Lance armstrong drops fight against doping charges

heavyballs

jimbobaloobob wrote: »

Do ye reckon theres a sport thats drug free?

No,but cycling has to be one of the worst.

NIMAN

I don't think there's a sport thats drug free tbh.

I have major suspicions about the Jamaican sprinters too... perhaps time will tell.

jimbobaloobob

I dont think cycling is the worst but i think it offers the best sport to get results from a drug testing perspective.

Seaneh

D_D wrote: »

Hmmmm, that's a big leap. And also si it not too difficult to hide chemist training partner? Does she train beside him in her lab coat and safety goggles? It's like saying 'Bolt watches Breaking Bad.... Doped'.

Angel Heredia is a male.

He designs drugs for atheletes, he has admitted it in court and in interviews to papers.

He was the only who supplied Marrion Jones and Tim Montgomery.

titan18

On Bolt, whilst I think he's on something (I think most are though tbf), there's no hard evidence to back up that he is. It's all circumstantial e.g Heredia, his training partners being caught (Blake tested positive for example), the poor out of competition testing in Caribbean countries, beating guys like Gatlin comfortably. There's nothing there that anyone can definitely say he's guilty tbh.

Likewise, with a lot of people e.g since someone said Wiggins above, you could easily put Wiggins at the same level as Bolt. There's nothing there that you can say for definite but there's stuff like Geert Leinders (ex Rabo doctor, worked with Rasmussen etc) being a team doctor, a pretty impressive performance jump by him and in particular Froome, the past history of cycling (very few track riders have gone on and been successful in GTs, and some of those who did tested positive later, Wiggins beating some of the best guys around by a good bit when he was never able to do before this year), blocking Kimmage from following Sky in 2010 Tour. Nothing definite that you can point to, but some choose to believe he's clean, others don't.


If I see a performance that I consider suspect, either with the person's history, or just plain crazy naturally, considering how easy it is to dope and get away it, I tend to go with the person is on something. Tbh, getting caught in competiton is an IQ test failure.

jimbobaloobob

In fairness i wouldnt want Kimmage or Walsh following a team in any event, they are just looking for the meat in a sandwhich.

NIMAN

I don't know how they drug test at the Olympics (random?), but surely ALL medal winners would be tested.

Seaneh

NIMAN wrote: »

I don't know how they drug test at the Olympics (random?), but surely ALL medal winners would be tested.

It doesn't matter.
Testing isn't fool proof, there are drugs they can't currently test for.

Colmustard

NIMAN wrote: »

I don't know how they drug test at the Olympics (random?), but surely ALL medal winners would be tested.

They are all tested.

Even the horses.

Colmustard

Seaneh wrote: »

It doesn't matter.
Testing isn't fool proof, there are drugs they can't currently test for.

But they keep the samples. So if they are successful there is a future risk of disgrace.

jimbobaloobob

Few people have said here that they should be aloud to take what they want if they want.

Paint me a picture of how that would develop?

NIMAN

Colmustard wrote: »

They are all tested.

Even the horses.

All winners are tested, or all competitors in the games?

Seaneh

Colmustard wrote: »

But they keep the samples. So if they are successful there is a future risk of disgrace.

Why hire a chemist who designed untraceable drugs if you aren't using him to design untraceable drugs?

Colmustard

jimbobaloobob wrote: »

Few people have said here that they should be aloud to take what they want if they want.

Paint me a picture of how that would develop?

What would the point be. Why not attached a better engine to say a bicycle.
Also what example would that be to kids, that it is OK to take uneccessary performance enhancement drugs which are always dangerous because by their nature they overtax something in our system.

One of the things sport is about is natural human endeavour.

poppyvally

Xavi6 wrote: »

Given the bloke has fought through all sorts of adversity including cancer to prolong his career it's a bit suss that he's giving up on clearing his name.

I'd say he's guilty but we'll probably never know.

