Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[the big ring]

Do we know if Wiggins said anything more than 'it [USADA taking down LA] is bad for cycling' to this Belgian newspaper?
To completely over-analyse just four words worth of an answer, it is exactly the same thing being said by all those pros who'd rather see no change, no investigation and have LA left a champion.

Another 5 post editor in chief?

 

[Darryl Webster]

Wiggo claiming not to have enjoyed the Tour makes no sense at all. Formally a fierce and outspoken critic of dopers till his 4th place, logic would suggest if he was clean and leading the biggest race there is , with his full comprehension of its history, then he, more than most anyone should have been thrilled and rather pleased with himself " proving " it can be won clean. I cant think of a more confidence boosting position to be in...if it were true.
Contrast how he ought to have been with how he was and his complete turnaround on the subject and it wreaks of the anxiety of being fearful of being exposed.
As a multi Olympic champion I don't buy the pressure angle.. pursuit and team pursuit is very high pressure..one mistake and you're blown it..a GT generally affords a bit of room for mistakes and recovery from em.
He,s had years of high pressure experience.

 

[the big ring]

Your point is slightly unfair, its a bit unrealistic to say Sky dominated PN and Romandie. Wiggins won the first thanks firstly to the wind affected stage putting a lot of riders out of contention and then was run very close by Westra in that TT. Wiggins to me looked pretty bad in Romandie, but it was such an unselective course it simply came down the TT - and he lucked out that LL Sanchez was so poor. I wouldn't say these two races can be categorised in the same way as Dauphine and Tour.

We're looking at all the pieces of the jigsaw to see the big picture.

Even the relatively boring non-corner pieces, contribute equally to the whole.

 

[Benotti69]

Another 5 post editor in chief?

it is when a new member posts that the receive the label, ''editor in chief', just means a newbie

 

[the big ring]

Wiggo claiming not to have enjoyed the Tour makes no sense at all. Formally a fierce and outspoken critic of dopers till his 4th place, logic would suggest if he was clean and leading the biggest race there is , with his full comprehension of its history, then he, more than most anyone should have been thrilled and rather pleased with himself " proving " it can be won clean. I cant think of a more confidence boosting position to be in...if it were true.
Contrast how he ought to have been with how he was and his complete turnaround on the subject and it wreaks of the anxiety of being fearful of being exposed.
As a multi Olympic champion I don't buy the pressure angle.. pursuit and team pursuit is very high pressure..one mistake and you're blown it..a GT generally affords a bit of room for mistakes and recovery from em.
He,s had years of high pressure experience.

Bolded is part of the final conspiracy theory I have

And fully agreed on this.

Close your eyes and no wait, leave them open to read this then close them. ok?

Imagine you are completely clean, as is everyone on your team.
Imagine you have gold medals out the wazoo proving you can ride 4km quick.
Imagine you are so squeaky clean you squeak when you walk. No really.

Now imagine you just won the Tour de France.

And there are Internet murmurs accusing you of doping. Mainly coz it's rife through the sport and a pretty safe bet.

Do you have anything. ANYTHING. To show you did it legit?

No?

Then what the hell were you and your team presenting to ASO?

 

[the big ring]

it is when a new member posts that the receive the label, ''editor in chief', just means a newbie

zomg thanks. was weirding me out heheh

 

[Benotti69]

Bolded is part of the final conspiracy theory I have

And fully agreed on this.

Close your eyes and no wait, leave them open to read this then close them. ok?

Imagine you are completely clean, as is everyone on your team.
Imagine you have gold medals out the wazoo proving you can ride 4km quick.
Imagine you are so squeaky clean you squeak when you walk. No really.

Now imagine you just won the Tour de France.

And there are Internet murmurs accusing you of doping. Mainly coz it's rife through the sport and a pretty safe bet.

Do you have anything. ANYTHING. To show you did it legit?

No?

Then what the hell were you and your team presenting to ASO?

If it was legit no doubt in the interests of transparency they would publish it.

