Is Wiggins just a Armstrong #2 ??

[Gav]

Interesting comments from Paul Kimmage...Leinders is poison

 

Kimmage Unconvinced By Sky And Wiggins | Cyclingnews.com

[Bjornebye]

Gobshite that fella.

[Guest LFD]

Wouldn't surprise me.

 

Not because I dislike Wiggins, more because cycling has such a bad reputation.

[RobbieOR]

Gobshite that fella.

 

He isnt really, Kimmage knows his onions.

[L19red]

Definately not a gobshite, cycling could do with 10 more like Paul Kimmage.

He's right to say the Sky domination with 3-4 riders setting a high tempo is very reminiscent of the Armstrong USPS and Indurain Banesto teams. He's also right to question everything in cycling.

 

I think in defense of Sky, they were dominating a weak field in the tour, Contador banned, Schleck injured, Sanchez crashed out on the first mountain stage, Evans out of form. That only really left Nibali (and at a push Van den Broeck) to beat.

[Remmie]

If he is doping, they are doing a shit job. Wiggins is well behind Armstrong on comparable sections of the tour.

[xerxes]

It's a cheap shot.

 

As Remmie points out the current winning stage times are significantly behind the "doped" times of the past.

[Trucker Paddy]

Gobshite that fella.

 

Kimmage is far from a gobshite.

[Vincent Vega]

Does anyone really think Sky TV would pump millions into something that would tarnish their brand forever? Would Wiggins and Brailsford put their reputations on the line and all the goodwill they've accumulated over years of first track and then road cycling? Both have simply too much to lose imo.

 

The French and others have asked questions about the success of the track cyclists too, can it not be that British cycling currently has the best set up, with the best coaching and development staff and great talent spotters who are able to identify the best up and coming riders?

[L19red]

If he is doping, they are doing a shit job. Wiggins is well behind Armstrong on comparable sections of the tour.

 

The reduced speed of the peleton is indicative of better doping control in general but you have to remember that a 27 year old Lance in 1999 would crush the same 27 year old if he was riding in 2013 because of the advances in testing. Its much harder now to get away with taking EPO as there is a test for it and if your hematacrit level jumps up to 50% in the build up to a race, or increases during a 3 week race when it would be expected to decrease then the blood passport will reveal it.

 

The question is not are they better at doping than lance but are they better at doping than their current rivals.

[Vincent Vega]

I don't think it is wrong to ask questions, but having just read Kimmage's statements to that German paper I'd say he needs to tread very carefully as he seems to have suspicions rather than proof. Sky are massively powerful and I'm sure their lawyers will be over him if he can't substantiate any of what he is saying.

[RobbieOR]

I don't think it is wrong to ask questions, but having just read Kimmage's statements to that German paper I'd say he needs to tread very carefully as he seems to have suspicions rather than proof. Sky are massively powerful and I'm sure their lawyers will be over him if he can't substantiate any of what he is saying.

 

They said the same when he accused Armstrong.

[Whelan]

I think you should have a little bit more than 'they are dominant - just as those particular cheats were' before you start casting aspertions!

 

Bolt must clearly be a cheat following that logic!

[L19red]

They said the same when he accused Armstrong.

 

Kimmage wrote a few things about Armstrong, but he was a bit of a sideshow compared to David Walsh. I highly recommend his latest book Seven Deadly Sins if you want the chapter and verse on how the press all knew from 1999 onwards that Armstrong was doping but too many of them were put under pressure from all sides to write the story of the man who came back from cancer to win the tour not the man who doped.

UCI wanted a clean winner on the back of the Festina affair in 1998, so too the riders from all teams wanted to repair the image of the sport and ensure the sponsors kept funding them. Newspaper editors wanted a story that would sell copy, and Armstrong and his coterie of lawyers smeared and threatened the few dissenting voices.

 

In his favour Wiggins has some equally high profile anti-doping campaigners on his side. Jonathon Vaughters and David Walsh both think he is clean, albeit they are not 100% certain but then who can be? and that I think is the real point of what Kimmage is saying. It is a thinly veiled critisism of the governing body. The UCI need to sort out their anti-doping strategy so that there is no longer any doubt about whether or not the Tour winner is clean.

[Guest Slim(fast)Shady]

Why do some people take great pleasure,and indeed spend so much time...in order to find a way to try and bring someone down? Simple answer is they must have something sadly missing in their empty life!

 

Bradley Wiggins seems not only the kind of bloke you'd want to have a beer with....but he's jolly quick at riding his bike too.....end of!