They were all at it at that time, even our Rochie. but they were ahead of the drug tests. The same is true of China at the moment, always one step ahead of detection.

titan18

Dear Dwain,
Per your request, this letter is to confirm I am willing to assist you in providing UK Sport and others with information that will help them to improve the effectiveness of their anti-doping programs.
The specific details regarding how you were able to circumvent the British and IAAF anti-doping tests for an extended period of time are provided below.
Your performance enhancing drug program included the following seven prohibited substances: THG, testosterone/epitestosterone cream, EPO (Procrit), HGH (Serostim), insulin (Humalog), modafinil (Provigil) and liothryonine, which is a synthetic form of the T3 thyroid hormone (Cytomel).
THG is a previously undetectable designer steroid nicknamed "the clear." It was primarily used in the off season and was taken two days per week, typically on Mondays and Wednesdays. Generally, these were the two most intense weight-training days of the week. The purpose was to accelerate healing and tissue repair. Thirty units (IU) of the liquid was place under the tongue during the morning time-frame. THG was used in cycles of "three weeks on and one week off."
Testosterone/epitestosterone cream was also primarily used during the off season. It was rubbed into the skin on the front of the forearm two days per week, typically Tuesdays and Thursdays. The dosage was ½ gram which contained 50mg of testosterone and 2.5mg of epitestosterone (20 to 1 ratio). The purpose was to offset the suppression of endogenous testosterone caused by the use of the THG and to accelerate recovery. The testosterone/epitestosterone cream was also used in cycles of three weeks on and one week off.
EPO was used three days per week during the "corrective phase", which is the first two weeks of a cycle. Typically, it was on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. It was only used once per week during the "maintenance phase" thereafter, typically this was every Wednesday. The dosage was 4,000 IU per injection. The purpose was to increase the red blood cell count and enhance oxygen uptake and utilization. This substance provides a big advantage to sprinters because it enables them to do more track repetitions and obtain a much deeper training load during the off season. EPO becomes undetectable about 72 hours after subcutaneous injection (stomach) and only 24 hours after intravenous injection.
HGH was used three nights per week, typically on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Each injection would contain 4.5 units of growth hormone. Once again, this substance was used primarily during the off season to help with recovery from very strenuous weight training sessions.
Insulin was used after strenuous weight training sessions during the off season. Three units of Humalog (fast-acting insulin) were injected immediately after the workout sessions together with a powdered drink that contained 30 grams of dextrose, 30 grams of whey protein isolates and 3 grams of creatine. The purpose was to quickly replenish glycogen, resynthesize ATP and promote protein synthesis and muscle growth. Insulin acts as a "shuttle system" in the transport of glucose and branch chain amino acids. There is no test available for insulin at this time.
Modafinil was used as a "wakefulness promoting" agent before competitions. The purpose was to decrease fatigue and enhance mental alertness and reaction time. A 200mg tablet was consumed one hour before competition.
Liothryonine was used help accelerate the basic metabolic rate before competitions. The purpose was to reduce sluggishness and increase quickness. Two 25mg tablets were taken one hour before competition. There is no test available for liothryonine at this time.
In general terms, explosive strength athletes, such as sprinters, use anabolic steroids, growth hormone, insulin and EPO during the off season. They use these drugs in conjunction with an intense weight training program, which helps to develop a strength base that will serve them throughout the competitive season. Speed work is done just prior to the start of the competitive season.
It is important to understand it is not really necessary for athletes to have access to designer anabolic steroids such as THG. They can simply use fast-acting testosterone (oral as well as creams and gels) and still easily avoid the testers. For example, oral testosterone will clear the system in less than a week and testosterone creams and gels will clear even faster.
Many drug-tested athletes use what I call the "duck and dodge" technique. Several journalists in the UK have recently referred to it as the "duck and dive" technique. This is basically how it works.
First, the athlete repeatedly calls their own cell phone until the message capacity is full. This way the athlete can claim to the testers that they didn't get a message when they finally decide to make themselves available. Secondly, they provide incorrect information on their whereabouts form. They say they are going to one place and then go to another. Thereafter, they start using testosterone, growth hormone and other drugs for a short cycle of two to three weeks.
After the athlete discontinues using the drugs for a few days and they know that they will test clean, they become available and resume training at their regular facility.
Most athletes are tested approximately two times each year on a random out-of -competition basis. If a tester shows up and the athlete is not where they are supposed to be, then the athlete will receive a "missed test". This is the equivalent to receiving "strike one" when up to bat in a baseball game. The current anti-doping rules allow an athlete to have two missed tests in any given eighteen-month period without a penalty or consequence. So, the disadvantage for an athlete having a missed test is that they have one strike against them. The advantage of that missed test is the athlete has now received the benefit of a cycle of steroids. Long story short, an athlete can continue to duck and dive until they have two missed tests, which basically means that they can continue to use drugs until that time.
In summary, it's my opinion that more than fifty percent of the drug tests performed each year should be during the off season or the fourth quarter. This is when the track athletes are duckin' and divin' and using anabolic steroids and other drugs. Let me provide some rather startling information for your consideration. If you check the testing statistics on the USADA website, you will find that the number of out-of-competition drug tests performed during each quarter of 2007 are as follows: in the first quarter there were 1208, second quarter 1295, third quarter 1141 and in the fourth quarter there were only 642.
In late 2003 I advised USADA about the importance of random testing during the fourth quarter of the year. They did initially seem to follow my advice because they increased the number of fourth-quarter tests in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
However, they failed to continue this practice in 2007. Why would USADA decide to perform only 15% of their annual out-of-competition tests during the fourth quarter? Let's not forget that this is the off season before the upcoming summer Olympic Games. This is equivalent to a fisherman knowing that the fish are ready to bite and then consciously deciding that it is time to reel in his line and hook, lean his fishing pole up against a tree and take a nap.
On several occasions, I have provided detailed information to both USADA and WADA in an attempt to help them establish more effective testing policies and procedures.
I certainly have more information that I would like the opportunity to provide to you and UK Sport, but I will leave that for another time.
Hopefully, this information will be helpful and I am available to assist you further upon request.
Yours sincerely,
Victor Conte

