2012 Tour de France

[Jon]

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.

[Jon]

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

I'd have reacted in exactly the same way Wiggy did TBH.

[El-Reacho]

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.

[PauloBarnesi]

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.

That to me would suggest that he’s not on drugs; or his avoidance of drugs is beyond the norm. Armstrong disappeared for months and avoided racing, Wiggins has raced and raced and raced.

Its all very murky.

The suggestion that its the last twenty years is simplistic; Wiggins hero is Simpson. And here comes the ambiguity of cycling. Simpson was a doper. Plain and simple. Yet he’s also one of the greats; great because he gave his all, and paid the ultimate price. I ve ridden up Ventoux, and I am not ashamed I cried. Tears for a lost dream. Tears for a man dead before I was born. Tears for the nature and brutality of the Tour. Yet I despise doping and the hypocrisy of it all.

As Brailsford admitted they have had to blur their own rules. Its easy on the track. Its not brutal, and the prizes are small. Here money is everything. And Sky (like the country) want victory.

[veloman]

I actually don't agree. A lack of English speaking teams never hindered , Roche,

I didn't realise that he was speaking English - I thought it might have been Albanian. I can't understand a word he says !

I've just come back from La Belle France - thought their interest was somewhat muted - it wasn't even on TV in the little bar-tabac that we go in (much to wife's amusement).

Can't see a potential French winner for some time.

You do all know that both Duffield and Porter are from the West Mids ?

Duffield was in a B/ham based club called The Beacon Road Club and Porter in W/hampton Wheelers.

[Eames]

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.

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.

[Jon]

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.

That to me would suggest that he’s not on drugs; or his avoidance of drugs is beyond the norm. Armstrong disappeared for months and avoided racing, Wiggins has raced and raced and raced.

Exactly Paul. Wiggo has been doing it all year, and thus not avoiding the testers. As a winner of various prestigious races, he'll be being tested all the time.

[Jon]

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 ....

[El-Reacho]

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.

[leviramsey]

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.

That to me would suggest that he’s not on drugs; or his avoidance of drugs is beyond the norm. Armstrong disappeared for months and avoided racing, Wiggins has raced and raced and raced.

Exactly Paul. Wiggo has been doing it all year, and thus not avoiding the testers. As a winner of various prestigious races, he'll be being tested all the time.

Considering that Armstrong's defense over the years has been "I've been tested all these times...", I'm not sure how convincing that is.

[leviramsey]

I think it's absolutely plausible that Wiggins, racing clean for Garmin in 2009 and being beaten by obvious dopers like Contador, Schleck, and Armstrong, decided that he wanted to really wanted win the Tour (IINM, it wasn't until he was riding the Giro that year that Vandevelde basically told him that he could win a Grand Tour; before that, it seems fairly clear that Wiggins had never really considered himself capable of winning a Grand Tour prior to 2009) and given the extent to which the sport was looking the other way decided that winning the Tour and beating the Schlecks and Contador would require doping.

And thus he left Garmin...

In my not-expert opinion, I'd say that the preponderance of probabilities causes me to lean towards Wiggins doping.

[leviramsey]

I must say that the Bob Roll adverts for Road ID that NBCSN runs are worth pausing for:

Why yes, I would like to ride [with] Jenny Fletcher

Hinca-what?

[Jon]

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.

That to me would suggest that he’s not on drugs; or his avoidance of drugs is beyond the norm. Armstrong disappeared for months and avoided racing, Wiggins has raced and raced and raced.

Exactly Paul. Wiggo has been doing it all year, and thus not avoiding the testers. As a winner of various prestigious races, he'll be being tested all the time.

Considering that Armstrong's defense over the years has been "I've been tested all these times...", I'm not sure how convincing that is.

Armo used to avoid the big races as part of his build up to the tour ..... I wonder why ....

[Jon]

I think it's absolutely plausible that Wiggins, racing clean for Garmin in 2009 and being beaten by obvious dopers like Contador, Schleck, and Armstrong, decided that he wanted to really wanted win the Tour (IINM, it wasn't until he was riding the Giro that year that Vandevelde basically told him that he could win a Grand Tour; before that, it seems fairly clear that Wiggins had never really considered himself capable of winning a Grand Tour prior to 2009) and given the extent to which the sport was looking the other way decided that winning the Tour and beating the Schlecks and Contador would require doping.

And thus he left Garmin...

In my not-expert opinion, I'd say that the preponderance of probabilities causes me to lean towards Wiggins doping.

I'd say you're less than expert opinion is a load of old ballercks, but if you want to believe that someone at the top of their game/sport must be doping, by all means go ahead. Make up your own 'evidence' as you go along (because there is non).

