[Closed] So Lance Armstrong is going to confess...

I think Kimmage and Walsh have their place, they've pushed a message that no one wanted to hear, and been proven right.

I think it's a shame that Kimmage has fallen out of love with the sport, it's riders and us fools who still participate, and dream in it. But maybe that's the price he's paid to make it better, but it's because of that he and Walsh can dig, I won't say be Objective.....as I don't know if either will ever watch and enjoy with out questioning?

I hope so much, and think that wiggins is clean, it looked belivable, it was a flat tour (as in no dramatic sections, it was a cagey affair no one took any risks) and that was good. Maybe the era of dramatic attacks by GC riders are over for cycling?

Are there as many questions about Boonen's 50km break or that or Cancilara (sp?)

Are there as many questions about Boonen's 50km break or that or Cancilara (sp?)

In certain places, certainly.

For a while some thought Cancellara had a little electric motor 😆

Re; Armstrong

It appears he's beginning to appear contrite about his past only because USADA have taken the only thing he really wants; the ability to compete.

He's banned for everything, forever. That is justice, although he enjoys it I bet he doesn't give a monkeys about the money. It was all about control for him. He was able to dictate everything to ensure he had the best chance of winning.

Now he's been severed from all sport which is why he's making noises about setting things straight.

I happened to read a tweet of his the other day, not something I do btw. I seldom look at ****ter but having been directed there to that infamous lounging under the jerseys post I thought Id check it out.

He says;

'It took a "photographer" to "write" the most balanced piece we've seen yet.'

There a link to Graham Watsons blog, in which he describes his thoughts on what 2012 meant to him.

Have a read, its too much to quote here.

All the signs are there.

I read that blog too. It's certainly not a damning criticism of LA and seems to point to some of the same old arguments e.g. "still the best, level playing field" [b]but[/b] it read to me (at least) that it was written from a standpoint that LA [i]had[/i] doped. What was interesting about that was that it was posted by LA (or LA's people) on LA's Facebook page.

Things have obviously changed - when once he would have been throwing lawyers at people who say he doped he's now promoting a piece that seems to be saying 'yeah, he doped, but he wasn't all bad, can't we all just move on?'

I just read it and thought this is a step in paving the way for a [u]managed[/u] confession. He will say "yeah, I did it but I didn't do everything they say I did and everyone was doing it and I was still the best" which is side-stepping the USADA view of him as a ringleader.

Vaughters is very open on twitter

Watson comes across as Armstrong's best buddy (despite all the flip flopping in his blog, he does clearly state that he has made good money from LA and is not going to criticise him) so I suppose he could be helping to prepare the ground for some dodgy confession deal.

Interesting use of the collective 'we' Armstrong uses. I can imagine a myriad of PR people and lawyers carefully planning every step since USADA announced their findings.

Defiance has been replaced by something altogether different.

I hope Simeoni, Hamilton et al are enjoying every minute of his squirming.

Some of the abuse of Kimmage, including here, certainly shows that mud sticks, even after the chief mud thrower is busted. He's been right all along, and he's been the target of horrendous abuse from those whose cheating he fought.

Also this. I think Kimmage knows more than he's letting on regarding Sky.

Also this. I think Kimmage knows more than he's letting on regarding Sky.

What gives you that idea? He wasn't shy in coming forward when it came to Armstrong. What makes you think he'd sit on something about Sky? If he's got info he would be a made man, it's a £million story.

As far as I can see he has suspicions because of the nature of Wiggins' performance, nothing else. But people are asking questions about Wiggins that were never asked of Armstrong which is good but so far nothing has come out. Sure there is the Sky train in the tour but that where the comparisons end.

Armstrong did nothing outside the tour - Wiggins has been winning consistently for 2 years
Armstrong hid all year - Wiggins is very open about training harder than he can race
Blah blah blah

It's right to be sceptical about cycling but you also have to be rational.

Why would someone like Michael Barry confess to doping and give evidence against LA, but if Sky were doping, keep quiet?

ormondroyd - Member

Kimmage is more interested in keeping himself in the public eye than cycling. He doesn't write anything now that suggests he likes cycling from anything other than an investigative journalists point of view. Why doesn't he come out and cite EXACTLY what evidence he has on Sky doping? As stated above, if he had any evidence he would be cashing in on it.

Yeah you could be right. I'm sure he has suspicions that are probably more informed than ours. I'd be really surprised if he was willing to voice such an unpopular opinion so soon after the successes, it'd be PR suicide.

JCL - Member
Yeah you could be right. I'm sure he has suspicions that are probably more informed than ours. I'd be really surprised if he was willing to voice such an unpopular opinion so soon after the successes, it'd be PR suicide.

