[Closed] So, do we think Wiggins is clean?

I've read his autobiography and he never talks about taking anything to improve his performance..... In fact he does say he doesn't agree with it, and would leave a team if he found out teammates were, or if people tried to get him to

Name me anybody on this thread who does.

Tell you what chief, you carry on looking for an argument.

Funny how people on this forum keep coming up with another cyclist who has never ever doped who just happens to be... .

Bye for now.

could you bring something other than innuendo and rubbish arguments next time?

Name me anybody on this thread who does.
Tell you what chief, you carry on looking for an argument.

He is not looking for an argument he is refuting the point that anyone on this thread has claimed the entire peleton is clean

I said words to that effect earlier.

You don't expect I actually read any of the previous 5 pages do you?!

Funny how people on this forum keep coming up with another cyclist who has never ever doped who just happens to be... .

Why don't you just come out and name who's been mentioned on this thread as being clean who you think doped, and provide some sort of evidence that they did actually dope? Alternatively just don't bother commenting if you want to look less stupid.

It would not surprise me if Sky, with their approach to marginal gains, have thoroughly looked into what they can get away with to improve performance and remain inside the law.

they said as much in The Skys The Limit, talking about legal injections (before the UCI no-needle rule). Garmin introduced a no-needle policy, whereas Sky figured out how much they could inject and how often and stay legal (talking about legal substances such as vitamins, not injecting banned PEDs at levels or regimes below detection).

I dont think Wiggins doped, his argument about just how much he would lose is such common sense it'd be a weird one for a doper to give and still be able to rationalise doping to himself.

I'd also put money on it being clean for the majority. There's no way teams are at it anymore, and with whole teams being expelled for a single rider being caught there must be pressure on the riders not to dope.

You're right...exchange 'entire' for 'majority'. My point still stands

I've read his autobiography and he never talks about taking anything to improve his performance..... In fact he does say he doesn't agree with it, and would leave a team if he found out teammates were, or if people tried to get him to

he aint gonna admit it though is he

I dont think Wiggins doped, his argument about just how much he would lose is such common sense it'd be a weird one for a doper to give and still be able to rationalise doping to himself.

That's pretty weird logic, clearly dopers don't worry about what they might lose because of doping, it's all about what they will win and damn the costs to themselves and the sport.

I've read his autobiography and he never talks about taking anything to improve his performance....

You should read one of Lances books as well, he goes into great lengths talking about his doping regime, surprised they didn't catch him earlier with him being so open about it

sarcasm aside are you two suggesting the fact he denies it is somehow proof he does it ...its not a great argument.

My early comment about his auto biography wasn't supposed to be taken seriously,

To be fair. I read Bruyneel's book & came away pretty convinced that he was involved. It wasn't exactly a convincing denial..

good point doh

im unwell thats my excuse 🙂

She added: "I do despair that the sport [u]will ever clean itself up[/u] when rewards of stealing are greater than riding clean. If that remains the case, [u]the temptation for those with no morals will always be too great[/u]."

Nicole Cooke 14/1/2013. BBC Sport

Just in case we all get a bit too comfy!

sarcasm aside are you two suggesting the fact he denies it is somehow proof he does it ...its not a great argument.

No I am saying that a denial is not proof of anything, to claim it is is a pretty poor argument.

I read that Nicole Cook interview earlier, she is certainly quite scathing...

Back now I've fixed my ski boots. From the climatic chnage thread:

The difficulties in debunking blatant antireality are legion. You can make up any old nonsense and state it in a few seconds, but it takes much longer to show why it’s wrong and how things really are.

“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

– Attributed to Mark Twain

A nice link as Junkyard said.

His argument about just how much he would lose is such common sense it'd be a weird one for a doper to give and still be able to rationalise doping to himself.

Dopers have a track record in that regard: "Why would someone in my position, with my medical history, take something like that?" - Lance Armstrong on growth hormone, in 2001.

"Tyler Hamilton will make more money from a book describing how he cheated than I will make in all my years of honest labour."

Hmmm

I remember having the exact same conversation with a cycling friend of mine about Lancy boy back in 2000/2001.

Is it not the case that in order to compete with everyone else one is forced to dope; as we all would if our families depended on our earnings.

I would.

You can make up any old nonsense and state it in a few seconds

Well that would certainly explain your contributions to this thread.

