are being dominant in much the same way as previous dopers and doping teams, with riders and race winners looking as skinny as ever.
I would be satisfied if Wiggins handed over the bike he rode in the Tour 2012. But not if Froome is walking free. He should definitely also make some sort of sacrifice.
doperhopper said:
As a dane, I thoroughly enjoyed Riis' 1996 Tour win and I must say with the Tours of the recent years in fresh memory, I also enjoyed the epic (fueled) battle of Rasmussen and Contador in Rasmussens would-be/should-be Tour win.
Are they much worse than Armstrong, Ullrich, Landis, Schlecks, Valverde, Contador, Indurain, Chiappucci, Vinokurov, Pantani, Froome, Wiggins etc.? So much that Riis is earning his persistent nicknames as Mr 60%, and the ultimate EPO doper? In my mind, no.
Riis answered, directly asked, that he had never tested positive, clearly uncomfortably. Sky and Brailsford with Froome and Wiggins maintain a stance, that they are training better than their competitors, and exploiting marginal gains to get their Tour wins. Holier than thou.
While they are being dominant in much the same way as previous dopers and doping teams, with riders and race winners looking as skinny as ever.
I would be satisfied if Wiggins handed over the bike he rode in the Tour 2012. But not if Froome is walking free. He should definitely also make some sort of sacrifice.
Re: Re:
Yours is a frequently made and valid point. I have been watching cycling since the late 90s as a fan, I used to race against individuals who went on to employment at Sky/British Cycling having followed the World Class Performance Plan as it morphed into the project it is today.
This was in the days that the UK's premier track was Leicester, the days of Doug Daily, Peter King and they guy that ran Impsport/Organised Lincoln GP. I wouldn't say I am qualified to tell you the inner most workings of British Cycling in the intervening years but I know a few lads who went out to Europe, some tried the WCPP route to a continental pro career some didn't. Some succeeded some didn't - a hell of a lot.
I haven't raced for many years but you used to hear things on the grapevine about certain UK riders at that time and what went on when they arrived in Europe. I am sure that is still the case if you are a young rider racing in the UK/Europe today.
What almost 30 years of following cycling tells me is that:
'everything is different yet everything is the same'.
Professional riders will do what they think they can get away with, within a "framework of rules" at the time whether it be 2016 or 1993 - or even 2026.
In that sense I agree with your comment about Riis. Should he be castigated for being honest? No Was he doing anything different from others riders at the time? Depending on who you ask, No.
So why do people see him as worse than riders of today? I suspect its because he is alleged to have taken the maximum amount of EPO he could at that time without killing himself during his career, and that he has associated himself with dopers/ex dopers, both during his career and in management. He knew where the line was and he pushed over that line in order to win (like many others did). He is portrayed as infamous within the media.
So to Froome and Wiggins.
Are they doing anything different from other riders at this time?
Yes, I mean no, I mean Yes........Yes its definitely yes.
The narrative put down by UCI and Professional Cycling has been that the sport is getting cleaner, the testing is getting better etc etc etc. The problem is that this facts simply don't bear this out. We know the ABP can be overcome, microdosing is possible with rudimentary skills and drugs from China (thanks BBC), there are a host of undetectable/legal performance enhancements available and Pro-Cycling is still heavily reliant on medicine/chemicals. And also TUE's.
Off note here is that's Team Sky's medicine pot was recently valued on here at £1/4 million and they have 4 full time doctors
There exists a massive grey area in cycling which means that Pro Cycling is still the preserve of the chemist/doctor/sports scientist. Call them what you will but essentially legal drug dealers.
If you imagined this grey area on a scale of 1-10. 1 being light grey (bread and water), 10 being dark grey (anything medical they can lay their hands on without being caught) all teams/riders operate within this area somewhere on this scale.
Its become rapidly apparent that Sky operated at around a 10. They must do so otherwise they wouldn't be at the top of a sport where people are willing to go grey area 10 or into the red in order to win.
The big problem they had is that Wiggins TUE went past that that little line which marks the end of the grey area and the beginning of the red area. Which raises the question - how many times have Sky gone into the red area of illegal doping in the past and not been caught? They have a team of doctors both administering medical products and testing their riders. They claim they have an internal anti doping program - is the reality that they have an internal program so as they don't test positive?
Depending on who you believe Sky work heavily at the top of this grey area, and others would say regularly into the red area.
