Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[zapata]

Ok that clears there was a certain level of suspicion directed at Wiggins, although a fraction of what there is now.

No, you're wrong. When wiggum finished 4th in the Tdf, people were VERY sceptical. Now, three years later, we have sort of gotten used to him being up there, but at that point, it was almost unthinkable.

 

[The Hitch]

Wiggins out performed LA in the TT but not in the mountains. LA took more time out of wiggins in the mountain stages than wiggins did out of LA.In fact it was only stage 15 that Wiggo took any signifcant time, LA out performed him after that by a good stretch.

I said he outperformed lance in tts and mountains meaning if we add itts and mountain stages wiggins wins.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Ok i take back the sycophant bit, it was a stupid comment, i aplogize.

As for proof reading i have 15000 post if i proof read every one i would be losing hours.

Wiggins finished behind armstrong in the gc due to a peloton split. Armstrong was on the back of the htc train when they split the peloton on stage 3. Wiggins contador schleck and everyone else was caught out and lost 40 seconds.
That wasnt armstrong being stronger just better ability to read the race.

The next day, thanks to having Contador Kloeden and Leipheimer Armstrong took further time on Wiggins and all the other contenders in the team time trial.

If we look at the actual tts and mountain stages Wiggins was stronger than Armstrong.

I was not a poster in 2009 no, i joined in June 2010.

I dont know about retro actively applying suspicions. I dont see why anyone who thinks he is a doper now would think he was clean in 2009.

The clinic is full of posters who think top 5 in the Tour is unachievable without some pharmaceutical aid and that was especially the case in 2009 and 2010, so the number of people who thought wiggins a doper back then would probably be quite large.

Thank you for taking the time to answer. I remember the split, awesome attack in the crosswinds by HTc and I remember Contador having a hissy fit over it. I also remember Lance dropping Wiggins desicively in the Alps later? Consigning him to 4th? I don't remember which stage.

He was riding for Garmin of course, and I know JV has said he is certain he wasn't doping at the time, although that counts for nothing here.

I think my issue remains the conviction by the clinic that he dopes. Yes I'll agree there is a possibility, but I also think we should be wary of certainty. There remains a good possibility that he rides clean. We know of his outspoken disgust in 2007 when he rode for Confidis, when he readily broke ranks and criticised fellow riders, I also know he is quieter on thjat front these days. Some see that as complicit, that somehow he was tainted by Lance in that Tour, that perhaps he joined the 'if you can't beat them join them' brigade, and I'll admit that this a possibility, but the other possibility remains. He isn't as fast, doesn't climb as well, he is a skeleton rather that an elephant and that he does has a good engine prior to his success on the toad,proven by his palmares on the track. That is my position: he success is easily explained by doping, but it is also explainable without. That creates a grey area that should not be guilty until proved innocent.

 

[noddy69]

I said he outperformed lance in tts and mountains meaning if we add itts and mountain stages wiggins wins.

No you said if we look at tts and mountain stages he outperformed Armstrong. Any normal person would take that as meaning he outperformed him on both fronts which he did not. In fact it was only in the TT where he did, why you would even add the mountains if you did not mean it is beyond me. Just say it was the TT where he got his time , no point in adding the mountains at all when he lost time to armstrong there. You started it

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Thank you for taking the time to answer. I remember the split, awesome attack in the crosswinds by HTc and I remember Contador having a hissy fit over it. I also remember Lance dropping Wiggins desicively in the Alps later? Consigning him to 4th? I don't remember which stage.

He was riding for Garmin of course, and I know JV has said he is certain he wasn't doping at the time, although that counts for nothing here.

I think my issue remains the conviction by the clinic that he dopes. Yes I'll agree there is a possibility, but I also think we should be wary of certainty. There remains a good possibility that he rides clean. We know of his outspoken disgust in 2007 when he rode for Confidis, when he readily broke ranks and criticised fellow riders, I also know he is quieter on thjat front these days. Some see that as complicit, that somehow he was tainted by Lance in that Tour, that perhaps he joined the 'if you can't beat them join them' brigade, and I'll admit that this a possibility, but the other possibility remains. He isn't as fast, doesn't climb as well, he is a skeleton rather that an elephant and that he does has a good engine prior to his success on the toad,proven by his palmares on the track. That is my position: he success is easily explained by doping, but it is also explainable without. That creates a grey area that should not be guilty until proved innocent.

I highlighted the revealing sentence and underscored the revealing word.

There is no collective opinion in The Clinic - there are many different opinions on different subjects - its a forum, it does not render decisions.
Nor have you any way of saying there is more suspicion now than in 09.

Some believe Wiggins, some don't - As you said "my issue", that's exactly what it is. Your issue.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I highlighted the revealing sentence and underscored the revealing word.

There is no collective opinion in The Clinic - there are many different opinions on different subjects - its a forum, it does not render decisions.
Nor have you any way of saying there is more suspicion now than in 09.

Some believe Wiggins, some don't - As you said "my issue", that's exactly what it is. Your issue.