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympics/athletics/7403158.stm

The above is what Victor Conte, the man behind Balco, wrote to the the British anti-doping authority about how easy it was to avoid testing, and how he did it. It's a few years old at this stage but it's quite a good read

Colmustard

Seaneh wrote: »

Why hire a chemist who designed untraceable drugs if you aren't using him to design untraceable drugs?

They were all untraceable at the beginning, steroids, then EPO, then blood doping, but the testers caught up with them.

Its an arms race, so the untraceable product you are using now will be traceable in the future.

Seaneh

Colmustard wrote: »

They were all untraceable at the beginning, steroids, then EPO, then blood doping, but the testers caught up with them.

Its an arms race, so the untraceable product you are using now will be traceable in the future.

Heredia has one job in sport.

Develop drugs.

Anyone who employs him, is cheating, it's that simple.

jimbobaloobob

poppyvally wrote: »

They were all at it at that time, even our Rochie. but they were ahead of the drug tests. The same is true of China at the moment, always one step ahead of detection.

hard to say nations are cheating and ahead of the testers as thats very general. If theres a drug there, theres a test for it, but if the drug isnt on a banned list then they arent cheating.

Its always going to be a debate.

But its worth looking at the Olympic movement and the ethics. When the USSR joined the Olympic movement it had to accept the code of ethics, however in the communist regieme, ethics dont have a set place. Its a science and with that midframe your doing nothing wrong so its starts a whole debate again. In that case look at some of the eastern block nations who have tested positive with athletes and youll see that they dont face ridicule for the positive tests and often go home to work in coaching and development.

Im not saying its right but i guess thats the way of the world or has been

Seaneh

jimbobaloobob wrote: »

If theres a drug there, theres a test for it, but if the drug isnt on a banned list then they arent cheating.

Double plus untrue on both counts.

If it's not approved, it's illegal, regardless of being on a banned list.

jimbobaloobob

Yes but if they cant be banned for it, wheres the slap on the wrist for taking it.

Seaneh

jimbobaloobob wrote: »

Yes but if they cant be banned for it, wheres the slap on the wrist for taking it.

They can be banned for it, if they are caught.

The problem is catching them is nigh on impossible.

opinion guy

jimbobaloobob wrote: »

Do ye reckon theres a sport thats drug free?

Darts. Unless you count cigarettes and alcohol.

titan18 wrote: »

(Blake tested positive for example)

:eek: When did this happen ?

NIMAN

Xavi6 wrote: »

I'd say he's guilty but we'll probably never know.

WE should find out for sure. It will come out.

