Pulling a Wiggins

[Ventoux Boar]

So just to be clear, this is a correct timeline?

2000- Wiggins weighs normal weight and AICAR isn't around in cycling
2001 - Wiggins weighs normal weight and AICAR isn't around in cycling
2002 - Wiggins weighs normal weight and AICAR isn't around in cycling
2003 - Wiggins weighs normal weight and AICAR isn't around in cycling
2004 - Wiggins weighs normal weight and AICAR isn't around in cycling
2005 - Wiggins weighs normal weight and AICAR isn't around in cycling
2006 - Wiggins weighs normal weight and AICAR isn't around in cycling
2007 - Wiggins weighs normal weight and AICAR isn't around in cycling
Wiggos own trainer says wiggins can get down to 75kg
2008 - Wiggins weighs normal weight and AICAR isn't around in cycling

2009 Suddenly wiggins is able to overnight find a method of losing an extra 5kg from nowhere. Coincidentally at exactly the same time AICAR appears in cycling and is known to have been in use at the Tour de France where Wiggins suddenly becomes a top gt rider, beating loads of dopers without really trying and despite being tired from the Giro.

How can you determine the weight of a rider just by looking at the telly? If you can't, please provide some links to the weights you quote. (Obviously we won't accept anything from the rider or the team).

 

[The Hitch]

(Obviously we won't accept anything from the rider or the team).

Errr why?

I've got a feeling your making the same logic fart a handful of others (mostly banned but that's probably just a coincidence ) have made in the past.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Errr why?

I've got a feeling your making the same logic fart a handful of others (mostly banned but that's probably just a coincidence ) have made in the past.

Delicious. You using your staus as an old fart on this forum to bully me? You wouldn't accept Brailsford/Wggins/Froomes word on anything else. Why accept it on weight, a notoriously sensitive issue for cyclists?

(Weights for guffaws about sensitive.)

((Weights longer for your records of Wiggins weights, many taken by noted liar Leinders))

 

[The Hitch]

You wouldn't accept Brailsford/Wggins/Froomes word on anything else. Why accept it on weight, a notoriously sensitive issue for cyclists?

Ok, for the sake of argument then, lets say Wiggins was lying about his weight.

That's even worse then. It makes him a pathological liar who refuses to tell the truth on even the smallest things. So his words on doping can't be trusted at all.

You can choose whichever scenario you want.

Scenario 1: He was telling the truth and his unnatural weightloss coincided exactly with Aicar
Scenario 2: He has been lying all along.

Either way I win, and your defense has another massive hole in it.
Pick your poison.

 

[del1962]

Grass is green, the sky is blue so all that is green is grass and all that is blue is sky.

 

[del1962]

Scenario 1 or scenario 2 everything fits in to these scenarios, there can be no scenario 3 or 4, ergo you have won the internet

 

[The Hitch]

Scenario 1 or scenario 2 everything fits in to these scenarios, there can be no scenario 3 or 4, ergo you have won the internet

Maybe the British education system wasn't all that in the 1960s (which would explain why pretty much all of the people who actually believe in the sky myth are middle to old aged brits) but yes in a positive negative hypothesis there are only two scenarios. 1 the hypothesis is positive, or 2 that it is negative.

So in this case I said sky were telling the truth about Wiggins being unable to go under 75kg before aicar came out. Vb said that I should consider they are lying.

Well they are either lying or they are telling the truth. There is no 3rd or 4th scenario.

It's common sense

 

[Hawkwood]

Maybe the British education system wasn't all that in the 1960s (which would explain why pretty much all of the people who actually believe in the sky myth are middle to old aged brits) but yes in a positive negative hypothesis there are only two scenarios. 1 the hypothesis is positive, or 2 that it is negative.

So in this case I said sky were telling the truth about Wiggins being unable to go under 75kg before aicar came out. Vb said that I should consider they are lying.

Well they are either lying or they are telling the truth. There is no 3rd or 4th scenario.

It's common sense

I can't believe you can post such arrogant drivel. What do you know about the British education system in the 1960s, apart from nothing? I can tell you as a `middle to old aged brit' who went through that system, that pretty much the first thing I learnt about British cycling was that Tom Simpson doped.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Maybe the British education system wasn't all that in the 1960s (which would explain why pretty much all of the people who actually believe in the sky myth are middle to old aged brits) but yes in a positive negative hypothesis there are only two scenarios. 1 the hypothesis is positive, or 2 that it is negative.

So in this case I said sky were telling the truth about Wiggins being unable to go under 75kg before aicar came out. Vb said that I should consider they are lying.

Well they are either lying or they are telling the truth. There is no 3rd or 4th scenario.

