A pair of David Walsh interviews - Clinic Edition

[Navigator]

Of course it matters that Wiggins was part of the omertà in 2011, because he wasn't in 2007. What changed in between?

You have to look at it as a case by case basis. The incident where his team where thrown off the tour at gun point, leading to a bellicose press conference condemning doping, was a unique situation for Wiggins. In truth, he wasn't going around threatening to punch dopers all the time, but this press conference became part of his reputation.

There were many people, like David Millar and even Vaughters, who were anti doping but saw Armstrong as product of a previous era and thought it best for the sport to move on from that. Sniping about Armstrong didn't do anybody any good.

I think for Wiggins personally it was easy to snipe from afar, but when you reach the top yourself and have people sniping at you, you become much more cautious. As Wiggins got older he also realised there is a lot of hypocrisy involved about the past. There are so many people compromised in the sport that he literally would never talk to most of the former pros commentating like Sean Kelly. Where would it end? Unless someone is proven guilty, you can't go around condeming them. Especially when Landis is on the other side.

 

[Navigator]

WIGGINS KNEW THE TRUTH. How many times do I have to mention this? You think Landis's allegations came out of nowhere?

Read my post again.

 

[keithmcmahon]

Thanks.
Pleasure
Same article. Passport to made public. I guess thus rubbish as well.
Course it was rubbish, because he didn't do it for whatever reason. Actions speak louder than words. Especially given Wiggo's history.
And being clean. Rubbish? Or is that the truth?
I don't know for certain.
Never doping because of the kids. Rubbish?
Personally, I think Wiggo started off with "Course, I don't dope because I wouldn't do it". That wasn't strong enough for people. So now his line is "Won't dope not only because it is wrong, but my kids will hate me for it". I don't expect this line will be strong enough to some people, but will have convinced a few.
Hard to believe anything he says.
I think this is a bit harsh, but he does have a history of saying some things he regrets later.
It's all a bit too convenient don't you think? No, he is just rubbish at communication.

 

[thehog]

You have to look at it as a case by case basis. The incident where his team where thrown off the tour at gun point, leading to a bellicose press conference condemning doping, was a unique situation for Wiggins. In the truth he wasn't going around threatening to punish dopers all the time, but this press conference became part of his reputation.

There were many people, like David Millar and even Vaughters, who were anti doping but saw Armstrong as product of a previous era and thought it best for the sport to move on from that. Sniping about Armstrong didn't do anybody any good.

I think for Wiggins personally it was easy to snipe from afar, but when you reach the top yourself and have people sniping at you, you become much more cautious. As Wiggins got older he also realised there is a lot of hypocrisy involved about the past. There are so many people compromised in the sport that he literally would never talk to most of the former pros commentating like Sean Kelly. Where would it end? Unless someone is proven guilty, you can't go around condeming them. Especially when Landis is on the other side.

No one expected him to snipe at Armstrong. Few did.

But "I love him" type statements probably didn't help.

Repeating the 500 tests stuff etc. certainly didn't help.

He could have said nothing. But you know. Something changed.

 

[thehog]

Thanks.
Pleasure
Same article. Passport to made public. I guess thus rubbish as well.
Course it was rubbish, because he didn't do it for whatever reason. Actions speak louder than words. Especially given Wiggo's history.
And being clean. Rubbish? Or is that the truth?
I don't know for certain.
Never doping because of the kids. Rubbish?
Personally, I think Wiggo started off with "Course, I don't dope because I wouldn't do it". That wasn't strong enough for people. So now his line is "Won't dope not only because it is wrong, but my kids will hate me for it". I don't expect this line will be strong enough to some people, but will have convinced a few.
Hard to believe anything he says.
I think this is a bit harsh, but he does have a history of saying some things he regrets later.
It's all a bit too convenient don't you think? No, he is just rubbish at communication.

Thanks Cath.

 

[Navigator]

Thanks.

Same article. Passport to made public. I guess thus rubbish as well.

And being clean. Rubbish? Or is that the truth?

Never doping because of the kids. Rubbish?

Hard to believe anything he says.

It's all a bit too convenient don't you think?

Not doping because of his kids is a powerful point. I've seen him calmly talk about this at length several times. It's much further than Armstrong ever went, so you'd have to contend Wiggins is a bigger and more psychopathic liar than Armstrong. Does that really sell?

