Wiggins in clean tour win shocker?

[Ferminal]

Wiggins cleaner than Evans now?

 

[taiwan]

I dont think Dave Brailsford would allow current dopers in his team
Its important that people within cycling realise that it does have history , but cycling needs to move on
So if they are clean now its ok for team sky NOW

You know Dave Brailsford? Do tell!

Kidding. I get it - you think Wiggins was clean.

 

[The Cobra]

If it is like that, why is it so hard to provide some hard facts, real evidence, to prove that? And PS: I NEVER EVER laughed at Wiggins or anything.

The whole idea that riders have to prove their innocence is ridiculous and just shows how messed up this sport is thanks to riders that have gone and doped before. No one demands to see Moncoutie's blood data, or anyone else's. It is the job of the police, of the UCI, of WADA to catch the dopers. Proving you are 100% clean is an impossible task. Even if Wiggins published very believable passport data, people would say it just proves that he's microdosing and Gert is the best in the business etc. It's not Wiggins' fault the UCI is a corrupt pile of ****.

PS I never mentioned you directly, the posters who laughed at Wiggins' chances in the Tour know who they are, *Cough*BroDeal*Cough*.

 

[Geordieracer]

Read what you're saying through the eyes of someone who is already suspicious. It is utterly ridiculous if the seed of doubt is has been planted in a poster's mind.

Listen Freind i,m not obsessed with changing peoples minds just purely putting what i and many others believe in out there
Why should the people claiming hes doped go unchallenged

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Not trolling just using mr right to have an opionion
Just got sick of hearing all the BS about brad

No, you're trolling. In fact, I am pretty sure I know who you are. But that is an entirely different proposition to Wiggins' Tour win.

 

[Caruut]

Listen Freind i,m not obsessed with changing peoples minds just purely putting what i and many others believe in out there
Why should the people claiming hes doped go unchallenged

Well why not just leave it at the one post, then?

I would say though that the people claiming he's doping are still going unchallenged - unless saying "I believe blindly in Wiggins, you should too!" is a challenge.

 

[Geordieracer]

You know Dave Brailsford? Do tell!

Kidding. I get it - you think Wiggins was clean.

No i,m pretty confident that hes always been clean read the thread and stop trying childish humour

 

[Libertine Seguros]

He is and has always been a better TT rider than armstrong

That's patently false; until 2009 Wiggins was a time trial specialist in the same way that Dave Zabriskie or David Millar are now. Armstrong was of course spanking the whole field at his peak, the same way Wiggins is now.

Of course, judging them on their natural talents will always be difficult as we simply do not know what a clean Armstrong would have been capable of. I feel like Wiggins was probably clean back in 2007, but I wouldn't want to stake any money on it today.

It's easy to say "there is no incontrovertible evidence that he is doping, therefore he is clean". But we all know that there is a continuum between "100% clean no suspicion" and "Riccardo Riccò". Just because there is no incontrovertible evidence doesn't mean that he is certainly clean, unless you're prepared to accept that you then need to be arguing that people like Rubén Plaza and Juan José Cobo are 100% clean too. You see, the history of cycling functions like case history here. We've seen many examples of similar behaviour and results which turned out to be the result of cheating... so saying "nothing's come out, so you've got to say he's 100% clean" doesn't really wash, unless you really WANT to believe. I don't blame you if you do, just don't think you should be trying to rub it in the faces of those that don't, unless you're straight-up trolling.

 

[Caruut]

The whole idea that riders have to prove their innocence is ridiculous

Why is it ridiculous?

 

[taiwan]

No i,m pretty confident that hes always been clean read the thread and stop trying childish humour

I was asking the opinion of your source on the rest of the team, and you brought up Brailsford.

Anyway - that you think that Wiggins is clean sums it up. Might as well leave it there.

 

[Jeanne]

The whole idea that riders have to prove their innocence is ridiculous and just shows how messed up this sport is thanks to riders that have gone and doped before. No one demands to see Moncoutie's blood data, or anyone else's. It is the job of the police, of the UCI, of WADA to catch the dopers. Proving you are 100% clean is an impossible task. Even if Wiggins published very believable passport data, people would say it just proves that he's microdosing and Gert is the best in the business etc. It's not Wiggins' fault the UCI is a corrupt pile of ****.

