JV talks, sort of

[Ferminal]

Brad had every right to lash out. It's what any clean guy would do.

#Socratic_method_fail

Wouldn't a clean guy lash out at the dopers?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Wouldn't a clean guy lash out at the dopers?

That's not what is being said.

Millar is saying that Wiggins lashed out at the critics and doubters and that this lashing out is what clean guys do.

Armstrong used to lash out at the critics and doubters too.

 

[Tom375]

Hmmm, not sure about Zorzoli at all. Shady character IMO.

Why? I don't have an opinion either way but just wondered why you think so.. Wasn't he the one that accidently gave the journalist from Equipe all the UCI test papers that matched up to the sample numbers?

 

[martinvickers]

That's not what is being said.

Millar is saying that Wiggins lashed out at the critics and doubters and that this lashing out is what clean guys do.

Armstrong used to lash out at the critics and doubters too.

So you accept Clean riders would lash out. But then go on to say, very fairly, that cheating sociopaths lash out too.

In which case does that not simply prove 'lashing out' has really no evidential value on the issue - which rather spikes the guns of those who have gone after Wiggins for precisely that?

 

[Tom375]

Wouldn't a clean guy lash out at the dopers?

He's a witch - Burn the witch!

 

[Gregga]

Why? I don't have an opinion either way but just wondered why you think so.. Wasn't he the one that accidently gave the journalist from Equipe all the UCI test papers that matched up to the sample numbers?

In Tyler's book, Zorzoli is the one who meet Hamilton at UCI headquarters and tells him he may have "received a blood transfusion from another person". Strange story, as Hamilton never did homologous transfusions. Did Verbruggen "make a positive" after Armstrong call ? Did Zorzoli know anything about it ? I wouldn't trust this kind of guy who obviously was "part of the problem"...

 

[blackcat]

Wouldn't a clean guy lash out at the dopers?

yeah. We are talking about critics of the individuals tho.

If Wiggins is hypothetically, I stress, hypothetically, a rider on bread and water. He has a right to criticise the Shlecks etc. And not have to ride against athletes who have an advantage over him.

I am saying, if I am Evans, and on brad and water, I would be making quite clear my opinion on Wiggins and Sky. Be diplomatic, navigate defamation law, but make it clear, that you believe you are losing results.

I have never seen anyone make it clear, they believe they were the bread and water winner.

 

[GJB123]

And this is where we disagree. But since it's a discussion about someone else's intentions, it's rather pointless.

Nope for me it's about the options JV has and whether you can bring yourself to understand his choices given the responsibilities and options he has.

If I really doubted JV's intentions I wouldn't behaving this discussion at all. My problem is that some people in the Clinic don't even doubt his intentions, they seem to quite sure his intentions are crooked and are not open to be convinced otherwise.

 

[Tom375]

In Tyler's book, Zorzoli is the one who meet Hamilton at UCI headquarters and tells him he may have "received a blood transfusion from another person". Strange story, as Hamilton never did homologous transfusions. Did Verbruggen "make a positive" after Armstrong call ? Did Zorzoli know anything about it ? I wouldn't trust this kind of guy who obviously was "part of the problem"...

Thanks for that - haven't read Tyler's book. I noted that despite the embarrassment caused to Hein & Co by giving those test results away - he was only sacked for a couple of months before coming back.. so must have been a goto man for them..

 

[Ferminal]

That's not what is being said.

Millar is saying that Wiggins lashed out at the critics and doubters and that this lashing out is what clean guys do.

Armstrong used to lash out at the critics and doubters too.

Yes. See 2007.

More realistic "clean" position than Saint Dave proposes. Compare & Contrast.

What the post above says.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

So you accept Clean riders would lash out. But then go on to say, very fairly, that cheating sociopaths lash out too.

In which case does that not simply prove 'lashing out' has really no evidential value on the issue - which rather spikes the guns of those who have gone after Wiggins for precisely that?

Not really because that isn't an argument I made.

I was clarifying who I believed the reference to Wiggins lashing out, was against - the fans rather than the dopers. Ferminal was under the impression that Wiggins was lashing out against dopers. (He did lash out against dopers in 2008, however, he now seems very reluctant to lash out against dopers). Draw your own conclusions as to why in 4 years his position about dopers seems to have changed...