Is it not the case that in order to compete with everyone else one is forced to dope; as we all would if our families depended on our earnings

Thing is though Armstrong didn't need to come back to cycling. He had insurance with Cofidis which would have left him comfortable for life had he retired on health grounds. It was his choice to come back and cheat.

I originally thought Lance was ok, but the more cycling I watched the more I realised how improbable those races were.

The TdF looked way way cleaner than that, but maybe they've just got better at pretending to be knackered?

Is it not the case that in order to compete with everyone else one is forced to dope; as we all would if our families depended on our earnings

PS - when he came back he was unmarried and had no kids
declared cancer free feb 97
Married - may 98
Wins tours Summer 99
first child october 1999

I dont think he can claim this tbh - but who knows what he will say

Rumours so far as the interview has been done is that he admits it

From
Bradle Wiggins : My Time

"The doping insinuations on Twitter had begun after the Tour of Romandie, and they had continued after Sky had dominated on the Joux Plane at the Dauphine. So I'd been thinking about what to say for some time. There weren't any direct accusations: it was more of a nod and a wink, knowing comments. I don't often lose my temper, but this had made me angry. I think if only people understood what have to put myself and my family through in order to win the Tour, and if they realised what I have in my life that doping would lose me, they would probably think differently.

I knew that if I went well at the Tour these accusations were going to happen more and more. I was waiting for it. I had decided that when the question was asked I wasn't going to give it the old, 'I can sleep at night with a clear conscience' and all that sort of crap. The response had been in my head a fair while: I thought, 'I'm just going to give them the kind of answer they'd expect if they asked me in the pub'.

After the stage into Porrentruy a journalist came with it direct in the press conference: what did I make of the insinuation on the net that Sky's performances were reminiscent of those put in by Lance Armstrong's US Postal Service team? I knew what he meant: were we doping?

I told him this: I say they're just ****ing ****ers. I cannot be doing with people like that. It justifies their own boneidleness because they can't ever imagine applying themselves to doing anything in their lives. It's easy for them to sit under a pseudonym on Twitter and write that sort of shit rather than get off their arses in their own lives and apply themselves and work hard at something and achieve something. And that's ultimately it. C***s'.

........

I wanted to nip the accusations in the bud straightaway when someone asked that question. I just went for it; I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to do that. Even if we are athletes in a public position, we are also human beings. I think people in the past have set a precedent for how to handle these situations. For example, Lance Armstrong seemed to enjoy the confrontations with the media ia a way: he liked to fight and when they asked him about doping, it was just another battle for him. I don't get angry in public very often - there were journalists there who reckoned they'd never seen me get mad before, not once in ten years - but there was a good reason for my anger.

I've always tried to be genuine, and I will continue to be. That didn't have to change just because I was trying to win the Tour. Alot of people may not like it, but there are some who appreciate it. It goes back to what I've always said about being a role model. I'm only human. I don't clain to be someone I'm not.

.............

That's why I never condemn anyone. I look at David Millar, who lived in France from the age of nineteen, and I can see how he fell into it. You have to look back at cycling in the late 1990s and early 2000s: it was completely different. It's not the same for today's generation.

......... I get incredibly angry when I'm accused of doping, or even when it's merely implied. That accusation is like saying to someone else: you cheat at your job, you cheated to get to where you are now.

I made a particular effort to explain it to Herve Bombrun, a journalist from l'Equipe. I'm good friends with him, so fortunately I was able to make my point without him punching me in the face.

He asked me: 'What is that anger all about? It's all right you saying all this kind of stuff-'

'Have you got kids?'

'Yeah, I'm married with kids'

'What if I said to you they're not your kids?'

'What do you mean?'

'What if I said, your wife had an affair at the time, so she got pregnant by someone else?'

'Well, no I don't think they are'

So he started getting upset, and I explained, 'Look, it makes you angry, doesn't it? It makes you want to come out fighting. It's like people telling me I'm cheating at what I'm doing; it gets me angry.

'Ah oui, oh gosh'
"

Trouble is until the evidence becomes insurmountable drugs cheats will say anything and spin any kind of lie- look at Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis- so you can't really go by what any cyclist tells you even Wiggins' persuasive argument above. I prefer to look at the data and that's telling us the peloton has slowed down ([url= http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Cycling/LookingAtTheData/AIC.html ]see these stats from the TdF)[/url].which means there's no/less doping going on and hopefully giving a clean rider, like I hope Wiggins is, a chance.

drugs cheats will say anything and spin any kind of lie- look at Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis- so you can't really go by what any cyclist tells you even Wiggins' persuasive argument above.

