Wiggins in clean tour win shocker?

Page 9 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Tyler'sTwin said:
Don't believe everything that's in a newspaper? It's from a leaked UCI document. Cofidis was the least suspicious team in the race 2 years ago, according to the people in charge of anti-doping, with access to data none of us have seen.

It's likely that the clean up occured after 2004.
Wasn't there an index before the 2011 tour that had some Sky riders rated as dodgy, like Thomas who was a 7.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
BYOP88 said:
Wasn't there an index before the 2011 tour that had some Sky riders rated as dodgy, like Thomas who was a 7.
The same 2010 index had Thomas, Sioutsou, Rogers and Knees in the 6-10 range and Wiggo at 5. L'Equipe claimed 6-10 meant "overwhelming circumstantial evidence".
 
Aug 6, 2009
1,901
0
0
Maxiton said:
This bold bit, above, I don't think you can really say. A state or private pharmaceuticals lab could quite readily develop and produce a custom oxygen vector drug. It would be expensive, probably, but if it was a one-off, produced for you and no one else, it wouldn't show up in tests; and if administered with the bio-passport in mind, wouldn't raise red flags there, either.
It's possible of cause, but I don't think it's likely. Cycling is a million dollar business but pharmaceuticals is a billion dollar business. I'm not sure that it would be profitable, even though it would be cheaper than developing a real drug, and I also doubt that any pharmaceutical company would be willing to run that risk for whatever relatively small profit it might yield. An individual might, but I doubt an individual scientist could pull it off. Certainly there has thus far been no examples of new drugs used specifically for doping.
 
Dec 30, 2011
3,547
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
OK, replace Piti with another of Movistar's climbing helpers. Say Arroyo, since he's podiumed a GT.

Cobo, Arroyo, Costa, Kiryienka.

There you have a guy who's won a GT (ok, he hadn't 12 months ago), a guy who's podiumed one in fortunate circumstances, a young guy with a lot of potential who's won a medium mountain stage at the Tour and a top notch mountain domestique who's won mountainous stage races and high mountain stages at GTs.

How's about we throw Vladimir Karpets in for good measure, to match the Mick Rogers role? And he starts telling people about how he's putting out his best ever numbers as he rides like it's the 2007 Tour de Suisse all over again, only better?

Now how's it look?
Get rid of Costa and Cobo gets to be the leader and indeed that would be plausible imo
 
Aug 6, 2009
1,901
0
0
BYOP88 said:
and a 5 rating wasn't a 'clean cyclist here guv, honest' was it?
Nope, 0 and 1 was normal, 2-4 was mainly normal but with some weird stuff, so 5 would i guess, be somewhere between slightly weird, and overwhelming circumstantial. Let's call it fairly weird.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
OK, replace Piti with another of Movistar's climbing helpers. Say Arroyo, since he's podiumed a GT.

Cobo, Arroyo, Costa, Kiryienka.

There you have a guy who's won a GT (ok, he hadn't 12 months ago), a guy who's podiumed one in fortunate circumstances, a young guy with a lot of potential who's won a medium mountain stage at the Tour and a top notch mountain domestique who's won mountainous stage races and high mountain stages at GTs.

How's about we throw Vladimir Karpets in for good measure, to match the Mick Rogers role? And he starts telling people about how he's putting out his best ever numbers as he rides like it's the 2007 Tour de Suisse all over again, only better?

Now how's it look?
Sorry no one would buy that, not even Kirby and Harmon
 
Geordieracer said:
Its easier to believe he cheated but there is nothing to suggest that

Oh and its not my job to prove hes clean just stating my position
Occam's Razor:

"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

Two theories:

SKY dominated the Tour Clean.

SKY dominated the Tour Dirty.
 
Jun 25, 2012
283
0
0
Geordieracer said:
Bradly wiggins has been exposed as a clean tour winner much to thge disapointment of cynical cycling fans

So i,ve read these forums for a few years now and i,ve finally been stung into action
The so called cycling experts on here twist and turn any information to try to prove there own view

However i think its blatently obvious that wiggins is clean , The way he rides is that of a clean rider
Why cant people just accept that the guy has worked hard and won the biggest crown in cycling

Oh and i,m not some blind fan i know all about the doping exploits of the past 1st hand

Give the guy his due
He won and he won clean
Yes Wiggins is British and the first only clean winner of the tour!! shame on all your haters! British people never cheat and the reason for all the Sky team to be so dominant is because of hard traning and warm down sessions!!