PS I never mentioned you directly, the posters who laughed at Wiggins' chances in the Tour know who they are, *Cough*BroDeal*Cough*.

Agreed, proving 100% you never used anything might be impossible. But still, I would wish that all relevant data would be laid open if there is nothing to hide (of course not only Wiggins). What people will say about these data is something else.

 

[Geordieracer]

Why is it ridiculous?

It just is You shouldnt need to ask that question

 

[Froome19]

It's easy to say "there is no incontrovertible evidence that he is doping, therefore he is clean". But we all know that there is a continuum between "100% clean no suspicion" and "Riccardo Riccò". Just because there is no incontrovertible evidence doesn't mean that he is certainly clean, unless you're prepared to accept that you then need to be arguing that people like Rubén Plaza and Juan José Cobo are 100% clean too. You see, the history of cycling functions like case history here. We've seen many examples of similar behaviour and results which turned out to be the result of cheating... so saying "nothing's come out, so you've got to say he's 100% clean" doesn't really wash, unless you really WANT to believe. I don't blame you if you do, just don't think you should be trying to rub it in the faces of those that don't, unless you're straight-up trolling.

I would hope that would be a figment of the past and that cycling had left this behind but it seems like people are not ready to let go of their skepticism even though the world of cycling is getting out of its own hole. Fair enough maybe you guys are correct but on the evidence I have see it seems to be much more localized then it once was and therefore it doesnt deserve such skepticism.

 

[Geordieracer]

I was asking the opinion of your source on the rest of the team, and you brought up Brailsford.

Anyway - that you think that Wiggins is clean sums it up. Might as well leave it there.

Hilarious , So i think wiggins is clean and hes obviously not so my opinion counts for nothing

 

[Caruut]

It just is You shouldnt need to ask that question

If the answer is so obvious, lay it out.

 

[hrotha]

The peloton is cleaner hes just the best overall rider
This was always going to be a tour for mere humans like wiggins to win
More time trial miles , no mountain top finishes
No contador

He is and has always been a better TT rider than armstrong

So the peloton is clean and four of the strongest guys of the Tour coincidentally ride for Sky. OK, let's accept that. When did the peloton truly clean up? Just this year? If so, where does that put 2009 Wiggins and 2011 Froome? Did it clean up in 2009, 2010 or 2011? Then where does that put Rogers and Porte?

 

[Caruut]

Hilarious , So i think wiggins is clean and hes obviously not so my opinion counts for nothing

No-one's opinion counts for nothing. I read what he was saying as more than there is little point of you being here if all you want to do is repeat your own opinion without backing it it.

 

[spalco]

So the peloton is clean and four of the strongest guys of the Tour coincidentally ride for Sky. OK, let's accept that. When did the peloton truly clean up? Just this year? If so, where does that put 2009 Wiggins and 2011 Froome? Did it clean up in 2009, 2010 or 2011? Then where does that put Rogers and Porte?

I'll say one thing, if there is team doping at Sky, which you seem to be suggesting, I would be willing to bet a significant amount of money that we'll never find out about it.

 

[Geordieracer]

So the peloton is clean and four of the strongest guys of the Tour coincidentally ride for Sky. OK, let's accept that. When did the peloton truly clean up? Just this year? If so, where does that put 2009 Wiggins and 2011 Froome? Did it clean up in 2009, 2010 or 2011? Then where does that put Rogers and Porte?

Sky bought some of the strongest riders in the world
Just like man city bought the best players in the world
Simple as

 

[sniper]

for those with short-term memory:

1. Leinders was Rabo's leading teamdoctor between 1996 and 2009.

2. Quite recently, Theo de Rooij admitted in press that in the period he was with Rabobank Leinders supported and supervised the use of doping products including EPO.