 

[hrotha]

Thanks for that - haven't read Tyler's book. I noted that despite the embarrassment caused to Hein & Co by giving those test results away - he was only sacked for a couple of months before coming back.. so must have been a goto man for them..

He was also involved in the cover-up of Contador's positive.

 

[armchairclimber]

Not really because that isn't an argument I made.

I was clarifying who I believed the reference to Wiggins lashing out, was against - the fans rather than the dopers. Ferminal was under the impression that Wiggins was lashing out against dopers. (He did lash out against dopers in 2008, however, he now seems very reluctant to lash out against dopers).

"But if it were confirmed that he was doping in 2009–10, then he can get ****ed, completely"

"So I'm ****ed off that Lance has done what he did; it feels as if he's disappeared and I have to answer all the questions. That really, really annoys me. And where is he? Halfway around the world, doing this, that and the other. But we are the ones in this sport today who have got to answer all the questions."

Yep, having a go at the fans, right there.

 

[skidmark]

One thing that I've seen alot of from the more cynical members of the forum (sniper and DW are the two that come to mind immediately) is a critique centred around 'that sounds like PR', which is hard to prove or disprove. But the underlying assumption seems to be that PR and truth are somehow mutually exclusive. I wonder why this assumption is made - I mean, in the example of Garmin and Sky, it makes total sense to me that Millar and Vaughters would proactively say decent things about Sky if they thought it was true. Good PR is focusing on the good that's happening in the sport rather than trying to solve the problems through the public eye.

 

[martinvickers]

Not really because that isn't an argument I made.

I was clarifying who I believed the reference to Wiggins lashing out, was against - the fans rather than the dopers. Ferminal was under the impression that Wiggins was lashing out against dopers. (He did lash out against dopers in 2008, however, he now seems very reluctant to lash out against dopers). Draw your own conclusions as to why in 4 years his position about dopers seems to have changed...

Maybe because since 2009 a certain section of the fans have turned on him? Because in his cofidis days 'fans' barely bothered him, and dopers ****ed his life up.

Whereas in 2012 the dopers aren't ****ing his life up anymore (except the La story), but 'fans' are now bothering him with contant rumours of doping?

You know, if you can put the conspiracy cape down for two seconds, you could actually see a perfectly sensible, consistent explanation - he rants at those people currently annoying him, making his own life hard. No great anti-doping crusade pre 2009 - no great doping conspiracy since. No more, no less than a guy with a foul mouth who swears at whoever is currently ****ing him off and/or making his life hard.

pre-Beijing - His own team's doping has f**ed up his tour - he rants about them, and dopers generally.

2009 - life's pretty good, olympic glow, best ever tour, Lance the superstar is being nice to him, and fans are generally positive - doesn't rant much

2011-12 - he does well on the road, the dopers no longer f***ing him over personally, but 'the ****ers' have now turned on him bigstyle, and hound him over doping, making his life difficult - he gets ****ed off and he rants at them - clinic gets panties in a twist

2012 - Lance story explodes once and for all; as patron, he's constantly asked about it - LA has now pised him off (see his quotes) - he rants about having to answer for lance, and now in this extract at Lance himself.

2012 - finally, and rather bathetic, he can't just have a pizza without 'fanboys' pestering his wife - so he rants about them too.

Now I've no idea if that's the truth -seriously, i don't - but it is at least as likely any of the wilder stuff i've read here. Man with low patience threshold (i think that is undeniable) lashes out at whatever is annoying him at that moment.

no more, no less.

I will repeat for the hard of understanding - i have no idea if he doped post 2009. none. nada. if he did, f*** him out.

But i have to say, in the rush by some to 'prove' his badness, a lot of clinicians tend to ignore rather obvious and simple (occam's razor) explanations in favour of wilder ones that support their pet theory.

 

[Tom375]

One thing that I've seen alot of from the more cynical members of the forum (sniper and DW are the two that come to mind immediately) is a critique centred around 'that sounds like PR', which is hard to prove or disprove. But the underlying assumption seems to be that PR and truth are somehow mutually exclusive. I wonder why this assumption is made - I mean, in the example of Garmin and Sky, it makes total sense to me that Millar and Vaughters would proactively say decent things about Sky if they thought it was true. Good PR is focusing on the good that's happening in the sport rather than trying to solve the problems through the public eye.

I think PR & BS are usually understood to be interchangable terms for the same thing. Yes i suppose PR can focus on the truth element but even then by its nature tends BS about it to make it better!

