Pulling a Wiggins

[del1962]

The same doping agencies that busted who exactly?

Armstong for starters

 

[Benotti69]

Armstong for starters

But they have not busted Horner and were not going to give the Garmin team any bans for their doping? Yeah that'll work.

 

[The Hitch]

Armstong for starters

You do know what the "US" in USADA stands for?

 

[BYOP88]

But they have not busted Horner and were not going to give the Garmin team any bans for their doping? Yeah that'll work.

USADA may have busted Pharmstrong, but that was all linked to Floyd when he came clean and wanted to bring the system down.

Del1962, lets not forget the UCI didn't want to do anything aside from sweep it under the carpet.. Remember the stuff coming out of Pat's mouth at that time about Landis, the same stuff that Bradley Wiggans said about Landis.

Omerta is alive!!!

 

[Justinr]

Froome is doping. Stick your fingers in your ears all you want.

That is not fact, that is your opinion based on your suspicions. You are entitled to those, but you cannot claim them to be fact.

 

[sniper]

That is not fact, that is your opinion based on your suspicions. You are entitled to those, but you cannot claim them to be fact.

put this in your signature so that you don't have to repeat it all the time.

 

[BYOP88]

That is not fact, that is your opinion based on your suspicions. You are entitled to those, but you cannot claim them to be fact.

How can you be 100% certain that it isn't fact?

 

[The Hitch]

That is not fact, that is your opinion based on your suspicions. You are entitled to those, but you cannot claim them to be fact.

You can call it an opinion if you want. I call it a fact.

 

[hrotha]

This is literally the least productive approach to the discussion.

 

[happychappy]

Armstong for starters

That was politics. "Anti Doping" agencies aren't there to stop doping, they're there to directly and in-directly make money. It has nothing to do with sport.

 

[Justinr]

put this in your signature so that you don't have to repeat it all the time.

There you go ...

 

[Justinr]

How can you be 100% certain that it isn't fact?

How can you be 100% certain that it is?

 

[Benotti69]

How can you be 100% certain that it is?

Zero to hero in a few weeks is 100% fact for doping!

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Here Sir Wiggo winning a group sprint in Tour de Romandie '12:

Much better than Dirty in Spain recently.

 

[The Hitch]

How can you be 100% certain that it is?

Because of the performances mixed with the lies and more lies. I reach 100% about 1/10th of the way through sky's rap sheet. the other 9/10ths of the way i get progressively more sorry for people so blinded by emotion (and even worst, the dumbest most useless emotion of all - nationalism), that they not only lose their sight but their other 4 senses as well

 

[Afrank]

Now you guys know that I agree with you completely and also believe Froome to be doping. But "Froome is doping" does not (yet) fall under the grounds of common knowledge like "Armstrong doped" does. And therefore to say it is a fact Froome is doping goes against the forums guidelines for posting.

So instead of just stating this rider or that rider is doping is a fact, provide your reasoning/evidence why you believe it to be a fact. And Hitch, I know you provided your reasoning just above. So thank you for doing that.

 

[The Hitch]

So instead of just stating this rider or that rider is doping is a fact, provide your reasoning/evidence why you believe it to be a fact. And Hitch, I know you provided your reasoning just above. So thank you for doing that.

I replied that way because as sniper pointed out, justin, is constantly interrupting discussions with "thats not a fact its your opinion", "thats not a fact its your opinion", "thats not a fact its your opinion". He's doing it (well and others also have) because he has no actual arguments, and can't handle the fact that so many people here believe Sky are doping, so he engages in this off topic point scoring where he reminds people that it is only an opinion. No actual contribution to the discussion, just - its your opinion.

So I merely made it clear to him, after it got tiring, that no matter how much he repeats that desperate patronizing little whinge, it isn't going to change our minds 1 bit.

To me and a large percentage of people who watch this sport it is a fact not a suspicion. The standards for "facts" that we employ in our own minds have been reached. We do not think - its likely Froome is doping but we don't know, no more than we thought with Armstrong - its likely he is doping but we don't know unless the ASO formally strips him off his powers.

As red flanders often points out, the standards of proof they desperately want to impose on our own minds, are not the ones everyone adheres to and no one is under any obligation to do so. I can have my own standards of proof and it gets annoying to read people on here try and tell me I have to follow theirs.

People can think for themselves. Just because they conveniently (conveniently because surprise surprise it exonerates their favorite riders) romanticize the ubiquitous effectiveness of an innocent until proven guilty system, like some idealistic 17th century philosopher, doesn't mean we have to.

I'm making clear to justin and anyone else who, with no actual explanations or arguments for why sky are lying and dominating cycling, fall back on these - but its only your opinion, mind games, that to us there is no doubt, nor will there ever be any. Froome and Sky have crossed the Rubicon.

He made his point, he doesn't have to repeat it all the time.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Nice, Hitch...

 

[Ripper]

Does pulling a Wiggo include being useless packfill in the Tour of Flanders?

 

[Walkman]

You can call it an opinion if you want. I call it a fact.

Didn't we used to debate things like this concerning Contador, with the difference of you being on the other side of your (now) own argument, back then?

 

[the sceptic]

Does pulling a Wiggo include being useless packfill in the Tour of Flanders?

Just wait until next week, hes gonna light up the paris roubaix!

After all, he has been training for it. And when Wiggins trains and puts his mind to something he wins. Lets see if that theory will hold true again.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

I replied that way because as sniper pointed out, justin, is constantly interrupting discussions with "thats not a fact its your opinion",

Regardless of what standard of proof you personally use, I would be interested in brief synopsis of why you think Froome is doping. If there is a previous post of yours that outlines your theory, just post the reference and I will read it.

My hunch is that Froome just came out of nowhere with these amazing power numbers at the TDF.

Are you actually a journalist? Just curious.

Tnks

 

[DirtyWorks]

My hunch is that Froome just came out of nowhere with these amazing power numbers at the TDF.

I believe the transformation begins in 2011. Nothing prior to 2011 suggests he's a grand tour field destroyer. This plainly defies the historical norm.

That's the super-summary to why he's likely doping

 

[BYOP88]

Wiggans finished a race Must be back to 2012 form now!!!

 

[The Hitch]

Reading through the early pages of the Wiggins appreciation thread I started it's funny how many of his current defenders basically see a podium or maybe even scraping a win at that vuelta as the maximum he can achieve and praise him for being able to get so much out of training hard.

A few months later, he goes on a half year long peak winning every race he enters culminating in beating Nibali by 6 mins in the tour, and they don't bat an eye. The human mind is scary