3. Leinders quit Rabobank in 2009 shortly after Rabo had introduced a more stringent anti-doping policy.

4. Sky's official policy was to work only and exclusively with British doctors. The policy was dropped in 2010 when Leinders came in.

5. From Zeit:

Bradley Wiggins spricht nicht über seinen Teamarzt. Die Presseabteilung der Mannschaft sagt, er "kann dazu gar nichts sagen." Dave Brailsford, der Manager des Sky-Teams, sagt: "Hat er betrogen, seitdem er bei uns ist? Nein. War er ein guter Doktor? Ja, brillant.“ Jedes weitere Gespräch über die fragwürdige Personalie lehnt er ab. Auf weitere ZEIT-ONLINE-Anfragen antwortet das Management: "Wir haben zu dem Thema nichts hinzuzufügen. Leinders ist bei dieser Tour gar nicht vor Ort. Jetzt liegt unser Fokus komplett auf der Tour.“ Warum ein Arzt beschäftigt wird, der eindeutig gegen die Gründungsprinzipen verstößt? Und ob sich das Team mit dessen Vergangenheit auseinandergesetzt hat? Diese Fragen bleiben ohne Antwort. Und lassen Raum für Spekulationen.

Bradly Wiggins doesn't speak about his teamdoctor. Sky's press department states that "he cannot say anything about it". Dave Braislford says: "Did he cheat since he's with us? No. Has he been a good doctor? Yes, brilliant". Every other conversation about the doctor is declined. After further inquiries by Zeit-Online Sky's management answers: "We have nothing to add to the topic. Leinders isn't even present at the TdF." Why a doctor has been employed who clearly violates the team's founding principles? And whether the team has looked into his past? These questions remain unanswered and leave room for speculation.

 

[hrotha]

I'll say one thing, if there is team doping at Sky, which you seem to be suggesting, I would be willing to bet a significant amount of money that we'll never find out about it.

I think it'll come out - eventually. Even if it takes decades.

Sky bought some of the strongest riders in the world
Just like man city bought the best players in the world
Simple as

They signed Porte, who was a pretty bad climber throughout 2011 and a merely decent one in 2010.
They signed Froome, who didn't even have a contract coming into the 2011 Vuelta.
They signed Rogers, who everybody rightfully considered a has-been.
They signed Knees, a good, versatile domestique who found himself with no team after the Pegasus debacle. He was going from Milram to Pegasus, mind. Hardly the top of the sport.

Who are these "strongest riders in the world" you're referring to? Cav? He contributed almost exactly zilch. EBH? Hardly the key in this Tour.

 

[Geordieracer]

No-one's opinion counts for nothing. I read what he was saying as more than there is little point of you being here if all you want to do is repeat your own opinion without backing it it.

Why do i have to back it up inoccent untill proven guilty
Its my opionion get over it

I,m not arguing that you cant have your opionion , just stating mine
End of

 

[taiwan]

Hilarious , So i think wiggins is clean and hes obviously not so my opinion counts for nothing

What's wrong with the above statement?

 

[Geordieracer]

I think it'll come out - eventually. Even if it takes decades.

They signed Porte, who was a pretty bad climber throughout 2011 and a merely decent one in 2010.
They signed Froome, who didn't even have a contract coming into the 2011 Vuelta.
They signed Rogers, who everybody rightfully considered a has-been.
They signed Knees, a good, versatile domestique who found himself with no team after the Pegasus debacle. He was going from Milram to Pegasus, mind. Hardly the top of the sport.

Who are these "strongest riders in the world" you're referring to? Cav? He contributed almost exactly zilch. EBH? Hardly the key in this Tour.

I think you underestimate how much EBH did , My Sky man of the tour
Talk about sacrifice that man gave everything for the team

 

[hrotha]

I think you underestimate how much EBH did , My Sky man of the tour
Talk about sacrifice that man gave everything for the team

What about the rest? I see you like to address points selectively. EBH was just another piece in the machine, and not the most important one. If people suspect EBH, it's because he's now tainted by association. The issue here for most of us is the big four: Wiggins, Froome, Porte and Rogers.