Also Geert Leinders is a saint and he never did anything wrong thats why Sky hired him, because he is so friendly and helps people, he cured Froome !!!


No no.. My post is not Sarcastic at all...


Even the commentators make statements towards Wiggins and Sky not being Clean.. thats not very often!!


If you think Sky is clean and think their team setup is only nice and good people, then you are stupid im0, abit naive aswell. Think about it, they don't even dare to show us their blood test of their riders and they have so many dirty doctors team members on the team, yet this was the team that said in the start

"We support transparency" Wiggins saying himself that if you have doctors like GL, then you should be banned from the tour.....


Just as we got rid of Pharmstrong and even his fans know he and USP was super dirty, we see a new team arise with a new fanbase claiming them to be clean like saints....
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
Jürgen VDB was an 8, btw. Good thing the cleaner race this year allowed the the real natural talents [most blatant dopers] to shine [take advantage of the situation].
 
Dec 30, 2011
3,547
0
0
BYOP88 said:
Sorry no one would buy that, not even Kirby and Harmon
Dont see why not?
Cobo is the key he has a history of under performing and then resurfacing at an incredibly high level so his winning the Tour to me would not be all that surprising.
 
BYOP88 said:
Sorry no one would buy that, not even Kirby and Harmon
That's precisely the point! Removing Piti, you get four pretty good riders. One who's won a GT and has a history of disappearing and resurfacing, another who's been on the podium of a GT, one super-strong domestique, one guy who's won stage races like the Tour de Suisse but has been pretty poor for the last couple of years, and one young gun who's just won the Tour de Suisse, albeit on a less mountainous route.

It's not that different to Wiggins, Froome, Porte, Rogers.

But very, very few people would buy that Movistar train, even if we remove Rui Costa because of his tainted supplements positive (one of the few positives that has actually been overturned, since he actually still had the supplements in question and was able to have them tested by a UCI-accredited lab and they were proven tainted, so his ban was quashed). But on the face of it, it's no weaker than the Sky train that just squashed the race, and certainly if it was 12 months ago, before Froome's coming-out party at the Vuelta, that would be considered the case.

So why do Sky get the benefit of the doubt when Movistar don't? Sky have made a big song and dance of cleanliness, but haven't walked the walk they've talked.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Cofidis wanted to sign Obree but when he made it clear he didn't dope they dropped him.

Wiggins signed for Cofidis :rolleyes:
Obree wasn't involved with Cofidis at all, IIRC. They first started in 1997, two full years after Obree's doomed flirtation with Le Groupment.

Le Groupment was managed by one Patrick Valke of Fagor "fame", who never managed another team.

Cofidis didn't start until 1997, by which time Obree was back in the UK riding 10 mile TT's, having turned his back on the Continental scene.

If you're going to tar someone's reputation by association at least get your supporting facts straight.

&quot said:
"I still feel I was robbed of part of my career," he says. "I was signed up to ride in the Prologue of the Tour back in 1995, but it was made very obvious to me I would have to take drugs. I said no, no way, and I was sacked by my team.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...ar-411453.html
That article you linked to has him referring to the Le Groupment debacle not Cofidis.

Don't let accuracy get in the way of your connecting of dots, eh?
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
Froome19 said:
Well Wiggins has not betrayed my trust in him just yet, I cant say the same about some of those names..
Libertine Seguros said:
OK, replace Piti with another of Movistar's climbing helpers.
Keep Piti. He was a Fuentes client and Rogers was a Ferrari client. What's the difference? Sure, there was additional proof against Valverde, but everyone knows what years of "training advice" from Ferrari really means.

Movistar train and 1-2 would definitely have seemed more plausible a year ago.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
ultimobici said:
Obree wasn't involved with Cofidis at all, IIRC. They first started in 1997, two full years after Obree's doomed flirtation with Le Groupment.

Le Groupment was managed by one Patrick Valke of Fagor "fame", who never managed another team.

Cofidis didn't start until 1997, by which time Obree was back in the UK riding 10 mile TT's, having turned his back on the Continental scene.

If you're going to tar someone's reputation by association at least get your supporting facts straight.

That article you linked to has him referring to the Le Groupment debacle not Cofidis.

Don't let accuracy get in the way of your connecting of dots, eh?
Can you point out where I mentioned Cofidis in 1995? Seems you're the one who's connecting dots and not that well.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
BYOP88 said:
Can you point out where I mentioned Cofidis in 1995? Seems you're the one who's connecting dots and not that well.
Yep.

