Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives

[Bolder]

From what I know about Fred Wright, he isn't losing any sleep over what Roglic said in the past or what he may or may not have said in Slovenian in recent days.

But obviously it's still in Primoz's head.

 

[acm]

I can only go on what's reported in the languages I know ...

Exactly.

 

[acm]

From what I know about Fred Wright, he isn't losing any sleep over what Roglic said in the past or what he may or may not have said in Slovenian in recent days.

But obviously it's still in Primoz's head.

Not really.

 

[red_flanders]

That's not what he said, he didn't even mention Fred in Slovenian interview.
Here is a response from the journalist who interviewed him:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1597314953585000448

I really don't like what Cyclingnews did here.

So I don’t speak Slovenian and any translation of his comments would be appreciated. That said, the way it reads, the reporter’s comments seem a bit disingenuous. No, he didn’t mention Wright, but what he is reported as having said was,

"I still stand by my words."

“I was asking myself if it was necessary to say or write anything. But then in the end why always be silent?

"I just wanted to express that I want to race in an atmosphere of fair play. That was my point. "I think I had to let it out," he added. "It’s easier for me to return now. Otherwise I might not even want to get back in the peloton."

If he’s not talking about that incident, what’s he referring to? If those quotes are inaccurate or if some context was deleted, it would be great to hear the details. But to say Wright wasn’t mentioned is entirely beside the point. That’s very different than saying something like, “He wasn’t referring to the incident with Wright.”

 

[Extinction]

So I don’t speak Slovenian and any translation of his comments would be appreciated. That said, the way it reads, the reporter’s comments seem a bit disingenuous. No, he didn’t mention Wright, but what he is reported as having said was,

"I still stand by my words."

“I was asking myself if it was necessary to say or write anything. But then in the end why always be silent?

"I just wanted to express that I want to race in an atmosphere of fair play. That was my point. "I think I had to let it out," he added. "It’s easier for me to return now. Otherwise I might not even want to get back in the peloton."

If he’s not talking about that incident, what’s he referring to? If those quotes are inaccurate or if some context was deleted, it would be great to hear the details. But to say Wright wasn’t mentioned is entirely beside the point. That’s very different than “ he wasn’t referring to the incident with Wright.”

Simple, he was referring to the Wright incident.

 

[acm]

Transcript:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1596805073870651392

and here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1597248736358371329

That's it and I'm done with this pointless drama.

 

[Extinction]

Transcript:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1596805073870651392

and here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1597248736358371329

That's it and I'm done with this pointless drama.

It's not pointless, as he clearly says "I still stand by my words." And this is just after Primoz remarked, in reference to the disputed incident, "I just wanted to express that I want to race in an atmosphere of fair play. That was my point." Hence, his position, as the CN article pointed out, has not changed one bit towards Fred Wright; namely that according to Primoz the Briton made a heinous infraction against the rules not "in the spirit of fair play."

I thus don't see how anybody can accuse CN in this case of just stiring up controversy to gain clicks or have qualms with others being critical of Roglic for his continued falsification of reality.

 

[Eeslliw]

From what I know about Fred Wright, he isn't losing any sleep over what Roglic said in the past or what he may or may not have said in Slovenian in recent days.

But obviously it's still in Primoz's head.

Well obviously it's still in his head, he ended his season there without a chance for a GC podium or a win. You can't just let that go as Fred did, who himself said was already cooked at that moment and was just happy to be there. He didn't lose anything.

I don't want to put words in other mouths but my impression of the whole ordeal is that Primoz was speaking about respect. You have a guy who made a selection of 5 riders out of a whole peloton, doesn't ask for help as he is fighting for the GC win to gain as many seconds as possible. Well, you give that guy some extra space/care aka respect in situations like that to avoid exactly what happened at the end.

 

[acm]

Among other things, I found it interesting in this interview that he said that he will definitely stay in team Jumbo Visma next year, but he did not want to say what will happen in the coming years, even though he has a contract until 2025. Considering the huge interest in him in the last months, there will be many rumors...