It's common sense

Why do you find the need to troll, anti-Brit style? I thought you were above that.

I don't know where you got the "journalist with integrity" handle, but it wasn't from a Brit.

 

[Netserk]

Why do you find the need to troll, anti-Brit style? I thought you were above that.

I don't know where you got the "journalist with integrity" handle, but it wasn't from a Brit.

It's a link, not a handle.

But you mentioning it does remind me of another poster, though I'm not sure which one it is.

 

[TailWindHome]

So in this case I said sky were telling the truth about Wiggins being unable to go under 75kg before aicar came out.

Even in the sniper cropped quote, that's not what was said.

 

[sniper]

Even in the sniper cropped quote, that's not what was said.

would it perhaps be possible to stop arguing semantics and actually address the issue at hand?

2006: Nigel Mitchell says:

We aim to get Bradley to the Tour very lean, around 75 to 76kg.
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/fitn...-rules-of-nutrition-74553#olbDDqCU6zvbFGvR.99

2009: Wiggins goes gluten-free
2009: AICAR introduced into the peloton

2009: Wiggins at 69 kg
2009: Wiggins 3rd in the TdF

First, do you think these are facts or do you have any reason to assume that any of those statements are (deliberately) inaccurate? If so, do expand.

Second, assuming for the sake of the discussion that these are all facts, you'll agree that one of the two boldfaced facts/statements is unrelated to the two underscored facts/statements, correct?
My money is on gluten-free. Yours?

 

[TailWindHome]

semantics

Pointing out that posters have cropped quotes to change their meaning when offered in support of their argument is neither nit picking nor semantics.

If you are intending to produce evidence of wrongdoing you must expect that evidence to be examined.

Posters shouldn't post any old bilge then hide behind accusations of nit picking when called on it.

 

[blackcat]

Even in the sniper cropped quote, that's not what was said.

the weightloss to get "lean" implies just that. one speaks and writes in rhetoric.

 

[blackcat]

My money is on gluten-free. Yours?

Aicar + GW501516 with a lipotropin chaser. Should be good for Wigans at 68, and Froome dawg 66

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It's a link, not a handle.

But you mentioning it does remind me of another poster, though I'm not sure which one it is.

DING

This must be the greatest hits album.

 

[Netserk]

DING

This must be the greatest hits album.

After some searching, I found out it was RobbieCanuck who used to say that.

 

[wrinklyvet]

.... Cookson had invited Eddy to brief the juniors on how a life of crime in cycling paid well in the past and will pay them well provided they keep the omerta. OK I am paraphrasing that last little bit but only a moron would see it otherwise.

Is it OK to "paraphrase" to that extent? Not in my book. But this is not the anti-Cookson thread.

As for "only a moron would see it otherwise," I note your view.

I am sure you are well aware that in Tommy Simpson's case he took performance-enhancing drugs when no doping controls existed. Just as the children's author Enid Blyton's alleged racism should not be judged against the modern view and norm, so it's also right that Simpson should not be judged against a standard that in his day was unknown.

The mystery to me is that there are people who will never accept the possibility that in existence there are some professional cyclists who are either discouraged against doping by the risks (of all kinds, including discovery) that currently exist, or even who need no such discouragement.

 

[Freddythefrog]

Why do you find the need to troll, anti-Brit style? I thought you were above that.

I don't know where you got the "journalist with integrity" handle, but it wasn't from a Brit.

Com'on Wrinkly, stop dodging the question. A poster asked you some days ago, how do you think Sir Bradley lost all that weight. Nigel was dietitian with whom all the BC riders were working with since 2001. By 2006 the best he could do was get Sir Bradley down to 75-76 kg. At the same time Aicar and the rest of the matching, undetectable dope products burst on the scene, Sir Bradley, 10 years into a full time career, can lose another 7 kg under the same tutelage.

I think it is taking the p*ss big style to pretend it is diet, but you were asked, quite civilly, to express your best suggestion for how Sir Bradley achieved this. To date all you have done is nit-pick and dodge.

Why don't I think it is diet ? Nigel was doing his best with athletes up to 2008. To justify that step change not only does Sir Bradley have to control things in a manner that his persona both public and private seems little disposed to, but Nigel has to develop a knowledge and understanding that makes him the greatest dietitian to endurance athletes the world has ever seen, from previously being, when making judgements according to his new level of performance, distinctly third rate.