10 of his former team mates or team staff were about to come out and testify that they know he was doping, once a trial started. But this is why he has stopped defending himself, cos he knew a trial would show him up to be a cheat, end of.

Hopefully, even thought a trial won't happen now, I still hope they publish the info they have, and put an end to the Lance Armstrong charade. He has so many followers and fans over the world who think he has never done any wrong, and the truth needs to be told for the sake of sport.

Seaneh

NIMAN wrote: »

WE should find out for sure. It will come out.

10 of his former team mates or team staff were about to come out and testify that they know he was doping, once a trial started. But this is why he has stopped defending himself, cos he knew a trial would show him up to be a cheat, end of.

Hopefully, even thought a trial won't happen now, I still hope they publish the info they have, and put an end to the Lance Armstrong charade. He has so many followers and fans over the world who think he has never done any wrong, and the truth needs to be told for the sake of sport.

The trial is still happening, there are other people with charged against them, USADA has stated the evidence will be released as the trial progresses.

WumBuster

NIMAN wrote: »

WE should find out for sure. It will come out.

10 of his former team mates or team staff were about to come out and testify that they know he was doping, once a trial started. But this is why he has stopped defending himself, cos he knew a trial would show him up to be a cheat, end of.

Hopefully, even thought a trial won't happen now, I still hope they publish the info they have, and put an end to the Lance Armstrong charade. He has so many followers and fans over the world who think he has never done any wrong, and the truth needs to be told for the sake of sport.

Well as there is no trial forthcoming, and Armstrong has technically accepted all charges brought against him, including those witness testimonies there is nothing to stop those witnesses coming out telling their stories. So I assume we'll be getting all the lowdown coming out in the next few weeks.

titan18

opinion guy wrote: »

Darts. Unless you count cigarettes and alcohol.



:eek: When did this happen ?

2009, the substance wasn't on the WADA list at the time, but he was banned by the Jamaican Anti Doping Commission. The substance was later added to the WADA list afaik. Himself and 3 other sprinters were banned for 3 months

opinion guy

Somebody explain something to me here - how come Armstrong is getting banned for life, whilst Justin Gatlin say only got banned for a few years ?

What are the distinguishing factors ?

Seaneh

opinion guy wrote: »

Somebody explain something to me here - how come Armstrong is getting banned for life, whilst Justin Gatlin say only got banned for a few years ?

What are the distinguishing factors ?

Different sports, different governing bodies, different rules, different case, different everything.

Turtwig

opinion guy wrote: »

Somebody explain something to me here - how come Armstrong is getting banned for life, whilst Justin Gatlin say only got banned for a few years ?

What are the distinguishing factors ?

Don't even think about looking at equestrian. The bans there are completely farcical. (If non-existent.)

WumBuster

opinion guy wrote: »

Somebody explain something to me here - how come Armstrong is getting banned for life, whilst Justin Gatlin say only got banned for a few years ?

What are the distinguishing factors ?

As far as I know Gatlin failed just one drug test, hence a rap on the knuckles type ban. Basically Armstrong has admitted/accepted charges on mulitple accounts of drug use spanning years that if they all accumulated into two year bans etc he'd probably get a two hundred year ban, hence life. Thats what I imagine is the case anyway. But yeah any athlete who tests positive for banned substances should get a lifetime ban regardless, that would be much more effective in stamping out drug use in sport.

UKJon

WumBuster wrote: »

But yeah any athlete who tests positive for banned substances should get a lifetime ban regardless, that would be much more effective in stamping out drug use in sport.

Surely you should give them at least 1 second chance? I mean what happens if it was a genuine mistake?

Your rules have potential to ban possible future greats.

It's likely saying the death penalty would stamp out spitting gum out on the pavement. Of course it would, but it's too harsh.

NIMAN

Armstrong has shown himself up to be one of, if not THE greatest, drugs cheat EVER in the history of sport.

He won countless praise, accolades and ultimately wealth based on cheating. Other sportsmen tried to compete with him when they were at a disadvantage due to the fact that they tried to play by the rules. These people got nothing out of their years of hard graft.

He deserves anything that comes his way. Even if the trial shows him up to be the most perfect example of a cheat in sport, he will still be a very wealthy man and will live comfortably.

As you can guess, I have no sympathy for him.

