Pulling a Wiggins

[red_flanders]

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.

Thank you. Still eager to hear an answer.

 

[TailWindHome]

By 2006 the best he could do was get Sir Bradley down to 75-76 kg.

Why assume the objective was to be as light as possible?

 

[blackcat]

Why assume the objective was to be as light as possible?

because the objective was to follow Contador and Evans and the Shlecks when the rode tilted upwards. Because you could always get some benefit following others.

then, lets assume Wigans rode the team pursuit at 82kg at his heaviest at about 191cm.

lets assume he won the Tour at 69? A pro losing 13/82 of his bodyweight = NOT NORMAL.

jeebus christ empire crew, screw the grey matter back on

 

[TailWindHome]

because the objective was to follow Contador and Evans and the Shlecks when the rode tilted upwards.

in 2006?

10chars

 

[skippythepinhead]

It is going to rain gold bars !

At some point, in a shower of gold bars, people start thinking, "s***, now the gold in my pocket is worth nothing. What's worth anything now?"

I know Eddy was hopped up on whatever he could get his hands on that didn't make him sleepy--until after he came down. That knowledge has incrementally changed my view of the peloton as I learn more about the past in cycling. Right now I'm reading "The Monuments" by Peter Cossins, and the specter of la dopage and each drug innovation shades every epic performance--FOR ME. Doesn't make it a bad book, it's a pretty good read actually, but only once you accept that (whether doping "controls" existed or not) every guy was "on" something. When you are passionate about cycling, you are passionate about a pharma circus. The riders are clowns, entertainers, and I choose to be entertained. I can understand why some would not, but I cannot understand the denial required to think that these clowns are clean.

I defy ANYONE to watch Wiggins not just win, but absolutely CRUSH the Folsom TT at the 2014 ToC and not head-shake chuckle at the brazenly obvious alien clown spirit inhabiting the person who once was Bradley Wiggins. There is no way (NO WAY) rice flour and starvation rides produce THAT.

The idea that Sir Bradley Wiggins somehow made it to the podium's apex without doping is so naive it's almost cute.

The choice really isn't between clean/not clean.

The choice is whether or not to be entertained.

The only gold in pro-cycling is of the "comedy" variety.

Anyone who says differently is selling something.

 

[skippythepinhead]

because the objective was to follow Contador and Evans and the Shlecks when the rode tilted upwards. Because you could always get some benefit following others.

then, lets assume Wigans rode the team pursuit at 82kg at his heaviest at about 191cm.

lets assume he won the Tour at 69? A pro losing 13/82 of his bodyweight = NOT NORMAL.

jeebus christ empire crew, screw the grey matter back on

Come on now, to be fair, the objective is never to be "as light as possible." The objective is to dose your way to an unnaturally competitive power/weight ratio. As Sheldon (Big Bang Theory, not the cycling one) would say, "The objective is to be as light as probable. A six month hunger strike might get you as light as possible, but you wouldn't be in much shape to ride a bike."

Wiggins simply found a way to make the improbable happen. The naive will still nitpick ad infinitum, but there's only so many things you can do to reach the status of "most improbable." Taro flour crepes and hunger rides and "what about his VO2 max?" will not win the Tour de Frickin' France.

Other rant over. Carry on with the nonsense.

 

[sniper]

a lot of good stuff in these two posts.

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.

At some point, in a shower of gold bars, people start thinking, "s***, now the gold in my pocket is worth nothing. What's worth anything now?"

I know Eddy was hopped up on whatever he could get his hands on that didn't make him sleepy--until after he came down. That knowledge has incrementally changed my view of the peloton as I learn more about the past in cycling. Right now I'm reading "The Monuments" by Peter Cossins, and the specter of la dopage and each drug innovation shades every epic performance--FOR ME. Doesn't make it a bad book, it's a pretty good read actually, but only once you accept that (whether doping "controls" existed or not) every guy was "on" something. When you are passionate about cycling, you are passionate about a pharma circus. The riders are clowns, entertainers, and I choose to be entertained. I can understand why some would not, but I cannot understand the denial required to think that these clowns are clean.

I defy ANYONE to watch Wiggins not just win, but absolutely CRUSH the Folsom TT at the 2014 ToC and not head-shake chuckle at the brazenly obvious alien clown spirit inhabiting the person who once was Bradley Wiggins. There is no way (NO WAY) rice flour and starvation rides produce THAT.