I don't agree with the second part, going for LA was significantly more risky at the time, personally and politically. Just reading Walsh's latest book now and it's apparent that the change in both their outlooks from the beginning to end.

As far as I can see he has suspicions because of the nature of Wiggins' performance, nothing else.

That's clearly not true. He's citing a number of things, including Leinders, a perceived shutdown of openness last year, and the performances of members of his team.

It's up to Sky to be open enough that the performances of Froome, Rogers, etc, don't leave reasonable questions. Only a few years ago Wiggins was saying teams that employ "certain types" of doctor shouldn't be allowed on the Tour. Then suddenly they have a doctor who arguably ticks that box in thick marker pen, and when questioned, they mumble about an internal enquiry for yonks (which we don't hear about again) until that doc's contract runs out and he quietly goes

I don't believe that one team just trains harder than every other team. Maybe they train better... Okayyyyy.... But when that's happening at the same time that doctors like that appear on the payroll... When domestiques in their thirties start climbing better than in their previous (very suspect) peaks, then we need enough openness to believe it, not sweaty rants at press conferences. "We're clean because we say so and we train hard" has been done before.

Mike Ashenden last year spoke of "inner circles" even at next generation teams. I hope to god this team is clean, i really like them, i travelled to support them from the roadside in France last year. i want them just to set it all out so it's obvious. As cycling fans we should be saying to the sport, fool me once, twice, three times, we were dumbarses. But fool us again and we'd be astonishingly massive dumbarses. Is it too much to ask to be able to celebrate this success without having to rely on "of course they're clean, they're British and they said so"?

Last year in the early races wiggins was beating the likes of leukemens and talanski, for sure talented riders but not pantani on full nitro fuel. In the tour there was no contador or on form any schleck.

I can see raised eyebrows at the likes of Rodgers climbing though.
Apparently Jon tiernan Locke is overweight, so his winter trading in includes five hour rides on no breakfast and only water... The ' we train harder than others' has been done to death and its up to individual how they view that type of 'defence'

Kimmage has an axe to grind because wiggins at the 11th hour went back on an agreement that kimmage could shadow the team during the '11 tour. So they must be doping. Not that someone in the toughest race in the world doesn't want a chippy tosser under his armpit 24 hrs....

David Walsh had a day with David brailsford very recently and tweeted he believes the team is clean, that's a big sceptic that has been convinced.. Of course sky cannot put out everything they do to convince public ally, I am sure there are legitimate ways they go about things they do not want other teams knowing..

Does anyone remember reading an Article a few years ago about Lance which disputed whether he even had cancer?

Kimmage has an axe to grind because wiggins at the 11th hour went back on an agreement that kimmage could shadow the team during the '11 tour. So they must be doping. Not that someone in the toughest race in the world doesn't want a chippy tosser under his armpit 24 hrs....

If it's a price to pay for confidence and transparency, they should have MTFU'd. Instead they kicked him off and closed ranks, which was at best ill-considered, at worst very suspect

When people repeat lines like "Kimmage has an axe to grind" it sounds just like the words Armstrong used to use against him and others. It's little different to Emma O'Reilly being described as an "alcoholic prostitute", or all the vitriol against Travis Tygart (lost count of the number of people who parroted the camp's line that he was "just making a name for himself"). Kimmage has his livelihood on the line, such is his passion for fighting doping in the sport. Yes, he's abrasive, but better that (by far) than most other journos who have toed the li(n)e and in many cases got rich from hanging onto the seatposts of dopers. At least Kimmage gives a damn about the future of the sport.

Cycling needs a few more Kimmages and a lot less Liggerts and Watsons

Edit -double post

Re. Training harder, I don't think Sky are claiming that, they are certainly claiming the they are training different.

Things like Wiggins not stopping in he winter so he was still fit when he started his program, training in a very structured way rather than racing to get fit, racing to win at every race rather than racing to get fit, training as a team rather than as individuals, warming down after races, traveling with your own mattresses... these are all different from the way things used to be done in cycling.

As I said before it may all be done in the name of plausible deniability but it is certainly plausible. If we asked the questions of Armstrong that we are now asking about Wiggins he would have been found out a lot earlier.

When people repeat lines like "Kimmage has an axe to grind" it sounds just like the words Armstrong used to use against him and others. It's little different to Emma O'Reilly being described as an "alcoholic prostitute", or all the vitriol against Travis Tygart

It's hardly the same, only Lance and his cronies were claiming these things but it is widely accepted that Kimmage is a "chippy tosser", not the kind of guy you want in your face at what may be the most important time in your life. Kimmage did follow the Garmin team and they have some interesting things to say about it.