WumBuster

UKJon wrote: »

Surely you should give them at least 1 second chance? I mean what happens if it was a genuine mistake?

Your rules have potential to ban possible future greats.

It's likely saying the death penalty would stamp out spitting gum out on the pavement. Of course it would, but it's too harsh.

Well it may be the only solution now, given how rife the problem is. It would make them think twice about taking any drug, which they shouldnt do anyway, unless its under medical orders or something.

Special praise too, and its a great day for Paul Kimmage, who has spent years campaigning and being ostracized by everyone in cycling and being discredited and called all sorts..The good guys do win in the end, well sometimes, contrary to popular belief.

UKJon

WumBuster wrote: »

Well it may be the only solution now, given how rife the problem is. It would make them think twice about taking any drug, which they shouldnt do anyway, unless its under medical orders or something.

Are we sure the drug problem is still rife? I only heard of about a couple of people being found to do it in London.

UKJon

NIMAN wrote: »

Armstrong has shown himself up to be one of, if not THE greatest, drugs cheat EVER in the history of sport.

He won countless praise, accolades and ultimately wealth based on cheating. Other sportsmen tried to compete with him when they were at a disadvantage due to the fact that they tried to play by the rules. These people got nothing out of their years of hard graft.

He deserves anything that comes his way. Even if the trial shows him up to be the most perfect example of a cheat in sport, he will still be a very wealthy man and will live comfortably.

As you can guess, I have no sympathy for him.

*Plays devils advocate*

On the other hand, he's probably helped more people than a legitimate winner might have. I guess good guys sometimes need to cheat.

The thing is, if he's going to admit guilt in this way of not contesting the charges. He may as well just come out and say he's a drugs cheat, he hasn't.

I think there is more than a good chance, this is just a guy who sees there being more to life than glory and doesn't want to spend even more years having to put up with allegations. He's done the only thing he could possibly do to shut people up.

Anyway, it seems everyone was on drugs in those days, in that case, if he was one of those what chance did he have otherwise? At least most he beat were up to same tricks.

Wibbs

titan18 wrote: »

Likewise, with a lot of people e.g since someone said Wiggins above, you could easily put Wiggins at the same level as Bolt. There's nothing there that you can say for definite but there's stuff like Geert Leinders (ex Rabo doctor, worked with Rasmussen etc) being a team doctor, a pretty impressive performance jump by him and in particular Froome, the past history of cycling (very few track riders have gone on and been successful in GTs, and some of those who did tested positive later, Wiggins beating some of the best guys around by a good bit when he was never able to do before this year), blocking Kimmage from following Sky in 2010 Tour. Nothing definite that you can point to, but some choose to believe he's clean, others don't.

Yea he's a bit of a head scratcher for me too. I hadn't bought a cycling magazine in years and one day I grabbed one with (IIRC) the title of "the drugs special" or somesuch. Must have been back in 07/08. Anyhoo I remember reading Wiggins being interviewed after his first tour where the overall winner tested positive. He was not a happy bunny , very anti cheating and fair enough. Now this isn't so long ago, he was in his mid 20's where you'd be expecting he'd be well starting to peak, champion UK time trialist - and the Brits have a very strong history in that, think Jamaican sprinters kinda thing - Olympic pursuit champion etc. All that and he finished in something like 120th place out of 130 riders, hours behind the winner. IIRC in his specialty the TT he came something like 40th behind the stage winner*. Now at 30 odd he wins it? Sure big team around you, more focussed training, better equipment(nearly wrote gear...) is going to be a huge advantage, but to go from that to winning? It seems... well... "impressive". If he had been in the middle top of the field early on, I'd be less "impressed".

If you look at someone back in the day like Greg LeMond, someone I personally believe was one of the few winners who was actually clean. From the start he was a winner. Monstrous talent. In the pre EPO days where some might have been on uppers etc, you saw similar. You rarely saw such massive leaps in placings, you saw fewer "surprises". *Aside* Greg will be vindicated by these recent events. If you want to see the mindset behind Armstrong and his camp and people he sees as enemies read up on their past dealings. Landis was an utter kunt to him. In a convo they had about secrets that can destroy you Greg confided in Landis about being sexually abused as a child and Landis used that to take the piss. Shabby shabby human being.

