Wiggins, Clinic respect?

[thehog]

I didn't need to read the thread to know it was miles off-topic. None of that is relevant to a thread discussing Wiggins' statements about Armstrong.

You should read the thread. It contains vital information in regards to Sky’s doping.

You guys need to stop pretending that the Clinic is full of lies and is poisonous.

Why spend so much time here?

I like the Clinic. I think it shares a wealth of important information. I suggest you take the time to read more of it.

 

[martinvickers]

Anger? No, more like disinterested.
So, I just agreed to disagree. Vicious? I think not.
I think you are over now playing the personal attack card, much.
Besides, somehow I can't quite picture you as a victim: more the spider than the fly.


As for the rest of your post?
See reply above.

Honestly, Mellow, the ignore button is a blessing. Quickest way to weed.

 

[thehog]

I said exactly the same to friend (who is a big Sky fan) the other day, at first he didn't agree but when I pointed out the way they rode the Tour, Leinders etc etc he agreed entirely.

Even JimmyFingers resident Skybot here at the Clinic changed from ardent Sky fan to concerned critic when he learnt about Leinders and how he personally injected young cyclists with EPO.

 

[thehog]

Anger? No, more like disinterested.
So, I just agreed to disagree. Vicious? I think not.
I think you are over now playing the personal attack card, much.
Besides, somehow I can't quite picture you as a victim: more the spider than the fly.


As for the rest of your post?
See reply above.

Why not just you the ignore button?

But I don’t believe that you’re disinterested. Otherwise you wouldn’t chase down all of my posts one after another.

You have quite the obsession with me don’t you?

 

[JimmyFingers]

You should read the thread. It contains vital information in regards to Sky’s doping.

You guys need to stop pretending that the Clinic is full of lies and is poisonous.

Why spend so much time here?

I like the Clinic. I think it shares a wealth of important information. I suggest you take the time to read more of it.

I pointed out the thread was off topic, that is all, which makes this entire post post misinformed and facetious.

 

[thehog]

Why not just you the ignore button?

But I don’t believe that you’re disinterested. Otherwise you wouldn’t chase down all of my posts one after another.

You have quite the obsession with me don’t you?

In fact I've got some time on my hands. I'm going to count how many of my posts you've replied to....

The record will show that I've ignored most of yours. Fact.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ok, maybe this is my fault for saying positive drug test originally.

It was not a positive drug test, the amount of cortisone measured was below the level required to trigger a positive test. Not a positive test.

Apologies if I misunderstand what your saying here but it was positive and there is no threshold for cortisone.
That's why LA needed the TUE. (Which we found out later was backdated)

 

[Caruut]

In fact I've got some time on my hands. I'm going to count how many of my posts you've replied to....

The record will show that I've ignored most of yours. Fact.

Hog, are you about to start counting how many of your own posts you've replied to? You could be there a while.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

No more goes required.
I totally disagree with your weak logic, you disagree with my reasoning.
No surprises there.

This is why I enter this poisonous arena.
I see one positive SKY test down the road being used
to paint the entire cycling nation as dopers.

That's the same as if one of the young OGE riders ever gets caught, Anna Meares is a doper. Ridiculous.

I remember at the time, the speculation was that if Hayles had doped, he'd gone rogue, because he wasn't making the numbers to make the Olympic cut.

This is always an inherent risk of having such close (and sometimes muddled) ties between Sky Professional Cycling Team and British Cycling the organisation. I see no reason at the present time to suggest that Geert Leinders was involved in anything to do with British Cycling, but because of the connection to Brailsford and his very visible position as the go-to guy for both the national and the commercial interest teams, that Sky also support much of the track team and that several of the names are involved in both sides, either on road or track, the tendrils go deep into many places, and as a result one positive could easily result in far heavier implications. If Leinders was doping people at Sky, it's unlikely that it would have been the entire squad and even less likely that it would have extended beyond into the track guys and girls. But if it did come out that it was the case and Brailsford head was on the guillotine, he razes the ground for everybody because if he was found to be corrupt it would affect everybody in his care, which would be both Sky and British Cycling, and pretty much all of them.

The errors of judgment or whatever on Barry or Rogers, or Yates for that matter, can be spun away, isolated riders. They can go rogue, they can lie, whatever. What they do has little effect on what their teammates do in the public eye, and they can easily be explained away. To the point where Leinders' presence was revealed, they could have done this with a rider on the team, as long as it wasn't Wiggins himself or Froome, say. However, a doctor theoretically affects everybody on the team, and because Leinders' history is becoming evident and is blowing up in Belgium at an inopportune time (when the general public is more aware of doping in cycling thanks to the Armstrong case) it means now, if a Sky rider was to test positive, people could join the dots to Leinders and extrapolate it to the whole team, even if the rider had 'gone rogue'. Worse, if parts of the media and public don't know where Sky ends and British Cycling begins, it calls into question people that may never have seen, met or heard of Leinders.

