El-Reacho

Am I right in saying Ipswich are owned by a wealthy American? Could they afford to dig their heals in?

I reckon Sunderland fans may be getting that slightly deflated feeling now with these links to O'Neill's former players. The feeling that we first got when Marlon signed.

Don't understand the clamour to get rid of some of the younger unproven players. Bannan, Delphounso, Delph, Albrighton etc aren't on big contracts and we wouldn't get very much money for them. It's not as though we have a squad of Man City proportions so they're not really taking up squad spaces. I'm sure if we sold Albrighton it would come back to haunt us.

We'll probably have to give them a lump sum to get rid of them in the same way Ireland, Dunne, and Given's deals were held up because they wanted compensated for City not seeing out their contracts. Only O'Neill is going to give them a contract anywhere close to what they're currently on (ironically). Money inevitably will be the deciding factor in them leaving so I'm sure Collins, Warnock, Dunne, or Hutton are thinking why should I go anywhere else and have to take a pay cut. I can't imagine Dunne, Collins, or Warnock would have long left on their contracts - I wonder would the club end up doing what they did with Beye?

Nibali cracked...

The only guy available just happens to have been Michael Rasmussan's Doctor?

I thought he was the team doctor, not the personal doctor. Wow thats terrible.

Duly corrected Paulo. He was Rabobank's team Doctor.

^^ Maybe Indurain? I know that he's held it longer than Armstrong ever did. It was definitely in the mould of an Indurain win - take jersey in the pre-mountain TT and defend.

I definitely do not believe that it is innovative marginal gains that has done it for them -

Jens Voight thinks it is. Interviewed on ITV4 the other day, and he attributed Sky/Wiggins' dominance to exactly that.

Getting (clean) 1% advantages here and there can make all the difference, and that is what he said Sky had done.

and he's not one of them.

Someone also said to me that this has been one of the 'slowest' tours of recent years - also adding weight to the 'Clean' nature of the leaders, possibly.

Really enjoying this tour, and really enjoying seeing a hard working, clean British rider out in front, riding for a 'British' team.

Shows what can be done, with the right application.

On the other hand Sky's DS Servais Knaven, said the other night that it was purely down to Froome and Wiggins' talent and that the marginal gains theory was over blown by the media.

I had no idea this guy was working for Sky too - Wasn't Knaven thrown out of the Tour along with his TVM teammates as they were being investigated for systematic doping? Once again the Wiggins of two years ago wouldn't have allowed this guy near the race or his team.

I know that pretty much anyone who has raced in the last few years can be linked to a doping scandal however tenuously, and that realistically an top professional cycling team has to get guys with experience - but why are Sky recruiting these guys - Barry, the Dutch Doctor, and Knaven etc. who were at the very heart of these scandals?

I thought Brailsford's explanation for hiring that Dutch Doctor was laughable to be honest - because they needed someone who could treat serious saddle sores and had experience of extreme hot weather? The only guy available just happens to have been Rabobank's Doctor?

If those are genuine reasons why is he not here at the Tour? A saddle sore might be the only thing other than a stupid crash that could cost Brad the Tour?

But if it's legitimate innovation in training techniques then fair play and why should they disclose them.

and so how would you like Sky to 'prove' to you that they are clean? :?

What about publishing their blood values? That's not giving any of the tricks of their trade away. Brad even said that he felt it should be done a couple of years ago.

What about employing an independent expert to verify their blood values like Armstrong said he was going to do but then never bothered?

What about not hiring riders and staff that have been tainted by dope scandals of the past, again as Brad himself suggested a couple of years ago.

What about confronting the inevitable questions that are going to be asked of any TdF leader with regard to doping in stead of having a strop or having the team's PR director ban people from press conferences for asking them? David Millar brings up doping in every interview he does, why do Sky brush it under the carpet as though it's not an issue in this sport?

I've said before that in my opinion, due to the current state of professional cycling the onus is on the riders to illustrate that they are clean and answer the questions demanded of them to prove it. Benefit of the doubt has all been used up.