If I see a performance that I consider suspect, either with the person's history, or just plain crazy naturally, considering how easy it is to dope and get away it, I tend to go with the person is on something. Tbh, getting caught in competiton is an IQ test failure.

Ditto.

Colmustard wrote: »

But they keep the samples. So if they are successful there is a future risk of disgrace.

Some of the masking agents are even taking this into account, by actively breaking down the metabolites of the drugs so testing years later and they look clean or there's enough of a diff between the A and B samples to get the benefit of the doubt.

Now all this is not to take away from the sheer force of will and superhuman effort of these athletes. I could neck a near lethal dose of EPO, direct inject enough testosterone into my nuts to sex change a female elephant, strap tanks to my back containing pure O2 mixed with vapourised cocaine and stick a small motor on my back wheel and I wouldn't be able to keep up with any of them in a relaxed cycle to the shops. It's not their efforts I decry, but their BS.

*I seem to recall reading between the lines of that interview the inference that he was a little "surprised" at how out of contact he was with even also rans given his record.

Chucky the tree

Seaneh wrote: »

Bolt "trained" with Angel Heredia (working under the name Angel Hernandez).

Heredia is a chemist, not a coach.

Bolt doped.

Do you've a link to this?

Colmustard

I don't understand why anyone could be sympathetic to this man. He reaped the awards, money and glory, beat cancer then used it as an excuse to mask his drug use.

I like the fact that the Americans are chasing down all the high profile cases, this is a good deterrent to any young athlete starting their career. Athletes and coaches caught drug cheating should be stripped of their sporting titles and face an automatic lifetime ban.

Show Time

He is the same as Michelle Smith now in the eyes of the world.

The_Kew_Tour

He failed 2 drug tests before and still got away with it from his excuses.

The Greatest Cheat in Sports history.

Having had cancer myself similar to his, but thankfully not as serious in end, I can only say that you would have to be made of stronger stuff then the human genes to do what he did without taking something.

As for Paul Kimmage absolute legend. Those that got upset by his cancer remarks are toothless.

Cienciano

titan18 wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympics/athletics/7403158.stm

The above is what Victor Conte, the man behind Balco, wrote to the the British anti-doping authority about how easy it was to avoid testing, and how he did it. It's a few years old at this stage but it's quite a good read

Conte said failing a drug test is failing an IQ test. Basically, if you fail, you did something stupid.
Delighted lance has finally been done. Kimmage was dead right, a cancer on the sport and a complete bully. Livestrong stuff makes me puke

Colmustard

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

He failed 2 drug tests before and still got away with it from his excuses.

The Greatest Cheat in Sports history.

Having had cancer myself similar to his, but thankfully not as serious in end, I can only say that you would have to be made of stronger stuff then the human genes to do what he did without taking something.

As for Paul Kimmage absolute legend. Those that got upset by his cancer remarks are toothless.

Agreed I have been following this story for years and Paul Kimmage never let up. I can say this with a surety Paul Kimmage is one of the best sports journalists out there and he doesn't only report on cycling. He can put drama into any piece and is absolutely anti drugs.

Seaneh

Wibbs wrote: »

Yea he's a bit of a head scratcher for me too. I hadn't bought a cycling magazine in years and one day I grabbed one with (IIRC) the title of "the drugs special" or somesuch. Must have been back in 07/08. Anyhoo I remember reading Wiggins being interviewed after his first tour where the overall winner tested positive. He was not a happy bunny , very anti cheating and fair enough. Now this isn't so long ago, he was in his mid 20's where you'd be expecting he'd be well starting to peak, champion UK time trialist - and the Brits have a very strong history in that, think Jamaican sprinters kinda thing - Olympic pursuit champion etc. All that and he finished in something like 120th place out of 130 riders, hours behind the winner. IIRC in his specialty the TT he came something like 40th behind the stage winner*. Now at 30 odd he wins it? Sure big team around you, more focussed training, better equipment(nearly wrote gear...) is going to be a huge advantage, but to go from that to winning? It seems... well... "impressive". If he had been in the middle top of the field early on, I'd be less "impressed".

Wiggins year on year improvement is actually pretty easy to pinpoint.

