Wiggins in clean tour win shocker?

[Moose McKnuckles]

This is a troll thread from what is clearly a sock puppet of either a banned poster or someone else looking to stir the pot.

 

[Geordieracer]

And where have all those Cav doping threads been all these years lol.

Seriously though, ignore this poster now, he even made a comment earlier "its been fun or something" admitting that its a wind up.

Mate if you have time to post 13 thousand times you obviously have something missing in your life
posting on a forum does not make you superior to any one else
This was not a wind up

JUST MY VIEW
DEAL WITH IT GUYS

 

[Geordieracer]

This is a troll thread from what is clearly a sock puppet of either a banned poster or someone else looking to stir the pot.

Never been banned and not looking to stir things up
just stating my view

 

[taiwan]

Bull**** cause you dont agree
I find your attitude pathetic

Bull$hit because there's no content or argument. Even the trolls are usually more sophisticated. One post in the Sky thread: "Wiggins is clean " would have been adequate.

Srly why am I still here?

 

[Angrylegs]

We've heard these fronts before like: 'But he has now revolutionized training in cycling'

McQuaid raised this too when talking to Harmon on ES not too long ago, when he praised Sky for proving cycling was cleaner and that the Tour could be won clean. He said their attention to detail and training regimen gave them a huge edge, allowing them to dominate this Tour and that it wanst surprising at all.

Like they actually discovered something in training regimen that has never been found before? Was an odd statement. We've heard it before though.

 

[Caruut]

JUST MY VIEW
DEAL WITH IT GUYS

Hitch, you were right.

 

[taiwan]

I am only paraphrasing from memory, through my wincing, but he went on and on about how clean cycling is now and how Bradley is proof the Tour can be won clean and how great that is for the development of the sport, that he is a hero for the cause. The effects could already be seen in Britain leading up to the Olympics and the implication was the monetary development of that market, that this was all planned, as he then raised asia and other markets that needed development over the next five years to make this a truly worldwide sport.

[url=http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/prudhomme-wiggins-tour-de-france-win-ushers-in-a-new-era]http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/prudhom ... -a-new-era[/url]

You wonder when these statements were written.

 

[Angrylegs]

You wonder when these statements were written.

Indeed you do. The propoganda machine is out in full force.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

 

[BYOP88]

I agree that Froome is the weak link that will spill the beans.

Brailsford has said they want to win the tour lots of time with Wiggins. Sounds very Armstrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Will be tough given the fact that father time isn't on his side. Big Mig and the Badger won their last Tours at the age of 31, Anquetil was 30 and the great one was 29 when he bagged his final Tour win.

In the entire history of the Tour there have been 9 riders who have won the tour at/over the age of 33, they are
Firmin Lambot 33 in 1919, 34 in 1920.
Leon Scieur 33 in 1921.
Henri Pélissier 34 in 1923.
Lucien Buysse 33 in 1926.
Maurice De Waele 33 in 1929.
Gino Bartali 34 in 1948,
Joop Zoetemelk 33 in 1980,
Lance Armstrong 33 in 2005
Cadel Evans 34 in 2011.

Of these 9 only 4 have been post WW2. But they didn't have the marginal gains of Sky or a swimming coach.

 

[The Valley]

I sometimes wonder why some of the people on here bother to follow cycling at all. You get a certain sports fan who doesn't care how his guy/woman/team wins, as long as they WIN - win at all costs, who cares if they cheated? Except you can absolutely guarantee with 100% certainty that if those people were themselves the victims of cheating - say they lost out on a job application because someone else lied on their résumé - they'd go mental. So we can safely dismiss those people as hypocritical idiots.

Then there are people who bemoan doping cheats in our sport - and I'm totally on board with that - but who don't seem to have the judgement or intellectual capacity to discern a rider who is genuinely clean. Every genuine fan of professional road cycling has something to cheer about after all the dark years in our sport: riders like Cadel Evans, Bradley Wiggins and Mark Cavendish are showing that it is possibly to be at the pinnacle of the sport without the use of drugs.

However, I know that to a certain extent I'm talking into the echo chamber here - there are some people who will, for whatever reason, never believe that someone could win the Tour without doping. You have major confirmation bias going on here - facts are ignored, suspicions are highlighted, things are invented out of the blue, and everything that goes against the ideology is ignored, lest cognitive dissonance causes head explosion.

So back to my original point: why bother following cycling if you can't get behind someone who has won the biggest race in our sport, and has done it without cheating? Why bother if you think that every rider who puts in a great performance is cheating?

It's a sunny, crystalline day in Paris, and a clean rider is about an hour away from crossing the line as I type this. FFS, enjoy it! GO BRADLEY!

