Jul 09, 2012 at 03:36 PM
Awesome press-work there Lou!
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/armstrong_sues_to_block_doping_charges_51VfSZAzKZG6pFtb4FE6KN
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/armstrong_sues_to_block_doping_charges_51VfSZAzKZG6pFtb4FE6KN
Tour de France 2012
Jul 09, 2012 at 03:45 PM
I am sure the Post thought the TdF retired the yellow jersey after Lance retired.
Jul 09, 2012 at 04:02 PM
this just in -- NY Post exclusive -- Tour stage winner caught in EPO-tainted Coke drinking scheme in Brooklyn bodega.
Jul 09, 2012 at 04:16 PM
Correction; EPO laced "arm coolers"
Jul 09, 2012 at 04:18 PM
Chris Froome smashes Cancellara on that course.
Jul 09, 2012 at 04:40 PM
You might want to get your facts right on this one.Your comment on team GB I find a bit hollow. This is the same group that relaxed their lifetime ban of convicted dopers just in time to secure Cav' the help of David Millar in London. High standards indeed.
The British Olympic Association (BOA) held the lifetime ban for years. This it was WADA that had an issue with it and said that it needed to be removed as it is not consistent with internationally recognised sanctions. The BOA maintained their stance and refused to remove their ban. WADA then appealed to CAS who overturned the BOA's decision, forcing them to remove the ban and instate a 2 year ban maximum penalty, consistent with WADA rules. I think you will find the timing of this is not due to the BOA but because WADA wanted it prior to the olympics.
A lack of understanding of the facts there JP. In fact, the BOA were trying to maintain by far the strictest doping rules out of any national olympic federation and it was the international sports arbitrator in CAS who deemed this too harsh and forced it's replacement.
Having said that, although I don't believe Team Sky are cheating (I tend to base my assessment on evidence not just people cycling up hills fast), I am not sure equating Team Sky with Team GB Cycling is in any way evidence that they are more likely to be cleaner than a team not associated with Team GB Cycling.
Jul 09, 2012 at 05:35 PM
Adam, I stand corrected. on the lifetime ban.
However, I don't think it necessarily means that BOA was trying to maintain the strictest anti-doping rules. A lifetime ban could just be public relations. The Olympics only come up once every four years after all, they don't stop someone from making a living at sport.
BTW, what evidence do you have that they're clean? Tests passed?
Jul 09, 2012 at 05:40 PM
I think Wiggo is a wanker, but mostly for making the next two weeks of this tour kinda boring. Without a tremendous amount of collusion among the other teams, Sky is simply untouchable.
Jul 09, 2012 at 05:45 PM
Publicly sharing the Team Sky bio-passport data would go a long way of dispelling the criticism and skepticism of the cycling journalists and public. No longer does "trust us that we're not doping" work as a plausible defense, and transparency is the best defense when results seem to exceed reasonable ability.
Jul 09, 2012 at 05:45 PM
This began about the Wiggo quote - he clearly agrees with Adam that cycling up hills fast is not reason to suspect doping. I ask, why not? How many of the exceptional performances in recent years do we know were dope fueled? Is it reason to.formally accuse? No. But is a reasonable person wrong to have suspicions? I say absolutely not.
Jul 09, 2012 at 05:46 PM
Doping doesn't bother me as long as it benefits my fantasy team. That's all that matters to me now.
But, just b/c WADA overruled the BOA position, that doesn't mean that they have to select Millar, does it? They still could have effectively kept their lifetime ban by simply having someone else on the team. Surely, there plenty of other fabulous British cyclists that they could have chosen. I suppose this was due to pressure from Cav, et al? Or is it some sort of ranking dependent upon points they've accrued this season? I don't recall Millar having crushed a bunch of races, but I could be wrong.
But, just b/c WADA overruled the BOA position, that doesn't mean that they have to select Millar, does it? They still could have effectively kept their lifetime ban by simply having someone else on the team. Surely, there plenty of other fabulous British cyclists that they could have chosen. I suppose this was due to pressure from Cav, et al? Or is it some sort of ranking dependent upon points they've accrued this season? I don't recall Millar having crushed a bunch of races, but I could be wrong.
Jul 09, 2012 at 06:04 PM
I suspect British Cycling selected Millar because of his experience as a road captain.