When he started GT racing he was built like a track cycles, which isn't ideal, he had power and raw pace but didn't have the stamina to be a top rider. I was a nobody in a bad team, his job was basically to just finish the race and if he could, help the teams lead rider during stages. He was extra advertisement because he was british.

Track riders are huge, they have a pretty high body fat % (compared to tour riders) and weigh far more. This causes massive problems over the longer stages and in the hills, they cannot keep up with the better tour riders.
Height to weight is probably the most important ratio in GT riding. When wiggins started he was just too heavy. He also didn't have the legs.

It takes years and tens of thousands of miles on the saddle to build up the energy stores in the legs to be able to keep pace with the top tour riders. Wiggins trained harder, longer and pretty much smarter than anyone around him in the last 6 years. In the last 2 years alone he has lost 10kg.
For a professional cyclist to lose 10kg is insane, nearly unthinkable, but wiggins knew if he wanted to compete he needed to do it, so, he did it.
You also have to remember one dat TT's (which he'd won when he was still a track specialist) are completely different to doing a TT stage in the middle of a tour, your body is in a totally different state, it's not surprising he didn't do well, he was never in that kind of situation before. He was also still mainly a track cyclist, his main focus before 2008 was track cycling (the 2008 Olympics to be exact).

Then you have the move to Sky.
Murdoch's team was built around Wiggins. At Garmin he was just another rider. At Sky he is the main man, he is the person the team is helping and he has repaid their faith.

In total since he joined the tour he has lost a **** ton of weight.
He is not 69kg and at a height of 6'3, that's probably the best height to weight ratio in professional cycling.

So basically, when you look at the plain stats, it looks like he got got better all of a sudden, but when you look at reality, it's obvious his improvement was based on a few things. moving away from track cycling totally (2008), conditioning himself for longer tours and losing about 20kg over 6 years.

titan18

Seaneh wrote: »

Wiggins year on year improvement is actually pretty easy to pinpoint.

When he started GT racing he was built like a track cycles, which isn't ideal, he had power and raw pace but didn't have the stamina to be a top rider. I was a nobody in a bad team, his job was basically to just finish the race and if he could, help the teams lead rider during stages. He was extra advertisement because he was british.

Track riders are huge, they have a pretty high body fat % (compared to tour riders) and weigh far more. This causes massive problems over the longer stages and in the hills, they cannot keep up with the better tour riders.
Height to weight is probably the most important ratio in GT riding. When wiggins started he was just too heavy. He also didn't have the legs.

It takes years and tens of thousands of miles on the saddle to build up the energy stores in the legs to be able to keep pace with the top tour riders. Wiggins trained harder, longer and pretty much smarter than anyone around him in the last 6 years. In the last 2 years alone he has lost 10kg.
For a professional cyclist to lose 10kg is insane, nearly unthinkable, but wiggins knew if he wanted to compete he needed to do it, so, he did it.
You also have to remember one dat TT's (which he'd won when he was still a track specialist) are completely different to doing a TT stage in the middle of a tour, your body is in a totally different state, it's not surprising he didn't do well, he was never in that kind of situation before. He was also still mainly a track cyclist, his main focus before 2008 was track cycling (the 2008 Olympics to be exact).

Then you have the move to Sky.
Murdoch's team was built around Wiggins. At Garmin he was just another rider. At Sky he is the main man, he is the person the team is helping and he has repaid their faith.

In total since he joined the tour he has lost a **** ton of weight.
He is not 69kg and at a height of 6'3, that's probably the best height to weight ratio in professional cycling.

So basically, when you look at the plain stats, it looks like he got got better all of a sudden, but when you look at reality, it's obvious his improvement was based on a few things. moving away from track cycling totally (2008), conditioning himself for longer tours and losing about 20kg over 6 years.