Kimmage has more to lose if he doesn't question Wiggins and it turns out he was on something than if he questions it yet nothing ever come out, accusing the No1 guy has become his raison d'être.

If Sky are dirty - then the whole of British Cycling is dirty, the track team, BMX team and Sky have the same management structure. I read recently that Theo Bos gave up the track for one reason, the British were the best funded, so could afford the best equipment, the best facilities, the best sports scientists, trainers, psycologists etc. So there you have it - money talks. Sky are one of the (if not the) best funded teams in the peloton.

Besides that, if they are dirty they must have Balls of Steel given the wall to wall publicity, fly on the wall TV programmes, books, knighthoods and the whole circus that surrounds British Cycling at the moment. If that all came tumbling down it could bring down so much with it, so much more than one man's fall from grace.

NJA but the sponsors (Sky) will insist on a clean team in the contracts. Do you think the title sponsor Postal said 'come on smack up guys'?

only Lance and his cronies were claiming these things

😯 😯 😯

Are you new to the internet? Never seen a discussion about LA before?

If it's a price to pay for confidence and transparency, they should have MTFU'd. Instead they kicked him off and closed ranks, which was at best ill-considered, at worst very suspect

When people repeat lines like "Kimmage has an axe to grind" it sounds just like the words Armstrong used to use against him and others. It's little different to Emma O'Reilly being described as an "alcoholic prostitute", or all the vitriol against Travis Tygart (lost count of the number of people who parroted the camp's line that he was "just making a name for himself"). Kimmage has his livelihood on the line, such is his passion for fighting doping in the sport. Yes, he's abrasive, but better that (by far) than most other journos who have toed the li(n)e and in many cases got rich from hanging onto the seatposts of dopers. At least Kimmage gives a damn about the future of the sport.

Cycling needs a few more Kimmages and a lot less Liggerts and Watsons

sorry hit wrong button first!

We can agree that cycling needs questions asked and KImmage asks some relevant questions, I believe he is right to ask these questions. But acting through spite because they refused him access 24/7 is pathetic. He is grinding his axe its clear for all to see. I actually do not believe he gives a damn about cycling, i think his pursuit of Armstrong was more about the fact Armstrong mocked him and crossed him. his motivations seem to be that of getting one up on an enemy as opposed to the greater good of cycling. just my opinion.

saying that sky are similar to postal is tenuous at best. the over riding factor here is that the performances of the main protagonists are not superhuman, their numbers are within boundaries that are widely viewed as being achievable clean. the climb times are down by minutes on the mountain stages, records are still pantani and armstrong and hamilton.

I still go back to the fact David Walsh following a day with Brailsford is happy. I suggest he was provided with info not in the public domain that satisfied him? David Walsh is hardly someone to be hoodwinked, he asks the right questions, and should a witch hunt be needed he would be one of the first to join

One thing's for sure, it's a good job all this is only about some people pedalling push-bikes around the place, and not something that's actually got any real importance ... 😀

[i]I actually do not believe he gives a damn about cycling, i think his pursuit of Armstrong was more about the fact Armstrong mocked him and crossed him. [/i]

That's a baseless couple of statements in my opinion. He was fighting against doping before Armstrong came to the top. Why shouldn't he go after the biggest fish... what he saw as the greatest bad affecting the "greater good"? As for not giving a damn about cycling... blimey, what a statement. He's from a cycling family, he's cycled all his life and still does - look at his conversation with Landis where he's firmly encouraging Landis to keep riding even if it's just for fun. There's plenty of statements which suggest he's still in love with the sport, and none that I know of to back up your assertion. You can't assert he's "acting through spite" and then criticise him for that spite, it's a straw man.

In terms of performances now, sure, the W/Kg is down from the EPO free-for-all era, but that doesn't mean there's not bad stuff going on. Microdosing, more subtle methods, etc. After all, you don't have to be better than Pantani, you have to be marginally better than the bloke next to you. That italian prosecutor recently spoke about Chinese EPO and other as-yet-undetectable things. Sky could surely take journos to training camps and protect their training secrets through NDAs while being open enough to inspire greater confidence, especially after all this backtracking around Leinders.

I believe (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm quoting second hand) that Walsh concluded with the line "If you put a gun to my head... I would say you won clean. But I'd still be relieved to hear the click of the empty chamber". He's supportive... but there's some worry left there, isn't there?

I think wiggo suffers from the LA effect and cycling will for some time

Well he won and he cheated and we never knew so whomever is winning now must be the same

The rumours about LA were there from the start though

I have only heard folk like on here say stuff like in here but they dont give any actual reason - its like some sort of gut reaction- this will be cyclings' problem for years and the legacy that LA [and others]has given it and every champion.