The idea that Sir Bradley Wiggins somehow made it to the podium's apex without doping is so naive it's almost cute.

The choice really isn't between clean/not clean.

The choice is whether or not to be entertained.

The only gold in pro-cycling is of the "comedy" variety.

Anyone who says differently is selling something.

 

[blackcat]

Come on now, to be fair, the objective is never to be "as light as possible." The objective is to dose your way to an unnaturally competitive power/weight ratio. As Sheldon (Big Bang Theory, not the cycling one) would say, "The objective is to be as light as probable. A six month hunger strike might get you as light as possible, but you wouldn't be in much shape to ride a bike."

Wiggins simply found a way to make the improbable happen. The naive will still nitpick ad infinitum, but there's only so many things you can do to reach the status of "most improbable." Taro flour crepes and hunger rides and "what about his VO2 max?" will not win the Tour de Frickin' France.

Other rant over. Carry on with the nonsense.

and a rider like Chris Boardman did once say, you actually need weight for descending with stability

 

[blackcat]

in 2006?

10chars

nah, when he went GC in 2009 after Beijing 2008.

 

[blackcat]

also, lets not forget London 2007 prologue when Hincapie, Kloeden umlaut, and Spartacus got Wiggins by considerable margin into fourth.

And LEts not forget that Ceccho, the preparatore Luigi Cecchini said Cancellara could be a Tour de France winning if he dropped circa ~6/7 kgs. Well, I think Wigans managed to prove Ceccho's point. Froome and Wigans are not a pimple on Spartacus. He could win July on the same preparation those cats are. fo shur'.

Aicar and GW501516 and lipotropin and Cancellara wins July. Froome and Wiggins would be in his exhaust

 

[Benotti69]

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.

????

No answer to a well thought out post........hmmm

 

[The Hitch]

At some point, in a shower of gold bars, people start thinking, "s***, now the gold in my pocket is worth nothing. What's worth anything now?"

I know Eddy was hopped up on whatever he could get his hands on that didn't make him sleepy--until after he came down. That knowledge has incrementally changed my view of the peloton as I learn more about the past in cycling. Right now I'm reading "The Monuments" by Peter Cossins, and the specter of la dopage and each drug innovation shades every epic performance--FOR ME. Doesn't make it a bad book, it's a pretty good read actually, but only once you accept that (whether doping "controls" existed or not) every guy was "on" something. When you are passionate about cycling, you are passionate about a pharma circus. The riders are clowns, entertainers, and I choose to be entertained. I can understand why some would not, but I cannot understand the denial required to think that these clowns are clean.

I defy ANYONE to watch Wiggins not just win, but absolutely CRUSH the Folsom TT at the 2014 ToC and not head-shake chuckle at the brazenly obvious alien clown spirit inhabiting the person who once was Bradley Wiggins. There is no way (NO WAY) rice flour and starvation rides produce THAT.

The idea that Sir Bradley Wiggins somehow made it to the podium's apex without doping is so naive it's almost cute.

The choice really isn't between clean/not clean.

The choice is whether or not to be entertained.

The only gold in pro-cycling is of the "comedy" variety.

Anyone who says differently is selling something.

Can I get an Amen!!!!

 

[The Hitch]

????

No answer to a well thought out post........hmmm

I don't think the handful of pro sky accounts have ever even denied the fact that they ignore all the actual tough questions and nitpick technicalities on minor points.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I don't think the handful of pro sky accounts have ever even denied the fact that they ignore all the actual tough questions and nitpick technicalities on minor points.

Discussion must be over.

Wigans now moving on to conquer P.R.

He had to put on the lbs to do this.

 

[sniper]

http://www.chrissidwells.com/archive/aug-1-2012.html

The diet he went on and the work he did removed that muscle whilst retaining his overall effective power, something that is very difficult to do. So difficult that 15 years ago a well respected trainer in cycling and consultant to the Motorola team, Dr Max Testa said that Lance Armstrong?s triathlete arms and shoulders would prevent him from winning the Tour de France.

Cancer stripped Armstrong?s muscles away, but how did Mitchell manage the spot reductions that are obvious from Wiggins? upper body?

....
Inffingcredible stuff in that article.
The above is just one of numerous eyebrowraisers.
Also more on Wiggo Lance love.