Armstrong would give two types of response. The quick and outraged response, where would indigantly say "I would never do that, never!", which always came across as a formulaic performance for the media. Or he would give the second type where he would give a criptic defense of doping by saying it has always gone on and always will go on, then tellingly refuse to condemn anyone who had doped before saying he is tested a million times. It always raised an eyebrow. It's like he had two different audiences.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

What a clueless analysis from kerrison - as if gewiss, festina and USPS only had little budgets so were forced to dope. Facts, mr kerrison - all the dominant teams have had big budgets & used most scientific methods - festina used SRM data, FFS - doping was just another way to help them train harder & smarter.

Kerrison's first point was that the big budget teams in the past concentrated their resources on doping logistics rather than training/coaching, as this offered the best return on investment. This makes sense - the gains from setting up a logistical network to get an extra round of bloodbags to the Tour team are likely to be better than the gains from creating rider-specific training programmes to eek out an extra percent or two of power.

His second point is that now that less doping is possible (*), the traditional top teams are well behind in terms of coaching knowledge, which leaves them at a disadvantage vs Sky, who are at the forefront of such knowledge (**).

Re Festina and their use of SRMs, simply having the technology doesn't mean you'll use ot effectively. Consider a heart rate monitor as a more widely used piece of technology. If you use it to see how high you can get your heart rate each ride, you'll not progress very far. If you use it to ensure that the bulk of your training is in appropriate zones and so you don't train when under-recovered then you'll progress further.

Note that I don't know what Festina did with the SRM data. I'm just highlighting that technology has to be used appropriately.

(*) This is what Kerrison is implying or relying on, not my view.

(**) Another Kerrison implication etc.

 

[Navigator]

No one expected him to snipe at Armstrong. Few did.

But "I love him" type statements probably didn't help.

Repeating the 500 tests stuff etc. certainly didn't help.

He could have said nothing. But you know. Something changed.

A lot of pros genuinely did love what Armstrong had done for the sport at that time.

 

[thehog]

Not doping because of his kids is a powerful point. I've seen him calmly talk about this at length several times. It's much further than Armstrong ever went, so you'd have to contend Wiggins is a bigger and more psychopathic liar than Armstrong. Does that really sell?

Armstrong would give two types of response. The quick and outraged response, where would indigantly say "I would never do that, never!", which always came across as a formulaic performance for the media. Or he would give the second type where he would give a criptic defense of doping by saying it has always gone on and always will go on, then tellingly refuse to condemn anyone who had doped before saying he is tested a million times. It always raised an eyebrow. It's like he had two different audiences.

Why compare to Armstrong?

Besides Armstrong often used his kids as a defence.

Luke was often used as a shield.

You've also never seen him calmly talk about this subject.

It's always been constructed for print.

Unless you can link to a video?

 

[thehog]

A lot of pros genuinely did love what Armstrong had done for the sport at that time.

Which Pros are these?

 

[Dazed and Confused]

A lot of pros genuinely did love what Armstrong had done for the sport at that time.

nah, rather some pros wanted to be like Armstrong, i.e dominant and successful, winning the biggest races, breaking records etc.

Hard work, big budgets, better training methods......

 

[Navigator]

Why compare to Armstrong?

Besides Armstrong often used his kids as a defence.

Luke was often used as a shield.

You've also never seen him calmly talk about this subject.

It's always been constructed for print.

Unless you can link to a video?

No, I don't recall Luke ever being used in the manner in which Wiggins refers to his kids. Unless you can produce a video?

Here's mine... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21189201

 

[Navigator]

Which Pros are these?

Most of the peloton. Don't kid yourself. He was a megga star to most of these guys. The famed incidents of the people he fellout with are a small minority.

 

[hfer07]

By that you mean Sky are clean and you cant accept it

by that I meant the contrary of your spin

but good try anyways

 

[horsinabout]

Quote Bradley Wiggins 'When people say I dope, they're saying I'm lying to my kids'

This is because when a person dopes, they lie, to themselves, their family, friends and most of all deliberately to their fans. You name it they lie to it, courts of the land under oath even. Need I go on.....

 

[hrotha]

Read my post again.

I read your post. My point was he sided with Armstrong against someone he knew was telling the truth. Yes, Landis looked like a loose end, but Wiggins knew he was telling the truth. He still chose to side with the side that was in the wrong. And he didn't just come out with non-statements, he 100% took sides, and sided with Armstrong. It wasn't the easy way out. The easy way out was shutting up.

