The Sky-Con-O-Meter. Predictions on how much more ridiculous they can get

[thehog]

Maybe its 20 minutes, it might even be 30.

Might be. We'll never know. But I know what I see and its doping.

 

[roundabout]

With vision like that, this forum woudn't even exist, and we would still be living in trees and throwing s**t at each other.

Oh wait....

Great retort. Especially, as it amounted to you doing the internet equivalent of the procedure you just described.

And I am not sure how you came to all that just because I thought Wiggins may be better in TT's now than he was 2-3 years ago.

 

[andy1234]

Might be. We'll never know. But I know what I see and its doping.

Whatever makes you a happy Hog.

 

[hrotha]

What like 2nd at 2011 World TT?
TdF 2010 stage 19 9th
TdF 2009 stage 18 6th
Giro 2009 stage 12 7th
Giro 2009 stage 21 2nd (admittedly shorter course)
Giro 2008 stage 21 4th

So there is plenty of form. Couple that with an injured TM and FC and it isn't the shock you are making it out to be.

Ermm, we're talking before his transformation. Again, he had shown he was a pretty good time-trialist, but not world class. Now he's world class, and also a vastly improved climber. That's the whole point.

 

[function]

60's Vuelta while a GT, is kind of a bad example being by far and a way the least mountainous of all grand tours back then.

Wait, scratch that. By far, far and a way the least mountainous. That's better.

Also, I see that Elliott finished 3rd. Hardly a sign of a tough route. And finally, 60's? Might as well use Coppi then. At least he could win Tours and Giros

So you really didn't mean GT, but the hilliest hardest TDF route?

 

[thehog]

Whatever makes you a happy Hog.

You can't make the Hog happy.

 

[roundabout]

So you really didn't mean GT, but the hilliest hardest TDF route?

I may have also not meant 20 years, but 50.

 

[The Valley]

What? How can you say that with a straight face? Wiggins was a good time-trialer up to 2008, not world-class. And that was his speciality, and he was already 28. Then he dropped some weight and somehow managed to improve both his climbing AND his time-trialing.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs?cat=sport&type=article

I urge you to read this, then have a think

 

[maxmartin]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs?cat=sport&type=article

I urge you to read this, then have a think

Is there any doper stupid enough to confess doing while still riding in the world tour?

 

[Shakes]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs?cat=sport&type=article

I urge you to read this, then have a think

Great point!

There is no incentive at all to dope. Most people would rather be a clean domestique, earning 70k per year, than a GT contender making multiple millions.

Men also don't cheat on their wives because it would cost them their family, it would cost his reputation and it is hard to live with the possibility of getting caught. No one would risk this! Especially Brits.

Now imagine cheating on your wife and getting a paycheck that is 20 times as big...

So I agree with you completely. Best article ever and it should convince everyone he does not cheat.

 

[taiwan]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs?cat=sport&type=article

I urge you to read this, then have a think

This is worth reading
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blo...iggins-dope-drugs?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs

What utter BS. No word on LA. And why did he refuse to have Kimmage on board?

Hypocrisy.

Every cliché in the book : http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs?newsfeed=true

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs

THAT'S the reason you don't dope? It's not a moral stance? It's not because you feel a dope-fueled "achievement" is hollow and meaningless, but because you might get caught?

Great piece indeed. Very revealing.

Those who have been wanting Brad to be clear on his stance:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs

Bradley Wiggins: I can never dope because it would cost me everything: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs

Good article. Almost turns a cynic like me into a believer... in Bradley that is, not in Rogers, Porte, Froome.

Edit: beaten like blood test.

..............

 

[thehog]

Great point!

There is no incentive at all to dope. Most people would rather be a clean domestique, earning 70k per year, than a GT contender making multiple millions.

Man also don't cheat on their wives because it would cost them their family, it would cost his reputation and it is hard to live with the possibility of getting caught. No one would risk this! Especially Brits.

Now imagine cheating on your wife and getting a paycheck that is 20 times as big...

So I agree with you completely. Best article ever and it should convince everyone he does not cheat.

I just forwarded Wiggins blog onto the banking industry. I predict a complete turn around in the markets tomorrow. Once they realise there is no incentive to bend the rules to make money because you might get caught they'll stop taking risks.

 

[Benotti69]

I just forwarded Wiggins blog onto the banking industry. I predict a complete turn around in the markets tomorrow. Once they realise there is no incentive to bend the rules to make money because you might get caught they'll stop taking risks.