What you should realise is that cycling drug cheats lie about this and it is not a reason to assume that all cyclist are lying drugs cheats- many denied it and it was true for example.

More generally people lie but that is no reason to not trust anything you hear as most of the time cyclists and people actually tell the truth.

People have insuinuated I dope. It's never made me angry, just a little bemused that they think I need to dope to be so crap. If you win anything worth winning in endurance sports expect people to assume you're doping and get used to it. It doesn't much matter what others think I do because I know what I do and don't do.

I sometimes think stars should have their Twitter accounts closed for their own good. That rant above makes me think he's capable of anything.

Dopers have a track record in that regard: "Why would someone in my position, with my medical history, take something like that?" - Lance Armstrong on growth hormone, in 2001.

Can you point out the denial in that statement. All I can see is a question.

Denials, lots of them:

None of them are clean until they ban all supplements, feed them bread and water and then see how they do.

Supplements for this, supplements for that. Energy drinks all over the place.

But then how would the sport earn money!

By the way 'Bertie is no way clean after his mountain stages in the vuelta - acceleration and recovery like i have not seen since armstrong!'

Brilliant, how can I learn so much about cycling.

FWIW I think he is clean. The fact he was with BC so long helps sway it for me.
Who knows what happened at Cofidis?
Timing was spot on for a Tour win, circumstances played a massive part in his win.

I like this thinking 'he isn't a drugs cheat, read his book if you don't believe it'

Bertie is this generations LA IMHO

Who are Wiggins and Froome then, Junkyard? Jalabert?

Bertie is this generations LA IMHO

Except he's nowhere near as good at it. At least Armstrong was a) very good at doping and not being caught and b) had a presence, a bit of a personality.

Contador has all the personality of a wet sponge. I despise the cheating little shit although I also hate the fact that the UCI and Spanish Federation messed around for so long and allowed him to go and win further races (which then had to be taken off him) while he was under investigation for doping.

Armstrong and Bertie both caught positive once each but the UCI accepted an ante-dated medical certificate from Armstrong. If the UCI had stuck to its own rules Armstrong would have lost his 99 Tour there and then and been banned for two years.

Bertie is this generations LA IMHO

I think that a rider can not be doing this alone and by throwing this accusation towards Contador you are also tainting the team he rides for and the Spanish Federation. This depth of knowledge is something I think we'll see on Oprah.

Very much this.

Lance is about to blow professional cycling out of the water.

Lance is about to blow professional cycling out of the water.

Only if you are still in denial about the details already revealed, there is nothing much more he can add now, apart from spin.

The 'feeling' is he is about to make it even bigger.

I had a funny feeling about all this right now, why did he come clean now. It's assumed he is about to get roasted, now the guy maybe some things, but stupid ain't one of them.
Just think the old bugger has something up his sleeve, and not just needles.
He knew he was cheating, we all guessed he was cheating, but did the governing bodies KNOW he was cheating...hmmmm.

When is it being aired btw?

Thursday night, think it was 2am UK

[i] Bertie is this generations LA IMHO

I think that a rider can not be doing this alone and by throwing this accusation towards Contador you are also tainting the team he rides for and the Spanish Federation. This depth of knowledge is something I think we'll see on Oprah. [/i]

The Spanish authorities reaction to Operation Puerto summed it up. Only foreign riders in general were caught, except for spanish riders who were persued by foreign authorities. They really do not seem to care what goes on over there. Even the Italians have a (much) better track record at catching dopers.

this accusation towards Contador you are also tainting the team he rides for and the Spanish Federation.

yes, he rode for astana and since then mr 60% - the president of the spanish authority came out with 'I've known Alberto since he was a little boy, he's alright' and fell for his bulls...teak excuse - look at the mess with the other unrepentant valverde

and fell for his bulls...teak excuse

****kin oprah winfrey of all the people.. 🙄

lance is a C*** of the highest order

Paul Kimmage twitter feed has just put out some interesting detail to flesh out his opinion on Wiggins:

https://twitter.com/PaulKimmage

but did the governing bodies KNOW he was cheating...hmmmm.

