Wiggins Discussion thread.

[freddybobs]

Re: Re:

Bradley Wiggins is a champion (road and track) and no matter the circumstances a Tour de France winner

Contador was banned for cheating ....are you forgetting that little point...how convenient

Slagging off Wiggins, a clean rider who made the very best of his talent and idolizing a cheat ...typical cycling hypocracy

Highly speculative claims like that Wiggins may not have been clean need be kept out of the road racing forum. Go to the clinic, there is a thread there for Sir Brad.

that reads a bit better now.

 

[TMP402]

Re: Re:

The argument against wiggins that the best rider(s) weren't there is the same as the case against Nibali, but most people tend to accept him as a legit winner.

Of course, a legit winner against the remaining contenders, different story had Froome and AC not been injured.

Yes, but Wiggins beat his rivals too. It's not his fault if someone wasn't able to start, just like it's not Nibali's fault if Froome and Contador crashed out.

 

[DBotero]

Wiggins says he's recovered from the crash and he's ready to go.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

Re:

The argument against wiggins that the best rider(s) weren't there is the same as the case against Nibali, but most people tend to accept him as a legit winner.

Really? Nibali won by default - do some people really think he was the strongest guy last year?

 

[DBotero]

Re: Re:

The argument against wiggins that the best rider(s) weren't there is the same as the case against Nibali, but most people tend to accept him as a legit winner.

Really? Nibali won by default - do some people really think he was the strongest guy last year?

By using Dr. Ferrari’s formula:

Froome 5.96 W/kg on 5 major climbs in 2013 Tour.
Nibali 5.99 W/kg on 5 major climbs in 2014 Tour.

Seems to me he was really strong

 

[ray j willings]

Re:

Bradley Wiggins is a champion (road and track) and no matter the circumstances a Tour de France winner

Contador was banned for cheating ....are you forgetting that little point...how convenient

Slagging off Wiggins, a clean rider who made the very best of his talent and idolizing a cheat ...typical cycling hypocracy

You make a good point . Yet Nib's who is as clean as Wiggo by your reasoning destroyed him at the Giro.

Like I said worse tour winner ever

 

[ray j willings]

Re: Re:

The argument against wiggins that the best rider(s) weren't there is the same as the case against Nibali, but most people tend to accept him as a legit winner.

Really? Nibali won by default - do some people really think he was the strongest guy last year?

Nibs was a worthy winner. He owned that tour even more so once Bertie and chaos theory limbs "Froome" had gone.
Wiggins just sucked wheels.

 

[qwer]

Re: Re:

The argument against wiggins that the best rider(s) weren't there is the same as the case against Nibali, but most people tend to accept him as a legit winner.

Really? Nibali won by default - do some people really think he was the strongest guy last year?

By using Dr. Ferrari’s formula:

Froome 5.96 W/kg on 5 major climbs in 2013 Tour.
Nibali 5.99 W/kg on 5 major climbs in 2014 Tour.

Seems to me he was really strong

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool. major climbs like MTF stage 19 and MTF stage 20, froome wasn't good in those stages...
look to stage 8 where contador took 3 seconds in a walking pace

 

[HelloDolly]

Re: Re:

Bradley Wiggins is a champion (road and track) and no matter the circumstances a Tour de France winner
<SNIP>

Take it to the Clinic where it belongs....

Take what to the clinic ??

I am not speculating I am simple stating a fact

Contador was banned for cheating ...why should I not be able to say this fact here

As for speculation about Wiggins....well I made none but some other did here ...but that should be in the clinic ...but you made no such suggestion to these contributors

Seems it ok to make wild unfounded accusations about SKY on this form but not state facts about Contador
More of the same hypocrisy

 

[Netserk]

Stating that Wiggins is a clean rider is speculation that belongs to the clinic...

 

[TMP402]

Re:

Stating that Wiggins is a clean rider is speculation that belongs to the clinic...

repeating some lame doublespeak from earlier today doesn't stop it from being an unsubstantiated insinuation that really should not be made outside the clinic.

 

[Miburo]

Re: Re:

No matter what happens on Sunday he has to go down as a legend in the sport and the man who helped who helped introduce a nation at large to the sport we call cycling. Thanks for everything Wiggo.

Let's not forget that he won a tour when he wasn't even the strongest on his team though. And the best GC rider at that moment was banned.

Strongest climber maybe, but that's all.

Froome would have won that tour easily if he was in another team. Wiggins would have cracked completely.

 

[Miburo]

Re:

Bradley Wiggins is a champion (road and track) and no matter the circumstances a Tour de France winner

Contador was banned for cheating ....are you forgetting that little point...how convenient

Slagging off Wiggins, a clean rider who made the very best of his talent and idolizing a cheat ...typical cycling hypocracy

You've to check your sources, contador was never banned for doping.

And disregarding contador was still the most dominant GT rider at this point. I value a victory way more when you beat the strongest riders.

Wiggins didn't do that in tour 2012 and he will also not do that in this year PR.

 

[elfed68]

Re: Re:

Bradley Wiggins is a champion (road and track) and no matter the circumstances a Tour de France winner

Contador was banned for cheating ....are you forgetting that little point...how convenient

Slagging off Wiggins, a clean rider who made the very best of his talent and idolizing a cheat ...typical cycling hypocracy

You've to check your sources, contador was never banned for doping.

And disregarding contador was still the most dominant GT rider at this point. I value a victory way more when you beat the strongest riders.

Wiggins didn't do that in tour 2012 and he will also not do that in this year PR.

Based on this way of thinking no win is deserved unless all the top riders are competing, which applies to every race in this modern age.

 

[del1962]

Re: Re:

No matter what happens on Sunday he has to go down as a legend in the sport and the man who helped who helped introduce a nation at large to the sport we call cycling. Thanks for everything Wiggo.

Let's not forget that he won a tour when he wasn't even the strongest on his team though. And the best GC rider at that moment was banned.

Strongest climber maybe, but that's all.

Eddie Mercxx wasn't in the race too either

Anyway the best GC rider as you call him hardly covered himself in glory in either the previous or the subsequent TDF.


EDIT: Reply to Miburo not elfed68

 

[SeriousSam]

Re: Re:

Stating that Wiggins is a clean rider is speculation that belongs to the clinic...

repeating some lame doublespeak from earlier today doesn't stop it from being an unsubstantiated insinuation that really should not be made outside the clinic.

It's not lame doublespeak. The clinic is the place to discuss doping matters. If you feel like making a passionate case for Brad being clean, his thread in the clinic is where you should do it. Not here. Even if you feel like stating he is clean without any reasoning whatsoever, his thread in the clinic is where you should do it, not here.

And yes, it is speculation. It's a claim subject to uncertainty, as it its negation. Which side has more evidence behind it, well, that's to be discussed in the clinic, not here.

What you and the other guy appear to miss is the basic logic of negations.

 

[Miburo]

I never said wiggins didn't deserve the victory although it is a fact that the stronger rider was froome and the only reason wiggins won is cause froome was held on a leash.

Furthermore going to nibali, he deserved his victory, he was the best in the race but i don't value his victory that highly since he didn't beat the 3 GT strongest riders but at least he was the best in that tour from the remaining riders. Wiggins wasn't.

 

[happytramp]

Re:

I never said wiggins didn't deserve the victory although it is a fact that the stronger rider was froome and the only reason wiggins won is cause froome was held on a leash.

Skipped those time trial stages did you?

 

[TMP402]

Re: Re:

Stating that Wiggins is a clean rider is speculation that belongs to the clinic...

repeating some lame doublespeak from earlier today doesn't stop it from being an unsubstantiated insinuation that really should not be made outside the clinic.

It's not lame doublespeak. The clinic is the place to discuss doping matters. If you feel like making a passionate case for Brad being clean, his thread in the clinic is where you should do it. Not here. Even if you feel like stating he is clean without any reasoning whatsoever, his thread in the clinic is where you should do it, not here.

And yes, it is speculation. It's a claim subject to uncertainty, as it its negation. Which side has more evidence behind it, well, that's to be discussed in the clinic, not here.

What you and the other guy appear to miss is the basic logic of negations.

I think I know where I've gone wrong here. I thought the presumption of innocence as a fundamental principle of serious thought would exist here. I guess not.

 

[SeriousSam]

You're saying the gains in the time trials would have been enough to compensate for worse ascent times because Froome doesn't drag him up every mountain, and Froome going full genius on the MTFs?

 

[SeriousSam]

Re: Re:

Stating that Wiggins is a clean rider is speculation that belongs to the clinic...

repeating some lame doublespeak from earlier today doesn't stop it from being an unsubstantiated insinuation that really should not be made outside the clinic.

It's not lame doublespeak. The clinic is the place to discuss doping matters. If you feel like making a passionate case for Brad being clean, his thread in the clinic is where you should do it. Not here. Even if you feel like stating he is clean without any reasoning whatsoever, his thread in the clinic is where you should do it, not here.

And yes, it is speculation. It's a claim subject to uncertainty, as it its negation. Which side has more evidence behind it, well, that's to be discussed in the clinic, not here.

What you and the other guy appear to miss is the basic logic of negations.

I think I know where I've gone wrong here. I thought the presumption of innocence as a fundamental principle of serious thought would exist here. I guess not.

This has nothing to do with the presumption of innocence. It's simply a (very sensible) rule here that doping matters are to be discussed in the clinic. I would hope that you can see that calling someone clean, therefore, has no place in the road racing section of this forum.

Also, the presumption of innocence is not a fundamental principle of serious thought. In fact, It is completely irrelevant if the sole objective is to seek the truth and minimize the chance to hold false beliefs. It is, however, an important legal right.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Froome could have put in a minute into Wiggins on each mountain stage and considering Froome lost 1'40 on the first stage due to a flat which wouldn't have happened if a team had helped him get back into the peloton...

 

[Miburo]

Re: Re:

I never said wiggins didn't deserve the victory although it is a fact that the stronger rider was froome and the only reason wiggins won is cause froome was held on a leash.

Skipped those time trial stages did you?

Your point? Froome can gain 2 minutes on Wiggins in every MTF.

Who cares about these ITT?

 

[TMP402]

Re: Re:

Stating that Wiggins is a clean rider is speculation that belongs to the clinic...

repeating some lame doublespeak from earlier today doesn't stop it from being an unsubstantiated insinuation that really should not be made outside the clinic.

It's not lame doublespeak. The clinic is the place to discuss doping matters. If you feel like making a passionate case for Brad being clean, his thread in the clinic is where you should do it. Not here. Even if you feel like stating he is clean without any reasoning whatsoever, his thread in the clinic is where you should do it, not here.

And yes, it is speculation. It's a claim subject to uncertainty, as it its negation. Which side has more evidence behind it, well, that's to be discussed in the clinic, not here.

What you and the other guy appear to miss is the basic logic of negations.

I think I know where I've gone wrong here. I thought the presumption of innocence as a fundamental principle of serious thought would exist here. I guess not.

This has nothing to do with the presumption of innocence. It's simply a (very sensible) rule here that doping matters are to be discussed in the clinic. I would hope that you can see that calling someone clean, therefore, has no place in the road racing section of this forum.

Also, the presumption of innocence is not a fundamental principle of serious thought. In fact, It is completely irrelevant if the sole objective is to seek the truth and minimize the chance to hold false beliefs. It is, however, an important legal right.

That's totalitarian disregard for freedom under the law if ever I saw it. But anyway; you are right about discussions of Wiggins being clean or not. Reading back through your messages:

Even if you feel like stating he is clean without any reasoning whatsoever, his thread in the clinic is where you should do it, not here.

at first glance looked more like an accusation than it fact it was.

 

[Carols]

Re: Re:

Bradley Wiggins is a champion (road and track) and no matter the circumstances a Tour de France winner
<SNIP>

Take it to the Clinic where it belongs....

Take what to the clinic ??

There is no Doping talk in this forum about any rider, pro or con. Please read the rules
Thanks!