Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[SundayRider]

Everyone already knew he was going to win that one. It was almost as if it was planned ahead. What better way to promote british cycling than having Wiggo win right before the London olympics?

They probably planned the whole thing with Zorzoli ahead of time. He gave the green light to go full mutant and promised no positives. All the other teams had no idea what was going on when sky rode in front for hours at 450w. Even Basso was impressed and he has seen it all.

Yeah we all know that. I just meant it was a bit strange for him to say that.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

In cycling weight makes a much bigger difference than height.

Well ok. They were talking about his chances at PR based on his size. Well Curious George was a big boy 1.91m 6ft 3 3/16 in tall and he had no chance in hell to win PR.

Could have been more about maybe Wiggans knees are more aerodynamic dynamic than Curious George's. "marginal gain"

 

[thehog]

Yeah we all know that. I just meant it was a bit strange for him to say that.

He knew what he was "suppose" to do. Which was follow the Sky train at 450w for the entire course and win the two TTs.

He held yellow for almost the entire Tour! It was the most boring TDF in history and very predictable.

Everyone was lined up prior, ASO, UCI, anti-doping etc. How could he not win?

 

[sniper]

Yeah we all know that. I just meant it was a bit strange for him to say that.

I think he was told as much when he signed for Sky.
Classic slip of the tongue here.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Is this another "What are you doing here causing disruption" type of remark? I find the Clinic very interesting and I reserve the right to comment if I wish. I am not willing to be cross-questioned just because others seek to insist but I am entitled to my point of view, even here. When you set on someone personally that's a form of bullying that even in the Clinic is out of order.

Tell me if I am wrong, by all means. Show me the rule.

Well I don't know in this specific instance that you replied to it was a bullying remark. But you will catch a bit of that here just remember the rules brah.

1st RULE: You do not talk about CLINIC.
2nd RULE: You DO NOT talk about CLINIC.
3rd RULE: If someone says "stop" or goes troll, full cleans the convo is over.
4th RULE: Only two guys gang up on another member claiming rider is cleans.
5th RULE: One thread at a time.
6th RULE: No never tested positive, no tranquillo.
7th RULE: Threads will go on as long as they have to.
8th RULE: If this is your first thread for cleans at CLINIC, you HAVE to dig deep for proof of cleans.

 

[wrinklyvet]

I was just wondering.
It's a fact that many come here to troll and deflect away from the view that Sky are doping.
Objectively, some of your posts give that impression, but it's reassuring to hear from you that you're not one of them.

Thank you but partly you misunderstand. I don't think it's absolutely necessary to believe that in order to be able to post. Those members who believe that it's a prerequisite are surely mistaken. What is the fun, entertainment or interest in sitting in a room with a load of people who all believe and think exactly the same things as yourself? Is that kind of reinforcement necessary?

At the end of the day, I don't believe I am trolling. In my book trolling is a form of wind-up. That's not my intention but I do laugh when you all get together to share an attitude that allows for no compromise.

This is what it says on the top of this section, "The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures." It doesn't say you should only post here if you first accept as fact that Sky (or anyone else) are doping. I do accept that an open mind is the least that one should have, even if the rules don't require one.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Well I don't know in this specific instance that you replied to it was a bullying remark. But you will catch a bit of that here just remember the rules brah.

1st RULE: You do not talk about CLINIC.
2nd RULE: You DO NOT talk about CLINIC.
3rd RULE: If someone says "stop" or goes troll, full cleans the convo is over.
4th RULE: Only two guys gang up on another member claiming rider is cleans.
5th RULE: One thread at a time.
6th RULE: No never tested positive, no tranquillo.
7th RULE: Threads will go on as long as they have to.
8th RULE: If this is your first thread for cleans at CLINIC, you HAVE to dig deep for proof of cleans.

Gosh! Thanks "brah."

 

[the sceptic]

He knew what he was "suppose" to do. Which was follow the Sky train at 450w for the entire course and win the two TTs.

He held yellow for almost the entire Tour! It was the most boring TDF in history and very predictable.

Everyone was lined up prior, ASO, UCI, anti-doping etc. How could he not win?

Imagine if Dawg had done one of his absurd mutant attacks and won that tour. That would have been incredible.

 

[thehog]

Imagine if Dawg had done one of his absurd mutant attacks and won that tour. That would have been incredible.

They needed to pull back his drugs, Dawg was getting itchy and wanted to go full ***. Wiggins even with his drugs couldn't beat Froome with his gear.

Funniest thing I've seen in cycling in a long time. There used to be a thread on the most ridiculous doping performance. Froome at the 2012 needed to be added into that hall of infamy.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Gosh! Thanks "brah."

Hey this has been happening here for a long time. GO back way back and check out some of the older threads, with respect to other cyclist.

Some history here.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

They needed to pull back his drugs, Dawg was getting itchy and wanted to go full ***. Wiggins even with his drugs couldn't beat Froome with his gear.

Funniest thing I've seen in cycling in a long time. There used to be a thread on the most ridiculous doping performance. Froome at the 2012 needed to be added into that hall of infamy.

That tour everyone had the feeling that da Dawg was not let out. "who let the Dawg out" -------- then they unleashed da beast and can't contain him or his old girl.

"its all in the science" as well as "its all in the marginal gain"

gotts to keep gaining.

 

[sniper]

Thank you but partly you misunderstand. I don't think it's absolutely necessary to believe that in order to be able to post. Those members who believe that it's a prerequisite are surely mistaken. What is the fun, entertainment or interest in sitting n a room with a load of people who all believe and think exactly the same things as yourself? Is that kind of reinforcement necessary?

agreed and good point.