 

[thehog]

No, I don't recall Luke ever being used in the manner in which Wiggins refers to his kids. Unless you can produce a video?

Here's mine... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21189201

You're not very good at this are you?

Armstrong, who has faced constant doping allegations despite never testing positive, is also keen to prove he is clean and hopes by racing the Tour again his four children will read about it.

"I'm doing this for my kids," he says in the book.

"With news so accessible these days on the web, they'll be able to read any story they want. And I don't want them growing up and reading all these things about me and doping."

 

[thehog]

Most of the peloton. Don't kid yourself. He was a megga star to most of these guys. The famed incidents of the people he fellout with are a small minority.

Sorry. I'll ask again.

Which Pro's loved him?

 

[Navigator]

You're not very good at this are you?

What do you mean by "this"? Are you playing a game or something? I produced the video you requested. I said I don't recall Armstrong using his kids in the manner Wiggins did, unless you can produce a video.

I remember the interview you cite (though it's always best to post links for tranparency) and I took it as more Armstrong code. An admission that he had doped in the past but wanted to do it clean this time. Why would racing the tour again be something good for his kids? Surely if he was clean before, his kids would have nothing to worry about. He did not use his kids in the same fashion as Wiggins, claiming he had never doped.

On Armsrtong and racing clean, there is a degree of circumstantical evidence that Armstrong did at least initially plan on racing clean after seeing the power outputs of the 2008 TdF. You may remember the plan was to have his blood tested independently. Seemed strange to have a big press conference announcing this if the plan was always to drop it.

His kids were never mentioned again in this context. Tellingly perhaps.

 

[Navigator]

Sorry. I'll ask again.

Which Pro's loved him?

The majority of pros on this list hugely respected and admired him, thought he had been great for the sport at the time. http://velonews.competitor.com/2009/07/news/2009-tour-de-france-start-list_93739

Are you disputing that? It's not clear what your point is.

 

[thehog]

The majority of pros on this list hugely respected and admired him, thought he had been great for the sport at the time. http://velonews.competitor.com/2009/07/news/2009-tour-de-france-start-list_93739

Are you disputing that? It's not clear what your point is.

The start list from the 2009 Tour. Thanks.

I'll ask again.

Which Pro's loved him?

You appeared so confident. Surely you can provide a link?

Yes?

 

[Navigator]

The start list from the 2009 Tour. Thanks.

I'll ask again.

Which Pro's loved him?

You appeared so confident. Surely you can provide a link?

Yes?

You want me to find links for all the star struck comments about Armstrong from the peloton over the years? Are you serious?

How long have you been following the sport?

 

[thehog]

You want me to find links for all the star struck comments about Armstrong from the peloton over the years? Are you serious?

How long have you been following the sport?

You're telling the story here boy. You might want to come armed with facts first before you start posting malarkey.

Wiggins loved Lance.

No other Pro declared love for Lance.

Fact.

 

[Navigator]

You're telling the story here boy. You might want to come armed with facts first before you start posting malarkey.

Wiggins loved Lance.

No other Pro declared love for Lance.

Fact.

You do understand that 'love' is an expression?

I don't think you're arguing in good faith here, so I'll leave it. Take care.

 

[Benotti69]

What do you mean by "this"? Are you playing a game or something? I produced the video you requested. I said I don't recall Armstrong using his kids in the manner Wiggins did, unless you can produce a video.

I remember the interview you cite (though it's always best to post links for tranparency) and I took it as more Armstrong code. An admission that he had doped in the past but wanted to do it clean this time. Why would racing the tour again be something good for his kids? Surely if he was clean before, his kids would have nothing to worry about. He did not use his kids in the same fashion as Wiggins, claiming he had never doped.

On Armsrtong and racing clean, there is a degree of circumstantical evidence that Armstrong did at least initially plan on racing clean after seeing the power outputs of the 2008 TdF. You may remember the plan was to have his blood tested independently. Seemed strange to have a big press conference announcing this if the plan was always to drop it.

His kids were never mentioned again in this context. Tellingly perhaps.

Now that is showing naievity of the highest levels when it comes to understanding professional cycling( or any pro sport really) and the lies when it comes to PR.

That Wiggins has dragged his kids into his 'proof' he would never dope, well that doesn't wash.