Wiggins, Clinic respect?

Page 23 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
mastersracer said:
JV never forgives riders who leave Garmin and can't help calling them out whenever he gets the chance, but his 'BFF' comment is perfectly consistent with what Wiggins states, since Wiggins states he became suspicious of LA on Ventoux, the second last day.

Wiggins was right to leave Garmin. Sky is a much better managed team. Wiggins would never have won a Tour on Garmin. Even still, he managed to win an unimpressive Tour and will likely never win one again. Likely will not win the Giro this year either and is likely ecstatic that Contador announced he won't race it.

Apparently you're allowed to break a contract if you have ridiculous sideburns.

Wiggins didn't leave Garmin. He was released from his contract to join Sky.

Come on Masters. Keep up.

You're bending the truth again.
 

mastersracer

BANNED
Jun 8, 2010
1,298
0
0
The Hitch said:
Again. Not a response to what i posted. I dont know why twice now youve quoted my post and argued a totally different subject matter:confused:

Lets go over this slowly.

You said that those who put credence in JV's comments about wiggins ignore other Vaughters comments (that he thinks wiggins is clean)

I pointed out that 1 Actually we dont ignore that, since its been an issue covered and adressed many times, and 2 JV's belief that wiggins is clean is far less important than his comments on wiggos friendship with Lance because the former is an opinion, the latter is an observation.

...
If you told Walsh that wiggins would not have won the tour on garmin he would become far more suspicious.

I was addressing this the second time around - re 2, I indicated that JV's comments are innocuous given the timing of Ventoux. There is far too much read into Wiggins' friendship. Wiggins is clearly self-loathing and fell under Armstrong's spell. Happens to the best of them. Re 1, that may be true, however, the quotes from JV's recent tweet were edited to remove the non-incriminating elements in this thread.

Re Sky > Garmin, I believe Wiggins' Tour win is due to being in their system. This is based on my (anecdotal) observation of a few Garmin riders I know and some experience with their training regime. They are much like other pro riders I've known - extensive autonomy over their training, semi-structured, particularly during the off season. some self-coached. I believe the BC-Sky approach is superior - this is based on media report with the exception of one ride with them. I do believe their marginal gains approach is a plausible explanation for their success.
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
thehog said:
Wiggins didn't leave Garmin. He was released from his contract to join Sky.

Self-evidently, Wiggo did leave Garmin, as he started riding for Sky in 2010 having previously been contracted to ride for Garmin in 2010.

However, in order for JV to release Wiggo from his contractual obligations, Sky bunged him a big pile of cash. Nothing very mysterious or unusual about this sort of arrangement in the wider world, though quite unusual in cycling given that most teams don't have enough cash to spare to consider this to acquire a particular rider.
 
Wallace and Gromit said:
Self-evidently, Wiggo did leave Garmin, as he started riding for Sky in 2010 having previously been contracted to ride for Garmin in 2010.

However, in order for JV to release Wiggo from his contractual obligations, Sky bunged him a big pile of cash. Nothing very mysterious or unusual about this sort of arrangement in the wider world, though quite unusual in cycling given that most teams don't have enough cash to spare to consider this to acquire a particular rider.

He wasn’t “bunged”.

To be release from his contractual obligations Sky had to pay Garmin-Slipstream not Vaughters.

Vaughters made an investment in Wiggins and Wiggins did not fulfill the obligations and provisions within the contract.

If Sky didn’t pay Wiggins would have been in breach of contract. That’s not a good situation to be in. Slipstream would have sued and won.
 
pmcg76 said:
But the problem is this. Right now there is as much evidence against SKY and Wiggins as there was against Armstrong and US Postal back in 99.

Sudden transformation to GC rider. Check
Team riding super well. Check
Ranting against those who raised questions. Check
Some very dodgy PR claims. Check
Having loads of fan's who are new to the sport. Check

The one thing Armstrong had against him was the cortisone positive but there were no connection's with dodgy doctor's like SKY have. Please remember I am talking about Postal 99 here.

We have seen how the Armstrong situation played out so I think a lot of people are not willing to give false PR statement's and wishy washy comment's on doping and dopers any more shrift than they have to. It's just a case of people not wanting to be strung along again.

SKY have made the grand claim's to being clean so in the current environment they need to be able to back up their grand claim's and right now they seem to be failing. Hence the level of doubt.

