Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[Brian Butterworth]

he was asked to comment. Say nothing would, in cycling, mean only one thing.

Read the interview again, Benotti.

He was asked to comment specifically on whether today's peloton is cleaner:

What about the peloton today? Is it clean?

It's really hard for me to say. I'm totally out of the sport now. I don't really talk to anyone at the top of the sport anymore. It's a lot cleaner than the dark days. They are still catching guys but I believe in Brad Wiggins and I believe we finally have a clean Tour de France champion and that's nice to see. I'm a big supporter of him but I still believe there's still room for improvement. There's still denial. We have directors and managers today who were racing back then and are still racing now and are still denying. I denied for a long time so I can't really fault them. It's part of the process

Note he brings up Wiggins and introduces the notion of believing Wiggins to be a clean Tour winner. He didn't have to. He wasn't asked.

The follow up question was "What are your thoughts on Bradley Wiggins?" A bit of a stupid question since he'd preempted the question with his previous answer. Again, he didn't have to give Wiggins a ringing endorsement, he could have given a non-commital answer such as:
"We can only hope that he will prove to be clean" etc.

Whatever your position is on the level of doping may be in the current peloton, and whether Wiggins is likely to be part of it, you have to accept that whilst Hamilton is speculating, it is informed speculation.

Hamilton is an expert on what a doped performance looks like, but he also knows what a clean performance looks like if we believe his statement in his book that after placing 4th in the TdF he rode the following year clean (and finished way down )

You can't cherry pick what people say and dismiss the bits that don't suit your particular view.

(Although I accept that you may hold other very valid reasons for the view you hold)

 

[Benotti69]

Read the interview again, Benotti.

He was asked to comment specifically on whether today's peloton is cleaner:

What about the peloton today? Is it clean?

It's really hard for me to say. I'm totally out of the sport now. I don't really talk to anyone at the top of the sport anymore. It's a lot cleaner than the dark days. They are still catching guys but I believe in Brad Wiggins and I believe we finally have a clean Tour de France champion and that's nice to see. I'm a big supporter of him but I still believe there's still room for improvement. There's still denial. We have directors and managers today who were racing back then and are still racing now and are still denying. I denied for a long time so I can't really fault them. It's part of the process

Note he brings up Wiggins and introduces the notion of believing Wiggins to be a clean Tour winner. He didn't have to. He wasn't asked.

The follow up question was "What are your thoughts on Bradley Wiggins?" A bit of a stupid question since he'd preempted the question with his previous answer. Again, he didn't have to give Wiggins a ringing endorsement, he could have given a non-commital answer such as:
"We can only hope that he will prove to be clean" etc.

Whatever your position is on the level of doping may be in the current peloton, and whether Wiggins is likely to be part of it, you have to accept that whilst Hamilton is speculating, it is informed speculation.

Hamilton is an expert on what a doped performance looks like, but he also knows what a clean performance looks like if we believe his statement in his book that after placing 4th in the TdF he rode the following year clean (and finished way down )

You can't cherry pick what people say and dismiss the bits that don't suit your particular view.

(Although I accept that you may hold other very valid reasons for the view you hold)

Hamilton knew why Sky Sports were asking about a clean peloton. He did pre-empt the next question, because he was being aked by a Sky journo, but it shows how stupid the questioner was in asking a question that Hamilton just answered.

That Hamilton can have powers that clinicians are slated for, the ability to tell who is doping and who is not by watching a race is not valid just because he doped. Armstrong watching Sastre win a tour said he could come back and win again no problem. Look what happened to that.

As for cherry picking, maybe the interview has been edited.

 

[Brian Butterworth]

That Hamilton can have powers that clinicians are slated for, the ability to tell who is doping and who is not by watching a race is not valid just because he doped.

Not so. He has powers that clinician don't have because they are uninformed speculators, despite the high esteem some of them seem to hold themselves in. Do you not think as a very experienced doper AND non-doper at near TdF podium level he might possibly know just a little more than you and I and our colleagues on this forum?

As for cherry picking, maybe the interview has been edited.

Possibly yes, and I totally agree with those that have pointed out that the interview was with a Sky journalist, so there may be other interests at play.