 

[thehog]

Wiggo claiming not to have enjoyed the Tour makes no sense at all. Formally a fierce and outspoken critic of dopers till his 4th place, logic would suggest if he was clean and leading the biggest race there is , with his full comprehension of its history, then he, more than most anyone should have been thrilled and rather pleased with himself " proving " it can be won clean. I cant think of a more confidence boosting position to be in...if it were true.
Contrast how he ought to have been with how he was and his complete turnaround on the subject and it wreaks of the anxiety of being fearful of being exposed.
As a multi Olympic champion I don't buy the pressure angle.. pursuit and team pursuit is very high pressure..one mistake and you're blown it..a GT generally affords a bit of room for mistakes and recovery from em.
He,s had years of high pressure experience.

It’s odd isn’t it. Because it had to be the least stressful win I’ve ever seen in my life of watching the Tour. Not at any point bar Froome maybe stealing the race did Wiggins ever look like losing it. Sky crushed the entire field and no one stood a chance. How was that stressful?

His reaction is strange. Also the doping accusations were minimal and always par for the course at the Tour. We’ve all seen worse.

I have to agree with you. Maybe it doesn’t feel so good anymore knowing that people “know” and that at some point that could come out like it has with Armstrong. Maybe the win wasn’t at satisfying in the way that it was achieved.

I’ve not seen many other interviews with him so I can’t tell if this is just a “quote grab” or something much different.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Imagine you are so squeaky clean you squeak when you walk. No really.
Now imagine you just won the Tour de France.

And there are Internet murmurs accusing you of doping. Mainly coz it's rife through the sport and a pretty safe bet.

Do you have anything. ANYTHING. To show you did it legit?

No?

Then what the hell were you and your team presenting to ASO?

Its all but impossible to prove that your clean but If you are then you have nothing to fear from accusations and certainly no reason to be angry that, understandably, peeps might be suspicious . Clean you walk without a single concern , no stress , no anxiety, no problem.
Other than the possible paranoia of getting spiked, which in truth is pretty easy to avoid, ya free to be smug and relatively carefree.
Also, with a Brit not having won the tour , if ya don't pull it of, no ones gonna think much less of ya.
Wiggo,s stress, body language ( somat I've studied in my training in counselling but don't claim to be expert in...would love to hear the view of a real expert as its more than 90% of communication ) , anger flash,s and pensive, measured, wording when interviewed one on one all suggest underlining anxiety with reason unknown.
Doping the most likely .

 

[JimmyFingers]

Wiggo claiming not to have enjoyed the Tour makes no sense at all. Formally a fierce and outspoken critic of dopers till his 4th place, logic would suggest if he was clean and leading the biggest race there is , with his full comprehension of its history, then he, more than most anyone should have been thrilled and rather pleased with himself " proving " it can be won clean. I cant think of a more confidence boosting position to be in...if it were true.
Contrast how he ought to have been with how he was and his complete turnaround on the subject and it wreaks of the anxiety of being fearful of being exposed.
As a multi Olympic champion I don't buy the pressure angle.. pursuit and team pursuit is very high pressure..one mistake and you're blown it..a GT generally affords a bit of room for mistakes and recovery from em.
He,s had years of high pressure experience.

I think it's very, very dangerous to dabble in amateur psychology to attempt to support your theory. Who knows how individuals will react to different stimuli. Are we saying the stresses of Olympic competition are identical to that of a Grand Tour? Or that reaction to those stresses remain constant despite your age or physical condition?

One massively differing thing is the level of investigation into his performance. Track cycling was only covered by the mainstream press in Britain during the Olympics, so successes there meant very little intrusion. Compared to the level of intrusion one he started winning on the road and you have chalk and cheese. We don't know he has read maybe here or on Twitter but you can bet it's not nice, and then facing daily press conferences on the Tour, just after every Stage, and no-one wants to talk about what is being achieved, just doping.

He complained that no-one had anything positive to ask I remember. So where and when is he supposed to enjoy it? During the pain of riding 3000k, or having to defend that performance when he's off the bike?

I think the clinic want Wiggins as a sacrifical lamb. With continental riders there's a nod and a wink that they might be cheating. They know it, and you know it. Wiggins is different: he's come from a different discipline and a different culture. He happily broke the omerta in the past, but now it seems they have him. I don't know why he's changed his tune but I don't think it constitutes proof, nor do his performances.