Well done. As usual your modus operandi is to focus in on a small point and semantically dissemble it to try to render the larger argument ineffectual. Congrats, the fact remains there is a large weight of opinion, a significant number of posters here in this forum that has convicted Wiggins of doping absolutely. I am attempting to qualify that by saying there are no absolutes in this case: we cannot be certain he is doping, just as we cannot be certain he is not.

I look forward to what you highlight and underline from this to undermine my standpoint.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well done. As usual your modus operandi is to focus in on a small point and semantically dissemble it to try to render the larger argument ineffectual. Congrats, the fact remains there is a large weight of opinion, a significant number of posters here in this forum that has convicted Wiggins of doping absolutely. I am attempting to qualify that by saying there are no absolutes in this case: we cannot be certain he is doping, just as we cannot be certain he is not.

I look forward to what you highlight and underline from this to undermine my standpoint.

The small part is always the most revealing.

Nor does highlighting it "render the larger argument ineffectual" - because the rest was just stuff you made up because you believe that Wigins is viewed as a doper by The Clinic.
Did you do a survey of opinion? Can I see the results?

Anyone here is entitled to any opinion they may have - just as anyone else is allowed question it and make up their own mind.

 

[zapata]

Well done. As usual your modus operandi is to focus in on a small point and semantically dissemble it to try to render the larger argument ineffectual. Congrats, the fact remains there is a large weight of opinion, a significant number of posters here in this forum that has convicted Wiggins of doping absolutely. I am attempting to qualify that by saying there are no absolutes in this case: we cannot be certain he is doping, just as we cannot be certain he is not.

I look forward to what you highlight and underline from this to undermine my standpoint.

Strictly speaking, you cannot be certain of anything in existence. Things add up, though. Probabilities.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Strictly speaking, you cannot be certain of anything in existence. Things add up, though. Probabilities.

Isn't that what I just said?

 

[JimmyFingers]

The small part is always the most revealing.

Nor does highlighting it "render the larger argument ineffectual" - because the rest was just stuff you made up because you believe that Wigins is viewed as a doper by The Clinic.
Did you do a survey of opinion? Can I see the results?

Anyone here is entitled to any opinion they may have - just as anyone else is allowed question it and make up their own mind.

Then essentially you are saying nothing at all, just nit-picking

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Then essentially you are saying nothing at all, just nit-picking

Oh, I'm always nit-picking, always.
However if your previous posts had any substance then you would have been able to back up what you said by answering my questions.
Instead you decided to avoid it and not answer - the nit picky part of me knows that in itself is an answer.

 

[zapata]

Isn't that what I just said?

So, while I can not say with absolute certainty that wiggums is doping, I consider it highly probable. What say you? Clean/dirty/don't know?

 

[JimmyFingers]

So, while I can not say with absolute certainty that wiggums is doping, I consider it highly probable. What say you? Clean/dirty/don't know?

My opinion is that while doping in the modern peloton exists, the level are a long way south than supposed here, but a way north than is supposed by joe public. My opinion on Wiggins is that his performance isn't extraordinary and can be easily explained by him riding clean. Overall I believe he is riding clean, but I am open to other possibilities. It just requires greater levels of proof than this forum has so far provided

 

[JimmyFingers]

Oh, I'm always nit-picking, always.
However if your previous posts had any substance then you would have been able to back up what you said by answering my questions.
Instead you decided to avoid it and not answer - the nit picky part of me knows that in itself is an answer.

I struggle to see the questions in your posts tbh, they are an exercise in self-indulgence. You want me to run a survey? I am going on what I read here day-to-day, quantifying it for your benefit strikes me as a wasted exercise

 

[zapata]

My opinion is that while doping in the modern peloton exists, the level are a long way south than supposed here, but a way north than is supposed by joe public. My opinion on Wiggins is that his performance isn't extraordinary and can be easily explained by him riding clean. Overall I believe he is riding clean, but I am open to other possibilities. It just requires greater levels of proof than this forum has so far provided

Thankfully, it's not the job of this forum to provide proof. I look forward to wiggum being found out, in maybe ten or fifteen years time, and stripped of his titles. In the meantime, I try to enjoy cycling for what it is. (Admittedly, my main problem with wiggins is not that he's a doper, but that he's a boring and hypocritical doper.)

 

[JimmyFingers]

Thankfully, it's not the job of this forum to provide proof. I look forward to wiggum being found out, in maybe ten or fifteen years time, and stripped of his titles. In the meantime, I try to enjoy cycling for what it is. (Admittedly, my main problem with wiggins is not that he's a doper, but that he's a boring and hypocritical doper.)

See its that certainty I object to: you cannot for sure he is a doper, just as I cannot know for sure he is not. I admit that, you and many others in the clinic are prepared to stake their lives on the fact he is. I hope history proves he is clean and that your are wrong.

What we deal in here is opinions, not absolute truths. You are foolish indeed if you assert facts when you have none to back them up. It is a supposition, a theory that Sky/Wiggins are doping, nothing more. I may be wrong thinking they are clean, and I admit it, but so should you.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I struggle to see the questions in your posts tbh, they are an exercise in self-indulgence. You want me to run a survey? I am going on what I read here day-to-day, quantifying it for your benefit strikes me as a wasted exercise

See - that's what you are not doing. Because if you did you would see that some support him, some don't. All you see is the ones that don't.