Well yes, everybody already knows that.

titusrider - Member
Paul Kimmage twitter feed has just put out some interesting detail to flesh out his opinion on Wiggins

24m Oh, last thing Bradley, if you would like to address those issues in an interview, I'd be more than happy to sit down with you.

31m Paul Kimmage ?@PaulKimmage
Coming soon: An interview (not Oprah) with the greatest bike rider I ever saw (not Armstrong).

40m Paul Kimmage ?@PaulKimmage
...the hiring of Gert Leinders, and the sacking of four key members of staff since he won the Tour.
Expand

42m Paul Kimmage ?@PaulKimmage
If I still had a job, I'd be camped outside the Sky training camp in Majorca and would not go away until Wiggins adressed the message...

45m Paul Kimmage ?@PaulKimmage
It is one year tomorrow since I lost my job at The Sunday Times...profitable work this anti-doping.

57m Paul Kimmage ?@PaulKimmage
Interesting that Bradley Wiggins is still following the Lance Armstrong blueprint for success: 1 Ignore the message 2 Attack the messenger

damning...

You appear to be imagining he has written more than he actually has.

http://media.newstalk.ie/archive

BigTex GoingtoJail?@Digger_forum

Wiggins acting a dickhead: Click, find the Off the ball programme, Jan 15, part one, 11m40secs

Was the most interesting one for me if you can be assed to follow the instructions to listen it does seem that Bradley give a very weak response

Thing is though Armstrong didn't need to come back to cycling. He had insurance with Cofidis which would have left him comfortable for life had he retired on health grounds. It was his choice to come back and cheat.

It's a generally accepted fact that LA was doping well before he got cancer and it is possible that the drugs may even have caused his cancer.

As for Kimmage getting answers from Sky I think there is little chance they are going to give him anything. He clearly has a chip on his shoulder and is out to further his own agenda, no answer they give will be good enough for him, unless they just came out and said they were all high as a kite.

If they are clean why would they subject themselves to that?

If Wiggins is serious about being clean, then he needs to be totally transparent and release his blood data from the last few seasons. He was pretty high on the leaked UCI suspicious list, and somehow went from 134th in the 2008 TDF to finishing 4th (now upgraded to 3rd) the next year, finishing amongst known dopers. Many of his supposed 100% clean team have now been proven to have pretty murky pasts.

As someone who earns very good money out of the sport he needs to give something back - cycling fans have been let down too many times in the past with claims of a clean new era - if he is completely transparent with his data then this would go someway to help rebuilding the sport.

We need to remember that Kimmage is an out of work journalist who continues his self ordained crusade, for the intention of selling stories to publications and so earning money. This is not investigative journalism, it's just the equivalent of a papparazi photographer.

As for Kimmage getting answers from Sky I think there is little chance they are going to give him anything. He clearly has a chip on his shoulder and is out to further his own agenda, no answer they give will be good enough for him, unless they just came out and said they were all high as a kite.

This

not realy sure what folk want from Wigins

Semmed like a fine if slightly PR ish answer

some will need the closure of it and some will not know what to do when it happens and its been sad for cyling and the 90's are a write off. Whats worng with that - it snot like Brad needs LA to confess to know he was a cheat as Brad is not an idiot.

It changes litle for me whether LA confesses or not as I have known for years that he was a cheat.

Seems to me th einternet just allows sceptics and moaners to be sceptical and moan

this us not harsh enough - what do you want a sweary rant every time he speaks?

Sometimes its the publics fault and journos wantingg more and it is this time

As for Kimmage if he had anything he would publish it and be damned rather than do a trolling goad on Twitter to get a reaction.

really

If Wiggins is serious about being clean, then he needs to be totally transparent and release his blood data from the last few seasons.

You really think that the debate would stop if he did this?
Do you honestly think that
I am in no way qualified to read anyones biological passport so what would be the point of it - it wont end the chatter as the evidenc eis

1. look some cyclist cheated
2. these cyclists who cheated won
3. they denied they cheated

Brad has won therefore he is a lying cheat

You wont defeat an illogical argument or cycnic with some more facts and you cannot prove a neagtive so why would anyone even try?

 

not realy sure what folk want from Wigins

Four things I'd like:

1. For him to be openly critical of riders who have doped regardless if they are still in the peloton. He only criticises riders once they are retired or are dead and buried like Ricco.