So are Wiggins/Froome any different to Riis?
No. In fact you could argue that the lack of transparency by Brailsford, media manipulation, arrogance and misrepresentation of the what it truly means to be clean makes them a whole lot worse.
People will always cheat in every walk of life - you would have to be very naïve to ignore this fact.
Riding the bike is a very beautiful thing which brings many in this world a lot of enjoyment/freedom. What angers long time fans of the sport is not the cheating but the lying about it and insulting of the intelligence of a large number of fans who know perfectly well what is going on.
This is why Brailsford has become so disliked. For fans in the UK the past behaviour of Rupert Murdoch and his companies (News International), and their staff illustrate that this is an organisation/company/sponsor who will stop at nothing to get results. Even if that means breaking UK Laws in furtherance of a win at all costs mentality. The whole phone tapping thing really shook the UK psyche and the Murdoch empire.
ahsoe said:doperhopper said:
As a dane, I thoroughly enjoyed Riis' 1996 Tour win and I must say with the Tours of the recent years in fresh memory, I also enjoyed the epic (fueled) battle of Rasmussen and Contador in Rasmussens would-be/should-be Tour win.
Are they much worse than Armstrong, Ullrich, Landis, Schlecks, Valverde, Contador, Indurain, Chiappucci, Vinokurov, Pantani, Froome, Wiggins etc.? So much that Riis is earning his persistent nicknames as Mr 60%, and the ultimate EPO doper? In my mind, no.
Riis answered, directly asked, that he had never tested positive, clearly uncomfortably. Sky and Brailsford with Froome and Wiggins maintain a stance, that they are training better than their competitors, and exploiting marginal gains to get their Tour wins. Holier than thou.
While they are being dominant in much the same way as previous dopers and doping teams, with riders and race winners looking as skinny as ever.
I would be satisfied if Wiggins handed over the bike he rode in the Tour 2012. But not if Froome is walking free. He should definitely also make some sort of sacrifice.
Yours is a frequently made and valid point. I have been watching cycling since the late 90s as a fan, I used to race against individuals who went on to employment at Sky/British Cycling having followed the World Class Performance Plan as it morphed into the project it is today.
This was in the days that the UK's premier track was Leicester, the days of Doug Daily, Peter King and they guy that ran Impsport/Organised Lincoln GP. I wouldn't say I am qualified to tell you the inner most workings of British Cycling in the intervening years but I know a few lads who went out to Europe, some tried the WCPP route to a continental pro career some didn't. Some succeeded some didn't - a hell of a lot.
I haven't raced for many years but you used to hear things on the grapevine about certain UK riders at that time and what went on when they arrived in Europe. I am sure that is still the case if you are a young rider racing in the UK/Europe today.
What almost 30 years of following cycling tells me is that:
'everything is different yet everything is the same'.
Professional riders will do what they think they can get away with, within a "framework of rules" at the time whether it be 2016 or 1993 - or even 2026.
In that sense I agree with your comment about Riis. Should he be castigated for being honest? No Was he doing anything different from others riders at the time? Depending on who you ask, No.
So why do people see him as worse than riders of today? I suspect its because he is alleged to have taken the maximum amount of EPO he could at that time without killing himself during his career, and that he has associated himself with dopers/ex dopers, both during his career and in management. He knew where the line was and he pushed over that line in order to win (like many others did). He is portrayed as infamous within the media.
So to Froome and Wiggins.
Are they doing anything different from other riders at this time?
Yes, I mean no, I mean Yes........Yes its definitely yes.
The narrative put down by UCI and Professional Cycling has been that the sport is getting cleaner, the testing is getting better etc etc etc. The problem is that this facts simply don't bear this out. We know the ABP can be overcome, microdosing is possible with rudimentary skills and drugs from China (thanks BBC), there are a host of undetectable/legal performance enhancements available and Pro-Cycling is still heavily reliant on medicine/chemicals. And also TUE's.
Off note here is that's Team Sky's medicine pot was recently valued on here at £1/4 million and they have 4 full time doctors
There exists a massive grey area in cycling which means that Pro Cycling is still the preserve of the chemist/doctor/sports scientist. Call them what you will but essentially legal drug dealers.
If you imagined this grey area on a scale of 1-10. 1 being light grey (bread and water), 10 being dark grey (anything medical they can lay their hands on without being caught) all teams/riders operate within this area somewhere on this scale.
