Wiggo's comments on drugs doubters.

[yello]

I respect Kimmage and we need people like him. They may well be a pain-in-the-arse to some but that's exactly why we need them. So I respect what he says and see it only as voicing concerns rather than pointing a finger.

This made me smile though (and I think it was touched on upstream by iLb)

“When asked about doping, the answers from Wiggins now sound the same as with Armstrong and Floyd.”

There's another way of looking at that; liars use the language of truth. That doesn't mean everyone that uses the same language is a liar. But, yes, Wiggins perhaps could have a few more original lines prepared just to respond to the inevitable questions! Wouldn't mean he's telling the truth obviously but it would avoid comparison.

 

[Slaav]

My God, where to start.... Fortunately, my knowledge of cycling is rather limited so I have no chips or per hates re cycling, especially the pro tour and the individuals concerned.

It appears to me that one of the most obvious first markers for doping/cheating is exceptional performance from a sportsman/woman? Better than previously being a rampant tell tale.

So, by definition, the England RWC team in 2003 MUST have cheated? After all, they had a notoriously beligerant and at times, opaque chap in charge! Sir CLive Woodward. His methods were ground breaking. He had a lot of very good players but got them performing TOGETHER well above levels that anyone had ever done before. They showed their hand at times, and at others, kept their cards very close to their chests. It was obviously at these 'behind closed doors' sessions that the Rugby team must have been discussing how best to cheat or dope? That can be the only possible conclusion according to many???

On the other hand, did SCW actually try some things slightly differently? DId they establish through science and experience that there was a 'better' way to address the sporting conundrums? Maybe, God forbid, they actually broke some boundaries and excelled as a result? Maybe, just maybe, the incredible attention to detail also helped?

Now, I am sure the parallel is fairly obvious but maybe, just maybe, Brailsford is doing things differently? His methods seem to have helped teh GB cycling team in Beiging? Or were all of teh GB cycling team doping/cheating?

Our Brad was a World beater before. He appears to be still able to do it. Sir Chriss Hoy was a World beater - let's hope he still is.

Is Brailsford he modern day Panto villain that SCW was for a long time?

Give me strength....

 

[Chuffy]

Chuffy, out of interest, keeping Kimmage out of the frame at the moment, what is your view on the Sky riders current levels of performance and the Team's level of transparency?

I'm no expert, but the guys at Science of Sport are. They have a very good blog with analysis of power/speed data. Their conclusion so far is that cycling is much cleaner that it has been for many years and they have specifically referred to the performance of Wiggins/Froome. That gives me confidence, although it's not outright proof that Rider A is clean. I'd also take heart from the fact that Wiggy's breakout performance in 2009 came when he rode for Garmin and I trust JV. Sky have also recruited very good riders, not donkeys, and I do believe that their application of sports science and 'marginal gains' is a significant factor.

Re: transparency. They could be a lot worse, but they have done things that don't inspire confidence (Leinders, Yates, Wiggy's outburst) and they need to be more pro-active in getting the clean cycling message out there. It's a shame that Wiggy vetoed having Kimmage on board in 2010, that would have done a lot to inspire confidence, especially as Wiggy is known to dislike him.

 

[Chuffy]

I like this - sums it all up very well - http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-and-comment/comment-sky-must-send-a-positive-message-to-the-fans/

That Richard Moore, chippy hack, bitter, jealous loser, stirring shoot etc. <hic>

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I like this - sums it all up very well - http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-and-comment/comment-sky-must-send-a-positive-message-to-the-fans/

That Richard Moore, chippy hack, bitter, jealous loser, stirring s*** etc. <hic>

"Sky must send a positive message to the fans"

Why? and which fans would believe them, purely on the basis of said message, if they did.

Will every athlete in Team GB competing in London 2012 be required to issue an in competition statement to the effect that they are not now nor have they ever been?

Simple solution for TdF and Olympics. No podiums, no prizes, no medals, until 4 years after the finish. Come back and get your acclaim later, when the detection technology has caught up with the dopers.

 

[Chuffy]

"Sky must send a positive message to the fans"

Why? and which fans would believe them, purely on the basis of said message, if they did.

Will every athlete in Team GB competing in London 2012 be required to issue an in competition statement to the effect that they are not now nor have they ever been?

Simple solution for TdF and Olympics. No podiums, no prizes, no medals, until 4 years after the finish. Come back and get your acclaim later, when the detection technology has caught up with the dopers.

Not interested in other sports, don't care.

Do you remember Rasmussen squirming in front of the cameras during the 2007 Tour? Or Landis' press conference after the 2006 Tour? Weirdly, it's actually quite hard to tell an outright lie, even Lance preferred the old 'most tested, never tested positive' line. If someone like Wiggy (see also Cadel last year) was prepared to go on the record and speak up for clean cycling, rather than trying to shoot the messenger, that would actually carry a fair bit of weight, because pros really, really don't like to do it. Marco Pinotti and Danny Pate are the only two I can think of who speak up consistantly.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Not interested in other sports, don't care.

some of the athletes in Team GB are cyclists....

Do you remember Rasmussen squirming in front of the cameras during the 2007 Tour? Or Landis' press conference after the 2006 Tour? Weirdly, it's actually quite hard to tell an outright lie, even Lance preferred the old 'most tested, never tested positive' line. If someone like Wiggy (see also Cadel last year) was prepared to go on the record and speak up for clean cycling, rather than trying to shoot the messenger, that would actually carry a fair bit of weight, because pros really, really don't like to do it. Marco Pinotti and Danny Pate are the only two I can think of who speak up consistantly.

