Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Havetts]

1. 'there character'? do you mean 'their character'?
2. Ex wife diagnosed by TP, a leading psychiatrist

Falling back to pointing out spelling and grammatical mistakes, strong arguments there buddy.

 

[ianfra]

Falling back to pointing out spelling and grammatical mistakes, strong arguments there buddy.

True. That's because I do not have to justify myself when I know 100% that what I say is correct and the poster I responded to posted on the basis of no knowledge whatsoever. So I enjoyed doing that. I then went off and rode my bike 110k - that's more healthy than being obsessed, I guess, with peeps who know nothing but assume everything.

 

[thehog]

1. 'there character'? do you mean 'their character'?
2. Ex wife diagnosed by TP, a leading psychiatrist

From the guy who puts a hyphen in "sociopath".

LOL!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Funny, i went to get a picture of wiggins first "biography" which has lance on it of course,

This one?

 

[JimmyFingers]

There we have it all in a nutshell: Wiggins is forever tainted by Lance. The level of transference of resentment towards Lance onto Wiggins is huge. That and the fact Wiggins is obnoxious.

FYI Wiggins isn't guilty of what Lance did. Lancey-boy did all that by himself. Just putting that out there.

 

[thehog]

There we have it all in a nutshell: Wiggins is forever tainted by Lance. The level of transference of resentment towards Lance onto Wiggins is huge. That and the fact Wiggins is obnoxious.

FYI Wiggins isn't guilty of what Lance did. Lancey-boy did all that by himself. Just putting that out there.

His first biography had an intro to Lance. Now been removed.

According to your Vaughters Wiggins knew exactly how Lance achieved his success.

 

[workingclasshero]

There we have it all in a nutshell: Wiggins is forever tainted by Lance. The level of transference of resentment towards Lance onto Wiggins is huge. That and the fact Wiggins is obnoxious.

more than enough for me anyway

 

[JimmyFingers]

'The rider everyone loves to hate'

 

[SundayRider]

Does anyone actually think that a clean Wiggins is talented enough to lose only ~30 seconds to a doped Armstrong over a 3 week race...

 

[coinneach]

Does anyone actually think that a clean Wiggins is talented enough to lose only ~30 seconds to a doped Armstrong over a 3 week race...

Yep, I do. Armstrong at that stage was still doping, but he had turned it down, and was way past his peak.

And as has been estabished in the thread on Dan Martin, talented clean riders can sometimes beat mediocre dopers, so long as the dope isn't major.

 

[thehog]

Yep, I do. Armstrong at that stage was still doping, but he had turned it down, and was way past his peak.

And as has been estabished in the thread on Dan Martin, talented clean riders can sometimes beat mediocre dopers, so long as the dope isn't major.

Established by whom?

In a GT?

You are a believer. Praise The Lord!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Yep, I do. Armstrong at that stage was still doping, but he had turned it down, and was way past his peak.

And as has been estabished in the thread on Dan Martin, talented clean riders can sometimes beat mediocre dopers, so long as the dope isn't major.

Way past his peak, toned it down, but standing on the podium of the Tour.

In a one day race, yes, I'll accept a clean rider can get near a doped one.

In a 3 week race? Where the stages are up to 200+ km in length? And the doped rider is recharging and doping recovery? No way, not buying it.

 

[SundayRider]

Yep, I do. Armstrong at that stage was still doping, but he had turned it down, and was way past his peak.

And as has been estabished in the thread on Dan Martin, talented clean riders can sometimes beat mediocre dopers, so long as the dope isn't major.

Whatever anyone thinks of LA I don't think 'mediocre doper' is something he can be called. 4yrs out of the pro ranks he was clearly still doping heavily to finish 3rd.

 

[zalacain]

Now, wasn't the British Empire sustained by the Colonies?

Perhaps, we should just think of the rest of the team as the British Expeditionary Force.

Not even colonials unless you are counting Danny as one.

The nine-man squad comprises Wiggins, two Italians (Dario Cataldo and Salvatore Puccio), two Colombians (Sergio Henao and Rigoberto Uran) one Belarusian (Kanstantsin Siutsou), one German (Christian Knees), one Spaniard (Xabier Zandio) and one American (Danny Pate).

 

[coinneach]

Whatever anyone thinks of LA I don't think 'mediocre doper' is something he can be called. 4yrs out of the pro ranks he was clearly still doping heavily to finish 3rd.

I agree, and sorry for any confusion:

I used the term "mediocre doper" to mean a mediocre rider who responds well to dope.

Lance wasn't doing that tour to bear Wiggins: if that had been his aim, he'd have beaten him by more than 30 seconds

 

[RownhamHill]

Funny, i went to get a picture of wiggins first "biography" which has lance on it of course, and theres 2 tiny pictures of it, too small to use, but loads of a new cover which has wiggins without lance of course. funny

.