Its become rapidly apparent that Sky operated at around a 10. They must do so otherwise they wouldn't be at the top of a sport where people are willing to go grey area 10 or into the red in order to win.
The big problem they had is that Wiggins TUE went past that that little line which marks the end of the grey area and the beginning of the red area. Which raises the question - how many times have Sky gone into the red area of illegal doping in the past and not been caught? They have a team of doctors both administering medical products and testing their riders. They claim they have an internal anti doping program - is the reality that they have an internal program so as they don't test positive?
Depending on who you believe Sky work heavily at the top of this grey area, and others would say regularly into the red area.
So are Wiggins/Froome any different to Riis?
No. In fact you could argue that the lack of transparency by Brailsford, media manipulation, arrogance and misrepresentation of the what it truly means to be clean makes them a whole lot worse.
People will always cheat in every walk of life - you would have to be very naïve to ignore this fact.
Riding the bike is a very beautiful thing which brings many in this world a lot of enjoyment/freedom. What angers long time fans of the sport is not the cheating but the lying about it and insulting of the intelligence of a large number of fans who know perfectly well what is going on.
This is why Brailsford has become so disliked. For fans in the UK the past behaviour of Rupert Murdoch and his companies (News International), and their staff illustrate that this is an organisation/company/sponsor who will stop at nothing to get results. Even if that means breaking UK Laws in furtherance of a win at all costs mentality. The whole phone tapping thing really shook the UK psyche and the Murdoch empire.
Re: Re:
Good post, I must say
B_Ugli said:ahsoe said:doperhopper said:
As a dane, I thoroughly enjoyed Riis' 1996 Tour win and I must say with the Tours of the recent years in fresh memory, I also enjoyed the epic (fueled) battle of Rasmussen and Contador in Rasmussens would-be/should-be Tour win.
Are they much worse than Armstrong, Ullrich, Landis, Schlecks, Valverde, Contador, Indurain, Chiappucci, Vinokurov, Pantani, Froome, Wiggins etc.? So much that Riis is earning his persistent nicknames as Mr 60%, and the ultimate EPO doper? In my mind, no.
Riis answered, directly asked, that he had never tested positive, clearly uncomfortably. Sky and Brailsford with Froome and Wiggins maintain a stance, that they are training better than their competitors, and exploiting marginal gains to get their Tour wins. Holier than thou.
While they are being dominant in much the same way as previous dopers and doping teams, with riders and race winners looking as skinny as ever.
I would be satisfied if Wiggins handed over the bike he rode in the Tour 2012. But not if Froome is walking free. He should definitely also make some sort of sacrifice.
Yours is a frequently made and valid point. I have been watching cycling since the late 90s as a fan, I used to race against individuals who went on to employment at Sky/British Cycling having followed the World Class Performance Plan as it morphed into the project it is today.
This was in the days that the UK's premier track was Leicester, the days of Doug Daily, Peter King and they guy that ran Impsport/Organised Lincoln GP. I wouldn't say I am qualified to tell you the inner most workings of British Cycling in the intervening years but I know a few lads who went out to Europe, some tried the WCPP route to a continental pro career some didn't. Some succeeded some didn't - a hell of a lot.
I haven't raced for many years but you used to hear things on the grapevine about certain UK riders at that time and what went on when they arrived in Europe. I am sure that is still the case if you are a young rider racing in the UK/Europe today.
What almost 30 years of following cycling tells me is that:
'everything is different yet everything is the same'.
Professional riders will do what they think they can get away with, within a "framework of rules" at the time whether it be 2016 or 1993 - or even 2026.
In that sense I agree with your comment about Riis. Should he be castigated for being honest? No Was he doing anything different from others riders at the time? Depending on who you ask, No.
So why do people see him as worse than riders of today? I suspect its because he is alleged to have taken the maximum amount of EPO he could at that time without killing himself during his career, and that he has associated himself with dopers/ex dopers, both during his career and in management. He knew where the line was and he pushed over that line in order to win (like many others did). He is portrayed as infamous within the media.
So to Froome and Wiggins.
Are they doing anything different from other riders at this time?
Yes, I mean no, I mean Yes........Yes its definitely yes.