Your response with that link was in reply to Taiwan's asking about the Cofidis link being true.

He's talking about Le Groupment in 1995, a team that he was signed for on the back of his Hour Record & Individual Pursuit success. Cofidis was 2 years later, had different management and had no connection to Obree at all.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
So why do Sky get the benefit of the doubt when Movistar don't? Sky have made a big song and dance of cleanliness, but haven't walked the walk they've talked.
I don't know. Honest question: I would be all outraged and **** in that scenario for sure. Am I racist (although I like Spain), a fanboy or naive/dumb because I'm not about Sky?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
ultimobici said:
Obree wasn't involved with Cofidis at all, IIRC. They first started in 1997, two full years after Obree's doomed flirtation with Le Groupment.
Posted now corrected.

Thanks
 
spalco said:
I don't know. Honest question: I would be all outraged and **** in that scenario for sure. Am I racist (although I like Spain), a fanboy or naive/dumb because I'm not about Sky?
See, this is it. It's about perception, and not about fact at all, because we're all governed by the heart sometimes.

There was a thread aaaaages back where ACF got into a heated debate with me about considering Evans dirty, because I did a compare and contrast exercise. You see, people (myself included) look at Ángel Vicioso's team history, and we see Kelme, ONCE, Liberty Seguros, Astana, Relax-GAM, LA-MSS, Andalucía, Androni Giocattoli and Katyusha. And we draw a conclusion from that: "Ángel Vicioso is shady". But in that case, why do we then look at Cadel Evans' team history, see Saeco, Mapei, T-Mobile, Lotto and BMC and not form the same conclusion?

Similarly, when riders test positive, not everybody goes the Emanuele Sella route and tells all. You get a lot of excuses flying around, and most people demand we believe their innocence. Coming from somebody like di Luca ("I would be without a brain to use CERA, it stays in your system so long"), it's laughable, but when Mikel Astarloza was saying "why would anybody be so stupid and naïve as to use first-generation EPO today?" just after testing positive for it, I wanted to believe him. Why? Because he seemed like an intelligent, nice guy and I liked him, so I wanted to believe he hadn't done it.

So what do we have that differentiates a Wiggins-Froome-Porte-Rogers train from a Cobo-Valverde-Costa-Kiryienka train (or, as I replaced Valverde because of his actually serving a suspension, Karpets and Arroyo in there) in terms of credibility when they start destroying the Tour de France and picking up multiple stages, dominating the climbs and the TTs and making everybody else in the race look like clowns? Answer: to a large extent, nothing more than our own pre-formed opinions and our own feelings about the riders and teams involved.

A lot of the people posting here would love nothing more than to be able to believe Sky are clean, but repeated kickings from the sport mean they can't. Others have decided that they can believe Sky are clean, but the talking points (on track success being an explanation for the road success of Wiggins, of Froome's 2008 exploits showing potential to justify his transformation, of Porte's 2010 Giro where he lost 4-5 minutes in every mountain stage satisfactorily explaining his improvement over last year) are filled with a mixture of common sense and hope, and depending on how convinced the poster is, that comes in varying quantities. If it weren't a team that people wanted to believe in, then the treatment might have been a lot more vitriolic.
 
Dec 30, 2011
3,547
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
See, this is it. It's about perception, and not about fact at all, because we're all governed by the heart sometimes.

There was a thread aaaaages back where ACF got into a heated debate with me about considering Evans dirty, because I did a compare and contrast exercise. You see, people (myself included) look at Ángel Vicioso's team history, and we see Kelme, ONCE, Liberty Seguros, Astana, Relax-GAM, LA-MSS, Andalucía, Androni Giocattoli and Katyusha. And we draw a conclusion from that: "Ángel Vicioso is shady". But in that case, why do we then look at Cadel Evans' team history, see Saeco, Mapei, T-Mobile, Lotto and BMC and not form the same conclusion?

Similarly, when riders test positive, not everybody goes the Emanuele Sella route and tells all. You get a lot of excuses flying around, and most people demand we believe their innocence. Coming from somebody like di Luca ("I would be without a brain to use CERA, it stays in your system so long"), it's laughable, but when Mikel Astarloza was saying "why would anybody be so stupid and naïve as to use first-generation EPO today?" just after testing positive for it, I wanted to believe him. Why? Because he seemed like an intelligent, nice guy and I liked him, so I wanted to believe he hadn't done it.

