Wiggins certainly isn't the next Armstrong

In all this talk of 'is Wiggins really clean' with some out there pinning him up as their replacement for Lance Armstrong, what with the idea of having to simply enjoy bike racing again now that Armstrong has fallen seemingly far too much to handle, I decided to have a look into the whole thing and see if it had any basis.

People are rattling on about Wiggins's sudden emergence as a contender in the past few years and comparing it to how Armstrong came from nowhere as a Tour de France rider pre-cancer to being a seven time winner afterwards. There is a distinct difference however.

Wiggins was a 4km pursuit specialist on the track. Yes, he had an enormous engine and an even bigger talent for any aspect of the bike but until he applied himself to the road he was only ever going to be so good at it. Say what you will about cyclists being good across multiple platforms, it rarely exists. Wiggins struggled at the Tour in his early days but the track was still his number one target then. It was only once he left that behind and focued on the longer distance endurance races, that he began to emerge into what we see today. Armstrong on the other hand was always a road racer.



It would be like questioning Ryder Hesjedal because he was a mountain biker for so long before suddenly arriving on the road scene only to win the Giro d'Italia last year. People seem to miss the point that a rider can adjust to a different aspect of cycling, especially when the talent is in place.

There's also this argument that Wiggins's loss in weight to become a contender in the Tour should have coupled with a loss in power that should have seen him struggle. I could see the point if Wiggins was the lightest man in the field having been declared officially an anorexic, but he wasn't. Sure Wiggins is stick thin, but he was able to lose expendable weight that he required for hard efforts on the track that he didn't need for the longer races, without sacrificing power. Losing weight does not mean losing power, and indeed it isn't about your power numbers anyway. It's about your power to weight ratio and losing a certain percentage of your body weight doesn't mean you'll lose the same percentage from your power output.

Wiggins was able to lose the excess weight he didn't need to be a Grand Tour rider while maintaining his power numbers. By spending countless hours dedicating himself to climbing and distance time-trialing rather than short, sharp efforts, Wiggins was able to become what allowed him to win the Tour de France last year.

And let's not forget, the change wasn't sudden. He was forth (now third thanks to Armstrong's results being taken away) in the 2009 Tour. He had a bad year in 2010, but was again a favourite in 2011 before a crash ended his hopes. It all came together as it had the potential to do so for three years before in 2012.

But if that doesn't work for you then try these statistics:

In Armstrong's seven Tour de France wins between 1999 and 2005 the average speed was 40.4 km/h over an average distance of 3,500 kilometers. That equates to an average time of 86 hours, 38 minutes, 2 seconds. In Wiggins's Tour victory last year the average speed was 39.8 km/h over 3,488 kilometers. That equates to an average time of 87 hours, 38 minutes, 18 seconds. Or better put, Wiggins's Tour win was 1 hour and 16 seconds slower than the average win by Armstrong. If you take that time gap and apply it to Armstrong's 2005 win, it would place Wiggins -- the top rider in the 2012 Tour de France -- about 30th.

Now, I understand the routes were different in all these Tours, the equipment different, the weather different and so on and so forth, but over those distances things equal out quite a bit and if anything it gives you a good idea as to the differences.

And those time differences not only bode well for Wiggins's reputation, but the general direction in which this era of cycling is heading. Yes, we're the only sport on the planet that doesn't want to see them abide by the Olympic motto of "Faster, Higher, Stronger."

Until which times as I see otherwise, there is little that says to me Wiggins is doping unless you simply prefer to lump everyone who finishes in the top ten of the tour in a group together as cheats because you don't believe it can be won clean. If you don't believe in Wiggins, I'd have to respect that ... as fans we've been let down too much in the past that you have to understand why eternal cynics were created. But if I ever get to that point there would be little point in continuing to watch. As it is, I'll keep a little element of naivety about me -- hey sports is supposed to be an escape from the real world every now and again -- and believe there is hope for the sport yet and that Wiggins represents some of that.