 

[Benotti69]

Not so. He has powers that clinician don't have because they are uninformed speculators, despite the high esteem some of them seem to hold themselves in. Do you not think as a very experienced doper AND non-doper at near TdF podium level he might possibly know just a little more than you and I and our colleagues on this forum?

This argument that he can know better than clinicians is destroyed by Armstrong thinking while watching Sastre win a TdF that he could win the TdF again.

Yes Hamilton knows what it took to podium a TdF when he raced but did he know how man BBs Cipollini took or Rasmussen had.

My guess is that in 2009 he must have been watching a guy from previous gruppettos climbing with Contador, Schleck, Armstrong and thinking doper! That the doper finished 4th would have convinved him

Possibly yes, and I totally agree with those that have pointed out that the interview was with a Sky journalist, so there may be other interests at play.

If I know the journalist's work, i take it all with a pinch of salt.

 

[Brian Butterworth]

This argument that he can know better than clinicians is destroyed by Armstrong thinking while watching Sastre win a TdF that he could win the TdF again.

I'm afraid that argument just doesn't work. In fact it is a non sequitur. Do you seriously think that Hamilton only knows as much about the effects of doping on performance as you?

Yes Hamilton knows what it took to podium a TdF when he raced but did he know how man BBs Cipollini took or Rasmussen had.

But you can bet that he knew they did PEDs/blood doping. By his own admission in his era not doping meant no chance at all of being competitive. He's saying that he believes that not to be the case now, whilst tacitly acknowledging that doping is still happening.

My guess is that in 2009 he must have been watching a guy from previous gruppettos climbing with Contador, Schleck, Armstrong and thinking doper! That the doper finished 4th would have convinved him

You don't need to guess.

He says in his interview that he believes Wiggins is clean. Are you saying that Hamilton is blatantly lying, or is it that you just can't accept that he holds a different view to you?

 

[SundayRider]

He had a book to sell...he was on UKTV hardly going to alienate most of his audience by saying their new hero is not all he seems.

 

[The Hitch]

Looks like Tyler doesnt yet know that Wiggins thinks him a lying ****er who made up stuff about lance doping to sell books.

 

[Brian Butterworth]

He had a book to sell...he was on UKTV hardly going to alienate most of his audience by saying their new hero is not all he seems.

What do you think would have got more coverage? This interview which has disappeared off into the ether, or saying that he suspects Wiggins of doping?

News coverage=more book sales.

 

[Brian Butterworth]

Looks like Tyler doesnt yet know that Wiggins thinks him a lying ****er who made up stuff about lance doping to sell books.

Yep. Wiiggins can't seem to get his story straight on this.

 

[SundayRider]

This argument that he can know better than clinicians is destroyed by Armstrong thinking while watching Sastre win a TdF that he could win the TdF again.

Yes Hamilton knows what it took to podium a TdF when he raced but did he know how man BBs Cipollini took or Rasmussen had.

My guess is that in 2009 he must have been watching a guy from previous gruppettos climbing with Contador, Schleck, Armstrong and thinking doper! That the doper finished 4th would have convinved him



If I know the journalist's work, i take it all with a pinch of salt.

What do you think would have got more coverage? This interview which has disappeared off into the ether, or saying that he suspects Wiggins of doping?

News coverage=more book sales.

Wouldn't have helped his cause in the UK just after 2012 Olympics and all that.

 

[Brian Butterworth]

Wouldn't have helped his cause in the UK just after 2012 Olympics and all that.

By that, do you mean that he would have got less attention by declaring in an interview that he believed Wiggins to be a doper?

Are you suggesting that potential British buyers of 'The Secret Race', a book about doping conspiracies in the peloton, would have been put off buying it because Hamilton implicated Wiggins in a doping conspiracy?

I beg to differ. I think sales of his book would have soared everywhere...



EDIT: Aaargh! Ive got sucked into this. No wonder these threads are 1000s of posts long. Ive got turbo training to do. Goodnight everyone!

 

[SundayRider]

Yes it would have got attention but I very much doubt it would have got a load of patriotic Brits to buy the book. He hadn't raced at the top level for 5yrs or so even if he had suspicions about Wiggins he wouldn't have really had anything to base them on. Saying that if anything does ever come out about Sky I'm guessing ex riders like TH will be the first to say they suspected all along.