So what do we have that differentiates a Wiggins-Froome-Porte-Rogers train from a Cobo-Valverde-Costa-Kiryienka train (or, as I replaced Valverde because of his actually serving a suspension, Karpets and Arroyo in there) in terms of credibility when they start destroying the Tour de France and picking up multiple stages, dominating the climbs and the TTs and making everybody else in the race look like clowns? Answer: to a large extent, nothing more than our own pre-formed opinions and our own feelings about the riders and teams involved.

A lot of the people posting here would love nothing more than to be able to believe Sky are clean, but repeated kickings from the sport mean they can't. Others have decided that they can believe Sky are clean, but the talking points (on track success being an explanation for the road success of Wiggins, of Froome's 2008 exploits showing potential to justify his transformation, of Porte's 2010 Giro where he lost 4-5 minutes in every mountain stage satisfactorily explaining his improvement over last year) are filled with a mixture of common sense and hope, and depending on how convinced the poster is, that comes in varying quantities. If it weren't a team that people wanted to believe in, then the treatment might have been a lot more vitriolic.
I agree with the last part 100%, but the fact is that imo people may be more inclined to believe Sky as they have a plausible explanation for their excellence and superiority which was something which did not emerge after the Tour and the superiority but a long time before. That is the marginal gains and the extremely thorough training which they make every rider go through. In the sport of professional cycling logically every rider has the potential to achieve the best he can if he peaks specifically for a race. People doubting Arroyo and Kiryenka is not because we do not believe them capable as Arroyo and Kiryenka have shown in the pass that they are more than capable at performing at a level with the best, but rather because all 4 of those riders are performing well. That is resolved as Sky do the extreme rigorous training which does not allow riders to stray at all and therefore the chances of them being on form will increase tenfold as why should a rider not be on form if his training is spot on?
 
Froome19 said:
I agree with the last part 100%, but the fact is that imo people may be more inclined to believe Sky as they have a plausible explanation for their excellence and superiority which was something which did not emerge after the Tour and the superiority but a long time before. That is the marginal gains and the extremely thorough training which they make every rider go through. In the sport of professional cycling logically every rider has the potential to achieve the best he can if he peaks specifically for a race. People doubting Arroyo and Kiryenka is not because we do not believe them capable as Arroyo and Kiryenka have shown in the pass that they are more than capable at performing at a level with the best, but rather because all 4 of those riders are performing well. That is resolved as Sky do the extreme rigorous training which does not allow riders to stray at all and therefore the chances of them being on form will increase tenfold as why should a rider not be on form if his training is spot on?
it really was fanstatic to watch you go from a new guy starting to like and understanding cycling to wonderlance 2.0 in only half a season.

where have we heard stuff like marginal gains and hard/more professional training stuff before?

it's all about high cadence and weight loss right?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
So what do we have that differentiates a Wiggins-Froome-Porte-Rogers train from a Cobo-Valverde-Costa-Kiryienka train (or, as I replaced Valverde because of his actually serving a suspension, Karpets and Arroyo in there) in terms of credibility when they start destroying the Tour de France and picking up multiple stages, dominating the climbs and the TTs and making everybody else in the race look like clowns? Answer: to a large extent, nothing more than our own pre-formed opinions and our own feelings about the riders and teams involved.

A lot of the people posting here would love nothing more than to be able to believe Sky are clean, but repeated kickings from the sport mean they can't. Others have decided that they can believe Sky are clean, but the talking points (on track success being an explanation for the road success of Wiggins, of Froome's 2008 exploits showing potential to justify his transformation, of Porte's 2010 Giro where he lost 4-5 minutes in every mountain stage satisfactorily explaining his improvement over last year) are filled with a mixture of common sense and hope, and depending on how convinced the poster is, that comes in varying quantities. If it weren't a team that people wanted to believe in, then the treatment might have been a lot more vitriolic.
explanation exists why Froome did not get the perfect race schedule for his talent. He is not a fraud. Was he doping in 2008, sure. Was he doping this year, sure. And I am perhaps the most keen Froome supporter on the forum.

He is not doing, what the others at the pointy end are not (availing themselves).

If he was in a team like Slipstream, and given 5 Tours in a row, with linear progression, it would not seem a "transfroomation". If he could have been given Paris Nice, Catalunya, Dauphine, in his legs, for 5 years, we would have seen his legs and the demonstration of talent and results.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY