Wiggins, Clinic respect?

[Winterfold]

It seems to me that we'll never be in a position to say cycling is clean, and be able to be confident about it.

This.

So just enjoy it for what it is, and hope the bio-passport keeps a lid on the excesses of the 90s and early-mid 00s so that there is a plausible choice to micro-dope or not - and they don't take too many stupid risks in the process

 

[zalacain]

At least we know Contador is a doper

And I know I would not buy meat from Zabaleta

 

[cadelcrybaby]

Why? Does they put plasticisers in their beef?

 

[Dazed and Confused]

This.

So just enjoy it for what it is, and hope the bio-passport keeps a lid on the excesses of the 90s and early-mid 00s so that there is a plausible choice to micro-dope or not - and they don't take too many stupid risks in the process

Doping under the radar today simply means a big natural talent riding clean will have trouble beating a mediocre rider using dope. Its very unfair and often gives fans very dull races as everybody rides in one big group miles after miles after miles.

 

[Benotti69]

I have to be honest here and say that in the grand scheme of things that I worry about, doping cyclists are somewhere lower down the list. I guess I've always watched it with a cynics eye....even heroes like Hinault and Lemond would not be assumed squeaky clean by me....even with an absence of rumour. Thinking about it, remember the 80's TdF tour stage where Hinault and Lemond dropped the entire peloton? They got so far ahead they were able to just cruise along chatting. How would that be viewed if it happened today??

But Sniper makes some good points here. If you are really bothered about clean cycling (and I'm not massively) then you'd need proof.

It's here that we run into a dilemma... what proof do you want? The bio-passport is rubbished by some as being ineffective, or an aid for clever dopers (my view), and of course testing has a very poor record of catching cheats. You can't test for substances that you don't realised are being abused, and you need a test in the first place. There will always be the potential for new forms of doping that may take years to detect.

It seems to me that we'll never be in a position to say cycling is clean, and be able to be confident about it.

You are bothered enough to post in a forum, the clinic, which deals exactly with doping. If you weren't bothered you wouldn't be posting.

The idea that the sport is cleanER is a joke. What is that? Instead of the 20+ Blood bags that Cipo did, they now do 5/6? Doping is doping is doping is doping. 1 injection of HGH is doping. 1 not any cleanER than 20 injections.

 

[cadelcrybaby]

No, I'm really not that bothered, I'm just a bit bored at work. Every time I click 'new posts' what is there is in The Clinic largely. I think it's what Americans call 'chewing the fat'

Why are you here? To 'make a difference'?

 

[Galic Ho]

I have to be honest here and say that in the grand scheme of things that I worry about, doping cyclists are somewhere lower down the list. I guess I've always watched it with a cynics eye....even heroes like Hinault and Lemond would not be assumed squeaky clean by me....even with an absence of rumour. Thinking about it, remember the 80's TdF tour stage where Hinault and Lemond dropped the entire peloton? They got so far ahead they were able to just cruise along chatting. How would that be viewed if it happened today??

They rode Alpe d'Huez in 48 minutes that day. That's 6 minutes slower than the front running groups have done the last two times the Alpe has been in the race. By front groups, I mean Cadel Evans pack on both outings in 2008 and 2011. How fast will they go this year? Sastre went a lot faster. He cracked 40". I consider the naturally best climber can touch on 41" because Luis Herrera did it. Lemond and Fignon only just went over 42". But that was one or two guys, not a dozen plus as has been the case the last two times Alpe graced the Tour. Too many guys are at the pointy end of the bell curve these days.

Simple fact is, if cycling were clean, we wouldn't have no names or guys who are groupetto fodder transforming out of nowhere and suddenly matching the best climbers in the world. Lemond and Hinault were always good at everything, because it's in their genes. How many guys today can say that today who have won a GT? Contador and Schleck. Case can be made for Evans, Basso and Valverde. Maybe Nibali. That is it.

If cycling were clean, we'd see a lot more great racing because you'd have great stages like those from the 80s Tours. There would be lots of carnage and action, with people bombing out. But the speeds overall, the climbing times would be slower. So similar to some of what has happened the last few years, but slower. Times are still too fast. Too many people are at the curvy end of the population. That isn't natural.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

The idea that the sport is cleanER is a joke. What is that? Instead of the 20+ Blood bags that Cipo did, they now do 5/6? Doping is doping is doping is doping. 1 injection of HGH is doping. 1 not any cleanER than 20 injections.

As you observe doping is doping. But in that simplistic form, it only applies to whether an offence has been committed. Thus, winning with one injection in an entire GT is cheating, as is winning with one injection a day.

