Not really....hypocritical perhaps.

Flandis is as much anti-Lance as he portends Lemond is. All his actions were driven by his desire to expose LA and get revenge. It had nothing to do with being anti-doping.

The fact of the matter is that Flandis needs to make comments like this to stay in the limelight. But his pot o' gold is coming and then he will slink away.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

When he gets his pot of gold he will get the last laugh. The fact is Armstrong made a mistake in crossing Landis. For all his faults, and we know Landis fights dirty, Landis deserves credit for bringing down Armstrong and the rest. Don't forget it was only the threat of prison which made all the others confess. Sang like canaries when confronted by federal agent Jeff Novitzky.

I don't think he has ever been anti-dope, I don't think he cares about a clean sport. Just fairness (not rules)....and I'll bet the press finds him. Revenge driven yes, looking for the lime light. That's not what FL is about....

That is how it should work with riders who are already at anorexic weight.

But take Wiggins. For all the myths of his time trialing prowess, he had a pretty piss poor record against top dogs on the road in time trials. I don't think he ever won a long time trial before he transformed. He supposedly loses a ton of weight so he can climb then becomes the best or second best time trialist in the world. His statements on weight don't even make sense. His people will say he needs to gain weight to gain power for P-R or the track but the best he has ever been was when he was at freaky low weight. Heck, Wiggins never placed in the top 100 of the Tour before 2009.

Froome had a similar drop in weight and increase in trime trialing ability. He started out as a total chump and his team said they never put him in a wind tunnel until after his transformation.

Rogers when he was at Sky said he was the lightest he had been since he was sixteen but had increased his FTP by 7%, and Rogers was a client of Dr. Ferrari and on a team with a teamwide doping program (T-Mobile) before he went to Sky.

OK, so you agree he is a hypocrite. Glad we could clear that up.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

That is why I like Landis. He makes it clear that he does not feel bad about doping, that doping in cycling was the way it was and that what was required to race against other people who were doping. I do not believe for a second these sob stories by riders who are caught and pretend they are sorry. Worse are the ones who try to blame their decisions on others. "The big bad Bruyneel tied me down and forced me to dope. He also forced me to take $15K a year in salary, less money than I could have made working at Micky D's. Wah wah wah."

"Worse are the ones who try to blame their decisions on others. "The big bad Bruyneel tied me down and forced me to dope."

It's never my fault! Love that.....

Wiggins transformation happened before he went to Sky.

nice videos like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbO_te8cv7c

Wiggins never really trained properly in the past. He was good but never brilliant and riding clean. Once the blatant doping was out of the sport - he had a chance to do well and he took it.

Remember all the ex Disco riders getting busted ? That's not happened with ex Sky riders.

Wiggins was not training with Garmin. JV has said that Wiggins was off on his own with BC people, so you cannot pass the blame onto Garmin.


Oh, brother. Wiggins accepted salary as a road pro for seven years before he finally decided he might want to train a bit? Really? And it turns out that when he does bother to train then he is just as good as dopers? So why didn't he train in the first place? It would not have mattered if everyone else was doping because he still would have been a contender. Is this really the explanation being trotted out by the true believers?

Landis hit the nail on the head. What we have seen from certain riders, in words and deed, does not make a lot of sense in a supposedly clean era.

You might be right, but what is your evidence or proof? Is it like porn, where you know doped riding when you see it?

My point is that what I see on this and many other forums is a bunch of dip shits who don't really know all that much about cycling, but point out one factoid as proof that rider x is doping.

I do not know whether Froome, Porte, Wiggins, Nibali, etc. are doping or not. I don't have any evidence that they are and I don't have any evidence that they aren't so I am unwilling to assert one way or the other. You on the other hand have the same set of facts as me and yet you KNOW they are doping.

All I'm saying is that comparing climbing speed on a particular climb in the Tour de France or even on a training ride from 15 years ago to today is WAY more complicated than just looking at the time. And anybody who uses that as evidence is doing way to much hand waving in their argument and not enough (really any) science to prove one way or another.

Things that prove doping include, a positive test, a confession, testimony from somebody who has witnessed the doping. Things that do not prove doping. "Wow, look how fast he's climbing."