I'm afraid that's part of the risks of the quasi-national organisational structure where Brailsford and several of his staff retain their positions in the national organ at the same time as working for a trade team. Especially as the sponsor of that trade team also sponsors the national team, further blurring the distinction in the public's mind.

 

[coinneach]

Hog, are you about to start counting how many of your own posts you've replied to? You could be there a while.

They are not really replies: they come over more like a toddler shouting "listen to MEEEEEE"

 

[Mellow Velo]

Hog, are you about to start counting how many of your own posts you've replied to? You could be there a while.

ROTFL! Post of the thread.

 

[martinvickers]

This is always an inherent risk of having such close (and sometimes muddled) ties between Sky Professional Cycling Team and British Cycling the organisation. I see no reason at the present time to suggest that Geert Leinders was involved in anything to do with British Cycling, but because of the connection to Brailsford and his very visible position as the go-to guy for both the national and the commercial interest teams, that Sky also support much of the track team and that several of the names are involved in both sides, either on road or track, the tendrils go deep into many places, and as a result one positive could easily result in far heavier implications. If Leinders was doping people at Sky, it's unlikely that it would have been the entire squad and even less likely that it would have extended beyond into the track guys and girls. But if it did come out that it was the case and Brailsford head was on the guillotine, he razes the ground for everybody because if he was found to be corrupt it would affect everybody in his care, which would be both Sky and British Cycling, and pretty much all of them.

The errors of judgment or whatever on Barry or Rogers, or Yates for that matter, can be spun away, isolated riders. They can go rogue, they can lie, whatever. What they do has little effect on what their teammates do in the public eye, and they can easily be explained away. To the point where Leinders' presence was revealed, they could have done this with a rider on the team, as long as it wasn't Wiggins himself or Froome, say. However, a doctor theoretically affects everybody on the team, and because Leinders' history is becoming evident and is blowing up in Belgium at an inopportune time (when the general public is more aware of doping in cycling thanks to the Armstrong case) it means now, if a Sky rider was to test positive, people could join the dots to Leinders and extrapolate it to the whole team, even if the rider had 'gone rogue'. Worse, if parts of the media and public don't know where Sky ends and British Cycling begins, it calls into question people that may never have seen, met or heard of Leinders.

I'm afraid that's part of the risks of the quasi-national organisational structure where Brailsford and several of his staff retain their positions in the national organ at the same time as working for a trade team. Especially as the sponsor of that trade team also sponsors the national team, further blurring the distinction in the public's mind.

Excellent post, LS - sums up the 'perception problem' admirably.

 

[thehog]

ROTFL! Post of the thread.

Point in case.

Why get personal?

 

[Mellow Velo]

This is always an inherent risk of having such close (and sometimes muddled) ties between Sky Professional Cycling Team and British Cycling the organisation. I see no reason at the present time to suggest that Geert Leinders was involved in anything to do with British Cycling, but because of the connection to Brailsford and his very visible position as the go-to guy for both the national and the commercial interest teams, that Sky also support much of the track team and that several of the names are involved in both sides, either on road or track, the tendrils go deep into many places, and as a result one positive could easily result in far heavier implications. If Leinders was doping people at Sky, it's unlikely that it would have been the entire squad and even less likely that it would have extended beyond into the track guys and girls. But if it did come out that it was the case and Brailsford head was on the guillotine, he razes the ground for everybody because if he was found to be corrupt it would affect everybody in his care, which would be both Sky and British Cycling, and pretty much all of them.

The errors of judgment or whatever on Barry or Rogers, or Yates for that matter, can be spun away, isolated riders. They can go rogue, they can lie, whatever. What they do has little effect on what their teammates do in the public eye, and they can easily be explained away. To the point where Leinders' presence was revealed, they could have done this with a rider on the team, as long as it wasn't Wiggins himself or Froome, say. However, a doctor theoretically affects everybody on the team, and because Leinders' history is becoming evident and is blowing up in Belgium at an inopportune time (when the general public is more aware of doping in cycling thanks to the Armstrong case) it means now, if a Sky rider was to test positive, people could join the dots to Leinders and extrapolate it to the whole team, even if the rider had 'gone rogue'. Worse, if parts of the media and public don't know where Sky ends and British Cycling begins, it calls into question people that may never have seen, met or heard of Leinders.

I'm afraid that's part of the risks of the quasi-national organisational structure where Brailsford and several of his staff retain their positions in the national organ at the same time as working for a trade team. Especially as the sponsor of that trade team also sponsors the national team, further blurring the distinction in the public's mind.

Sums it up. All the eggs in one big, fragile basket.

