http://www.feltet.dk/index.php?id_parent=1...;id_nyhed=21243

Surprised Strategy hasn't linked to this one. Well, not really.

Any idea what the author is saying - i.e why he looks clean? My Danish doesn't go beyond Gammel Dansk and Tuborg

Nor does it need to!
Basically it says that two Danish researchers have reviewed his profiles and found no obvious signs of cheating. One of the guys, titled an epo-researcher (!) says he would like to describe Bradly as a clean athlete with reservations wrt what he has not seen. The other bloke says that there is a small rise in Hct, which would normally go down during the Tour, but nothing that screams out, and adds that this could be achieved via a blood transfusion. But this could be some uncertaintly in the measurement.

Personally, I think he looks like a concentration camp survivor, but that's just me.

A clean one though, Steve. Let's stay on topic

Wiggins "looks" clean.

How else are you supposed to tell them apart?

I am officially moving rom a position of general, though not specific support, to uncertain.

Dave.

Has Bruyneel or McQuaid looked Wiggins in the eye yet? Cause we won't know for sure if he's clean until one of them do.

Given that his watts were equal to Armstrong in 2005 and 2003, and better than Contador in 2007, I don't know what to think anymore.
http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=5222

Vaughters has defended new technology for adding benefit. I trust his views, but would like to see some decent analysis on it.

As for what Armstrong did this year? Don't even want to go there...

Yes, unfortunately, this is part of my rationale for weakening my support. As much as it hurts to say that.

As for who? Go where?

Dave.

Some want us to believe that the Tornado’s numbers and Contra’s numbers are out of this world and doped to the max. Yet Wiggins is right up there and not even a peep. Just goes to show that there is set agendas by a few folks that cloud their vision.

Really Wiggins picture that was posted from the P-R this year as proof he has “transformed” his cycling to be more road/mountain friendly should indicate to some the exact opposite, If that picture was not taken from some weird angle then the guy should have been in the hospital for malnutrition,,,, not setting power numbers that are equal to the “known dopers”.

Vaughter does not equal a good spokesperson for “clean” cycling. In my opinion he may just be looking the other way at all the right moments.

Really nice to know that we have a thread that started out with the Danish scientists makes an opinion on the “clean” Wiggins, and we end up talking about Lance Armstrong and what he done this year. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Because there's plenty of evidence that suggests Armstrong and Contador were doping. There is - as yet - no evidence that Wiggins is doping. And I do think that Wiggins being so outspoken about doping, willing to post his numbers, and riding for Garmin etc also lend credibility to his claim of being clean.

But having said that, these kinds of sudden transformations - whether it's Indurain, Riis, Armstrong, Contador suddenly becoming the dominant TT'er, etc - always raises red flags. So I'm willing to give Wiggins the benefit of the doubt but at the same time in this sport nothing would really surprise me anymore.

Wiggins sets the bar for sudden transformations. CVV comes in a close second.

There is not "plenty of" or any credible evidence against LA or AC.

Wiggins's showy performances reminds one of reality tv where the outcome has become contrived by popularity polls or in Wiggins's case his apparent "immunity" as he's being groomed for a royal knighthood in the leadup to an overly grandiose and sensationalized London Olympics.

My bad. Bio-passports raised no red flags for the top riders (and apparently no one had to make a donation to the 'under-funded' UCI). I'm moving along; nothing to see here.

Kiwi your right about what "he" done this year, I just thought it was a bit funny to see where the direction was going. NOT an attack or intended to insult your post!

As for the "donations" well it is obvious who makes the ones that count!

I just want to know where on the list of placements does the doping stop? For example only the top 3 are doped? Or is it top 10 etc.....

Oddly, I don't disagree with your take about Wiggins, but, as with other folks here, I'm agnostic about him. CVV, yes, to a certain extent, but wasn't he the one that tested much, much higher than anyone else (including a certain mortal god) when he was a junior? Could be a timing, circumstance thing....

Wow - standing up for AC now?

I'll let the "credible" go against you-know-who: too easy a target.

Riis and Armstrong set the bar for sudden transformations.

Not as much against AC, but more than plenty against Armstrong.

I think that's what's making me grumpy - I've no idea! Something about Contador and the Schlecks is not quite right to me - but it's well into the realm of random subjectivity. Is there some kind of line that divides doped performances from real ones? Is it a matter of a few watts here and there?

Way too hard to be a 'fan' these days...