 

[thehog]

http://www.chrissidwells.com/archive/aug-1-2012.html

The diet he went on and the work he did removed that muscle whilst retaining his overall effective power, something that is very difficult to do. So difficult that 15 years ago a well respected trainer in cycling and consultant to the Motorola team, Dr Max Testa said that Lance Armstrong?s triathlete arms and shoulders would prevent him from winning the Tour de France.

Cancer stripped Armstrong?s muscles away, but how did Mitchell manage the spot reductions that are obvious from Wiggins? upper body?

....
Inffingcredible stuff in that article.
The above is just one of numerous eyebrowraisers.
Also more on Wiggo Lance love.

According to Sutton he was a Tour champion who became a track rider

 

[doperhopper]

http://www.chrissidwells.com/archive/aug-1-2012.html

The diet he went on and the work he did removed that muscle whilst retaining his overall effective power, something that is very difficult to do. So difficult that 15 years ago a well respected trainer in cycling and consultant to the Motorola team, Dr Max Testa said that Lance Armstrong?s triathlete arms and shoulders would prevent him from winning the Tour de France.

Cancer stripped Armstrong?s muscles away, but how did Mitchell manage the spot reductions that are obvious from Wiggins? upper body?

....
Inffingcredible stuff in that article.
The above is just one of numerous eyebrowraisers.
Also more on Wiggo Lance love.

Here we go, cancer - the ultimate badhzilla.

 

[sniper]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...-me-to-a-new-level-of-dedication-2016129.html

Wiggins 2010, prę tdf " For me the worst-case scenario is someone beating me to get on the podium, then being tested positive. That's not how I want to get on the podium."

Wiggins in 2009 didn't know Lance was a doper...mkay

also, in that same link he says something about weighing less than 73 kg in the tdf would make him sick.
i thought in 2009 he weighed 69/70......
Non capisco

 

[Catwhoorg]

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/bradley-wiggins-i-was-olympic-champion-and-couldnt-pay-the-mortgage-170592

Wiggins on Desert Island discs.

I wasn't previously aware that his father sold PEDs

Wiggins said that the birth of his son focussed his attention on providing for his family, and also of his feeling towards his own father, Gary. Wiggins said that his father, an Australian track cyclist who had moved to Europe to find success, was known as ‘Doc’ for supplying other riders with performance-enhancing drugs, notably amphetamines.

“He did a bit of everything. In those days it was amphetamines and speed. He was a user and used to sell it as well.

Wiggins gave a straight ‘no’ when asked by Young whether he’s ever been tempted to take drugs during his cycling career.


Going to have to listen to it on the iPlayer.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

We heard this in 2012 when he was looking down his couch for milk money. It explains why he started doping in 2009 until he won the Tour and the big contract. He felt entitled.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Wiggo was riding for Credit Agricole in 2004, and getting a large portion of the Lottery funding - far more than lowly women riders. It's a weak argument.

 

[doperhopper]

Wiggo baby on PEDs?

Asked about his father, the Briton said Gary Wiggins "did not fully see the responsibilities of having a child", and went on to discuss his father's involvement with drugs, which he confirmed included smuggling amphetamines in his infant son's nappies.

"He did a bit of everything. His nickname was 'The Doc'. In those days it was amphetamines and speed. He was a user and used to sell.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-i-never-saw-myself-as-a-sir

 

[Benotti69]

Wiggins has perfected the art of lying to those not willing to hear the truth.

 

[blackcat]

Re:

Wiggo baby on PEDs?

Asked about his father, the Briton said Gary Wiggins "did not fully see the responsibilities of having a child", and went on to discuss his father's involvement with drugs, which he confirmed included smuggling amphetamines in his infant son's nappies.

"He did a bit of everything. His nickname was 'The Doc'. In those days it was amphetamines and speed. He was a user and used to sell.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-i-never-saw-myself-as-a-sir

like Benotti69 I call BS on this fable. On the miniscule chance his mom told him (or she made it up), she should have been shtum on that matter

 

[SeriousSam]

I wonder what Wiggins was prepared to do to get those elusive millions of pounds he felt he deserved in the aftermath of winning Gold.

He looked at the road, saw that the elite stage racers were making a lot of bank.. and was of course never even tempted to resort to dope like he surely knew everyone was doing. Gotta have some principles.

Remarkably, he nonetheless reached their level in 2009 and started time trialling up mountains quicker than the specialist climbers in 2012.