By all means stick to defending the guy - but don't attempt to misrepresent that he is some persecuted figure - he isn't, and if he is clean then I would expect a more robust defense based on facts or answering relevant concerns like Leinders etc.

 

[zapata]

See its that certainty I object to: you cannot for sure he is a doper, just as I cannot know for sure he is not. I admit that, you and many others in the clinic are prepared to stake their lives on the fact he is. I hope history proves he is clean and that your are wrong.

What we deal in here is opinions, not absolute truths. You are foolish indeed if you assert facts when you have none to back them up. It is a supposition, a theory that Sky/Wiggins are doping, nothing more. I may be wrong thinking they are clean, and I admit it, but so should you.

Yeah, you're right, he's probably clean. At least I can't proove otherwise.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Yeah, you're right, he's probably clean. At least I can't proove otherwise.

That's not what I am saying,is it? I'm saying you can't be 100% certain he isn't

 

[zapata]

That's not what I am saying,is it? I'm saying you can't be 100% certain he isn't

And we're only allowed to discuss things if we're a 100% certain? Good to know.

 

[DirtyWorks]

See its that certainty I object to: you cannot for sure he is a doper, just as I cannot know for sure he is not.

I don't know about that. Inference can be a pretty powerful tool. To that end, my general opinion is he is likely doped, but his Grand Tour domestiques are very, very likely doped.

I admit that, you and many others in the clinic are prepared to stake their lives on the fact he is. I hope history proves he is clean and that your are wrong.

I too think you are reading this wrong. As I have PM'd Krebs Cycle, I will gladly admit I'm wrong if years from now the inevitable doping scandal doesn't strike. Not likely though. I don't think I'm alone either.

 

[ferryman]

My opinion is that while doping in the modern peloton exists, the level are a long way south than supposed here, but a way north than is supposed by joe public. My opinion on Wiggins is that his performance isn't extraordinary and can be easily explained by him riding clean. Overall I believe he is riding clean, but I am open to other possibilities. It just requires greater levels of proof than this forum has so far provided

OK. Please indulge me. Can you please easily explain to me how: Wiggins pre 2008 in any GT was pushing the broom wagon. Sat out 2008 on the road to win his trinkets on the track. Lets assume he took some time to 'relax' after the Olympics. So, in to winter training. And then 5 months later he has morphed into a super slim GT contender. Remember, easily, is your offer. Thanks.

 

[Darryl Webster]

For Jimmy Fingers, you wanna know how to spot dopers?..understand the advantages EPO and oxygen vector doping gives..cus the simple fact is that if someone is doing those things and finishing in the top 5 of a GT a clean rider cannot win. The doping advantages are to great.
For Wiggo to be clean the top 5 or even top ten have to be clean.
And I really don't think that's the case.

No bloody way could a clean Wiggo hang on to a doped Armstrong or Contador as he did for all but a very few k in the 2009 TDF.
He doped then and he doped this year.

 

[armchairclimber]

For Jimmy Fingers, you wanna know how to spot dopers?..understand the advantages EPO and oxygen vector doping gives..cus the simple fact is that if someone is doing those things and finishing in the top 5 of a GT a clean rider cannot win. The doping advantages are to great.
For Wiggo to be clean the top 5 or even top ten have to be clean.
And I really don't think that's the case.

No bloody way could a clean Wiggo hang on to a doped Armstrong or Contador as he did for all but a very few k in the 2009 TDF.
He doped then and he doped this year.

Actually, he was a clean rider putting in a performance that marked him out as a future champion in 2009. In 2012, with doping advantages mitigated to a fair degree, he just delivered on that promise. It's that simple. It's ironic really that a few clinicians don't understand the positive implications.
There's a good reason I guess...you discovered that your girlfriend was screwing someone else. You love her but you can't help checking up on her text messages and putting a keystroke logger on her laptop...no matter how much she says she loves you, you'll never ever feel the benefit. You'll always always imagine that she is cheating, even when she is just out on the lash with her mates. That's the real crime of Armstrong, the UCI and all the other cheating barstewards.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Actually, he was a clean rider putting in a performance that marked him out as a future champion in 2009. In 2012, with doping advantages mitigated to a fair degree, he just delivered on that promise. It's that simple. It's ironic really that a few clinicians don't understand the positive implications.
There's a good reason I guess...you discovered that your girlfriend was screwing someone else. You love her but you can't help checking up on her text messages and putting a keystroke logger on her laptop...no matter how much she says she loves you, you'll never ever feel the benefit. You'll always always imagine that she is cheating, even when she is just out on the lash with her mates. That's the real crime of Armstrong, the UCI and all the other cheating barstewards.

Simple question . Assuming your not naive enough to believe we now have a clean peoloton what % advantage do you think/ believe those Gt gc contenders that dope are gaining from doping above there natural clean ability ?
On what do you base your assertion that doping advantages are " mitigated" and what exactly do you mean by mitigated?