Wiggins has been pretty consistent weight wise since 2009. He lost most of the weight between 2008 and 2009. He had very little body fat on him before that, so most of what the lost was muscle. He lost about 10-12 kg of weight in one year, which is quite a lot to lose. I can concede that the lower weight will make him a better climber, as carrying 10kg less up a mountain will be useful, but he's now a considerably better time trialist than he was before, and he's beating specialised guys like Cancellara and Martin. Even going just on one year, he went from 1.15 down on Martin at last years World Championships to 42 seconds up. That's a big improvement to make in one year, and that was just after winning the Tour de France, which Martin had pulled out of early to concentrate on the Olympics, and after doing a lot of work to help Cavendish in the road race (Martin did a lot of work too, but less than Wiggins, and dropped out of the road race). Along with Wiggins racing and winning events all year (Paris Nice, Tour de Romandie, Dauphine all before the Tour) making him the first person to win the Tour and Olympic Time Trial in one year, and the first to win the above 3 and the Tour in one year. What he's done is pretty unprecedented in cycling, and this is from a rider who was a nobody in road cycling terms pre 2009, and even 2009 was nowhere close to what he did this year.

He could be clean, I wouldn't be surprised if he never tests positive, but I'll always doubt an improvement like his, considering the history of the sport showing that things like that tended to be too good to be true.

There's also other things I'd point to like Sky saying they'd be a fully transparent team when they joined cycling and that they wouldn't hire anyone with a dodgy past. After a pretty bad first year, they hired Geert Leinders as a doctor, who has a pretty dodgy history even in cycling terms, and their results have been pretty good since then. Wiggins himself said in 2007 that anyone with links to doping in their team should not be allowed race in the Tour, and that Tour winners for the next 6/7 years should have some doubt on them. Completely different response this year, with his rant during the Tour. There's also the leaked 2010 suspicion list by the UCI that had rated the riders bio-passports on a scale of 1-10 with anything over 6 being that there was evidence of odd blood values etc, and Sky had several riders over that - Rogers,Knees and Siutsiu(Wiggins himself was a 5, same as Contador, higher than Lance)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ucis-suspicious-list-leaked-from-2010-tour-de-france

buck65

Plus a good drug programme and you have the perfect Tour winning cyclist.


Kid yourself not, all Tour winners and probably half the peloton are still doping in one form or another.

Wibbs

Good post Seanah, but I'd have to say I'm more on the side of Titan's.

titan18 wrote: »

He could be clean, I wouldn't be surprised if he never tests positive, but I'll always doubt an improvement like his, considering the history of the sport showing that things like that tended to be too good to be true.

This. It's one helluva improvement.

There's also other things I'd point to like Sky saying they'd be a fully transparent team when they joined cycling and that they wouldn't hire anyone with a dodgy past. After a pretty bad first year, they hired Geert Leinders as a doctor, who has a pretty dodgy history even in cycling terms, and their results have been pretty good since then.

Indeed. Plus Wiggins went from a major anti drug proponent ranting against all such people as being beyond the pale. He was famous for it. Then he shares a tour with Armstrong and is all lovey dovey about the guy who has had a beady eye and major suspicion on him since the late 90's. Either Lance is more charming than God himself or... Wiggins certainly seemed to change his tune.

There's also the leaked 2010 suspicion list by the UCI that had rated the riders bio-passports on a scale of 1-10 with anything over 6 being that there was evidence of odd blood values etc, and Sky had several riders over that - Rogers,Knees and Siutsiu(Wiggins himself was a 5, same as Contador, higher than Lance)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ucis-suspicious-list-leaked-from-2010-tour-de-france

That's not a good sign. Neither is the latest from his camp where he "has been advised by his doctors" not to release his current blood passport results as they could be open to "misinterpretation". It just seems the Wiggins of 07 would have put them up on billboards for all to see.

Aidric

Colmustard wrote: »

I can say this with a surety Paul Kimmage is one of the best sports journalists out there and he doesn't only report on cycling. He can put drama into any piece and is absolutely anti drugs.

Agreed. He is an outstanding journalist and has written some brilliant features over the years.

For anyone interested he was giving his reaction on Off The Ball last night. 28 mins in to part 1.

http://media.newstalk.ie/listenbacks/popup

Show Time

buck65 wrote: »

Plus a good drug programme and you have the perfect Tour winning cyclist.


Kid yourself not, all Tour winners and probably half the peloton are still doping in one form or another.

Bradly and the rest of team GB should be watching their backs.
No way his "improvement" over the last was natural.

The_Kew_Tour

good read by Kimmage himself

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/26/cycling-clean-up

"Since Tommy Simpson's death in 1967, 86% of Tour de France winners have been tarnished or implicated by doping"