I'm assuming you haven't ever worked in book publishing, or have any idea about how it works - apologies if that isn't a fair assumption. But you do realise that the choice of photo on the cover will have been taken in almost all probability by the commissioning editor/publisher, in very close consultation with the publisher's marketing department, and probably tested on a BLAD with prospective industry buyers at the London Book Fair? And this will all have been done with the sole goal of absolutely trying to maximise its appeal to the prospective audience, in an effort to make more prospective buyers pick the book up, and ultimately buy it in shops? And that it will have had very little, if anything at all, to do with the 'author' (if you can consider Wiggins the author in any meaningful sense) I'm guessing they probably sent it to his agent for approval?

And you probably are aware (as you know a lot about cycling) that in 2009, among the majority of the 'cycle book buying public' Lance Armstrong could still be considered as 'cycle porn'.

So, given the observation of how book publishing actually works, coupled with an observation of Lance Armstrong's marketability in 2009 and the relative status of Bradley Wiggins, do you think that it surprising that the marketing department chose a photo that had Lance on the cover? And given the relative changes in status of both Lance Armstrong and Brad Wiggins throughout 2012, do you also think it surprising that the same marketing people might have chosen a photo without Lance on it for the 2012 Christmas market? And what's more, do you think either of the observable decisions about covers, made primarily by the publisher's marketing people, say anything meaningful at all about Brad Wiggins attitudes to doping, Lance, or whether or not he doped?

 

[mattghg]

There we have it all in a nutshell: Wiggins is forever tainted by Lance. The level of transference of resentment towards Lance onto Wiggins is huge. That and the fact Wiggins is obnoxious.

FYI Wiggins isn't guilty of what Lance did. Lancey-boy did all that by himself. Just putting that out there.

True, but Hitch's point about how Wiggins won't admit that he was wrong still stands up:

An honest person when they make a mistake say - yep i made a mistake. Heres why i did it...... I was wrong, im sorry

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

And you probably are aware (as you know a lot about cycling) that in 2009, among the majority of the 'cycle book buying public' Lance Armstrong could still be considered as 'cycle porn'.

Then Katie Price would have been a good alternative

But I agree, it is not quite fair to attack Wiggo on a book cover, he just wanted to sell, sell, sell. Just like when he went to Team ManU instead of staying with Team Wigan, knowing what he knew about Armstrong after Verbier and after Ventoux; ''a different man''.

I see a pattern

 

[Benotti69]

Does anyone actually think that a clean Wiggins is talented enough to lose only ~30 seconds to a doped Armstrong over a 3 week race...

Not during a 3 week race where we know that Armstrong can dope without fear.

 

[The Hitch]

I agree, and sorry for any confusion:

I used the term "mediocre doper" to mean a mediocre rider who responds well to dope.

Lance wasn't doing that tour to bear Wiggins: if that had been his aim, he'd have beaten him by more than 30 seconds

Think before you post. Lance wanted to podium. His main contender turned out to be Wiggins. Yes, he was trying to beat Wiggins. And whatsmore lance only managed to beat wiggins because of a wind split and a ttt.

 

[SundayRider]

Think before you post. Lance wanted to podium. His main contender turned out to be Wiggins. Yes, he was trying to beat Wiggins. And whatsmore lance only managed to beat wiggins because of a wind split and a ttt.

Wiggo is so talented he can more or less match a blood doped Armstrong over a 3 week GT

 

[goggalor]

This one?

Sweet wristband.

 

[SundayRider]

Sweet wristband.

Didn't he tell one of the young Sky riders to 'get that f****** thing off' or words to that effect?

 

[Netserk]

That was when it was no longer cool to drink the kool aid.

 

[Schwartzchov]

And as has been estabished in the thread on Dan Martin, talented clean riders can sometimes beat mediocre dopers, so long as the dope isn't major.

That MAY hold true for a one day classic. But over the course of a three week grand tour that premise seems highly improbable if not impossible with a drop in hematocrit levels, fatigue etc. Wiggins shed some weight between the Giro and the Tour in 2009 and all of a sudden he is fighting it out for the first time in his career with the heavyweights of world cycling in the mother of all cycling races the Tour De France. Here is a guy, one of the last riders one would have ever envisaged to win the Tour De France. Who proclaimed (written in Paul Kimmages book rough ride) after the first mountain stage of the Tour in 2006; Quote; "there was one stage when I thought, what the hell am I doing here".

Have a look at the top 10 from the final general classification of the 2009 Tour. Who do we have ? Well a list of dopers. Contador, Frank Schleck, the now disqualified Armstrong. Andreas Kloden, Christian Vande Velde. Roman Kreuziger ??. There is only one logical conclusion that can be drawn from this. Everyone knows what that is (should know what that conclusion is). It cannot be proven. But from this perspective alone (and there are other examples). It does not look good for Wiggins.