2. Him (and all other riders) to have all their blood passport data available for experts and the public alike to view.

3. To give regular interviews to Kimmage, Lemond, Ashenden etc - these guys are doing more to save the sport than the majority of the peloton - they are acknowledging cycling has a major problem and are doing their best to fix it. Without people like these, Armstrong would have got away with it. If we don't learn from the past, then there is no hope for cycling.

4. To give samples which can be stored and tested for an indefinite period. History teaches us that we probably can't test for the latest methods of doping yet.

As a fan I'm just sick of every new generation claiming to be the new clean era, and getting let down time and time again. Transparency is key.

Given the Rob Hayles whitewash I can't see BC releasing blood data anytime soon. Even when Rob tested over 50% they came up with every possible excuse on behalf of the rider rather than consider for an instant he might be cheating. The various representatives came up with quotes along the lines of "I know Rob doesn't dope". How can they possibly know? Do they follow him around 24/7, share his bed and follow him into the bog to... ?

As a fan I'm just sick of every new generation claiming to be the new clean era, and getting let down time and time again. Transparency is key.

Yet you posted here just to have a go at someone. Clearly you feel strongly enough to do that. Might I suggest you go and live this fulfilling life you'd like us to believe you have.

Four things I'd like:

1. For him to be openly critical of riders who have doped regardless if they are still in the peloton. He only criticises riders once they are retired or are dead and buried like Ricco.

"Whether he's innocent or guilty or whatever, it's almost irrelevant now," he said. "A decision needs to be made either way. It's not fair on the events he's competing in. He had an outcome on the Tour de France last week, one way or another.
"He wasn't the best Contador we've seen, but him attacking on the Telegraphe changed the whole race. Voeckler went after him, Voeckler cracked and Voeckler probably lost the opportunity to be on the podium because Contador was in that race.
"Is that fair? Should he be in the race? If he's innocent, fair enough, he should be allowed to race. But if he's not and this decision hasn't been made, then essentially he's been affecting the outcome of every race he's ridden for the last six months - and that isn't fair.
"That changes peoples lives, changes people's careers, changes people's salaries and Voeckler's missed the podium of the Tour de France."

2. Him (and all other riders) to have all their blood passport data available for experts and the public alike to view.

3. To give regular interviews to Kimmage, Lemond, Ashenden etc - these guys are doing more to save the sport than the majority of the peloton - they are acknowledging cycling has a major problem and are doing their best to fix it. Without people like these, Armstrong would have got away with it. If we don't learn from the past, then there is no hope for cycling.

4. To give samples which can be stored and tested for an indefinite period. History teaches us that we probably can't test for the latest methods of doping yet.

As a fan I'm just sick of every new generation claiming to be the new clean era, and getting let down time and time again. Transparency is key.

edukator rob hayles failed on his hameacrit levels ONLY he never failed on doping. His blood was tested for doping at the same time and he passed so its not a clear cut case of cheating or a cover up. It does raise some interesting questions though and can be used as fuel for those who think GB/sky etc cheat

Perhaps getting on with living your own life, rather than trying to live vicariously through someone else's, would result in much less disappointment for you.
Whether Wiggins is a cheat or not matters not in the slightest to me. It doesn't affect me personally, my job, or any relationships of mine. As a result I don't get let down time and time again.

Then why are you posting?

they are available to experts I dont know what on earth you thing will help by letting ignorant folk have a look - I know nothing about blood doping so the results would be meaningless to me and most of those who demand it and would question them

By being public it removes the risk of collusion between the riders and the governing body. It's not about joe blogs being able to analyse the results, its so independent experts can comment. I wonder how many sports would enjoy Ashenden taking a gander at there blood results, and the conclusions they draw from them.

I also thought retrospective testing of samples was brought in about 5 years ago. But only for samples taken after the rule change,

Any "independent expert" will work in the area of blood testing/doping control so their independence will always be open to questions

I dont object to openess per se I just dont think it will lead to closure or acceptance from doubters whatever anyone does.

Any "independent expert" will work in the area of blood testing/doping control so their independence will always be open to questions

I dont object to openess per se I just dont think it will lead to closure or acceptance from doubters whatever anyone does.

Exactly.

And Kimmage simply is not the person to do the interviews he so desperately is trying to provoke Bradley into agreeing to.

By his own admission he is an out of work journo, who is skint. So are we going to see considered, intelligent, thought out and high quality investigative journalism or a snidey hack putting words into the mouth of the interviewee to get a sale?