 

[Benotti69]

EDIT: Aaargh! Ive got sucked into this. No wonder these threads are 1000s of posts long. Ive got turbo training to do. Goodnight everyone!

Dude, learn to multitask.

 

[taiwan]

The expression "the benefit of the doubt" needs to be remembered wrt Hamilton on Wiggins. Benotti makes the valid point that the interview is for Wiggins SPONSOR, ffs. Also he explicitly states he is out of touch now. Buy Wiggins on the back of these statements if you want, guys. What does ring true for me is that he thinks the bunch is cleanER now. Logically the sharp end will be the last to reform though.

 

[Benotti69]

The expression "the benefit of the doubt" needs to be remembered wrt Hamilton on Wiggins. Benotti makes the valid point that the interview is for Wiggins SPONSOR, ffs. Also he explicitly states he is out of touch now. Buy Wiggins on the back of these statements if you want, guys. What does ring true for me is that he thinks the bunch is cleanER now. Logically the sharp end will be the last to reform though.

I dont think anyone disputes that the levels of doping are not at the levels of 1990 to 2005, but the word cleanER is a misnomer. Taking half a blood bag instead of a full one is still doping.

The use of cleanER suggests that a majority are clean. I doubt that.

 

[thehog]

I dont think anyone disputes that the levels of doping are not at the levels of 1990 to 2005, but the word cleanER is a misnomer. Taking half a blood bag instead of a full one is still doping.

The use of cleanER suggests that a majority are clean. I doubt that.

Also doping is like a gateway drug to a bad life.

Like if you smoke pot you'll end up a crack addict.

I think cyclists have woken up and are saying no to drugs.

 

[horsinabout]

Maybe slightly offtopic Wiggo-related question: can knighthood be taken away from a person? You know, like the medals and race titles, etc.

The Lord giveth and the Lord hath taken away. And what rotters he hath given it to.

I will say with near 100% certainty that no one is going to loose a Knighthood for doping infringments - in the big scheme of things ranks pretty low.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jan/31/goodwin-mugabe-mussolini-ceausescu-disgraced


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vile-second-knighthood-stripped-publicly.html

 

[Dear Wiggo]

"I have no reason not to believe in Brad Wiggins" - it's not staking your life on his being clean. He also states that he's out of the loop now. The 1000 days is a nice insightful theory from Hamilton's first hand experience which may apply to Wiggins also, but clearly not a hard and fast rule. How Hamilton can buy a clean TDF winner now though? Who knows, maybe just not willing to 'go there' atm.

You're being interviewed by Wiggins employer. They ask a question about Wiggins - the polite thing to do is talk Wiggins up. He qualifies it with a "I don't really know" but he "believes in Wiggins".

The 1000 days is a pattern Tyler experienced first-hand, and confirmed when discussing it with other riders. It holds more water for me, having been through similar circumstances with let's say, the fairer sex where if you have some moral obligation to remain "pure" you slowly but surely slide into the grey area of 2nd and 3rd base and before you know it you are no longer pure and it doesn't feel half bad at all and you wonder why you even bothered holding off previously. But it takes time to weaken that resolve.

It's human nature.

If there are a whole bunch of people around you earning BIG BIKKIES and you're not, and all you have to do is take this little pill to recover better so you can TRAIN HARDER THAN YOU RACE.

Well.

Like I said, holds far more water for me, knowing my own human nature as I do, than the intuitive guess of a guy who is out of the sport for many years and believes Brad was "always" anti-doping, when anyone here, even Jimmy will tell you Brad's attitude to doping changed some time around 2007.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Guy loves the attention that his comments bring, as well as income as you mention with his "coaching"...lol.

Reminds me of someone... doing an MBA. Reckons he might leave pro-cycling and earn some real money. But I am pretty sure he'll miss the spotlight. Not many fortune 500 companies have fans that hang off your every word and defend what you say with as much passion as they do in pro cycling.

 

[JimmyFingers]

You're being interviewed by Wiggins employer. They ask a question about Wiggins - the polite thing to do is talk Wiggins up. He qualifies it with a "I don't really know" but he "believes in Wiggins".