The narrative put down by UCI and Professional Cycling has been that the sport is getting cleaner, the testing is getting better etc etc etc. The problem is that this facts simply don't bear this out. We know the ABP can be overcome, microdosing is possible with rudimentary skills and drugs from China (thanks BBC), there are a host of undetectable/legal performance enhancements available and Pro-Cycling is still heavily reliant on medicine/chemicals. And also TUE's.
Off note here is that's Team Sky's medicine pot was recently valued on here at £1/4 million and they have 4 full time doctors
There exists a massive grey area in cycling which means that Pro Cycling is still the preserve of the chemist/doctor/sports scientist. Call them what you will but essentially legal drug dealers.
If you imagined this grey area on a scale of 1-10. 1 being light grey (bread and water), 10 being dark grey (anything medical they can lay their hands on without being caught) all teams/riders operate within this area somewhere on this scale.
Its become rapidly apparent that Sky operated at around a 10. They must do so otherwise they wouldn't be at the top of a sport where people are willing to go grey area 10 or into the red in order to win.
The big problem they had is that Wiggins TUE went past that that little line which marks the end of the grey area and the beginning of the red area. Which raises the question - how many times have Sky gone into the red area of illegal doping in the past and not been caught? They have a team of doctors both administering medical products and testing their riders. They claim they have an internal anti doping program - is the reality that they have an internal program so as they don't test positive?
Depending on who you believe Sky work heavily at the top of this grey area, and others would say regularly into the red area.
So are Wiggins/Froome any different to Riis?
No. In fact you could argue that the lack of transparency by Brailsford, media manipulation, arrogance and misrepresentation of the what it truly means to be clean makes them a whole lot worse.
People will always cheat in every walk of life - you would have to be very naïve to ignore this fact.
Riding the bike is a very beautiful thing which brings many in this world a lot of enjoyment/freedom. What angers long time fans of the sport is not the cheating but the lying about it and insulting of the intelligence of a large number of fans who know perfectly well what is going on.
This is why Brailsford has become so disliked. For fans in the UK the past behaviour of Rupert Murdoch and his companies (News International), and their staff illustrate that this is an organisation/company/sponsor who will stop at nothing to get results. Even if that means breaking UK Laws in furtherance of a win at all costs mentality. The whole phone tapping thing really shook the UK psyche and the Murdoch empire.
Good post, I must say
- Nov 12, 2010
- 4,253
- 1,314
- 18,680
Just when you thought you've seen everything...now this:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/they-can-never-take-my-package-says-wiggins-in-instagram-post/
This is starting to resemble a WWE skit. Lol. If there's nothing nefarious related to the bag, why not just disclose the content(s) in it...and be done with it? The longer this goes on the more supicious it looks (simple common sense...imagine that).
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/they-can-never-take-my-package-says-wiggins-in-instagram-post/
This is starting to resemble a WWE skit. Lol. If there's nothing nefarious related to the bag, why not just disclose the content(s) in it...and be done with it? The longer this goes on the more supicious it looks (simple common sense...imagine that).
Re:
Yes it will...Also C. Froome`s three TDF wins will be vacated and it is just a matter of times.DanielSong39 said:
- Jul 1, 2011
- 1,566
- 10
- 10,510
Nomad said:
A decongestant called Frumosul apparently.
Is that suspicious?
EDIT: Or maybe that's Fluimucil - reading it on the Guardian live blog of Dave B's parliamentary session.
- Jul 25, 2012
- 12,967
- 1,970
- 25,680
- Jul 25, 2012
- 12,967
- 1,970
- 25,680
thehog said:King Boonen said:
Well it is because it's not licensed in the UK.
And? It's not illegal to own or use it. Other people are positing it could be fumasil.
- Jul 1, 2011
- 1,566
- 10
- 10,510
thehog
BANNED
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
King Boonen said:thehog said:King Boonen said:
Well it is because it's not licensed in the UK.
And? It's not illegal to own or use it. Other people are positing it could be fumasil.
More to the point the drug was apparently shipped from Manchester to France. Why was an unlicensed drug prescribed and stored in the UK?
- Jul 25, 2012
- 12,967
- 1,970
- 25,680
thehog said:More to the point the drug was apparently shipped from Manchester to France. Why was an unlicensed drug prescribed and stored in the UK?
Because you can buy it from your local health food store..?
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 855
-
Tre Valli Varesine 2025, one day race, October 7- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 169
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s ITT, September 21- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 942
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 153
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 40K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram