Parker said:Basically, the things you demonise him for are:
3. Backing his friends in an argument (Barry)
you mean, the guy who rode that Hamilton World Championship like a different rider?
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!
Parker said:Basically, the things you demonise him for are:
3. Backing his friends in an argument (Barry)
blackcat said:you mean, the guy who rode that Hamilton World Championship like a different rider?
Digger said:
the sceptic said:this guy is probably a prophet on BikeRetard. cant believe its possible for people to be this dumb. jeez.
Digger said:I’ve always been a bit of a fan of Lance and have sided on the side of innocent until proven guilty with him. There isn’t an athlete or a cyclist out there that isn’t more tested than he is, certainly since his comeback, he’s probably been the most tested cyclist in the pro peloton and you take that on face value and that he’s never failed a drugs test and until he does he’s clean. That’s how I’ve always had as a stance on Lance.”
RobbieCanuck said:The fallacy of your belief...
RobbieCanuck said:The fallacy of your belief is that LA intentionally set out to beat the tests, by hiring Ferrari to teach him and his team-mates how to cleanse the PEDs from their bodies before a test. In some cases in LAs case it almost didn't work as when he was caught in the Tour de Suisse and when Hincapie warned him off a test so LA withdrew from a race. He was also caught in the 1999 tour with cortisone and scrambled to get a questionable TUE.
WADA, and all the national anti-doping agencies are aware or should be aware that cyclists who cheat have to find ways to beat the tests and therefore consult doctors, pharmacologists, and perhaps physiotherapists to learn how to do so. They are not so naïve as to believe beating tests is by any measure the mark of a clean cyclist. Marion Jones in the USA is the classic example of a doping test beater. (The UCI, Verbruggen and McQuaid are probably exceptions to this understanding)
The fact someone beats a test is hardly a reasonable basis on which to conclude a cyclist is not doping. Therefore it is hardly a basis for saying a cyclist is clean because he hasn't failed a drug test. A cheating cyclist knows s/he has to learn the physiology of beating a test and that is why dopers beat tests.
There is a plethora of evidence for this in the admissions of dopers, books written by dopers and USADA's reasoned decision on Armstrong alone.
Parker said:Basically, the things you demonise him for are:
1. Changing his mind as facts and time change (2007-2012)
2. Being diplomatic and not inserting himself into an argument (Not calling everyone dopers)
3. Backing his friends in an argument (Barry)
4. Not trusting the motives of people who have previously slagged him off. (Kimmage)
Basically he's human. Are you?
I was quoting word for word what wiggins said about lance!!RobbieCanuck said:The fallacy of your belief is that LA intentionally set out to beat the tests, by hiring Ferrari to teach him and his team-mates how to cleanse the PEDs from their bodies before a test. In some cases in LAs case it almost didn't work as when he was caught in the Tour de Suisse and when Hincapie warned him off a test so LA withdrew from a race. He was also caught in the 1999 tour with cortisone and scrambled to get a questionable TUE.
WADA, and all the national anti-doping agencies are aware or should be aware that cyclists who cheat have to find ways to beat the tests and therefore consult doctors, pharmacologists, and perhaps physiotherapists to learn how to do so. They are not so naïve as to believe beating tests is by any measure the mark of a clean cyclist. Marion Jones in the USA is the classic example of a doping test beater. (The UCI, Verbruggen and McQuaid are probably exceptions to this understanding)
The fact someone beats a test is hardly a reasonable basis on which to conclude a cyclist is not doping. Therefore it is hardly a basis for saying a cyclist is clean because he hasn't failed a drug test. A cheating cyclist knows s/he has to learn the physiology of beating a test and that is why dopers beat tests.
There is a plethora of evidence for this in the admissions of dopers, books written by dopers and USADA's reasoned decision on Armstrong alone.
gooner said:Is the comment I posted strong doubt on Wiggins part with Contador?
Yes or no. Simple answer.
I already knew and acknowledged Wiggins's comment that you referred to.
Parker said:Basically, the things you demonise him for are:
1. Changing his mind as facts and time change (2007-2012)
2. Being diplomatic and not inserting himself into an argument (Not calling everyone dopers)
3. Backing his friends in an argument (Barry)
4. Not trusting the motives of people who have previously slagged him off. (Kimmage)
Basically he's human. Are you?
LaFlorecita said:In which category do his comments on Contador and Lance fall? AFAIK they're not his friends and neither is he just being diplomatic.
Digger said:
bobbins said:What an utter, utter cretin.
He could be any on the Johnny come lately 'journalists' in the same vein as Richard Moore who are trying to protect the golden egg laying goose.
With people like that following the sport, there is no hope for professional cycling.
bobbins said:What an utter, utter cretin.
He could be any on the Johnny come lately 'journalists' in the same vein as Richard Moore who are trying to protect the golden egg laying goose.