 

[saunaking]

Well, you give that guy some extra space/care aka respect in situations like that to avoid exactly what happened at the end.

what the hell does this mean??
LOL he had extra space - lots - then he decided it was better in the wheels and crashed himself out of the race

 

[Extinction]

Well obviously it's still in his head, he ended his season there without a chance for a GC podium or a win. You can't just let that go as Fred did, who himself said was already cooked at that moment and was just happy to be there. He didn't lose anything.

I don't want to put words in other mouths but my impression of the whole ordeal is that Primoz was speaking about respect. You have a guy who made a selection of 5 riders out of a whole peloton, doesn't ask for help as he is fighting for the GC win to gain as many seconds as possible. Well, you give that guy some extra space/care aka respect in situations like that to avoid exactly what happened at the end.

I get what you are saying, in a rather old school manner: "show some respect lad!" Yielding to "his maesty" and voluntarily not going for the win doesn't count, however, when "his highness" misjudges the tragectory and, on the backfoot, runs into you from behind at full speed ahead.

So long as Wright didn't make an infraction while surging ahead, which he didn't, unfortunately Roglic has got nothing to complain about, except unwisely trying to get back on terms in a sprint he could not win. And this after his job was done, having made the move stick as he did. And so, if he want to contest the sprint as well, should have either positioned himself better to do so in the slipstream of the others (which was never likely, because he had to keep forcing the pace until the end or else lose time on the chase), or else, as all prudence suggested in the position in which he actually was, accept the time gained by the break and settle for safely crossing the line without bonus seconds in the wake of the others. His error was wanting it all, but he could not keep the pace up AND be well positioned for the sprint. Now a more thorough analysis would contemplate if the time the break would have lost had he opted to position himself better for the sprint, been greater or lesser than the time gained in bonus seconds had he won the sprint. Obviously, he wasn't in a clear enough headed position to make such calculations. Yet if he thinks Wright should have just sat up and done nothing for his own chances of winning, well that's just arrogant.

 

[Red Rick]

Fred Wright comment is the least interesting bit in that interview. You don't make that comment if you're gonna backpedal after criticism, and it's also abundantly clear that even if the Wright crash was his own fault, he is still fed up with crashing out of big races outside of his own fault.

 

[Extinction]

Fred Wright comment is the least interesting bit in that interview. You don't make that comment if you're gonna backpedal after criticism, and it's also abundantly clear that even if the Wright crash was his own fault, he is still fed up with crashing out of big races outside of his own fault.

That's fine of course, except this crash was his fault.

 

[red_flanders]

Transcript:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1596805073870651392

and here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1597248736358371329

That's it and I'm done with this pointless drama.

Thank you. So he does in fact stand by his words exactly as the CN article says. The reporter's earlier tweet is an attempt at deflection and comes across as some weird attempt to defend Roglič. Not that I'm a defender of idiotic clickbait titles...who is...but it seems clear that in this case CN's title is accurate. No one is making this a drama except Roglič.

 

[Red Rick]

Thank you. So he does in fact stand by his words exactly as the CN article says. The reporter's tweet is an attempt at deflection. Not that I'm a defender of idiotic clickbait titles...who is...but it seems clear that in this case CN's title is accurate. No one is making this a drama except Roglič.

He gets asked about it, he answers. And clearly implies it's a done deal for him as well.

 

[red_flanders]

He gets asked about it, he answers. And clearly implies it's a done deal for him as well.

Glad he's done with it. Except he says that, but it doesn't really sound like it when asked.

His stance here is so clearly wrong that standing by those comments is what creates the issue. I genuinely cannot fathom how anyone could think this was anything but Roglič's fault. I'm sure he does want the whole sorry episode to be done.

 

[acm]

...but it seems clear that in this case CN's title is accurate. No one is making this a drama except Roglič.

Some of you still don't get it. No, it's not accurate. It's misleading and they are using Fred as a clickbait. And also Primoz is not making any drama, he didn't say a word until this interview when he was asked. Oh and about that journalist, everything he said is true.