I think we were linked with Bafetimbi Gomis at the beginning of the MON era, before the press realised that he didn't sign players from abroad. Lyon are chasing the scraps and outcasts from the PSG experiment, so perhaps we could do likewise with Lyon.

Sky's dominance has nullified the whole Tour this year.

Why is that though?

Personally, I doubt the entire team is doping!?

So then, how do they do it, and why aren't the other teams able to live with them, on the whole?

The TDF really is a team race, with a team leader, and so Sky seem to have it spot on, and the others don't.

I honestly can't remember a team that has been able to bring two riders over the line pretty much together on all of the mountain stages. Riis and Ullrich might be the last team to be able to do it. They've always had at least one other rider starting the final climb if not two. They all ride to Wiggins' tempo so there's no accelerations, just constant high pace.

It seems that it is just having by far and away the strongest team has done it for them.

I definitely do not believe that it is innovative marginal gains that has done it for them - like reccying the stages, or warming down, or a swim coach.... and I think it's disrespectful to the other teams for them to suggest that it is. But if it's legitimate innovation in training techniques then fair play and why should they disclose them.

Sky's dominance has nullified the whole Tour this year. It will be interesting to see what they do next year because Brailsford is likely to have to make a decision between building a team around Wiggins and letting Froome go elsewhere, which would leave Wiggins a lot more vulnerable in the mountains, or else making Froome captain - in which case he could have a GC contender for the next 6-7 years.

Imagine Wiggins, Froome, Nibali, Contador, Schleck Junior, Hesjedal, Van Garderan, Van den Broeck, and Rolland all leading their teams at next year's tour.

If Froome had done what Roche did in the Giro in 87 it could have been a real soap opera.

Schleck case seems a strange one. From what I can make of the situation Xipamide is not banned by WADA and is a diuretic that actually hinders the performance of muscles. Was he using it to mask something else or flush something else out of his system? If WADA haven't specifically banned it has he been withdrawn because of the suggestion that he has taken this to hide something else?

great article from wiggo, commenting on the 'doping' slurs:

Wiggo speaks

Agreed - It's the exact sentiment cycling fans like me want to hear, rather than the tirade he came out with last week which IMHO was Armstrong all over again.

You are Pull Kimmage and I claim my £5.

The article comes across as a load of bitter nonsense by a bloke with an axe to grind because he didn't get the access he wanted to Sky in 2010.

Crap rider, Crap journo.

Yep. I'm also beginning to think mr reacho is indeed mr Kimmage.

His desire to see a doped up wiggy seems unbounded ....

I've said in all my posts that I still don't think he's doped, and I think I've made it clear I'd be gutted if it turned out that he was,

BUT

If it were Astana or Liquigas who'd done what Sky have done in this Tour I wouldn't believe it for one second. The only thing that's different is Sky and Brad's reputation for being emphatically anti-doping, which is going to be challenged and questioned when you're at the top of a sport that's been ravaged by doping.

Obviously I'm cynical - but this is professional cycling in 2012 and I think I have every right to be.

Are we taking a starting point the basis that Wiggy was not on drugs at the 2009 TDF, at which he finished 4th:

Since when he had a very bad 2010 TDF, a very promising 2011 TDF before he crashed out injured (and which many though he could win).

Those that finished aheas of him in 2009 (when he was 'clean'):

1. Contador - confirmed drugs cheat (not racing this year)

2. Schleck - not racing this year

3. Armstrong - 'nuff said (not racing this year)

4. Wiggy

Therefore, does it come as any great surpise that Wiggy, with a team centred around him in a way that he did not have in 2009, is doing so well? Especially given the season and prepartions of this year.

Firstly - I'm not convinced that he's doped. I'm only expressing a disappointment that both he, and Team Sky have, in my opinion, gone from being clearly and undisputedly 100% clean, to getting sucked into the layers of murkyness that cloud the sport.