It is a pity no one told all the other past dopers that there is no incentive to dope.

I predict Wiggins to become a world leader with this message, there is no incentive to cheat. It will bring world peace

 

[thehog]

It is a pity no one told all the other past dopers that there is no incentive to dope.

I predict Wiggins to become a world leader with this message, there is no incentive to cheat. It will bring world peace

Yes I think the UCI now provide a handbook to all cyclists which tells them about everything they could lose if they dope. The UCI doesn’t print French or Italian versions because you can come back and be a hero if you were born in those countries.

After the Tour Wiggins will speak at the UN convention in New York to world leaders about his modern day philosophies. The French and Italian delegates will be asked to step outside when he speaks.

 

[hrotha]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs?cat=sport&type=article

I urge you to read this, then have a think

I read it when it came out. I had a think. Then I made that post. Your move!

 

[JRTinMA]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jul/13/bradley-wiggins-dope-drugs?cat=sport&type=article

I urge you to read this, then have a think

This should properly address the doubters. Everything but "you want to know what I'm on? I'm on my bike 7 hours..."

 

[will10]

This should properly address the doubters. Everything but "you want to know what I'm on? I'm on my bike 7 hours..."

Lance had "would never do drugs cos I had cancer", Wiggins has "I have too much to lose through doping". Lance had matured tubulars, Wiggins has non-round chainrings. Lance did 6hrs on Christmas Day, Wiggins has his swimming coach. The wheel turns, nothing is ever new.

 

[xcleigh]

Might be. We'll never know. But I know what I see and its doping.

So you'll never know how much time wiggins has improved but you do know it's as a result of doping based on watching TV. Genius.

 

[BroDeal]

This should properly address the doubters. Everything but "you want to know what I'm on? I'm on my bike 7 hours..."

I cannot wait for the next magical transformation, which will come about from being on the bike eight hours a day.

"I am on my bike eight hours a day. All the slackers before me would only put in seven hours. Some of the really lazy ones would only do six. I am the first cyclist to put in a full day's work for a full day's pay. Now I am reaping the benefits."

 

[enCYCLOpedia]

Do your homework.

2007 TDF stage 13 Albi TT. 54km

Take out Vino and Kashechkin, who were caught doping, and Wiggins is a top 3 finisher....in a tour de france time trial.....5 years ago.

Wow, he's really made a huge leap in 5 years.

1.VINOKOUROV A.AST1h 06' 34"
2.EVANS C.PRL0 1' 14"
3.KLÖDEN A.AST0 1' 39"
4.KASHECHKIN A.AST0 1' 44"
5.WIGGINS B.COF 02' 14"
6.POPOVYCH Y.DSC 02' 16"
7.CONTADOR A.DSC 02' 18"
8.CHAVANEL S.COF 02' 38"
9.LEIPHEIMER L.DSC 02' 39"
10.ASTARLOZA M.EUS 02' 42"

Actually, take out Contador (Clenbuterol 2010) as well. And Leipheimer (Ephedrine 1996) and Astarloza (EPO 2009). And these are just the other guys who got cought, along with Vino and Kashechkin. So, better also take out Kloeden (clearly named in Freiburg documents) and Popovych (alleged to have doped by Landis with the USPS team, and a client of Ferrari). Just proves what a class act Wiggins is, beating all the dopers.

 

[Riek s]

I cannot wait for the next magical transformation, which will come about from being on the bike eight hours a day.

"I am on my bike eight hours a day. All the slackers before me would only put in seven hours. Some of the really lazy ones would only do six. I am the first cyclist to put in a full day's work for a full day's pay. Now I am reaping the benefits."

Yeah, that would explain how good lance would be with his training.. That guy went morning training during the dauphine before the raceday started.. He must at least training 9hours or more! .

Wonder when someone will throw out: "doping gives better recuperation allowing a more intensive trainingshedule.. how come you could increase yours by 120% seeing your results?"

 

[thehog]

Yeah, that would explain how good lance would be with his training.. That guy went morning training during the dauphine before the raceday started.. He must at least training 9hours or more! .

Wonder when someone will throw out: "doping gives better recuperation allowing a more intensive trainingshedule.. how come you could increase yours by 120% seeing your results?"