Tony Rominger is my favourite for sudden transformations - and at an age when he should've been retiring. Ferrari was a genius with those 'climbing plans'!

You've been following cycling a long time to be asking a question like that mate

I'm officially exhausted with these doping discussions...the only thing that seems conclusive is there will always be dopers and there will always be believers and we have no way of knowing if cycling is any dirtier than any other sport. Either way, I love cycling, dirty as it is. Is it reasonable to condemn riders for doping when the testing is beatable and doping is the only way to win?

However, this perverse need to go to absurd lengths to convince fans that this or that rider is clean....all in the name of restoring cycling's 'credibility'...this keeps me from recommending the sport to friends. There's just too much dishonesty in this game folks.......it not only makes the sport less honorable, it makes it less fun. It's clear now that the path inaugorated by Columbia and Slipstream was unambigously negative and has been bad for cycling--straight up omerta and code of silence remains preferable to organized fraud. I can't root for either team and feel like a putz to think I once did.

Kudos to Wiggins for subjecting his blood values to examination but I hope he will have the humility to just leave it at that.

great post.
I think some other folks are "officially exhausted with these doping discussions" hell even I am tired of it.

Wiggins' performance in this Tour was distinctly bad news for the London Olympics. He's not likely to win any golds on the road.

I think it's pretty hard to make the argument that there's hardly been a peep about Wiggins. Plenty of people have expressed doubts, but yeah, there's not a ton of evidence out there to suggest he is doping.

good luck with that point of view.

CVV beat your buddy in a TT back in '99 with apparent evidence that he was clean 'cuz the other guy, your guy, wouldn't put him on the program. The best part was that JB et al hid the real numbers from CVV so he wouldn't know how fast he was. Cheating has no bounds. Based on this history, perhaps CVV is just getting back to form.

But, then again CVV bashing from your camp is so... '99.

As Velo and Kiwi point out, Armstrong, Riis and a trailing Rominger are the phone booth kings.

Dave.

Hey you just made a superman joke!

It never crossed your mind, I suppose, that I might have better things to spend my time on, such as e.g., being on vacation. No? In any case, I'll thank you to keep your comments about me to yourself.


Regarding the article, Burkni's translation is accurate enough. Both researchers hedge their answers to the point where the title is somewhat misleading. Jakob Mørkebjerg (the second researcher) works at Bispebjerg and has done a deal of research on blood transfusions together with Ashenden. He goes furthest in noting that the rise in haemogblobin is abnormal, but not to the extent that one can say that it is definitely due to doping (i.e., it could be a measuring error).

Full credit to Wiggins for publicizing his values, but sadly the results are unlikely to silence the doubters.

Previous to the posted years for his results, I wonder what his blood parameters looked like?

Does Wiggins have any TUE’s? I wonder????

Raises an excellent question about transparency, generally. If the UCI wasn't ashamed of the wink-and-nod use of the TUE system to facilitate anti-competitive behavior generally, and doping in particular, they would have publicly published on their website an up-to-date list for all TUEs granted to ProTour team members.

It would be a snap to do, wouldn't involve big budgeting or staffing. I suppose McQuaid's excuse if confronted would be that it's necessary to protect privacy and that medical conditions requiring treatment are the business of the athlete and only the athlete.

Yes the excuse by McQuack would be predictable.

The percentages say that Wiggins having a TUE would be a good bet. Hell 70% chance he does, and in the betting world (viva las vegas) there would be many takers.

If the CYCLING REPORTERS / JOURNALIST / COLUMNIST done their jobs correctly they would ask every single cyclist the simple yet telling question. “Do you have a TUE?” Follow up question if the answer just happens to be yes,,,,,,”What is the TUE for?”.

The cyclist privacy is an easy way to push it aside. But the whole privacy argument is mute in my opinion. They give up that when they agree to drug testing and to work in the pro cycling ranks. Part of the job and should be part of the transparency.

Yes, full credit. But, I am sorry to say that I think I am moving towards the Thomas's.

Dave.

Wiggins comes across as being the perfect model of the 'new' cyclist. He is outspoken against doping (unlike other who hedge their bets); he rides for a team with a strict anti-doping policy; he's come from a background on the British team where doping was off the table as an option; he's clearly got the genes, given his family background.

There's a lot there to support. Plus, while he rode very impressively at the Tour, he didn't win and he didn't take any stage victories either. There's been plenty of other riders coming from nowhere to win stages, mountain jerseys and so on that have been on programs.