The 1000 days is a pattern Tyler experienced first-hand, and confirmed when discussing it with other riders. It holds more water for me, having been through similar circumstances with let's say, the fairer sex where if you have some moral obligation to remain "pure" you slowly but surely slide into the grey area of 2nd and 3rd base and before you know it you are no longer pure and it doesn't feel half bad at all and you wonder why you even bothered holding off previously. But it takes time to weaken that resolve.

It's human nature.

If there are a whole bunch of people around you earning BIG BIKKIES and you're not, and all you have to do is take this little pill to recover better so you can TRAIN HARDER THAN YOU RACE.

Well.

Like I said, holds far more water for me, knowing my own human nature as I do, than the intuitive guess of a guy who is out of the sport for many years and believes Brad was "always" anti-doping, when anyone here, even Jimmy will tell you Brad's attitude to doping changed some time around 2007.

Sorry but the highlighted model is a little bit mental. As is the assertion follow the 'Hamilton Model' and start doping a man after a 1000 days. This is what's called anecdotal. You know what an anecdote is? A good story, told to various degrees of accuracy by the person who experienced it, or adopted by others that hear it. As it goes along it gets changed, like Chinese Whispers.

And your think this is valid, because Hamilton 'discussed it with other riders'?

How many riders did he disucuss it with? How quantifiable are those discussions? They aren't, instead it is pure, subjective anecdote

 

[taiwan]

I dont think anyone disputes that the levels of doping are not at the levels of 1990 to 2005, but the word cleanER is a misnomer. Taking half a blood bag instead of a full one is still doping.

The use of cleanER suggests that a majority are clean. I doubt that.

Well I more meant that that was Hamilton's true conviction, but yes, it's not as balls out as it was 10-20 years ago.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cGi7ZVKzeuI

Watch from 1.05.36 seconds. Wiggo closes the gap to mountainsprinters Valverde and Rodriguez in a flash. How about that for some cadence.

Must be the intervals on Teide.

edit:
E r g e b n i s

***#####6.6 % mittlere Steigung

***####26.8 km/h mittlere Geschwindigkeit

***####79.0 kg Gesamtgewicht

***###381.7 Watt Steigungsleistung

***###101.4 Watt Leistung für Luftwiderstand

***####29.4 Watt Leistung für Rollwiderstand

***###512.6 Watt Gesamtleistung

***#####7.2 Watt pro Kg Körpergewicht

***####71.3 Kcal Kalorienverbrauch bzw. 298.6 KJ

7.2w/k for the last K, that is nice, 6.5w/k for the last 3K. Not bad at all.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cGi7ZVKzeuI

Watch from 1.05.36 seconds. Wiggo closes the gap to mountainsprinters Valverde and Rodriguez in a flash. How about that for some cadence.

Must be the intervals on Teide.

A quick link for the time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cGi7ZVKzeuI#t=3929s

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cGi7ZVKzeuI

Watch from 1.05.36 seconds. Wiggo closes the gap to mountainsprinters Valverde and Rodriguez in a flash. How about that for some cadence.

Must be the intervals on Teide.

I think you put the wrong clip up as it shows nothing of the sort.

 

[Brian Butterworth]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cGi7ZVKzeuI

Watch from 1.05.36 seconds. Wiggo closes the gap to mountainsprinters Valverde and Rodriguez in a flash. How about that for some cadence.

Firstly, thanks for finding the Youtube clip..I tried to find it last night but couldnt

It is interesting how interpretations of the same event can vary. Mine is totally different to yours.

Here's what I saw. A short attack from Wiggins that failed immediately as about 7 riders were on him straight away. Obviously that group created a small gap back to the stragglers.

Look at Wiggins face as he attacks and as he is caught. Mouth open, gasping. Look at his shoulders as he attacks...rocking all over the place.

Now look at Quintana as he gets to Wiggins's wheel. Mouth closed! WTF. If you think that is such an amazing attack from Wiggins (it wasn't...he can't) then why is Quinatana so untouched by it that he has his mouth closed then counters with a blistering attack that leaves Wiggins, JRod and Valve for dead?

If I was looking for suspicious performances I wouldn't get past Ricardo Quintana. Wiggins was way off the radar as was Valverde.