However, in terms of the impact on performance, different approaches to doping are not equal. The top riders may still be doping these days, but we're not seeing Pantani-like performances any more, and haven't for some years. 7 of the 11 fastest ascents of Alpe D'Huez occurred in 1994-1997, and all of these were sub 39 minutes. Since 1997, there's only been 3(*) sub-39 minute performances: 2 by Lance and 1 by Landis. Thus in the general cycling population (from which I exclude Lance, as he enjoyed his special relationship with the UCI) there's only been 1 sub 39 minutes ADH ascent since 1997, compared to 7 in the four years including 1997.

Thus, the probability of an individual rider's performances being legitimate these days are a lot higher than they were in the 90s. The uncertain element is just how much higher. (The probability in the 90s was as close to zero as makes no difference, so it could be a lot higher and still leave the probability that current performances are legitimate as very low.) This does make the assessment of performances these days a much harder task than in the 90s and the Lance era.

(*) I think Kloden may have done a sub 39 with Landis in 2006.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

They rode Alpe d'Huez in 48 minutes that day. That's 6 minutes slower than the front running groups have done the last two times the Alpe has been in the race. By front groups, I mean Cadel Evans pack on both outings in 2008 and 2011. How fast will they go this year? Sastre went a lot faster. He cracked 40". I consider the naturally best climber can touch on 41" because Luis Herrera did it. Lemond and Fignon only just went over 42". But that was one or two guys, not a dozen plus as has been the case the last two times Alpe graced the Tour. Too many guys are at the pointy end of the bell curve these days.

Simple fact is, if cycling were clean, we wouldn't have no names or guys who are groupetto fodder transforming out of nowhere and suddenly matching the best climbers in the world. Lemond and Hinault were always good at everything, because it's in their genes. How many guys today can say that today who have won a GT? Contador and Schleck. Case can be made for Evans, Basso and Valverde. Maybe Nibali. That is it.

If cycling were clean, we'd see a lot more great racing because you'd have great stages like those from the 80s Tours. There would be lots of carnage and action, with people bombing out. But the speeds overall, the climbing times would be slower. So similar to some of what has happened the last few years, but slower. Times are still too fast. Too many people are at the curvy end of the population. That isn't natural.

How do you know whether these guys have natural talent or whether they have always been dopers? Contador and Valverde have probably been doping since they were in their teens. If Wiggins had started doping at the same age rather than in late 2008 you'd probably be saying he was a natural talent as well.

 

[BillytheKid]

Cycling fans should turn their efforts to call attention to doping in all of sport. We have eaten out own for long enough.

The clinic is half full of haters of the sport anyway and a mix of those who think that they are doing it justice. The casue is just, but the outcome maybe disastrous. If the sponsos and money flee. "Cycling, its done." (to cop a phrase from a recent film).

Sponsors invest for a return, not to be nice guys. They will go to the new markets and stars that fall under little scruntiny.

People need to work behind the scences now. Armstrong is bitter as ever and will likely give timed interviews all season long.

One has to be blind not to see the new PED effect across the board in the competetive sport. Bulk and heights once uncommon in one sport now are the norm. The injury rate has sored. Look at footage from 30 years ago and then look at the today. I tell ya, the diffence, it ain't the water.

 

[zalacain]

Why? Does they put plasticisers in their beef?

It's the plastic they wrap it in. If they put horse and other carp into burgers and ready meals in Europe do you really think they will wrap them in the best plastics? Not just in Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Taiwan_food_scandal
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3356285

 

[JimmyFingers]

Cycling fans should turn their efforts to call attention to doping in all of sport. We have eaten out own for long enough.

The clinic is half full of haters of the sport anyway and a mix of those who think that they are doing it justice. The casue is just, but the outcome maybe disastrous. If the sponsos and money flee. "Cycling, its done." (to cop a phrase from a recent film).

Sponsors invest for a return, not to be nice guys. They will go to the new markets and stars that fall under little scruntiny.

People need to work behind the scences now. Armstrong is bitter as ever and will likely give timed interviews all season long.

One has to be blind not to see the new PED effect across the board in the competetive sport. Bulk and heights once uncommon in one sport now are the norm. The injury rate has sored. Look at footage from 30 years ago and then look at the today. I tell ya, the diffence, it ain't the water.

Good post...

 

[DirtyWorks]

The clinic is half full of haters of the sport anyway

Yes, nothing like the shotgun approach when launching a personal attack. So useful! So credible!

Sponsors invest for a return, not to be nice guys.

First, it's not an investment. Do you know which 50% of an advertising budget generates profit?

Even when the game is fixed, as has been shown with Armstrong, they monetized the sport. So, your criteria has been met. Great! Now we're just waiting for the UCI to pick Grand Tour winners. That works for entertainment wrestling and that's the consequences of your position. You should be happy with that. Are you?