I don't think I have once insinuated either SKY or Wiggins are dirty(though Froome does bother me)but their lack of a clear message leave's me with severe doubt's.

So when looking at the evidence of whether they have taken banned drugs or not, the only difference between Postal '99 and Sky '12 is a failed test for a banned drug? Yeah, they're almost exactly the same situations. . .
 
RownhamHill said:
So when looking at the evidence of whether they have taken banned drugs or not, the only difference between Postal '99 and Sky '12 is a failed test for a banned drug? Yeah, they're almost exactly the same situations. . .
Point is, in 1999 that wasn't a big deal. Some French journos questioned LA because they thought it was shady, but by and large it was a non-story at the time. Comparable to Leinders.
 
hrotha said:
Point is, in 1999 that wasn't a big deal. Some French journos questioned LA because they thought it was shady, but by and large it was a non-story at the time. Comparable to Leinders.

Agreed. The cortisone story was as big as Hayles 50% hemocrit breach which Brailsford managed under the carpet with the Bruyneel style.

"Rob was devastated when I told him," said Brailsford. "He felt disbelief. He had to phone home to tell his wife. When you listen to someone making that phone call, you sense whether someone is telling the truth."

Brailsford is convinced, for the moment, that Hayles was telling him the truth when he assured him, on Wednesday morning, that he had not taken anything.
 
hrotha said:
Point is, in 1999 that wasn't a big deal. Some French journos questioned LA because they thought it was shady, but by and large it was a non-story at the time. Comparable to Leinders.

Yeah. I see that. The point you've just made is absolutely correct.

But that wasn't the point being made in the post I responded to. The first line of which says:

"Right now there is as much evidence against SKY and Wiggins as there was against Armstrong and US Postal back in 99."

Which is self-evidently not true, as right now there simply isn't a failed drugs test, by Wiggo, at the tour, which was then 'made to go away' by a back dated TUE.

Yeah, no one chose to look at that particular bit of evidence too closely at the time, but that didn't mean it didn't exist. So to suggest that 'right now' there is 'as much evidence against Sky' is just not true.

Anyway, not a big deal, the only reason I quoted it was because it tickled me so much. Reminded me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso
 
thehog said:
Agreed. The cortisone story was as big as Hayles 50% hemocrit breach which Brailsford managed under the carpet with the Bruyneel style.

You'll have to remind me of the details, but didn't as a result Hayles get suspended from competition for two weeks, and then subsequently not selected for the Olympics? The parallels with Armstrong in 99 are again almost exactly identical.
 
RownhamHill said:
You'll have to remind me of the details, but didn't as a result Hayles get suspended from competition for two weeks, and then subsequently not selected for the Olympics? The parallels with Armstrong in 99 are again almost exactly identical.

Two weeks! All of two weeks. That's a long time :rolleyes:

How does one get their hemocrit over 50% without doping? I mean if this was the norm wouldn’t you already have a TUE/exception for this?

There's that word again - TUE. (backdated!)

"It's what we expected but it's nice to have it confirmed," said Dave Brailsford, the performance director at British Cycling. "The blood tests we've been conducting on Rob show nothing untoward and we're in the process of compiling a package, containing all the information, and submitting it to the UCI [cycling's world governing body]. It makes compelling reading."

That information will form the basis of an appeal for a certificate for Hayles that would allow him to go over the UCI's limit of a 50% haematocrit level in future tests. A reading of more than 50%, which means a higher concentration of oxygen-rich red blood cells, can suggest the use of EPO and results in a 15-day withdrawal from racing. But such a level can be naturally occurring.

Brailsford said he intends to "put forward [to the UCI ] the case for a real strong review of the haematocrit test" because it seems a fairly arbitrary line in the sand. "We're also going to request confidentiality. If you look at Rob's case he's done nothing but there will always be a slight cloud of suspicion, all because of an anomaly."
 
hrotha said:
"Right now there is as much evidence against SKY and Wiggins as there was against Armstrong and US Postal back in 99."

thehog said:
Agreed. The cortisone story was as big as Hayles 50% hemocrit breach which Brailsford managed under the carpet with the Bruyneel style.


thehog said:
Two weeks! All of two weeks. That's a long time :rolleyes:

How does one get their hemocrit over 50% without doping? I mean if this was the norm wouldn’t you already have a TUE/exception for this?