What I find suspect is when posters are deliberately being disingenuous e.g. by ignoring the history of the sport.
The history of the sport is evidence, if you like it or not.
History informs us that it's better not to go to war because there will likely be casualties.
History also informs us that it's better not to trust winners of the TdF because they are likely to be doped.
You giving Wiggins the benefit of the doubt, in spite of so much (historical and present) indications to the contrary, I dunno, it's just hard to see why...

At the end of the day, I don't believe I am trolling. In my book trolling is a form of wind-up. That's not my intention but I do laugh when you all get together to share an attitude that allows for no compromise.

fair.

This is what it says on the top of this section, "The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures." It doesn't say you should only post here if you first accept as fact that Sky (or anyone else) are doping. I do accept that an open mind is the least that one should have, even if the rules don't require one.

Fair. But then why do you ask for "proof" so often when indications of Sky doping are being discussed? Objectively, that's not openminded at all.
Alternatively, you could accept your on a doping discussion forum where proof is not required for building an informed opinion.

 

[wrinklyvet]

agreed and good point.

Fair. But then why do you ask for "proof" so often when indications of Sky doping are being discussed? Objectively, that's not openminded at all.
Alternatively, you could accept your on a doping discussion forum where proof is not required for building an informed opinion.

I have indeed accepted that "proof is not required for building an informed opinion" but there are people who are stubborn or inadequate enough not to share fully every opinion expressed here. I don't keep asking for proof but all the while I am not persuaded, even by your united front, I will hope to participate in my way.

Now let's stop discussing me please.

P.S. thanks for the "fair" etc comments.

 

[sniper]

I have indeed accepted that "proof is not required for building an informed opinion" but there are people who are stubborn or inadequate enough not to share fully every opinion expressed here. I don't keep asking for proof but all the while I am not persuaded, even by your united front, I will hope to participate in my way.

Now let's stop discussing me please.

"Wiggins probably doped" is not an opinion, it's a statistical likelihood based on historical facts and data.
On a doping discussion forum, the burden of evidence is on you if you think he's probably clean, because it's historically/statistically unlikely.

Can you give some arguments as to why you think he's clean?

 

[wrinklyvet]

"Wiggins probably doped" is not an opinion, it's a statistical likelihood based on historical facts and data.
On a doping discussion forum, the burden of evidence is on you if you think he's probably clean, because it's historically/statistically unlikely.

Can you give some arguments as to why you think he's clean?

You know full well that showing somebody is not doping is impossible. Now knock it off please.

 

[the sceptic]

You know full well that showing somebody is not doping is impossible. Now knock it off please.

No evidence he is clean? Not looking good for him then with all the evidence that he is doping.

 

[Nick C.]

No evidence he is clean? Not looking good for him then with all the evidence that he is doping.

What is the doping evidence beyond "he was packfill and then he won the tour", "he was successful as a cyclist and beat other guys who have been popped for doping only a doper could do that" "he spoke admiringly about LA" "went form going off on doping @ Christian Moreni time at Cofidis to the bone idle ****ers speech" "he rode for Garmin" "he rode for team Sky" actually I' have convinced myself but that doesn't qualify as evidence unless this is bizarro world or Orwell's 1984.
5.4.3.2.1 "this isn't a court of law" reply.

 

[blackcat]

5.4.3.2.1 "this isn't a court of law" reply.

does a quote count major tom?

would star chamber suffice?

Clinic 12?

Cilic positive?

 

[the sceptic]

What is the doping evidence beyond "he was packfill and then he won the tour", "he was successful as a cyclist and beat other guys who have been popped for doping only a doper could do that" "he spoke admiringly about LA" "went form going off on doping @ Christian Moreni time at Cofidis to the bone idle ****ers speech" "he rode for Garmin" "he rode for team Sky" actually I' have convinced myself but that doesn't qualify as evidence unless this is bizarro world or Orwell's 1984.
5.4.3.2.1 "this isn't a court of law" reply.

sounds like solid evidence to me.

much more so than marginal gains which I have yet to see any evidence as being a real thing.

 

[Nick C.]

does a quote count major tom?

would star chamber suffice?

Clinic 12?

Cilic positive?

?????

 

[thehog]

That tour everyone had the feeling that da Dawg was not let out. "who let the Dawg out" -------- then they unleashed da beast and can't contain him or his old girl.

"its all in the science" as well as "its all in the marginal gain"

gotts to keep gaining.

Dawg wanted to go full ***. Michelle wanted him to go full ***. Alas Yates wouldn't let him. We had to wait one more year before Dawg could express his inner AICAR.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

does a quote count major tom?

would star chamber suffice?

Clinic 12?

Cilic positive?

Clinic 12 is So yesterday. Besides the majority of the 12 ended up hating on each other once Doping ended with Armstrong. Now they all be hater on each other drinking hater-aid.

Star Chamber sounds interesting though.

 

[peloton]

Dawg wanted to go full ***. Michelle wanted him to go full ***. Alas Yates wouldn't let him. We had to wait one more year before Dawg could express his inner AICAR.

Too funny!!

 

[MarkvW]

Dawg wanted to go full ***. Michelle wanted him to go full ***. Alas Yates wouldn't let him. We had to wait one more year before Dawg could express his inner AICAR.

Good one, hog.

 

[DirtyWorks]

What is the doping evidence beyond "he was packfill and then he won the tour", "he was successful as a cyclist and beat other guys who have been popped for doping only a doper could do that" "he spoke admiringly about LA" "went form going off on doping @ Christian Moreni time at Cofidis to the bone idle ****ers speech" "he rode for Garmin" "he rode for team Sky" actually I' have convinced myself but that doesn't qualify as evidence unless this is bizarro world or Orwell's 1984.
5.4.3.2.1 "this isn't a court of law" reply.

Are you saying it's perfectly normal for an elite to suffer mid-pack most of their career then, like a rocket, hit the podium? Because it's not.