Bertie and Shleck failing tests has not helped either though

I am not sure what more folk expect Sky or Wiggo to do tbh though the Dr was not a good call at all and riased doubts

As for Kimmage does not seem to have anything positive to say about anything - yes there are similarities between Sky and postal - strong team and they win things but I see no smoking gun tbh.
What is his motivation I dont know if it stuck record, axe to grind or something else. Whatever it is his view also comes with a distinct lack of evidence to support it

I amnotsure what more folk expect Sky or Wiggo to do tbh.

Open up, and no more Leinders moments. Simple.

He wasn't shy in coming forward when it came to Armstrong. What makes you think he'd sit on something about Sky?

Why would a journalist not want to upset Team Sky?

Maybe a desire to ever work again for a main stream Anglophone news provider. Bit of a conspiracy theory admittedly, but the Murdochs still have a lot of clout.

Who does Walsh work for again?

Open up, and no more Leinders moments. Simple.

cyclists and the sport on the whole are in a situation where they are now forced to show they are clean, and I cannot see how this can be done to the satisfaction of all.

In terms of opening up surely nothing other than full access would be accepted? If so how on earth are they to do their job. Would you want someone with you 24/7? it'd be impossible.

I'd love teams like Sky to do something that'll mean that if their guy is standing on the podium on the Champs Elysees this July, we can all look at the background and say with complete confidence that they did it clean.

How that might be achieved, well, not sure, but there's plenty of room for improvement. Maybe invite Ashenden to work with the team for some of the buildup, give him access to data and the riders. They're happy to work with all manner of scientists all day long around nutrition, psychology, etc, so why not another? Hell, hand him all the data going back a few years... if they've nothing to hide then you'd hope someone like Ashenden would then be in a position to say "these guys are the real deal and they're still winning".

Funding's a question of course, but you've got people like Jamie Fuller pouring money into the effort right now, and while of course he's got interests in selling sportswear, he's also a relatively impartial party in the whole doping area, I'd like to think.

I mean, that's just one idea, it's not meant to be the only answer.

I'd love teams like Sky to do something that'll mean that if their guy is standing on the podium on the Champs Elysees this July, we can all look at the background and say with complete confidence that they did it clean.

I'd love it too, but I can see why no-one would want it. It would literally require them to follow them into the toilet in the middle of the night when they take a sh1t! otherwise it'd be qualified with 'well they had a shower and i wasnt there, they went for a poo and I wasn't there... extreme I know but that's what would satisfy the likes of Kimmage.

what he said - he is trying to win a race and a tough one - why would anyone want the distraction of having to entertain a journalist at this time knowing that if you want some space or a quiet moment to reflect this time alone will be seen as an opportunity to cheat

It is not hard to see why someone would object but its a large leap to think this refusal means they cheat.

As i say nothing will satisfy the doubters.

Based on what I've seen on Lance Armstrong and the tone of his press realses to date I don't think we are going to see a tearful confession from the ****.

More likley is, he'll say the absolute minimum in order to get back into sport. Lance wants to be in control and at the moment, he's being held down by bans and stripped of titles.

if they've nothing to hide then you'd hope someone like Ashenden would then be in a position to say "these guys are the real deal and they're still winning".

But the question has to be whether Sky are completely satisfied that nobody in the team has been doping by themselves. I think the days of teams organising programs are over for the foreseeable future but as we've seen with Ferrari, there are loads of people who would be prepared to dope alone. Given the number of people who were walked out of Sky because they forgot to mention their pasts (or being cynical, their pasts were now public), maybe Brailsford is worried about what may come out.

what he said - he is trying to win a race and a tough one - why would anyone want the distraction of having to entertain a journalist at this time knowing that if you want some space or a quiet moment to reflect this time alone will be seen as an opportunity to cheat

The problem was more that they gave permission and at the last moment changed their mind rather than saying no outright.

Without doping in the sport Kimmage would need to find a new line of work. Actually that's a bit harsh as when he was employed by the Sunday Times he was fine but doesn't look like he's very employable at the moment - is that fair? BTW, I do like him but think maybe he's gone too far now.

I've read a fair bit about all of this over the weekend and have yet to see any mention of the dropped Federal case against LA. [u]IF[/u] he confesses it is hard to see how this case can be left 'shelved' as he would be admitting the charge of "misuse of public monies". That, IIRC, carries a jail sentence of 5-40 years.

When the case was dropped last year it was widely believed that it was due more to the Obama administration not wanting to publicly destroy an American icon in an election year. There is no such 'protection' in place now.

maybe Brailsford is worried about what may come out.