 

[Tom375]

He was also involved in the cover-up of Contador's positive.

Ah-Ha! I see I see - thank you. I'll go and have a look at that..

 

[ToreBear]

He was also involved in the cover-up of Contador's positive.

Or was he the one who leaked it to the press?

 

[hrotha]

Or was he the one who leaked it to the press?

If it was him it doesn't get shadier than that anyway. Cheeky double agent!

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I think you are mistaking me for someone who cares. It's always ironic when you complain that people are ascribing things to Wiggins while ascribing things to people in the clinic. Seems to me that you are just as guilty of doing the things you attack other people for doing.

You have your anti-clinic, anti-anti-wiggins agenda, and others have their anti-Wiggins agenda.

 

[Cloxxki]

<off-opic here, will find bettter place>

 

[martinvickers]

I think you are mistaking me for someone who cares.

I really rather doubt that. But for someone so keen to get involved in argument on this site; it's a bizarrely Lance-like answer to now claim you don't care. one might almost think you'd realised something...

It's always ironic when you complain that people are ascribing things to Wiggins while ascribing things to people in the clinic.

I love how people fire in 'irony' as some all-purpose shield against being collared for bull****. That and my eating babies.

Seems to me that you are just as guilty of doing the things you attack other people for doing.

You have your anti-clinic, anti-anti-wiggins agenda, and others have their anti-Wiggins agenda.

Oooh! To quote the great Python "Run Away! Run Away!"

'Seems to you' - evidential value - **** squared.

Anti-clinic. What a bizarre little label. As if some little corner of an online cycling forum has the dignitas to warrant an anti-anything. Am i raining on the fantasy that this little site is somehow leading the great crusade? Oh diddums...

and anti-anti-wiggins is telling - most normal people might say "pro-wiggins" - anti-anti strongly suggests people rather too fond of their own contrarianism, that they see it as somehow a noteworthy stance in itself. As if the 'anti' is the point of the exercise, rather than anything else.

I'm glad you admit 'others' (including yourself) have an anti-Wiggins agenda - as Armstrong ought to learn - admission is the first step to acceptance.

Now as for Wiggins, i could give a stuff. If he dopes, burn him. If sky dope, burn 'em. Couldn't care tuppence if he or they ever win another race, clean or not.

But what I am is pro-evidence. what I am is anti-bull****. And if some Clinic regulars find that off putting, well, again, to quote the great python -

"Tought titty to you, fishface!"

 

[Froome19]

That's not what is being said.

Millar is saying that Wiggins lashed out at the critics and doubters and that this lashing out is what clean guys do.

Armstrong used to lash out at the critics and doubters too.

They are not mutually exclusive you should know..
Why do you think Armstrong used to lash out at the critics and doubters in the first place? At least partially the reason..

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

load of boring stuff that I can't be bothered to read

You like evidence, the evidence points to you having an anti-clinic agenda as evidenced by your constant *****ing about the clinic.

You seem to have a lot of trouble with english comprehension because you keep on thinking that people are saying things that they aren't. Which means you are either insane or just not very intelligent.

You do have something of Jesus complex though. I'd suggest you see someone about that before it gets out of control. It won't be long before you have Kony style breakdown at this rate.

I've an anti-doping agenda, always have done and always will. You have a doping defending agenda. If it makes you feel good to defend cheats and liars then that's fine with me, it just puts you on a par with Jimmy Savile and Michael Vick defenders.

You're the unintelligible protecting the indefensible. (with apologies to Oscar Wilde)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It was more a response to JV feeling that he (unfairly) gets a hard time in the forum and explaining why people are reluctant to believe him and other people claiming to be anti-doping.

My view is that JV's anger ought to be more directed at those who cause him to be mistrusted than the people who don't trust him.

Overall, I agree - but in acknowledging the point you have done the same as what you accuse JV of doing.

JV has every right to take it personally when some accuse him of being dishonest in relation to Garmin - but again, it is just 3 posters. Should JV be 'angry' at us all - no.
But also while you are absolutely correct and entitles to ask hard questions and remain skeptical - not all the problems in cycling are to do with JV or can even be answered by JV. Can JV solve all cyclings problem - no.

As you say, the anger should be at those who cause him to be mistrusted - that is where the focus should be, otherwise 'we' (JV, fans, riders etc) will be addressing these very issues again.