 

[BYOP88]

I sometimes wonder why some of the people on here bother to follow cycling at all. You get a certain sports fan who doesn't care how his guy/woman/team wins, as long as they WIN - win at all costs, who cares if they cheated? Except you can absolutely guarantee with 100% certainty that if those people were themselves the victims of cheating - say they lost out on a job application because someone else lied on their résumé - they'd go mental. So we can safely dismiss those people as hypocritical idiots.

Then there are people who bemoan doping cheats in our sport - and I'm totally on board with that - but who don't seem to have the judgement or intellectual capacity to discern a rider who is genuinely clean. Every genuine fan of professional road cycling has something to cheer about after all the dark years in our sport: riders like Cadel Evans, Bradley Wiggins and Mark Cavendish are showing that it is possibly to be at the pinnacle of the sport without the use of drugs.

However, I know that to a certain extent I'm talking into the echo chamber here - there are some people who will, for whatever reason, never believe that someone could win the Tour without doping. You have major confirmation bias going on here - facts are ignored, suspicions are highlighted, things are invented out of the blue, and everything that goes against the ideology is ignored, lest cognitive dissonance causes head explosion.

So back to my original point: why bother following cycling if you can't get behind someone who has won the biggest race in our sport, and has done it without cheating? Why bother if you think that every rider who puts in a great performance is cheating?

It's a sunny, crystalline day in Paris, and a clean rider is about an hour away from crossing the line as I type this. FFS, enjoy it! GO BRADLEY!

You got any facts or evidence to back that claim up?

 

[Ferminal]

I sometimes wonder why some of the people on here bother to follow cycling at all. You get a certain sports fan who doesn't care how his guy/woman/team wins, as long as they WIN - win at all costs, who cares if they cheated? Except you can absolutely guarantee with 100% certainty that if those people were themselves the victims of cheating - say they lost out on a job application because someone else lied on their résumé - they'd go mental. So we can safely dismiss those people as hypocritical idiots.

Then there are people who bemoan doping cheats in our sport - and I'm totally on board with that - but who don't seem to have the judgement or intellectual capacity to discern a rider who is genuinely clean. Every genuine fan of professional road cycling has something to cheer about after all the dark years in our sport: riders like Cadel Evans, Bradley Wiggins and Mark Cavendish are showing that it is possibly to be at the pinnacle of the sport without the use of drugs.

However, I know that to a certain extent I'm talking into the echo chamber here - there are some people who will, for whatever reason, never believe that someone could win the Tour without doping. You have major confirmation bias going on here - facts are ignored, suspicions are highlighted, things are invented out of the blue, and everything that goes against the ideology is ignored, lest cognitive dissonance causes head explosion.

So back to my original point: why bother following cycling if you can't get behind someone who has won the biggest race in our sport, and has done it without cheating? Why bother if you think that every rider who puts in a great performance is cheating?

It's a sunny, crystalline day in Paris, and a clean rider is about an hour away from crossing the line as I type this. FFS, enjoy it! GO BRADLEY!

It is possible to acknowledge a doping problem without affecting ones enjoyment.

Do people seriously watch sport for "role models" and "heroes"? Professional sport is simply entertainment.

 

[Geordieracer]

I sometimes wonder why some of the people on here bother to follow cycling at all. You get a certain sports fan who doesn't care how his guy/woman/team wins, as long as they WIN - win at all costs, who cares if they cheated? Except you can absolutely guarantee with 100% certainty that if those people were themselves the victims of cheating - say they lost out on a job application because someone else lied on their résumé - they'd go mental. So we can safely dismiss those people as hypocritical idiots.

Then there are people who bemoan doping cheats in our sport - and I'm totally on board with that - but who don't seem to have the judgement or intellectual capacity to discern a rider who is genuinely clean. Every genuine fan of professional road cycling has something to cheer about after all the dark years in our sport: riders like Cadel Evans, Bradley Wiggins and Mark Cavendish are showing that it is possibly to be at the pinnacle of the sport without the use of drugs.

However, I know that to a certain extent I'm talking into the echo chamber here - there are some people who will, for whatever reason, never believe that someone could win the Tour without doping. You have major confirmation bias going on here - facts are ignored, suspicions are highlighted, things are invented out of the blue, and everything that goes against the ideology is ignored, lest cognitive dissonance causes head explosion.

So back to my original point: why bother following cycling if you can't get behind someone who has won the biggest race in our sport, and has done it without cheating? Why bother if you think that every rider who puts in a great performance is cheating?

It's a sunny, crystalline day in Paris, and a clean rider is about an hour away from crossing the line as I type this. FFS, enjoy it! GO BRADLEY!

Brilliantly said

 

[Geordieracer]

You got any facts or evidence to back that claim up?