More likely he knows that no matter what comes out some wont be happy with it and it wont stop this sort of gentle withchunt/scapegoating innuendo that they cheat

camerone - Member

I'd love teams like Sky to do something that'll mean that if their guy is standing on the podium on the Champs Elysees this July, we can all look at the background and say with complete confidence that they did it clean.

I'd love it too, but I can see why no-one would want it. It would literally require them to follow them into the toilet in the middle of the night when they take a sh1t! otherwise it'd be qualified with 'well they had a shower and i wasnt there, they went for a poo and I wasn't there... extreme I know but that's what would satisfy the likes of Kimmage.

Have you read Bradley's book? Page 198 - 200 IIRC, where he describes the potential impact of him having to admit to doping, if he was and what he means to him and those around him. You can't make that up and have a clear concience IMO, and I have to ask myself, why would he write it if he was hiding something?

The other thing people are forgetting is that the TdF rider performance has gone down - a lot - recently - less power, slower pace longer times, whilst training efforts & technology is up - Brad committed 12 months for the tour of dieting and training etc with only 5 weeks of that with his family - thats a big committment.

Without doping in the sport Kimmage would need to find a new line of work.

He's a noted (edit: Multi award winning) sporting biographer and a very good writer. I'm sure there are easier paths to making a living than the fight against doping.

Have you read Bradley's book? Page 198 - 200 IIRC, where he describes the potential impact of him having to admit to doping, if he was and what he means to him and those around him. You can't make that up and have a clear concience IMO, and I have to ask myself, why would he write it if he was hiding something?

For the record, I believe BW is a clean rider.

However... if we've learnt anything, it's that a rider saying "I don't dope" no matter how convincingly does not mean he doesn't dope. Dopers lie (and do so without a 'clean conscience').

I'm minded to think he's clean too. At least you can see the seriously brilliant TT technique, a legacy of his pursuit days. I want to feel more convinced than I am about some of the others, and the team haven't been helping.

You are right - i dont think bertie has admitted it either tbh

Given that why would you bother ? No matter what you do it wont convince everyone

As far as I'm concerned, Paul Kimmage is merely using cycling as a means to an end and sell articles to papers, probably with a view to working towards another book fairly soon.

This would explain the ongoing innuendo and little snippets of allegation he leaks on a regular basis. If he genuinely was in possession of damning evidence or something he could substantiate, he should be putting it together in a single dossier and present it at a press conference, given the fact that the UCI could be considered as a not entirely trusted entity.

I simply don't trust the guy - this is all about presenting "facts" (as he sees them) on a regular basis to keep himself busy and the money coming in. It's nothing to do with a moral crusade or anything honourable.

I simply don't trust the guy - this is all about presenting "facts" (as he sees them) on a regular basis to keep himself busy and the money coming in. It's nothing to do with a moral crusade or anything honourable.

+1. Kimmage is like everyone else - in it for himself.

As to how you could have a journalist (or anyone else) "embedded" within the team during the Tour...
LA did that very thing when he invited Daniel Coyle on board for a whole year. Unprecedented access to him and to the team and Coyle's book [url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lance-Armstrong-Force-Daniel-Coyle/dp/0007195281 ]Tour de Force[/url] seems to have been produced while showing Coyle a very different side to the team - the side that doesn't include doping.

Coyle co-wrote Tyler Hamilton's recent book so I don't believe that he was in on some giant conspiracy.

So having a journalist or anyone else along for the ride is still no guarantee that a team is clean. FWIW, I think that Sky is clean, it comes more from the much much cleaner side of cycle sport that is track riding where Sky (and a lot of the riders in the team) originated.

Why do you think track is much, much cleaner?

because nothing was as dirty as road

This was quite an interesting read:
http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jan/05/lance-armstrong-ready-confess-doping

I don't see why any discipline of cycling, or any team, or any other sport for that matter, warrants any free pass or assumption of innocence with regard to doping.

Any sport where there's good money involved (and I presume big name track stars don't turn up at sixes for free), and where the oversight doesn't lend itself to actually catching doping, is likely to have some doping going on, whether that's individuals or teams.

When you look at how poor the testing regime has been in cycling over the last few decades, and extrapolate that to sports like football where the money is bigger and the testing is even worse, I think it'd be crazy to assume there's no doping. Even though it might not provide the same overwhelming advantages in football as it does in cycling, long-distance running, or power sports, it's still going to give SOME advantage. And in football all you need to do to survive in a division, or go from 5th to 4th, or whatever, is beat the other teams at the same level as you. Stamina can be a big differentiator if all else is equal.

What the USADA case has shown is that technical measures have consistently been overwhelmed by the stuff the riders do to get around them. It took a tenacious individual in the form of Travis Tygart, using "good old fashioned police work", to quote The Wire, to bring down an almost untouchable man.

