Tour de France 2015

ethanedwards

Snowflake incarnate.
Joined
Nov 24, 2006
Messages
2,753
#61
Seems there might have been some truth to this post...:whistle:
Correct me if I am misinformed please, on these points.
1. Was Wiggins primarily a specialist Time Trialer as apposed to a climber.
2. Did he undergo a change in body definition/ deformation, pre his tour win
3 Is one of the primary side effects of triamcinolone, is that it burns body fat, like shit of a shovel ,thus altering the dynamics of a cyclist?
Interesting
 

nightgoat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Messages
24,604
#62
Correct me if I am misinformed please, on these points.
1. Was Wiggins primarily a specialist Time Trialer as apposed to a climber.
2. Did he undergo a change in body definition/ deformation, pre his tour win
3 Is one of the primary side effects of triamcinolone, is that it burns body fat, like shit of a shovel ,thus altering the dynamics of a cyclist?
Interesting
1. Yes, and one of the contributing factors to him winning the 2012 Tour was that there was far more kms than usual of ITT, and pretty much pan flat as well - over 100km compared to only 41km the previous year. Last year the Tour had only one 13.8km ITT. It is not uncommon for specialist time trialists to do well in Grand Tours - Miguel Indurain won five Tours de France in a row and Tom Dumoulin was one stage away from winning the Vuelta a España, traditionally the most mountainous of all three Grand Tours. Wiggins was favourite to win the 2012 Tour because the terrain suited him better than any of his rivals.

2. Not in the short term. He focused on the road after the Beijing Olympics where he would have been at a similar weight as he was in Rio - about 84kg. His road racing weight would have usually been somewhere around the low 70s which would have been relatively easy for him to achieve and maintain.

3. Quite the contrary. A known side effect of triamcinolone is weight gain.
 

LexingtonSpurs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
11,153
#63

talkshowhost86

Mod-Moose
Staff
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
44,844
#65
What does that mean? Did they break the rules?
It means that whilst nobody can conclusively prove they cheated, partly because various people seemed to hinder the investigation, they can certainly say that Team Sky were not operating in the spirit of the rules even if they technically were acting within them.

I think.
 

Col_M

Pointing out the Obvious
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
8,924
#66
It means that whilst nobody can conclusively prove they cheated, partly because various people seemed to hinder the investigation, they can certainly say that Team Sky were not operating in the spirit of the rules even if they technically were acting within them.

I think.
So there is no proff that they cheated then. it's like formula 1, there's the rules, interpret them how you like. That's what makes champions. It's almost like saying non of the other teams worked within the same parameters.
 

LexingtonSpurs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
11,153
#67
The whole sport was (maybe still is) corrupt. It was always a bit disingenuous to suggest one team was clean - when its likely none of them were.
 

nightgoat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Messages
24,604
#70
But they know everything about ethics. It at least how to interpret the rules. Duck House anyone?
Politicians love to make examples of sportsmen and women whenever they can. They didn't even take evidence from Wiggins.
 

talkshowhost86

Mod-Moose
Staff
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
44,844
#71
Politicians love to make examples of sportsmen and women whenever they can. They didn't even take evidence from Wiggins.
To be fair that is nonsense.

The DCMS have no reason to try and discredit Team Sky. I know it's supposedly some sort of conspiracy against poor old Dave Brailsford and co but those defending them now look like a little bit silly.

As I said, it looks as if at best Team Sky bent the rules which hardly buys into their narrative of beating people with their 'incremental improvements'.
 

nightgoat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Messages
24,604
#72
To be fair that is nonsense.

The DCMS have no reason to try and discredit Team Sky. I know it's supposedly some sort of conspiracy against poor old Dave Brailsford and co but those defending them now look like a little bit silly.

As I said, it looks as if at best Team Sky bent the rules which hardly buys into their narrative of beating people with their 'incremental improvements'.
It's not, but really the only thing Brailsford/Sky are guilty of is being sloppy with their admin, which given the ethos they promoted from their launch is incredibly dumb.

The DCMS think they're Poirot because Wiggins took a TUE before the Tour de France which obviously means he's doping but never stop to consider the logic that when would anyone use a TUE for asthma and pollen allergies if not for the biggest event in the sport where he's going to be riding through countryside for three weeks? The same one which he took before the 2013 Giro where he was ill, rode shit and had to abandon after a week. And to compile an investigation but not even bother to take evidence from the main protagonist? If this was presented in a court of law it would probably be laughed at and thrown out.

There's a debate to be had about whether TUEs have a place in sport - whether or not it is fair for someone to have to compete at a disadvantage because of something like asthma or other condition, or whether or not it straddles the boundaries of performance enhancing too much - but it is currently allowed by WADA and the UCI and Wiggins' TUE's were legit and approved by the UCI which requires the assessment of three independent medical professionals. But according to the DCMS and the media because he didn't mention it in his book it must mean he's a drugs cheat.

There is however a desire among other cycling nations, especially the French, to see the British taken down a peg or two because of the way we have come to be so successful in the sport both on the track and the road in the last 10 years whilst they haven't had a Tour winner since '85. In a sense Team Sky are the Chelsea of cycling - came from nowhere but had more money than everyone else and started winning things almost straight away while other teams struggled to keep up on lower budgets. So the desire for it to be proven that a British rider, or any Team Sky rider took drugs or bent the rules will cloud certain judgements when other riders who have failed drugs tests and been proven to be cheats are still revered - Contador, Valverde, Van Avermaet, any mountain stage of the Giro and Pantani is written on the roads more than any current rider.
 
Last edited:
Top