Everybody is entitled to their OPINION as to whether or not somebody is doping. But when you state opinion as fact, you just look like an idiot.

---

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava

Looking at Wiggins' palmares, I don't quite agree.

He took 7th in Road World TT in 2005. 10th in 2007. And won a bunch of minor TTs. That's at the same time he was pretty dominant in track, and track was his primary goal. His emergence as a road rider occurred after he quit track.

But even when he was doing focusing track, he could still crack the top 10 twice at TT Worlds. It's totally plausible he could jump from top 10 to top-3-ish.

Not saying he's not a doper. Just saying that you're going to have to do a lot better than trotting out his TT results since he was basically a world class TTer out of the gate. And then one of the top 3 in the world once he focused on it.

Only time will tell, it took a lot of years for for the LA hammer to drop, and the riders found positive has not fallen off. So not too much has changed (this would include all sport) .

AICAR in combo with GW1516. The russians have been dinged for the latter, not sure there is a test for the former. It's become common when you see someone go epically gaunt all of sudden (recently: cough* richie porte* cough) to assume it's this combo.

---

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App

Awesome. Win a couple of races now, get cancer in the near future. Not exactly a win-win. More like crazy.


.

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

That combo is already 5-7 years old.

Probably 1-2 generations back of what gives you an edge nowadays.

Clearly, no one commenting about Wiggins has much to do with British Cycling.

If you did, you would know that Wiggins has indeed had a problem in the past - with alcohol. After the Athens (and Beijing) Olympics, he spent six months plus inside a bottle, and this has been a regular feature of his career until about 2009. This is common knowledge among anyone who has met Wiggins, but obviously not something that we shout from the roof.

Remember that when Wiggins did win the Tour, he had no really steep climbs to contend with (and we saw how easily Froome dropped him) and won it on his TT prowess. He never underwent the sort of transformation we saw with Armstrong, who for all his faults, did not spend entire years pissed..

As for Landis, I remember when he joined the Daily Peloton forum to proclaim his innocence for something that he was clearly guilty for. He is every bit as psychotic as Armstrong although does a better impression of being normal.

I think most people will still have a healthy skeptism, regardless of their domicile.

As an aside, could you find the UK on one of those American atlases you all have ;-)

---

29 years and counting

They are on their bikes. Riding 6 - 8 hours a day.

(Sorry, couldn't resist). ;-P

---

_____________________________________________
Rick, "Retired" hobbyist athlete
Trying to come back slowly from acute A-Fib

Didn't the Daily Peloton discontinue the discussion forums?

---

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

nslckevin wrote:

Things that prove doping include, a positive test, a confession, testimony from somebody who has witnessed the doping. Things that do not prove doping. "Wow, look how fast he's climbing."

I've said this before on ST and I'll say it again. Here are three things that we've been told that can't all be true:

• "...the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team ran the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen." (USADA)
• EPO can provide up to "...a 20 percent power gain!" (Vaughters)
• The current top riders are clean. (not sure if you are saying this or not but some are)

Why can't they all be true? Because hill climb times are about the same. Sure, it matters what the wind was, where in the race, stage, etc the climb appeared, but there are too many observations to fall back on those explanations now. Day in and day out, no matter where the climb falls, on average climb speeds are in the same ball park as they were before. Certainly they are nowhere near 20% slower. The peloton slowed bit for a year or two, but they are now back to about where they were before.


So at least one of the bullets above is false. I actually think they're all false.

I wouldn't place any faith on anything Floyd says even now. Just because you find some of his statements more credible now than you did before doesn't mean you should extend that credibility to things you can't verify. The guy has proven he will say anything if he thinks it is in his interest. He does come up with some good one-liners though!

Floyd really reminds me of Canseco in baseball. No one likes them but they keep talking and the things they say end up being true. Just because no one likes them doesn't mean they are lying. They may suck as humans and they may slant things to reflect their own point of view, but it gets harder and harder to ignore what they are saying.

I'd love to believe that endurance sports are clean, but every time I see a great performance I always get the same feeling that I did when Nina Kraft blew the field away at Kona. That just ain't right.

You can't just say let them dope. If you do that, you are making anyone who wants to compete dope. We know doping works, to compete you would have to dope.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.