Sadly there are very few Travis Tygarts out there.

They really haven't slowed down and Wiggins/Froome were radared at 450W or more on the 2012 Tour. They expalained it all away with their [url= http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/2012/07/11/le-plateau-ovoide-botte-secrete-de-bradley-wiggins_1731653_3242.html ]oval rings[/url] of course which give 30W more apparently. It's all nonsense of course just as it was when Berzin put his speed down to the enormous advantage of Shamal wheels - which turned out to be less aero than the Rovals Hinault had used a deacade before.

Even more, but in the time trails. If you read Wiggo's book he tells how they identified and duplicated Cancellara's secret to a high TT wattage - and Bradley trained to the TdF / Olympics date using Spartacus own cadence to build bradleys power to do so. So he ride differing cadence in TT than he did daily.

He also has the previously commented upon aero advantage. Of course it's ALL nonsense, which is why Sky pay so much for and have a marginal gains dept.

There are parallels with the 2003 Rugby team. Woodward put so much into marginal emphasis physically and psychologically.

The England rugby setup circa 2003 is a good parallel.
Clive Woodward was a visionary given almost limitless funding, he took lessons from rugby league, American football and set new heights for fitness in the squad...awesome times.

I dont see why Brailsford can't be doing the same with Sky's money in the cycling setup. A huge amount of this is psychological, if an athlete believes they are the best prepared out there then they will often perform that way....even if their training methods are largely snake oil.

😯

Meh, sport as we know it is a sinking ship....just polishing brass on the Titanic....the doping you'll see (or possibly won't see :mrgreen:) in front page scandals in 10-20 years will blow your ****ing mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_doping

People will always dope and they will always be one step ahead of the testers.

In the long, loong run the unaltered human being is probably doomed to extinction. It's conjecture but if we don't wipe ourselves out firts....in 100 to 200 years time I'd like to predict that the full effects of transhumanism will be felt and 20th century sports will cease to have any meaning.

only Lance and his cronies were claiming these things

Are you new to the internet? Never seen a discussion about LA before?

What? So Emma O'Reily being drunken prostitute was a widely and independently held belief and not just a lie started by LA to discredit her?

Whereas Kimmage being a bit of a prick, that is just Wiggins annoyed that he is the only journalist who has seen though his cover, nobody else has ever said that!

Get real.

Cycling isn't about psychology it's about physiology. If you haven't got the watts no amount of will power will help you. If anyone puts their wins down to Zen, oval chainrings, Shamal wheels, positive thinking, a training guru, a fad diet, marginal gains ... assume the worst.

Why did Indurain use a heart rate monitor? To temper his will to win. He chose to ride at his physiological limit while other riders attacked and left him behind. Their will to win simply resulted in inefficient use of ressources, however, and Indurain reeled them back in when they blew up having gone into the red.

Rugby 2003 as a glowing example of dope-free sport and margianal gains? Cricket and rugby are well up there in the doped-up-to-the-eyeballs stakes as a quick Google will show you. Dick Pound gave cricket a proper bashing for it's lack of will to do anything or even apply appropriate sanctions when players were caught. Exactly like cycling.

If anyone puts their wins down to Zen, oval chainrings, Shamal wheels, positive thinking, a training guru, a fad diet, marginal gains ... assume the worst.

The problem is that no journo (nor the public) want to hear Wiggo say "There's no secret, I'm a genetic freak, train really hard and have access to some of the best facilities for cycling in the world". Basically all pro roadies are freaks of nature both from their innate capabilities and the decades of work they've put in but people would be happier to be told a story about how people win rather than just accept that the riders in front of them worked hard and had access to a team that pay crazy attention to the tiniest details.

Careful, Edukator, no one said Rugby was dope free - I specifically was comparing the "marginal gains" issue - ie when you have the budget, vision and capability to do that, you CAN exceed expectations - its been demonstrated twice with success.

This is also a humerous quote from you, considering my experience of you is that you usually research your subject;

Why did Indurain use a heart rate monitor? To temper his will to win. He chose to ride at his physiological limit while other riders attacked and left him behind. Their will to win simply resulted in inefficient use of ressources, however, and Indurain reeled them back in when they blew up having gone into the red.

That is pretty much Bradley's strategy you wrote there - Sky knew if the could keep him bashing out an appropriate cadence / power over the stages, he'd average the time enough to win. Look at the times. The majority of his time gains was in the TT not the other stages - his advantage in the other stages was very slim - but with the advantage in the TT, all he had to do was sit with the leaders elsewhere. The fact that Cadel and Schleck had a bad tour, and Nibali burned himself a couple of times just helped. So Sky trained Brad to be up with the rest over the duration (3 years to 12 months and some GT's in the making for an already Elite level rider) and used Brad's current strength and replicated his biggest threats advantage to increase his power in the TT's to win.