Cycling will not be destroyed by doping. It hasn't in the past, it won't happen to an organization that has a worldwide monopoly on competitive bike racing and the IOC's power/money behind it. Meanwhile, lots of people still riding bikes for fun.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

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...

I am still interested in a link/source for the above in red. As I mentioned in a previous post I never read an interview where he said that I am keen to find else what else he said.

 

[SundayRider]

I am still interested in a link/source for the above in red. As I mentioned in a previous post I never read an interview where he said that I am keen to find else what else he said.

I can't find a link to where he said that. I think it was more along the lines of the 'witnesses are being offered reduced bans blah blah, 500 tests no positives etc'

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I can't find a link to where he said that. I think it was more along the lines of the 'witnesses are being offered reduced bans blah blah, 500 tests no positives etc'

Perhaps, but that is quite different to they are liars and USADA is a disgrace whichever way you try to spin it.

 

[coinneach]

Perhaps, but that is quite different to they are liars and USADA is a disgrace whichever way you try to spin it.

Yeh, and if you look closely at the other "quotes", you´ll see a similar level of accuracy of interpretation, lack of context, but so what?

 

[SundayRider]

Yeh, and if you look closely at the other "quotes", you´ll see a similar level of accuracy of interpretation, lack of context, but so what?

BW clearly didn't want USADA/LA affair to come out/be as big as it was...

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Yeh, and if you look closely at the other "quotes", you´ll see a similar level of accuracy of interpretation, lack of context, but so what?

sittingbison will know doubt have a link. A mod is not going to have made that kind of stuff up otherwise that is 'slander of the worst kind' (to coin a phrase).

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

sittingbison will know doubt have a link. A mod is not going to have made that kind of stuff up otherwise that is 'slander of the worst kind' (to coin a phrase).

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Sittingbison does not have a link, because he made the quote up on Wiggo's behalf, loosely based on something that he did say.

If Sittingbison can provide the link to the words he attributes to Wiggo then I will happily withdraw this accusation and issue a full apology.

 

[Robert21]

2012 - USADA are a disgrace, the witnesses are lyers, Lance is great

I am still interested in a link/source for the above in red. As I mentioned in a previous post I never read an interview where he said that I am keen to find else what else he said.

Wasn't Landis a witness? This is what Wiggins had to say about Landis in 2011:

“I’ve always been a bit of a fan of Lance and have sided on the side of innocent until proven guilty with him. There isn’t an athlete or a cyclist out there that isn’t more tested than he is, certainly since his comeback, he’s probably been the most tested cyclist in the pro peloton and you take that on face value and that he’s never failed a drugs test and until he does he’s clean. That’s how I’ve always had as a stance on Lance.”

...“All the other stuff that’s come on with Landis and things like that is one for the courts and whether the truth will ever come out is down to this investigation. I think time will tell with that. As it stands today, with the time I’ve raced with him – and I’ve never raced with him in his era of winning seven Tours – but in his comeback, he’s probably been the most tested athlete and never failed a drugs test.”

...“I think you have to question Landis’ credibility because he lied under oath before and the stories that you hear about him drinking and things like that and you know, [making] telephone calls to people I know, threatening them with things, you just think that the guy appears to not all be there. So when you see these kinds of claims in the press you have to question his credibility because it’s almost like it’s coming from a mad man...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-calls-for-biological-passport-data-to-be-made-public

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Wasn't Landis a witness? This is what Wiggins had to say about Landis in 2011:

And given some of the things he did people seem to forgive Landis all so quickly. Yes, he came out and eventually told the truth but given the Floyd fund and what he did to Lemond... Did he lie under oath? I am not sure about that.

You got anyone else?

Granted the stuff Wiggins said about Armstrong shows he is not all there either...

 

[SundayRider]

Wiggins on Landis
"the stories that you hear about him drinking and things like that and you know"

This is incredibly funny and ironic.

 

[del1962]

Wasn't Landis a witness? This is what Wiggins had to say about Landis in 2011:

This is a long way from saying USADA is a disgrace which the moderator said.

 

[thehog]

And given some of the things he did people seem to forgive Landis all so quickly. Yes, he came out and eventually told the truth but given the Floyd fund and what he did to Lemond... Did he lie under oath? I am not sure about that.

You got anyone else?

Granted the stuff Wiggins said about Armstrong shows he is not all there either...

Yeah, let's get Landis! Not creditable. Bitter ex-doper!

Wiggins is clean! Lance never tested positive, 500 tests.

Really?

If USADA never happened Wiggins would still be telling us Lance was most tested even though Vaughters/CVV and others told Wiggins what occurred at USPS.

But Wiggins was keen to ensure he was protected by the UCI and Master Doper Lance.

How sad that the anti-doping advocate from 2007 was more than happy to drown the chief whistleblower for corruption in cycling.

How sad that you support these actions of the omertà.