I take your point but just about every podium finisher in the 00's was doped; they seemed to have no problem lying about it to all and sundry.

 

[Chuffy]

I take your point but just about every podium finisher in the 00's was doped; they seemed to have no problem lying about it to all and sundry.

Not really, my point was that when asked simple and direct questions they tended to wriggle and take refuge in the old 'I've never tested positive' line of defence rather than tell an outright lie. Wiggy used to speak up very eloquently about being clean and being hugely pissed off by the impact that dopers were having on the sport, specifically in terms of the way that they screwed up the perception of cycling. That stance was very much appreciated by fans and Wiggy used to have a rep for being outspoken on doping. I think he's blown that now, which is a shame.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Not really, my point was that when asked simple and direct questions they tended to wriggle and take refuge in the old 'I've never tested positive' line of defence rather than tell an outright lie. Wiggy used to speak up very eloquently about being clean and being hugely pissed off by the impact that dopers were having on the sport, specifically in terms of the way that they screwed up the perception of cycling. That stance was very much appreciated by fans and Wiggy used to have a rep for being outspoken on doping. I think he's blown that now, which is a shame.

Fair comment. Though I'm sure I've seen plenty of the dopers lie outright about it.

Wiggins used to have a rep for opening mouth before quite engaging his brain and I suspect might still be deserving of that reputation.

 

[Hont]

I don't subscribe to the "Wiggins has changed his stance" argument. The outburst was pure anger at being called a cheat when he sees that it is only through hard work that he is where he is. His slightly calmer response yesterday, basically said the same thing with less swearing, but added that he does not see himself as a role-model/spokesmen. It's rather unfortunate that we expect someone who is good at a sport to be some sort of politician/deity at the same time.

What I also remember was how damning he was of Contador when he was finally banned and how he praised Cadel for being someone that we could believe in. I can't find a link unfortunately as searching for Wiggins and Evans during the TDF throws up a few red herrings ;-) but that was earlier this year iirc.

 

[Chuffy]

I don't subscribe to the "Wiggins has changed his stance" argument. The outburst was pure anger at being called a cheat when he sees that it is only through hard work that he is where he is. His slightly calmer response yesterday, basically said the same thing with less swearing, but added that he does not see himself as a role-model/spokesmen. It's rather unfortunate that we expect someone who is good at a sport to be some sort of politician/deity at the same time.

What I also remember was how damning he was of Contador when he was finally banned and how he praised Cadel for being someone that we could believe in. I can't find a link unfortunately as searching for Wiggins and Evans during the TDF throws up a few red herrings ;-) but that was earlier this year iirc.

I don't entirely agree that he hasn't changed his stance/attitude, but one outburst does seem to have completely obscured other stuff he's said, which is perhaps a bit disproportionate. That said, in the last year or so, right up to the start of the Tour, he has been praising Lance, which is just depressing.

 

[Hont]

And as much as we need the cynical approach of someone like Kimmage, I can't help but think he would be far better served to be more dispassionate. It is clearly all very personal to him (note that he remembers a Wiggins tweet from 3 years ago) and so his message is often lost. Which is a shame because the central point he makes about Sky's transparency is a good one.

"

the answers from Wiggins now sound the same as with Armstrong and Floyd" , ​

for example, is a particularly regrettable comment, as he is damning by innuendo anybody who denies taking drugs. And Wiggins doesn't sound much like the mostly measured, slick and prepared Armstrong to me.

More importantly all this innuendo is only because of an outstanding but credible performance rather than any evidence or even grounds for suspicion. Landis failed a test, amongst other indications Armstrong also failed 3 (something that he conveniently ignores) - the cortisoid test in '99, the one allegedly hushed up by the UCI and the retrospective EPO findings published by L'equipe. I don't know how Wiggins can sound the same when the question is different.

 

[Chuffy]

"the answers from Wiggins now sound the same as with Armstrong and Floyd" , ​

for example, is a particularly regrettable comment, as he is damning by innuendo anybody who denies taking drugs. And Wiggins doesn't sound much like the mostly measured, slick and prepared Armstrong to me.

I think it's worth pointing out that Shane Stokes was at pains to point out that Kimmage wasn't making any accusations about Sky or Wiggy, just their attitude and the choice of language/tone from Wiggy.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

I'm no expert, but the guys at Science of Sport are. They have a very good blog with analysis of power/speed data. Their conclusion so far is that cycling is much cleaner that it has been for many years and they have specifically referred to the performance of Wiggins/Froome. That gives me confidence, although it's not outright proof that Rider A is clean. I'd also take heart from the fact that Wiggy's breakout performance in 2009 came when he rode for Garmin and I trust JV. Sky have also recruited very good riders, not donkeys, and I do believe that their application of sports science and 'marginal gains' is a significant factor.

Re: transparency. They could be a lot worse, but they have done things that don't inspire confidence (Leinders, Yates, Wiggy's outburst) and they need to be more pro-active in getting the clean cycling message out there. It's a shame that Wiggy vetoed having Kimmage on board in 2010, that would have done a lot to inspire confidence, especially as Wiggy is known to dislike him.

Agreed on all counts. And Sky have just announced an investigation into Leinders. They've stressed that they know he is not involved in anything dubious for Sky (and he isn't involved with Sky at the TdF at all), but they are worried about 'reputational risk'. We'll see what they conclude.

 

[BJH]

I have said numerous times that when a rider is given a win after the event or hears that another rider has doped and doesn't go ape shoot then I question them
I want to hear riders protest and get angry I feel more confident that they are clean so for me I applaud him