There's that word again - TUE.

Hayle's high haematocrit, back in 2008 not exactly relevant to SKY 2010, now is it? ;)
 
thehog said:
Two weeks! All of two weeks. That's a long time :rolleyes:

How does one get their hemocrit over 50% without doping? I mean if this was the norm wouldn’t you already have a TUE/exception for this?

There's that word again - TUE.

Anything is possible - with severe dehydration.

Some known causes:

- Dengue Fever (not recommended)
- COPD - Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (not recommended)
- Capillary leak syndrome (not recommended)
- Polycythemia vera - uncurable and can be fatal; bone marrow produces too many red blood cells, median age 60 (not recommended)

Dave.
 
Mellow Velo said:
[ORIGINAL QUOTE]"Right now there is as much evidence against SKY and Wiggins as there was against Armstrong and US Postal back in 99."






Hayle's high haematocrit, back in 2008 not exactly relevant to SKY 2010, now is it?

I'm not following. Why isn't it relevant?
 
D-Queued said:
Anything is possible - with severe dehydration.

Some known causes:

- Dengue Fever (not recommended)
- COPD - Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (not recommended)
- Capillary leak syndrome (not recommended)
- Polycythemia vera - uncurable and can be fatal; bone marrow produces too many red blood cells, median age 60 (not recommended)

Dave.

Saddle sore cream? :rolleyes:
 
thehog said:
Saddle sore cream? :rolleyes:

Now that could work.

You probably don't want the skin thinning side-effects, though. Perhaps you could apply hydrocortisone cream to treat your saddle sores on areas other than on the saddle contact area.

Probably best to just inject it and hope for the best (for your saddle sores that is).

Dave.
 
thehog said:
Two weeks! All of two weeks. That's a long time :rolleyes:

How does one get their hemocrit over 50% without doping? I mean if this was the norm wouldn’t you already have a TUE/exception for this?

There's that word again - TUE. (backdated!)

No idea about the Hayles case, how or why his score was 50%, or whether or not he is a dirty drugs cheat or no.

But you'll accept that someone being suspended from competition, and therefore having no chance to win a World Championship is almost, but not quite exactly, the same as a case when someone wasn't suspended from competition, and who subsequently went onto the win the TdeF?
 
RownhamHill said:
So when looking at the evidence of whether they have taken banned drugs or not, the only difference between Postal '99 and Sky '12 is a failed test for a banned drug? Yeah, they're almost exactly the same situations. . .

As I pointed out to Joachim when he addressed this before. Armstrong had a TUE for the cortisone and the level found was tiny. If you have a TUE then yes there is nothing illegal taking place. This was a story dragged up by Le Monde newspaper to create a bit of controversy. Nothing to see here.

Now what we have learned since puts a completely different spin on thing's but at that time it was a nothing story. SKY having a doctor who organised the doping programme at another team is much more serious.
 
Mellow Velo said:
Because Hayles never rode for Sky.
Simple.

And Brailsford never picked him again either.
I think he always had his suspicions.
Follow up tests showed a naturally high level for Hayles and he got a TUE.
He was tested at 50.3%...I think his natural level was 46-48%? So, quite believeable (depending on what you want to believe:D)
Last seen on a motorbike out training with Cavendish:eek:
 
RownhamHill said:
No idea about the Hayles case, how or why his score was 50%, or whether or not he is a dirty drugs cheat or no.

But you'll accept that someone being suspended from competition, and therefore having no chance to win a World Championship is almost, but not quite exactly, the same as a case when someone wasn't suspended from competition, and who subsequently went onto the win the TdeF?

You do realise he was "cleared" don't you? Others not so fortunate.

Back to the original point. No two teams will be an exact replica in doping. But Sky are fairly darn close to USPS.

Time will be the judge. But they don't appear to be very forthcoming on details when it comes to dopers hired into their team.

Smells bad to me.
 
thehog said:
How does one get their hemocrit over 50% without doping? I mean if this was the norm wouldn’t you already have a TUE/exception for this?
(backdated!)
Out of interest I asked what mine was after a test last year. It was 49.9. Following a recent operation I did the same. It was 53.1.
It can be hereditary. PS I am much too old to bother with doping!