Yes I wish someone would actually define what “hard work” and “determination” actually means in training terms. If winning was purely based on number of hours on a bike surely you could train 20 hours per day and win? Or is that too much? I wonder at what point that training for longer becomes counterproductive? Same goes for training harder. How much harder everyday do you need to train harder for to be a winner. Or can you train too hard? And again it becomes counterproductive.

I think the answers can be found in Tenerife.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Who said anything about the rest of the peloton being out of shape?

You did. You certainly imply it with declaring the 2012 TdF peloton weak/slow/non-selective pace/low wattage/etc. Now is where you deny it, right?

And I never got an answer as to what exactly constitutes "evidence" of Sky doping. Specifics please.

 

[The Valley]

I read it when it came out. I had a think. Then I made that post. Your move!

Okay, I'll bite.

We are all - I guess - fans of cycling, otherwise we wouldn't be here. We have all, at some point or another, put our faith in riders that have turned out to have cheated. Most of us figured out that through the 1990s, something very, very dodgy was going on in our sport. It was corrupted through to the core, and the very few riders who were clean (Chris Boardman being one of the only ones I can name from that era) had almost no chance.

I know I've pointed the finger at riders in the past, usually with a lot of good evidence when the p*** has truly been taken (Berzin, Museeuw, Escartin, Botero, Rominger, Jalabert, the truly reprehensible Lance Armstrong, etc.), sometimes without much evidence to go on (Nibali, Rodriguez, Cobo, Pozzato - the last one recently came up trumps).

I also know that in a way, cyclists have brought a lot of this stuff on themselves, through the years of lying, cheating, doping...it gets so surreal, you've even got riders who are lying about not lying, riders who have got so used to lying that they almost - almost - believe their own lies. Riders who have stopped so low as to use their own children as part of their lies (Basso, when his dog's name turned up in Operacion Puerto and he told journalists that it couldn't refer to him, "ask my daughter what name her dog is").

But despite all the idiocy, I still had a glimmer of hope that things would change - it had to, or the sport would have died. It was hanging by the slimmest of slim threads for a long time, but things have started to change, with riders like Cadel Evans, Mark Cavendish and, yes, Bradley Wiggins, who I have no doubt are clean.

So, back to Sky. They had a very strong anti-doping message right from the off, they refused to hire any riders or team members who ever had anything to do with doping (which is why they won't hire David Millar - thankfully), and Bradley Wiggins has consistently spoken out against dopers. Dave Brailsford is flinty-eyed with determination to win the Tour clean.

And on to Bradley Wiggins. As I've said elsewhere, what it comes down to in the end is character. A rider either chooses to dope, or they don't. Anyone who thinks that Bradley Wiggins is doping is a truly appalling judge of character - in fact, if you've followed his career, seen him interviewed numerous times, heard what he's got to say, and you think he's a doping cheat, I would go so far as to say you're either very, very thick, or have some kind of autism.

It IS possible to win the Tour clean, as Cadel Evans demonstrated last year, and whilst I'm under no illusion that every rider in the peloton is clean, the number of dopers is, I believe, far, far fewer now than it has been at any time for maybe the last twenty years.

I know some people don't care how victory is achieved. Some people genuinely think winning at all costs is something to be admired - some people think that if you cheat and get away with it, you're a hero. I'm not one of them. It's why I don't watch football - it's a sport where cheating is not only tolerated by the fans and the governing bodies, it's actually encouraged. Take a dive, win a penalty - hero? Not for me. I think that if you engage in sporting competition, you agree to abide by the rules of that competition, and if you cheat, you're worth nothing. A zero. A disgrace to yourself and your family.

So that's where I'm coming from - you can agree or disagree, of course, and ultimately I suppose the only people who really, truly know whether they are doping or not are the dopers and the people administering drugs to them. But Bradley Wiggins, doping cheat? No.

 

[Franklin]

So, back to Sky. They had a very strong anti-doping message right from the off, they refused to hire any riders or team members who ever had anything to do with doping (which is why they won't hire David Millar - thankfully), and Bradley Wiggins has consistently spoken out against dopers.

In which parallel universe does this occur???

I'll be gentle here and break you the facts.

1. Sky has no strong anti-doping stance.
2. Sky hired dodgy persons who had very much connections with doping. To drive this one home: check out Sean yates before you embarrass yourself even more. And let's not get started about Leinders.
3. Bradley is not very consistent due to his immense love for Lance even though the amount of evidence is beyond hilarious.

Now this was the foundation of your argument. So all what is left is that you are a believer who denies the facts. Not the best position in a discussion.