 

[Benotti69]

I think it's very, very dangerous to dabble in amateur psychology to attempt to support your theory. Who knows how individuals will react to different stimuli. Are we saying the stresses of Olympic competition are identical to that of a Grand Tour? Or that reaction to those stresses remain constant despite your age or physical condition?

One massively differing thing is the level of investigation into his performance. Track cycling was only covered by the mainstream press in Britain during the Olympics, so successes there meant very little intrusion. Compared to the level of intrusion one he started winning on the road and you have chalk and cheese. We don't know he has read maybe here or on Twitter but you can bet it's not nice, and then facing daily press conferences on the Tour, just after every Stage, and no-one wants to talk about what is being achieved, just doping.

He complained that no-one had anything positive to ask I remember. So where and when is he supposed to enjoy it? During the pain of riding 3000k, or having to defend that performance when he's off the bike?

I think the clinic want Wiggins as a sacrifical lamb. With continental riders there's a nod and a wink that they might be cheating. They know it, and you know it. Wiggins is different: he's come from a different discipline and a different culture. He happily broke the omerta in the past, but now it seems they have him. I don't know why he's changed his tune but I don't think it constitutes proof, nor do his performances.

What BS. What intrusion. The riders are protected and dont mingle with Joe Public. The media rarely asked him hard questions and when he was asked about what people said on twitter he exploded. He could've been smarter and said he was not online during the race so he didn't know and right then didn't want to know as he was concentrating on the race. Nah insult those who dare insinuate doping in cycling.

As for the cycling media. what a bunch of report the race but not the doping unquestioning sheep.

What different culture did wiggins come from? Press Culture or cycling culture? What difference would that make?

Now is the time as the Patron to break Omerta.

Nah, he's doping, no doubt. No one has ever said they didn't enjoy winning. So why didn't he enjoy it?. It was easy, too easy too win.

Guilt.

Oh yeah, he reads this place. All the english speaking peloton does.

 

[Telmisartan new]

I think it's very, very dangerous to dabble in amateur psychology to attempt to support your theory. Who knows how individuals will react to different stimuli. Are we saying the stresses of Olympic competition are identical to that of a Grand Tour? Or that reaction to those stresses remain constant despite your age or physical condition?

One massively differing thing is the level of investigation into his performance. Track cycling was only covered by the mainstream press in Britain during the Olympics, so successes there meant very little intrusion. Compared to the level of intrusion one he started winning on the road and you have chalk and cheese. We don't know he has read maybe here or on Twitter but you can bet it's not nice, and then facing daily press conferences on the Tour, just after every Stage, and no-one wants to talk about what is being achieved, just doping.

He complained that no-one had anything positive to ask I remember. So where and when is he supposed to enjoy it? During the pain of riding 3000k, or having to defend that performance when he's off the bike?

I think the clinic want Wiggins as a sacrifical lamb. With continental riders there's a nod and a wink that they might be cheating. They know it, and you know it. Wiggins is different: he's come from a different discipline and a different culture. He happily broke the omerta in the past, but now it seems they have him. I don't know why he's changed his tune but I don't think it constitutes proof, nor do his performances.

I notice you display the same unpredictable fits of pique and temper as your hero Wiggins.One minute your telling us all to sod off,your leaving this forum and never coming back,next minute your back in no time at all dishing out the insults.

FYI

The wearer of the maillot jaune gets asked about doping in any year,its par for the course,Wiggins is enough of a student of the sport to know this yet your claiming he was knackered after a stage and he's getting older in age so these are the reasons he can't answer a routine question on doping without an obscenity filled vicious rant.

Nobody in here said there was proof or we wouldnt be sitting talking about it,would we?

 

[Racelap]

"But the Olympics is more about the sport itself. There is no doping or other nonsense talk. If you win, everyone is happy for you."

Fell out of my chair LOLing.

 

[mastersracer]

More impeccable logic: Wiggins says Tour experience was stressful, so is therefore a doper. Had Wiggins said the Tour was fun, he had a great time, etc, the same people here would be citing that as evidence that he was doping because it was mentally too easy - the sign of a doper. This doping charge is not falsifiable, everything Wiggins says is evidence of doping, and everything can be reinterpreted at any time to fit your hypothesis.