I am also somewhat astounded that so many people are suspicious of Wiggo's form for this tour. After all this is rider who's who career has been about training exclusively to peak for a specific event, firstly for the pursuit and latterly for small and Grand Tours.
I think it's less strange to peak for a particular event than to maintain a peak from May through July, winning hatfuls of stages on varied terrain at leisure. Yet no one has called Peter Sagans exploits suspicious. (well maybe I just did).
Jul 09, 2012 at 06:06 PM
True, I have no evidence that anyone is clean. I'm simply working under the premise of innocent until proven guilty. That's what I meant by evidence. I suppose we have to give people the benefit of the doubt until they fail a test? Although tests are not perfect, they are the best/most objective method of detecting cheaters at present.BTW, what evidence do you have that they're clean? Tests passed?
But, just b/c WADA overruled the BOA position, that doesn't mean that they have to select Millar, does it? They still could have effectively kept their lifetime ban by simply having someone else on the team. Surely, there plenty of other fabulous British cyclists that they could have chosen. I suppose this was due to pressure from Cav, et al? Or is it some sort of ranking dependent upon points they've accrued this season? I don't recall Millar having crushed a bunch of races, but I could be wrong.
Actually, this is a really touchy situation. There have be loads (I really mean a lot, in one day last week 12 appeals were considered) of appeals against selection decisions in the UK for this year's olympics. If an athlete is concerned that they have not been given a fair decision there is a whole process and rules that they can follow for an appeal. A lot are based on when the athlete thinks the criteria are unfair (you know, needing 2 'A' standard times for an event when they only have an 'A' and a 'B' standard or whatever) but also some were based on not feeling that the correct decision was made. For example: http://summergames.ap.org/telegram/article/cook-appeal-olympic-snub-gb-taekwondo
The point I'm trying to make is that no, Millar did not have to be in the team, but, the best team does need to be selected based on the particular situation. Whether that merits Millar's inclusion is another debate... It was not possible for him not to be selected based on his past at this point, only upon sporting reasons.
I was surprised with Wiggins though. Why does he care so much about being asked if cheating is required to win? I thought his response was funny, if juvenile, and did enjoy his gratuitous addition of the C-word (see Jeff and Jeff, it's not just me, it's all Brits). But surprised he got so emotional about it. I agree that it seems a little righteous for him to be so damning on cycling doubters, I mean, after all, everyone is busted all the time. He could have found a better (although less funny no doubt) way to articulate "Yes, there are manny rotten eggs in cycling, but I can assure you, I am not one of them."
Jul 09, 2012 at 06:19 PM
In hindsight - given the various holes in testing protocols, and the fact that the anti-dopers are almost always on the back foot - raw speed up climbs is a pretty good piece of evidence; one that is sited pretty regularly as proof that the modern Peloton is not as juiced as in years past.
I think it's a moot (Froote?) point now though. I suppose we might even see both Froome and Wiggo on the podium in Paris. Once can only hope that in the event new shit has come to light we don't have to wait ten years or more for a resolution.
I think it's a moot (Froote?) point now though. I suppose we might even see both Froome and Wiggo on the podium in Paris. Once can only hope that in the event new shit has come to light we don't have to wait ten years or more for a resolution.
Jul 09, 2012 at 07:32 PM
I don't think Wiggins is a wanker and I also don't think he's gonna win the tour.
The tour is only at its' halfway point, a lot can still go down. Sky is now going to have to work a lot in the peloton and cover many attacks, along w/ green edge for the purpose of not only covering their leader but also for the sprints.
How would you feel if you poured your blood, sweat and tears onto the tarmac to prepare for an event and be called a dopper? These guys are not good at PR, they're athletes and often times when they get interviewed, they have a lot of adrenaline and emotion that consumes them. I'm not saying it's right, I just don't condemn it.
I think Wiggins is an incredible rider as is Froome but not everyone has divulged their cards...there are 10 more days and plenty climbs to come! This is getting exciting.
The tour is only at its' halfway point, a lot can still go down. Sky is now going to have to work a lot in the peloton and cover many attacks, along w/ green edge for the purpose of not only covering their leader but also for the sprints.
How would you feel if you poured your blood, sweat and tears onto the tarmac to prepare for an event and be called a dopper? These guys are not good at PR, they're athletes and often times when they get interviewed, they have a lot of adrenaline and emotion that consumes them. I'm not saying it's right, I just don't condemn it.