 

[red_flanders]

Some of you still don't get it. No, it's not accurate. It's misleading and they are using Fred as a clickbait. And also Primoz is not making any drama, he didn't say a word until this interview when he was asked. Oh and about that journalist, everything he said is true.

I'll confess I don't get where you're coming from at all, no. What is misleading? Did he not say he stands by what he said? What he said, all of what he said, was blaming Wright whether he named him or not. Did he say anything to back off that stance? Not that I can see.

Yes, he was asked about it. No one's arguing that point. What the journalist said which I objected to was to imply the CN article was about clicks. Well duh. They are all to some point. However what they said in the article and the title seem quite accurate and taken directly from the interview.

It's really easy to yell "clickbait" at a media outlet and often be correct. However in this case (and believe me I know CN puts out clickbait) I'm not seeing it. Sure, they pounced on some comments they knew were controversial and would generate clicks. However when reading the full text, the fact that he stands by what he said before is what jumps out for me. There's nothing misleading about the article. What's misleading is the reporter's tweet implying that because PR didn't mention Wright by name, somehow this means the CN article is rubbish. That's misleading.

 

[acm]

Yeah, whatever, think what you want, it's just too bad that you're wrong. I posted a link where everything is explained and I won't repeat myself.

 

[red_flanders]

Yeah, whatever, think what you want, it's just too bad that you're wrong. I posted a link where everything is explained and I won't repeat myself.

That link explained nothing other than to confirm what we all read in CN. Is Roglič’s confusion catching?

 

[Extinction]

Yeah, whatever, think what you want, it's just too bad that you're wrong. I posted a link where everything is explained and I won't repeat myself.

Now you are just trolling or else suffer from willfully circumscribed thought. I already highlighted the phrase in which Roglic unequivocably confirms CN's article. There is no "greater context" unaccounted for or extrapolating beyond the reasonable to build a distorted impression of the Slovenian's viewpoint on the issue raised. He still "stands by his words" in feeling Wright made an infraction doing him wrong and that is that. Your link only comfirms this and so it is you who are wrong. Whereas stating otherwise whilst casting blame on someone else for missing the point in a patronizing way doesn't change this fact, but only makes you look like an idiot. Whatever else Roglic said in the interview doesn't make the CN article any less accurate on the point it chose to emphasize, which frankly was the only one worth reporting, despite your aparent refusal to accept this.

 

[RedheadDane]

Some of you still don't get it. No, it's not accurate. It's misleading and they are using Fred as a clickbait. And also Primoz is not making any drama, he didn't say a word until this interview when he was asked. Oh and about that journalist, everything he said is true.

What Roglic could, should have said when asked would have been something like "Yeah, that heat-of-the-moment comment? I was wrong! I have apologised."
Insteadt he straight up said "I stand by my words", when clearly asked about the crash at the Vuelta. Or are you claiming there's still a mis-translatation in the twitter convo you posted? And if so, maybe you could provide a more accurate translation?

 

[acm]

I wouldn't say a mistranslation, just that it was translated by a journalist and he didn't translate everything. Although he tried to explain later, some have accused him of only defending Roglič.

 

[RedheadDane]

I wouldn't say a mistranslation, just that it was translated by a journalist and he didn't translate everything. Although he tried to explain later, some have accused him of only defending Roglič.

So he decided to not translate the most important part?
Sure, if Roglic was specifically stating that he stands by his words that fairplay is important, then you'd have a point, and he could even indirectly be acknowledging that he'd been wrong to make that comment; fairplay extends to off the bike, and not making baseless accusations towards other riders.
However, that is not how it comes across in the translated version.

 

[Squire]

I couldn't care less about the tabloid drama, but I keep checking the new posts in this thread in the hope of finding some update on whether Roglic will be any good at the start of the season. I keep getting disappointed though.

Anyone know if he's back on the bike? I read he's going to be at the Jumbo December training camp, so his recovery can't be that problematic. I saw some rather sinister insight about his condition upthread, but I never cease to be amazed at how pro athletes generally recover so much quicker than normal people. And Roglic doesn't seem particularly worried himself.