FWIW, what Tour rider has said that the Tour is not stressful?

 

[Darryl Webster]

To address the points Jimmy, your a 100% correct that NO ONE should be "convicted" on " amateur psychology" or even expert for that matter. Some of you may recall the case of Lindy Chambers jailed after her baby was taken by dingo ..her lack of emotion convinced a jury that the dingo story was a lie and she spent three years in prison before being proven innocent.
However this isn't a court of law and were free to offer up Ideas.
Body language while obviously fallible is a recognised area of study and is , generally, a pretty reliable one but alone means little.
I'm not privy to the press conferences given but I doubt very much that question around doping dominated.They were there for sure...along with many other questions.
Wiggins is NOT from a different culture , he,s been well immersed in road cycling culture as well as track, home an abroad, for many years and its a myth that here in Britain there isn't the same nod and wink. There is and its in the changing rooms. " The Brits are clean " cus of any cultural factors is utter nonsense and should be consigned to the bin.
The "change of tune" not just by Wiggo but by the employment of two dodgy doctors adds to suspicion.
Finally , Froome,s, Rogers and Porte,s performance at the TDF give plenty to arouse suspicion.

 

[the big ring]

More impeccable logic: Wiggins says Tour experience was stressful, so is therefore a doper. Had Wiggins said the Tour was fun, he had a great time, etc, the same people here would be citing that as evidence that he was doping because it was mentally too easy - the sign of a doper. This doping charge is not falsifiable, everything Wiggins says is evidence of doping, and everything can be reinterpreted at any time to fit your hypothesis.

FWIW, what Tour rider has said that the Tour is not stressful?

Hint: Wiggins wasn't just a rider. He was as season-long dominator.

FWIW, which Tour winner has said the tour was not enjoyable? He's millions of pounds richer. Winning is not enjoyable? Bullsh-t. Millions of pounds are not enjoyable? Same again.

Noone describes the Tour win as easy - but they might say it was satisfying, or beautiful, or epic, or any other number of positive adjectival phrases.

Never seen a Tour winner say he didn't enjoy it.

And if he didn't, LA is partly to blame.

How about: I can understand why the questions were being asked, but now that the rotten cadaver of a root is being excised, I believe future winners will find it more and more enjoyable as performances become more and more believable and the spectre of medical enhancement and corruption is left behind.

What does he say?

This whole USADA thing is bad for the sport.

Right. Poor baby.

Don't lament the suspicion and then lament the prosecution of the source of that suspicion.

 

[ferryman]

I think it's very, very dangerous to dabble in amateur psychology to attempt to support your theory. Who knows how individuals will react to different stimuli. Are we saying the stresses of Olympic competition are identical to that of a Grand Tour? Or that reaction to those stresses remain constant despite your age or physical condition?

One massively differing thing is the level of investigation into his performance. Track cycling was only covered by the mainstream press in Britain during the Olympics, so successes there meant very little intrusion. Compared to the level of intrusion one he started winning on the road and you have chalk and cheese. We don't know he has read maybe here or on Twitter but you can bet it's not nice, and then facing daily press conferences on the Tour, just after every Stage, and no-one wants to talk about what is being achieved, just doping.

He complained that no-one had anything positive to ask I remember. So where and when is he supposed to enjoy it? During the pain of riding 3000k, or having to defend that performance when he's off the bike?

I think the clinic want Wiggins as a sacrifical lamb. With continental riders there's a nod and a wink that they might be cheating. They know it, and you know it. Wiggins is different: he's come from a different discipline and a different culture. He happily broke the omerta in the past, but now it seems they have him. I don't know why he's changed his tune but I don't think it constitutes proof, nor do his performances.

You were doing so well too. Just can't help yourself can you.

 

[luckyboy]

Thread in the 'pro road racing' just reminded me of something..


Watching 'British Cycling: Road to Glory' the other day it struck me how much the emphasis by Brailsford was on winning. Just that was the sole focus and anything else is a failure for him.