I think Wiggins is an incredible rider as is Froome but not everyone has divulged their cards...there are 10 more days and plenty climbs to come! This is getting exciting.
Jul 09, 2012 at 10:15 PM
Aly,
I've been slandered and libeled, both by the time I was Wiggins' age. It wasn't fun. But I didn't resort to ad hominem attacks--and I was only making a fraction of the money and never had media training. At the same time, having my work stolen was much worse. THere, too, I didn't resort to throwing dirt on others.
I think the issue is not how hard they train but solipsism. They're so focused on themselves, they are unable to see what's going on around them. It's like listening to Jamie Dimon complain about being vilified or hearing Lloyd Blankfein claim he's doing God's work. Somehow, they all think they deserve love for what they do. They can't process the skepticism that they should expect.
Jul 09, 2012 at 10:37 PM
I agree with you and this egoism might be both what lead them to become great athletes and also a product of their success which only increases as it becomes greater.
Jul 09, 2012 at 10:48 PM
wiggins' response may actually raise a flag among people, like myself, who didn't think to suspect them of cheating.
the question was clearly asked in the context of a massive, unfolding doping investigation of the winning-est tour rider of this generation that also happens to involve multiple members of the current peloton. nobody accused HIM of cheating, or sky. it was a question about doping in the tour more generally.
his response was poorly calibrated and disproportionate (but colorful!) -- but far too strong for the alleged provocation. that kind of response gets people like me to prick up my ears a bit more and think - jeez brad, why so defensive?
let the bard put it best: the maillot jaune doth protest too much, methinks.
Jul 09, 2012 at 11:24 PM
Solipsism:
1. Philosophy . the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.
1. Philosophy . the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.
2. extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.
JP. Perhaps we need a workshop on this to improve our Alpine PR's
JP. Perhaps we need a workshop on this to improve our Alpine PR's
Jul 10, 2012 at 01:16 AM
Wiggo: "...the lady doth protest too much, methinks"
Jul 10, 2012 at 01:49 AM
@Jules - you're right - my issue was more with the idea that he must be on something to be where he
is today (although on the basis of today's ride, fair enough!), rather
than with his attitude towards questioning the doping problem. I agree his "OMG how dare you even f-ing suggest there's doping still in this sport" attitude isn't the right one to take (plus I hadn't realised his comments were from yesterday!) - he should be far more honest and forthright if he wants to convince he is against doping for real. But on the other hand, it must get a bit tiring having someone constantly question you and your sport publicly everytime you win something. That said, he should get some PR lessons (no doubt Sky have a PR scientist too).
Hope I wasn't overreacting too much in my above post. Think it might have been the 'roids talking. Such awful mood swings.
is today (although on the basis of today's ride, fair enough!), rather
than with his attitude towards questioning the doping problem. I agree his "OMG how dare you even f-ing suggest there's doping still in this sport" attitude isn't the right one to take (plus I hadn't realised his comments were from yesterday!) - he should be far more honest and forthright if he wants to convince he is against doping for real. But on the other hand, it must get a bit tiring having someone constantly question you and your sport publicly everytime you win something. That said, he should get some PR lessons (no doubt Sky have a PR scientist too).
Hope I wasn't overreacting too much in my above post. Think it might have been the 'roids talking. Such awful mood swings.
Jul 10, 2012 at 01:58 AM
I don't see what option Wiggo, or any other successful rider, has but to tell the press to Fuck Off.
What can he possibly say that would satisfy them ?
"I've never tested positive" ?, "Next question" ?, a lengthy explanation of altitude training (which would only lead to further questions about training away from public view) ?
It is the sad state of the sport that they are suspicious, but there isn't an answer that would satisfy the sceptics, so he either has to ignore those questions or just ignore journalists completely and refuse to do the press conferences, etc. (not sure he can do that according to ASO rules and sponsor requirements).
So I think "Fuck off" is the best response. Cunts the lot of 'em.
What can he possibly say that would satisfy them ?
"I've never tested positive" ?, "Next question" ?, a lengthy explanation of altitude training (which would only lead to further questions about training away from public view) ?