 

[Markyboyzx6r]

There's too much over-analysis of what Wiggins says. I contradict myself in work at least 10 times before I've even had my mid-morning coffee.

If you were to analyse my statements in work you'd think I'm a lying, cheating scumbag. And doping, too. Normal people roll with the punches all the time.

Wiggins isn't a politician. He doesn't have to be called-out with 60 pages of analysis on his every utterance. Be sensible.

 

[SundayRider]

There's too much over-analysis of what Wiggins says. I contradict myself in work at least 10 times before I've even had my mid-morning coffee.

If you were to analyse my statements in work you'd think I'm a lying, cheating scumbag. And doping, too. Normal people roll with the punches all the time.

Wiggins isn't a politician. He doesn't have to be called-out with 60 pages of analysis on his every utterance. Be sensible.

Not a great comparison, I'm guessing your utterances at work don't get read/listened to by millions of people and I'm guessing they are not kept on record in newspapers/magazines/books/the internet.

 

[The Hitch]

There's too much over-analysis of what Wiggins says. I contradict myself in work at least 10 times before I've even had my mid-morning coffee.

If you were to analyse my statements in work you'd think I'm a lying, cheating scumbag. And doping, too. Normal people roll with the punches all the time.

Wiggins isn't a politician. He doesn't have to be called-out with 60 pages of analysis on his every utterance. Be sensible.

You'll need to be a little bit more specific with your examples if you want to add any value to them as analogies to wiggins contradicting himself big time.over a major issue.

Using your dismissal technique 1 could argue that stealing is ok because " i one brought a pencil home from.work"

 

[armchairclimber]

Hog, are you about to start counting how many of your own posts you've replied to? You could be there a while.

"Good post Hog"

 

[thehog]

"Good post Hog"

Excellent post!

 

[bianchigirl]

Libertine seguros you have it in a nutshell - those very blurred lines are dangerous as we can see to some extent with Rabobank revelations - what taints them taints Dutch national cycling

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

I've seen some comments from a member of the peloton (may have been Pinot? I think whoever it was was a local climber who knew the roads well) that the problem wasn't the actual climb speed but the fact that EBH's sprint leadout all the way up to the bottom of the climb already had the climbers in the red. Rogers et al. just didn't give them any time to recover.

This could possibly explain Cancellara doing comparatively well against a lot of the other climbers too.

You mean this?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/pinot-enjoys-first-test-on-familiar-roads

 

[Wiggo Warrior]

You mean this?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/pinot-enjoys-first-test-on-familiar-roads

Looks familiar, not sure it was exactly this one I saw, but seems like it was Pinot anyway,

Thanks for the link

 

[sittingbison]

Ive been having this frustrating discussion with Sir Wiggo fanbois on twitter. Simple fact is Sir Wiggo changes his story to suit the narrative, and has backflipped numerous times:
2007 (after Cofidis ejected) - winning ITT by 2 minutes to win TdF is cheating, teams with doping doctors should be dumped, every aspect of doping should be open to scrutiny
2010 - I LOVE Lance, best thing ever to happen to cycling
2012 - bone idle lazy ****ers, ****s
2012 - USADA are a disgrace, the witnesses are lyers, Lance is great
2012- I actually never raced Lance except 2004 CritInt, he is sooo 90s
2013 - lying cheating *******, in 2009 I knew Lance was cheating just from looking at him on Ventoux...

the importance of this last statement is Sir Wiggo just admitted he KNEW in his own mind Lance was a cheat in 2009, before all the bromance BS last couple of years.

 

[will10]

Sums it up. All the eggs in one big, fragile basket.

+1. Great post Libertine

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Apologies if I misunderstand what your saying here but it was positive and there is no threshold for cortisone.
That's why LA needed the TUE. (Which we found out later was backdated)

You are wrong:
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/jul99/jul22.shtml

The presence of the corticoid traces in the urine contradicts the statements made by Armstrong. On Monday, July 19, during the rest day in the Tour, the American affirmed at his press conference that he had not had any medical treatments since December 13, 1996, the date of his last treatment of chemotherapy. The rider had been a victim of testicular cancer which was diagnosed in August of the same year. The yellow jersey holder gave the assurance that he had never taken any corticoids. What is more, in the official report that followed the test, Lance Armstrong had written under the heading "Drugs Taken" - Nothing.

Since the start of the Tour, corticoid traces have been detected in the urine of other riders. In an article with the daily newspaper L'Humanité on Tuesday July 20, Jacques de Ceaurriz, the director of the LNLD, estimated that, of the hundreds of samples taken since the prologue, "20 to 30 cases" would reveal the presence of corticoids. But the traces were below the threshold ratio of 6.

or this article is wrong.

The first bolded part is of course of the most importance. Explain the cortisone without a tue.