With people like that following the sport, there is no hope for professional cycling.
Some Brits love freedom of speech:Digger said:
JimmyFingers said:Good post, pragmatic and realistic, and not expecting Wiggins to be some evangelical anti-doping crusader. Of course when a rider does call another one out, chances are the clinic will turn on them, like they did with Kittel, saying he was '****ting in the pool' for calling out a rider that was popped three months later. He can't win this one, let them enjoy a further round of prejudice.
Oh, god. "You can't expect him to be a saint" The most pathetic line of argument in the history of debate. Used to justify and euphemize absolutely any action from people who are more willing to abandon all moral principle rather than aknowledge the opponent has a point.evangelical anti-doping crusader.
gooner said:He deserves huge criticism for the Lance one but I strongly disagree with the Contador one. Wiggins is an idiot but I notice a theme here where one line of his statements are produced to push a certain position while at the same time not taking what he has said elsewhere to judge him more appropriately.
Wiggins holds Armstrong up as his ideal. He used to drink more than a fair bit. After winning gold in 2004, he was snapped up by a French racing team.
“I was drunk all the time between races because I was alone in France, 21, 22-years old,” Wiggins said. “The only thing to do at night was to buy a six-pack of beer.”
Six pack? Drunk? Well, there’s another benefit of being skinny as a rail – you can never drink yourself into the poorhouse.
In an effort to push himself to the very top, Wiggins tried to morph into Armstrong. In 2008, he began copying the Texan’s routine, down to the minutest detail.
The training never really stopped. Phsyios and dieticians constantly surrounded him. He would spend long moments in the mirror, bemoaning the size of his (non-existent) gut.
. But perhaps the most important lesson was about suffering, about toughing it out, and later on in the year he would learn a big secret about suffering from one of cycling’s greats.
It was Lance Armstrong and it happened during the Tour de France. Armstrong told Wiggins that everyone in the front group on a mountain of a Grand Tour was three minutes from letting go. That was the key to climbing at the sharp end, take it in three-minute segments. That must have helped. For a man who can ride 560 watts for four and a quarter minutes, three minutes is a good number to hold on to.
By then though Sutton reckons that Lance Armstrong had already played another role in Wiggins’ breakthrough as a Grand Tour rider. “It was in the Giro. Brad went there wanting to do a good ride overall. He didn’t really know how he would go in the mountains, but on one the first big days he went past Armstrong on a climb. That was very important to him. He’s a fan, imagine you’re a fan and you ride past the seven-times Tour winner on a mountain and drop him. The moment it happened Brad’s wife Cath was on the phone to me, “Brad’s dropped Lance,” she says. Then straight after the stage he’s on as well, “I rode past Lance.” He was like a school kid but it was a very big deal, and his confidence and commitment went up again.
But Bradley Wiggins wasn’t carrying seven kilos of fat when he won two Olympic gold medals in 2008. Photographs of him this year show that he’s lost muscle from his upper body. 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? “First of all, Bradley wasn’t doing the kind of work that builds upper body muscle any more. Track starts for the pursuit and team pursuit are crucial and are practised a lot. They are a very high load exercise for the upper body muscles, so those muscle weren’t getting that big exercise stimulus any more.
“Overall I didn’t do anything too aggressive with Brad,” Mitchell says. “We started in November 2008 and he bought into the plan slowly, and only mentally kicked in fully about April or May, but that’s still a long time to lose some weight. Steve Cummings used a very aggressive catabolic diet to get rid of upper body muscle last winter, but he wanted to do it over a very short period. Everybody at BC has done that diet for a day or two for specific reasons in the past, but with Brad this was spread over a much longer time, so we could take it steadily.
“We looked at matching his diet to his training, not just broadly but very precisely. Training creates a dietary need because adaptations in response to training are driven by protein synthesis, so it was a matter of matching the right nutrients in the right load to each training session and not over-swamping anything. Then we included trace nutrients to protect the body, and that is where the advances have been made and where I really can’t be specific, but by using these it‘s possible to go quite low on calorie intake and still build muscle.
The Hitch said:Here's an article from the author of "Long Race to GloryThe Long Race to Glory. How the British Came to Rule the Cycling World"
Written, 20 days before Lance loses his TDF's
http://www.chrissidwells.com/archive/aug-1-2012.html
Interviewer : A few years ago you were speaking in horror struck terms about how difficult the mountains are, how have you surmounted that.
BW: Hard work. Ultimately what it comes down to is how hard you want to work.
People like Andy Schleck have said - you've peaked too early, that its an amazing acheivement that you've won all these races, no one's done that, but you can't keep on being be this good
Digger said:funny you should mention moore - he told me he'd see me in court last fedruary 12mths when I said he wasn't honest in his writings about sky.