The Hitch said:
Well martin, you are the one who always says you cant prove a negative. So how does Daniel know wiggins is clean?
He doesn't. and he didn't say he did, and neither did I.
He said he BELIEVED it.
I hope this inspires all the young guys out there to really believe it can be done clean. Obviously with Garmin we’ve had Ryder win the Giro last year and even with Brad (Wiggins) winning the Tour last year that, for me, made me believe that you can win clean.”
“Now I know you can win clean.
Pretty clearly he's drawn a subtle distinction between what he knows/believes of other people, and the 'certainty' he can now feel since his own doping or non-doping habits are 00% within his own knowledge.
I do trust both Garmin and Martin. But at the moment this "new clean generation" is very similar to the 10 "new clean generations" weve had before in that their attitude is exactly the same - doping is in the past, i prefer not to talk about it, young people are clean by definition.
Yes, but, no, but. You can't say you trust, and then clearly demonstrate you don't.
with all the **** thats happened if people want to take the doping thing seriously, then they need to do what wiggins 07 did, be honest about it. Accept that you cant know if someone is clean. Accept that victory does bring with it suspicion.
Bull.
what wiggins did in 2007 was precious little to do with 'honesty', frankly. He was ****ed off because it f***d up his race, and he had a rant about it.
It might well have been a very honest rant, but honesty was not the point in ranting, ranting was. That's what Kimmage can't understand - the 2007 Bradley he liked so much never existed. Wiggins was never a crusader, he was a p!ssed off piece of collateral damage. Indeed, follow wiggins on and off the bike and you see a consistent and clear pattern, one which the twitterati fell right into - he rants at people who make his life harder.
Not noble. Just the truth.
One of the major lessons is you shouldnt declare people clean. Dont let youyr emotions get ahead of your judgement. Yeah i know its tempting when you like someone and you may even known them quite well, you think - **** it, i believe they are clean so ill go out and say it.
If Martin thinks someone i clean, then the honest thing for him to do if questioned is to say "I think he's clean", not to dip his hat at the Clinic's various paranoias.
He's allowed to disagree with you, you know.
But that's exactly what went through the head of every rider, ds, journo, commentator etc who declared riders they liked clean. Exactly what went through the head of every fan who believed in these riders.
And here's, in my view, the crux of the issue. The poor fan whose belief is shattered.
What comes across is the embarrassment, and the anger at the embarrassment. The feeling you were 'made a fool of' - that someone, somewhere, is laughing at your gulliblity and naivite. and by god, we'll never let that happen again; even if we have to assume the worst of every possible rider.
It's the emotional equivalent of taking the brace position.
For me, personally, I won't do that. If a rider cons me, it's not because I'm some kind of gullible chump, it's because he's a cheating b"stard. And the guilt lies on him, not me. And in refusing to take on guilt or embarrassment that doesn't belong to me, it frees me to enjo the sport, and believe in certain riders. and if i'm wrong to, fine. I don't live and die by it - it's not a comment on me, but on the rider.
(and while we are on the subject, is that not what all the fanboi nonsense is at the end of the day - group sneering at the supposed naivite of others, because we are so mature, and so knowing, and we'll never be fooled again, no sir...)
Im not talking about people who were in on it like Verbrugen and Ligget saying lance was clean, im talking about outsiders. Like Harmonn going on and on about how clean gilbert is the flagbearer for new clean cycling. Because he liked him. Or the dozens of muppets in the ozzie cycling press and beyond citing Evans as proof that cycling is clean. They know him, hes one of them, well must be clean.
I don't doubt it; nor do i doubt a considerable amount of bigotry and bias informs the 'other' side of the argument, at least for some. That's why I like evidence. Because empty accusations are just as tiresome as empty exculpations.
And its curious that from Garmin you have several riders and staff making these trigger happy statements, Talansky, now Martin. Jv guaranteeing on twitter that the Tour down under would be 100% clean,
And of course most ridiculously millar who can guarantee the cleanliness of sky and even believes in pre ban contador.
Millar probably has a relatively good read on sky, given his connections with them. Not 100% by any means. But a damn sight more than some in here. Why he backed Contador is beyond me, though.
As for Garmin lauding 'clean' cycling, how's that curious? It' their raison d'etre for pete's sake, of course they're gonna talk about it.
So how do they know all these riders are clean. limiting doping is not the same as eliminating it. If doping is limited - the aim, then it still exists as a variable to turn domestiques into contenders, to turn contenders into winners
.
See above - it's not about KNOWING, but about GROUNDS FOR BELIEVING. It's not the same thing.
JV clearly seems to believe doping has significantly diminished and that the results for his team, and the general climbing numbers support that. Do you think he's lying?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram