Wiggins Discussion thread.

[Parera]

Because he's been the strongest, but only had his wings clipped fblablablababla

Like being the "strongest" has anything to do with winning. Ask Spartacus about that.

 

[rhubroma]

Like being the "strongest" has anything to do with winning. Ask Spartacus about that.

In fact such it is in the cycling of science, of global projects, of 5-year projects, of rigid team organization (which this Tour has suffered greatly from), of remote controled riders.

Let's see the reaction of some champions to yesterday's stage as reported in la Gazzetta dello Sport:

Argentin Super Harsh: "Fixed result"
Fondriest: "I didn't like what I saw"

by Claudio Ghisalberti

"This is sporting fraud, it is a fixed result. You can't stop a racer who is decisively stronger than another. Something like this has never been seen before." Moreno Argentin, World Champion in 1986, is a flooding river. The epilogue to the stage, and probably the whole Tour, disgusts them. "I'm beside myself with how the team directors managed Froome and Wiggins. It was unnatural. They made the strongest man loose. And the cake SKY baked turned out poorly, because Froome turning around that way as he did wanted to humiliate Wiggins."

Maurizio Fondriest, World Champion in 1988, concurs: "Moreno is right. I didn't at all like the end of this stage of a boring Tour. It is obvious that SKY, after the Vuelta experience last year, couldn’t risk losing the Yellow Jersey, however, I would have left them free to ride their own races. In addition, once the decision was made, Froome should have avoided that scene."

Let's pass over to another World Champion, Mario Cipollini (2002). "Wiggins will win the Tour but the strongest is Froome. I don't believe that Wiggins pride has been repaid. In any case, for Froome this is already the second time that he let himself go with theatrical gestures. He could have waited for his teammate with more class. Evidently if he did it again, it's because within the team he has his supporters. Otherwise, after the stage to La Toussuire, they would have made him loose the desire. Perhaps not everyone at SKY was convinced the Wiggins could hold up.” In the end the synthetic, though caustic, words of Laurent Jalabert: "The best man won't win this tour."

 

[El Pistolero]

There will always be an asterisk behind this victory whether he likes it or not. It's not Brad's fault, it's Froome's fault for not having a spine.

 

[rhubroma]

It seems he's nostalgic of the good old days when Pharmstrong could trash his competition everywhere, ITTs or MTFs...the harm he's done is...

As for rhubard, you've really got some nerve accusing an articulate poster of living in "semi-darckness" when all you have to show for yourself is a simplistic fantasy world based on two occasions where Froome had more kick than his leader, with nothing to prove it could have been sustained (as has been pointed out to you several times already, the only time he took off in a GT so far, he could not sustain it) and obviously you haven't even started asking yourself where Froome would be today if he wasn't riding for Sky? Right, nowhere most likely. He's got 5+ years to prove he's got the goods, that should be enough.

Complete and utter nonesence. Riding for himself, today, means Wiggins is dropped on the climbs. Period. If SKY is the cause then it's the same situation Wiggins is in. That he's with SKY only confirms he's on the best program. My thoughts are confirmed by champions, even before I read them. Not the likes of you, who don't understand squat in a manner of speaking. Your fanboy status has left you in the dark too. What nerve!

 

[woodenswan]

yesterday: no biggie
Wiggins the rightful winner
the only lesson: Froome fanboyism is far more annoying than Wiggo fanboyism.

 

[rhubroma]

yesterday: no biggie
Wiggins the rightful winner
the only lesson: Froome fanboyism is far more annoying than Wiggo fanboyism.

Well if you are refering to me, then your opinion is misguided. I actually couldn't care less about Froome or Wiggins, but the spirit of competition, which seems to mean nothing these days and which this race has falsified.

But I will say this, SKY exaggerates. Wiggins was designated to win. It's the Olympic year, in London, and it's as if he were called upon by a higher power to win in the interests of investments, of business and the publicity of cycling, which the Tour, more than any other race, represents. But this is what cycling has become, though we are in no way required to approve.

 

[Parera]

There will always be an asterisk behind this victory whether he likes it or not. It's not Brad's fault, it's Froome's fault for not having a spine.

Write a sharply worded email to the ASO, I'm sure they will add that cute little asterisk to make you happy.

 

[woodenswan]

Well if you are refering to me, then your opinion is misguided. I actually couldn't care less about Froome or Wiggins, but the spirit of competition, which seems to mean nothing these days.

But I will say this, SKY exaggerates. Wiggins was designated to win. It's the Olympic year, in London, and it's as if he were called upon by a higher power to win in the interests of investments, of business and the publicity of cycling, which the Tour, more than any other race, represents. But this is what cycling has become, though we are in no way required to approve.

not referring to you particularly
the bolded part is true of course, but i think in this case also irrelevant. (and quite frankly a lil bit on the captain obvious side. pro sports are about those things. have been for a while.) given their positions on gc, even if sky would have been stupid enough to create an absolute mess by having 2 leaders, while the 2 would have been undoubtedly closer to eachother, Wiggins could still just beat Froome thanks to his TTskills. clearly, they could have allowed Froome to go for the stage yesterday. but they didnt. it's just.. not such a big deal IMHO

 

[Inquitus]

We'll never know who would have won his tour if it Wiggins and Froome were allowed to duke it out. The puncture effectively settled that one, and it's part of racing. Wiggins > Froome all things considered this tour, fate settled that. If fate hadn't intervened I think it would have been very close given the parcours. It's one thing to jump and make a gap, another to ride away from a diesel like Wiggins and make it stick, as we saw last year with Cadel and Schlecklette.

 

[rhubroma]

not referring to you particularly
the bolded part is true of course, but i think in this case also irrelevant. (and quite frankly a lil bit on the captain obvious side. pro sports are about those things. have been for a while.) given their positions on gc, even if sky would have been stupid enough to create an absolute mess by having 2 leaders, while the 2 would have been undoubtedly closer to eachother, Wiggins could still just beat Froome thanks to his TTskills. clearly, they could have allowed Froome to go for the stage yesterday. but they didnt. it's just.. not such a big deal IMHO

I respectfully disagree. A mess of two leaders years ago was pure entertainment and sporting sincerity: Coppi/Bartali (1940 Giro), Gimondi/Motta, Hinault/Lemond (1986), Riis/Ullrich (1996, on the bad side). But, as I have previously stated, this is the corporate cycling world of mega sponsorship, of investment returns, of global projects, of coordinated systems, of 5-year programs, of hegmonic teamwork, of remote controled riders.

Like I said, it's today's cycling, though that doesn't mean we have to approve.

 

[Apollonius]

Like I said, it's today's cycling, though that doesn't mean we have to approve.

We?

I don't think so.

 

[Magnus]

to win in the interests of investments, of business and the publicity of cycling, which the Tour, more than any other race, represents. But this is what cycling has become, though we are in no way required to approve.

This is not what it has become. It is what it has always been. Cycling is the child of commercialism. The first road races was arranged by newspapers so they could sell more papers.

 

[Wiggins_Sideburn]

I hope he is knighted in the future.

 

[rhubroma]

This is not what it has become. It is what it has always been. Cycling is the child of commercialism. The first road races was arranged by newspapers so they could sell more papers.

Indeed, but never as today has the corporate world taken over with such virulence. To say that the sport's days were numbered means nothing; they always were, and are so with all civilization. But uncertainty as to the place, the time, and the manner, which distinguishes the goal toward which it continually advances, diminishes for me with the prospect of its fatal malady.

 

[Carols]

In fact such it is in the cycling of science, of global projects, of 5-year projects, of rigid team organization (which this Tour has suffered greatly from), of remote controled riders.

Let's see the reaction of some champions to yesterday's stage as reported in la Gazzetta dello Sport:

Argentin Super Harsh: "Fixed result"
Fondriest: "I didn't like what I saw"

by Claudio Ghisalberti

"This is sporting fraud, it is a fixed result. You can't stop a racer who is decisively stronger than another. Something like this has never been seen before." Moreno Argentin, World Champion in 1986, is a flooding river. The epilogue to the stage, and probably the whole Tour, disgusts them. "I'm beside myself with how the team directors managed Froome and Wiggins. It was unnatural. They made the strongest man loose. And the cake SKY baked turned out poorly, because Froome turning around that way as he did wanted to humiliate Wiggins."

Maurizio Fondriest, World Champion in 1988, concurs: "Moreno is right. I didn't at all like the end of this stage of a boring Tour. It is obvious that SKY, after the Vuelta experience last year, couldn’t risk losing the Yellow Jersey, however, I would have left them free to ride their own races. In addition, once the decision was made, Froome should have avoided that scene."

Let's pass over to another World Champion, Mario Cipollini (2002). "Wiggins will win the Tour but the strongest is Froome. I don't believe that Wiggins pride has been repaid. In any case, for Froome this is already the second time that he let himself go with theatrical gestures. He could have waited for his teammate with more class. Evidently if he did it again, it's because within the team he has his supporters. Otherwise, after the stage to La Toussuire, they would have made him loose the desire. Perhaps not everyone at SKY was convinced the Wiggins could hold up.” In the end the synthetic, though caustic, words of Laurent Jalabert: "The best man won't win this tour."

Yesterday speaking with emotion; having just finished watching the stage, I agreed Froome was the strongest.

Today my attitude is let's see what happens tomorrow in the ITT. If Wiggins cleans Froome's clock well hard to argue. If Froome comes within 30 seconds again, I will always wonder Who would have won the race had Froome been turned loose in the mountains......

Maybe in the future we'll get to see them duke it out

 

[rhubroma]

Yesterday speaking with emotion; having just finished watching the stage, I agreed Froome was the strongest.

Today my attitude is let's see what happens tomorrow in the ITT. If Wiggins cleans Froome's clock well hard to argue. If Froome comes within 30 seconds again, I will always wonder Who would have won the race had Froome been turned loose in the mountains......

Maybe in the future we'll get to see them duke it out

But that's not my point. It isn't whether Froome takes 30 seconds from Wiggins tomorrow, but would he have had to all else being equal.

In my opinion, not. He's not exactly slow either in the TT, though had he been at liberty to race the mountains in his own interests (and ideally without the flat - though had he been better protected he wouldn't have lost the time), he'd have a margin of advantage that could have quite possibly given him the overall victory.

My point was that on the balance of things, if you consider Wiggins superiority over Froome in the TT and the latter's over Wiggins on the climbs; Froome come out on top. But because SKY invested 80 million - Tour and Olympics goal - well that's why SKY "has" to win with Wiggins.

And I don't like scripts. They take the natural meaning out of the race.

 

[stampedingviking]

Yesterday speaking with emotion; having just finished watching the stage, I agreed Froome was the strongest.

Today my attitude is let's see what happens tomorrow in the ITT. If Wiggins cleans Froome's clock well hard to argue. If Froome comes within 30 seconds again, I will always wonder Who would have won the race had Froome been turned loose in the mountains......

Maybe in the future we'll get to see them duke it out

On the basis of a 5 second attack the clairvoyants have all decided that Froome is the stronger, even though other, similar attacks have been brought back.

Can they tell me this week's lottery numbers, please.

 

[Carols]

On the basis of a 5 second attack the clairvoyants have all decided that Froome is the stronger, even though other, similar attacks have been brought back.

Can they tell me this week's lottery numbers, please.

Well most of those other attacks were brought back by Froome...just saying

 

[roundabout]

I thought he kept gapping Wiggins while riding a relatively steady tempo?

 

[Magnus]

Indeed, but never as today has the corporate world taken over with such virulence.

I think Greg LeMond might beg to differ. Andrea Tafi too probably.

 

[rhubroma]

I think Greg LeMond might beg to differ. Andrea Tafi too probably.

Unfortunately, that was only the beginning.

 

[cycladianpirate]

But that's not my point. It isn't whether Froome takes 30 seconds from Wiggins tomorrow, but would he have had to all else being equal.

In my opinion, not. He's not exactly slow either in the TT, though had he been at liberty to race the mountains in his own interests (and ideally without the flat - though had he been better protected he wouldn't have lost the time), he'd have a margin of advantage that could have quite possibly given him the overall victory.

My point was that on the balance of things, if you consider Wiggins superiority over Froome in the TT and the latter's over Wiggins on the climbs; Froome come out on top. But because SKY invested 80 million - Tour and Olympics goal - well that's why SKY "has" to win with Wiggins.

And I don't like scripts. They take the natural meaning out of the race.

Then you, sir, are an idiot. Neither Froome nor Wiggins would be racing in this Tour without the backing of corporate sponsorship. You postulate an impossible scenario and then agonize over it. Do you really believe that Sky (or any other team for that matter) just twiddled their thumbs over the intervening months and turned up at the Tour and said "let's just see how we get on"???

Sky, again like every other team, picked an option (and whether it was based on marketing, PR, horoscopes, etc. is neither here nor there) and stuck with it. Everyone was paid, everyone did a job. It isn't Green's Theorem.

 

[Ripper]

I hope he is knighted in the future.

Who, and are you being serious or joking?

 

[Gloin22]

Who, and are you being serious or joking?

I am sure Wiggins will be knighted along Brailsford.

Brailsford for service to both British track & road cycling.

Wiggins for Tour and Track as well.

Chris Hoy got knighted, I can see Wiggins knighted soon too.

 

[Tei6chai]

I am sure Wiggins will be knighted along Brailsford.
Brailsford for service to both British track & road cycling.
Wiggins for Tour and Track as well.
Chris Hoy got knighted, I can see Wiggins knighted soon too.

Brailsford will be knighted, and deservedly so.

Wiggins should not be knighted until he retires, and I'd be surprised if he is knighted sooner.

Gordon Brown bent the rules by knighting Chris Hoy for his own political reasons ... partly to associate himself with the post-Olympic feelgood factor, but mostly to stick it to the Scottish National Party by knighting a Scottish Unionist for his contribution to a British victory.