It is the sad state of the sport that they are suspicious, but there isn't an answer that would satisfy the sceptics, so he either has to ignore those questions or just ignore journalists completely and refuse to do the press conferences, etc. (not sure he can do that according to ASO rules and sponsor requirements).
So I think "Fuck off" is the best response. Cunts the lot of 'em.
Jul 10, 2012 at 02:10 AM
@Ian - I think there is probably an infinite number of options that would be better than the one he chose. How about "well, I can understand why people are skeptical given the Tour's recent history. There's not much I can do to convince them, but we're racing clean, and we're proud of that."
or
"we're racing clean and I can't think about all that - I'm just happy to be in yellow and would like to keep it that way"
Basically, anything that didn't suggest that anyone who is rightly skeptical is someone who "can't ever imagine applying themselves to do anything in their lives."
But instead its like he thought to himself, what's the one thing I can say that will cause me the MOST problems in the coming days, and then he came up with that gem suggesting that anyone who is (rightly) skeptical is someone who "can't ever imagine applying themselves to do anything in their lives." Its ridiculous.
Jul 10, 2012 at 12:00 PM
If Nuke LaLouche can learn his cliches I think Wiggo can too. To put it in Wiggo's parlance, "It's part of the fucking job you cunts" where "you" are the pro riders, not my dear Kissena brethren.
I correspond pretty regularly with Michael Barry and he is a consumate pro; clearly he's been trained. The difference is he chooses to apply his training, whereas Wiggo chose...poorly...
Jul 10, 2012 at 12:06 PM
Jul 10, 2012 at 01:44 PM
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cofidis-hotel-raided-di-gregorio-arrested-at-tour-de-franceStandard rest day news. Ho Hum. . .
Jul 10, 2012 at 02:11 PM
I actually appreciate that some athletes act like real-life human beings to the press instead of mimicking programmed robots. It takes some balls, considering all the furious speculation and finger wagging it causes among the tifosi.
Jul 10, 2012 at 02:17 PM
I have less of a "problem" with Wiggins' dominance than the dramatic fall of former favorites. It's like remember when David Millar was a Huffy-tossing-rage-aholic TT machine, back when he was doped; and then he comes back all clean and "saved" and turned into Great Britain's version of Danny Pate? Solid but unspectacular support rider.
So as I look at TT results, I'm giving a big "WTF!?!" shout out [cue Oscar, 'In Memoriam' Music] to the following riders:
27. Micheal Rogers @ 3:20 (former world TT champ, really? Sure. Whatever.)
34. Levi Leipheimer @ 3:48 (leg is still clearly broken)
36. David Millar @ 4:14 (well, we know why he finishes where he does now)
54. David Zabriske @ 4:50 (Captain America almost cracks the top 50...can I get a woo-hoo?)
67. Chris Horner @ 5:24 (Exactly who are you saving yourself for this tour?)
89. Christian Vande Velde @ 6:20 (This one hurts the most...Christian, you hurt me)
So as I look at TT results, I'm giving a big "WTF!?!" shout out [cue Oscar, 'In Memoriam' Music] to the following riders:
27. Micheal Rogers @ 3:20 (former world TT champ, really? Sure. Whatever.)
34. Levi Leipheimer @ 3:48 (leg is still clearly broken)
36. David Millar @ 4:14 (well, we know why he finishes where he does now)
54. David Zabriske @ 4:50 (Captain America almost cracks the top 50...can I get a woo-hoo?)
67. Chris Horner @ 5:24 (Exactly who are you saving yourself for this tour?)
89. Christian Vande Velde @ 6:20 (This one hurts the most...Christian, you hurt me)
Jul 10, 2012 at 02:28 PM
Jul 10, 2012 at 02:36 PM
Not all of those riders will have tried during the stage. Surely the only point of expending so much energy going balls out in a TT stage is if there is a chance of podiuming the stage or making important gains in GC.
Of these riders Rogers was best placed, but he was under instruction from his DS to go hard to the first split to provide a marker for Wiggins and then back off.
Millar and CVV are not high in GC and they have been expending a lot of energy trying to get Dan Martin into a good position on the previous 2 lumpy stages so they wouldn't have got a high placing on the stage anyway so may as well take it easy.
DZ - this I cannot explain, because you would assume he had to be a contender for top 3-5 on the stage.
Levi and Horner ? Who cares ?