Digger said:yes - I forgot, I should just lay back and take s h I t from the skybots on twitter non stop and say nothing...
We're not on Twitter now.
And you love it really
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Digger said:yes - I forgot, I should just lay back and take s h I t from the skybots on twitter non stop and say nothing...
SundayRider said:The paspport sure caught Armstrong and Horner and no doubt countless others didn't it?
TailWindHome said:Not really
My point was that those convinced that Wiggins doped in 2012 overstate their case with regard to his performances.
You responded by posting that in 1 year he transformed into a rider 'greater than' Armstrong. You then supported your assertion by posting evidence that he in fact finished (on the road) behind a 37 year old Armstrong.
By all means query his transformation, don't overstate it though.
Dear Wiggo said:Is that even 1%? Isn't the climb an hour or so? 22 / (58 x 60) = 0.6%
Puhlease.
Parker said:So Kohl said the passport helped him beat these tests based on all of 6 months of using it after which he got caught.
It almost seems like a line his drug dealer/doctor told him so he would keep buying his products.
And I don't know where these 199 tests came from
RownhamHill said:What about:
He's an all time great athlete who even in 2006, in the midst of endemic blood vector doping, managed to finish in the top twenty of various big time trials while riding clean, but obviously never had the motivation to chase GC cos he knew he couldn't compete over three weeks with blood bags and epo. But after the blood passport was introduced and blood vector doping was significantly reined back, speeds dropped and he found he finally could compete on talent and training alone. So he committed himself to the road and his results picked up.
.
Dear Wiggo said:I realise you mean 2009, not 2012, but still. Like your Ventoux example, taking all the things that happened into account, like the echelon split, the gap between Wiggins and Armstrong by the end of the Tour is statistically insignificant.
The 37 second difference is 0.01%.
This is not a clean Armstrong we're talking about here either.
But he said it would help him beat tests (CERA is just an EPO variant). So what went wrong? And where did these 199 tests come from? The same place as Armstrong's 500?Digger said:CERA nothing to do with passport...new test
TailWindHome said:Sure.
So don't overstate the 'Wiggins is a doper' case by making foolish assertions that he transformed into a rider greater than Armstrong in under a year.
Especially not if its only supported by a GC which shows him finishing behind Armstrong however slim the margin
What about it. Landis lost 10 minutes on La Toussuire, 8 to the leader, and he admits he was doping at the time. Ullrich lost 9 minutes to Pantani on Les deux alpes, and he retrospectively tested + for epo there.TailWindHome said:Sure
How about getting dropped on Ventoux for 22 secs?
The Hitch said:What about it. Landis lost 10 minutes on La Toussuire, 8 to the leader, and he admits he was doping at the time. Ullrich lost 9 minutes to Pantani on Les deux alpes, and he retrospectively tested + for epo there.
Wiggins on his worst day losing 22 seconds to Armstrong and 40 or whatever (seconds) to Contador really doesn't say very much
Dear Wiggo said:I didn't say he was better than Armstrong..
TailWindHome said:The Sceptic did.
the sceptic said:I would say his performance level was pretty close to Armstrong in that 2009 tour. And that is a gigantic jump in performance from the previous year.
To me, this can only be explained by doping. But if you have any theory as to how this could have been done clean, feel free to bring it up.
Who was better in mountains and ITTs of Wiggins and Armstrong?TailWindHome said:The Sceptic did.
the sceptic said:yes, its not possible to have such a huge leap in performance without doping.
at least I have yet to see any credible explanation for how he could go from autobus->armstrong in 1 year.
that said, I doubt the doping was masterminded by JV. He probably knew, or guessed, but Wiggins got the help from the outside imo.
Dear Wiggo said:Tailwindhome:
sceptic has written (with added spacing)
from autobus -> Armstrong.
this is not the same as Wiggins > Armstrong, but instead should be read as
from autobus up to Armstrong.
TailWindHome said:Maybe The Sceptic can clarify what he meant.
I've interpreted his post as 'greater than'
Armstrong. For both.Netserk said:Who was better in mountains and ITTs of Wiggins and Armstrong?
When they raced against each other.Parker said:Armstrong. For both.
I presume you mean the 99-05 Armstrong and not the 2009 ageing comeback version.
(Although if you go on Ventoux times the 2009 Armstrong version was the best ever)
RownhamHill said:You do know that USADA banned Armstrong recently for life, based in (small!) part on his blood values in the 2009 tour (one in a million chance of being clean apparently according to its reasoned decision). So possibly not the very strongest example you could have raised.
Dear Wiggo said:Incorrectly. As evidenced by his subsequent post, quoted for you twice now.
They did. And Armstrong - 37 and away from the Tour for four years - beat him. Of course, he had an expensively assembled team to ride on the front to control the pace so he wasn't too vunerable. If only Wiggins had that in 2012 so he could focus on beating people in TTs.Netserk said:When they raced against each other.