The also used a stronger climber than Brad (Froome) to drag him along and give him a tow up the hills.

Thats not cheating - thats have a plan and vision and learning from the competition and then executing it and teamwork correctly. You also have to remeber this is Brads third tour - not his first.

* its worth stating that if Evans, Schleck and Nibali had a better tour, and Bertie was in, I suspect we'd have seen Brad fighting over seconds in the TT's to try for the jersey. I think the time difference is exaggerated by the issues with the competition, not necessarily by Brad suddently becoming Superhuman.

Good to know the truth 😉 Kryton. Thanks! Before that, the similarities between the descriptions of LA and others described in The Secret Race of how mountain stage attacks were reeled in and what Froome and Wiggo did just seems a little too close for comfort. Much better to have this alternative version.

When/if LA finally confesses, I wish the whole would could simple treat it with complete disinterest. The ultimate put down, but one that will never happen.

"Your cheated? Gosh, we never knew. Ok, thanks. Next story......"

Oh, and hopefully no deal such as "yes, I cheated. Is it alright if I go back to triathlon now?"

They really haven't slowed down and Wiggins/Froome were radared at 450W or more on the 2012 Tour. They expalained it all away with their oval rings of course which give 30W more apparently

Reference for all of that everything i have seen shows the times and the wattages are getting lower

How exactly do you radar someone to be able to say what Watts they are producing?

Do you think Cadel suddenly started cheating the year he won? Got faster as he aged? Do you think he was a cheat? Everyone got slower and he stayed the same- Cadel could not beat the cheats as he was a clean rider.

If anyone puts their wins down to Zen, oval chainrings, Shamal wheels, positive thinking, a training guru, a fad diet, marginal gains ... assume the worst

Some of you just want to believe they all cheat and all you have is slur and innuendo.
As this threads shows no matter what anyone does some of you will just assume they are a cheat...I think this says more about you tahn Sky or wiggo tbh

They may cheat, anyone might, but we need some actual evidence not just this crappy witchhunt with "flimsy" [ I am being kind its NONE] evidence

Good to know the truth Kryton. Thanks! Before that, the similarities between the descriptions of LA and others described in The Secret Race of how mountain stage attacks were reeled in and what Froome and Wiggo did just seems a little too close for comfort. Much better to have this alternative version.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcy THM. All that's avaialble from reading publically available sources. I can't tell you with any evidence that Sky have / haven't found a way to enhance thier performance which may be considered cheating. Its just a bunch of facts.

Aka, Bradley was worringly closer to the pack than you think hence equal to his peers most of the time, he just trained very hard over 3 years to get there in the first place, had a series of lucky breaks (ie Cadels performance or lack thereof) and used his strenght (power over short duration) and replicated / trained a powerful riders style (Cancellara, low cadence big gears)to gain an advantage.

Its not rocket science, its research and vision backed by Bradleys own capability as an elite cyclist that put him seconds on front of those that didn't trained with similar principles.

Like I said, lets see what happens this year when his strengths have been nullified (more mountains and shorter TT's) and the competition is back (Schlecks/Contador).

Sorry Kryton, I was being slightly sarcy! I really do hope you are correct but sadly I an very cynical about clean pro sports including cycling. Your description of how/why Wiggo won rings too many bells for me to be completely convinced but I hope that this is my loss (for being too cynical) and that you are correct - and that is true not sarcy this time.

Part of me reserves the same THM, one can only hope.

I think its cycnicism

Look at 100 m and the BEn Johnson era

iirc every sprinter in that final has tested positive since- dont see load sof stuff about how Bolt must be cheat
He even admits his training partner works harder than him and still no one says he is a cheat or the sprinters are all cheats.

With cycling some think everyone must be a cheat - I think if bertie had not tested positive and denied we would probably not be having this chat tbh and nothing will convince some [ i can see why to be fair]

We can indeed......

....and I find it genuinely sad that reading TSRs description of how LA reeled attacks in made me immediately think about and question Wiggo and Froome's similar tactics in 2012 TDF and that is the greatest disappointment of all. The cheating has robbed me/us of the ability to take outstanding performance at face value. And for that, (insert chosen name of guilty cyclist) we thank you (back to being sarcy, sorry!)

Haven't read whole thread, but wanted to throw this comment in:

Quote from page 1:

Sky team's relationship with a dodgy doctor and some team member have owned up to having doped in the past. In this case Sky responded by clearing these people out. If all teams did this the sport would be a very different place with no Contador, Riis, Schlecks etc.