[Jon]

I think it's absolutely plausible that Wiggins, racing clean for Garmin in 2009 and being beaten by obvious dopers like Contador, Schleck, and Armstrong, decided that he wanted to really wanted win the Tour (IINM, it wasn't until he was riding the Giro that year that Vandevelde basically told him that he could win a Grand Tour; before that, it seems fairly clear that Wiggins had never really considered himself capable of winning a Grand Tour prior to 2009) and given the extent to which the sport was looking the other way decided that winning the Tour and beating the Schlecks and Contador would require doping.

And thus he left Garmin...

So, he left Garmin to start doping at Sky?

[PauloBarnesi]

Considering that Armstrong's defense over the years has been "I've been tested all these times...", I'm not sure how convincing that is.

Indeed, The thing is it was Armstrong is the one who says it. I ve seen no evidence that he is the most tested athlete in the world. And I suspect when he was tested it was at his time of choosing.

Anyway this is more baffling:

“I’ve read what they’ve said but as they’re not licence holders so I don’t know how they can ban them or what they can be banned for”

“From the UCI’s point of view we can’t see how these guys can be sanctioned for life,” said McQuaid. “They are not UCI licence holders, so under what grounds can they be sanctioned?”

Those are the words of the Pat McQuaid, president of cycling’s governing body, the UCI. The first quote is after speaking to cyclingnews.com, the second is after speaking to Velonews. He was commenting today on the lifetime ban issued by the US Anti-Doping Agency to Luis Garcia del Moral, Michele Ferrari and Jose “Pepe” Martí, all three staff or helpers of the US Postal Cycling team.

Only President McQuaid needs to check the UCI rulebook . The anti-doping code applies to all licence holders, that is obvious. But Article 18 says it applies to all team staff as well, even if they have no team licence. So there are good grounds for the UCI to apply USADA’s ban worldwide.

Here is the relevant rule (my emphasis)

Non-License-Holders

18. 1. a) Any Person who, without being a holder of a license, participates in a cycling Event in any capacity whatsoever, including, without limitation, as a rider, coach, trainer, manager, team director, team staff, agent, official, medical or para-medical personnel or parent and;

Any Person who, without being a holder of a license, participates, in the framework of a club, trade team, national federation or any other structure participating in Races, in the preparation or support of riders for sports competitions; shall be subject to these Anti-Doping Rules and these Anti-Doping Rules shall apply to each such Person as they apply to a License-Holder.

In short it is stated that the UCI has clear jurisdiction over non-licence holders and the rule even specifies medical staff. Given the demonstrable roles of the trio as team staff and their wrongdoing I don’t understand why the President thinks he can’t do anything. If USADA has imposed a lifetime ban on these three for their cycling-related anti-doping violations then the UCI should be studying USADA’s ruling with urgent attention with a view to applying the ban worldwide.

Conclusion

For for sure this is a complicated topic with many nationalities, jurisdictions, rules and codes. But Article 18 is clear, even if the US Postal trio don’t hold a licence, they can still be banned. And see the recent case with Jan Ullrich who was banned despite having dropped his racing licence some time ago.

It all seems rather odd. You’d expect the UCI to be horrified to learn that there was a systematic doping programme in a top-level cycling team. You’d expect it to be working hard so those who have accepted their role in this corruption are distanced from cycling. Yet President McQuaid appears not to know his own rulebook and rather disinterested, saying it’s merely for the Americans.

Note this is not UCI-bashing. We all make mistakes but when a president of a sports governing body appears not to know the rules it does not look too pro. A strong UCI is one where the staff are fluent in the rules. The USADA case is highly significant and more than ever the president needs be well-briefed on this matter rather than blundering.

The main thing is that actions speak louder than words and the UCI quickly reviews the USADA verdict and works to ensure the trio are banned from going near any cyclist on the planet.

UPDATE (Thursday): the World Anti-Doping Agency issued a polite reminder – albeit in public – to the UCI last night that it should act on the USADA verdict. Namely it can either enforce the ruling or it can appeal it. But it should not pretend to ignore it. Full text here.

Great to see the UCI is up to it...

[villa89]

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.

You must have been reading a different article than me. A Team that was founded on the principles of "we dont care if we win as long as we are clean" has changed into a team that hires people known to have aided doping in the past, and removed all transaparency that they had promised. It seems from the outside that now they are the main team in the tour all their principles have gone out the window and the whole thing smacks of them being dopers to be honest. If they want respect then start by being transparent. In cycling you should expect that people will assume your a doper unless you prove to them otherwise, not vice versa. Its sad but that's what 40 odd years of persistent doping in your sport will do.

[villa89]

Was hoping Dan Martin might get the Polka Dot jersey today in the break, but looks like Kessiakoff is going to get it.

[veloman]

Was hoping Dan Martin .

From Tamworth as you probably knew; his dad, Neil Martin, an ace English rider, married to Stephen Roche's sister.

[Jon]

Wiggo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Froome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tara cuddles.

Nibbles still in with a shout.

What a brutal stage!