With regard to your point - why take 2009 as a starting point? In 2006 and 2007 until his team mate was caught doping he was a permanent fixture in the gruppeto. When it comes to drastic transformations to GC contenders he (and Froome) share some pretty disreputable company.

In 2009 when Wiggo finished fourth with Garmin it's worth noting that his DS and coach was Matt White, who was subsequently sacked from the team for sending one of their riders to a less than reputable doctor (who got a lifetime ban from the sport yesterday).

When he joined Sky he abandoned his desire for both his and his teammates blood values to be published on a monthly basis - something he said should be mandatory after his 4th place tour finish.

He also changed his stance on the riders and staff he associated with. He previously said that if there was a 1% chance of a rider or doctor or DS having been involved in PED's then they shouldn't allowed to compete (I can't find the exact quote unfortunately so am paraphrasing). Since then Sky have hired Sean Yates, Michael Barry, and now this latest Rabobank Doctor.

It's also worth pointing out that Wiggo has been pretty much crushing the field like this since Paris Nice which was nearly four months ago - it's not an Armstrongesque peaking in time for the Tour.

Anyway these points don't mean he's doped, but they do (along with the recent history of the sport) mean he has to expect to be questioned about his integrity and should be professional enough to answer his critics face to face and transparently rather some choreographed PR exercise in sports science in October when the world's press has disappeared. The 2007 Wiggins would have done that in my opinion.

I also notice that Sky's PR manager refused to allow any questions on doping at Sky's press conference yesterday. Again straight out of Bruyneel and LA's book.

But Wiggo and Kimmage used to be best pals.

He does sum up exactly how I felt when Wiggo came out with that tirade the other night.

I loved Wiggo, specifically because you could see the contempt he had for dopers like Moreni. He seemed to be the only one of the peloton who seemed genuinely pissed off that doped riders were costing him results, costing him contracts etc. You could sense the bitterness that you would imagine would come so naturally to someone in that position, and it made me absolutely convinced he was clean. But Kimmage is right, his attitude has completely changed in line with his performances.

Cycling has used up all of its good will over the last 20 years - after Contador has been banned, Armstrong is facing charges that could result in him being stripped of his 7 titles, Landis, Rasmussan, Kohl, T-Mobile, Riis, Pantani, Ullrich, how far back do you go. If after all that you take the yellow jersey in the Tour, in even more emphatic fashion than any of those guys that have gone before, and you can't understand why anyone would question that then he's utterly utterly deluded - as are Cav, and Brailsford for sticking up for him.

I was gutted with his comments, just like I was gutted with his comments with regard to Armstrong.

http://tiny.cc/v349gw

Interesting take on things by Paul Kimmage. Was not aware that Wiggins had blocked him from following Sky in the 2010 Tour.

Matuidi's getting games though. I believe the only player who's suffered as a result of the influx of players is Clément Chantôme.

Think he's gone to Lyon.

Prediction?

Could be a good chance of a break away staying away and getting the stage win today. I can't see the main GC candidates doing much given the profile of the stage.

Not so sure - If Evans, Nibali, or Menchov have any aspirations of winning this race they will work together on the Colombier and try and put pressure on Wiggins on the descent. It seems to be the only potential for a Sky weakness. If Nibali or Evans have any sort of gap on Wiggins and Froome on the climb they will surely extend it on the descent.

Having said that I reckon they'll all finish together though - I'll go for Valverde for the stage win.

I reckon with all the investment in PSG, there has to be some disgruntled players.....surely there are some bargains there?

Would have Matuidi in a flash.

Wikipedia says AS Roma had a deal in place to buy Kjaer for Euro10m this time last year. He's just come off the back of a less than successful season on loan, has one year less on his contract, and is unwanted by Wolfsburg. Surely there's a deal to be done there....

Friedel's history of injuries is pretty much negligible compared to Shay's which might suggest Shay will struggle to last as long as Brad.

Wasn't he rushed back into the side to play at LB versus Spurs around Christmas time under Houllier? I seem to remember we were taken apart.