I disagree, for now anyway. If you know you are going to be kicked out, where is the motivation to tell the truth? This approach just perpetuates the Omerta. What is needed is truth and reconcilliation. And that's view of Travis Tygart, chief of USADA, the guys who busted LA.

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/dec/19/team-sky-zero-tolerance-usada ]http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/dec/19/team-sky-zero-tolerance-usada[/url]

and nothing will convince some

Think I fit into that group now. It's a shame, but on the bright side I have a lot more time for push bikes and running up and down hills.

Oh Christ, let's not start on distance running. Makes cycling look good.

[quote=Kryton57 ]You also have to remeber this is Brads third tour - not his first.

It was his sixth, plus four Giros and a Vuelta 🙂

Sure, he didn't finish two tours and one was towards the back but even so 😉

I did include a link, Junkyard, click where it says "oval rings". Names followed by numbers don't really need translating though I'll have to think of a better translation for "flashé" than "radared" as you don't don't seem to understand.

Gifted riders have often won their first Tour or come close (Anquetil, Mercx, Hinault, Lemond... ), others take years of doping and meeting the the right doctor (Riis, Zoetemelk, Armstrong...)

I did include a link, Junkyard, click where it says "oval rings".

Names followed by numbers don't really need translating though I'll have to think of a better translation for "flashé" than "radared" as you don't don't seem to understand.

Sky riders could rely earn 20 to 30 watts through the use of trays shaped ovoid Osymetric called the name of the French brand that sells.

Is that just measures for peak climbing for short tiems rather than for the whole tour?

Was a thread - think this one which links to the Vueleta giving watts per stage and they are all around 400 watts iirc. At 6 wats per killo I get them wieghing 67 kg ish [ wiggo is 69] IIRC 6.2 has been seen as doable and Armstrong was at 6.6-6.9
Still think hill climb times have declined.

Its the ability to do it every day that is the issue[ Recovery] - tbh Wiggo seemed to ride at daily threshold tempo and never pushed it beyond this- any idea what his average was for the Tour v say his Gold TT watts?

Gifted riders have often won their first Tour or come close (Anquetil, Mercx, Hinault, Lemond... )

+ merckx was kicked out of the giro for doping

Its the ability to do it every day that is the issue[ Recovery] - tbh Wiggo seemed to ride at daily threshold tempo and never pushed it beyond this- any idea what his average was for the Tour v say his Gold TT watts?

IIRC his book quotes an average of 320w per non TT stage and 430w - 460w on the TT's.

I may be wrong.

P.S I just averaged 186W over my 28k lunchtime ride and am pretty chuffed with myself 😆

And Anquetil was in favour of doping, refusing a test after his hour record and Hinault refused a test after a crit and Lemond ... well actually Lemond managed to do everything he did without a blemish, even his fellow riders declaring him a non-doper.

Worth noting that even though Merckx admitting doping in 88 and frauding controls in 93 he has always vehemently denied the Giro positive.

[url= http://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=458000314247164&id=199098633470668&set=a.200542726659592.50788.199098633470668&refid=52&_ft_=fbid.466178073440375 ][/url]m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=458000314247164&id=199098633470668&set=a.200542726659592.50788.199098633470668&refid=52&_ft_=fbid.466178073440375

Class.

[url= http://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=458000314247164&id=199098633470668&set=a.200542726659592.50788.199098633470668&refid=52&_ft_=fbid.466178073440375 ]]Hora's link[/url]

I'm not sure why it's class though.

I'm guessing bennyneenan's reply?

Lol!

Except that Bennyneenan is making the same mistake as those who worshipped Karl Lewis but demonised Ben. Or those that idolised Lance while slagging off Virenque (who really did never test positive). Or those that saw x,y and z as the brave new face of a dope free age only to see their heros become villains.

So about a third of the team Sky mob have gone this year (including Yates eventually) but when you do a bit of Googling there is no way those that remain are any better given the periods they rode in, the teams they rode for and the people they were mates with. (I hope that in the light of events I'm allowed to mention Yates without my posts being removed now)

Lance to be interviewed on Oprah... I sense a teary confessional coming.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/armstrong-set-to-appear-on-oprah-next-week-as-new-allegation-surfaces/?hp

Oprah, FFS.

He may as well get a PR agency to interview him. He really is a prize bell end.

BBC article here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20954810

Separately, the head of Usada told a US investigative programme that Armstrong offered the agency a donation of some $250,000 in 2004, reports said.

Speaking to 60 Minutes Sport, to be broadcast in the US on Wednesday, Travis Tygart said the offer was a "clear conflict of interest" and quickly rejected.

😯 Guess they figured if it worked for the UCI...