Not convinced that is a healthy attitude to have in cycling. The other week we had JV saying that results come second as long as riders are clean.

iirc the next episode is all about staying clean/doping etc.. (on Thursday night, Sky Atlantic)

 

[the big ring]

Thread in the 'pro road racing' just reminded me of something..


Watching 'British Cycling: Road to Glory' the other day it struck me how much the emphasis by Brailsford was on winning. Just that was the sole focus and anything else is a failure for him.

Not convinced that is a healthy attitude to have in cycling. The other week we had JV saying that results come second as long as riders are clean.

iirc the next episode is all about staying clean/doping etc.. (on Thursday night, Sky Atlantic)

There's 2 broad focii possible when coaching someone:
outcome focused (ie winning)
process focused (ie doing things right and let the result be what it is)

I didn't see the show so cannot comment on which style Brailsford leans towards, but the latter is always my preference, and it sounds like Brailsford was leaning to the former.

There are only so many things you can control - typically just yourself - and focusing on winning implies you can control other riders, as well as punctures, etc. Silly to even think that, right?

Unless you had a system in place where you could control the other riders.

Imagine that.

Scary.

 

[the big ring]

zomg. Tyler and Brad.

 

[CharacterFirst]

Hint: Wiggins wasn't just a rider. He was as season-long dominator.

FWIW, which Tour winner has said the tour was not enjoyable? He's millions of pounds richer. Winning is not enjoyable? Bullsh-t. Millions of pounds are not enjoyable? Same again.

Noone describes the Tour win as easy - but they might say it was satisfying, or beautiful, or epic, or any other number of positive adjectival phrases.

Never seen a Tour winner say he didn't enjoy it.

And if he didn't, LA is partly to blame.

How about: I can understand why the questions were being asked, but now that the rotten cadaver of a root is being excised, I believe future winners will find it more and more enjoyable as performances become more and more believable and the spectre of medical enhancement and corruption is left behind.

What does he say?

This whole USADA thing is bad for the sport.

Right. Poor baby.

Don't lament the suspicion and then lament the prosecution of the source of that suspicion.

Who of us really know, but I reckon BW and Sky are doping.

But still, I can imagine real pressure at the Tour, and BW not enjoying it at all.

Isn't he a borderline alcoholic? I think his Dad was an alcoholic, which could point to real difficulties handling lifes pressures. I imagine that even though he can compete well in cycling, BW does not handle extra pressure well. He would rather just smoke a *** and have a beer - stress relievers for him.

This seems the case for lots of sports people. The "on bike" time is where their worries are washed away, where they can be in control, where they feel comfortable and competent. It was for me, and is for my young daughter, who is a very young but promising athlete.

But the "off bike" stuff - like interviews, pressers etc, esp. if there are doping questions and suspicion, could send someone like BW over the top - clean or not. Added to that would have been national fan pressure - which was very high as the tour was the lead in to a home OGs.

And so he swears and rants b/c he is basically a man lacking in some character and class re this sort of thing when under pressure.

The problem for me is the change in attitude from the 2007 outspoken anti-doping man, to the silent, clean winner.

If he was clean, you would naturally expect he would be saying so, and claiming a win for clean cycling and a victory for fair competition etc.

You could reasonably expect he would also be using his new status to clean up his sport and promote clean athletics in general. But he has shut up shop.

This sort of behavior reads very badly indeed. And what Sky/BC and BW and DB know all too well, is that you have to be seen to be above reproach in cycling considering its terrible PED past.

I don't see how one can be "a man" when it comes to PED when one is losing, and then become "a mouse" regards PEDs when one is winning, unless there are problems with the way the winning has been achieved.

 

[Avoriaz]

There's 2 broad focii possible when coaching someone:
outcome focused (ie winning)
process focused (ie doing things right and let the result be what it is)

I didn't see the show so cannot comment on which style Brailsford leans towards, but the latter is always my preference, and it sounds like Brailsford was leaning to the former.

No, I don't think Brailsford leads towards the former. What he does is try to ENSURE that there is nothing (or as little as humanly possible) to encroach on 2 (i.e. doing things right) such that 1 (i.e. winning) is a natural consequence.