Wiggins could well be the rider with the big engine that never got the chance to prove himself on the road (he stayed on the track, plus there were too many dopers in road cycling).

I'm happy to be a doubter, though. That's the lot of the cycling fan these days. No rabid flag waving (well, maybe if Julian Dean is involved), just some kind of detached observance. It would be nice, though, to be able to get enthusiastic again.

Heh. And now you've hit on a real hot button for me. Can I really blame the riders who seek to gain advantage any way they can get away with? Some, perhaps, but probably not so much. Tools like Pat McQuaid, yep. The media, ABSO-FREAKIN-LUTELY. A free press is the true insurer of all good social institutions. Skipping the political philosophy, I'll just say, the complete pandering corruption and utter diminution in journalistic skill and talent among the ranks of sports reporters disgusts me.

Now, where were you when I made a remark similar to yours and got savaged by Rational Head a few weeks back? Come to think of it, I owe him a response. Or maybe I should say, his out-of-line comments deserved to be rebuked. With prejudice.

Can't really work this one out, but at the same time I obviously (as a Brit) have a conflict of interest here. However, and I may have missed something here but is this a DPF witch hunt or is Wiggins really raising suspicions? He finished 4th by not being dropped. He didn't win a stage and never looked like winning one.

I am not part of a witch hunt.

He did not win a stage. Not sure what that really says. Hincapie also almost wore yellow, but didn't. Cavendish didn't win the Green Jersey. Andy and Alberto let Frank take a stage. The race for the white jersey was more surprising than the race for yellow - and the young guys never dope.

But, call it the bad apple effect, it is increasingly difficult to determine if he truly is the genetic miracle.

I really, really want to believe JV. But... was he really the lone good apple able to hang onto a bad bunch?

So, just, but...

Dave.

I don't know Dave. I really don't. But if I had doped I would hide in the doping bunch, and not become the anti-doping spokesman. That would be a spectacularly brave/stupid double bluff

If you you owe me a response, go ahead, OK?... However backdated...no prob...I assure, you you'll get a response.. since you, yes you Floridacyclist , brought this here, out-of line, in this thread, be prepared to receive a detailed, factual response...

No prejudice, just a benign correction of your factually incorrect, out-of-line statement...see below for details.

You were corrected, not savaged. If being corrected equals being savaged, then you're a hypersensitive person...The record of that CORRECTION is in the appropriate thread. I am prepared to discuss it as long as your factually wrong description is clarified.

Your remark was NOT similar...to remind to everyone else, it was about ALL cycling journalists (specifically: you ridiculed ALL cycling journalists for failing to name a lab that found a Spanish cyclist positive for doping while you, Floridacyclist, failed to read the very sources you loudly critisized -- the VERY sources that named the Spanish lab you failed to see...So, the responsibility for READING before "savagely" criticizing the entire profession was with you, Floridacyclist...

BTW, to remind you, Steve in Atl-- the guy you quoted -- easily recognized the issue and that was the end of the story.

However, another poster, whoever he is, and I am not saying it's you, had a lot more concern with the subject, posting several times, curiously...and he got my response.


Again, go ahead respond in the proper thread and your concern will be thoroughly addressed.

Think it's more that the past few years have made a lot of cycling fans cynical. Been burned too many times, so understandably people are going to be a bit suspicious of unexpected or surprising results. Fact remains that Wiggins managed to ride up there with a bunch of suspected dopers for three weeks (and having never shown such capability before, albeit he's never ridden with GC in mind either), so is it really any surprise that he may fall under suspicion as well? Wish it weren't this way with cycling, but it's (mostly) the riders own damn fault.

Hmmm. This is one of those logic tests, isn't it?

1. If I wanted to hide in the doping bunch, wouldn't I need to dope?

2. If everyone else in the doping bunch were strong advocates of personal hygiene, then wouldn't I want to fit in? By not claiming I had gone through the cleansing wouldn't I bring suspicion upon myself?

3. If I knew that I was a (Victor) Conte's mile ahead of the doping testers, and had years of data that proved it and that had already been vetted by Damsgaard, would I be afraid of posting my inconclusive data?

I really don't want to trash the guy, and would love it if he were clean. Just in case I had been in a phase of personal denial, though, my radar is now up.

Dave.

miles ahead ...folks.

Another Conte mile ahead?

Dave.

Seems like all the talk is about Armstrong. But no one wants to talk about the increase in hemoglobin and stimulation index from Limoges to Sion? Seems like about a 10% increase between two rest days?