[barosrocks]

Kimmage wrote a few things about Armstrong, but he was a bit of a sideshow compared to David Walsh. I highly recommend his latest book Seven Deadly Sins if you want the chapter and verse on how the press all knew from 1999 onwards that Armstrong was doping but too many of them were put under pressure from all sides to write the story of the man who came back from cancer to win the tour not the man who doped.

UCI wanted a clean winner on the back of the Festina affair in 1998, so too the riders from all teams wanted to repair the image of the sport and ensure the sponsors kept funding them. Newspaper editors wanted a story that would sell copy, and Armstrong and his coterie of lawyers smeared and threatened the few dissenting voices.

 

In his favour Wiggins has some equally high profile anti-doping campaigners on his side. Jonathon Vaughters and David Walsh both think he is clean, albeit they are not 100% certain but then who can be? and that I think is the real point of what Kimmage is saying. It is a thinly veiled critisism of the governing body. The UCI need to sort out their anti-doping strategy so that there is no longer any doubt about whether or not the Tour winner is clean.

 

Walsh also said he made his mind up to go back on the Tour next summer because he witnessed all the journos being Wiggins best mate and calling him 'Wiggo'.

 

Said it reminded him of Armstrong all over again.

 

Anyone who wins the Tour de France should be under suspicion given how many have been found to be cheating in the last twenty years. Not to be suspicious would be ridiculous.

 

Obviously, it shouldn't be assumed he's guilty either.

[L19red]

Why do some people take great pleasure,and indeed spend so much time...in order to find a way to try and bring someone down? Simple answer is they must have something sadly missing in their empty life!

 

Bradley Wiggins seems not only the kind of bloke you'd want to have a beer with....but he's jolly quick at riding his bike too.....end of!

 

If no-one bothered to speak up about doping in cycling we would all still be living in LA-LA land and thinking that the cancer jesus was one of the worlds greatest sportsmen instead of its greatest sporting fraud.

 

The price of freedom is eternal vigilence, so with cycling there is a need to be cynical and ask riders to prove they are clean.

[barosrocks]

Why do some people take great pleasure,and indeed spend so much time...in order to find a way to try and bring someone down? Simple answer is they must have something sadly missing in their empty life!

Bradley Wiggins seems not only the kind of bloke you'd want to have a beer with....but he's jolly quick at riding his bike too.....end of!

 

That doesn't mean he isn't on drugs though does it? It's not Scooby-Doo, where the villains are always the shifty eyed fella at the start.

 

You can be a thouroughly nice bloke and a cheating bastard at the same time you know.

[L19red]

Walsh also said he made his mind up to go back on the Tour next summer because he witnessed all the journos being Wiggins best mate and calling him 'Wiggo'.

 

Said it reminded him of Armstrong all over again.

 

Anyone who wins the Tour de France should be under suspicion given how many have been found to be cheating in the last twenty years. Not to be suspicious would be ridiculous.

 

Obviously, it shouldn't be assumed he's guilty either.

 

yep his webcast after the book launch was very good too. I cant remeber the exact words but something along the lines of "if you hold a gun to my head I'll say Wiggins is clean, but I'd be very relieved to hear the click"

[Guest LFD]

Bolt must clearly be a cheat following that logic!

 

He probably is!

 

Bolt acts like he is on drugs, actually so does Wiggins!

[Whelan]

He probably is!

 

Bolt acts like he is on drugs, actually so does Wiggins!

 

You haven't taken much in the way of drugs have you?

[Guest LFD]

You haven't taken much in the way of drugs have you?

 

Not sport enhancing ones, no!

[Chocoholic]

He took LFD instead of LSD

[lifetime fan]

If no-one bothered to speak up about doping in cycling we would all still be living in LA-LA land and thinking that the cancer jesus was one of the worlds greatest sportsmen instead of its greatest sporting fraud.

 

The price of freedom is eternal vigilence, so with cycling there is a need to be cynical and ask riders to prove they are clean.

 

 

Spot on.

[chrisbonnie]

Does anyone really think Sky TV would pump millions into something that would tarnish their brand forever? Would Wiggins and Brailsford put their reputations on the line and all the goodwill they've accumulated over years of first track and then road cycling? Both have simply too much to lose imo.

 

The French and others have asked questions about the success of the track cyclists too' date=' can it not be that British cycling currently has the best set up, with the best coaching and development staff and great talent spotters who are able to identify the best up and coming riders?[/quote']

 

Didn't Rupert Murdochs news paper bug the phones of the parents of the two girls that where murdered by Ian Huntley?

 

Seriously. Your post should really be. "do you think Sky would pump millions into a cycling team WITHOUT WINNING"

 

I wouldn't trust them Murdochs as far as I could throw them