His aim is for the team and the management to facilitate the win for their rider; that the rider only has to worry about winning and not anything else.

It was an interesting show, though I'd have liked them to have concentrated on the team as a whole rather than Cav and Wiggins, but I guess it was about British cycling so I can't have it all.

As for Brad not enjoying the Tour, I think there is a difference between riding/leading and winning. I can assure you he very much enjoyed winning the Tour and all that comes with it, but that he did not enjoy riding/leading the Tour. He has often appeared fragile in stressful situations and if, for example, you look at the first week there was a lot of criticism of Wiggins for not managing his team very well in terms of protecting him. He's not a natural leader. He may be naturally outspoken or potty mouthed, but that doesn't make him a leader. On the track it was different: he always knew he was number one there. The TdF was still, irrespective of what happened in DL, TdR or PN, a further step into the unknown

 

[levione]

"Its all but impossible to prove that your clean but If you are then you have nothing to fear from accusations and certainly no reason to be angry that, understandably, peeps might be suspicious "

I totally disagree. I think if you work your hardest, win the biggest race in the world and people are whispering (pretty loudly) despite a lack of:

Positive tests or
Recorded conversations about doping or
Names found in files in labs or
witness statements by team mates/doctors etc or
anything of any substance at all...

You'd be pretty angry. I know I would. He rants- he's guilty. He keeps quiet- ah, a sign that he's guilty.

I'm not saying I know that he's clean. I'm just saying tha tthere is a large % of people on here who make up their minds and then interpret the evidence to fit their argument, no matter what it is.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I totally disagree. I think if you work your hardest, win the biggest race in the world and people are whispering (pretty loudly) despite a lack of:

Positive tests or
Recorded conversations about doping or
Names found in files in labs or
witness statements by team mates/doctors etc or
anything of any substance at all...

You'd be pretty angry. I know I would. He rants- he's guilty. He keeps quiet- ah, a sign that he's guilty.

Yes, I can see why he'd be pretty angry. But also, he should understand it. After all, he used to be one of the voices of those whispers within the péloton, with his talk about the 1% suspicion and all that. Geert Leinders is that 1%. So is Michael Rogers, who has been involved in a few dodgy shenanigans in his time. Maybe when he has more time to think, he can look at how the performance might have looked to a generation of cycling fans who grew up watching the EPO era, and think, even if he's clean, "yea, I can see why they might have balked at this even if I know that I've done nothing wrong". After all, Chris Froome tweeted that "cycling fans just have to get it into their heads that the sport has changed and this can be done clean now" (I'm paraphrasing here). One of the editors at Podium Café responded to him straight away with "clean cyclists have to get it into their heads that a quarter of a century of cheating colleagues has prevented them from having blind faith fans". Obviously it hasn't prevented them entirely - we have had plenty of arguments on here for Sky being clean on here, ranging from the pretty considered and rational, to the irrational arguments that amount to little more than "British people don't dope" and "he seems like a nice guy". But not being able to show, and definitely not wilfully showing, blind faith is what a lot of us are about, more than WANTING to hang Sky/Wiggins/Froome/whoever out to dry.

In the Tour, Wiggins and co were living in a goldfish bowl, sure, and that kind of pressure made it hard to smile and laugh it off like you might want them to, and they might be able to at better times. After all, if they ARE clean and they're riding like they did, i.e. so well that people couldn't possibly believe they were clean, it is one hell of a compliment when you think about it.

However, Wiggins hasn't been shy about drawing attention to inspiration from Lance or USPS in the past. Unfortunately, there are both positives and negatives to Lance/USPS, and by conflating himself with them, he may have been thinking about the positives, but he is inviting comparison to the negatives too. This isn't the kind of dot that it takes investigative journalism to find, this is him outright telling us those dots exist. It then seems a bit rich to consciously provide people with dots to join and then call them ****s and ******s when they join them, no?

 

[gheizhwinder]

Yes, I can see why he'd be pretty angry. But also, he should understand it.

To be fair, he says the same as that but the other way round:

I understand why I get asked those questions given the recent history of the sport, but it still annoys me.