So that makes it three miracles to occur contemporaneously.
Aicar - undetectable to PED tests enters the peloton - Sir Bradley will not be tempted.
Nigel - I know I have been advising you on diet for 8 years but I have this great new diet that will make you lose 10% of your weight and still produce the same power.
Brad - grips life and changes mentality from Tour packfill who will always lose to the dopers changes to the mentality of a hardened serial Grand Tour winner towards the end of his career - I knew I could do it, but it was only the other night after a skinful of Pale Ale I realised I was right, I can beat all them dopers clean.

Err - 3 miracles at once? Sure thing - got to be true - in professional cycling of all places. Right. I am sure

Rather, I would insert one very non-miraculous Shane Sutton giving some home truths about what Brad could do, given a window opening up, exactly like that which EPO opened up in front of Big Mig. In Mig's day it was riders with ars*s as big as buses keeping up with the climbers. Aicar has given us the reverse. Insects like Froome out TTing any beast you want to put on a drag strip.

OK Wrinkly - the floor is yours.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Wrinkly - that man luurve is just oozing through. It is theft, just as it has always been theft. Some let their ignorant adolescent hero-worship continue to blind them.

You can stuff your "ignorant adolescent hero-worship" and the rest of it where the sun don't shine. I am done with you.

 

[Netserk]

Is it OK to "paraphrase" to that extent? Not in my book. But this is not the anti-Cookson thread.

As for "only a moron would see it otherwise," I note your view.

I am sure you are well aware that in Tommy Simpson's case he took performance-enhancing drugs when no doping controls existed. Just as the children's author Enid Blyton's alleged racism should not be judged against the modern view and norm, so it's also right that Simpson should not be judged against a standard that in his day was unknown.

The mystery to me is that there are people who will never accept the possibility that in existence there are some professional cyclists who are either discouraged against doping by the risks (of all kinds, including discovery) that currently exist, or even who need no such discouragement.

And there wasn't any test for EPO in the 90's, so it was okay for them to dope as well?

Edit: And there *were* doping controls at that time.

 

[wrinklyvet]

And there wasn't any test for EPO in the 90's, so it was okay for them to dope as well?

No, it was not. Looking back it seems I may have been wrong in any event. The ban on PEDs seems to have begun in 1965, or in 1964 when France passed its first anti-doping law. Tommy Simpson died in 1967. For much of his career he did not break any rules but at the time when he died I now believe he did.

Thanks for raising the question. The roll eyes were hardly needed.

Edit: Your own edit now noted. Yes, you will see I agree.

 

[Freddythefrog]

And there wasn't any test for EPO in the 90's, so it was okay for them to dope as well?

Edit: And there *were* doping controls at that time.

Don't confuse Wrinkly with facts.

 

[Freddythefrog]

No, it was not. Looking back it seems I may have been wrong in any event. The ban on PEDs seems to have begun in 1965, or in 1964 when France passed its first anti-doping law. Tommy Simpson died in 1967. For much of his career he did not break any rules but at the time when he died I now believe he did.

Thanks for raising the question. The roll eyes were hardly needed.

Edit: Your own edit now noted. Yes, you will see I agree.

OK Wrinkly, so now after a lifetime of putting Mr Simpson's drug abuse in the "he wuz innocent - just like Enid Blyton" box, now you have been forced to face your ignorance of the rules relating to the sport, without a pinhead to dance atop, let alone doing what many other decent people do and run their life according to a basic moral compass, where are you now with Mr Simpson ?

However, I thank you sincerely for confirming within minutes my observation that many British men have an illogical view of serial dopers like Simpson and Eddy. David Millar is just playing to the same weakness. Didn't he at one time style himself as some sort of "dandy" like Mr Tom ?

As to further thoughts, most Brit men get their irrationality from some incredibly poor cycling journalism. The uncensored, unquestioning, love in with Sir David and Sir Bradley is but another symptom.

 

[wrinklyvet]

OK Wrinkly, so now after a lifetime of putting Mr Simpson's drug abuse in the "he wuz innocent - just like Enid Blyton" box, now you have been forced to face your ignorance of the rules relating to the sport, without a pinhead to dance atop, let alone doing what many other decent people do and run their life according to a basic moral compass, where are you now with Mr Simpson ?

However, I thank you sincerely for confirming within minutes my observation that many British men have an illogical view of serial dopers like Simpson and Eddy. David Millar is just playing to the same weakness. Didn't he at one time style himself as some sort of "dandy" like Mr Tom ?

As to further thoughts, most Brit men get their irrationality from some incredibly poor cycling journalism. The uncensored, unquestioning, love in with Sir David and Sir Bradley is but another symptom.

Are you now attempting to be civil? If you have turned over a new leaf I may consider a reply, but otherwise I am not wasting my time. I am off out into the sunshine before the sun sets on another day.