Ha Ha here we go again
You got FACTS or EVIDENCE to prove brads doped

 

[taiwan]

I sometimes wonder why some of the people on here bother to follow cycling at all. You get a certain sports fan who doesn't care how his guy/woman/team wins, as long as they WIN - win at all costs, who cares if they cheated? Except you can absolutely guarantee with 100% certainty that if those people were themselves the victims of cheating - say they lost out on a job application because someone else lied on their résumé - they'd go mental. So we can safely dismiss those people as hypocritical idiots.

Then there are people who bemoan doping cheats in our sport - and I'm totally on board with that - but who don't seem to have the judgement or intellectual capacity to discern a rider who is genuinely clean. Every genuine fan of professional road cycling has something to cheer about after all the dark years in our sport: riders like Cadel Evans, Bradley Wiggins and Mark Cavendish are showing that it is possibly to be at the pinnacle of the sport without the use of drugs.

However, I know that to a certain extent I'm talking into the echo chamber here - there are some people who will, for whatever reason, never believe that someone could win the Tour without doping. You have major confirmation bias going on here - facts are ignored, suspicions are highlighted, things are invented out of the blue, and everything that goes against the ideology is ignored, lest cognitive dissonance causes head explosion.

So back to my original point: why bother following cycling if you can't get behind someone who has won the biggest race in our sport, and has done it without cheating? Why bother if you think that every rider who puts in a great performance is cheating?

It's a sunny, crystalline day in Paris, and a clean rider is about an hour away from crossing the line as I type this. FFS, enjoy it! GO BRADLEY!

Confirmation bias on both sides. If you follow the whole season, the sport as a whole, there's plenty of interest and enjoyment despite the suspicion. But you don't seem to buy that there is anything good about cycling other than applauding the big rider on the big team in the big race, and swallowing their press releases like oysters.

 

[BYOP88]

Ha Ha here we go again
You got FACTS or EVIDENCE to prove brads doped

Nope, but I'm not the one professing 100% that he is clean. If we look at Wiggins and where he came from, how come no other riders from the IP have become Tour de France winners? Why didn't Graeme Obree win a GT he was a pretty good IP rider but no Tour for him.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Ha Ha here we go again
You got FACTS or EVIDENCE to prove brads doped

Hired Belgian dope doctor? Yes.
Refused transparency request from Kimmage? Yes.
Mysterious transformation from track rider to GT contender? Yes.

Sounds like a clean rider all right.

 

[Caruut]

Why must we presume innocence?

Genuinely would like someone to answer this for me.

 

[BYOP88]

Why must we presume innocence?

Genuinely would like someone to answer this for me.

Because he's an Anglo-Saxon guy and not a dodgy cheat from Spain/Italy, natch!

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Why must we presume innocence?

Genuinely would like someone to answer this for me.

The people claiming we should presume innocence invariably make that request when it applies to their favorite rider. Look at the influx of Skybots.

 

[Benotti69]

Nope, but I'm not the one professing 100% that he is clean. If we look at Wiggins and where he came from, how come no other riders from the IP have become Tour de France winners? Why didn't Graeme Obree win a GT he was a pretty good IP rider but no Tour for him.

EDITED

I made an error in this post about Cofidis wanting to sign Obree.

I apologise to Cofidis and the clinic for this.

Obree was, as has been pointed out, signed to ride for Le Groupment. But it never happened.

 

[Froome19]

But the thing is, if you had accused every single cyclist who won anything worth mentioning in the last 20 years of doping, you would have been right a lot of times.

Indeed, lets just hope things are changing for the better.

I never said you cant hold a belief i said if you want to justify it - ie post it on the forum, you need to come up with stronger arguments.

Exactly and what are the stronger arguments for everyone accusing Wiggins?
After pressing people they have all seemed to admit that it is because they are cynical due to cycling's previous history. Is that enough of a justification?

It is possible to acknowledge a doping problem without affecting ones enjoyment.

Do people seriously watch sport for "role models" and "heroes"? Professional sport is simply entertainment.

Indeed but some of the responses on this forum seem to suggest otherwise.
The irony of it is that people then go on to complain when there is no more doping that the racing is too boring, I guess there is no pleasing some people.

 

[Ferminal]

(1) Indeed but some of the responses on this forum seem to suggest otherwise.


(2) The irony of it is that people then go on to complain when there is no more doping that the racing is too boring, I guess there is no pleasing some people.

1. Sure, not speaking for everyone, just that it's wrong to assume all people who believe in doping hate cycling.

2. No one can show strong correlation between doping/attacking racing if you remove the outliers. Defensive racing is much more a product of other developments in cycling than blood doping (or lack thereof).

 

[taiwan]

Cofidis wanted to sign Obree but when he made it clear he didn't dope they dropped him.

Wiggins signed for Cofidis

True?

.......